User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 11

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Deborah Green
My pleasure, glad it got through in the end  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

my entry yesterday at ANI
I just now saw your edit summary. Please tell me what I should have done so I will know the next time. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, Gtwfan! To request oversight, there are steps outlined at Requests for oversight; the easiest way is Special:EmailUser/Oversight. For regular old revision deletion, I'd guess the best thing to do is to e-mail an admin; there's a category set up to track things like this, but I'd bet you can pretty much just email any admin and have them take a look at it. Basically, the common theme here is to avoid reposting the problem edit in a public forum (which includes pretty much anything on-wiki), to keep it from attracting more attention before it can be handled. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry for not getting back to you on this sooner. Writ Keeper did a pretty good job of taking up my slack, though :) Privacy-related information - names, addresses, libel, etc - is covered by Wikimedia's privacy policy, and we handle it with revision deletion (in minor cases) or oversight (in serious ones). Because the goal is to keep people from seeing information that's problematic, we recommend very strongly that users not draw attention to it onwiki, and especially not on high-traffic noticeboards like ANI. If you open up an edit window on ANI, you'll see a big red box that says,


 * "Emergencies: If you are reporting a serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc., please also email emergency@wikimedia.org with the relevant diffs. Oversight & Revision Deletion: If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally via this form or to oversight-en-wpATwikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. "


 * We put that there so people like you who come to ANI thinking that the noticeboard is a good place to report this content know who to contact about it, instead...but a lot of people skim over the box and don't notice, so when I remove a thread about oversight issues from ANI, I tend to leave a reminder in the edit summary like I did for you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will know for next time.  Generally, I just leave a message at some adm's talk page, but this seemed serious enough that I didn't want to risk it getting missed.  BTW, I love your name.  I lived on them when I  was a kid! Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, 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.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A rather trivial matter
Hi there. I was reading through the AN thread on User:Okip, and opened WP:Functionaries in the next tab, to make it easier to keep track of who in the conversation had access to what information. (I'm a bit new here, so I'm still getting acquainted with all the "major players," so to speak.) I was then surprised to see you mention Functionaries-I, and to see, upon checking your userpage, that you're indeed an Oversighter, since your name doesn't appear at WP:Functionaries. So my question (I warned you it was trivial!) is why you're not listed there... am I misunderstanding something about its purpose? I was under the impression that it listed all the CheckUsers and Oversighters. Skimming through the oversighter list, it looks like you're the only one not included at the Functionaries page, though I could be missing somebody. — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 04:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh. I have no idea why I'm not there! It never occurred to me to check, and I guess my name slipped through the cracks when other functionaries have updated the list. I've added myself now, at any rate. Thanks for the heads-up! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha no problem.  Love your username, by the way - they make Fluff a town over from where I live.  Much to my four-year-old chagrin when I first moved here, though, they don't give tours.  — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 05:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it was AGK's fault, by the way, if you're looking for somebody to trout. — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler ) 05:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
And independently of that, congratulations on your first FA. You deserve it so much! Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks! Some spots felt like a massive slog, others felt like they just sort of happened without effort. I do have to admit that it makes me want to hurry up and start my next article, though. Weird how once you find the niche that needs articles written to fill it it, it becomes hard to NOT write them! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My God ... I could have written those exact words myself (especially the latter ... that's why I'm still working on all those NRHP articles). Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Yobronzino/Brando Palomino Bronzino
I don't know what the story is here - would you like to reply to the undeletion request at WP:REFUND? JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, that page isn't on my watchlist. I've responded there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Kharvi
Hi, just a courtesy thing: I'd queried the Kharvi grammar point at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum before you posted your initial explanation. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me there...I'm going to have to continue to disagree that the original sentence was grammatical, in American English or British, but it's not much worth arguing over, anyway - both because it must not look quite as jarring to other readers, if Malleus and Drmies think it's fine, and because, well, it's India. An article that's not just an incomprehensible copyvio is a victory in itself! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha! Yes, such things do sometimes appear to be rarities. Grammar is a nightmare and I am genuine in saying that I am bemused in this instance. As I've just said in t'other thread, what is even more odd is that the talk page has the "Indian English" banner. That has been a favourite of a small group of people but the person who added it (Joyson) is not usually among their number. The header is fine per the guidance, which says that it can be used when an article is clearly associated with a particular country etc. It has, however, often been used in what I would consider to be a point-y manner. That is, even when the content is clearly US or UK English, someone still tags it. A niggle, no more. I am far from being a scholar of grammar and the chances are high that I am more often wrong than right. Perhaps I'll dig out my copies of the standard works and some style manuals over the next few weeks. I said "perhaps" ... they are unlikely to be high on my reading list but your comments have intrigued me. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

