User talk:Fluffernutter

User:Yobronzino/Brando Palomino Bronzino

I don't know what the story is here - would you like to reply to the undeletion request at WP:REFUND#User:Yobronzino/Brando Palomino Bronzino? JohnCD (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, that page isn't on my watchlist. I've responded there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Kharvi

Hi, just a courtesy thing: I'd queried the Kharvi grammar point at User talk:Malleus Fatuorum before you posted your initial explanation. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me there...I'm going to have to continue to disagree that the original sentence was grammatical, in American English or British, but it's not much worth arguing over, anyway - both because it must not look quite as jarring to other readers, if Malleus and Drmies think it's fine, and because, well, it's India. An article that's not just an incomprehensible copyvio is a victory in itself! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Yes, such things do sometimes appear to be rarities. Grammar is a nightmare and I am genuine in saying that I am bemused in this instance. As I've just said in t'other thread, what is even more odd is that the talk page has the "Indian English" banner. That has been a favourite of a small group of people but the person who added it (Joyson) is not usually among their number. The header is fine per the guidance, which says that it can be used when an article is clearly associated with a particular country etc. It has, however, often been used in what I would consider to be a point-y manner. That is, even when the content is clearly US or UK English, someone still tags it. A niggle, no more. I am far from being a scholar of grammar and the chances are high that I am more often wrong than right. Perhaps I'll dig out my copies of the standard works and some style manuals over the next few weeks. I said "perhaps" ... they are unlikely to be high on my reading list but your comments have intrigued me. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

• News and notes: Arbitrator election: stewards release the results

• WikiProject report: WikiProjekt Computerspiel: Covering Computer Games in Germany

• Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; section headings for navboxes

• Op-ed: Finding truth in Sandy Hook

• Featured content: Wikipedia's cute ass

• Technology report: MediaWiki groups and why you might want to start snuggling newbie editors

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

• News and notes: Debates on Meta sparking along—grants, new entities, and conflicts of interest

• WikiProject report: A Song of Ice and Fire

• Featured content: Battlecruiser operational

• Technology report: Efforts to "normalise" Toolserver relations stepped up

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Re on serial killers

I have NOT used the given blog, but SOLELY already existing articles at Wikipedia. Attack those if you like, not me. I have NOT the intention at all to add others than others already at Wikipedia, in particular: Not adding anyone solely occurring at "unknownmisandry". PS: I do NOT object to any others removing my additions, but please formulate your criticism in a proper manner, namely that I have not used a properly verified Wikipedia article (I have not used any other main source on these additions) Arildnordby (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are not, in themselves, reliable sources either, and claims like this about living people require absolutely rock-solid sourcing. If a Wikipedia article is all you have to support adding the category, then that's not enough, and the edit was right to be reverted. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Look at for example, the well referenced Martha Wise article at Wikipedia, that fluffernutter wants to remove. My ONLY aim is to combine the references from other categories INTO the "female seriale killer"-category. I have no axes to grind here, do you?

Arildnordby (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Writ Keeper says what I just posted on your talk page, Aril. You cannot source things to Wikipedia itself, especially things like "so-and-so is a serial killer". You cannot add a category to something just because it seems clear to you that it ought to be right. You need to provide a reliable source for your edits, especially (especially, ESPECIALLY, I cannot say it enough) if it involves someone who is still alive. Please, please read WP:RS and WP:BLP before carrying on with this mass categorization. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made the following TAGGINGS, NOT edits that were directly indicated by that particular blog:

1. DEAD: Sophie Charlotte Ursinus

2. DEAD: Patty Cannon

3. DEAD: Catherine Wilson

4. DEAD Margaret Waters

5. DEAD: Mary Ann Cotton

6. DEAD: Flannagan sisters (Black Widows of Liverpool)

7. DEAD: John and Sarah Makin

8. DEAD: Amelia Dyer

9. DEAD: Amelia Sach and Annie Walters

10. DEAD: Martha Rendell

11. DEAD: Enriqueta Martí

12. DEAD: Amy Archer-Gilligan

13. DEAD: Martha Wise

14. DEAD: The Angel Makers Nagyrev

15. DEAD: Daisy Louisa C. De Melker

16. DEAD: Anna Marie Hahn

17. DEAD: Marie Besnard

18. DEAD: Mary Elizabeth Wilson

19. DEAD: Delfina, María, Carmen & Maria Luisa de Jesús González

20. ALIVE: Charlene Gallego, plead guilty

21. ALIVE: Suzan Barnes Carson, found guilty on 3 accounts, 3 independent references.

22. ALIVE: Cynthia Coffman found guilty of 5, 4 independent references.

23.ALIVE: Blanche Taylor Moore, 9 references.

