User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 9

A beer for you!

 * Ah, finally the wikimania-based beer guzzling that I missed this year. Maybe next year we can have those beers in person, at the same time, while puzzling over how to pronounce "Guerillero"! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the heads up and the assistance. I have taken the steps necessary to list it as AfD. 71.94.79.243 (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it. Still pretty new to offering edits to Wikipedia. Maybe I should just make an account and really start looking into this sort of stuff. Thanks again for the help. 71.94.79.243 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, happy to help! If you think you have some interest in contributing to Wikipedia more than just today, an account is a great idea - with an account you can adjust settings, use special editing tools, and have a "watchlist" that will notify you if an article you're interested in has been edited. Happy editing :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Need technical help
Hey Fluffernutter. I would like to imitate the AfC process for COI. I think this will help drastically with some of the complaints about the request edit process by giving feedback to the content submitter and pushing responsibility on them to improve the article, while creating a concise paper-trail on prior reviews and streamlining the process.

I need to find a partner in crime with technical expertise to help with the templates and all the technology. I was wondering if you knew someone interested in COI that has immense technical expertise with Wiki-work. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 18:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I myself am not good with templates, so let me give some thought to if I know someone who would fit the bill. I'll get back to you on this! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also be curious as to your thoughts on something like this? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 14:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I might be able to help a bit with templating. A first step could be to expand the categorization.  Currently active request edits populate the Category:Requested edits, then "disappear" when turned off.  Taking a que from AFC, could expand into:
 * Category:Pending requested edits
 * Category:Accepted requested edits
 * Category:Declined requested edits
 * and even cross referenced dating with Category:Requested edits by date/Month Year
 * Perhaps Template talk:Request edit is the place to discuss, if this sounds like a workable idea? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)  15:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh good, I do love my talkpage stalkers! Thank you for jumping in with the template help, Eclipsed. King4057, I took a quick look over your NIC page, and to me it looks like something that belongs in Wikiproject Cooperation - it's basically "Companies and their employees editing Wikipedia within the guidelines", which is what WP:C already (tries to) does. I do like your "Why participate" section, though. There's something for each side to gain when a company works with Wikipedia, if only we could make both sides believe that! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors seemed to disagree with the concept of NIC, but support the idea that the relationship Wikipedia has with companies is more than just COI. I think that can be incorporated into other places without making a new page, like COOP, the EasyMoney essay or the COI guideline. It's always easy, but less productive, to start something new rather than build consensus for change ;-)


 * Eclipsed, that strategy for getting started on Request Edits works for me. If you can team up with me by handling the templates and technical aspects, I would like to contribute primarily in regards to the content of the templates and the overall structure. It's something I've been talking to folks about and have ideas on, but can't get the ball rolling for further discussion without technical help.


 * Fluffer, this is a whole different tangental rant I can go on, but I personally struggle with justifying an ethical approach to Wikipedia from a business perspective. For me, EthicalWiki is a niche firm for companies that want to improve articles while respecting legal's hands-off policies, companies that are genuinely, naturally ethical, or those that fear the repercussions enough. The bulk of paid editing will continue to be less ethical, because it's the easiest, most effective way to get the results companies want from their Wikipedia page (promotional pages that are good enough to stick). But there is a lot we can do to make an ethical approach more favorable and build more productive relationships, more often. There's no silver bullet and no generalization that works all the time, but we do what we can. (end rant) User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 14:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Template stuff continued on: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation ... -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 15:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your attention
I did not see you objecting when I was repeatedly abused. And you are warning me? for what?--Alice1818 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&diff=prev&oldid=502820191

