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.
Thank you for repelling the continued assault on my userpage! I asked the other editor to be civil and take his issues to my talk page but I guess some people are incapable of being mature. Dac04 (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Jet Lag Gemini
Hey, I'm Emma,
and I'm sort of new to Wikipedia, but, I was just wondering...why exactly is "Dan is the best looking" not personal opinnion, yet "Vlad is the best looking" is? Just wondering. Thanks a ton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embear12 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Bunnies :) Embear, what happened was that I was checking over recent changes to the page, and the way it displayed to me, I saw what you had added but didn't notice that there was other problematic stuff on there. Thanks for letting us know that I missed some stuff! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You fail a prophecy in the Bible: it says that the coming of Jesus will be everywhere and for everyone: and you have an IP address and therefore must be appearing in one place and to only those who read Wikipedia. We can safely say you're not Jesus. --123Ħeðŋeħøŋ45618:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
fair play child.....but don't i contradict the old testament of the bible in parts of my teachings in the new testament???maybe i am just contradicting the new testament now?to make the new new testament on fluffy dudes chat page thing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.34.124 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.
On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.
Courses looking for Online Ambassadors
Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!
Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:
darling there are two links to PROPER source in discussion page! What is more reliable then Rev Zurcke letter about the suspension to other bishops??
please enlighten me.
50.9.109.170 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
You need to actually cite the sources in the article. Because this is an article about a living person, all negative additions must be well-sourced where they're added. It doesn't matter if they're on the talk page; it matters if you put them in the article when you add the negative content. I see that you've now added the text with sources; that's what you needed to do. Happy editing! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I am reasonably confident that I am doing this wrong, for which I apologize in advance, but I think your attention is needed for the Herman Cain article, which is the subject of a potential edit war. A non-confirmed (?) editor has twice deleted sourced content without explanation. Is there anything that I should do or you can do to reduce the chances of an escalation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC) And, I cannot believe I forgot to sign my original comment. Lahaun (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Asking the IP to discuss on the talk page was the right first step. There's a couple of ways this could go, basically. In the best case, the IP stops reverting and goes to the talk page, and the two of you hash out what should be in the article. In the less-good case, the reverting continues (and I should remind you here that you, too, are bound by the three-revert rule, even if you think the IP is vandalising by removing the information - this is essentially a content dispute, and content disputes are not exempt from 3RR). At that point, you have a few options. You could report the IP for edit warring at WP:ANEW, but keep in mind that they look at the behavior of BOTH editors when there's a report there, and if you had been continuing to revert the IP's reversions, you would probably be in trouble too. You could request page protection if there are multiple users refusing to engage in discussion about their changes, but to show that they're refusing to engage, you need to have actually tried to discuss it with them, either on the article talk or on their talk. If you've tried to discuss and the IP continues to refuse to engage, you could also post a rundown of the situation on WP:ANI, the administrators' noticeboard, or to WP:DRN, the dispute resolution noticeboard, to try to get more eyes on the situation.
Really, the bottom line here is that whatever route you take, it needs to start with you trying to discuss the issue with the IP. They don't have to be the one to start a talk page thread; you can do that just as well, and then point them to it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Impatience and pederasty.
Please be patient. I am trying to improve the article. The fact that I did't have the references yet is a weak argument for your non-constructive edits.
If you are really interested, in google news, search for "pederasty".
The no. 1 person referenced as giving clarification on this in newsprint is David Norris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.182.234 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, because Norris is a living person and being associated with pederasty is a potentially damaging thing, you must source the statement when you add it to the article. Unless and until it has a reliable source supporting exactly what you're adding, you simply cannot add the content to the article, because adding potentially negative information about a living person without proper sourcing puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding my new page
hey, I have created a new page on "Credit Control". Currently it is in my user space draft. I would request you to go through check if there is any copyright violation this time. I have tried my best not to make any copy-vios this time. Once you will approve i will post it on the main page.