EC
Fluffernutter, please restore my comments. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the EC beast is sneaky. I'll stick that back in, thanks for letting me know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Merchandise nomination

 * Why, thank you! I appreciate the compliment more than you know :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Re on serial killers
I have NOT used the given blog, but SOLELY already existing articles at Wikipedia. Attack those if you like, not me. I have NOT the intention at all to add others than others already at Wikipedia, in particular: Not adding anyone solely occurring at "unknownmisandry". PS: I do NOT object to any others removing my additions, but please formulate your criticism in a proper manner, namely that I have not used a properly verified Wikipedia article (I have not used any other main source on these additions) Arildnordby (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are not, in themselves, reliable sources either, and claims like this about living people require absolutely rock-solid sourcing. If a Wikipedia article is all you have to support adding the category, then that's not enough, and the edit was right to be reverted. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Look at for example, the well referenced Martha Wise article at Wikipedia, that fluffernutter wants to remove. My ONLY aim is to combine the references from other categories INTO the "female seriale killer"-category. I have no axes to grind here, do you?

Arildnordby (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Writ Keeper says what I just posted on your talk page, Aril. You cannot source things to Wikipedia itself, especially things like "so-and-so is a serial killer". You cannot add a category to something just because it seems clear to you that it ought to be right. You need to provide a reliable source for your edits, especially (especially, ESPECIALLY, I cannot say it enough) if it involves someone who is still alive. Please, please read WP:RS and WP:BLP before carrying on with this mass categorization. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made the following TAGGINGS, NOT edits that were directly indicated by that particular blog:

1. DEAD: Sophie Charlotte Ursinus

2. DEAD: Patty Cannon

3. DEAD: Catherine Wilson

4. DEAD Margaret Waters

5. DEAD: Mary Ann Cotton

6. DEAD: Flannagan sisters (Black Widows of Liverpool)

7. DEAD: John and Sarah Makin

8. DEAD: Amelia Dyer

9. DEAD: Amelia Sach and Annie Walters

10. DEAD: Martha Rendell

11. DEAD: Enriqueta Martí

12. DEAD: Amy Archer-Gilligan

13. DEAD: Martha Wise

14. DEAD: The Angel Makers Nagyrev

15. DEAD: Daisy Louisa C. De Melker

16. DEAD: Anna Marie Hahn

17. DEAD: Marie Besnard

18. DEAD: Mary Elizabeth Wilson

19. DEAD: Delfina, María, Carmen & Maria Luisa de Jesús González

20. ALIVE: Charlene Gallego, plead guilty

21. ALIVE: Suzan Barnes Carson, found guilty on 3 accounts, 3 independent references.

22. ALIVE: Cynthia Coffman found guilty of 5, 4 independent references.

23.ALIVE: Blanche Taylor Moore, 9 references.

24. ALIVE: Karla Homolka, convicted serial killer, 65 references

25. DEAD: Betty Neumar, 14 references.

Now, I kindly suggest you delete THOSE articles, prior to attacking me on scurrilous grounds Arildnordby (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're saying here, so please correct me if what I'm about to say doesn't address what you're not understanding: If you're saying that only only added categories, not prose, and that our sourcing guidelines therefore don't apply, you've misunderstood our policies: they apply to all changes you make to Wikipedia, whether it's writing "so-and-so is a serial killer" or adding to the bottom of an article. It also looks like you might be having some trouble understanding where the line lies between reliable sourcing and synthesis of sources. The latter is not permitted on Wikipedia - you cannot read a source (or an article), think "Oh hey, so obviously that means X!" and add X to the article - you need a reliable source to say X first. So you can't read where an article says (with references) "Jane Doe killed four people" and add, because it seems obvious to you, "Jane Doe is a serial killer". Just because it seems obvious to you that killing four people = serial killer doesn't mean that's what the reliable sources say; to be able to add "Jane Doe is a serial killer," you would need to be able to cite a reliable source that says "Jane Doe is a serial killer". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with what I consider to be a "serial killer", but with those definitions that Serial Killer Task Force, and the entry on "Serial killers" DEFINE as serial killers.

