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.
I understand that lately some folks are corrupting the contents but when I started this originally it had the relevant contents. Why did you delete the Swadhyaya Movement page in it's entirity?
The article as you created it was a copy-paste of copyrighted content - you posted someone else's work, didn't cite it, and represented it as your own. That happened in the very first edit you made to the article, and the copyright violations remained in the article, in parts and somewhat edited, right up until I deleted it. If you're familiar with the concept of fruit of the poisonous tree, this is somewhat similar - everything in that article was derived from a copyright violation, and a derivative work of a copyright violation is also a copyright violation. We delete copyright violations - for rather obvious legal reasons we can't allow them here - so I had to delete the article. It's regrettable - and a bit worrisome - that the article had existed since 2007 without its copyright violations being noticed, but I was obligated to remove it once I discovered it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Sigh. Perhaps I'm just jumping to conclusions. In any case, can you run a checkuser on this? IP's sole contributions should provide probable cause.--WaltCip (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Fluffernutter/Archive 8 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.
On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).
On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure! It's a gadget, included in the preferences interface. If you click on "My preferences" and go to the "Gadgets" tab, you'll see an entry that says "Navigation popups, article previews and editing functions popup when hovering over links". Check that box to enable it. Once it's enabled, you can hover your cursor over nearly any wikilink to see a popup of the content of that link - it works for article titles, as well as for article history links and diffs (you'd hover your cursor over the "diff" or "hist" link on a watchlist entry, for example, to see a popup of that watchlist change or page history). I find this much, much more convenient than having to click through to see diffs, and it has a surprising amount of functionality built into it (from a popup you can see the user's block status, account age, their contrib history...and so on)! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I haven't been monitoring your CSD tagging - when I've encountered you lately, it's always seemed to be about one of your article creations. So I'd say that while I can't judge your CSD contributions, I think your article work is often questionable, and I would very much prefer that you take time off from that to focus on smaller, less problem-prone edits. Be a wikignome for a while, do some background tasks dealing with one issue at a time. Find sources for unsourced information in articles, copyedit a few pages, work on fixing reference syntax errors...these are all things you can do, easily and in large numbers, without the risk of catastrophic problems like copyvio, or even less serious "oh man, that sucks"-type problems, like having an article AfD'd. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey Fluffernutter! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 49 people signed up for this drive so far, 26 have copy-edited at least one article. It's a smaller group than last drive, but we're making good progress. If you've signed up but haven't yet copy-edited any articles, please consider doing so. Every bit helps! If you haven't signed up yet, it's not too late. Join us!
Progress report: We're on track to meet our targets for the drive, largely due to the efforts of Lfstevens and the others on the leaderboard. Thanks to all. We have reduced our target group of articles—January, February, and March 2011—by over half, and it looks like we will achieve that goal. Good progress is being made on the overall backlog as well, with over 500 articles copy-edited during the drive so far. The total backlog currently sits at around 3200 articles.
Hall of Fame: GOCE coordinator Diannaa was awarded a spot in the GOCE Hall of Fame this month! She has copy-edited over 1567 articles during these drives, and surpassed the 1,000,000-word mark on May 5. On to the second million! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg
On 16 May 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Martha Wise, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Martha Wise said she poisoned seventeen family members with arsenic, killing three, because she was irresistibly drawn to funerals and there weren't enough in her town? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Martha Wise.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'm sorry if it looked like I was poking at you obliquely :/ In this case it was a combination of factors that made me comment on the RFPERM rather than on your talk. I initially didn't realize that the permission hadn't been granted through that thread, and I assumed that the granting admin was one of the thread's participants/watchers and would see my comment there; and TomTomn has a history of, well, slight missteps like this that he quickly covers over by archiving, hatting, etc, and I wanted to be sure I was "on record" as having noted the problems with his article creations on the actual request. In any case, though, I apologize for not dropping you a note directly - even if I was staying "on the record" at the RFPERM, I should have at least done that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It is challenging to keep up when things are happening at multiple fora: user talk, RFPERM, AN, all were involved here. I was looking at the one; you another, and then the third was started. LadyofShalott19:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.
The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.