link to my user space draft - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anu2033/Credit_Control
Hi Anu, this is something you should really be asking your Ambassadors to do - I think you have both an online one and a campus one, and they're there to help you figure out how to do things right and wrong. I gave your page a very quick check, and if there are copyvios there, I didn't spot them (though in some areas, I could very clearly tell which source you used from a google search, just by what words you repeated), but I have no familiarity with the subject and I can't really approve or disapprove of your work enough to tell you to move it into mainspace. Your Ambassador(s) are better suited to helping you with that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for going through my page.. My campus ambassador has already gone through it and said me to post it in the main space. Still if u find any copy-vios please let me know so that i can rectify that part and prevent it form getting deleted.
You may not have noticed, but you're currently part of a little experiment Steven Walling and I are running on en.wiki: we're A/B testing Huggle templates to see if changing the content of their message has any effect on the user that receives them. We've been running the test since Sunday and will turn it off in two days and analyze all the data we've collected (over 1500 users Huggled as of yesterday!), but I wanted to get some unscientific feedback from some of the folks I noticed using our templates &ndash including you :)
So, first thing's first: did you happen to notice that you were sending out different templates? And, more importantly, did you notice any difference on your talk page? More or less people than usual coming to talk to you? More or less vandalism or constructive questions?
I did notice that the templates were differing, and I think this research is a great idea! However, I don't think I've really noticed any different on my talk page (the only real difference I've noticed lately, actually, is that the determined vandals are now using WikiLove to tell me I'm a jerk!). I would be very interested to see the other level 1 templates getting revamped - I get a whole lot of questions regarding "but why did you remove the negative BLP content I added! I swear the sources are out there on the internet!", so it seems like the BLP template, at the very least, could use a more informative (approachable? understandable? "in your face"?) approach. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Interesting... thank you! I also noticed, just randomly poking around in the data we have so far, that there were a number of WikiLove messages sent to Hugglers. Some were obviously meant to be snarky, but some weren't – I think for anyone new to Wikipedia, good-faith or not, it's way easier to use WikiLove to deliver a talk page message than it is to figure out how to edit/save one manually. There were also quite a few replies to the warnings on the talk page of the Huggle recipient (Hugglee?). We'll gather up and analyze all that and let you know the numbers when we have them.
Steven is working on drafting some new templates. I'll drop the link here when he's migrated them to the wiki. Thanks again for your help and feel free to pitch in :) --Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Westminister City School
Hi, I wanted you to know I was removing the info regarding the non-notable event that you had reverted. This is a SPA who's only edits were to constantly re-add this event, and may be linked to the IPs who were adding this event as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me like there's a sourced section (not unsourced, as your edit summary claims) about a fairly notable incident, which is being removed by a (now-blocked) SPA, not that there's an SPA adding it. I don't see any current discussion of the issue on the article's talk page; could you explain what happened between this and this to make you think that the trouble is the addition of the material? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to butt-in but this looks like over-zealous Twinkling. I've had the page on my watchlist for a few years and it tends to pop up a couple of times a year with an IP or new user trying to remove the section about the crime only to be reverted and give up. The level of vandalism from User: Give the boys a chance is quite rare but given that they have now been banned it will probably subside. raseaCtalk to me17:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
For showing calmness and fairness despite personal attacks. I knew you would be great with the mop when you were at RfA and your actions show that the community was very wise in choosing to trust you with the mop. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yeah, I kind of made a judgment call on that one. You added a link to a site selling tickets to the attraction, which is a bit spammish, even if it also verifies the wheel's height. Is there any chance you can find a third-party source for the height, instead? We generally don't link to sales sites in Wikipedia articles. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fluffernutter, I saw that you removed the Copyright Enforcement section of the Getty Images page. Would it not be better to tidy the section up rather than simply delete it? The section appears to have a factual basis so deletion seems a bit extreme. Asteuartw (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
There was very little salvageable content in that section, actually. It contained a whole lot of POV and links to blogs and anti-Getty websites, and not a lot in the way of neutral, sourced, or relevant content. With that in mind, I felt that the best option was just to remove all the POV content.
