Jump to content

User talk:Fluffernutter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legal2000 (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 15 August 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Experimental archiving

I'm tired. I'm tired of feeling like the community runs on high-octane rage and like every policy or content discussion is all that stands between us and the end of the world. I'm sick of seeing people talk to each other as if they're not speaking to another human being, because typing words on a page makes it so much easier to say things you wouldn't say to someone's face. I'm exhausted from trying, in a tiny way in a few tiny corners, to make things suck here a smidgen less, and mostly feeling like I've failed, when I can muster the energy to try at all.

This isn't a retirement message. I'm still here, and I'm still editing in my usual sporadic fashion. But I'm tired of the bad, and I want to hear the good. I would so, so appreciate it if anyone who stumbles across this message could leave me a note telling me what you love about Wikipedia. What you do or the community does that doesn't feel draining. What's gone right lately, for you and your work here, or for the project(s) themselves. Tell me something good that came out of your time here. Remind me why we put our energy into this thing in the first place. Show me somewhere on-wiki where people completely failed to be terrible to each other even though the chance was there. Show me editors being valued without being showered in the shiny baubles that make this feel a game of trinket collection instead of a collaboration.

Remind me of the good, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks to everyone who's offered me their happy thoughts so far. Collapsing to keep the page from getting out of hand. Please feel free to continue to offer me your thoughts if you want! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I still edit enwiki at all is because of my colleagues out at the U.S. roads project, and the work that we are able to do. --Rschen7754 20:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the knowledge equivalent of crack. Go deeper my friend.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two responses. One not asked for: I readily appreciate your efforts on the "smidgen less" and do not think you have failed, at all, it is in fact a smidgen why I am still here. 2) Off-wiki, read something, explore it, and write content about it on wiki -- it is a gift to yourself and others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In times of trouble, Magic Word NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS comes to me.
Speaking words of wisdom: 116,430
-- that's how many folks who made an edit in the last 30 -- and only a tiny portion end up on the dramaboards. By signing up for admin and oversight you've skewed your sample to see Worst-a-pedia, not Wikipedia. Many folks volunteer for free to contribute to the best general body of knowledge ever assembled in the history of human civilization. That's pretty awesome, that's what keeps me going. That and I'll go off-wiki for months if I need to. NE Ent 01:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I edit because Wikipedia is the main source of information for so many people, and I love that I'm improving it. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is the best thing on the internet. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 02:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran an edit-a-thon at a local library here in Chicago and not only was it productive, but it was great to be able to meet and interact both with editors that I'm familiar with and ones who I've never seen before. When I think of retaining editors, and generally having a good time volunteering with Wikipedia, I think events like these are a good approach and will go a long way to keeping attitudes about Wikipedia overall positive in spite of frustrations. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kittens have the hereditary right and trait of being good and here in Wikipedia kittens are found aplenty, so they are one of the goods [pun intended]. You'll get one of those in a minute, you're lucky I never got one of those. Admins like you are good who left me a polite note when I needed one, I mean when I was new. What would new kids on-the-block do without good actions like those? I hope after brainstorming for an hour I have been able to come up with something to make you feel good and or remind that there is still something left in Wikipedia to rejoice over. Oh oh wait there are more! I am here, nah thats self-flattery [I am probably the first one do it ;)].