To mention SFTKs definition, it is said "A serial killer is defined as someone who kills more than three victims one at a time in a short time period.". Now, that is SOMEWHAT different from the sourced and referenced definition from "Serial Killers", which specifically makes the period of time extended, in order to distinguish from "spree" and "mass" murderers. On several possibles, I have excluded those that should be regarded as spree rather than serial, and furthermore, INCLUDED such as to whom strong suspicion was attached to achieve 3+. the reason for THAT latter choice, is that several within the category already had "achieved" their status of 3+ by strong suspicion, rather than official confirmation. THUS, I have only followed what seems to have been DEFINED as "serial killer" by the Wikipedia community, through reference to other sources at "serial killers" in particular, rather than inventing anything of my own. -- For example, if a woman is simply listed under English Female Murderers, like Beverley Allitt, who was CONVICTED of murdering four children+ 9 further attempts, I have CHOSEN to include her within category "Female serial killers", not because what I think, but strictly on the basis of the defionitions set up at SKTF and "serial killers"-page. Now, you can disagree with that choice of definitions ALREADY EXISTING, but you really should argue for why my choices, in the cases given, does not follow the definitions (i.e, guidelines) set up in the relevant projects/general pages at Wikipedia. Arildnordby (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What we're saying is not that your choice is wrong. What we're saying is that it's not your choice to make.  We should categorize people as serial killers only if reliable sources call them serial killers; we don't get to decide whose definitions we follow, or whether someone fits the bill.


 * By the way, while "3 or more murders" is indeed the definition given by the Crime Wikiproject, note that that definition is given in the context of which infobox template to use. Note that the template itself does not identify the person as a serial killer at all; in fact, it looks to be the same exact template as any other murderer. So, no, that's not a basis for categorizing people as serial killers. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this to the MULTIPLY referenced definotion at Serial Killers (with FBI-definitions, for example??). This states the following:

1. "A serial killer is traditionally defined as an individual who has killed three or more people[1][2] over a period of more than a month, with down time (a "cooling off period") between the murders, and whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification.[3][4] Some sources, such as the FBI, disregard the "three or more" criteria and define the term as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone" or, including the vital characteristics, a minimum of two murders.[4][5]" If you read further, you will also see that the requirement "cooling down" period isd also rejected by several experts (and many of those prior to my edits, in particular the "historical ones", have no judicially proven "cooling down" period". Do you disagree qwith those??) . 2. Furthermore, several of the women under "English female murderers" do NOT have a reference who callas her, precisely: "English female murderer". Do you disagree with THAT categorization as well?

3. I have SPECIFIED, to the last detail, at the Category.talk page, precisely those I have chosen to include, so that constructive, particular criticism and deletion can be made. Instead, I have been met by hysterical, irrational, and, largely unfounded accusations. Arildnordby (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, so saying "the serial killer Wikipedia article has criteria and these people meet it" does not work. Moreover, look at the language of that definition: it uses terms like "traditionally", "usually", "not always"; it is not an "if-and-only-if" definition. You indicate yourself that the definition is under dispute. So you can't use it as a hard-and-fast rule, even if the source was reliable and combining sources like that wasn't prohibited as synthesis.  (For clarity, the source (Wikipedia) is not reliable, and combining sources like that is prohibited as synthesis.)
 * The phrase "English female murderer" has no meaning other than the sum of its parts: we do have sources that say they're English, that say they're female, and that say they're murderers. That's why that phrase doesn't require its own source. "Serial killer" is a phrase that has a meaning on its own; it's not limited to the combination of the words "serial" and "killer". So it needs its own source. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The ONLY "meaning of its own" "serial killers" have is the one given by reliable sources, and I have stuck with that, by a multiply referenced version. You need to pinpoint how my (and nor the least, others) choice falls short with that. Again, feel free to delete whichever names you personally don't "feel" belong under Female serioal killers. Because, after all, it is only YOUR feeling you are appealing to (in MY feeling, those who commit multiple murders merely as incidental and herlpful to their avariciousness "ought not" be classified as serial killers at all (I happen to regard the desire-to-murder as a necessary criterion, but that would be a restriction not countenanced by..reliable sources).