If you'd like to have a go at cleaning it up, you're welcome to, but I suggest that you work it up in a sandbox or on the article's talk page while you try to figure out what amount of weight such accusations should have in the article (certainly it shouldn't be a duplicated section, longer than any other section of the article; more conceivably, it could be a one- or two-sentence mention) and what reliable sources are actually available on the topic (blog aren't reliable for something like this, neither are self-appointed "watchdog" sites). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as I understand the guidelines, yep. He was still the only substantive editor of the article, and the AfD was entirely delete votes other than him and an SPA IP. An AfD existing doesn't preclude a speedy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)
Yeah sorry, that revert and warning was me screwing up and hitting the wrong button. I think I've undone both of them now, carry on and pretend you didn't get the treat of seeing me be stupid :S A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Having been assured by you that a fluffernutter is indeed a sandwich, I decided to try one. Marshmallow spread being a pretty unusual foodstuff in the UK, I chose to use real marshmallows, and heated the resultant sandwich to ensure spreadability. The result - a fried fluffernutter - has simultaneously opend my eyes to a delicious new snack concept, and brought the inevitable coronary forward by at least five years. Thus, whilst I thank you for bringing the joy of fluffernutters into my life, my hardening arteries convey their intense contempt. Yunshui (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to revert it back to the version from 22 Sep 2011, before 90.194.89.24 started changing it, but it won't let me. He changed the value of absolute zero in C, to one that doesn't match any source I can find. Balbber123 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree that intervention was needed but could this be dropped to semi? I think we can agree ChrisPsi's intervention was well intended. Best RashersTierney (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
"In the future, it would be really helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary" probably ought to say something about not removing without summary, rather than just saying a summary would be useful. Something like "In the future, it would be best if you do not make changes removing content without describing why in the edit summary"?
I think "I noticed you made a change to an article, but that you didn’t verify your edit" should read something more like "...but you didn't provide verification for your edit." The verb form kind of makes it sound, if they don't click the wikilink, like they're expected to check the truth of the edit for themselves, not like they're supposed to provide the verification for others.
The test version neglects to give the user options for what to do if they removed the content because there was a problem or they want it deleted. Give them back some information about reverting and/or deleting.
Other than some wording tweaks, I really like the alternate versions of most of these. We've had a tendency to boil everything down to terse sentences and wikilinks in the past, and I think splurging on a few more words in the warnings will be worth the bits we spend. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I just looked at your comments on someone else's talk and realized you were hoping we'd comment on each template's individual talk. It seemed a bit scattershot to spread my comments among a whole bunch of templates, which is why I figured you meant commenting here. Feel free to copy my comments to the template talks if you think it'll be useful; just drop me a line letting me know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I caught it and plan to incorporate your feedback today. Also, speaking of coordination stuff, I was thinking we might need a taskforce page or something to keep tabs on all this template stuff. Do you think that'd be useful? I don't want to ruffle the feathers of WP:UW or anyone by duplicating their work, but a single tracking page and talk page might be useful. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Pierre Lewis
Hi,
You declined speedy deletion of the Pierre Lewis page, noting "Having a chart-topping single is a credible assertion of importance" however there is no verificaton or reference that supports this claim, I have researched via google and the official charts web site and there is no record of "Pierre Lewis" having a single or album charting within the UK or US top 100. Thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.241.60 (talk • contribs)
Hi. First of all, please don't post talk page comments in the middle of other people's comments; it makes it very hard to spot them. Second, speedy deletion is for uncontroversial deletions. The speedy deletion of this article has been declined multiple times; the deletion is clearly not uncontroversial, no matter what your research says. If you wish for the article to be deleted, you need to PROD or AFD it; speedy deletion is no longer ok. Please undo your re-addition of the db template to the article if someone else hasn't done it already. 18:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank-you for the reply, and apologies for commenting in the wrong place.