Yeah, pretty much he didn't tell about them and hoped no one would notice, then he did tell about them, then he tried not acknowledging them and hoping no one would notice again. Frankly, he seems just as uncertain about how many alternate accounts he has as we are, and that's no good. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Now that I've checked your contribs to figure out what in the world you're referring to ("Riskier" = "Risker", "throw-away line" = "comment made on noticeboard Fluffernutter doesn't watch"...), I assume you're asking about this? Honestly, it would have been much more polite if you had given me a heads-up that you were discussing me before now, but I guess it's a bit late for that. Anyway, to your question: If you're asking if we're socks, no - Courcelles and I are two different people on two different accounts. If you're asking if we know each other in real life, yes - I am not prepared to discuss details of my off-wiki life on Wikipedia, but I will tell you that though we know each other irl (which is not a secret - most users who know either of us know that, as does arbcom), rumours of our marriage have been greatly exaggerated. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hm well I did notify you both, unlike others in the conversation. Would have been better earlier, but I assumed that Courcelles would answer pretty quickly, and probably point me to some clear statement, and this was something that everyone knew except me (which you do sort of confirm above). And of course it never entered my mind that you would be socks. My apologies for not being quicker. RichFarmbrough, 03:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC).
Sorry about the confusion on the Repository for Germinal Choice Page in Wikipedia. I had some folks contact me from the Media (Spiegel TV) regarding this site and thought it might be easier to put a link to my website in this Wikipedia article to give them the information they were requesting. I am new to Wikipedia and wasn't sure how to do this, but I am now better educated. Thank you so, so much for helping with this. I'll work on the references before adding to Wikipedia next time. I'm thinking the proper reference might be something like that found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5078800.stm but will work on a better one. Let me know if you have ideas on how to do this or where I can find proper protocol for Wikipedia. My name is Jim Bidlack and I am a professor at the University of Central Oklahoma. Feel free to contact me using this talk page in Wikipedia or just e-mail direct to jbidlack@uco.edu
Hi, thanks for letting me know what you're doing! Yep, the news article is a good source for what you were adding, because it directly states that you are a donor. Wikipedia prefers news sources over personal ones, since we consider news sources more reliable. To add your new source as a reference in the text, you can use some special code that will format it as a reference instead of just a hyperlink: <ref> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5078800.stm</ref>. Help:Footnotes will give you some more information if you want to pretty the reference up, but the ref markup I gave you will do the job fine. You may also want to have a read over WP:COI for some information about what we encourage people to do when they have a conflict of interest about an article (such as needing to add information about themselves to it), but I think this particular edit that you're trying to make is acceptable, even from someone with a COI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Yay, Fluffernutter! Thanks for the help with this and I think the edit is OK now. I am just getting the idea of how to work on Wikipedia stuff and it is fun. Very well automated with the references and stuff. I did the edit and looked over the links you mentioned, which clarifies alot of questions. Hey...Wikipedia is pretty neat. I am a biology editor for MERLOT (http://merlot.org) and we point to Wikipedia alot, so understanding how this works helps very much. Keep up the great work and thanks for your help. Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.159.134 (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Participation: Out of 54 people who signed up this drive, 32 copy-edited at least one article. Last drive's superstar, Lfstevens, again stood out, topping the leader board in all three categories and copy-editing over 700 articles. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.
Progress report: We were once again successful in our primary goal—removing the oldest three months from the backlog—while removing 1166 articles from the queue, the second-most in our history. The total backlog currently sits at around 2600 articles, down from 8323 when we started out just over two years ago.
Coodinator election: The six-month term for our third tranche of Guild coordinators will be expiring at the end of June. We will be accepting nominations for the fourth tranche of coordinators, who will also serve a six-month term. Nominations will open starting on June 5. For complete information, please have a look at the election page. – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa, and Stfg
Well, let's see. I don't know anything about Benin or beetles, but the stubs look generally ok. My advice would be to make sure that, prior to setting off on a mass-creation run, you consult one or more relevant wikiprojects (for example, I assume there's something like Wikiproject Entomology?) to be sure you're creating pages according to their and our guidelines. You must also be aware that WP:MEATBOT applies here - I know that you have a lot of articles you want to get through and you want to do them quickly, but it's your responsibility to edit as a wikt:sentient human being and make sure the edits you're doing aren't being done so blindly that they might as well be automated. This is especially important because if someone is creating ten, twenty, a hundred articles at a time, it is way, way easier for that person to introduce ten, twenty, a hundred thoughtless errors than it is for someone else to come along and clean up all of those errors. That's why we have controls on bots and automated editing, but the idea also applies to people who are editing very quickly, even without automation.
