User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

GOCE December 2013 Blitz wrap-up and January Drive invitation

December Notes from the Guild of Copy Editors
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The December blitz ran from December 8–14. The theme for this blitz was articles tied in some way to religion. Seven editors knocked out 20 articles over the course of the week. Our next blitz will be in February, with a theme to be determined. Feel free to make theme suggestions at the Guild talk page!

The January 2014 Backlog elimination drive is a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on January 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on January 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Our goals are to copy edit all articles tagged in October and November 2012 and complete all requests placed before the end of 2013. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits 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 of over 5,000 words", "Number of articles tagged in October and November 2012", and "Longest article". We hope to see you there!

GOCE Coordinator.png

Coordinator election: Voting is open for candidates to serve as GOCE coordinators from 1 January through 30 June 2014. Voting will run until the end of December. For complete information, please have a look at the election page.

– Your drive coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible review schedule.

Hello User:Fluffernutter; Your user page indicates a large experience in the copy editing with FA and GA articles. My present thoughts are to start an FA review in medicine, do you have any possible interest? BillMoyers (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Tech News: 2014-01

08:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

GOCE 2013 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2013 Annual Report
Writing Magnifying.PNG

The GOCE has wrapped up another successful year of operations!

Our 2013 Annual Report is now ready for review.

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Jonesey95

Sign up for the January drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Tech News: 2014-02

08:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry about that Coterminal angles edit. I was trying to help a new editor and did not realize it was a redirect.--☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. It took me a good while to figure out what the heck was going on there. Actually, I'm still not positive what was going on there, but the redirect seemed like the better option than leaving the mildly incoherent new definition. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

Lgcsmasamiya and NPP

Hi Fluffernutter, I was looking at ANI today and noticed that Lgcsmasamiya was banned from New pages patrolling, but that he had been blocked indefinitely because he kept doing it anyway. Then I went on his talk page and noticed that you had declined two of his unblock requests. I am posting here because this user has stated on his talk page that he promises that, if unblocked, he will not use NPP anymore: [28] Given that this is the one thing he has to agree to in order to be unblocked, I am proposing that you consider unblocking him. Jinkinson talk to me 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't find 'I agree to stay away from NPP' all that convincing, since he was supposed to stay away last time, too, and didn't. I would hope to hear something more about how he plans to stick to his promise and why we should believe him this time before I would be comfortable unblocking someone who's already violated community restrictions once (notice that I commented to him last time around, "you need to convince a reviewing administrator that you will follow the restriction the community placed you under (no patrolling) and that the community can trust you to keep your word about that this time around"). At any rate, the ball is in Lgcsmasamiya's court. If he thinks 'I agree to stay away from NPP' is adequate, he can make an unblock request to that effect, and that will mark his talk page as requiring the review of an administrator. He's not likely to get any outside administrator attention (which is what he'd need, because the administrators who have dealt with him thus far have all declined his requests as inadequate) until he makes an unblock request, however. The admins have no way of knowing until then that he's trying to bargain. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I found my way here after seeing on my talk page that the editor is blocked. How about a WP:ROPE unblock? —rybec 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
As I said a few lines up, I'm not convinced based on Lgcsmasamiya's current offerings that he can or would abide by his restriction this time. He was given rope when he was told "you can keep editing if you don't try to patrol", he hung <"Hanged", my inner grammar nerd shouts. "The past tense of 'hang' is 'hanged'!"> himself when he tried to patrol anyway, hoping no one would notice. The second time around it's going to take significantly more explanation to convince me, at least, that things are different now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning. —rybec 19:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
(Tattletale) Um, this editor used a profanity in their unblock request [29]. It's censored, but still, you may want to consider that when considering unblocking. Epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
While dirty words can be a bit naughty, that kind of usage of them isn't exactly something that would cause me (or, I assume, anyone with a level head) to bring the hammer down or to deny an unblock request. It's just an expression of his impatience, not an insult to or belittlement of another person. The fact that he's impatient when he himself failed to provide adequate assurances or make an unblock request is relevant, that he said "f*ck" in the process is rather largely less so. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-03

09:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Good Old Mountain Dew --Guerillero | My Talk 03:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, Guerillero! One cn tag added, and please be sure to check that in shuffling sentence bits around, I didn't invalidate any of your ref placement. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you fluff! --Guerillero | My Talk 19:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

Tech News: 2014-04

10:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

In my experience, when a COI editor is declined at AfC, in most cases they are writing an article about something that doesn't meet our notability requirement. Sometimes they write decent quality content and are trying to do the right thing, but at the end of the day, they want an article and we do not - that COI is insurmountable.

