User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Fluffernutter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm tired. I'm tired of feeling like the community runs on high-octane rage and like every policy or content discussion is all that stands between us and the end of the world. I'm sick of seeing people talk to each other as if they're not speaking to another human being, because typing words on a page makes it so much easier to say things you wouldn't say to someone's face. I'm exhausted from trying, in a tiny way in a few tiny corners, to make things suck here a smidgen less, and mostly feeling like I've failed, when I can muster the energy to try at all.

This isn't a retirement message. I'm still here, and I'm still editing in my usual sporadic fashion. But I'm tired of the bad, and I want to hear the good. I would so, so appreciate it if anyone who stumbles across this message could leave me a note telling me what you love about Wikipedia. What you do or the community does that doesn't feel draining. What's gone right lately, for you and your work here, or for the project(s) themselves. Tell me something good that came out of your time here. Remind me why we put our energy into this thing in the first place. Show me somewhere on-wiki where people completely failed to be terrible to each other even though the chance was there. Show me editors being valued without being showered in the shiny baubles that make this feel a game of trinket collection instead of a collaboration.

Remind me of the good, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme: Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC (RSVP), focusing on LGBT history and culture. 11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library. We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

07:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone! Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko has repeatedly declared that he feels this ban was invalid and the result of a small number of users trying to get him banned over and over until something finally stuck. As a result of what he feels was his mistreatment, he has committed to evading his ban as often as possible in order to point out that the "ban" was invalid and to prove that he cannot be restrained by a ban anyway; he appears to have access to sufficient IP addresses and/or technical expertise to do this indefinitely.

I've seen too many editors get banned over a dispute. Usually what happens is when user A is annoyed at User B's actions, User A goes to ANI to proposed a ban on User B. Others take up A's argument and B is banned before he has a chance to give his side of the story. I think it's time to have some sort of system where if a ban is agreed upon, the user gets reported to Arbcom and they can decide the proper sanction. RWCasinoKid (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Mousetrap page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hay Fluffernutter, I stumbled across your message a second ago and thought I would respond to what I love about wikipedia...

Also, did you know you are the reason I know what a fluffernutter is. The first time I saw an edit of yours I looked it up, had no idea people did that with marshmallow fluff. I think of you every single time I hear about a fluffernutter.

I believe in wikipedia, it is that simple. I'm not an idealist who believes that we are going to collectively document objective reality in it's purest form, I'm not a fundamentalist making sure to get truth out there, I am a pragmatist who believes that somewhere in the messiness and process and yelling and celebration we are able to collectively create something that other people find valuable, and in the debate we discover that we put a lot more brain power into television and music stars than we do into philosophy and science... and that is ok, people have a right to become obsessed with making sure every single episode of Lost is documented in excruciating detail while the Theory of Communicative Action page is left messy and uncorrected. That's why I am here, to spend time, when I have it, making a few pages a bit better than when I found them.

I also like Habermas, so there are a lot of tie in's between his philosophy and what we do here on wikipedia. Hope you are doing well.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Question for you which I hope you will answer. You declined the unblock request of MeropeRiddle for being out of process.

Does this mean that you ultimately agree with the decision by Canens to oversight what he did? And if so, can you please tell us what part of the oversight policy allows for this?

If you don't agree, then why don't you unblock? 121.33.190.182 (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The answers to everything you're asking are already on Merope's talk page. I declined your unblock request because there was already an open unblock request on the user's talk page, accompanied by multiple notes that the block was under discussion. There is no need to have two open in such a case, especially because yours was a polemic against another user more than it was an unblock request (not to mention the fact that we don't let people write other people's unblock requests, in general). No one has unblocked the user unilaterally because, as you can see from the block template that was placed on Merope's talk page, this is an Oversight Block, which is a type of block governed by specific rules. Oversight blocks are "sticky", for lack of a better word - an admin cannot lift it based solely on their own judgment, and it is required that such blocks be discussed with one or more oversighters prior to unblocking (because private information, which only oversighters can see, is involved). It is expected that such an unblock will be the result of a consensus of those oversighters, not "because someone uninvolved in the block is impatient". In this case, that discussion is already underway, and it would be contrary to the spirit of the policy for anyone to charge in and make a decision unilaterally about the block while they know it is being actively handled. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Edited to add, after edit conflict: I have removed your link to an offwiki site. You and I clearly both already know what we're discussing; there is no need to place links to questionable material to make your point. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Fluffernutter. For some weeks now José Paranhos, Viscount of Rio Branco (a FA) has faced daily vandalism. It's the same issue you saw at Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias: it seems that facebook redirects links from similar named towns to those articles, or something like that, I don't know. Could you temporarily raise the article's level of protection so that only older users can edit it? --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at what I said above. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week; we'll see what things look like after that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Urgh... could you do it again? And this time for longer? It happened again. --Lecen (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've given it a month. It seems some bizarre misunderstanding, and I'd prefer not to indef-protect the article for that, but I don't see many useful IP edits either. Huon (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

09:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Fluffernutter,

Being the biggest employer in Libby, MT, I only felt it was right that there was a link to us on the Libby, MT page. Often we get calls and emails on why we are not show on this page. I would like our link restored.

