User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 15

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.

You ask for comments but it is not at all clear how to/where to make comments. OldCoder (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I told "them" that you guys would not let my story (Urban Science) live - only took you a few minutes to find it. Impressive! ("unsourced personal anecdote"). If you want citations, I'd be happy to sign my real name (Gary Huckabone), email address, whatever. But it's not clear how to do so.

As for the Shapefile complaint - if you understood anything about GIS or ESRI shapefiles, you would see that my effort there is a link to allow people to read such files. It's a link to a page for reading shape files. If that's advertising, well, then what is not advertising?

Oh, you can produce an entire page for Urban Science but if I try to give some people free help with shape files that's advertising. OldCoder (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi OldCoder. If you had followed the links in the note I left you, you would have found a page describing our reliable sourcing guidelines (for your convenience, here's that link again: reliable sources) that explains what constitutes a reliable source. You, your friend, or I are not reliable sources. Peer-reviewed or editorially-controlled news or scientific sources are. For this reason, "Someone I know says that X totally happened" isn't content we can accept on Wikipedia, no matter how sure you are that it's true. Even if you know, with 100% of your whole heart and mind, that it's god's honest truth and feel you need to share it with the world. If, on the other hand, you had available to you something like, "Per the Wall Street Journal (X/Y/2013 edition), Z happened", where a reliable source (there's that term again!) addressed the issue you want to add to Wikipedia, that would be something that was supported by a reliable source and could be used in a Wikipedia article. So unfortunately, it appears that in this case, if the "citation" is "OldCoder says so", the content you wish to add is not supportable with a reliable source and thus can't be allowed in a Wikipedia article.

As far as "shapefile", I see that you have edited that article, but I have no idea what you're talking about other than that. Whatever happened with/to/about you there, I had no involvement in it and am not going to be of any use helping you figure out whatever it is you want to do there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up Participation: Out of eleven people who signed up for this blitz, eight copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the November drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

09:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, What's your reasoning for protecting the article from all non-admins instead of waiting for either of the two involved editors to exceed 3rr and then taking action against that editor? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

There were more than two people involved in reverting each other on the article recently, with multiple disputes poking their heads up. In a case like that, I feel that more good is accomplished by forcing all of the users to discussion pages than by playing whac-a-mole with individual users. The goal here is to make everyone hash out their issues somewhere other than on the article itself, not to lurk around until I can pounce and block someone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You are in a maze of twisty articles, all different --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Aw, and I just managed to break the Adventure partway through. So much for discovering the orc's gold at the end of the maze! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of heavy metal festivals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Out Of The Ashes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

10:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your BLP help with page Steven G. Kaplan, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Cirt. Since it looks to be an LTA situation, please feel free to give me a poke if you see it leaking out, on that article or anywhere else, in the future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

'tis the season

I can't do what you request above, missing people (click on "'tis") and caught in absurd situations (click on "season"), but did you know ...

• ... that the song "Ermutigung" by Wolf Biermann, encouraging people not to become hardened in hard times, was written for Peter Huchel, then under house arrest?
• that Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo?

Bringing Grace Sherwood to the Main page on Halloween after "she" was rejected as TFA, that went well, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it reasonable to ask for a second opinion about - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/METAL_ROY_STONE&offset=&limit=500&target=METAL+ROY+STONE ?

I'm not sure the image uploads have scope, but would like a second opinionSfan00 IMG (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sfan00 IMG. I'm pretty much useless when it comes to image policy - my strategy when I need to deal with it is generally "go find someone who has a clue and ask them for help" - so unfortunately I'm going to be of no use to you in figuring this out. To name someone who might be able to help completely off the top of my head, though, I know that DragonflySixtyseven works with newly uploaded images sometimes. Perhaps he or one of the admin noticeboards can help you? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fluffernutter. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list.
Message added 04:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

13:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

gnome
Thank you, tireless tired wikignome, for quality articles such as Sharon Kinne, for contributing under extreme conditions, for fighting vandalism and copyvio, for educating editors to contribute constructively, and for looking for the good around here part of which you are yourself, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

+1. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Wow Gerda Arendt (and Tom), thanks. It means a lot to me that someone looked at what I've done and thinks it's worth recognition :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

From gnome to gnome: what do you think of the little icon to show "ready to do cleanup work"? (Top of my user, I copied from here.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It's cute! A little bit of a different art style than things like the GA cross, but then, gnomes have a different editing style compared to people who edit in big flourishes, too. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Fluffernutter. You fully protected Murder of Elsie Lie. Since I have nominated it for deletion, could you tag it, please? Thanks, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. In the future it might be easier if you wait until the protection expires to nominate something for deletion, at least in cases like this where the protection is extremely short-term. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I see you suppressed one of my edit summaries. Could you please explain to me what that was about? Feel free to send me an e-mail about it with the edit summary and what you think was wrong with it. I am having a hard time thinking of how anything I said would warrant such severe actions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not suppressed, just revision deleted as a BLP violation. Using an edit summary to share your personal opinion on a living person's culpability in someone's death isn't appropriate. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You made a comment elsewhere about the material needing to be suppressed, so I guess I took it that way given that you have oversight privileges. Could you please e-mail me the edit summary so I can review it? I barely even recall what I said.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Email sent. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying now. *sigh* Though, I will say it wasn't so much about expressing my opinion on the case as it was about addressing the objection to the word "murder" being used. Probably could have phrased it so that it wasn't alleging that he was likely culpable, but I suppose I understand why you removed it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Fluff - any idea why I was able to make this edit? The log is making it look like the protection hasn't expired yet, and it's otherwise showing as protected for me, but it looks like I can edit the page without +sysop. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The protection actually expired about two hours before you made that edit (it was only a three-hour protection). If the log was saying it was still protected at that point, something must have gone wonky on the log's end rather than the protection's end. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about GSD5 in more detail. I overlooked the fact that they must have created the article while blocked... slap me with a trout if you want. :) Tritario (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

08:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The SPI says "is possible they are DeFacto". The user page says "is a sock puppet of DeFacto". They can't both be right. The same for User:Ex-Stanley if you will correct them please. 212.183.128.65 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What's your interest in the matter? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Honesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.65 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're digging in the wrong spot for that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not correct the clear mistakes? Do you condone the mistaken statements on the user pages? Will you allow me to correct them now I've shown why they are wrong? 212.183.128.65 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no "clear mistake" here, though I do wonder how much of a mistake it is for you to be showing a large amount of concern over which of DeFacto's socks are labelled how. I think you should find something completely unrelated to sock tagging to edit for as long as you remain unblocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it frowned upon then to correct apparent mistakes on Wikipedia? Those statements are clearly misleading, they make a statement for which there is NO evidence in the SPI. I think they need fixing - one way or the other. Do you disagree? Can you change them to say something like "This account is possibly a sock puppet of DeFacto..." then? 212.183.128.65 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to leave it between you and your conscience anyway, as I've got to go back on duty now. You have the power to make Wikipedia a little bit more accurate and a little bit less misleading - grasp it, eh? 212.183.128.65 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you reveiw but you really need to do better than that for the sake of the person who created that article. The independent sources added to the article (which were done by me after a note left at the Geology project, and the second rejection) do discuss the Association and what it does in detail. Certainly enough, imo, to survive AFD, so please leave a detailed analysis of those sources, as somehow not being enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Alanscottwalker I'm really confused by your comment. You seem to be incredibly sure your additions establish notability, but to the best of my understanding, the sources for the article are, in order:

1. A "bio" blurb of the association in a list of other associations.
2. A one-sentence not-even-"bio" blurb in a directory
3. The association's name in a list
4. A citation I can't verify (which isn't inherently a problem) that appears to only be used support the association's name, anyway
5. The IAG mentioned in a paper as having designed a testing format that is relevant to the paper topic
6. The IAG mentioned as having arranged tests on a material "once or twice a year" that are "not particularly suitable" to the topic the book section is discussing
7. A journal monograph that discusses experiences of the IAG from the perspective of the IAG
8. A self-citation to the website of the "trading arm" of the IAG
9. A self-citation verifying that the IAG participates in publishing a journal

The only ones of these that appear to be even peripherally relevant to establishing notability by showing discussion in independent, reliable sources are sources 5, 6, and 9, but none of those sources involve in-depth coverage of the topic, and anyway the article fails to use them to claim any level of notability in the article. Instead, it only uses them to source statements about the aims and activities of the IAG - which are certainly worth mentioning, but don't show that anyone has taken enough notice of the IAG to discuss the IAG in any depth. In fact, most of the sources used in the article submission are so self-evidently non-relevant to notability that I assumed it was a no-brainer to read the notability policy (linked to in my decline) and understand why. What am I missing here that you feel establishes adequate notability for an organization? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

OK but really? 5, 6 and 7 are independent sources and make it clear the Association is the only (or one of the few) setting scientific standards in this area (and they go on to explain them). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not actually clear from the sources at all, to my (non-geoanalyst) reading. Right now the impression given by the article and its sources is "The IAG exists. It does stuff. See, here's where I prove it does stuff, mostly by highlighting where the IAG says it does stuff." What I would be happier seeing in an AFC that I passed to mainspace would be "The IAG exists. Here is the stuff it does, here's why that's important, and here's where other people are like 'Hey wow, that stuff the IAG does is pretty darn important. Also the IAG is really important, see here where we discuss how important the IAG is and how when it says something, we listen.'"