Thanks
Re the email, thanks for that. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Tarc's page
I got your note. Yeah, I don't see the big deal, to be honest,   civilty is a policy and per WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL  any editor can remove incivil comments from a user's talk page. (An image with a middle finger in an edit notice is incivil, as is his comment about IP's). Yeah, I know WP:Notcensored, but I don't necessarily think that applies here:).    Anyrate,  I saw your warning, and no I won't touch his page again.    Thanks. "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 18:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL? It says the exact opposite to what you appear to believe. Mogism (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping, Kosh. Like I said, we do have processes that can deal with problematic content if you feel the issue should be pursued; edit warring just isn't one of them :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to do anything about the gross misunderstanding or gross misrepresentation that KoshVorlon presents regarding WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL, noted by Mogism above? Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out the MFD to Kosh on my talk. Given my prior experience of Kosh (see my talk archive), I'm not hopeful. Mogism (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no faith in his ability to understand anything; all he does is collapse comments he doesn't like and eventually promise not to do whatever is at issue again, all without acknowledging he was wrong or that he knows even why there is disagreement. I've never understood how someone can continue to insist on an intrepretation everyone else says is wrong, though I suppose there's the Dunning–Kruger effect. Anyway, the problem here is a fundamental lack of reading comprehension and failure to effectively communicate, and until he's finally banned he will find one thing after another to unilaterally edit war over. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Widows of Liverpool
The article Black Widows of Liverpool 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:Black Widows of Liverpool for things which need to be addressed. AIR corn (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Action Park (again)
Wow, what made that one blow up today? Anyway, thanks for doing your job. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I went into "grar, must protect great article!" mode almost automatically :D Judging by some of the vandalism I caught while reverting it, I think it might have been a random /v/ raid. Darn kids these days... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * /v/ or /b/? Has that changed somehow, while I wasn't watching? Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Both exist. I think /v/ is nominally about videos, or video games, or some such thing involving the letter /v/, but mostly both seem to spend their time raiding random WP articles. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you may need to protect it again. Daniel Case (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks for dragging me out of the edit war! Electric Catfish 16:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Electric catfish was originally warning the user for edit warring, trolling and refactoring talk page contents at User talk:Writegeist. That bit was correct. I see he now understands his mistake on the user's talk page, but the issue at Writegeist's talk page still needs to be addressed. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, Catfish. Everyone sometimes needs a good shake and a "what are you DOING, man?!" to bring them back to reality. I'm speaking to Arcandam now about what's gone on, so hopefully the warring on all sides will end. Let's all have some tea and pretend we love each other - or at least don't want to kill each other! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You really scared me, but that's fine. I messed up and needed a little kick in the pants. Best, Electric Catfish 16:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC).
 * Did the talk do any good, because he just reverted again at Writegeist's talk page?--Biker Biker (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Well, I thought it had done some good. I've left him another note. None of you are really covering yourselves in glory today, and I would suggest (to all of you involved, on all sides) that you avoid taking the bait anyone else puts out. Two edit wars don't make a right, or however that saying goes... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm was done dealing with Arcandam hours ago when you warned me to stop. I'm 9/9 in CSD tags today and have reported 6 users to administrators. Not bad. Thanks for trying, though. Electric Catfish 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, he called Biker and I "tag teaming trolls" on Writegeist's talk page. I'm not offended, but it may be grounds for a block on the basis of WP: NPA. Also, should I apologize to him with a Wikilove, or forget about it? Electric Catfish 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to just let the conversation drop. Don't wikilove or apologize, and also don't continue arguing with him (so good on you, for disengaging already!). It's best if everyone sort of just goes back to their corners. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, as I said, I'm out of this edit war. I knew about WP: TPO, but got dragged into this edit war. Also, I use Wikilove and barnstars to get out of disputes here, but I'm going to hold off here. I'm not arguing with him and have stopped reverting and ceased communication with him since you warned me. He than called Biker a troll on my talk page, so I removed the comments as per WP: TPO. I'm out now and I plan to stay out. Whether or not he is blocked is your and Worm's decision. I don't want this to be used against me in my RFA in January, so you decide what to do. Best, Electric Catfish 18:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Boynton Beacj
Rodriquez is NOT mayor as he was removed by the Florida Governor months ago.

Park Vista HS is IN Lake Worth and NOT Boynton Beach

Gateway to the gulfstream is NOT the motto and cannot be sourced because BB has NO MOTTO.

