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.
Shalom, listened to your paid editing presentation. Liked it! but was to shy to say it to you directly. Hopefully you are not disappointed that I did no use the wikilove-creator. ;) Lehitra'ot Catfisheye (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikimania!
Wikimania Award
Great meeting you and pod-casting with you at Wikimania. I look forward to continuing dialogue as a fellow-woman who Wikis and beyond. In #wikilove, SarahStierch (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a bunch of offers, so I eventually just decided to go with the nominator I'd been working closely with and let everyone else support or not as they wished. Appreciate the thought, though! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
For calming down the terrible situation in #wikipedia-en and generally just being a nice person, committing random acts of kindness everywhere. Good luck with the RfA! 123Ħeðŋeħøŋ45620:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I've got the access I needed and handled the ticket now. Thanks again for passing it on. Oh, and congratulations on your foregone conclusion of an RfA—there will be many people, including yours truly, very jealous of the easy time you're getting! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for answering my questions. I think that I may have to describe my second question. I asked the question because of a few recent cases in ANI where admins said that telling an abusive editor to f off or call them stupid was alright in their opinion. One of them was an admin that I looked up too. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Since I'm too lazy to manually congratulate you with the Admin T-Shirt, I'm sticking a parser function here that will automatically give it to you. Wait for it - it will come. --Σtalkcontribs01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations!
I'm happy to report to you that your Request for adminship was closed with unanimous support! This doesn;t happen all that often, and shows the communities overwhelming trust in your previous actions and interactions here on Wikipedia. Please be sure to preserve that trust by continuing to do exactly as you have been doing. I strongly recommend familiarizing yourself with as many of the policies and guidelines here as possible, and regularly refresh your memory of them, especially before taking any action. If you ever have any questions, feel free to ask me or any other admin or bureaucrat. We're all willing to help out as needed. Good luck! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan!16:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
It was a close call, Fluff, but I think Nihonjoe made the right decision. Congrats on achieving access to Wikipedia's corpse-filled cellar. Don't forget your flashlight and remember: strength in numbers. Lara16:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work
This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.
You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.
Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.
If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.
That was the biggest no-brainer RfA I've seen in a long time. I'm only disappointed it didn't get up to 200/0/0. I think given a couple of days it would have. I'm glad it went so smoothly for you, you'll be great with the mop. Oh, by the way, you missed a spot over there. -- Atama頭16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. Unanimous RfAs these days are about as common as rocking horse droppings. Although I'm sure you have many wiser and more experienced admins than I to turn to, I'll tell you what I tell most new admins: you're more than welcome to bug me if you need anything, and there are some interesting scripts for making things a little easier in my monobook.js. Other than that, I hope to see you putting your new mop to good use. I'm sure you'll do a grand job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you kindly, everyone! I was overwhelmed by how many people supported and had kind words for me. It's going to take me a few more days to entirely get rid of the self-conscious blush :D A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Why Change Phegans Bay NSW
I live in Woy Woy Bay and have for 20 years. Belinda Neil and John Belladosca DO NOT - NEVER HAVE LIVED IN PHEGANS BAY - I know their address. They live in WOY WOY BAY. Why did you revert my change. Phegans Bay is a different suburb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.105 (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their September 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy editing backlog. The drive will begin on September 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on September 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles in the backlog, as we want to copy edit as many of those as possible. Please consider copy editing an article that was tagged in 2010. Barnstars will be given to anyone who edits more than 4,000 words, with special awards for the top 5 in the categories "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". See you at the drive! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.
Am late, but should like to congratulate you on your adminship. If you wish any admin scripts, just check out the scripts pages of SoWhy or GedUK or me. It'll at least start you off. Best wishes for your adminship. Wifione ....... Leave a message09:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Awesome, I'm pleased to hear that people are accepting the idea that we could bite a little less. With an editor like that, my feeling is that a block is probably called for, but there's little reason for it to immediately be a "and don't let the door hit you, and don't come back!" sort of block - in a perfect world, we'd have editors like you engaging with the user after the block, explaining what went wrong and how the user can still contribute in other areas or other ways, and just maybe we could get some of them to sign on for productive careers! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Faceboy page
Hello Fluffernutter, I hope this note finds you well. I am writing in regards to the Faceboy page. I had removed the maintenance templates and given what I believe to be valid reasons. User Wlmg appears to have some unexplained problems with the page. In the past this user has attempted to delete the page entirely despite the fact the subject has already gone through this process and was found to be valid by Wikipedia standards. I believe Wlmg is now using these warning templates as a form of vandalism and I sent said user a polite warning as the first step to reporting vandalism. If the problem is in formatting the article, perhaps the best solution would be to refer the article to a skilled wikipedia editor which I, admittedly am not. I am simply trying to improve this article which has shown it's validity via reliable sources including; The New York Times, The N.Y. Daily news, Time Out New York, The Huffington Post, Gothamist, The Villager, etc.
