This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fluffernutter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Dear Fluffernutter, I wrote an edit to the David Gilmour article I did not quote any sources as this was from my widely accumulated knowledge of Pink Floyd and Mr Gilmour as a massive fan and collector of records. I comment on many Floyd websites/blogs including Gilmour's blog therefore could you please review the issue? Thanks Mr T.Chidwick
Hi, and thank you for contributing! I'm sorry I had to undo your addition to the article. I did it because, unfortunately, we can't accept edits made on the basis of personal knowledge, even if it's really good knowledge, because there's just no way we can verify whether someone's personal knowledge is accurate. That's why we require edits to Wikipedia to be verifiable and traceable to a reliable source. If you give those two pages I linked a read, it should help you get a better handle on how to add information to our articles - most likely, anything you know, you know because you found it in a reliable source, so what you'd have to do is find those sources again and cite them when you add content to the articles. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Right ok thanks, I'll have a read if I can find decent sources that could link to this can it be republished a cannot remember what I wrote word for word now so would you be able to post a copy of it for me to read and apply the sources to?
No problem. All our articles have a "history" page that preserves every edit made to them, just for stuff like this. You can find the history of David Gilmour at this link. Even better, you can see the details of the edits you made by viewing each of them, or a bunch of them at a time. Here's a "diff" showing all the changes you made, clumped together: linky. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much I will get to this tomorrow when I've got some time. I thought it might be worthwhile sharing my knowledge and adding it to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.201.222 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Questia email failure: Will resend codes
Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
As that thread was (reasonably) closed, I thought I'd follow up here. I think you have some good points, but I do feel there is a degree of goodness associated with letting elementary school students edit in a way that is safe for them and benefits the encyclopedia. Like I said, I'll start an RfC on the matter at some point soon (weekend). I suspect the status quo (your view) will win the day, but I think it's worth discussing. Good luck, Hobit (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings, Fluffer. Could you please take a look at this diff [1]? I can't tell exactly what happened, but it appears that you inadvertently deleted User:Foxj's "support" comment. Thanks for your help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
That happens occasionally in edit conflicts - one comment gets eaten instead of the second person being told they've got a conflict. I've restored his comment, thanks for letting me know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing, Fluffernutter. That was just too weird, and your reputation as a straight-shooter precluded me from doing anything but AGF . . . and I must admit I have encountered an occasional editing hiccup like that as well! Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Fluffernutter. I'm asking this out of curiosity: Did you see the posts I left at MuZemike's talk page about User:Picker78, and this is what led you to semi-protect the article? And/or was it seeing the WP:Dummy edit comments left between the two of us (me and Picker78) that led you to semi-protect the article? Flyer22 (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Muzemike mentioned on IRC that there was weirdness going on on the article. I took a look and decided to try semi-protection, but you should keep in mind that your behavior there was really, really not wise, especially since I know you have a somewhat problematic history in sex-related topics. Carrying on an argument in dummy-edit summaries? Why? What was that going to do other than make you look just as disruptive as the IP editor? I gave you the benefit of the doubt as far as choosing to semi the article instead of full-protect it and prevent you from editing as well, because I saw IP vandalism in the history, but you were part of the problem today too and if someone objects to the semi on that basis, they won't be far wrong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Fluffernutter, I'm not sure what "somewhat problematic history in sex-related topics" you are referring to, unless you are speaking of my brother (and his editing issues that have been related to me) who has largely not edited in sex-related topics (whether he was an IP or a registered editor) and/or you mean the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology/Evidence case that concerns my interaction with a few editors (which is only heated regarding two, minus James Cantor), but rarely ever has my editing of sex-related articles (or any other type of topic) been considered problematic. Were my dummy edit responses at the Masturbation article wise? No. But I did consider leaving that initial note wise, and I did stop a good number of minutes (with a note to the IP that I would be stopping) before you showed up there. I responded to the IP two times so that others who may not be familiar with the Picker78 case would know better than what the IP was stating. Thank you for semi-protecting the article. I won't care much if it's unprotected, especially since I don't significantly edit that article and have no interest in doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 19 people who signed up for this blitz, 9 copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: During the six-day blitz, we removed over twenty articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the March drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, BDD and Miniapolis.
Because it doesn't meet our suppression policy. There's no libel or defamation. There's no disclosure of private information. It's not even a threat of violence, which could possibly have an IAR suppression argued for it among the Oversighters. Certainly it's in poor taste and not constructive feedback, but it's not an oversight issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well I guess I had been thinking that since it was advocating a type of harm/violence that it was eligible, that if this sentence had been posted anywhere else on WP (talk page, article, userspace), it probably would have been revdel'ed or oversighted. Thanks for replying, Shearonink (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding my recent topic-ban, I would like to appeal and request for the topic ban to be shortened, if not overturned.
