User talk:Fluffernutter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Tech News: 2014-42[edit]

08:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project 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) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

20:05:01, 16 October 2014 review of submission by KevinPace1[edit]


First, thanks for taking the time to review my article. As you can tell, it was my first. What specifically can I do to improve the article? I compared it to numerous other jazz vibe articles and it is nearly identical to theirs. Again, thanks for your time and all of your help! KevinKevinPace1 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

KevinPace1 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi KevinPace1. The main problem with your draft is that it lacks citations for the vast majority of its information. Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable, which means we need to be able to trace back a statement in an article to the proof of that statement. This goes double when we're writing about living people, on whose behalf we try to make all statements about them pretty bulletproof. If we let authors write anything they wanted about living people without requiring them to verify that information, it could easily lead to reputation and libel issued. So in your article, you have a few hundred words about Jon Metzger...but there's only one source linked to any of those words, and that source only addresses some of what you wrote about. A baseline rule of thumb when you're writing about a living person is to make sure you have at least one cited source per paragraph, telling us where you got the information in that paragraph. Remember that encyclopedia articles are intended to be surveys of other, more primary material, not original research that can't be traced back to primary material, so that readers can follow the trail for their research. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2014[edit]


Topic Ban[edit]

Sorry to hear about your health issues (I'm a cancer survivor myself, so I know a bit about chronic health issues ). Anyrate, no I'm not going to ask for my Topic ban to be lifted, so don't worry about that. I want to ask if the ban on MOS:ID is "broadly construed " , in other words, I know I'm banned from that page, however, am I banned from any and all discussions about MOS:ID anywhere ? Thanks KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 17:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi KoshVorlon. Your topic ban applies to "all pages and discussions related to transgender issues, broadly construed". So the intention there is to keep you away from transgender issues, specifically, anywhere on Wikipedia, including the MOS; if there are sections of the MOS you wish to edit that are completely unrelated to transgender issues, I would see no problem with you editing normally on those (abiding, of course, by BRD, your 0RR restriction, etc). MOS:ID, in particular, though, seems potentially problematic. If the part of it you intend to edit seriously has absolutely nothing to do with transgender issues - if you're interested in editing the "Arab" section, for example - I wouldn't see that as a problem, but the "broadly construed" language of your topic ban means that you're expected to keep well away from any MOS edits that could have anything to do with transgender issues - so pronouns, people's names, how to refer to groups by sexuality, and things like that would all be right out. The usual advice for broad topic bans applies here: if you're not sure a topic is 100% not covered by the ban, either ask first, or just don't make the edits you were thinking about.

Tl;dr version: You're not banned from editing everything in the MOS, but MOS:ID in particular seems like a questionable place to focus your attention if you want to be positive you don't step on the topic ban, and I would advise you to be scrupulous about staying away from anything even slightly related to transgender issues within that section. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Understood Fluffernuteer. I wasn't going to actually edit that page, however,the subject came up (not on a transgender page) and I wanted to be clear on my restrictions before I responded. I hear you though, if that subject comes up , don't respond to it would be my best choice. Thank you ! KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams article[edit]

I believe you were the admin who either fully protected or both fully then semi protected the SA article. I and my colleagues researched the page and found two aggressive and negative editors in the past, fasttimes68 (banned then later banned again as a sock puppet) and hoary (still editing and following) interestingly so are friends. My suggestion is that you ban hoary from editing this page and also place the full protection back up again for at least another year. From what I've seen of hoary and his both frivolous as well as libelous edits the past several years, even exhibited in the discussions, and given the fact that SA is a continued public persona who will more than likely have more news coming out, it is better for Wikipedia to be safe than sorry. Unless no one minds more cleaning up to do. Tfortrouble (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

How strange, Tfortrouble, that such a new account should immediately and exclusively focus on that article, without even dabbling at anything newbie-related first. Given that you've never edited with this account prior to yesterday, which "colleagues" are you speaking of? How do you know Hoary, who they're friends with, and what type of edits they make? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43[edit]

13:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)