Who I am trying to kid? For me in the last couple of months, I have been accused of gaming the system by none-other than my mentor, I have been subject to retaliation, I have not been able to write single GA untill now, I edit bollywood articles [Indian films] which though get million views a year will turn wikipedia slowly but surely into a bollywood-info-paedia 10-15 years later. Look at me Fluffernut, not for inspiration but for the fact even after being buried under several layers of glum each and every day I rise, draw a smile on my face and keep on editing with a hope even though there is none. Where does that hope comes from? My imagination. I suggest you use yours too you'll feel a lot better. Sohambanerjee1998 10:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fluff, I couldn't agree more. I've written about 60 fair sized articles and get criticised for not doing more, but I've run out of ideas and at the end of the day, I believe we should be left to write about the things we know about and are interested in. Being expected to write articles for the sake of wrting artcles defeats the purpose of voluntary collaboration. Nowadays, apart from watching over WP:WPSCH and cleaning up and expanding school articles for lazy creators, all I do is meta and admin stuff. Even there, I'm sick and tired of the constant bickering about admins and the tarring of them all with the same brush. While admins are expected to lead by example, some people hold them to ridiculously high standards and no matter what an active, front-line admin says or does, they are going to take flak for it. I've been on the verge twice this year of seriously considering handing my tools in, but the day I do that will be the day I abandon Wikipedia for good - and I will miss going to Wikimania. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Fluff. Don't hang out at your talk page often, so sorry about the tardiness of this note. The thing I've always found about Wikipedia is that it does split pretty nicely in two - the useful and the not useful. The "not useful", everything to do with the administration of the site, needs constant managing to ensure that the useful is done. That might mean things like arbitration cases over petty arguments, or admins stepping in to stop people acting horribly to each other. It takes a toll on those who do it, especially when you can see how life could just much simpler and no one will listen.
    The positive is out there though. Get out of the administration of the site and suddenly there's a world of Wikipedia, you can see the gratitude and the difference actually being made. I'm talking about places like the Teahouse, or the article review processes, or even the reference desks. People in Wikiprojects can be so grateful if you actually write articles. Socially, go to a meet up or two! The real people behind Wikipedia are the ones that make it for me, I've met dozens over the years and it's a whole lot harder to be angry when you meet them. I'll give you an example, I met User:Rich Farmbrough towards the beginning of the year, he appeared at a meet up, just after my first arbitration action - I expected retribution, an earbashing of immense proportions. Instead, I found a personable chap who was friendly and didn't appear to hold ill-will towards me. I've met a number of other banned users and found the same. I've met people who were trying to spam wikipedia, yet they were just people. Get yourself to meetups, you'll soon find what people love about Wikipedia. And if you ever fancy a chat, you know where to find me. WormTT(talk) 16:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you asked, I'm just a lurker 99.99% of the time, but wikipedia is in my top 5 websites that I visit on a regular basis. I barely participate in the community, and usually feel like I'm not good enough or smart enough to contribute more than the occasional revert vandalism. Sometimes I'm just here for the "drama", but more than that, I'm here to learn. I learn about the subjects of the articles, but I also learn a lot about HOW the articles come to be...the wiki policies challenge me to be aware of my own assumptions and biases, and when things are working well, the discussions demonstrate just why we've been so successful as a social species: we can, with work, overcome our differences for a great good. I appreciate all of the hard work that goes into this project and I wish it weren't such a frustrating endeavour, but then...if it weren't difficult, anyone could do it, right?Quietmarc (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I write articles, in one fairly narrow topic area, at a snail-like pace. I'm fortunate to have such a quiet WikiProject to work in, but I'm well aware of the bitterness that's out there. I've had one nasty spat, and I read far more of the goings-on in the "central" areas of WP than I ever comment about (that's how I wander onto pages like this, where I've never been). Writing about my chosen subject is my purpose. It's not easy; I have to absorb huge quantities of information from the sources, mull them over and let them all percolate through my mind, then try to integrate them with the next wave of sources. Yesterday I discovered that the sources that discuss my current project are so numerous that there are volumes of bibliographies just dedicated to cataloguing and analyzing them all. I yelled about how overwhelmed I felt. But then I looked back at the sources I had, and pieces started to fall into place and I started writing based on them. When that happens—when I can look at a subject and see how the disparate pieces of a subject fit together and how to make the article reflect the insight—that, for me, is what Wikipedia is for.
And it is still possible for us knowledge gluttons to cooperate. My current project ranges out of the usual topic area (ancient Egyptian religion) and into another, so I've recently talked to a couple of editors from the neighboring field (religion in ancient Rome). My one long conversation with them was amiable and kind of amusing. The Greece and Rome project in general seems to have that sense of camaraderie, if this is any indication. I'm sure they're not alone. There are still friendly people on Wikipedia, and if you can avoid the shouting, the joy of knowledge is still out there, too. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only just spotted this, but I'll offer a few thoughts. I'm pretty much inactive these days, largely because I've been ground down in many of the ways you suggest -- and being an admin tends to get you the worst from the worst. Sadly, there's a surprisingly large number of people on the internet who are happy to treat you as if you're the bad one in Pol Pot's family - when they're hiding behind their keyboards. And in some ways it's understandable. As a species we've evolved to understand and respond to body language and all sorts of visual clues in our interactions with each other, and when stripped of those we often tend to be more aggressive in our interactions. (Think about it yourself, and see if you can honestly say you've never treated anyone in this online medium more harshly than you would face-to-face - I certainly fail that test.)