You still did not answer the fact that the "Having a chart-topping single is a credible assertion of importance" claim is not backed up by any refrence or verifiable source, clearly my research shows that there is un-verifiable claims on this page. It may not be an uncontroversial deletion, but you were incorrect in your statement "Having a chart-topping single is a credible assertion of importance" because there is NO chart topping single or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.23 (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Are User:212.183.140.23 and User: 86.25.241.60 the same person? You're contributing from two very different IPs, and haven't acknowledged that you're one person. That's a bit problematic, as we've been treating you like two different people, and you've edited as though you were two different people. Please don't do that; if you're able to, use one IP only, and if you're not able, please add a note in your edit summaries or on your talk page (or the article's talk page) that you're one person.
In regard to your claims about whether or not the single was adequate assertion of importance, what I'm telling you is that there is currently a sourced sentence in the article that the artist had a chart-topping single. That means it's a credible claim of importance, enough so that I will not delete the article out of hand. Once it's cleared that bar, it still has to clear the bars of notability, etc (keep in mind that "a claim of importance" - needed to avoid speedy deletion - is a much, much lower standard than "notability" - needed for the article to pass an AfD), which is where the idea of "investigating" his notability and doing searches for other sources comes in. THOSE things are discussed in AfD, where we can dig more in-depth into the notability of the topic. So what I'm telling you is not "this article will never, ever be deleted." What I'm telling you is "the process you've been trying to use so far isn't capable of deleting this article; try the next-step-up process". Does that make more sense? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I have now registered with a user name, so there should be no more confusion as to who I am.
Yes you have made the deletion process and policy clear for me now, thank-you for that, as I am still new to wikipedia it is taking me a while to get the hang of things. I am concerned to notice that the Pierre Lewis page is now protected and I cannot request a deletion discussion in AFD - I think the protection was placed because I was not supporting my deletion by creating the AFD log? I does one request the page is not protected, so that I may continue my editing there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobcat1111 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Theistic evolution
I stumbled across the Theistic evolution page, and while I know the people who made that page and the evolution page are stupid people who don't have a brain of their own, I was still a little mad when I saw it said "modern scientific understanding of evolution" implying that it was more than Italic a theory text. It is not a proven fact, just a theory, and I was Italic not text violating the neutral Wikipedia policy. If, and I believe you do, you believe in evolution, then I highly suggest you read the website titled Evolution is Stupid. It is an e-book is aimed at people who believe in evolution, though I read it and enjoyed it, it was also humorous at times. You can debate with him on the feedback page, as others have done. He is very informed, so you can't call him "ignorant". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdog556 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Wikipedia adheres to a neutrality policy, especially regarding scientific and pseudoscientific topics, which means we don't put opinionated content in articles. You were clearly trying to push an agenda in changing the text to stress the word "theory", so that wasn't ok. I myself an not interested in debating religion, though I thank you for the offer. Please familiarise yourself with our guidelines and be aware that editing wikipedia with the goal of changing articles to support a religion is going to run you into trouble. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay now you are being a little bit annoying. I was showing the facts. I wasn't trying to push religion, and I don't want to debate with you about religion. Evolution is just a theory. Evolutionists try not to talk about the fact that it is a theory. It's a theory. It is a fact that it is a theory. I know I keep saying that over and over again, but I'm a little annoyed that people won't just admit that it is a theory. It has not and probably never will be proven. I did nothing wrong. If I could, I would have said it was a theory on the main evolution page, but it was apparently closed off to editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdog556 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The hilarity factor of the actions by "The Regimental Goat" makes me think that it definitely has something to do with some IRC canvassing or someone getting really bored there and getting back at some of you (IRC-addicted admins :P) by this. Am I right or is it just another GNAA-like action instead?