Do the research and prove these are not the case Nutterz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.148.100 (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this sort of edit is 100% unacceptable. If you continue to add racist content such as that, you will be blocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but blanket and erroneous reverting of other editors are also NOT allowed. So... explain why you blanketly changed my edits rather than simply removing what you irresponsibly see as a vandalism edit.

Have you any knowledge of Boynton Beach? Did you once visit the city with beach in its name and not actually possess a beach? Did mommy or grand pappy live here once in the 40s, and that qualifies you as a local authority on this municipality? Stick with what you know and I will do the same. I am sure you would not like someone to blanketedly revert your edits because of ONE mistake when five facts are true in your edits.

Ok nuttterz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.148.100 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "jigaboos and hebrews" was not something you typoed when meaning something else. I'm not sure if you're trying to be constructive and coming up short, or if you're actually trying to vandalize the article, but your edits have so many problems that it doesn't really matter. If you add racist or hateful content again, or make an edit that damages the article, such as introducing typos into words which were previously spelled correctly, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. It's fine if you don't like me, it's even fine for you to call me silly names, but it's not fine for you to damage Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well dummy, blanketly reverting edits because you dont like one entry is VANDALISM! There is no other way to look at it. So, King of Wiki AH, I have already reported it to Wiki as your edits are unconstructive and not within the guildelines of Wiki. Can I help it, if I left the room while still on a edit page? Is that against the rules that no one is allowed to delay the entire edit while in process because someone may erroneously enter something while the editor is gone.

Prove that I put a typo in any edit intentionally! You are an idiot and shoudl stick to Harlem or Bensonhurst fool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.148.100 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't vandalism, and calling others "idiots" or "fools" is strictly prohibited and you will probably be blocked for another comment like that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:StaploePC
22:34, 23 July 2012 Fluffernutter (Talk | contribs) blocked StaploePC (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite

Can you explain this please? Best wishes S a g a C i t y (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the template says, their username didn't meet our username policy. Since they were also editing in a topic area which indicates that they're representing the group their username shows, I placed a softblock on their username ("softblock" means they can create a new username at their leisure, there's no account creation block or IP block involved). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I now understand S a g a C i t y (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Jumped the gun
Hey, Fluffernutter, I see that you've been dealing with DIM302's silliness with the Analyte Health articles. He jumped the gun on his AfC and went ahead and created Analyte Health, Inc. It actually looks not awful, though; vaguely promotional, but nothing too blatant, and there do seem to be some sources. Can you take a look at it and tell me (more importantly, him) what you think? Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's at AfD now. I'm disappointed the user didn't just keep working on it in AfC space and instead chose to plunk it back where it wasn't ready to belong. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Last-word-itis
It's a horrible condition. Please have sympathy for those of us so afflicted  Egg   Centri  c  18:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more inclined to have sympathy for the people who are genuinely trying to participate in the RFA process, either as a nominee or as a commenter, and have now had to wade through the muck of a trollish RFA to get that done. I know you were trying to be funny, but I'm not joking when I say it's not working, and you're both coming off looking really, seriously bad in this. I see that you've laid off the commenting since I left my comment, which is great - it would be really helpful if you could now convince Penyulap to stop preening at the attention and instead consider that he's gotten some very good advice along the lines of "start editing articles and stop seeing how much drama you can cause, just for lulz" today. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be funny at all. It was a sincere RFA on my part, and I believe on Penyulap's too. Egg   Centri  c  20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Fatfinger
Sorry about the rollback. Mobile phone slip Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

apology
Hi,

I apologise for asking a stupid question at the Signpost. I should have known better. I'll try not to be so foolish again. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend any personal slight or judgment against you, Mathew. I'm very sorry it came across that way! It was a joke I heard a few weeks ago, a play on the old "A [something] walks into a bar..." canard, and the mention of elk made me think of it. I, like you, am a US resident who doesn't quite understand why non-US chapters get to have a committee and the US chapters don't get much of anything, so I didn't at all mean to belittle your question. I guess I just had a moment of bad taste, for which I apologize again :( A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Kissinger Nkosinathi Sibanda
This page was approved on July 12 and you deleted it as being the same page as the a page that was once deleted. Please stop this

The new Kissinger Nkosinathi Sibanda page has is substantially different from the previous deleted page and I have taken great lengths to document why he is notable.

