User talk:Fluffernutter

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


Taxidermy link[edit]

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)

Capital Impact Partners draft rejected -- guidance requested[edit]

Hi there, My submission for a profile of the non-profit Capital Impact Partners was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014[edit]

GGTF[edit]

Mind the gap1.svg

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)

Tech News: 2014-40[edit]

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Fluffernutter[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 [the reasons you give]"? 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)

Talk:Confusion of Tongues[edit]

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)