Personally, I would ascribe more value to one GA article than five hundred new stubs, and I do wish you'd focus your editing on quality rather than quantity, but there's no rule saying you can't prefer quantity - just be sure your "quantity" meets basic "quality" standards! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Fluff (hope I can call you that), just because I've seen you a few times in the past resolving WP:NOREFLIST issues, and because I really don't want to get into a revert war with a dynamic IP, I'll ask you to take a quick look at this article when you have a moment. Are you able to provide the alternative solution this IP requests in their edit summaries, or have I correctly pegged them as being disruptive? Your 3O would be greatly appreciated. Thanks :) -- WikHead (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like you're both doing your best, in good faith, to make the ref sit right - you're just both also getting frustrated at each other because neither solution works perfectly. Let me poke around the article and see if I can come up with a solution pleasing to you both. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Very much appreciated! :) If I'm ever to actually be involved in a content dispute, I'd really like it to be over something much bigger than this. ;) Thanks again! -- WikHead (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I gave you guys a technical, if slightly awkward fix. What the two of you need to figure out now - because I couldn't, on a quick read-through - is why that news article is being used as a ref to the ad. Is the article the source of the ad? Does it support the existence of that billboard? Once you know what, you can decide what a better label for the ref is than "source", which is what I slapped onto it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't know, and I'm just as confused as you are because I'm unfamiliar with the article and subject aside from going there to address the same recurring cite-error. Your solution looks a bit odd but I'm completely happy with it. I'll be interested to see if it satisfies the IP. -- WikHead (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Closure
Hi - Whats going on ? - diff - please comment as to a date or reason for the extended delay - thanks - Youreallycan21:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
As I told you last time you asked, we are actively working on a close. There is a lot of material, we're four people leading real as well as on-wiki lives (which involve things like "traveling for business" and "spending the better part of a week in Berlin at the Wikimedia hackathon"), and we're being careful to read and process all the comments made on the RfC. As a result, no target date has been set for when it will be published. I assure you, however, that we have no intention of delaying any longer than the actual amount of time it takes us to read, interpret, and put in text the consensus of the RfC. We're very aware the community wants closure, both literal and figurative. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes - so when are you going to close - what is the problem exactly - this is not about you - if you can't close or won't/aren't prepared to offer a closure time within a reasonable time line I will raise the issue for discussion on a noticeboard? As your response has failed to address my concerns I will just raise it anyway. - thanks - Youreallycan
I feel stupid asking you this, but since you voted after me and I am not able to rectify my error in my mobile device, can you correct the edit [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FHistory2007&diff=498059293&oldid=498059269] which seems to have removed others' opinions presumably due to edit conflict. Thanks. SurajT19:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
WTF? The guy's a well known sock puppet with lots of history and verifying evidence, and you block him for 48 hours?
Do your homework please! He should be permanently blocked. You doubt me? Do a search on Swamilive. Look at the recent entry on WP:AIV. Etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please try to rein in your temper - I'm trying to help you by blocking a disruptive user, and it's not encouraging to see someone lose their temper at me because I didn't do it the way they think I should do it. We don't block IPs permanently except in the most exceptional of circumstances. IPs aren't permanently tied to the people who use them, and there's no reason as of yet to think that in 48 hours, that IP will still belong to the person who was vandalising today. I'm not a checkuser, nor am I am expert in sockmasters, but in this case that's unlikely to matter, since all we have is an IP, not an account (which could be blocked permanently). Someone who is more familiar with socks is already looking at the situation, at my request, but I doubt they will be able to do much more than I've done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right, HE should be blocked permanently (which is impossible), not the IP address he happens to be using today.
Looks like we crossed in the mail here - I just got done leaving a better explanation on your talk page, when I realized the template I declined with didn't say what I thought it said. In short, you've got promising sources but no real article content, and my personal standard - which I think more or less matches the community's - is that the article itself needs to assert importance and tell us why this topic is encyclopedic. Sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their July 2012 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on July 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on July 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to eliminate the articles tagged in April, May and June 2011 from the queue and to complete all requests placed before the end of June. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 6 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", "Number of articles of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in April–June 2011", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Dank, Diannaa and Stfg.
