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.
If you have time over the next week or so, could you please clean up my prose on Pittsburgh Town? While it pass GA, I don't think the wording flows well enough for the plus sign --Guerillero | My Talk21:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
@Guerillero: Copyedit done! There were some spots where I need your clarification on what you meant; I left inline hidden comments in those spots asking what I need to know. Please check those over when you get a chance and either correct the text or let me know what you meant so I can correct it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. (I guess we'll see what happens in two weeks time!?)
(Please excuse / tolerate my ignorance.) If the vandalism resumes and persists, what are the available options? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
@Pdfpdf: We try to limit protection time when we can, so we'll see if the two weeks is enough time for the vandals to find something else to do. If it isn't and the vandalism returns, you can drop me a note here and I can re-protect for a longer time, or you can ask again at WP:RFPP and another admin will probably do so. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but those edits on the article don't appear sufficiently distinctive to automatically assume they're Himesh, and his comment on his talk page had to do with reporting me somewhere, not editing the article (and I've yet to figure out where I've supposedly been "reported"). I'm not familiar with the topic area, though, so I'm not prepared to take any leaps of logic. Your best bet might be to open an SPI putting forth the explanation of which IPs are Himesh and how you know, and get the matter dealt with there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I see the article IQ reference chart has been tagged for expert review since October 2012. As part of a process of drafting a revision of that article in my user sandbox, I am contacting all Wikipedians who have edited that article since early 2009 for whom I can find a user talk page.
I have read all the diffs of all the edits committed to the article since the beginning of 2009 (since before I started editing Wikipedia). I see the great majority of edits over that span have been vandalism (often by I.P. editors, presumably teenagers, inserting the names of their classmates in charts of IQ classifications) and reversions of vandalism (sometimes automatically by ClueBot). Just a few editors have referred to and cited published reliable sources on the topic of IQ classification. It is dismaying to see that the number of reliable sources cited in the article has actually declined over the last few years. To help the process of finding reliable sources for articles on psychology and related topics, I have been compiling a source list on intelligence since I became a Wikipedian in 2010, and I invite you to make use of those sources as you revise articles on Wikipedia and to suggest further sources for the source on the talk pages of the source list and its subpages. Because the IQ reference chart article has been tagged as needing expert attention for more than half a year, I have opened discussion on the article's talk page about how to fix the article, and I welcome you to join the discussion. The draft I have in my user sandbox shows my current thinking about a reader-friendly, well sourced way to update and improve the article. I invite your comments and especially your suggestions of reliable sources as the updating process proceeds. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
blocking me for sock papacy
You blocked me for using sock pupet account to edit Jaffna Kingdom article.
I assume you were talking about 61.245.163.44. Next time remember to write it clearer.
I was blocked for not accepting "kingdom was established in 1215". For 61.245.163.44 it is uncontroversial. His updates are based on consensus that I was not agreed and so got blocked.
What are the similarities you used to conclude himesh = 61.245.163.44 ? The network belongs to Sri Lanka Telecoms which has 3Mn customer base. Any Sri Lankan (me, obi2canibe,.. ) can used that network --Himesh84 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty obvious that that was you. Fluff, they were at it again, and I just reverted (please see what it was and you'll see the measure of competence). They also left a diatribe on my talk page. I don't what the weather is like in Sri Lanka, but it's thin ice this person is skating on. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your editing style is fairly distinctive, Himesh, as is your POV and your preferred article version. I would suggest that if you don't wish for administrators to point out that you're editing logged out to evade a block, your first choice should be to not evade that block.