    So what are the good things that make it worthwhile? Well, I've been mostly logged out of late, and I come across Wikipedia when I'm Googling to find out things - and it's surprised me to be reminded just how much I (and millions of others) use Wikipedia every day of the week. And you know what? It's bloody good! And *we* did that! You, me, and the countless others who've actually worked at it. And every time I find something I was looking for, learn something new, get information I need for my day job, or just enjoy a pleasurable bit of reading - I silently thank you for it (well, all the individual yous who've donated their own valuable time with no thought of personal gain, but you're one of them).

    So ignore those whose lives are so empty they have nothing more productive to do than denigrate the efforts and achievements of others. (Did you see what I did there? I was far more insulting to anonymous people than I would be face to face!) And instead think of the millions who benefit from this project every minute of every day - you're doing it for them, not for the very small minority of whingers and whiners. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)10:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride

Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC

You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:

11am–4pm at Jefferson Market Library.

We hope to see you there! Pharos (talk)

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Krill Oil

I'm not sure how to proceed. Can I assume a COI or not? I realise that the redacted content is not for public consumption, perhaps this is a case of a good faith editor being protected from his own incompetence? Please advise me, thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog: I'm afraid I can't tell you anything about what the redacted information might or might not reveal about involved parties. You're going to have to judge the editing/editor on their own, onwiki merits. Not particularly helpful, I know, but it's all I can offer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. No problem. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 02:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:01, 8 August 2014 review of submission by Legal2000


I was wondering why the article submitted for Louis A. Lehr, Jr. was declined. Specifically, what in the content of the article was copyrighted. If you can please advise me on this. Thank you for your help. Legal2000 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Legal2000 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legal2000. Content in that article appeared to have been copied, both directly and using close paraphrasing, from this biography and this magazine article. Though some of the article was also original prose, our copyright policy is extremely strict and we have to delete all revisions of pages that contain copyright violations, even if they also contain usable text. You are welcome to start a new article draft as long as you're careful to avoid copying language again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation needed span

It has been quite a while since our previous discussion regarding lowering the protection level of this template. Could you please reconsider? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dogmaticeclectic. Given the vandalism history on that template, I remain much more comfortable with it protected than with it mostly-unprotected. I do not specialize in templates, however, and if you'd like to ask the community to weigh in on AN or something about what level it should be protected at, I will cheerfully bow to whatever consensus develops there. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please specify what "vandalism history" you are referring to? I see precisely one incident of vandalism at that page (besides the deleted edit). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted edit is what I'm referring to. The vandal who made that edit has a habit of using templates to create widespread, destructive, malicious vandalism, and I would just as soon they not get access to this one - or any other common one they've used before - again. Like I said, though, I'd be happy to abide by whatever the community were to decide on this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

Tech News: 2014-33

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • Due to the Wikimania 2014 conference, there were no MediaWiki changes this week. The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf16) will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on August 12, and to all Wikipedias on August 14 (calendar). [1]
  • Bureaucrats on all Wikivoyage wikis are no longer able to merge two accounts into one. [2]