P.S. And BTW I'm the guy who you got particularly mad at when we were arguing about fatties and later about Peter's GF(s?) :P -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. The BB thread has been completed prior to my reading it (I've been too busy to ANI-watch recently). I support the decision, as did you, on the grounds that the block was untimely, and possibly undue. However I wanted to let you know that while you may be in the minority in how you perceived BB's remark, you're certainly not alone. BB's comments clearly intend to blame Medeis's negative behavior (of failing to communicate, acting poorly, being unable to pull off subtle sarcasm, whatever) on Medeis's gender is clearly a form of sexism. Pointing that out is not "political correctness", it's calling a spade a spade. Once upon a time, back when I was in high school and college, I too used to rail against "PC rules". Then, by grad school, I actually learned something about the subject, and found out that most of the alleged extremes of Political correctness never even existed, but were made up as parodies by those wishing to perpetuate various forms of discrimination. People who say, "it's just a word" fail to understand the purpose of language and how it operates, and how language is an integral part of how systems perpetuate inequalities. Maybe I'm going farther than you would, I don't know. But I, too, found the comment to be in poor taste. It probably wasn't a blockable comment, but I think our work would be better here (on WP, on the Internet, on Earth) if people would try to avoid such language. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Qwyrxian. It means an incredible amount to hear someone say that out loud, because I've gotten a lot of feedback in the past few days about my comment there, and most of it focused on telling me how terrible a person I was for daring to speak a word about how his comment wasn't constructive. I agree with you that the block was probably best undone, but I simply cannot fathom how so many people are able to look at the conversation Bugs was in and go "yep, not a toe out of line here! string up anyone who says otherwise!" I had better hopes for the community's understanding of gender sensitivity, especially since the NYT articles about it and the gendergap mailing list being set up. Sigh. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Oversight kitten says "congratulations"
Did you know that on Citizendium, oversight and checkuser were called "dark knight"? Congratulations on becoming one of Wikipedia's new dark knights. Use the force discretely and for great justice.
There was a bug in MediaWiki 1.18 that caused blocks made via the API to have talk page access disabled when it should have been enabled. This also affected scripts such as User:Animum/easyblock.js. Please review the following blocks to make sure that you really intended talk page access to be disabled, and reblock if necessary.
Hey Fluffernutter,
Let me just formally introduce myself. I am one of the Campus Ambassadors of the India Education Program. Let me just compliment you on the awesome job you have done, are doing and continue to do for this program. As you are handling the classes assigned to me, I just thought I'd introduce myself and state that you can revert back to me on my talk page to quickly spread any message or so directly onto the students. Thanks a bunch for your help.
Debastein1 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Jay
Hi Fluff - when you have a moment, please take a look at User:Jayhammers. Even though the content isn't directed at a particular person, it still seems inappropriate to me, especially given his other personal attacks. I asked Jay to alter it yesterday and he hasn't responded - since I'm involved in content disputes with him, I figure I probably shouldn't directly edit his userpage myself. Kevin (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "men's rights movement". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by February 18, 2011.