Speaking of which, I notice that as soon as you returned from this block, you began your edit war again. Might I also suggest that that is a very bad idea that is likely to end with you being blocked yet again? Use the talk page to reach consensus on an issue before editing the article. If consensus doesn't support your version, you have to accept that you can't have your way. Even if consensus does support your version, you're not allowed to edit war over it. If you can't control yourself on that article, you're very quickly going to lose your editing privileges again, as Drmies and I just edit conflicted trying to point out to you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Himesh's claim of talk page consensus is specious. I do wish there were more talk page participants there. Thanks Fluffernutter, Drmies (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Helping hand
Hi Fluffernutter, thanks for your edits. I know that Bundy have had chatting with the police about the Green River Killer. What I object is that he didn't help, since Ridgway was caught 17 years after those chats. Maybe he claimed to help. I don't think that "Their interviews with Ted Bundy helped them catch the Green River killer". The source: "Some of Bundy's observations were obvious, Keppel says - predictions investigators already made. Others were sharper, and more precise than a profile developed by the FBI in the early 1980s, when the Green River killings were at their height." This is quite different from real help, imho.
@Esarintul: Hmm, ok. Generally, saying "so-and-so helped" means that they offered help, not that they were necessarily instrumental in success, but you make a good point about the way that section was worded - it wasn't clear what, exactly, Bundy had to offer or how much he helped. I've reworded the "helped" claim and smoothed out some of the writing around it - how does this look to you? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ops. :D Esarintul was supposed to be an innocent puppet (I mean, nothing improper), but I am too akward to manage more than just my identity... Ok, the experiment has ended! Thanks again. --Pequod76 (talk-ita.esp.eng) 19:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
Hi Fluffernutter, could you help me to block the above user, perhaps indef? I have reported him at WP:AIV, you can go and take a look. He's getting on my nerves with his incivility and arrogance, and partly also because of some issues more than 6 months ago, although I had already forgiven him earlier. Thanks. ✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎15:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you very much for guiding new editors like me and showing them the right path forward. :)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.
Recent software changes(Not all changes will affect you.)
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf10) was added to test wikis on July 11. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on July 15, and on all Wikipedias on July 18. [1]
The Disambiguator extension was enabled on all Wikimedia wikis on July 9 (bug #50174). To use it, add the __DISAMBIG__ code to disambiguation templates (see example). [2]
A new version of the Single User Login system for global accounts will be enabled on July 17. Users will now automatically go back to the previous page instead of seeing the "Login success" page with logos. [4]
The software that resizes images on all wikis will change on July 18. Resizing of big images will be faster and more reliable, and the resolution limit for GIF, PNG and TIFF files (currently set at 50 megapixels) will be removed. [5]
Edit tags (mostly used by AbuseFilter) will now also be on diff pages. They include a link to Special:Tags before the edit summary. Wikis that use links in tag messages should remove them. [6][7]
Global edit filters are currently in testing and will be added to wikis later. [8]
I'm sure they're both utterly delightful and I congratulate you on your efforts in pursuit of them :) I'm sorry that mess came down on your shoulders; I'm perfectly aware you meant no harm to either LoS or the project, but just sort of put your foot in an institutional-level issue that you didn't see coming. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I would normally respect your (Fluffernutter) right to say something, even if I thought it a misinterpretation, except for 3 issues:
Your characterization of Drmies' edit as "making jokes about other users' bodies and how people should praise them (or not praise them)" is deeply unfair (my empahsis added, to highlight the part I felt was particularly unfair, though I object to the entire characterization). Such comments run a great risk of appearing so silly or over the top that they are likely to make others tune you out, and actually harden their position.
Mr "Punch a hole in their windpipe, light them on fire" Ironholds (username linked so he's notified I'm talking about him here) is the last person on the planet in a position to lecture anyone about appropriate ways to address or talk about others; he needs to address his own serious shortcomings first. The fact that he is still on the WMF payroll and an admin here is an order of magnitude much more damaging to any desire to retaining and attract new female editors than Drmies' comment.
And then I remembered something else, googled it, and confirmed it: you're an IRC friend of Ironholds, and evidently participate in sex/body image/joking behavior yourself, which is much more raw than Drmies' (see, for example, meta:IRC/Quotes/archives/2011). So publicly calling out someone else over this is hypocritical. OK for you, just not for others? And please, please don't say "but that was IRC". Stereotypes and hateful talk and behavior get propagated and passed on to new, relatively young editors on IRC too (I saw quite a few such young editors in the IRC logs on Meta). If you actually care about the bigger issue, change your own behavior first.
