This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 7 February 2012 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 6.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:51, 7 February 2012 by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:Fluffernutter/Archive 6.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 | If you're trying to contact me, please remember:
|
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)
- And, having failed to get to it still, I've requested some outside eyes on AN. Hopefully someone there will take up the banner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)