You have also said, I quote "that he is not notable, other than that he just exist," -- how is the first real African born pioneer and voice in science fiction "just existing!"

Please take your racist attitude to another entry. I refuse to be bullied by you. This page was created and you unilaterally deleted the page, shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 06:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case
Check out the above users case at Requests for Arbitration. Ive had a look though and it was deleted at this title Ken Sibanda and at Kissinger N. Sibanda by another admin. Two AFDs Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda and Articles for deletion/Kissinger N. Sibanda. Seems like a bit of a boomerang case to me.B  S  15:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That and he has started Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ken Sibanda.B  S  15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Restatement
If I appear too hush on you then I apologize. My position is that the "Kissinger N. Sibanda," entry was created on the 12th of July by Vikai and you overrode him. It seems like the rules do not apply to you. Your articles if closely scrutinized do not even mee the minimal level of wikipedia criteria. You just appear to be fighting the page - Ken Sibanda, thats my point -

And in the past you have written things that can be construed as racist you said of Ken Sibanda: "he has done nothing but just exist."

Please addresss your actions of July 12th at the arbitration forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Mziboy, this has been explained to you repeatedly, by me and by other people: the issue is neither you nor your race, but the fact that you have repeatedly produced an article that does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, and then pursued forcing it to be included so hard that you have become disruptive. Your article does not meet our inclusion criteria. Until it does, it cannot appear on Wikipedia. I am not a racist, and at this point you will need to either substantiate such accusations, cease making them, or be sanctioned for the personal attacks you are leveling against me in saying such a thing. I would suggest you pay some attention to the information being provided for you in the declined request for arbitration today - in particular,the exhortations that you read our policies, cease pushing a single-purpose goal, and pursue the matter of your desired article through the processes provided, such as WP:AFC andWP:DRV. If you continue on as you have been, attacking me and/or attempting to post basically the same article which has been declined, deleted, and reviewed multiple times, then I will ask that you be stopped from disrupting Wikipedia any further. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

YGM
Requested Oversight. Electric Catfish 20:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Electric Catfish 21:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.


 * WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

=
Theone20 (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Hello Fluttermuffer. I accidentally clicked the "notable" into that page. You can take it out but please dont delete my page anymore. He is a famous artist and i will put in all the information.
 * I see that you're working with blurpeace now on irc. You're in good hands, he will be able to help you :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Adams
Hello. can you please revert this edit in Stephanie Adams page? You can check the talk page if you want, there is consensus now about reverting it --aad_Dira (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC).
 * I've dropped the article's protection back to semi-protect. Autoconfirmed editors can now edit it; feel free to make any changes that have consensus on the talk page. As always, please be careful to respect consensus and BLP, and avoid edit warring, since this is a contentious article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Protections
Thanks for starting to clean up after HCFest; would you mind going through his edits and making more protections? I've not yet figured out how he vandalised a WP:AN template and Infobox Settlement. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Being cleaned up as best as a couple of us can manage. Please let me know if a purge+refresh on affected pages isn't making it go away. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

India
FYI. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Got the page watched. I'm quite interested to see what thoughts other people weigh in with on this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Black Widows of Liverpool
Sorry about the delay, but I have finally got around to responding to your comments at the GA. AIR corn (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! My replies are there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Passed. Although I wouldn't trust the photos in their current state at FA as far as I am concerned they are good enough for GA per commonsense. AIR corn (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Almightyvegeta
Hello fluffernutter, this is just to inform you that has continued his disruptive editing following the end of his previous ban. I would certainly hope that this calls for some action. Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter
Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

A thank-you note
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FMaster%26Expert&diff=505479698&oldid=505479251 Geez, those trolls... we might need to get an exterminator to handle 'em all.] ;)