Now, mind you, I'm not the be-all-end-all of AFC reviewers. Everyone does it slightly differently, and you'll never see me claim that my way is the only way, or even a better way than anyone else's. But using my own understanding of AFC and notability standards, I would not be comfortable passing the article until it includes discussion of the IAG's importance to the topic area/industry and uses multiple independent, in-depth sources that back up that notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Fine. But I think you are making a determination (if played out over and over again) fairly and significantly detrimental to the project. It "does stuff"? You mean, it developes international scientific mesurments by getting scientists together in multiple scientific forums. You want our article to actually say "that's important!" Really? And it cannot go in the encyclcopedia because 'hey, creating international scientific standards is evidently not encyclopedic and unnotable, Mr. Geonanalyst.' Then we have to disagree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you're misunderstanding. I don't want the article to use the words "that's important!" I want the article to use sources and language that demonstrate that the topic is important enough to have been discussed in-depth outside of its own writings and/or that the IAG's work is important enough to be commonly relied on outside its own walls. On the topic of the IAG's standards, for example, it's one thing to say, "X creates standards for [blah]"; it's a much more useful thing to say or demonstrate that "X creates standards that are used widely throughout the industry and are acknowledged as reliable measurements of [blah]." Right now the article does the former, and what I'm trying to get across to you is that the latter is where notability is going to be established. You're welcome to re-submit the AFC as-is if you really think I'm utterly wrong on this, but it's a bit odd to run something through a review process and then refuse to believe the review you get. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting I should have taken it out of the review process? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "take it out of the review process" (not submit it to AFC originally? pull it out of AFC now? take your feelings out on the review process by trying to change the guidelines?), but whatever it is you mean, I'm fairly sure that's not what I mean. At this point you are free to follow or not follow my recommendations about the submission before re-submitting it, but I've explained my thoughts about the article's current state as clearly as I'm able. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not submit it to the review process initially. When I came upon it it was already in the review process, and had been rejected twice for 'lack of independent sources'; I added three independent sources that take notice and discuss the unique activities of the Society. But, no, I won't be working on it anymore; and the editor who submitted it twice and the "thanked" me for adding sources, will shift as he or she may. Perhaps they may profit by this discussion (or not). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Fluffernutter, a couple of days ago you full-on protected the Nina Dobrev article which was a good decision. Since then there has been a good amount of discussion on the talk page that basically centers around the question should the lead sentence read "Bulgarian-Canadian actress" or just "Canadian actress". Things are at a bit of an impasse. I was wondering if you might want to wade through the discussion here and offer up some suggestions or even close it in an informal RFC sort of way? Thanks, SQGibbon (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry SQGibbon, but I'm not really comfortable making content contributions or decisions regarding a page I'm handling administratively. You could try asking on WP:AN for outside administrator input, or you could put an RFC tag on the talk page discussion to bring in more outside opinions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That's cool. Thanks! SQGibbon (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

06:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You get yours. Give him a woolen ball, other than that he is not very demanding. Remember to tickle his fur belly, feed him milk and watch episodes of TBBT with him every night. All he needs is daily doses of love and he will return the same in infinite amounts. Remember these things and he'll be your best cuddly buddy.

Sohambanerjee1998 10:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I've received a message telling me that the page I created -"Sustainable Shipping Initiative" - which you edited got deleted for a copyright infringement.

"17:50, 19 November 2013 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sustainable Shipping Initiative (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/sustainable-shipping-initiative/overview)"

I understand Wikipedia's deletion policy on copyrighted material, but I think this has been wrongly deleted as I can't see why this would count as a copyright infringement. The website "http://www.forumforthefuture.org/project/sustainable-shipping-initiative/overview" belongs to the NGO that the article is about - so I don't see how that counts as copyright infringement.

Please could you provide me with more information.

Thanks, Rigbissimo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigbissimo (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Rigbissimo The content is owned by the NGO, not Wikipedia. It is released under copyright, so it can't be reused on Wikipedia. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rigbissimo. I've left a note on your talk page with a much more detailed explanation of how copyright works on Wikipedia. Hopefully it will help you get a handle on what's going on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the information. I understand how to avoid copyright infringement clearly. Is there anyway I can have the original text I submitted last back so that I can easily edit it to avoid infringement? Thanks Rigbissimo (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rigbissimo: I would suggest that rather than trying to edit the version that included copyrighted information, you do your best to start over from scratch and write original text. If it's very important to you, I can certainly email you the deleted text, but it's going to be of limited use to you in doing a proper rewrite of the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter: Thanks. If you could please email the deleted text over, that would be really helpful. Am I to take it the formatting has been deleted or does that remain in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigbissimo (talk • contribs)

@Rigbissimo: Email sent! The formatting code is still included in it. Let me know if you have any problems getting the email. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter: Many thanks! Rigbissimo (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Huh! I wonder how I rolled back my own rollback on that. Odd. Thanks for catching it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

We were basically a comedy of errors over there! You rolled yourself back, I managed to trample over your block on my way to blocking someone who was already blocked...ah, well, at least we got it mostly right in the end. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fluffernutter - my article submitted was denied. I thought I was able to take care of most of the issues identified in first review. could you please help me know specific issues for denial of submission...below is the url

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Goagar/sandbox

appreciate your inputs... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goagar (talk • contribs) 11:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nice block. You're to quick for me Dlohcierekim 00:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I love blocking vandals. Dlohcierekim 00:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors November 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter The November 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the December blitz! – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have not threatened to harass you anywhere - and I politely request that you withdraw the implication that I did so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

08:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you blocked a sock of this blocked user a couple of days ago. Could you do the honors for User:68.54.157.220 as well, same guy, same MO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done and article short-term semi'd, with only a smidgen of headdesking over people's choices of hobbies! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 10:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

08:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

08:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)