Created a new Article and requesting feedback and suggestions
Hi. Requesting feedback and advice on the Article I have created. I am a graphic novel enthusiast and am naturally happy about high quality graphic novels starting up in India. This Wiki is about a particularly good and popular Indian graphic comic/novel and would appreciate feedback, suggestions and advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varunr/Level10_ComicsVarunr (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, it looks like a very good start to an article! My main suggestion would be that you add some more content that establishes the company's notability - right now there's not a lot in there showing that the company has been recognized as particularly special or notable by third parties. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. I have added more citations and cleaned up the external links for more notable mentions. Varunr (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The request for formal mediation concerning Men's rights movement, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
I, Sarah Stierch, hereby award Fluffernutter with the Mind the Gap award for her tireless efforts in speaking out, standing up and allowing those with quiet voices or big fears to be heard Wikipedia. Your efforts have not gone unnoticed, and we all appreciate them. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey Fluffernutter, just wanted to let you know that we've teamed up with WikiProject user warnings on a template testing task force. We also have a hub on Meta for cross-wiki tests (we're planning on trying this out on Portuguese and possibly other projects in the near future). Please join up if you're interested in helping with more template testing! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
Hi Fluff - If you have some extra time, as an uninvolved administrator, would you mind taking a look at the behavior of Hermiod on the talk page of men's rights? He has been making a lot of unfounded anti-AGF'y allegations about the motivations of other editors, and has not been willing to stop, even when asked to repeatedly. He also specified on a recent revision of his userpage that he does not desire to receive 'unsolicited communication from other users'. It seems like he's unwilling to follow some of our basic policies like WP:AGF even after he has been familiarized with them, and seems like he's unwilling to communicate with other users - both of which seem concerning to me, since they are pretty fundamental ideas in our community. Kevin (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, what a mess. I would suggest you put together some diffs of what you perceive to be his problematic behavior, and post them and a summary on the thread he opened on WP:DRN. It looks like WP:RS and WP:VNT are particular bones of contention on the talk page; perhaps highlight where those things are coming up and how they're being handled or not being handled. Basically, you're going to want to use the opportunity of the DR thread to get some neutral parties looking at the issue. Sometimes neutral parties can get a point through to someone that an opponent can't. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, as I was writing this it looks like someone closed the DRN thread. I think you should probably still do what i suggested - compile diffs and a short summary of what's going wrong, which is not limited to Hermiod or to you - and bring the issue to ANI. The factions are too entrenched on the article talk for progress to ever really happen without outside intervention. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
So correcting blatant lies is disruptive is it?
As far as i know disruptive edditing would be more like undoing edits like mine that are correcting misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.90.213 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You're removing cited, neutral content and replacing it with "this article is wrong, wrong, wrong" and a link to a vegetarian-lifestyle-promoting blog. Both of those actions are, indeed, disruptive. If you wish to contest the truth of the content, that isn't done by blanking it, and it isn't done by replacing it with a link to a persona, bloggy website. You'll need to use news articles, journal articles, or other reliable sources that don't have a strong point of view. I would also suggest you discuss your disagreement on the article's talk page. if you continue to just remove content wholesale, you may be blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Move request
Hey Fluffernutter, I'm just wondering if you can help me with a page move. It was named quite a long time ago when many were not familiar with naming conventions. The article Annie Douglas Richards needs moving to Annie Douglas - per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. The character has only ever been named as Annie Douglas and Annie Richards when she married another character. Though she was known as Douglas for longer in her duration and all the sources refer to her as Douglas.RaintheOneBAM22:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
oh man oh man, I had never heard of a fluffernutter before I saw your sig, but now it might be my favorite food of all time. Writ Keeper (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Fluffernutter/Archive 5, We are wondering if you would like to join the Roald Dahl task force as you have contributed a lot to the articles in our scope. We hope you can jin!
The block you placed here conflicts with another block placed there less than a minute beforehand. Your's is indefinite, while the other is for 31 hours. One of the blocks should be removed. SMP0328. (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you're getting this message because you signed up to receive updates at WP:UWTEST, the task force on testing of user warnings and other notifications.
Here's what we're up to lately:
Huggle: There are tests still running in Huggle of level 1 templates, including a new template written by DGG. A full list is available here
SDPatrolBot: There is a new test running on the talk page messages of SDPatrolBot, which warns people who remove CSD templates. (Documentation of the test is here.)
Twinkle: We've proposed a test of AFD and PROD notifications delivered via Twinkle, which has been positively received. (See: 1, 2) This test should start this week.
Shared and dynamic IPs: Maryana's proposal to test the effect of regularly archiving shared/dynamic IP talk pages is in its final stages. There are also two relevant bot flag requests: 1, 2
XLinkBot: the herders of XLinkBot have approved a test of its warning messages concerning external links. Test templates are being written and help is most welcome.
I've been pondering that. I wasn't sure if it was only me he hit, so initially I left it talkpage-only. Since its multiple people, though, I'll go adjust the block. Thanks for letting me know! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