Thanks Samuraishenobi (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Samuraishenobi. Wikipedia is not a directory service, which means we don't list businesses just because they exist or are in a certain place. If your company is notable according to Wikipedia's policies (that means multiple, independent sources will have covered it in-depth, as an important element in its field, etc), that's one thing, but please do not add links just because you think people should be able to get to your business through Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, My submission for a profile of the non-profit Capital Impact Partners was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Draft:Capital_Impact_Partners). In the note indicating its rejection, it said it needs outside sources. I was confused because I cite several outside sources. Can you give me some guidance on what kind of edits I need to make to get it accepted? Thank you for your time! Lauramullane (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lauramullane: Though the template I used covers both issues, the biggest problem in your draft is that it is written and structured mostly like a promotional brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. The best way I can sum that up is that we're not interested in hearing why your organization is great; we're interested in hearing why other, unrelated people and organizations care about your organization. To pull out a few examples: "Company X is the highest-rated Y for Z years running" is PR content, not an encyclopedic statement; a bare list of board members and "leadership" is something you'd see in a prospectus, not an encyclopedia article; "Since 1984, Capital Impact Partners has helped member-owned businesses and homeowner communities access markets, services and infrastructure that further benefit the community as a whole" is what a press release would say, not an encyclopedia article. That's just some items that I picked out on a quick skim, but the fact is that the whole article gives off a tone of "Hey, let's promote how great Capital Impact Partners is!" and not "These are the facts about a company called Capital Impact Partners." Wikipedia's dispassionate house style can be difficult for someone writing on behalf of an organization to master, because your instinct is to write positive content, not neutral content.

However, in addition to these tone concerns, there are actually two more pressing ones that I notice. First, I see spots where you seem to have copied statements directly from cited sources into your draft. Wikipedia's copyright policy is very strict and prohibits this, and violating this policy can lead to your article being deleted and your account being blocked. Second, if, as it appears, you are a PR representative or reputation consultant, you are operating in violation of Wikimedia's Terms of Service. People who are editing Wikipedia in the pay of an article subject are required to conspicuously disclose that fact at the time of their editing. Failure to do this can result in local or global termination of your editing rights, not to mention the kind of PR stink companies don't want. Please read the relevant section of the Terms of Service and make any necessary disclosures as stipulated there. Please also keep in mind that even if you follow the disclosure policy, we have a local policy that strongly, strongly discourages people with a conflict-of-interest like I'm guessing yours is from editing articles about their employers, due to the inherent bias that can be very difficult to overcome in that position. This section of that policy is the most important for your purposes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

We would love you to join the Gender Gap task force. There you can coordinate with editors who are addressing the effect of the gender gap on women on Wikipedia – whether as article subjects, editors or readers. If you would like to help, please sign up or visit the talk page. Happy editing, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, what I edited was unbiased. It was based on facts and Nazism for you is biased to make what I posted biased. But if you saw it unbiased, then it makes my post unbiased and if you look into the facts and the resources historians provided us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedTheologists (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I too have reverted your edit. I see no citations and it appears to be just your personal view. You need to provide a reference to a reliable source that supports the commentary - QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What I hear you saying, UnitedTheologists, is that it's clear to you that Joaquins are like Nazis. However, this is an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter what you, personally, feel is clear or fair; it matters what reliable sources say from a neutral perspective about the topic. I, personally, think it's quite clear that dogs are way better than cats, but that doesn't mean I can go to the Wikipedia article about cats and write "all cats are basically evil, hitler loved cats so that's my proof" - because that's not an independently-verifiable, neutral fact, it's just me concluding something based on equating something I think with something else.

The basic question here is, are there neutral, reliable sources that say "Joaquins are just like Nazis, because "? If there aren't - and please be sure to review our sourcing and neutrality policies before deciding - then the statement you're trying to add doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If there are, then you need to cite your comment to the neutral, reliable sources that verify it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Is being hit hard by User:Wikinger - normally he uses open proxies but I know too little about proxies to be comfortable, but if they are proxies obviously they need long blocks. You may know all this so sorry if I'm telling my grandmother how to suck eggs, whatever that means. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to explain that my revert was because that was just Wikinger again - I can see why you got confused, I think he was trying for that. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, yeah, that history confuses the hell out of me. I was mass-rollbacking user:185.59.16.30's work (which, coincidentally, smells of LTA - is that also Wikinger? is the whole run of IPs on that talk?) and didn't look too closely at what else had gone into the recent past edits there. Thanks for the heads-up, I'm going to double-check the other reverts I did from that IP history to make sure nothing else got borked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wikinger again. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I have posted to PUMP, FTNB and VTR that I believe a clear policy requiring COI declaration for OTRS edits is needed. Please comment if you see fit. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes! and Oh noes, I did not know you have been having health issues. I am so very sorry to hear that, and hope all is well soon. Please do let me know if there is anything I can do for you. KillerChihuahua 14:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Get well soon! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up about the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV pushing on Marketplace Fairness Act and Alliance for Main Street Fairness. I stopped years ago editing articles that were related to my employer at the time. Even though I am no longer an Amazon employee, I have no interest in using Wikipedia (or any forum) as a means of debating political issues with total strangers. Wikipedia is particularly useless at presenting objective information about politically-sensitive matters. Good luck with cleaning up those articles — they're still a mess. White 720 (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)