That "reliable sources" have somewhat differing definitions are THEIR problem, not mine; I need to be able to show that MY inclusions are fully within the interpretative space set up by..the reliable sources. and so they happen to be. Arildnordby (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (twice edit conflicted by you guys while I was writing this :) Aril, please don't call me (or anyone else who objects to your edits) names. My questions to you are not unfounded, nor am I being hysterical or irrational. I am trying - very hard - to explain to you a very important aspect of our policy that you don't seem to be understanding. The fact that I don't appear to be doing it well enough for you to understand it does not mean that either you or I is trying to be unconstructive. Now, what Writ Keeper and I are trying to tell you is that you're synthesizing a couple of different facts about these women to come up with your inference (which may well be accurate) that they are serial killers. Fact 1: An academic definition of "serial killer" is $foo. Fact 2: A wikiproject (not a reliable source) defines serial killers as $foobar. Fact 3: Jane Doe killed in manner $foo. These are all verifiable, to some extent, in sources (or in the wikiproject's terms). But now we come to the synthesis. You're combining Facts 1 and 3 and coming up with something none of the sources do say: Jane Doe is a serial killer. Now, this may follow a completely reasonable chain of evidence for drawing a real-world conclusion. "She killed in a manner that matches the definition of serial killers, therefore she is a serial killer." But the whole point of writing in an encyclopedic manner is that we aren't allowed to draw conclusions that other people haven't already drawn in reliable sources, because we're not here to do analysis; we're only here to report the analysis reliable sources have done. Now, this issue - that we can't synthesize together multiple sources - is compounded in some of the specific cases you were editing, because those people are still alive, and our policies are especially strict in regard to living people. Our policy says that in cases where unsourced information (i.e. synthesis) is being added to an article about a living person, especially where it might be contentious (and hoo boy, labeling a person a serial killer can be contentious), we must remove that information. We don't have the option of even considering "wait and see" or "well, I guess that sounds reasonable, even if it's not sourced", because we're playing with real people's lives here. Imagine, if you will, that Jane Doe comes up for parole. One of the parole board members - or, indeed, just some blogger researching the case - comes across a Wikipedia article that labels her a serial killer without any source for that. Suddenly, she's not just a convicted murderer (which is a bad thing to be) - she's a serial killer (which is a far, far worse thing to be). That person takes that information they found on Wikipedia and publicizes it or cites it in the parole hearing. Perhaps Ms Doe would be denied parole because someone publicized that she's a "serial killer" (when in fact, no one but you appears to have called her that), which is a socially loaded concept. Your attempt to synthesize together a few sources, none of which named her as a serial killer, would have suddenly impacted a real person's real life. That, right there, is why we have a special policy for dealing with articles about living people. We have a responsibility - a legal one, in a lot of cases - to do our absolute best to make sure that such articles are 100% verified in their every statement, because to fail in that could truly damage people's lives.  As far as your question about "English female murderer", I would dispute the addition of that category on any articles where the subject is not verifiably English, female, or a murderer. If those three things are provably true - they can be cited to reliable sources - then there is nothing wrong with combining the three words into one phrase. If, on the other hand, one or more of those things isn't or can't be cited to reliable sources - let's say, perhaps, that sources don't say if the person was male or female (inexplicably using non-gendered pronouns, perhaps), or that they don't say that the person was English (perhaps they were convicted in Botswana, and sources don't address the person's birth or nationality), or they don't say that the person was a murderer (perhaps they say that someone close to the person died, but no one knows if they died from murder or not) - then we can not add such a category (or call them such a thing in the article). In this case, you're adding "serial killer" to articles where the reliable sources don't say that the person is a serial killer. So no, these are not comparable situations.  Now, I'm truly sorry if you feel attacked that I corrected your edits, but it's non-negotiable that you must understand and adhere to our sourcing and, especially, living person policies. I am happy to do all I can to explain them to you if you're struggling, but you need to make the effort to understand and follow them from now on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was writing a reply myself, but I got distracted and let Fluffernutter get a word in edgewise. My reply can be summed up as: that's "what she said." Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your particular point about living persons, and have no trouble with upholding a particular reticence and lack of inference relative to them. So debora green is, and has never been, any important sub-subject to me. But, no, I do not at all understand that a multiply referenced definition of "serial killer" cannot be used on a DEAD person. the only thing that matters there is whether the label fits or not (a perfectly acceptable potential for disagreement, on my part), not whether somebody happens to have called a lady from the 16th century a "serial killer" or not. If the def. fits, then it is acceptable to call her such, otherwise not (that is why, for example, I have rejected to include from for example the "Poisoner" category, those who were professional poison producers (like Tofana, La Voisin etc.) because lack of PERSONAL "#gratification")