24. ALIVE: Karla Homolka, convicted serial killer, 65 references

25. DEAD: Betty Neumar, 14 references.

Now, I kindly suggest you delete THOSE articles, prior to attacking me on scurrilous grounds Arildnordby (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're saying here, so please correct me if what I'm about to say doesn't address what you're not understanding: If you're saying that only only added categories, not prose, and that our sourcing guidelines therefore don't apply, you've misunderstood our policies: they apply to all changes you make to Wikipedia, whether it's writing "so-and-so is a serial killer" or adding [[category:female serial killers]] to the bottom of an article. It also looks like you might be having some trouble understanding where the line lies between reliable sourcing and synthesis of sources. The latter is not permitted on Wikipedia - you cannot read a source (or an article), think "Oh hey, so obviously that means X!" and add X to the article - you need a reliable source to say X first. So you can't read where an article says (with references) "Jane Doe killed four people" and add, because it seems obvious to you, "Jane Doe is a serial killer". Just because it seems obvious to you that killing four people = serial killer doesn't mean that's what the reliable sources say; to be able to add "Jane Doe is a serial killer," you would need to be able to cite a reliable source that says "Jane Doe is a serial killer". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I consider to be a "serial killer", but with those definitions that Serial Killer Task Force, and the entry on "Serial killers" DEFINE as serial killers.

To mention SFTKs definition, it is said "A serial killer is defined as someone who kills more than three victims one at a time in a short time period.". Now, that is SOMEWHAT different from the sourced and referenced definition from "Serial Killers", which specifically makes the period of time extended, in order to distinguish from "spree" and "mass" murderers. On several possibles, I have excluded those that should be regarded as spree rather than serial, and furthermore, INCLUDED such as to whom strong suspicion was attached to achieve 3+. the reason for THAT latter choice, is that several within the category already had "achieved" their status of 3+ by strong suspicion, rather than official confirmation. THUS, I have only followed what seems to have been DEFINED as "serial killer" by the Wikipedia community, through reference to other sources at "serial killers" in particular, rather than inventing anything of my own. -- For example, if a woman is simply listed under English Female Murderers, like Beverley Allitt, who was CONVICTED of murdering four children+ 9 further attempts, I have CHOSEN to include her within category "Female serial killers", not because what I think, but strictly on the basis of the defionitions set up at SKTF and "serial killers"-page. Now, you can disagree with that choice of definitions ALREADY EXISTING, but you really should argue for why my choices, in the cases given, does not follow the definitions (i.e, guidelines) set up in the relevant projects/general pages at Wikipedia. Arildnordby (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What we're saying is not that your choice is wrong. What we're saying is that it's not your choice to make. We should categorize people as serial killers only if reliable sources call them serial killers; we don't get to decide whose definitions we follow, or whether someone fits the bill.

By the way, while "3 or more murders" is indeed the definition given by the Crime Wikiproject, note that that definition is given in the context of which infobox template to use. Note that the template itself does not identify the person as a serial killer at all; in fact, it looks to be the same exact template as any other murderer. So, no, that's not a basis for categorizing people as serial killers. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Can we keep this to the MULTIPLY referenced definotion at Serial Killers (with FBI-definitions, for example??). This states the following:

1. "A serial killer is traditionally defined as an individual who has killed three or more people[1][2] over a period of more than a month, with down time (a "cooling off period") between the murders, and whose motivation for killing is usually based on psychological gratification.[3][4] Some sources, such as the FBI, disregard the "three or more" criteria and define the term as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone" or, including the vital characteristics, a minimum of two murders.[4][5]" If you read further, you will also see that the requirement "cooling down" period isd also rejected by several experts (and many of those prior to my edits, in particular the "historical ones", have no judicially proven "cooling down" period". Do you disagree qwith those??) . 2. Furthermore, several of the women under "English female murderers" do NOT have a reference who callas her, precisely: "English female murderer". Do you disagree with THAT categorization as well?