The problem in my view is that we decline their article in a manner that strings them along, sometimes through a half-dozen re-submissions. There's always a "next step" like "find more sources" and it wastes everyone's time. The PR rep is equally frustrated by it.

In my view we need a decline template that is more absolute that doesn't encourage re-submissions. That just says "it doesn't look like we should have an article on this topic" rather than "find more sources." Pinging user:Drmies here, because I have mentioned this to him as well. CorporateM (Talk) 17:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Your article submission has not been accepted because it appears to promote a person, organization or movement. If you are affiliated with the subject of the article, please note that you are very strongly discouraged from contributing to articles where you may have a skewed perspective on what is neutral.
I think that's a really good thought, CM. We don't currently have a decline for "no, seriously, this just isn't ever going to work", even if we, as reviewers, know that to be the case, and hearing that the COI submitters don't like it any better than we do is enlightening. My thinking along these lines had led me to suggesting a new CSD criterion for "this is never going to work", but now that you mention your idea, a decline for that sort of thing is probably a better first step (we can always worry about deleting them some other time; they do little harm sitting around AfC space in the meantime). I'm not positive where we would go to have a consensus-making discussion about something like this...probably WT:AFC, but perhaps the Village Pump? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the bureaucratic "seek consensus first" method is not a good way to promote innovation in Wikipedia's processes and policies. There is rarely a gavel that slams down and all the sudden "It is decided. for now on we will do it this way." Rather I would just create whatever template you yourself would like to use. Use it and tweak it until you're happy with it and then share it with others. If they find it useful, it will spread organically and eventually someone will say "hey how come this isn't in the AfC documentation and review instructions?"
In my COI role I get inquiries from non-notable companies all the time, where the helpless PR rep kind of understands why they can't have an article, but they don't have the confidence or knowledge to take that message to their paymaster. A journalist will give us a straight answer on whether they are interested in the story we're selling, but Wikipedians are wishy washy, which makes the PR rep basically obligated to pursue it further. Once a corporate process has begun, there's a half-dozen people constantly saying "what's the status" and "what's the next step?" We need the PR rep to be able to say "Wikipedia doesn't want the article." CorporateM (Talk) 18:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Sorry it took me so long to reply to you! You're right that "seek consensus first" can stifle innovation, but the caveat to that is "but being bold is only the more-useful option if you have reason to think your idea is uncontentious and you can implement it singlehandedly". In light of that, there are two problems with being bold in this particular case. First, most AfC reviewing is done via the AfC helper script, which automatically transcludes decline templates and does other various tasks associated with reviewing an AfC, which can be a complex, multi-step process otherwise. As a result, a novel template won't get much, if any, uptake until it's integrated into the AfC Helper script, and getting it into AfCH requires discussion and the approval of the script's developers. Second, in this particular case, I strongly suspect that there is at least one, and probably more than one, person who would vehemently oppose any change to the AfC workflow that led to a "not now, not ever"-type decline. I'm all for being bold, but only when I don't have reason to think my action would be contentious. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right. I went ahead and sort of purused a few AfC submissions and sort of got a sense of things. It's been a while since I contributed to AfC. I left some comments on the AfC Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. It would be quite a wild conspiracy theory for someone to allege I have a COI with AfC templates, which would be based on the assumption of some self-serving conspiracy rather than my just trying to help. But when you came in with a heavy COI-angle I realized I should disclose my role as a COI contributor. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Philippe's judgment

You wrote:

Did Kww intend to substitute his judgment about the article's protection needs for Philippe's? No, he was trying to use Philippe's judgment ("This article's viewable content should not be alterable by most people")