I appreciate the comment of concerned editors who have determined that my edit propositions have some value and merit, and indeed improves the quality of articles in Wikipedia. I am happy for being recognized for my good faith intention to achieve neutrality in Wikipedia articles. I concur that a one-year topic ban is a bit harsh - "Devil's Advocate" found some merit in nominating "The Hole" for speedy deletion and "BTfromLA" and "JN466" have both attested to my value as an editor. I must emphasize that when several editors maintained that the page (The Hole) should be left as it is, I complied with Prioryman and the other editors and informed Prioryman that I can defer to the decision and will resort to suggesting NPOV edits on the page. Again, I've complied with Wikipedia policy. I therefore request your good office to shorten the span of the topic-ban; to enable me to continue on striving for NPOV while also editing non-Scientology related pages as well and generally improving the quality of Wikipedia articles.NestleNW911 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
My current thinking on the issue is much as it was when you appealed to the Arbitration Enforcement board: you don't really seem to understand how your editing in Scientology topics was problematic, and until there's evidence that you do, I'm not comfortable letting you edit on those topics. What I'm looking for is more along the lines of "I see why X, Y, and Z were not useful editing strategies and how they were disruptive to the editing atmosphere. Here's how I intend to change the way I do those things if I'm allowed back into Scientology editing..." In this appeal, however, you seem to mostly be saying that "I still think I was right, and I was working with other people to get my POV into articles, so you should lift my restriction." I do not dispute that you have value as an editor (everyone has value as an editor, that's what makes a wiki-based project work!); I only dispute that your style of editing in Scientology-related topics was in line with the restrictions the Arbitration Committee has put in place on that topic, and your current appeal doesn't give me any confidence that that has or will change.
I have noticed that you've been branching out to other article topics lately, and that's great to see, but you've really only made a handful of those edits since your topic ban was put in place. My suggestion remains that you focus your energy on non-Scientology topics for a while and get a better feel for Wikipedia's policies and culture - spend at least three months, and perhaps six months, doing regular, non-Scientology editing. That experience will hopefully give you the perspective I think you need as far as how to edit properly in Scientology-related topics. When you've done that, I'd be happy to hear an appeal where you explain how you intend to change your editing habits in Scientology-related topics. Until you've gotten more non-Scientology editing experience, however, and until you can explain how you intend to change your behavior, I see no basis for lifting the restriction. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you are coming from; and you can be assured that I will look into my strategy and practice as an editor on Scientology-related articles and determine where I should reform my practices. If you deem that it is not possible to lift the ban, would you be willing to shorten it at the very least? You said that you would suggest editing non-Scientology topics for "at least least three months, and perhaps six months." Is it possible then to continue editing Scientology-related articles (while non-related articles) after 3 or 6 months? I feel that this is enough time to get further acclimated with Wikipedia and be able to be an effective editor overall.NestleNW911 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
What I meant when I said that you can appeal again in three or six months is that there is a possibility that I will shorten your ban, three or six months down the road. However, until that appeal happens and I see what you've done in those three or six months, there's no way to know if I will shorten the ban - you need to put in the time, do the work, and then show me what progress you've made so I can judge then whether you're prepared to return to editing on the topic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
As a regular RfA commentator, I was unable to participate in the aforementioned RfA due to being busy with other things at the time. If I had gotten the opportunity, I unfortunately would have felt inclined to oppose due to the concerns expressed by Rschen7754, Legoktm, Inks.LWC, et al. There is a lack of experience that shows through and precludes his adminship request for the time being.
However, I'm not so sure I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that he may lack the prerequisite competence for the role. Certainly he is inexperienced and will need to fine tune his approach to the deletion process before I would feel comfortable supporting him, but otherwise I consider Vacation9 to be an enthusiastic and hard-working editor with the potential to be an effective administrator someday. Then again, perhaps my interpretation of "competence" is a little skewed — I think of it as a person's mental capacity to perform a given task in a satisfactory manner. It also brings to mind this popular essay written by Friday several years back (and by a large, I agree with the sentiments he's expressed there). I view intelligence and capability as dynamic traits, rather than static — they can change with time depending on an individual's attitude. This view may not be as widespread as I'd like for it to be.