Hi - whats going on you are contributing single edits as an admin but your not closing the Pending changes RFC - whats the problem now ?Youreallycan23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Your edit history appears to present that you have edited and failed to reply to my good faith concern - please reply - thanks - Youreallycan23:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Er, this has been made clear to you repeatedly now, YRC. I am not the only closer of the RfC. Four people are working on it. Four people are in the process of closing it. I cannot, no matter how much you might close your eyes and wish, kick the other three people out and go close the RfC alone. Neither I nor the community want that. I realize that because I'm the only one answering questions about it, it may be easy to assume that I am running things, or that I'm the reason this is taking a long time. This is not the case, and while I'm no happier about the delays than you are, I'm afraid you're going to have to resign yourself to seeing me edit other things while the close is in progress. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
" I'm afraid you're going to have to resign yourself to seeing me edit other things while the close is in progress. " - I have no trust in you at all - I am looking to remove your admin status asap - Youreallycan23:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Just to point out, in order to get Fluffernutter's admin status removed, she would needed to have actually misused the tools in some way. Your lack of trust and her not closing the RFC (which she can't do single-handedly when there are three other people also closing it) are not going to get her desysopped. OohBunnies!Leave a message00:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
That claim is no longer historically true - Admins that violate policy can and have been dysopped without violating admin issues - Youreallycan00:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, YouReallyCan is somewhat of an expert in violating policy. You have only to check his block log(s) for proof of that. 74.192.253.69 (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
@Youreallycan: Fluffernutter is not the bottleneck here. I am actually one of the bottlenecks. I'm sorry if you maybe don't have a full time job, but I do, and I haven't been able to have the best hours recently of my choice, it's not 9 to 5. I did not know that my job would magically jump 20-30 hours on me, it came as a complete surprise. Coordination of schedules is hard. Yes we signed up to do it, but it's not going to hurt if the community doesn't have a result today or how many ever days from now. We are in the final closing stages of this, and we are all hoping to get a result soon. Now all that, plus pings on IRC for assistance, plus helping out in my normal wiki areas so they aren't backlogged, plus what ever is going on in real life...all I'm trying to say is that I have to strike a balance. And Frankly, you need to give us the space to do it, the more time I spend here responding to your comment, the less I have time to finish the RfC. I know it requires patience, but attacking Fluffernutter because there is no result won't get you anywhere. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Angry dog is angry. Angry dog will be angry about something new soon.
How dare you conclude the RfC? Now that the RfC has been concluded, my hastily-found reason to stalk your edits and needlessly complain about you is gone and I'll have to find a new stupid thing to pick you up on and make ridiculous threats about.
The article Martha Wise you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Martha Wise for things which need to be addressed. Ruby2010/201301:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
On the night of Thursday 12 July in DC at the Newseum near the Wikimania conference, Consumer Reports and the GLAM-Wiki US Consortium are hosting a social event and a panel on health information and Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to attend. Please RSVP here if you want to attend either or both the social event or the panel. It was nice meeting you at the Wikimedia NYC election. I hope to talk to you more about that reporting project I brought up. Blue Rasberry (talk)18:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
As you know a GA reassessment was started on Bieber. One was done by one user (failing some criteria, passing others), but I do not know if it was on your version of the prior version. Just wanted you aware. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Looks like the evaluation was done after my initial, light copyedits, but before my re-write. There seems to be some disagreement among the people participating on the GAR about whether to postpone it until after the AfD closes, too. I'm inclined to agree with that feeling - AfD is a very unstable time for an article, and there's no use re-assessing it now when what's there (if anything) four days from now may be very different - so I'll just add the GAR to my watchlist and see what happens. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
Great work on the article I think we both hated in its original form. This was Wikipedia at its best, and whether the article ends up being kept or not, I really enjoyed working on it with you. John (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! It does feel like a heart-warmingly Wikipedian experience, though for the complete, authentic Wikipedia experience, it'll have to end in the article being deleted anyway. Whether it stays or goes, though, I enjoyed the collaboration with you, also. It was nice to step a little outside my gnomish, crime-oriented comfort zone for a change! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania - You are invited!