My question: is "This article's viewable content should not be alterable by most people" something Philippe actually wrote? If not, it reads like an unwarranted presumption both about what Philippe was trying to do, and that the PC2 was even a matter of Philippe's judgment (rather than that of, say, the WMF legal team, which may be why he had to confer with them). Overall this seems like a situation where one should try to presume as little as possible. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"This article's viewable content should not be alterable by most people" is a summary of what PC2 does, and thus of what Philippe applied to the page (you could, of course, summarize it with other phrasings, too, but that's one). It's not an assumption of what he may or may not have been thinking, which, like you, I have no idea of. I don't think my comment was really sufficiently ambiguous to need to be edited; it goes without saying to anyone who's reading the case that Philippe represents the WMF in this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I think describing another person's judgment about an issue really does assert something about what's going on in their mind, rather than about some related topic in an aspect that might or might not have been relevant to what they were thinking. The relevance of Philippe!=WMF is that someone interpreted "Philippe talked with the legal team" as "Philippe asked the legal team how to clobber Kww" where an AGF reading might be "Philippe asked the legal team whether full protection was an acceptable alternative to the PC2 that they had decided on earlier". Anyway, thanks for the clarification about the non-quote. I made another comment on Floquenbeam's usertalk if that's of any interest. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-05

09:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to your message to LewFab for the Pfaudler page

Fluffernutter, I am the Global Product Director for Pfaudler, Inc. I use Wikipedia all the time for informational purposes, but never have contributed. For kicks, I searched my company name. I found a Pfaudler page but it was clearly developed by a disgruntled employee as can be seen in the last sentence. This is an untrue statement. Also, being in management at Pfaudler, I can tell you this content was not authorized by Pfaudler. I tried to update the page with more detailed and true language that I copied from our from our web page, which is also in our print literature. I am responsible for the content on our webpage and sales literature, so I can authorize the use of its content. As you can tell by my edits, I a am very inexperienced at Wikipedia page editing. Heck, I am probably responding on the talk page to you incorrectly as well. I would like to put a Pfaudler page on Wikipedia; however, if I can simply start by removing the current page and its "shot" at our 130 year old company and its management, I will be satisfied until I learn how to add a new Pfaudler page correctly. Thanks for the help

LewFab (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)LewFab

Hi LewFab. You got the posting on my talk page part right, actually! We've got a couple of problems going on here, so let me take them one by one. The links I'm putting below are all very important to understanding how to edit here; while I understand that it can feel like a homework assignment, please read through them all before attempting to edit articles further.
  1. Copyright. Wikipedia publishes its content under a reusable license. This means two things: first, that anything you upload to Wikipedia, you are consenting to have re-used by anyone, anywhere, in nearly whatever manner they would like; second, that you can't upload anything to Wikipedia that you are not willing to release under this license. So it's not enough for Pfaudler to say "we're ok with Wikipedia containing this text"; there is an entire process involved in Pfaudler officially releasing text to the public domain so it can be used on Wikipedia. Releasing PR text under a public domain license is almost certainly something you will want to clear with your manager(s) before doing, since your PR content is a Pfaudler-owned asset.
  2. Tone and neutrality. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directly, so even if Pfaudler licenses its PR content under Wikipedia's license, it's quite unlikely that the PR material's tone will be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. When you're trying to write for Wikipedia articles, try to write from the mindset of "just the facts, not the commentary". So, for example, "Pfaudler produces glass lined reactors" is a fact. "Pfaudler, a world leader in awesomeness, creates the best glass lined reactors. Our long line of satisfied customers says..." is a fact surrounded by a lot of PR buzzwords and opinion. Those things don't belong in an encyclopedia.
  3. Pfaudler doesn't "own" its Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project that, as I said above, is intended to be edited from a neutral point of view. That means that someone who works for Pfaudler has no more right to dictate the content of Pfaudler than any other Wikipedia editor off the street. If there's inaccurate information in a Wikipedia article, the article's subject can of course tell us that and we'll do our best to fix it, but they don't get to "authorize" what the article says, or say yes or no to what information it contains.
  4. As a representative of Pfaudler, you have a conflict-of-interest when it comes to editing that article. Because (again!) Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral, factual project, it can be extremely difficult for users with a conflict-of-interest to edit articles they're conflicted on with appropriate tone. We strongly, strongly suggest that editors in your position refrain from directly editing "their" article, at least at first. I would suggest that rather than trying to edit the article itself on your own, you try the suggested steps for engagement from our conflict-of-interest guide. By seeking the help of more experienced editors, you'll find that your requested edits are more likely to be adjusted so they conform to our policy, and thus more likely to stick around.
I know this is a lot to wade through, but it really will help you get a handle on how to do things here. Please feel free to ask me any more questions you might have, or use the paid editor help noticeboard to get your proposed edits reviewed, or use the {{helpme}} template on your talk page or on the article's talk page to request immediate help from any editor in how to edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