Floquenbeam, as I've already told you, if you'd like to talk about my behaviour I'm happy to do so, and put that quote (and others) in context. If you're just interested in judging me based on what has been communicated to you, that's your prerogative, but it's not going to be helpful or productive. In the meantime, the fact that I happen to agree with Fluff is not something that has any impact on the validity of her comments. Ironholds (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Er, right, ok Floq. I'm not sure what you mean by your first point - that I was insinuating that Drmies was insulting LoS's attractiveness, and thus misrepresenting him? If so, you've misread. My point was that whether we're praising or insulting a female admin's attractiveness, neither of those would be appropriate for a noticeboard - it is in pretty much no case appropriate to go into the attractiveness of a female editor's body on AN. As for your second point, I'm not really sure why your opinion that Ironholds should be fired has any bearing on my pointing out inappropriate behavior by someone else. And as for your third...well, you're obviously not familiar with Jabberwocky if you think that quoting a poem - a nineteenth century children's nonsense poem - is akin to plunking down on a public noticeboard and talking about how hot I think a fellow editor's body is.
I'm frankly aghast at the level of vitriol that's being directed against me this afternoon for daring to speak up in response to something I found sexually objectifying and inappropriate. I doubt anything I say is going to convince you and some others that I'm not a horrible, horrible censorship nazi who's out to get your right to speak freely about women's bodies wherever and whenever you please, and I'm just disappointed that so many people seem to think the problem here was my daring to contradict Drmies's right to comment on LoS's body, rather than Drmies making a well-intentioned joke that was nonetheless problematic. I doubt it's going to be worthwhile to continue this conversation given your position. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
As I just said above, I'm not upset that you somehow tried to "censor" Drmies; I never used that word, that's not what I said, it's not what I meant. I object to your description of his entire comment as "making jokes about other users' bodies", and your claim that he is saying people "should" praise, or not praise, them.
Ironholds' participation in that thread is related to your position because (a) you're friends with someone who has done much worse, and I have yet to see any criticism of that; and (b) I suspect the AN thread was brought up on IRC, and that's why he showed up to agree with you so fast.
If you're going to summarize your comments in that IRC log as "quoting a poem", then you're being dishonest, either with yourself, or with me. You obviously know there are several young impressionable editors on that channel, and you were modelling behavior for them that is anathema to what you claim to care about.
Like I said, if someone who was not being hypocritical had brought this up in a reasonable way, I'd have had no objection.
I offer this for a fourth time: if you want to discuss my actions in more detail, I am happy to do so. Until then, it seems unfair to say "based on my understanding of the situation, which I actively refuse to accept additional data into, X and Y and Z are true". Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
(I would note that I saw the thread because I was browsing AN, not because of anything on IRC. A lot more editors also showed up; to my knowledge there is no Birthday Wishes Cabal, although it'd be a nice project). Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.
Recent software changes(Not all changes will affect you.)
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf11) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 18. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on July 22, and on all Wikipedias on July 25. [11]
The schedule to add VisualEditor to non-English Wikipedias has been changed: the new editor will be available for logged-in users on the German (de), Spanish (es), French (fr), Hebrew (he), Italian (it), Dutch (nl), Polish (pl), Russian (ru) and Swedish (sv) Wikipedias on July 24, and for all users on those wikis on July 29. [13]
A warning is now displayed if an edit made with VisualEditor matches an edit filter (bug #50472).
Participation: Out of 30 people who have signed up for this drive so far, 18 have participated. If you have signed up for the drive but have not yet participated, it isn't too late. If you haven't signed up for the drive, sign up now!