Are you a woman attending Wikimania 2012?If so, join us on Saturday, July 14, for the annual WikiWomen's Luncheon (fka WikiChix Lunch) This event is for any women attending Wikimania. Pick up your lunch, compliments of Wikimania, and join us at 1:30pm in the Grand Ballroom for a lively facilitated discussion hosted by Sue Gardner. We look forward to seeing you there. Please sign up here. Sarah (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You will remember WP:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda, an acrimonious AfD where the article author tried to evade the process by blanking his article and re-creating it under a new name. He is persistent, and has eventually produced something at WT:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda good enough for the reviewer to accept it and ask at WP:RFPP#Ken Sibanda for the title to be unsalted. I think that, as closing/salting admin, you are the one to have a look and decide whether to unsalt or send it to DRV. No opinion - it's certainly improved, and there is a long list of references, but I haven't checked to see if they are independent and substantial. Regards, JohnCD (talk)
Hey, Fluffernutter, thanks for cleaning up the mess. He also uploaded some photos under a fair-use license (despite looking like he took them himself) that might need to be deleted, now that they're not being used in an article: File:Cherian p sam.jpg, File:Sam cherian.jpg, and File:Ben p sam on spike.jpg. I'm not really on the up-and-up on files, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Thanks again! Writ Keeper⚇♔17:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Paid Editor Help - Stevens Institute of Technology
Need an admins involvement in this one to merge the draft over, if you're up to it. It's pretty straightforward, since the only real changes to the article is the beefing up of the athletics section. The rest is just re-organizing and sectioning so the article looks better. Anyways, here's the PAIDHELP section and here's the draft in question. A link to Stevens Institute of Technology as well to make it easier for you to compare. SilverserenC21:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Apology
Hello. I'm very sorry for all the trouble on the Black Butler Character List. There is a problem now that you have locked the page. All of the pronouns related to the character "Grell Sutcliff" are female. I have debated with one of the users on the talk page about this for a long time and we both agreed to change the pronouns to male. However, she would continue to change them back to female after I changed them, then went as far as to insult me on my own page. She denied the accusations, but I could see on my watchlist that she was the one doing it. Since the page is locked, I can no longer change the pronouns to their proper state. Please edit the page or unlock it so this can be fixed. I'm truly sorry for the trouble this may have caused you. --Voldemort's BFF (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Admins here have a running joke that no article has ever been protected on the right version. When we protect to stop a content dispute, as I did today, someone is always unhappy, because we can't protect an article on both versions at once. It's not personal, and it's not about me preferring one version to another - what it's set at now is what it happened to be set at when I realized you guys were going to keep reverting each other until I stopped you. What you need to do now, while the article is protected, is pursue dispute resolution to solve this dispute over pronouns. If speaking to each other on the article's talk page isn't working, there are other options, like an request for comment on the content issue. If you feel a user is being disruptive or mean, you can try wikiquette alerts, where someone will help you speak calmly to each other and work out the personal issues. The bottom line is that reverting each other over and over doesn't work, and won't ever work, and we can't let you keep on at it, so I've protected the article to force you guys to work it out some other way, whether that's by discussing on the talk page, by opening an RfC, or anything else listed at our page about dispute resolution. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I know I sound annoying right now, but I would like some advice please. I talked to the user I was having trouble with and we resolved the issue. But then an unregistered user started to argue with me using an argument almost exactly like the one the previous user had told me. I think the user I was fighting with before has been logging out and creating different accounts to look like she has more support for her side. The reason I have for believing this is because the signbot had signed the user's name onto one of the unregistered user's comments. The user deleted that part of it quickly, but I could see in the page's history that it had happened. Also, I had confronted her about editing the page on her talk page and she said she wasn't the one doing it. When I told her I could see on my watchlist that it was her, suddenly an unregistered user started making changes instead. That just seemed suspicious to me. Talking it out doesn't seem to be working, and I'm afraid if I request for a comment that she will answer the comment under a different name or IP address. I'm just not sure what to do. :\ I'm not asking you to do anything about it, I would just like advice please. --Voldemort's BFF (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I expect you do not speek czech language, but you can use web translator to read this pages. I do not participate on wikipedia often, but this with nico seems to me to interesting to does not provide it to all people.