3. I have SPECIFIED, to the last detail, at the Category.talk page, precisely those I have chosen to include, so that constructive, particular criticism and deletion can be made. Instead, I have been met by hysterical, irrational, and, largely unfounded accusations. Arildnordby (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, so saying "the serial killer Wikipedia article has criteria and these people meet it" does not work. Moreover, look at the language of that definition: it uses terms like "traditionally", "usually", "not always"; it is not an "if-and-only-if" definition. You indicate yourself that the definition is under dispute. So you can't use it as a hard-and-fast rule, even if the source was reliable and combining sources like that wasn't prohibited as synthesis. (For clarity, the source (Wikipedia) is not reliable, and combining sources like that is prohibited as synthesis.)

The phrase "English female murderer" has no meaning other than the sum of its parts: we do have sources that say they're English, that say they're female, and that say they're murderers. That's why that phrase doesn't require its own source. "Serial killer" is a phrase that has a meaning on its own; it's not limited to the combination of the words "serial" and "killer". So it needs its own source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The ONLY "meaning of its own" "serial killers" have is the one given by reliable sources, and I have stuck with that, by a multiply referenced version. You need to pinpoint how my (and nor the least, others) choice falls short with that. Again, feel free to delete whichever names you personally don't "feel" belong under Female serioal killers. Because, after all, it is only YOUR feeling you are appealing to (in MY feeling, those who commit multiple murders merely as incidental and herlpful to their avariciousness "ought not" be classified as serial killers at all (I happen to regard the desire-to-murder as a necessary criterion, but that would be a restriction not countenanced by..reliable sources).

That "reliable sources" have somewhat differing definitions are THEIR problem, not mine; I need to be able to show that MY inclusions are fully within the interpretative space set up by..the reliable sources. and so they happen to be. Arildnordby (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(twice edit conflicted by you guys while I was writing this :) Aril, please don't call me (or anyone else who objects to your edits) names. My questions to you are not unfounded, nor am I being hysterical or irrational. I am trying - very hard - to explain to you a very important aspect of our policy that you don't seem to be understanding. The fact that I don't appear to be doing it well enough for you to understand it does not mean that either you or I is trying to be unconstructive.

Now, what Writ Keeper and I are trying to tell you is that you're synthesizing a couple of different facts about these women to come up with your inference (which may well be accurate) that they are serial killers. Fact 1: An academic definition of "serial killer" is $foo. Fact 2: A wikiproject (not a reliable source) defines serial killers as $foobar. Fact 3: Jane Doe killed in manner $foo. These are all verifiable, to some extent, in sources (or in the wikiproject's terms). But now we come to the synthesis. You're combining Facts 1 and 3 and coming up with something none of the sources do say: Jane Doe is a serial killer. Now, this may follow a completely reasonable chain of evidence for drawing a real-world conclusion. "She killed in a manner that matches the definition of serial killers, therefore she is a serial killer." But the whole point of writing in an encyclopedic manner is that we aren't allowed to draw conclusions that other people haven't already drawn in reliable sources, because we're not here to do analysis; we're only here to report the analysis reliable sources have done.

Now, this issue - that we can't synthesize together multiple sources - is compounded in some of the specific cases you were editing, because those people are still alive, and our policies are especially strict in regard to living people. Our policy says that in cases where unsourced information (i.e. synthesis) is being added to an article about a living person, especially where it might be contentious (and hoo boy, labeling a person a serial killer can be contentious), we must remove that information. We don't have the option of even considering "wait and see" or "well, I guess that sounds reasonable, even if it's not sourced", because we're playing with real people's lives here. Imagine, if you will, that Jane Doe comes up for parole. One of the parole board members - or, indeed, just some blogger researching the case - comes across a Wikipedia article that labels her a serial killer without any source for that. Suddenly, she's not just a convicted murderer (which is a bad thing to be) - she's a serial killer (which is a far, far worse thing to be). That person takes that information they found on Wikipedia and publicizes it or cites it in the parole hearing. Perhaps Ms Doe would be denied parole because someone publicized that she's a "serial killer" (when in fact, no one but you appears to have called her that), which is a socially loaded concept. Your attempt to synthesize together a few sources, none of which named her as a serial killer, would have suddenly impacted a real person's real life. That, right there, is why we have a special policy for dealing with articles about living people. We have a responsibility - a legal one, in a lot of cases - to do our absolute best to make sure that such articles are 100% verified in their every statement, because to fail in that could truly damage people's lives.