Yeah I think you're reading a bit more into the word "competence" than I meant. When I say I think someone lacks the competence to $blah, I mean that they're not currently capable of $blahing adequately. It makes no statement about whether their intrinsic intelligence/capability is lacking - as often as not (if not more often!), they will be competent to $blah in the future. It's basically saying "right now you can't $blah and you don't seem to be learning to $blah, either". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
That's actually what I had figured. Thank you for your thorough and straightforward response, it really cleared things up. =) Kurtis(talk)11:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you suppressed some of my edits to my user page. I really would like to know which ones, and the history won't let me view anything. I saw that a user with a long block log edited my user page; maybe that person wrote anything that was suppressed? Please tell me what was suppressed; it may be something the other person made. So, please get back to me with the edits you suppressed. I'm desperately waiting for you to respond, as you didn't respond on my talk page like this page says you would. So, please get back to me! Thanks in advance, Shikku27316 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Shikku27316. I'm very sorry I didn't get back to you when you asked - I'm usually very good about that, but it must have somehow slipped through the cracks of my brain that time. As the template I left on your talk page says, I suppressed some edits from you user page because they were edits by you that gave away personal information about you that Wikipedia considers private. I'm afraid I can't give any more detail than that onwiki; if you want to know the exact content, you'll need to speak to me over email (I would email you, but you don't seem to have email enabled in your preferences currently). You can contact me at Special:EmailUser/Fluffernutter if you need to know more. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Very well, then. I'll do it tomorrow, as it is late and I don't know how to get into my e-mail. But, since I am desperately looking for what it was, I'll try to find my e-mail password. See you tomorrow, Shikku27316 (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
RE. Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Ted Nugent, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you answer my question than? Why is Ted Nugent's illegal hunting charge listed under his activism? Last I checked illegally poaching an animal was just illegal and not a form of activism. Zeelog150.78.183.102 (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback deployment
Hey Fluffernutter; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fluffnutter. I noticed you declined Tramadul's unblock request, which I'm glad you did. I'm not sure if you know, but as part of the sanctions, the blocking editor (Drmies) also told Tramadul at AN/I that he is not allowed to edit Paul Frampton again, or add any content about Frampton to any other articles. The reason I mention this is because in the unblock request you declined, Tramadul said, "I undertake to make required rectification and amendments in regard to this". So apparently, he doesn't understand or is ignoring that very important part of the sanctions. I dropped a note to the blocking admin about it. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This is sort of a gray area. In a typical disruptive editing case, a single admin doesn't actually have the power to topic-ban a user - so neither Drmies or I could say "You are no longer allowed to edit articles related to Frampton" and enforce that as a topic ban. What we can do are things like "If I see him come back editing like that, I'll block again" (which a blocking admin, or any admin, can do) or "If you want to be unblocked, you're going to have to commit to not editing articles about [blah]" (which an admin handling an unblock request is generally felt to be allowed to do). It's fuzzy - there's a good chance that with editing as disruptive as Tramadul's, no one would put up a fight if Drmies enforced a topic ban anyway - but the actual fact is that it technically can't be implemented that way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for educating me on that. I really liked your idea of saying something like "If you want to be unblocked, you're going to have to commit to not editing articles about [blah]". That's really good. On the other hand, Drmies could have simply blocked the editor indefinitely based on the huge number of malicious edits, right? So I see a three-day block and the topic-ban (unofficial or not) as being very generous on Drmies' part. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Here in this page [[2]] there is certain cultural vandalism going on that some limited knowledge of editors are disrupting proper information formats namely adding too much China based information and Chinese information influences into the page. Scientifically or ethnically Mongolian and Chinese are two distinct stuffs. But our chinese neighbours have some strange habits of adding their heirogliphs into what ever Mongolian knowledge publishings in any 3d languages. Is it possible to revert into my undid 2107 pieces of revert format and lock the page for some weeks? I am myself educated in Mongolia for more than 14 years with all levels of education standards but the foreign located people with limited knowledge of Mongolian are systematically disrupting the proper Mongolian language knowledge in this case. Thank you. Orgio89 (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know how you hit upon me to ask this question to, since I don't work in topic areas of either languages or Asia typically. But I took a look at the history of Mongolian language and it looks to me like you're engaged in a series of edit wars over things you "know" are true and therefore want to put in articles. The thing you seem to be missing is that we can't determine article content based on what someone "knows" - what I know is different from what you know, which is different again from what a third person knows, and we can't choose to believe one person's original research over another's. Instead, we rely on reliable sources to see what information is true, and consensus to determine what (true) information belongs in articles. If you can't reach consensus locally, you can try a "third opinion" request or a request for comment, both of which would bring in editors from outside the dispute and help a consensus form. What shouldn't happen anymore is you and other editors reverting each other, or you telling other editors that because you're more educated or from a particular place, your opinion matters more. Someone "locking" the page so you can win the content dispute over your opponents isn't going to happen, either. You're going to have to resolve this dispute using the community processes I described here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter, I wrote an article on Shri News, an Indian news channel, a few days back, which was not promotional, was based purely on facts, and was in accordance to Wikipedia policies, but Jimfbleak deleted it saying it is "unambiguous promotion" I have tried to contact, Jimfbleak, but haven't received a reply yet. Please look into the matter.