IP I am not the issue here. The need for those maintenance tags is clear cut. You cannot simply keep removing them for your own personal reasons. You have been warned three times already today about this issue. Please stop removing the templates.
IP, Wlmg is correct here. Maintenance templates are not vandalism, especially when they're as obviously called for as they are on the article in question (there are no inline citations. adding a template saying "this article needs inline citations" is, uh, well, if that's not common sense to you, I'm not quite sure how to explain it). The fact that you and he have had disagreements about the article, if you have, does not mean that you may assume bad faith of his actions and label them vandalism. Wlmg is also correct that you are edit warring over the templates, and that that is not acceptable. If you disagree with his actions, you must discuss them on the article's talk page. You may not continue to blindly revert them - if you do it even once more, you'll have crossed the bright line of 3RR and you will be likely to be blocked for edit warring.
Wlmg, for what it's worth, I'll remind you of the same thing, though you obviously know - don't keep reverting or you could land yourself in a mess, even if you're right. If the reverting continues, from either of you, you may be blocked for edit warring. Discuss on the article talk page or one of your talks, but don't keep reverting. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete Pocket-Sleeve Technology?
I read the article myself and though i am a new user i have been using wiki for appx. 2 years now myself and i feel that the article had some encyclopedic value. even though it is not my article i feel that you should undelete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolololo3 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The article was deleted because it met our criteria for speedy deletion, in particular criterion G11, which allows for the speedy deletion of "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." In this case, Pocket-Sleeve Technology was written like a press release, talking about how stylish and useful the product was, rather than like an encyclopedia article that explained the idea in a neutral manner. The article would have needed to be completely erased and re-written from scratch to make it encyclopedic, and in cases like that we simply delete the article. You can read more about our neutrality guidelines here if you're not sure why this didn't meet them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Fluffernutter. You have new messages at DBD's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making The Case of the Dean of St Asaph a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. (Pictured is William Pitt uncorking a celebratory bottle of invective.)
In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Good Article promotion
You did it again!
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Vere Bird, Jr. a certified "Good Article"! (Pictured: a flag. Really, I couldn't find anything more appropriate having to do with A&B politics. I lose!) Seriously, thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell(talk)
19:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
A pie for you!
Congrats on your new adminship. I believe we've met, at a Wikimedia NYC gathering or at another conference? Best wishes. Sumanah (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that you, quite rightly, reverted abusive editing of User talk:71.87.158.205 by the blocked IP editor. I have changed the block to revoke talk page access, as is usual for a blocked editor who repeatedly abuses talk page access. I am letting you know in case, as a new admin, you weren't aware that this is common practice. If you knew perfectly well, and decided not to do it, that's fine: no criticism is intended. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure, basically. My first thought was to revoke talk privileges, but then I was like "well, but we're supposed to cut some slack for people blowing off steam after a block" and decided I wasn't sure enough of my instinct to amend the block. Any insight you can offer on where the line lies for stuff like post-block ranting? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)
I think it's largely a matter of judgement. Any one or two of the posts I would have just reverted, and perhaps warned the user, but the combined effect of all of them, including the edit summaries, was, in my opinion, too much. However, prompted by your question, I looked back at the editing history, and realised that I had not taken notice of the timing. Nearly two hours had passed between the talk page edits and my block. That being so I think you were right: it was a brief outburst of "blowing off steam", and had stopped, so a block was unnecessary. I have now restored talk page access, and made a mental note to check timestamps in such cases in future. (However, that may just mean it's something else that I overlook instead...) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Question for Washington Post story on Virginia Earthquake/Mineral, Va. articles
Dear Fluffernutter, I am a reporter at the Washington Post. I'm writing a story about how quickly Wiki articles went up related to the earthquake yesterday in Virginia. It's a moment to write about history being written in the moment, collectively, which is part of what Wikipedia is all about. I'm trying to reach some of the people who helped craft the 2011 Virginia Earthquake article and the Mineral, Va., article. It seems as though you weighed in. Can you contact me please? Thank you! Best, david montgomery, the washington post, 202-334-7224, montgomery@washpost.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.44.4 (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