Progress report: Thus far we have reduced the number of May/June 2012 articles to just 124 articles, so we're on the right track. Unfortunately, for the first time in GOCE history, the number of articles in the backlog has actually gone up during this drive. While all participants are currently doing a fine job, we just don't have as many of them as we have had in the past. We have over 500 editors on our mailing list, but only 18 editors who have done a copy edit for the drive. If you're receiving this newsletter, it's because you have an interest in copy editing. Join the drive! Even if you only copy edit one article, it helps. Imagine how much progress we could make if everyone chipped in just one article.
It's me, MysticSparkles. Hello. I have no idea how to leave a message on someone's Wikipedia. I hope this is the right way. Is this correct? How would I site sources for something like that? In the references section? I see relationship info on many Wikipedias, and I don't notice where sources or proof is required. This info exists and it's true, I can promise you that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysticSparkles (talk • contribs)
@MysticSparkles: Hi Mystic. When we ask you to cite a source for something, we're basically asking you to find something that proves the fact is true. We only accept certain types of proof; you can read about what we consider "proof" at this page. Basically you have to be able to point to something like a newspaper, magazine, or the person's own website to show that a "reliable source" supports your fact.
Once you have a source for the fact, you have to "cite" it in the article. Ideally, that involves using a sort of complex referencing system, but if that's confusing to you (and it can be!), it could be something as basic as typing "According to [newspaper name]'s article [article name] on [date], blah blah blah". If you can find it online, you should include a link to the source by typing [http://www.website.com/sourcepage] (so if, for example, you were going to use People Magazine's website to prove that Kate Middleton is in labor, you might type [http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20395222_20715784,00.html] as the link for your source). That way, other people can easily verify that the source you're using says that.
I will be doing the review for this article (The GA Bot should have notified you, but I think it is offline). The review page can be found Here, Best of luck :) Prabash.Akmeemana03:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Sharon Kinne you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Prabash.A -- Prabash.A(talk)03:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm reaching out to you because you're listed as a member of WP:CO-OP. I'm currently working on behalf of the Center for Copyright Information to make some updates to their article. Because of my financial COI, I posted a request over at Paid Editor Help hoping to find someone to take a look, but as of yet, it doesn't look like anyone's had time. Could you take a look at the note I posted at PEH and see if you'd be willing to help? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 21:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
@ChrisPond: I'll try to take a look if I get some time, but my scheduling is very scattershot for the next few months and I'm hesitant to lead you to think you can rely on my availability when you probably can't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know. If you have time, I'd certainly appreciate it, but if you don't, you don't! Do you have any ideas about who else I might reach out to? I'm feeling a bit stymied in terms of locating someone to help out. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes; not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf12) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 25. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on July 29, and on all Wikipedias on August 1. [18]
Wikivoyage was offline for around 40 minutes on July 24. [19]
The Notifications and Thanks extensions were added to Meta-Wiki on July 26; other wikis will get them soon. [21]
It is now possible to add edit summaries on Wikidata using the API; the feature will be added to user interface soon. [22]
The software that resizes large PNG images on all wikis was changed on July 25. Resizing of PNG files bigger than 35 megapixels should be faster and more reliable now. [23]
Three new webfonts (Gentium, Old Persian and Shapour) will be added to Universal Language Selector. [24], [25], [26]
Special:MIMESearch, which gives a list of files by type, will be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis with MediaWiki version 1.22/wmf12 (bug #13438). [27]
A mailing list to discuss multimedia features was started; users are encouraged to sign up.