Devanshi tripathi (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
It looks like an appropriate deletion to me. Phrases like "Reaching out to more than 15 million viewers" and "to cater to all kinds of audience" are more suited to advertising, which seeks to make its subject sound as good as possible, than to an encyclopedia, which should discuss its subjects calmly and neutrally. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Question - was your !vote on the last section in the WP:AN discussion on Neitmi sanctions an "Oppose" to both an interaction ban and civility parole, or just civility parole? I'm trying to close as accurately as possible.
No problem. When drama strikes, I find it's often useful to try to rephrase what I and others are saying. Sometimes a phrasing that's murky one way is clear as day another way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.
Hello, Fluffernutter. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thanks, but I saw in my user page's history an edit from User:MZMcBride, and I couldn't preview it. Next was a revert from you, and I was wondering-ssince MZMcbride has a long block log. Maybe she vandalised it or something. So, could you tell me what that person wrote? Thanks.Shikku27316 (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
No, MZMcbride didn't vandalise your page. The reason multiple edits were oversighted is that our oversight tool requires us to suppress all versions of the page that contained the content we're oversighting; in this case MZ edited the page while that information was still there, so the edit he made also had to be oversighted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, I overlooked this when you asked the first time. The only thing MZMcBride did was fix a few spelling errors (changing "kistory" to "history" and such). Nothing else - he didn't add or remove content. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to read our copyright and notability policies before going any further towards attempting to create an article. The content you were trying to add ranged from non-notable ("X is a blah") to copyright violations (where you copied text from another website onto Wikipedia). Neither of those is an acceptable way to construct an article here, and copyright violations, especially, are a quick way to get blocked from editing entirely. Honestly, writing an article that meets Wikipedia's standards is hard, even if you know exactly what you're doing. If you're new and still learning, it can be almost impossible to do right on your own. If you want to pursue creating the article you've been trying to write, I would suggest you check out this area, where you can work on an article and get help from more experienced editors about what's wrong and right about your work. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for leaving comments at my RfA. This is just a friendly notice that I have replied to them. Regardless of your vote, and your decision to continue this conversation or not, I appreciate you taking your time to vote in the the first place. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here15:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Since you were the banning admin, I thought you should be aware of this
The following sock investigation has taken place concerning NestleNW911 who, from what I can tell from the check user, has been circumventing a topic ban from Scientology related articles imposed according to ARBCOM sanctions. Since you were the Admin who informed Nestle of their topic ban I thought I should bring this to your attention. I am also informing EdJohnston since he informed Nestle that their appeal was denied. Cheers. Coffeepusher (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't think that it has to remain exactly the same. If someone wants to use the notifications system or some other method, that's ok by me. However, those who are comfortable with the orange bar shouldn't be forced to adapt to a new system when the old one was working fine for them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 16:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, because there's a better way. The orange bar, while visible, is also extremely clunky. If we have something that's visible and not clunky, and in fact has more functionality, why would we preserve the clunky way? It's a bit like saying "Well, yes, we can start cars these days by turning the key, but I likecrank starting my car, so I want you to leave that crank there even though the turn-key ignition works better, because I refuse to learn how to turn a key!" Which is to say, if you want to pay a specialized mechanic to install a crank in your car (aka script up some orange-bar js), more power to you, but the industry has advanced and you can't expect your mechanics to continue to fix your crank every time it falls off (aka maintain The Orange Bar, exactly as it is) or car manufacturers to make cars in 2014 that have easy link-ups for cranks (aka expect devs to create code going forward that accommodates this one single non-Echo notification). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In and of itself? No. But it's a limiting factor, on two fronts:
First, the presence of the orange bar, for some subset of users, is limiting. It means that for future notifications, there's yet another user interface element we have to take into account, in placement, in design - another thing we have to support the presence of.
