User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

08:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

March GOCE copyedit drive

Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors

The March 2014 backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles in need of copyediting. The drive begins on March 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on March 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copyedit all articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and to complete all requests placed in January 2014. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copyedits at least one article, and special awards will be given to the top five in the following categories: number of articles, number of words, number of articles over 5,000 words, number of articles tagged in December 2012 and January 2013 and the longest article. We hope to see you there!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 February 2014

10:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 February 2014

WimpyKid1966

I see that you blocked WimpyKid1966. Was that as a Kumioko sockpuppet? If so, should he or she or it be added to the list of sockpuppets? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was Kumioko. I did the block on the fly to nix some notification spamming. It looks like since then, it's been listed (and confirmed) in the open SPI investigation here. When an SPI clerk closes that up, I assume they'll tag and bag the whole bunch at once with one of their magic scripts. If they don't, feel free to give me another poke and I'll tag mine. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

09:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC Submission

Hi Fluffernutter. I was wondering if I could beg and plead you to take a look at my AfC submission at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Brilliant_Earth, as it says the backlog is currently a month long.

I saw your message at the top of your Talk page and I have an uplifting story for you. I showed up to an article and declared my COI - a page that had a long history of anonymous, poor, COI editing and where the editor controlling and protecting the page has a negative viewpoint about the company.

Obviously myself and the other editor are in a position that sets the stage for a contentious relationship - the type of thing that often spills over to the drama boards. But instead we hammer out the content, get other editors involved for additional input, we're both completely reasonable, and we bring the article up to GA after a massive set of Talk page strings.

For all intensive purposes, we had every possible reason to fight and bicker like the way you're describing, but instead we hammered it out and got the job done. Another GA under the belt. Assumptions of good faith all around even when there was every reason not to. CorporateM (Talk) 02:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM! I'll tell you right off the bat that business articles are one of my AfC weak points - I'll usually skip right over them because I'm so iffy on where the notability line lies - so I don't feel comfortable doing the actual review on this one. But I'd be happy to give you some of my impressions, which hopefully can be of some help to you, and perhaps one of my talk page stalkers will feel up to giving the submission a review. So, that said, my thoughts on skimming your submission:
  1. It lacks the usual lead style ("Brilliant Earth is a blah that blahs and was founded in blah by blah"). Not a dealbreaker for an AfC submission, but it's a pretty easy fix if you want to throw it in.
  2. While the sourcing shows that third-party sources have discussed the business (yay), the article itself doesn't have anything to say about why or whether people care about Brilliant Earth. I'd feel more comfortable if there was some talk of "Brilliant Earth has been recognized by [group/source] as [special thing]" or "The brand is [X popular] and sold in [notable places]" or something. Right now you tell us what BE does, but not why we should care, or whether anyone else cares. That's something a lot of business AfC submissions struggle with, and it's a large part of why I have a hard time being comfortable passing them.
  3. You cite examiner.com in the article - this isn't acceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia (the entire domain is actually blacklisted), and the pdf version of that that your citation actually links to is utterly borked and unreadable on my computer, anyway.
  4. Is your client willing to release any images? Obviously that's not a requirement for an AfC submission (not even close!), but it would improve the article in my opinion.
Hope these comments help! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
(1)  Done
(2) How about this? It's sourced from the following quote from Businessweek: "Along with just a handful of other retailers around the country sourcing only conflict-free diamonds, Brilliant Earth is helping to pioneer a new category in jewelry." (but written in a less promotional manner)
(3)  Done Doesn't look like the source was needed anyway.
(4) Hmmm... I think we discussed it, but I don't remember where the conversation went. It's such a small article, there isn't a ton of room for images, but they did say they could produce an image of their showroom. I'm not sure if that would be promotional or not...
CorporateM (Talk) 15:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014

09:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2014

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

07:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi, I noticed that on the warnings that you send to vandals it contains your custom signature (a fluffernutter is a sandwich!). Many might not be able to take your comments seriously or understand that it is a username instead of a randomly placed sentence. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. --GouramiWatcher(?) 20:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Gourami Watcher: Well, I've been using this signature for three or four years now, and this is the first time I've heard any complaint about it. Generally my plaintext sig is considered extremely restrained and comprehensible compared to signatures with complex coloring, super/sub-scripts, font size changes, etc (all of which are acceptable stylistic choices, but when we ask people to tone down their signatures, it's usually that sort of stuff that's the problem, rather than the signature not being complex enough). Are you aware of anyone actually having problems understanding that it's a signature, or are you just speculating that someone could possibly do so in the future? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2014

18:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

RE

Sorry, I didn't end up getting your reply. The message I sent about your signature was just an observation, not a complaint. As a former IP test editor, I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's warning system and from a vandal's point of view the signature could cause some confusion. Cheers! --GouramiWatcher(?) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014

How do I...?

