User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

St. Anselm

You were right about the points there; it is within two weeks of Avery Coonley and therefore -3. Not that it matters, because the article isn't even an FA and I removed it. Ucucha 20:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be a bigger problem, yes. NuclearWarfare hopes that no more articles are nominated for 12 days :) NW (Talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

You'll note I went to some effort to avoid bumping Decathlon after you commented. Hope he runs it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that, and I thank you very much for your kind efforts. Obviously it's a bit hard to keep an article with -1 points up; I am rather amazed it stayed up for as long as it did. NW (Talk) 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI and Armenian monasteries

Hi and thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quzeyli. And yet, it carries on with an ip... I made a request for semi-protection of the three concerned articles, but it is still unadressed. What should I do? I can't carry on with reverting... Sardur (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of that. Oh, and reverting sockpuppets is an exception to WP:3RR, I believe. NW (Talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please move

Hello, NW! Can you please move the article Category:Skåne County to Category:Scania County. I can't do it myself. BjörnBergman 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Skåne County" is the correct name. See WT:SWEDEN. Theleftorium 18:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

News (?)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

From what i have read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive#Comments_by_accused_parties_2) the matter seems to be closed. However, i can't seem to understand what the conclusions are, could you be so kind to explaining it in a nutshell? Thank you very much in advance.

Also - could this be the evil work of Pararubbas - today, my computer has received a "gift" - some trojans, nothing serious i hope, but annoying nonetheless...The fact was that i logged in to WP today and had to insert both username and password (logical after i erased everything, cookie included, to try and resolve the mess) and, three hours later, had to do it again! Reverse karma? Who knows?!?

Again, thanks a million for your hard work, keep it up,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The account was indeed Pararubbas, but he doesn't seem to have any other accounts at the time. A good sign :) As for your computer issues, that is certainly troubling. Not sure how that happened; hope your have good anti-virus software. Could just be a glitch in the system though. Best, NW (Talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Star _Wars_sequel_trilogy_(3rd_nomination)

Hey, I don't know if I am allowed to do this but I thought I'd ask as you terminated the 2nd nomination for this article. The nominator, GaGatelephone and the first responder, Starwarsdarthvader were both found guilty of sockpuppetry (See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins/Archive#Report date April 13 2010.2C_20:49_.28UTC.29), so I was wondering if it was possible for the 3rd nomination of that article to be terminated. Many thanks. Shockmetric (Talk to me) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD closed as speedy keep. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 11:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Battleground