As far as your question about "English female murderer", I would dispute the addition of that category on any articles where the subject is not verifiably English, female, or a murderer. If those three things are provably true - they can be cited to reliable sources - then there is nothing wrong with combining the three words into one phrase. If, on the other hand, one or more of those things isn't or can't be cited to reliable sources - let's say, perhaps, that sources don't say if the person was male or female (inexplicably using non-gendered pronouns, perhaps), or that they don't say that the person was English (perhaps they were convicted in Botswana, and sources don't address the person's birth or nationality), or they don't say that the person was a murderer (perhaps they say that someone close to the person died, but no one knows if they died from murder or not) - then we can not add such a category (or call them such a thing in the article). In this case, you're adding "serial killer" to articles where the reliable sources don't say that the person is a serial killer. So no, these are not comparable situations.

Now, I'm truly sorry if you feel attacked that I corrected your edits, but it's non-negotiable that you must understand and adhere to our sourcing and, especially, living person policies. I am happy to do all I can to explain them to you if you're struggling, but you need to make the effort to understand and follow them from now on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I was writing a reply myself, but I got distracted and let Fluffernutter get a word in edgewise. My reply can be summed up as: that's "what she said." Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand your particular point about living persons, and have no trouble with upholding a particular reticence and lack of inference relative to them. So debora green is, and has never been, any important sub-subject to me. But, no, I do not at all understand that a multiply referenced definition of "serial killer" cannot be used on a DEAD person. the only thing that matters there is whether the label fits or not (a perfectly acceptable potential for disagreement, on my part), not whether somebody happens to have called a lady from the 16th century a "serial killer" or not. If the def. fits, then it is acceptable to call her such, otherwise not (that is why, for example, I have rejected to include from for example the "Poisoner" category, those who were professional poison producers (like Tofana, La Voisin etc.) because lack of PERSONAL "#gratification")

Arildnordby (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, see, that's where you're mistaken. The only thing, the only thing, that matters is what the reliable sources explicitly say about this. If they don't say it, it doesn't go in. Period. You don't get to decide whether the definition fits or not, you don't get to decide which label to use, no matter how well-sourced the definition is. If, and only if, reliable sources say "Mrs. X is a serial killer", then she can be put in the category. The rules for living people make this especially important for them, but it still applies everywhere. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right, but here we go again with synthesis. It doesn't matter if it's in regard to a living person or not - synthesis isn't acceptable. The only difference is that if it happens on a BLP article, there are extra protections built into our policies to make sure it gets removed quickly - for instance, editors removing BLP violations are exempt from our edit warring policy. This doesn't mean that on non-BLP articles the policy doesn't apply - I assure you, it absolutely does, and you need to follow it there, too - just that when it happens on a BLP article it's treated as more of an emergency than just a problem that needs to be fixed. You're putting too much weight on what seems reasonable to you in determining who fits in a category, and not enough weight on what our policies say defines what in a category. You need to remember that no matter what type of article you work on, it's your responsibility to provide reliable sources for all claims you make about the subject - not just reliable sources that provide information that helped you come up with a conclusion, but reliable sources that actually say that conclusion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

this is just SILLY cfrom both of you. I happen to have read NUMEROUS of the references to the 600+ "serial killers" entries (male+female), and in several, NONE of the "reliable sources" states explictly the phrase "serial killer" (in particular on those long gone and the dead,.

The only reason you keep up weith this idiogtic and toally irrational crirticism of me is that I happened to express appfreciation for a particular, highly politicized blog not of my own mam,king. Stop this charade. Now. Arildnordby (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything left to be said here other than reiterating that while you don't have to like me (or Writ Keeper), you are nevertheless obligated to follow Wikipedia policies when you edit. Have a good evening, and I hope we've given you some food for thought that will help you in future editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no "trade mark" to the term serial killer (there exists NO explicit Wikipedia policy that that particular term MUST appear in a particular source within its own pre-existing entries) , but I sure feel obliged to follow the DEFINITION of that term, as given by a multiply referenced source. And so I have done.

Arildnordby (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)