On July 24, VisualEditor was added for logged-in users on the German (de), Spanish (es), French (fr), Hebrew (he), Italian (it), Polish (pl), Russian (ru) and Swedish (sv) Wikipedias; it will be added for all users on those wikis on July 29. [28]
A preference to completely disable VisualEditor while it is in beta phase was added on July 24. [29]
Well, crap. I did check how the page looked after I saved it to make sure I didn't break anything, but it didn't even occur to me that I might have broken internal signature bits. And it wasn't even a VE edit! It was probably a copy-paste screwup on my end - to cut down on edit conflicts I pasted the wikicode into a text editor, changed it, and then pasted it back, and it looks like perhaps my text editor choked on the unicode. I'll go through now and straighten out what I can in the sigs. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
For your edit to that user's talk page...yeah...had removed it earlier but it hadn't "stuck". Another thing... In the course of my research on the unauthorized survey, came across this website: [36] which would indicate that their username could be considered problematic... Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
New features
The previous version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf13) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on August 15. It was enabled on non-Wikipedia sites on August 19, and on all Wikipedias on August 22. [37]
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf14) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on August 22. It will be enabled on non-Wikipedia sites on August 26, and on all Wikipedias on August 29. [38]
You can now use the <wbr> HTML5 tag to say where a word can be cut. (52468) [41]
Gadget authors: you can now use the wikipage.content hook, so that your scripts are re-run when a page is changed after the document-ready event (for example using Ajax). (30713) [42]
Problems fixed
There was a bug where file redirects didn't work when a file was renamed; it is now fixed. There is still an issue with purging, but it should be fixed soon. (52200)
Maintenance reports provided by special pages will now all be updated on each wiki every six months. This will for example give you recent information on uncategorized pages, unused templates and most wanted pages (see details).
There was a bug that caused false positives for anti-blanking edit filters; it is now fixed. (52077) [43]
The "edit" and "edit source" tabs and section edit links can now be changed more easily; for example, some wikis are using "edit source" for wikitext editing, and "edit beta" for VisualEditor. You can ask for the same change in bugzilla.
You can now edit references that are added inside a <references> block. (51741)
You can now test on mediawiki.org new basic tools to add and edit struck text (with the button for the <s> tag), lower text ( for <sub>), upper text ( for <sup>), underlined text ( for <u>), computer code ( for <code> and <tt>), math text ( for <math>), Egyptian hieroglyphs ( for <hiero>), and to say that text is in another language ( for lang="ar" dir="rtl"). (51609, 51612, 51611, 51590, 51610, 52352)
You can now use VisualEditor with the Opera browser. [44]
Future
Starting on August 26, you will be able to use data from Wikidata on Wikivoyage sites. [45]
Starting on August 27, you will also get notifications on the mobile site if you're logged in to a wiki using notifications. [46]
Starting on August 28, all users with an account will be using HTTPS to access Wikimedia sites. HTTPS brings better security and improves your privacy. Some countries (like China) will not use HTTPS. If HTTPS causes problems for you, tell us on meta. [47]
Starting on August 29, you will get the code editor interface to edit JavaScript and CSS pages on all wikis. [48]
The plan to use Solr for search in MediaWiki was changed; instead, Elasticsearch is now planned. [49]
Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Hey Fluffernutter. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Hi Murry. I'm not sure that edit rises to the level of needing revdeletion. It appears to be stupid, immature vandalism, but whether it rises to the level of "grossly insulting or degrading" is debatable, and since it doesn't name a particular person I lean slightly toward not removing it from the history. I would have no prejudice toward you running the matter past another admin, however, to see if they have a stronger opinion either way and want to make the decision.
As a side note, it's generally best to not request or draw attention to revdelete and oversight requests onwiki. You can always direct these requests privately to the oversight team at oversight-en-wp(at)wikipedia.org or to online administrators using the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-revdel. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for that Fluffernutter. Just it seems only one person complained so in essence its directed at only one person. But I trust your opinion and experience, so I will leave it be. Murry1975 (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you revdel'd the username that made an edit on User talk:DGG, but the edit after his contained the username in the edit summary. Can you revdel that summary as well? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I just received a prank message saying I edited something on Return to the Forbidden Planet. I have never heard of it in my whole life, and what you did is not funny, it's annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.160.74 (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The message wasn't a prank. Either you or someone else using your IP address edited that page. You can see evidence of that here. To avoid messages meant for other people, you can create an account to edit from. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