[1]? I wasn't aware that you might be inclined to take action against editors who treat AGW as a battleground. If so, would you like some names and diffs? I know of one editor in particular, a former admin, who has been treating the AGW topic in Wikipedia as his own personal battleground for at least five years, perhaps longer. Are you willing to give him the same litmus test you just gave me? I'm not being facetious here, I'm really interested in your response. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Names and diffs would certainly be appreciated. Although I respect Dr. Connolley's work very much, I still greatly dislike the edit that you pointed out. If you could bring up names and diffs (taking sure not to single out one "side"), that would be much appreciated. NW (Talk) 21:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to get into this here and now? Before the enforcement board started, NPOV and battleground problems were rife in AGW-related BLPs, and although several editors were involved, on both sides, one "side" in particular stands out as the worst abusers, in my opinion. A good thread to get started on it, in my opinion, is here. Another is here, in which WMC and Kim D. Peterson removed positive information from a BLP on an AGW skeptic, and then were unable to come up with legitimate reasons for removal of all of the material in question. An independent editor from the BLP Noticeboard intervened before they finally backed off. In my opinion, it's the BLP stuff that truly shows that there was a battleground, POV agenda at work here. I'll post more examples over the next few days if you like. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some diffs from the Global Warming talk page from June 2006, a month I chose at random. Notice the frequent use of the word "septics" and the condescending and rude treatment of other editors, many of them newbies: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Those are just from three days. That kind of behavior used to be the norm on that talk page. The only reason it ever calmed down somewhat was because so many regulars finally started getting fed up with it and started making some noise, resulting in the topic probation. Believe me, if you want to find any evidence that WMC and a few other editors have been treating AGW like a battleground, it doesn't take very long to find much evidence. Do you need more? Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not really had the time to look into it, though June 2006 is a bit further back than I am looking for. I'm not searching for a long-term pattern, just a short term one. Evidence from March and April 2010 would be much preferred. NW (Talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thought you were asking me to prove that WMC and a few others have been treating the subject like a battleground for an extended period of time. Since the enforcement period started, I think most of any dubious behavior on everyone's part, including theirs, has been reported to the enforcement board. The problem is, it seems like editors who have been acting this way since 2004 or 2005 are getting the benefit of the doubt, while newer editors to the topic are getting stomped on fairly hard. Like I said, I was surprised when you cornered me on my opinion, but you haven't, as far as I can see, done the same to the others who have been POV-pushing on this topic (yes, that is a supportable statement) for years. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling the the enforcement page isn't really catching everything or giving out sanctions fairly to all users, but to confirm that, I would have to do my own digging, as things really have gotten too partisan at the moment. What pages would you say are some of the most heated at the moment? NW (Talk) 04:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll list a few. Notice here that a familiar name is trying to use a blog as a source in a BLP to add criticism (some of those sources are valid, but the last one is a blog). This is along the lines of what I told you before of certain editors doing dubious things to sceptic's BLP articles. I'll see what else I can find... Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, notice here that the same editor removed negative information from another BLP, of a supporter of AGW, citing the sources as "poor." Now, the removal might be legitimate. But compare the two edits together. In one, the editor adds negative information to a sceptic's BLP using a blog, and then removes negative information from an AGW proponent's BLP, stating that the sources, among which appear to be the Wall Street Journal, as "poorly sourced." Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here the same editor adds negative information to a sceptic's BLP and cuts a supporting quote, but then adds a positive spin to the BLP of an AGW supporter. Now, these edits, independently, may be ok, but together they show an editor who focuses on adding negative material to certain BLPs and maintaining positive information in others. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for these Cla. I'll be sure to look into the edits. NW (Talk) 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with [7]. Could you please explain further? As for the Oreskes diff, there appears to be a talk page discussion on it. I shall take into consideration the rest of what you linked me when I go digging this weekend. NW (Talk) 00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, these two comments [8] [9] appear to be unnecessarily combative and I think were intended to be of a baiting nature. At a minimum, they were not in the spirit of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Like I said, WMC has been doing this for at least five years. Do you think you could get him to stop? Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Murdoch

Hi,

What are you talking about? The article is referenced?

Confused.

Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoeid (talk • contribs)

The article is referenced now, but not when I tagged it for deetion.[10] If you removed the tag, thank you for doing so. NW (Talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Brexx

Lil-unique1 decided to take the Brexx problem to a wider community at WP:ANI#Long term sock puppet and ducker.. I'm not sure it was necessary, but not sure it's a bad idea either. You may wish to participate.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Bad Faith Assessment

Your assessment at the CC probation page is quite wrong. WMC made an extremely brief statement which added nothing without context. My reply to him was civil. His response was not to answer the questions I put to him put to accuse me of bias without evidence. Reminding him of the restrictions against him shouldn't be necessary, but it was his choice to use terms like bias when referring to other editors. Your accusation of baiting is clearly wrong when WMC was the one using terms like bias. Your accusation of battleground(ish) mentality is directed at the wrong editor. Weakopedia (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

HELP!

Hi there "wiki-warrior", VASCO here,

could you please help me (no vandals now, promise)? I was improving (hopefully) Stefano Borgonovo's article, when i saw i screwed up in the display of REF#1. Could you have a look, please? I am about to lose my mind, can't see where did i err.

