User talk:Kerfuffler

Alternate accounts?

Hi, I noticed that you've become very active on Wikipedia recently. I also couldn't help but notice that you are contributing at a much higher level than is typical of new users. I wanted to ask if you have previously edited under any alternate accounts or if this is perhaps a clean start account? ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. As far as I can recall, I have never used any other Wikipedia account. I have noticed that it makes some people nervous that I've actually read many of the policies and guidelines, though. —Kerfuffler 21:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad thing that you've read them; it's just unusual for a new editor to read all these policies, let alone knowing where to find them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the barrier to entry—or at least to not getting complaints every 5 minutes—seems to be generally high. Sometimes it's troublesome to find an essay or guideline even when I know it exists. —Kerfuffler 21:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, might I ask when you were able to read all these Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and how you were made aware of them? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be rude here, but no, you may not. If I told you, the correct response would be to dopeslap yourself for missing something so obvious. But doing so—especially here—would put my privacy at more risk than it already is. And you shouldn't be asking the question anyway, because I have done nothing wrong. (If you don't believe that, seriously, go find it.) —Kerfuffler 04:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What an amazing progression

What an amazing progression. Before your 20th lifetime edit you are expertly quoting policy to support your debates with other editors, and by your 9th day of editing /~60th lifetime edit you are an expert wikiwarrior, going into heated articles and knocking out material with statements "edit summary did not mention that it reverted another change; adding content is cherry picked text from a speech that belongs in Wikisource)" Also by that point claiming that you have the expertise to make overall reviews and assessments of individual editors.

Were you aware that another editor who you are allied with at Paul Ryan felt empowered to invite others to do a sock investigation on you? (it's at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, the Paul Ryan speech section) You might want to mention this to them. North8000 (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what he wrote, and you're mischaracterizing it. In any case, if you want to file a WP:SPI, go for it. I'll take it as a compliment that you think I know Wikipedia that well. Kerfuffler (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying what's above. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you

Why are you changing things I have edited? I am employed by Andy Moor to update his wikipedia page along with other things, please do not do this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.209.73 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how Wikipedia works. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:OWN before making any more changes. —Kerfuffler 13:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that whole article is a blatant advertisement, and I've tagged it as such. —Kerfuffler 13:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker: It's also loaded with copyright violations from http://www.jamdjmanagement.com/artists/andymoor.htm etc. The images also are suspect. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G12, here I come! Thanks. —Kerfuffler 13:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted...

...my edits at the article Friedrich Hayek with the commentary "obvious nonsense" [1]. Could you please explain this more precisely? --178.26.66.70 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I saw Jimmy Wales listed in there and assumed it was spam. —Kerfuffler 16:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I can verify all with reliable sources, if wanted. --178.26.66.70 (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to have a source listed in the text for such claims. —Kerfuffler 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

I think your current signature might violate WP:SIG because you don't have links to your talk or contributions. Please visit the section and make sure you are in compliance. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. “Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; …”

2. It's a guideline.

3. In case you haven't noticed, my user page is a redirect to my talk page.

So no, there is absolutely no possibility of any violation here. —Kerfuffler 01:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking this. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]