Hi there. I noticed on your user page that you have a section called "Pages I have created or significantly contributed to." Is there an automated way of adding that kind of thing to my own user page, or do I have to look through all my contributions and copy/paste what I want to list there? Thanks. nycdi (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. It would be neat if a bot showed what articles you had been working on recently. CorporateM (Talk) 03:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


RE: My Ban

(No I'm not appealing it :) )

Fluffernutter,

Just so I'm clear, I was topic banned for my conduct per discretionary sanctions given on this page . Since it runs for 6 months, and the ban started in October 1, would that mean my ban would expire April 1. (I have avoided anything to do with any page mentioning sexology or any issue related to that - I'm asking so that I know when it's safe to engage in discussion in that area.)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   19:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kosh. Your topic ban was consecutive to your block rather than concurrent with it, so the "safe" date would be six months from October 8, aka April 8. Please remember to keep all our behavioral guidelines in mind if/when you return to that topic after April 8 - it's still a sensitive, potentially divisive area. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem. As you can see from my history, I wasn't a frequent editor on that page, so it's not like I want to get back there right away. Thank you for answering my question, and I acknowledge that I see April 8th as my safe date.

See you around  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   00:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

GOCE March drive wrapup

Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

The March 2014 drive wrap-up is now ready for review.
Sign up for the April blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
Guild of Copy Editors March 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up

Participation: Thanks to all who participated in the drive and helped out behind the scenes. 42 people signed up for this drive and 28 of these completed at least one article. Final results are available here.

Progress report: Articles tagged during the target months of December 2012 and January 2013 were reduced from 177 to 33, and the overall backlog was reduced by 13 articles. The total backlog was 2,902 articles at the end of March. On the Requests page during March, 26 copy edit requests were completed, all requests from January 2014 were completed, and the length of the queue was reduced by 11 articles.

Blitz!: The April blitz will run from April 13–19, with a focus on the Requests list. Sign up now!

– Your drive coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent oversight of IP edits

Thanks for that. I see no problem with your decisions over what to suppress and what to revdel, and as far as I can tell you got all of it (certainly all the important stuff). Much obliged, as always. Yunshui  12:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2014

08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Trey McGriff (April 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
@Josve05a: That article isn't mine, I just fixed some formatting. You might want to go back and notify the actual creator. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank! I have message the user. (tJosve05a (c) 23:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

References in portals

I see that you've begun fixing the reference errors in portals - the start of a big job! I tried to get a discussion started about this at Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines#References in portals, your opinions would be welcome. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, John of Reading. I've commented there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

iDM is me, iDangerMouse, Cisco98, iDM|Away, and iDM|Peshawar currently since I am there

Hi... derp drama Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Derp evading ban on Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeelYouUp Danger^Mouse (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2014


RE: Your note on JHunterJ's page

Fluffernutter,

I'm not looking for conflict, but I do have to say I'm dissapointed in your note on JHuterJ's page. The MOS page is covered by a discretionary sanction, but it's not the sexology sanction, therefore the note on his page implying that I was violating that sanction again was incorrect. I've placed a note on his page explaining that as well. Once again, you're using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. You'll note I've spelled out my reasons for removing the section (in violation of WP:BLP and WP:V) I've also noted the reason for both reverts (any item failing WP:BLP can be reverted on sight , and it's noted as an exemption to 3rr (or even 0rr).) As both are policy, this wouldn't fall under discretionary sanctions. It's merely enforcing policy, nothing more.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Kosh, I was quite careful to point out to JHunter that I hadn't examined the situation and was simply advising him of a previous sanction from the case he'd warned you about (and which I'd only noticed because he logged it on the case page). I'm sure you feel you were acting according policy, just as I'm sure he feels he was. I have to say, though, that watching you immediately return to exactly the behavior that got you sanctioned six months ago - right down to issuing threats and ultimatums to admins who attempt to get you to tone it down - makes me think that JHunter's warning-only approach was, if anything, too lax to handle the situation. Please consider that you may honestly be misunderstanding what is and isn't disruptive in the topic area of Chelsea Manning/trans issues. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't immediately return. A few days elapsed before I touched Chelsea Manning's page, and then only the talk page (Just so we're clear, I pretty much banned myself from making any change on the Chelsea Manning article relating to gender , I would only remove obvious vandalism up to May 31. I would discuss on the talk page, but per Floquenbeam's request, if three users in good standing tell me to drop the stick, I drop the stick - I wasn't going to make that public, but none the less, that's what I've imposed on myself to show goodwill (not just talk about it )  :) . See you around  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


My topic ban

You issued that after I'd agreed to drop my issue on the MOS page, so that's a bit late, don't you think ? Either way, I won't rant and rave on your page about it, nor try to get it removed. I disagree with your ban, but at this time, it is what it is.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Custom templates

Hello! If you (or any stalker) would be so kind, please take a look and see if a bit of copy editing would help. Feel free to make any changes you wish while trying to keep the purpose the same.

Here is the page I made to organize my thoughts: User:Anna Frodesiak/Yellow sandbox. In the table, I could use your opinions on items 4, 5, and 9 regarding coiusername template vs. ublock. Please see the bottom where the templates and descriptions are. The items are separated with horrid black bars. They are there to separate the items because some templates have a heading, which makes everything confusing.

Here is a list of the templates themselves:

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


Stalkers and Fluffernutter: in a nutshell, this is about addressing two things:

1. Sometimes ublock should not allow account creation.
2. Sometimes a promo userpage subject is notable. A spamblock loses the chance at an article and a potential editor.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)