GOCE Requests page

Hi Fluffernutter; just to let you know that I've copied your message to Soham from here to his talk page because I'm about to archive the request and remove the message. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Baffle :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Fluffernutter, much appreciated. Baffle gab1978 thank you too. Soham 05:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

re: Please do not request revdel or suppression via ANI

Thanks for the deletion. TBH, I stopped reading the red (well, pink) warning box after "death threat". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Tech News: 2014-06

08:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

recall

I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy note

I have replied to your question at my RfA. Thank you for taking the time to ask it and feel free to ask me to clarify anything or just enquirer further. I appreciate questions - I am with Sagan on this one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-07

09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

COI

Hello, if you are editing any articles related to your employment or professional life, could you please add the "connected contributor" box to the talk page of those articles? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cla. When I edit articles I have a COI for any reason on, I'm careful to leave explicit, durable notes that my edits should be reviewed for COI-related neutrality issues. I see from your contributions that you're caught up on the Watson article in particular; as per the diff above, my involvement in that topic was explicitly noted at the time I was editing the article, and I'll add that the article was written, expanded, and GA'd (whoa, when did that happen?) by people unrelated to me. The bulk of my edits to the article involve vandalism reversion and early sourcing issues; I made two content additions one day in 2011 using an edit summary that specified "Please not [sic] that I have a COI on this topic and welcome all extra eyes to ensure neutrality". Other than that, I haven't touched the article since, let's see...2012. Given that I'm not a current editor of the article (and haven't been for nearly two years), that my COI was declared both on the article and on its talk page at the time, and that I was never a main contributor to the article's content in the first place, it seems both overkill and extremely pointed to, at this late date, dramatically add a template attempting to connect me to the article's content. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Istanbul New Airport

Would you pls explain why you've removed a sentence cited with reliable source in Istanbul New Airport? 18:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)~

@CeeGee: Gah. That was the exact opposite of what I was intending to do there, I must have fat-fingered a button or diff somewhere. I've undone my edit, thanks for letting me know! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • OK! No problem. 18:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)~

Some baklava for you!

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Constructive criticism is always appreciated. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014

Noticed in passing

Hi, for info only, no action proposed. I haven't really looked deeply at this because I don't know either editor or background in the Kingdom of Hungary article where it apparently started, but after noting this to admin John, I now passed via the other user's Talk page and saw your comment here. You're right, the Hungarian editor didn't start it, but he was the first to tip over 3RR in restoring things. Good call. But what I notice above is that deliberately or coincidentally the Hungarian editor has identified Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iaaasi, all coincidentally based in the same location in Romania as the new IP which has suddenly appeared to support the Slovak editor. No idea what should be done with that info, if anything. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Citation needed span

As far as I am aware, templates with similar transclusion counts are normally semi-protected, not template-protected. Please lower the protection level of this template. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dogmatic. This template is at risk for a particularly problematic type of vandalism from a user who has vandalised with autoconfirmed accounts in the past. As a result, semiprotection won't hold off the vandalism my protection aims to prevent. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


Block

Super Sintex
Please Block IP Contributor:76.64.180.9 he's harassing me, telling me what to do, committing in multiple edit wars, and unnecessarily deleting/undoing my edits even though I'd asked him repeatedly.
You may check his User:Contributions as proof
Super Sintex —Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)