VisualEditor news

  • Tablet users visiting the mobile version of non-Wikipedia wikis will be able to use VisualEditor starting on August 12. The feature will also be enabled on all Wikipedias on August 14. [3]

Future software changes

  • Internet Explorer 6 users will soon see a JavaScript-free version of Wikimedia wikis; JavaScript tools and scripts will no longer work on that browser. If you use Internet Explorer 6, make sure to update to a newer browser! [4] [5] [6]
  • If you visit a special page that requires you to be logged-in, you will soon be automatically redirected to the log-in page instead of seeing a warning. [7] [8]
  • You will now always see recent changes to the source language text when editing a translation with the Translate extension. [9] [10]
  • An IRC meeting to discuss VisualEditor will take place on August 14 at 09:00 UTC on the channel #wikimedia-office on freenode (time conversion). [11]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

07:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Robin Williams

Why did you fully protect Robin Williams? With a recent event such as death, the information cannot be updated rapidly now. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance says that actions should not be taken solely for performance concerns, as that is up to the System administrators. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was very much on the advice of a staffer - see her comment on the talkpage. Direct your messages to Jdforrester (WMF) instead please. — foxj 23:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops: I didn't see your message on the talkpage. You can disregard the previous message. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicted you both; might as well save what I was going to say anyway :) ) As I said on the article's talk page, I took the action at the recommendation of the WMF's tech staff, because there was a serious and immediate concern that the editing rate on Robin Williams could crash the site. It's definitely suboptimal, and I can understand your frustration, but keep in mind that the informational page you're referring to is talking about "normal" cases and "most" circumstances; the problem here is that this case is very, very abnormal and not at all usual (WMF servers are used to heavy loads; it takes an insane amount to cause crash concerns). The protection is short-term (12 hours), and I'm happy for another admin to lift it earlier if the load drops or if the WMF can put the needed safeguards in place before that, but in the meantime I'm afraid we're going to have to muddle along with a slightly slower rate of development on the article. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicted by everybody but I hope there's a little useful information here) Don't worry about performance can safely be ignored in this case. The sheer number of edit attempts threatened to crash Wikipedia entirely, this wasn't a case of tinkering to make the page load faster. Performance issues had been observed by members of the administration team and the decision to fully protect the page was made in consultation with the system administrators (who are happy to field enquiries from you). There are details of the error rates at [12] which shows issues beginning to develop, if that's of interest to you. Nick (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Wikipedia, BUT Ferguson, MO, OUT of control

I very much like being on Wikipedia, however, the Ferguson MO page is starting to again attract really degrading remarks from IP edits...maybe locking it??Coal town guy (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Coal town guy: I just took a look at the recent history after reverting an IP there, and I actually thought things seem to be surprisingly under control - a little bit of vandalism, but not a flood or anything. Is there something in particular going on there that you're concerned about? I'll take another look if so. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once the name of the officer of the conflict is made public, it might be a preventative measure to lock the thing given the near daily racial slurs that happen now. JUST a thought, appreciate your dedicationCoal town guy (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Coal town guy: Yeah things have the potential to get out of control. I'm not going to protect the page preemptively at the moment, because I still have a little hope that the protection that was put in place yesterday will have made most of the vandals lose interest, but I'll keep an eye on it (and I suspect many other admins will too) and won't hesitate to act if it becomes necessary again. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your work to protect Shooting of Michael Brown and its talk page, thank you very much! Bearian (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly, Bearian! I wonder at my - and your! - sanity for trying to keep order in what's likely to be a growing blow-up, but if none of us do it, well, no one does it :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:10, 15 August 2014 review of submission by Legal2000


Thanks for your reply. Base on your information I reviewed the draft and since I footnoted the material relied on for factual statements in the article, I am having a problem locating material that goes beyond “fair use” and thus violates copyright law. Since I wish to submit a new draft, I would appreciate the benefit of your advice as to the specific language which constitutes a violation.

Thanks for your help.


Legal2000 (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fluffernutter&oldid=621352441"