Thanks for the reversion. Your services are much appreciated. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 01:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! We should look into employing some billy goats to clerk RFA... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan
I'd like to notify you that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning. The RFC/U, which mentions a dispute that you had with this user, can be read at Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My typo error
I am sorry to cause you grief in that recent IP unblock request by creating a brief typo. I have commented on the editor's talk page. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy
When you have a gaggle of individuals on Wikipediocracy apparently plotting to derail the YRC RFC/U and turn it into some kind of adversarial process against me personally on bogus charges of "canvassing", supposed financial irregularities/conflicts of interest and claims of BLP violations, it's hard not to see it as a BADSITE. Or perhaps it's just a site that caters for BADPEOPLE. Prioryman (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you can provide evidence supporting misbehavior by a person or group of people in regard to influencing the RfC, go for it. Write it up and have at go at ANI or Arbcom or something. However, wandering around calling people "Wikipediocracy member $Foo" as if that completely invalidates anything they say and puts them in a class of sanctioned editors, is disruptive. Believe me, I understand the impulse - many people have had unpleasant run-ins with some of the people who hang out and comment there. But as long as they're editors in good standing here (even if you think they shouldn't be), disrupting a process to express your continuing displeasure at their associations is not helpful. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, to put it more succinctly: the RfC is not about you. It's not about Wikipediocracy. It's about YRC, and the more drama that gets stirred up on it about completely unrelated things like whether you and wikipediocracy like each other, the muddier the RfC becomes to any eventual closer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams
Hi, Fluffernutter. Could you advise me on how to proceed on the Stephanie Adams article? It has some issues that need correcting, but there seems to be a group of editors that are blocking any changes. For example, I took out one of four references stuck on her college graduation where I could see no mention of college at all, and this morning it's been reverted back in. There's no discussion in response to my request for an attempt to reach a consensus. This looks like disruptive editing to me. Pkeets (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said on the talk page, if discussion on the article talk isn't reaching a consensus in either direction, then you need to pursue dispute resolution at either the dispute resolution noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard. You cannot accomplish your objective (whatever that is) by re-doing edits to the article over and over. I've now full-protected the article indefinitely, per WP:BLPBAN, so you and everyone else will need to reach consensus on the talk page or another noticeboard for any and all edits you wish to be made. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, at least it's slightly improved. Did you see the last note I left on the talk page? My requests for discussion have been met with comments that her publications are "baloney" and that the article should be deleted, which are not productive in reaching a consensus. I gather that the consensus is not to make any changes, regardless of how obviously needed. Pkeets (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you logged the special enforcement regarding the Stephanie Adams article? —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nailed all the other steps (I think) but missed that one. Now logged, thanks for the reminder. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There are some significant problems surrounding user conduct at this article, some of which have come to the Arbitration Committee's attention. It might be best if everyone stepped away from editing this article for a few days, until it is a little more clear what has been going on. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I second Brad's recommendation. Please let things rest while this is all sorted out, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams
Hi, just to note that about 3 editors have been confirmed as having been paid to edit Stephanie Adams. It's probably already the case, but can the sysop protection of the article be maintained until at least: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard is all sorted. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought we were working toward a consensus on how to expand the article per Wikipedia policy. In the talk section, I've assembled a couple of paragraphs of well-cited material and suggested we work on others. There's no reason to keep informational content out of the article. Hopefully this will be sorted soon. Pkeets (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite why everyone cares so much about this woman escapes me, but due to the serious misconduct going on everywhere on that article and its talk (and in the murky background of places like AfD and elance.com), my protection of the article is permanent. This is an action taken as enforcement of an arbitration remedy, and the only way it's getting lifted is either a) I become convinced it's no longer necessary, and reverse myself, b) consensus on WP:AN lifts the protection, or c) Arbcom lifts the protection. Pkeets, my strong suggestion is that you find a new hobby, because this one's shut down. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. There are plenty of other articles out there that I can work on. However, you must know that this isn't an isolated problem. I see Wikipedia policy pages on disruptive and tendentious editing, and I've run into it myself on a number of occasions. Is this getting worse? For example, I see in the news that Ashley Van Haeften, chair of the UK Wikipedia fund-raising arm was banned for personal attacks and sockpuppetry related to porn issues. Pkeets (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't really make sense of what you're asking. Tendentious editing is indeed a problem in many areas on Wikipedia. Always has been. I have no idea what that has to do with WMUK, etc. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an extreme example of someone who let competition over editing get out of hand - which I gather is what's going on with the Adams article. Van Haeften has resigned from his position in the UK. Pkeets (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the link you are making between the Stephanie Adams article and WMUK. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that sound like the sort of accusations that were going on with the Adams article? It just seems to be a common occurrence in Wikipedia these days. Pkeets (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Cheers for the advice, I wasn't really sure what to do about it. I'll file a report with them. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually been handled already (we see all! we know all!), but yeah, in the future please direct this sort of thing to that email as a first step, rather than calling attention to it onwiki. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a note of their address. Thanks again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Elastic Therapeutic Tape
Fluffernutter, thank you for your reply in regards to the Elastic Therapeutic Tape page on Wikipedia. The reason that I and others continue to change the page, is that Kinesio (name brand, not all elastic therapeutic tapes) and/or its followers are continuing to change the page to reflect that any elastic therapeutic tape is Kinesio's solely. As a practitioner this discerns me as they are the 800 lb gorilla who believes that it is their way or no way. In the US there are over 14 other elastic therapeutic taping companies, in Europe there are over 60. Now some may be good, most are bad, but the fact of the matter everytime someone places the word Kinesio into the Wikipedia page they are in fact advertising solely for the purpose of Kinesio.