…for blocking the Norway vandal; that guy went undetected longer than most, heh. Also, I was unaware that a fluffernutter is a sandwich. Such culinary knowledge should be more widespread, really. dalahäst(talk)15:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Unsure that semi-prot is required quite yet, as the volume of vandalism is slow/low, and there have been good faith contributions from IP contributors in the history. I'd be willing to keep an eye on it if you were to unprotect it. Regards, --Taelus (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, i'll give it a go with unprotection then since we generally avoid pre-empative protection. If it starts getting hit i'll reprotect. Also, congratulations on your RFA :) --Taelus (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It's looking clear, so hopefully the /v/ thread is dead and buried. Feel free to reprotect if the threat resurges in the future. I'm mostly just cautious about protecting the page as topics relevant to it are currently featuring in gaming news, thus there could be new users/IPs willing to help improve the article in the near future. I'll check on it at least once each day if I can anyway, to keep an eye on it, as it has the potential to become a controversial topic. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Late to the party...
...but congrats on your RfA! I've noticed you around the wiki and it's good to see that the results reflected your hard work. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 16:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see my message at User talk:Clsgroup2. Clsgroup2 is the originator and main author so he hasn't really done much wrong in his cut-and-paste moves. The point of Wikipedia's rules about not doing such moves is that it appropriates edits by others without giving due credit; this is not really the case here. OTOH, the edits are now all over the place, and it could possibly be useful for the histories of all these pages to be merged, if you know how to do that. --Hegvald (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks a lot for pointing this out. We will be more wary about ths, and shall highlight the same to the students and professors.
However, we would request you to be slightly tolerant on he students as of now. Let us continue to provide them feedback on what is right and what is not. If it becomes repetitive, we will deal with them on a case to case basis.
Thanks for pointing out this error. We will ask you for a bit of patience on this issue as many of these students are new to Wikipedia and thus do not know the significance of such violations. Thank you for your feedback.--Jinchurikidan (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you help me? You get used to here right?
OK... I'm new here... I've read an article of Death Note. The last section of it was External Links where it includes a link to Death Note at Wikia. I thought it is legal on Wikipedia so I also add a link of Inazuma Eleven at Wikiainazuma-eleven.wikia.com to the section External links of the article Inazuma Eleven. But I got a Bot revert me edition (addition) to that page... Can you say the problem to this? I'm I wrong or is the bot wrong?
Why can people at that link to Death Note but I can't?
Reg:Copyright violations from Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Economics of the Social Sector Year 2 Group A
Hi, many thanks to highlight this problem. I have raised this issue with the concerned authorities and would to try get this resolved as quickly as possible. These users are new to Wikipedia and we are planning to have a session with them to educate about this issue.
Hi, Yesterday, we conducted a session addressing the copyright issues and are working closely with students to avoid such incidents in future.
Thanks again for your help.
Regards,
Gurmeet Gsinghglakes (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What is the best next step if User:Fpi007 continues to try to mess with the page (or if a sock puppet steps in to do it for her; the page has a long history of that, unfortunately)? Uucp (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
If he re-adds a copyright violation to the article again, I will block him. Copyright is nothing to mess with, and we don't tolerate people violating it. If that doesn't happen but you believe the user is socking at any point, you can open an investigation request at WP:SPI. If there's general disruption on the article by multiple people, it may be necessary to protect or semi-protect the article; you can request that at WP:RFPP.
Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.
Example
Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.
Honestly, that looks pretty intractable to me. I don't think your side and SlimVirgin's side will ever come to terms among yourselves, judging by that talk page. It might be time to open an RfC on the issue. The question put to RfC could be something as broad as "Does Elizabeth Rauscher have neutrality problems?" or as specific as "Are these sources reliable for the purposes of calling Rauscher a parapsychologist?", but either way, I think you're going to need to bring in outside opinions to get this resolved. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. RfC seems to have failed to open any sort of gap in the stalemate. Not sure what's next. Is it conventional to leave an NPOV tag on the article for an extended period time if no resolution can be negotiated, as it seems to be the case here? Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC).
