| Revision as of 22:40, 3 February 2012 editKevin Gorman (talk | contribs)12,000 edits →men's rights: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:40, 4 February 2012 edit undoFluffernutter (talk | contribs)Administrators41,664 edits →men's rights: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
| Hi Fluff - I'm sorry to bug you about something related to this whole mess again, but the recent behavior of ] has been problematic, and I would appreciate it if you, as an uninvolved administrator, could review it. The terms of probation for the article require that editors avoid continually discussing other editors and focus on improving the article instead. Some of his recent edits have commented a lot on other editors, including some severe accusations of vandalism in . Some other diffs that I think are problematic: , , . (I've approached him about the specific issues in these posts, but he's indicated he sees no problem with his edits, and has asked me not to post further on his talk page.) ] (]) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | Hi Fluff - I'm sorry to bug you about something related to this whole mess again, but the recent behavior of ] has been problematic, and I would appreciate it if you, as an uninvolved administrator, could review it. The terms of probation for the article require that editors avoid continually discussing other editors and focus on improving the article instead. Some of his recent edits have commented a lot on other editors, including some severe accusations of vandalism in . Some other diffs that I think are problematic: , , . (I've approached him about the specific issues in these posts, but he's indicated he sees no problem with his edits, and has asked me not to post further on his talk page.) ] (]) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :I'm busy tonight, but I'll try to take a look at this tomorrow. ] (]) 01:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:40, 4 February 2012
 | If you're trying to contact me, please remember:
|
Please read
Ukboxen has returned as ValuevNiko in order to bypass the sub-protection. His edits are the exact same in the Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather and Roy Jones Jr. pages. I'm sorry I have to keep troubling you with this issue. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've taken a look and found a cuple more socks, and blocked them. Courcelles 02:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 January 2012
- News and notes: Update on Global Development, Misplaced Pages Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons
- In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau
- Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Misplaced Pages compared to commercial databases
- WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology
- Featured content: Featured content soaring this week
- Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases
- Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19
Vatslav Vorovsky
If you have a minute, could you assist me here? I'm trying to get this deleted for someone who needs a wrong spelling of the article moved to this version. Thanks. Calabe1992 18:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can't right now, but I might be able to get to it in two or three hours if you still need it then. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, think i did it. Check my work and make sure I did what you needed done, please. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Correct, and appreciated. I don't know what the below IP is doing. Calabe1992 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, always happy to help :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Correct, and appreciated. I don't know what the below IP is doing. Calabe1992 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, think i did it. Check my work and make sure I did what you needed done, please. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Vatsavl Voorvsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.52.42 (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Barkha Dutt
The content that you deleted was under the controversies section; and hence its neutrality was conditioned by that. The current Misplaced Pages listing for Ms Dutt reads like an advert, it is sanitised and idealised.
It is a hagiography, but to people in India and around the world the NDTV channel and Ms Dutt have long been known of her inherent bias and anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim agenda (I believe that her husband is Muslim). It is an issue as well as I nite that her spouse's details have also been removed.
The issue of the NDTV and Barkha Dutt silencing a blogger under the threat of legal action in the Netherlands should be repulsive to anyone who cherishes free speech and the free-flow of ideas. It is time that this incident be included as it is actual event and is documented.
The listing of the quote that Barkha Dutt was the most 'Most theatrical/worst reporters/anchors' was a direct quote from a published report, which was based on a statistical report. In that same report Ms Dutt's reply was also published.
I believe that the entire incident should be reinstated.
Stochos (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whether or not the facts are true is actually immaterial in this case. The way you wrote about those facts was very non-neutral, and for that reason we cannot accept that writing into Misplaced Pages. I would suggest using the article's talk page to ask for people's opinion about how to word and weigh the facts neutrally so that they're suitable for use in Misplaced Pages. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments (even your condescension). By your standard the entire article needs reworking. There are numerous 'citations needed' Every statement that lacked citation was positive. Somehow that is allowed in Misplaced Pages.
Objectivity is needed. In order for you to be consistent please remove those comments too.
Stochos (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Jamie Comstock
We edit-conflicted so that I overwrote your reversion to a non-attack version, but in fact the versions we chose to revert to seem to be identical. I have protected for a week and will post at BLP/N to try and get heads banged together. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was just leaving you a note saying the same thing! One difference between our versions though - your version contains an unsourced paragraph about a lawsuit involving the article subject that I removed per BLP. Would you consider re-removing that while the combatants hash out everything else on the article talk? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seriously, though, what is the deal with that article? It's an obvious orphan, yet I couldn't believe how long the edit warring had gone on when I found it (that was when Reaper protected it). I only found it because Huggle detected one of the reverters as probable vandalism. Calabe1992 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fluffernutter, I missed that, and I have thought hard about your request, particularly as the item is unsourced, but decided not to because (a) having protected and cited m:Wrong Version, I don't want to seem to be adjusting the content, and (b) without that, it really is a bit of a hagiography. I posted at WP:BLP/N#Jamie Comstock, and other people are taking an interest, and I have invited the edit-warriors to come to the talk page, so I will probably unprotect tomorrow and start blocking if edit-warring resumes.
- Seriously, though, what is the deal with that article? It's an obvious orphan, yet I couldn't believe how long the edit warring had gone on when I found it (that was when Reaper protected it). I only found it because Huggle detected one of the reverters as probable vandalism. Calabe1992 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Calabe, I think it's just two really obstinate people neither of whom took the trouble to ask for help or find out about BLP/N or anything. A classic object-lesson in why we have BRD and 3RR. I'm amazed nobody noticed it before. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Laboratory information management system
Hello, Fluffernutter. While I've been a long-time user and contributor, when it comes to reporting / dealing with vandalism, I'm sorta' in the dark. I noticed you and a few other users have been reverting edits to this page. You last warned the anonymous user 94.253.206.45 yesterday about vandalism to the page. It seems this user made more erroneous and vandalous edits today. I think I've reverted them properly, but I'm not sure what to do next. Your warning seemed to indicate the IP would be potentially blocked for the short term. However, I'm not sure how to proceed at this point. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. Lostraven (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi! It looks like you fixed most of what they did - I made one more small fix, but other than that, you got it all. I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for continuing to vandalise. In general, if someone is vandalising despite warnings, you should report them to the "Administrator Intervention against Vandalism" page - the admins there handle blocking, etc in response to vandalism. If you want to do some reading-up on how you can help handle vandalism, Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism gives a good overview of what processes we have outlined for how to deal with it. Thanks for your help! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. I'll definitely be sure to follow up by reading the suggested material. I always feel uncomfortable dealing with vandalism and striking a compromise when it comes to disputes of wiki material. But it's a reality of this site, I suppose. Thanks again. Lostraven (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)
men's rights
Hi Fluff - I'm sorry to bug you about something related to this whole mess again, but the recent behavior of User:Cybermud has been problematic, and I would appreciate it if you, as an uninvolved administrator, could review it. The terms of probation for the article require that editors avoid continually discussing other editors and focus on improving the article instead. Some of his recent edits have commented a lot on other editors, including some severe accusations of vandalism in diff. Some other diffs that I think are problematic: , , . (I've approached him about the specific issues in these posts, but he's indicated he sees no problem with his edits, and has asked me not to post further on his talk page.) Kevin (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm busy tonight, but I'll try to take a look at this tomorrow. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)