We are wanting to provide a neutral format of information as your guidelines state. Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil." Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T4UBTold (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation! Ok, it sounds like what's going on here is you're disputing the neutrality of some of the content in the article. Since there are also people active on the article who think that content is fine, we have what's called a "content dispute" here. There are a couple of ways you can handle this that are better than the just-remove-it-over-and-over strategy you've been using: as a first step, you can use the article's talk page to start a discussion about the content you have a problem with, and hopefully reach a consensus about it; if that doesn't work, you can use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (if you can't reach a consensus, even though both sides are trying) or the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (if you feel like you're maybe not getting cooperation from the other side in resolving the dispute). If you think someone has a conflict of interest about the article, like they're getting paid to edit it, or they're trying to promote a product, you can use the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I know this is a lot of options and noticeboards to throw at you, but that's sort of the point - when there's a dispute like this, the least-effective strategy is usually to just keep doing the same edits you've been doing, while the most-effective strategy is usually to try discussion or bringing in fresh eyes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Penyulap
I've left a msg that may be of interest to you there. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 12:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter
Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy note
Hi Fluffernutter. I expect you have Penyulap's talk page on your watchlist, but I thought it would be courteous to let you know I posted a note there. Kind regards. 64.40.54.58 (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Inflammatory remarks, personal information etc, by several ip's (one and the same)
User:201.81.224.11, who you warned, continues with his behaviour, leaving personal information and inflammatory remarks under User:201.81.226.160. He has also used User:201.81.237.228 and User:201.81.239.129. The ip's should be banned and his edits removed.--Z oupan 10:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I took it to ANI.--Z oupan 12:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

updated offer
updated my position -
 * - Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan

I think that the civility condition and the one RR restriction would render this BLP discussion clause as unnecessary and extreme punishment - if I cant revert and I cant make a single rude comment without being site banned then as I am not a BLP violator then I can be allowed to comment about living people but not allowed to edit content about such.Excuse me from missing you - I got all the others I thank - its difficult to get the offer clarified after updates - I appreciate your comment - if this has caused you to change your position please comment there - thanks- You  really  can  16:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I've clarified what I meant by the making-changes thing there, and I'll take a look at your updated proposal. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that - You  really  can