Give it some time. RfCs usually run for more than just a few days - ideally, the uninvolved people will trickle in as time passes. What's happened since yesterday is, as you noticed, just the usual suspects weighing in. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I just noticed that Dreadstar has redacted more of my comments, sprinkling-in various policy-based reasons for those actions. I've never run into this sort of thing before on WP. This strikes me as attempted censorship, but I wanted to get a disinterested opinion. Thanks again. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
If you feel like things are just intractable, I think your best option, assuming the RfC doesn't resolve the issue (or the issue is something other than the RfC topic at this point) would be to take the issue to WP:ANI, post the most neutral explanation of the situation that you can, with diffs, and let people weigh in. It's a contentious enough issue that no one person like me will be able to hash out what should happen, so wider community input somewhere like ANI might be helpful. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Indian education unblock requests
Hi Fluffernutter...Unblock requests were placed at User talk:Ds731992 and User talk:Saumya1025 after your blocks for copyright violations. I have placed those unblock requests on hold for the time being to defer to you. Do you think that they have learned and now understand what they did and that they won't do it in the future? I'm not sure who the "ambassador" is for this project, but if you do, maybe you can talk to them and see if the amb. feels that they are ready to edit again at this time. either way (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Urgh. I hate to play the bad guy on this, because I really want to unblock these kids so they can go on with their class, but neither unblock request fills me with confidence. I asked them to have their ambassadors post on their talk pages to verify that they've understood our copyvio policy, and neither has done that; plus "I wasn't aware that the source I was wholesale copying from was copyrighted" shows a pretty large misunderstanding of our standards for content, and "I didn't know your policy" says nothing about whether they do now. Their ambassadors and their instructor are aware of the issue - these two are among a group of 10-15 from the same class who all ran into copyright trouble, but only Ds731992 and Saumya1025 have so far failed to obey warnings about copyvios.
My recommendation is to decline both requests for the moment and reiterate to the students that we cannot unblock them until they explain that they now understand and will follow policy, and their ambassador backs them up on that (especially Saumya, who got not only a regular copyright warning but an explicit, explanatory one from me before I was forced to block them for continuing to do it); you can feel free to do the declines, or if you'd prefer, I'll do it. Just let me know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I've declined for now and will watch their pages to see if any one pops in to vouch for them or if they can explain their understanding better. Thanks!
Hi Fluffernutter, I am Campus Ambassador for Wikipedia India Education Program. Thanks for avoiding Copy-righted stuff.Today I conducted special session and explained Copy-right policy.I wasnt aware of your previous warnings to students. I just read on your Talk Page.I will speak with students tomorrow again regarding same. AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you look over something
Hey fluff. Would you please look over Straight edge and give me some feedback on the article. I think its getting ever closer to a GA. (Also, please don't waste the time to fix my grammar. I would feel bad messing up your corrections if i come across something that I need to add/re word) thanks --Guerillero | My Talk04:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I am Jivesh. I edit strictly Beyonce-related articles on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could do a copy-edit of 1+1 (song) for me? Please reply on my talk-page. Waiting in anticipation. Jivesh • Talk2Me11:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou so much, I will make sure that the user Ds731992 will adhere to the rules and wikipedia policies, and not repeat any violations or infringements of copyrights.
Devanshi tripathi (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Request on behalf of a blocked user
Hi, As per our earlier discussions, we have advised all the students who are part of India Education Program about the copyright issues. We have also conducted a session on the same issue. The user Saumya1025 has been blocked, this user now understands the repercussions of using copyrighted material on Wikipedia. I would request you to kindly help in getting this user unblocked, so she can proceed with her assignments.
Kindly let me know if this request can be granted.
Hi, There are a few more users who have been blocked for the same reason, we are taking one case at a time. Currently, the user "karanlalchandani" have been blocked and understands his mistake. I would request you to kindly help in getting this user unblocked, so he can proceed with his assignments. Thanks Again!!
I have unblocked karanlalchandani, per your assurance. I have recently had to re-block ds731992 (talk·contribs), who I unblocked after their ambassador had explained copyright to them and the student claimed to understand it, so please just make doubly sure that any student you request an unblock for definitely understands the idea of copyvio. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Fluffernutter, it seems that you have an OTRS ticket that someone has responded to, but it doesn't seem like you have seen the reply. If you could please look into the following ticket and help reduce the backlog that would be great.