Thanks a million in advance, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly very strange. Try as I might, I cannot seem to fix that. Perhaps you could try asking at WP:VPT? NW (Talk) 02:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done, by User:Equazcion. Nice teamwork there!! VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Alejo Carpentier GA nomination

Hi NW! The Alejo Carpentier article has been nominated for GA status. Apart from this being a requirement for our Spanish 365 group project, we also believe that the article is close to being able to attain GA status. We have completed a majority of your previous recommendations regarding the article's maintenance. We need to have someone to review the article for GA status. For this, we humbly ask of your service. Please let us know if this is the right way to go about getting someone to review our article for GA status or if there is a more automatic process. Also, Ettrig (talk) has brought to our attention that someone feels that our photo is copyrighted and can't be used. This surprised us because Jbmurray (talk) had told us that it was fine and actually used it as an example of what to use as an article photo! I have left a message for both Ettrig and Jbmurray about this and haven't received a response from either party yet. If you could, would you please let us know what you think about this situation? Thank-you very very much!! :) Katie322 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like an appropriate use of a fair use image, although I would encourage that you expand on the rationale. See File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg for an example of a good rationale. NW (Talk) 18:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that you feel it is an acceptable photo. As for expanding the rationale, I certainly agree that the rationale for File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg is above and beyond what we have now for the Alejo Carpentier photo. Unfortunately, I'm finding it difficult to add information to our rationale because the photo was added in 2007 before we took up work on the article and the link only brings me to a webpage with just the photo. I don't feel as though I can add information if (1) I don't have any idea where it really came from, (2) if there really are no other free images which can be used, (3) if it was really released into the media for promotional use only. Is it acceptable protocol for me to ask the wikieditor Dr. Blofeld (who uploaded the image) a few of these questions? Thank-you! Katie322 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly acceptable (and encouraged). NW (Talk) 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a message for Dr. Blofeld (talk) about the photo and requesting more information on its origin. I also noticed that on Dr. Blofeld's talk page there are many bot responses about 'orphaned images'....I'm wondering if (due to his history of unsatisfactory images) we should consider just putting a different photo up, if one can be found (as may not be the case if what Dr. Blofeld says is true). Are you quite sure that this photo should be able to stay if we improve our rationale? Thank-you! Katie322 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned images are not really a problem; that means images that were once used have been replaced by a better image. There is no problem with that. The image would be perfectly fine if a better rationale can be written. If you can find your own image, that would be even better. NW (Talk) 21:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your quick response at Tel Keppe. (Taivo (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Potential canvassing

NuclearWarfare, I'm a bit concerned about the implications of this post: [11]. I'm not very tech-savvy, but is there a way to monitor this? (Taivo (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Not especially. You could let him know of WP:MEAT but that's about it. WP:MEAT is a policy enforceable by blocks though, if it comes to that. NW (Talk) 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi there NUKE, VASCO on the loose again,

Could you have a look (just a quick glance will do it i believe) to the edit history at David Silva (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Silva&action=history)? Plenty of idiotic vandalism in the last month (even this or last week). I think a protection, small or full, is duly justified but, as always, i leave it in your hands.

Take care, have a cool weekend (without too many vandals annoying would be great!), VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a bit of vandalism on the page that lasted a while, so I have semi-protected it (per liberal semi protection essay) for three months. NW (Talk) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. How about this one? Man, it's getting beyond stupid! I think i already told you before, but i'll "refresh" you: we are talking about an average player, has done nothing greatly remarkable in his career, and his page is vandalized EVERY WEEK...Pityful.

Hopefully something can be done, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure on this one. Bit of vandalism, but not enough to meet either the essay I linked above or Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. Think it is better to hold off for now and protect if it gets vandalism later. NW (Talk) 00:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for unblocking me

swift & efficient, i appreciate it 129.116.15.110 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Following up

Thanks for the advice; sometimes I forget. Following up your offer, allow me to bring this to your attention. It's especially discouraging because he was blocked for incivility just two weeks ago. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes I think that full topic bans would be more productive that constantly having to enforce civility paroles. I have removed the post and left a note on his talk page. NW (Talk) 02:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

NT has declared that his only intent is to revert anything not accepted by AC: [12]

And right before this he once again reverted to ACs edit [13] without participating at the talkpage.