Talkback
Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234)  18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hotel Hell
Hi. It makes sense that you protected Hotel Hell, but the IP edited it just before you protected. As noted on the talk page, the original version should still be used, rather than the IP's current one. Thanks, TBrandley 18:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"As noted on the talk page". Haha. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 23:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A page protection always protects The Wrong Version. No matter when it's protected, one side of the dispute will disagree with the protected state. You guys now have a day off from the article to discuss the IPs changes with them in a constructive manner, or otherwise pursue dispute resolution processes (WP:DRN, for example) to resolve the dispute in a way that doesn't involve continual edit warring. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that semi would have worked but it got a bit crazy in there. Full protection was really the only option, despite benefiting the edit-warring IP (who has made 8 reverts now). --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention the nine reverts your group of colluding editors made in two hours. That's how each of you, individually, avoided violating the revert rule and getting in trouble. You both have been blocked in the past, including TBrandley's three blocks in three weeks this year. Fluff can read the article's talk page discussion, and look at my initial edit, to find out the real story for himself, instead of listening to the biased versions of two editors heavily involved in the edit war. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention the nine reverts your group of colluding editors made in two hours. That's how each of you, individually, avoided violating the revert rule and getting in trouble. You both have been blocked in the past, including TBrandley's three blocks in three weeks this year. Fluff can read the article's talk page discussion, and look at my initial edit, to find out the real story for himself, instead of listening to the biased versions of two editors heavily involved in the edit war. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm getting weary of the constant frenzied waves of accusations, with no foundation whatsoever, made by this IP, and frustrated by the lack of sanctions. Not only has he/she made eight reverts with in 24 hours without a block, but he/she has failed to assume good faith and is now accusing three of us of "colluding" over and over again, something that has gone unremarked upon by any admin. Hours after the PP on the original article, this IP continues to make flagrant accusations and uncivil remarks on the 3RR report and anywhere else where he/she does not have the last word. It's long past time for him/her to drop the stick, but there's no sign he/she has any plans to do so until his/her "good" edits are left in place unchallenged. No amount of guidance from at least five editors that I can find seems to have any effect. Some action needs to be taken. --Drmargi (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your collusion and blatant disregard for the very specific issues I outlined in the talk page discussion render your opinions meaningless. The actions of your group of editors speaks for itself. It's all there for administrators to review. Hopefully, you will stop the intransigence and start helping to improve the article. You and your group do not own the article. Your last block for edit-warring was for 72 hours. Hopefully, you will choose not to participate in such behavior again and instead work appropriately with other editors to help this project. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your collusion and blatant disregard for the very specific issues I outlined in the talk page discussion render your opinions meaningless. The actions of your group of editors speaks for itself. It's all there for administrators to review. Hopefully, you will stop the intransigence and start helping to improve the article. You and your group do not own the article. Your last block for edit-warring was for 72 hours. Hopefully, you will choose not to participate in such behavior again and instead work appropriately with other editors to help this project. --76.189.121.5 (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Resource exchange
Hello.Your request was fulfilled.You can find a link to the article/s you requested in the relevant section at WP:RX.Please indicate when you've downloaded successfully and add a resolved tag to your request.Thank you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good article review
Just so you know, I am reviewing Stella Nickell. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Woohoo! Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with for it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap
I've restored talk page access, with some hesitation, due to the concerns of the community. I explained there that this isn't a reversion of your revocation, which I still support, but a new action based on different circumstances. I understand if you have reservations, and I don't blame you. I hope you understand. I've unwatched that page, since Penyulap doesn't wish to communicate with me anymore, and I don't think I can help him anymore. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your action. I would dispute that we were dealing with concerns of "the community" there so much as "a small group of people who were mostly ideologically aligned with Penyulap in content disputes and feel he should never have been blocked, and who were making a lot of noise about it" (and then with someone who rather inexplicably appears to feel that I'm a horrible, abusive admin who gets my jollies from taking rights from people like Penyulap), and I personally am not a fan (as I already said) of restoring talk page access absent some plan to move forward by Penyulap, but hey, the situation is what it is. Penyulap will now either use his talk page to work on rejoining the community, or use his talk page to say goodbye to his friends and chat, or use his talk page in a problematic manner. It's up to him, and if trouble ensues, I imagine the community can handle it. Thanks for your efforts in this case - I was really hoping things would go more smoothly than they did, because where you're involved they usually do :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job
Fluffernutter - thanks, that was constructive criticism. Let me work on the suggestions. Again, I really wanted people to help in editing the article and this is exactly what you have done. Thanks again!Mziboy (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)