Yeah I deliberately unlocked that ticket so someone else could deal with it (though I notice I neglected to add a note to that effect, oops), because I didn't/don't have time to give the customer the complete walkthrough they need right now - the initial ticket was easily handled, and then circumstances changed, and now he needs someone to work with him in-depth. I can add a note saying that I'm happy for someone else to pick up the ticket, if it helps? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you deleted Hatticism - as it isn't Vandalism. There's even a Bible being made for it. Pshh, you keep up Pastafarianism or whatever. Not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azreth (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
It was deleted for being a fairly obvious hoax, not solely as vandalism, though a hoax like that is treated the same way as vandalism. If there are sources showing that the "religion" isn't actually a hoax, those would be the way to go in creating an article that didn't walk, talk, and quack like a hoax. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not ask, or even hint, that anyone should do anything. I commented (immediately after I made the changes to the article, before you opposed any of them, at a point when I had no idea that you would contest them) on the Metafilter thread that drew my attention to the issue (when someone else in the thread linked to it), essentially saying that I didn't think the article was appropriately phrased and I had tweaked it, and then I deliberately commented no further because, as I'm sure you're aware, we don't tolerate canvassing here, and I wanted to be very careful that no Metafilter members decided to leap into the discussion I started. I would ask that you please, please stop assuming bad faith of me. It's not helpful to resolving the issues at hand on the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok thank you for telling me. Not all surprised that every single person in that discussion is also on Metafilter (only way they could have found it so fast). It's a great big WP:COI (Close Relationships) party. The culture at MeFi is extremely biased against GiveWell which shows up on the edits it makes at Wikipedia, about once a year we get a flare up. Your edits by comparison are excellent (though I believe are a matter of balance or degree of coverage). The bigger issue is MeFi users editing the article at all on a topic it was directly involved with. Individuals at MeFi are part of a community, a community which is proud of catching GiveWell in self-promotion, and which is not shy about trumpeting its accomplishment. You can see why this is difficult for MeFi users to write about objectively, they see the 2007 incident as major and important. Green Cardamom (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi fluffernutter, I know I have been warned repeatedly about copyvios, I am really sorry that I did not adhere to wikipedia policies, but now i will make sure that i adhere to all the policies and not infringe any copyrights further. i completely understand that cut pasting is not allowed from copyrighted works as it would violate copyrights or constitute plagiarism. and i also realise that a work which is not copyrighted constitutes public domain and can be freely used by any one.
I did not realise while referring to books that i am violating copyrights as i tried my best to rephrase the language as much as possible. now i completely understand all the rules and policies,please unblock me as i have to complete the article on Socio-economic issues in India as a part of my assignment in college, so it would be really nice if you could unblock me at the earliest possible.
apologies again :) Ds731992 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I missed seeing that User:Ds731992 was re-blocked. There is no way that I was encouraging "block evasion". Im sorry for advising in the wrong direction, but it wasnt intentional. I understand that copyright violation is a big issue and we're taking several steps to make sure that students refrain from doing it. Nitika.t (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Arbitration
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Just vaguely curious who you are over at MetaFilter. Feel free to send me a MeMail there if you don't mind making the connection. Otherwise totally okay to stay this way. Jessamyn (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I am really obliged to you for unblocking me and giving me one more chance. Ill try my best to contribute error free articles to wikipedia. Please help me doing that as i am just a beginner but really keen to learn and take the maximum out of such innovative methods. Thank you so much again! :) Anu2033 (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, calling someone a troll is a personal attack. Let me try to make this very clear: you need to disengage from LikeLakers. Stop speaking to him, stop speaking about him, and stop finding users who've had conflict with him and trying to discuss him with them. You were told to leave him (and he you) alone when the issue was brought to ANI, and I'm telling you again now: you are unable to operate non-disruptively on the topic of LikeLakers, and you will either stop harping disruptively on him, or you will end up blocked. If he were harping on you in the same way, I'd be telling him the same thing, but I see only one of you calling the other a troll, and that's you. It will stop, and it will stop now. Is that clear? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