NT has been blocked before for doing ACs edit: [14]

Can I please get some admin attention to the SPI based on behavioral evidence? [15] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left a warning on NT's talk page regarding the first diff. As for the last one, it should come all in good time once someone with sufficient time takes a look at the case. NW (Talk) 11:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing MN request?

Hi. I notice you're generally accepted as neutral and have recently commented around. Would you consider closing Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Request concerning Marknutley, which is hanging? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you read BozMo's proposed close, can I draw your attention to User_talk:BozMo#Proposed_close? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at the thread. NW (Talk) 00:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Katherine Halliday

Hello NuclearWarfare, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Katherine Halliday has been removed. It was removed by Joe Decker with the following edit summary '(+ref)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Joe Decker before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Bias

SD is pushing statements that are unsubstantiated and have not received consensus on the Talk Page. Consensus is now impossible since you have personally banned the major contributor to the debate, so you are leaving SD with a monopoly on the page. You are clearly a biased adminstrator and I ask that you be removed from this case. Reverting unsubstantiated edits on this article and others on the same arbitration case would not be disruptive. Since you clearly dis-agree, then another admin is invited to examine this situation and my last edit. What you should be examining is SD's mountain of complaints against a very simple edit I made on this article. Is this not clearly a unsanctioned attempt to silence all opposing opinions? You are falling into his trap and are thus not qualified to continue on this case. You can also look at Cactus' response on Asmahan's Talk Page after SD's mountain of complaints against a very simple edit I made on this article. I am not reverting to AC's edits as SD lies. I am editing my own mind. There was NO threat in my reply but you chose to see it that way due to your bias. Nefer Tweety (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cactus edit at the Asmahan talkpage has nothing to do with the comments that you made, it doesn't look like Cactus disagreed with NuclearWarfares warning: [16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Nefer Tweety, I agree with NW's view of your statement "I will revert any statements that have not received consensus with all parties prior to the arbitration." It can only be read as a threat: that you plan to remove any new edits -- even if there is new consensus. I am not sure if you meant it that way but that it the way it reads. An intransigent stance like that is never compatible with Wikipedia policy. Please read consensus can change. Also NF, your misplaced anger against NW here is only shooting yourself in the foot. I suggest you re-assess your position. And SD, it would be preferred if you could refrain from entering every conversation. It is not helpful. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cactus, why bring up "consensus can change" here, when ACs pov never had any consensus in the first place but was edit warred into the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cactus, you say misplaced anger? Have you seen SD's mountain of complaints against a very simple edit that I made on Asmahan? When are you going to take action against this very deliberate harassment and intimidation of all editors opposing his opinion? How much can editors bear of this unacceptable behavior? NW is clearly biased and I formally ask that he does not interfere with this case. What was wrong with my edit on Asmahan? The only person who deserves a warning or even a block is SD who wrote a wall of complaints to silence me. For there to be new consensus, all other editors should be reinvited to participate. I am not making threats, I am telling everyone that I have no time for endless sticky arguments which are the trademark of SD, I will edit the article and I am privileged to do so. It had been proven before that Asmahan's family "stopped" in Haifa and not "relocated" to it. So why is SD bringing back his fallacies especially that there are no sources supporting them? -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Several of the points of corrections I presented at the talkpage there has already been repeated mediation and consensus over, and the consensus was edit warred away. AC has also already replied to the points at the talkpage so his position is clear: [17] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion above. Seek a third opinion at...WP:AE or WP:AN, I suppose, though I note that although you already have got one from Cactus Writer. NW (Talk) 20:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