Arildnordby (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, see, that's where you're mistaken. The only thing, the only thing, that matters is what the reliable sources explicitly say about this.  If they don't say it, it doesn't go in.  Period. You don't get to decide whether the definition fits or not, you don't get to decide which label to use, no matter how well-sourced the definition is.  If, and only if, reliable sources say "Mrs. X is a serial killer", then she can be put in the category.  The rules for living people make this especially important for them, but it still applies everywhere.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 23:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but here we go again with synthesis. It doesn't matter if it's in regard to a living person or not - synthesis isn't acceptable. The only difference is that if it happens on a BLP article, there are extra protections built into our policies to make sure it gets removed quickly - for instance, editors removing BLP violations are exempt from our edit warring policy. This doesn't mean that on non-BLP articles the policy doesn't apply - I assure you, it absolutely does, and you need to follow it there, too - just that when it happens on a BLP article it's treated as more of an emergency than just a problem that needs to be fixed. You're putting too much weight on what seems reasonable to you in determining who fits in a category, and not enough weight on what our policies say defines what in a category. You need to remember that no matter what type of article you work on, it's your responsibility to provide reliable sources for all claims you make about the subject - not just reliable sources that provide information that helped you come up with a conclusion, but reliable sources that actually say that conclusion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * this is just SILLY cfrom both of you. I happen to have read NUMEROUS of the references to the 600+ "serial killers" entries (male+female), and in several, NONE of the "reliable sources" states explictly the phrase "serial killer" (in particular on those long gone and the dead,.

The only reason you keep up weith this idiogtic and toally irrational crirticism of me is that I happened to express appfreciation for a particular, highly politicized blog not of my own mam,king. Stop this charade. Now. Arildnordby (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything left to be said here other than reiterating that while you don't have to like me (or Writ Keeper), you are nevertheless obligated to follow Wikipedia policies when you edit. Have a good evening, and I hope we've given you some food for thought that will help you in future editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "trade mark" to the term serial killer (there exists NO explicit Wikipedia policy that that particular term MUST appear in a particular source within its own pre-existing entries), but I sure feel obliged to follow the DEFINITION of that term, as given by a multiply referenced source. And so I have done. Arildnordby (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Fluffernutter. I'm stopping by your talk page to let you know that I also reverted Arildnordby at an article concerning this topic, and commented about it here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like that edit happened before the discussion I had with him. He doesn't seem to have run into this trouble since he and I talked, so here's hoping everything is straightened out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Odd that (above) he stated that "there exists NO explicit Wikipedia policy that that particular term MUST appear in a particular source within its own pre-existing entries." Well, of course there isn't a specific policy about the term serial killer on this matter or at all. We have general policies and guidelines for things like this. But he does appear to be a significantly less experienced Wikipedia editor, so, hopefully, his understanding of the Wikipedia SYNTHESIS policy and any other policies and guidelines that he needs to greatly familiarize himself with will adequately improve as he continues to edit Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I also removed the WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force's definition of serial killer, because, like I stated in that edit summary, it is a somewhat inaccurate definition that was added by a newly registered user without discussion...and caused confusion in Arildnordby's editing. Flyer22 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, judging by this discussion I had with him, he very likely will continue to add people, including living people, to the serial killer category because they fit any one definition; it's a judgement call, rather than a call based on a reliable source about the person, for him. But I'll let others handle that, unless I come across an article that I feel he needs to be reverted on. However, I still haven't assessed any of his other additions; like others, I have other things to do on and off Wikipedia. I also have enough to worry about at this site. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And now he wants an apology from all of us. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