Second, the mere principle of creating a preference every time is a limiting factor. If we start saying 'if you don't like it, you can always opt out', we'll encounter massive bloat in the number of permutations we have to support - and this will include things that require active maintenance. Not only that, but it'll create the same issues the orange bar does have for a far wider set of features - more things acting as limiters to future projects.
Now, I've got no issue with limiters - when they're sensible and justified. And frankly I think that Echo as it's built now is sub-optimal (to say the least!) for this kind of notification, and the idea of "we need a more prominent notice for talkpage messages" is totally reasonable. But I'd like to give the E2 team at least a day for them to try and work out a solution we can all agree on, that doesn't necessitate a preference, that doesn't create these problems. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
On 9 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sharon Kinne, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Sharon Kinne remains wanted for a crime for which she was tried three times in the 1960s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sharon Kinne. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If it's to remain blocked, a bunch of work needs to be done to clean up the pages and templates that rely on it. It malfunctioned a few times on one day; perhaps it's worth reanimating and repairing as needed instead?
@Elvey: What you've found already is basically all there is - the bot malfunctioned and I blocked it until it could be repaired, but it appears that the bot is no longer being maintained, which means its owner hasn't fixed it or updated its documentation to say it's not working. Until it's fixed, it can't be unblocked, which means that it's going to remain blocked unless/until its owner returns - even if I were qualified to fix the bot, which I'm not, I don't have access to the codebase. The other Mizabots aren't malfunctioning and, as far as I know, are still running just fine on their own accounts. If you guys want to update Mizabot's documentation, that's up to you; I would personally not mess with a bot's documentation without the owner's permission, but this would seem to be an odd case, so if you can get a consensus to do so, I doubt it would be a huge deal. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Please note that Nataev (talk·contribs) is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins. It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which [3]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what this dispute is about, and I'm not much inclined to go digging, since Nataev seems to have taken a scattershot-and-hope approach to asking for help. However, for posterity's sake, I will note that I am not and never have been a checkuser, so asking me for help when it has to do with running that tool isn't a good use of anyone's time. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I second Maggie's barnstar. We're dealing with a problem here, unfortunately we're not a social therapy group. What you did was very nice - I hope it has some effect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter, can you please help me out? I am trying to remove the two negative bias banners on the University of Bedfordshire
wiki page (see below). Both seem unreasonable after my reading of the wikipedia entry. How do such tags / banners get displayed and maintained?
"This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (July 2012)
This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (May 2013)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coevolve (talk • contribs)
@Coevolve: I see that you've gone through and removed some references from that article. So I see how you're sort of trying to address the notices, but the sum of the notices is that the article's content is promotional, partially because it was written that way and partially because its information seems to have been derived mostly from the University's publications. So to fix that, what you really need to address is not "there are links from the article to the University's sites", but "the article's text reads a bit like a brochure". To that end, you may want to take a look at our help page on our neutrality standards and the one on reliable sourcing - they should hopefully give you a working knowledge of what the article ought to read like. What you definitely don't want to do is just start removing or adding information wholesale, either on the article or its talk page - the goal here should be more to add more neutral, well-sourced information than to remove sources or past history. Hope this information helps! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that is helpful. I removed all the references that are from the domain beds.ac.uk as I presumed that was the problem (i.e., too may references from the University itself). I have checked the neutrality standards and agree wholeheartedly. However, I must admit the wiki entry looks like most other University web-pages that do not have the banner warnings. I will check the entry more closely for brochure-like passages and see if there are parts that can be re-worded to meet the wiki regulations. How will I know when enough has been done to correct these problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coevolve (talk • contribs) 17:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, one of the things that can be frustrating about Wikipedia is that there's no automated mechanism that will go "ping! you've improved the article enough, the banner will go away now!" All these notices are added by hand, by individual editors, so sometimes it can be tough to know when you've cleaned the article up enough. My advice would be that when you think you've done what needed to be done, go back to the person/people who added the notices - in this case, it looks like Mean as custard (talk·contribs) added the advert tag in 2012, and Sabrebd (talk·contribs) added the sourcing tag this month - and ask them to look over your work and, if they think you've addressed things adequately, remove the notices. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Flutternutter, that is super helpful to point out the editors who added these banners in the first place. Once I feel the edits have fully addressed the criticisms I will be sure to contact these individuals to request the 'warnings' be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coevolve (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: The banners have been removed almost magically. Thank you Flutternutter as I am sure you had your hand in making this happen in such a timely fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coevolve (talk • contribs) 19:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