NW, I will not make complaints on AN or AE because 1. I will not waste my time on this silliness, and 2. you admins all stand together anyway. Clearly, I was not making threats; you believe what you want to believe. I was stating that you cannot achieve new consensus while the main challenger of SD is banned by you. I am aware of most of the points of contention, but because I do not have an infinite amount of time as SD to engage in the same old sticky arguments on the Talk Pages, or the same resources that SD’s main challenger had, I will directly edit the article where SD had been defeated before, such as “relocated” versus “stopped” in Haifa (see the Talk page). You do not take the time to understand the situation and you just slap warnings and blocks like a child with a new toy.-- Nefer Tweety (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You mean like here when AC was edit warring against agreements by the mediator and 3O and you jumped in: After ACs three edits: [18][19][20] NT jumps in [21][22] Who is the one that has been "defeated" at the talkpage over and over again and had to resort to edit war his pov into the articles? [23] And what is the account which is exclusively used to continue the edit wars reinserting ACs non agreed edits? [24][25] (Sorry Nuke for bringing this to your talkpage.)
--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

I can't remember if I told you or not, but the RfA is up (not transcluded yet) here. I'm in no rush, so you can write it (if you're still writing it) whenever you're free. Best! ceranthor 16:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long Ceranthor. I have written a short conomination; Pedro had already covered most of what I wanted to say. Best of luck! NW (Talk) 16:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, a great nomination statement takes time! ;) Thanks for sticking with me the whole time and for encouraging me to run. I think I'll post the answers later today and transclude the RfA soon after. Thanks, ceranthor 16:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fahd Umr Abd Al Majid Al Sharif

Hi NW, what part of policy supports the reporting of all this detail from primary records? Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no real policy for it, but I do not believe that it is a WP:BLP or WP:OR matter. It is simply a case where editorial judgment is required. I would agree with you that the inclusion of such material is not really necessary. NW (Talk) 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Stephen Gray

I think you misapplied the BLPPROD here. The article was deleted and restored after the deadline, so maybe that's how you missed it? No biggy, just an FYI. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be right. Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people (newest) had ordered it weirdly because of the deletion/restoration. I had thought that the list would have the articles in proper order, so I did not think to check the histories carefully. Thanks for catching this. Best, NW (Talk) 20:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Easy peasy

I'd been shaking my head and weeping over that train-wreck of a thread for some days. Amazing that all I need do to have it closed was to opine that the global warming articles are actually quite good and that we all should be proud of the excellent collaborative work we've done on one of the more recent ones, and that comments on the subject should be made on the article's talk page. --TS 00:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not saying you shouldn't close it now. Just wishing somebody had noticed early what an appalling mess of bad faith assumptions it was becoming. --TS 00:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Question

NW, since you commented that no action needs to be taken against WMC, what do you think of this edit, which started the ruckus with Marknutley? Do you think that's a good edit coming from someone with WMC's experience? And I'm not sure if you know this but, when MN reverted, WMC added it again, and that's what spurred MN's vandalism charge. While vandalism might be too strong, would it be such a stretch to call that edit (TWICE) tendentious and disruptive? And this is from someone who has received several warnings for battleground editing. Surely, if there is going to be sanction against MN, there should be some sanction against WMC for his disruptive behavior that triggered the conflict, right? ATren (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

ATren, when people misrepresent sources, I think that's highly problematic. In the above comment, you link to an edit by WMC. You state that "MN reverted, WMC added it again, and that's what spurred MN's vandalism charge. I suggest that this is an obvious misrepresentation of your source (the three wikipedia edits [26], [27], [28]) . Would you like to revise your charge to match what the sources actually say? I've bolded the part that is blatently wrong Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK the first version of that horrendously bad edit technically spurred the initial charge. I was actually referring to Mark's escalation of the issue beyond the talk page (which is what got him into trouble), but do you have any more hairs to split? It was still that disruptive, tendentious edit which started that whole thing, was it not? ATren (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember Cla68 bringing that up a few sections up on my talk page. I thought I warned WMC for that edit, but if not, someone probably should. It could be true, but including it without a source is pretty disruptive. On the other hand, it is over ten days old. Why exactly are you bringing it up just now? NW (Talk) 16:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry

Greetings, I attempted the editing of an article references as the so called “Armenian Genocide”. After my well references additions, to establish some sort of basic NPOV, were savagely reverted or simply deleted I seem to have become a subject of some sort of a complaint and conveniently proposed to be banned from editing. BTW I noticed your warning template as well.