WER
Just wanted to drop a note to say that your opinion on certain editors is likely in the majority there. The recent discussion domination is only due to recent events. My abundance of tolerance regarding certain individuals is a minority viewpoint there. The beauty of WER is that people can strongly disagree there but the atmosphere is such that it doesn't become attacks. We tolerate all opinions, but not attacks or finger pointing, and try to steer the discussion around the negativity. I really don't run the place nor want to, it would like herding cats. I don't try to dominate the direction people want to move in, it isn't my way. You probably don't realize that you and I agree on many, many more things than disagree, trust me. I'm just a peacemaker so I tend to ride the fence publicly, even when I do have an opinion; It is the mediator in me. The problem at WER is that it is new and needs some organization to focus on the ideas that we all agree on. This means finding novel ways to reward editors that are often overlooked, and helping newer or established editors that are needing some assistance due to low level edit warriors, POV, etc. Problems that aren't ANI ready, but need someone to come in and help. You would be surprised how much of that we already do, it just doesn't hit the talk page there, and some organization would be helpful. I'm just not sure of the best way forward, but it is time to do so.

Take a look at the roster, 114 people with drastically different opinions, different ideas, and different experience levels. That is why WER has the potential to do some good stuff, because it isn't a fan club of anyone, it is a diverse group of admin and non-admin. There are a lot of people willing to help out, but there is a shortage of experienced people willing to take the lead on one aspect, one sub-project, and make it work. I would love to see us figure out a more formal way to report and help editors who are at risk of leaving, but I lack the experience and smarts to do it alone. I am pretty good at rallying the troops, settling disputes, and putting out fires, but that is just a small part of it. What WER needs, what Wikipedia needs, is someone to take a lead in designing a system to make reporting and helping these people. This is only one part of editor retention, but an important part.

WER has problems, it is a bit scattered, but you could actually help shape it, and I would invite you to. To both address these problems and to insure that the project remains a neutral project. It already has some good momentum, what it needs is to branch off into the different aspects with some leadership and direction. I know you care about the retention of new editors and the biting that takes place, you have made that clear and we completely agree, as does everyone there. What you might not realize is that you can actually make a huge difference there, and you would get a tremendous amount of support in doing so, much more than you probably realize. I have no desire to be "the leader" there, it is just thrust upon me. Retention as a whole is too big for one person. I want many of us to take the lead in different areas, coordinate and work as a big team. This is the ONLY way it could ever work, and why it is not living up to it's potential now. Think about it. Feel free to email me or ping me on IRC as well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Social Media Week
Fluffernutter, I saw your RSVP on the NYC Wikipedia Day page about the paid-editing-on-wikipedia panel during Social Media Week. I couldn't find anything on the SMW site about that, but would like to attend. Can you direct me to some information about it. Thanks and all the best, Jweiss11 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a ton of details about it, unfortunately - for all I know, it's been cancelled and I missed the notice. User:WWB is the person who invited me to participate, so I assume he would be able to supply you with some more information about whens and wheres. Hope to see you there if it goes on as planned! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll follow up with WWB.  Hope to see you there as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Tour of Consumer Reports' laboratories
On Tuesday January 15 at 3pm Wikipedians are invited to join a tour of laboratories at Consumer Reports in Yonkers. If you would like to attend please RSVP at Meetup/NYC/January 2013. If you have questions feel free to ask on that page or contact me on my talk page or by my office phone at 914.378.2684. Thank you.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   20:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.
 * Please do these steps as soon as possible

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:
 * Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
 * Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:
 * Communication and keeping up to date
 * 1) The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
 * 2) The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
 * 3) If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the  IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)
 * Ambassador training and resources

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk
I am sorry, but what exactly to talk out? This is blatant nationalist vandalism, removal of sourced data per IDONTLIKEIT without any explanation or reason. This is no worthy of a protection, but at least its short. I will invite for a talk. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The bottom line here is that no matter why you each think the other is making the edits, you guys continuing to revert each other will never fix anything. If it's talkable, please talk it out like you say you will. If it's vandalism or NPOV violations or something, please take it to the relevant noticeboards for administrator attention. I protected the page to shake you both out of the continual-reverting mindset before you got into trouble. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Committee invitation
Hi, I would like to invite you to apply to join the IEG Advisory Committee on Meta. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#008C3A 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#01796F -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;"><b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#01796F;">✉ 09:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Fluffs, when you get a spare bit can you please do a quick copyedit of Margaret McKenna. merci -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  01:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
 * If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@undefinedcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.