First, you need to read meta:What is a troll?. I didn't create the criteria. Second - you need to clearly understand that this issue is nothing about him, but it is indeed about YOU.. The user in question - along with others - have been brought to the repeated attention of ANI for TPO and other violations and have been repeatedly been given a pass, over and over again, having plain, cold hard facts of repeated policy vios flat out IGNORED - while also getting backhanded under the guise of WP:BOOMERANG (which is utter bullshit in these instances). Understand this - and read it over and over until you do - the topic at hand is not LL. It is this absolute garbage mentality of a small group of admins in shielding, harboring, protecting and actually enabling blatent, repeated policy violators. The number of times I have been told by the same few admins to stop reporting/reverting/warning over a dozen repeat policy offenders is staggering and is flatly unacceptable in its supplement to the cesspooling of WP. Policies are not in place to be ignored at whim of editors nor admins! Operating this way is a major detriment to the WP project, and it is far outside the scope of your expected conduct. This kind of gross misconduct by you guys under the color of authority will stop now, or the entire matter and everyone associated with it will be brought to bare for a complete and thorough administrative review. There is a lot of discussion about this problem offline that I have been recently made privy to, and things have pretty much been brought to a head by the little clan (read: clique) a few of you have going on there in adminland. It will stop now, or it will be stopped for you guys... is that clear??? The time of letting the inmates run the asylum is over. Follow and enforce the policies when violators of them are brought to your attention, or people will be put into place who will. Srobak (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Stepping in before this gets out of hand. Both of you take a couple of seconds to look at what's up, take a deep breath, relax. We can argue what a troll is till the cows come home as well as who is "right" or "wrong" here. Srobak I advise you leave Fluffernutter alone. Fluffernutter, I advise that you try your hardest to disengage from this mess and let another admin handle it. Kwsn(Ni!)13:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, adding on, if there really is a bunch of admins that are supposedly protecting a small group of people, ANI and/or ARBCOM would be the proper route here, not an admin's talk. Kwsn(Ni!)13:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, kwsn, but I don't believe this is a personal issue such that Srobak needs to "leave [me] alone". If he feels that there is a conspiracy of the type he's describing, that's something that he absolutely needs to bring up to ANI or Arbcom, because it cannot be resolved on my talkpage, or his, or anyone else's. Similarly, if he objects to my having restricted him from commenting on LikeLakers, that, too, is a topic for ANI and not individual talk pages. Pursing the matter here is not useful. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "LGBT Serbia map situation" discussion on my talk page
Hello! I wished to note a couple of things. First, your blocking me because of a simple refusal to self-revert is in my regard inappropriate for a Wikipedian. If you are strict to follow the letter of the rule as you were, you might have a point, and i was to revert myself and i didn't. But reverting my edit would mean degrading the page to a biased version for which both of us conflictors (Fry1989 and me) knew that we wouldn't agree on. What i preferred was to ignore the rules and make Wikipedia better, as given in my message on User talk:DrKiernan#I did. To revert what i regarded as POV pushing.. This was an attempt to make a compromise to the ongoing conflict i.e. edit war, and user DrKiernan's reluctance to block me after issuing a warning is IMHO acceptance of this fact. Your strict obedience to the letter of one rule in this case instead of spirit of all Wikipedia rules is what i find inappropriate for a Wikipedian. An overly narrowminded and too bureaucratic approach to dispute resolution. Anyway, as can be read at Talk:LGBT rights in Serbia#Recent edit war and possible solution the issue with the controversial image is now resolved... i hope. On the other hand, i must admit that your note about me reinstating my post on user Fry1989's talk page, constitutes a point. What i did, besides some sort of continuation of discussion, was also trying to provoke the user, and that because i regarded user's deletion of my post a provocation itself. It was kind of inappropriate in such a case when the user was blocked. But to justify myself a bit i offer one explanation: a blunder i made since i haven't read the user's talk page notice that After discussions are deemed complete, they will eventually be removed. Actually, despite seemingly only trying to provoke the user, i did want to continue the discussion as can be seen through reading the edit summary of the revert on the talk page: "POV-pushing is trying to pretend something is real when it's not." And who decides what is real?. It was in the heat of the moment, but i honestly believe that it can be understood as an attempt to continue the discussion. Anyway, what is in the past is in the past. What i sincerely hope is that you won't act so rashly in the future, as i understand you did in this matter. And that you will assume more good faith than you did in this case. Regards, --biblbroks (talk)20:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Denisarona has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
"Thanks for the correct edit at Yalvaç, I got distracted and didn't complete properly."
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