I am not a party in any Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute therefore not subject to sanctions or hindrance from editing any articles concerning Turkey, Turks, Ottoman history, Ottoman population, Turkish Wars etc. Based on what is the article for the so called “Armenian Genocide” under discretionary sanctions? This article focuses a great deal on Turkey and Ottoman Turkish population making some very serious and partisan allegations with dubious sources the correction of which becomes difficult due to the restrictions imposed. Furthermore, I now notice that these sanctions are clearly abused and used as a pretext to attempt to ban editors from making additions or any changes to the article (changes not inline with the pro-genocide thesis), e.g. my nomination to “Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement”. May I ask why is this type of conduct allowed and clearly endorsed. It does not seems quite inline with Wikipedia policy for non-partisan editors to be nominated for banning under the pretext of a discretionary restriction, there needs to be a rule limiting the scope of articles such restrictions could apply to. Thank you Hittit (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions apply to all articles related to Armenian or Azerbaijani history, not just relations between the two. They are not meant to influence content, but are meant to stop those who are edit warring or otherwise acting disruptively on the article. The reason I warned you was because you had broken the 1RR restriction on the article. Please be mindful of that in the future. Thank you, NW (Talk) 21:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Trackmasters Entertainment

The AfD discussion shows that the article was deleted, but the link isn't red. Clicking on it takes one to 'Trackmasters'. That doesn't seem 'deleted' to me. I don't care either way, really, but if someone's pulling a fast one (which is what it LOOKS like to me), they shouldn't get away with it. I am not looking for a response, and won't be watching your page. I'm just giving you a head's up. I am likely just confused in this case. David V Houston (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I know you said you wouldn't be watching my talk page, but I just wanted to let you know that I cleared up the issue. NW (Talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just happened to go back to the AfD page for last comments, and saw this was red now. David V Houston (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

April 20

Thanks for the protection. I was starting to wonder if Wikipedia:Requests for page protection worked. :-) Outback the koala (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

April 20 protection

Hi NW. I saw you recently protected 4/20. I was thinking maybe it's a good idea to protect it until 4/21, because it will may be vandalized all day. Thanks --Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Just also want to say that I like the picture on your user page Tommy²⁰¹⁰ 00:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Scibaby again

Please re-semi-protect Climatic Research Unit email controversy‎ - Scibaby has hit it again just after your full protection expired. If you could block his latest sock, User:QuestionYou, at the same time, that would be great. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Prolog took care of the semi-protection; I blocked the sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Have a beef w/ 4chan?

Some random has posted this page in 4chan and is under the impression that you are trying to shut down the site. I'd like to get your response to this.

I'm trying to shut down 4chan? Or Wikipedia? In either case, the answer is "No, I am not trying to shut down the site." NW (Talk) 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be rather impressive though (shutting down the former, not the latter). I would bow to your imminence were you to pull off that feat. Actually, both would be impressive. If you managed to shut down Wikipedia then I'd be forced to get a life... Auntie E. (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Avatar characters FLC update

Hi again, I just wanted to ask a few questions. You were instrumental in getting the three seasons past through FLC, and I was wondering if it was normal for ten days to pass and still not get a single comment on the FLC? Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

FLC has slowed down quite a bit recently, but I can't remember it being this bad. Luck of the draw, I suppose. NW (Talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The inflow of reviews is cyclical, and I think (and hope) the number of reviews is on the upswing, for now, so hopefully the characters list will get some love. Also, congrats NW :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI

The SPI I opened, no one took a look at it and it was then closed based on an old CU when I asked for the confirmation through the behaviour.[29]

So far the only admin that have looked at it was at the ANI and she said it looked quacky and that I should open a SPI.[30]

I have now gotten MuZemike to reverse the closure, I ask you now to please go through the evidence there as no SPI clerk has done it so far:[31] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I really need a comment on this. I don't want it to be closed again just because no one has went through the evidence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have time to go through this, so please just be patient. It should not be closed because of lack of response again though. NW (Talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

About Twinkle

Hi, I was working on Turkish Wikipedia. Now, I want to continue my contributions here, in English Wikipedia. I have checked twinkle page out, but I am already done with it. I have already created monobook for this account. However I have this script coded in my monobook.js, when I want to use warn/notify user button it says that my account is too new to use twinkle. I still could not find out the matter. Do you have any opinion about this issue? Regards--CnkALTDS^message 19:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't have the slightest clue about technical stuff like this. I think you might be better off asking at WP:VPT. Sorry I can't be of more help. NW (Talk) 02:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, NuclearWarfare. First off thanks for your reply. I have coded this yesterday. It works quite good for now. I just don't know all the hotkeys of templates in English Wikipedia, but guess I will learn very soon. I am going to ask to join the patroller group from a bureaucrat. Thank you again. Regards.--CnkALTDS^message 15:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Move protecting all featured articles?

Has there been a discussion on this somewhere that I can read? Savidan 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a small discussion on WP:AN, but I do believe that Risker is writing up something for WT:FA, which should be up soon if not already. NW (Talk) 19:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

bloody hell that looks tedious!

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For all your hard work move protecting each and every featured article! That's going to take you all day! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Great work- shame East718's protection script is down, but at least all the TFAs will be move protected when they hit the Main Page. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't take that long, but thanks. NW (Talk) 19:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Move protections of FA

Why is this being done?

If there's a new policy that's agreed it, you might like to link to it in your edit summaries. Wikipedia:Protection policy#Move protection gives no justification for it. I have to say, I'd like some discussion, since I'd want to oppose this.--Scott Mac 19:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me link to Risker's explanation, which is basically why I had been mass move-protecting the FAs. But I have stopped my script-based page protection per your request for further discussion. Which page do you think we should have such a discussion on, WT:FA (where Risker has already opened a thread) or WT:PPOL? NW (Talk) 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest somewhere more public like AN or one of the pumps, with notes on the relevant pages in WT space. Just a suggestion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the appropriate place is probably WP:RFPP or Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, since this marks a fairly major, and IMO unjustifiable departure from the current principles of protection.--Scott Mac 19:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WT:PPOL sounds like a good place then, with notes at AN, VP, and WT:FA. Would you like to start the discussion, or shall I? NW (Talk) 19:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

WMC enforcement request

There are two elements to that request. Could you also give an opinion as to whether WMC made personal attacks on the talk page for that article? That's an important element, because, if so, he was already warned about that in the past. Cla68 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you read the "comments by others" section in the enforcement request. If not, you might need to be aware of this diff from last month, where WMC adds negative information to a skeptic's BLP sourced to a blog, in contrast to his edits in question from yesterday. I know we like to AGF, but what makes that edit to Booker's BLP especially difficult is that WMC is discussed in an unflattering way in Booker's 2009 book, and therefore he shouldn't have been touching Booker's BLP in the first place. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw ToaT's response to you on his talk page. Before I spend time investigating this, is there anything else I should need to know? As for his talk page comments, which do you mean? The collapse box below contains the text of the words that WMC added to the talk page. None in particular seem to breach the civility policy. Could you please explain further? NW (Talk) 21:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

The section on views on climate change is grossly one-sided and amounts to a BLP violation. I don't have time to fix it now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC) \On second thoughts I'm right - the section as it stands is a BLP violation, by grossly misrepresenting her views, so I've removed it. Don't put it back until it correctly represents her position: viz: support for basic GW theory; disagreement with some recent IPCC methods William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC) On the contrary, the grossly one-sided representation of Curry's views is a clear BLP iolation, and I've removed the material again. The fact that it is reliably sourced is irrelevant; the point is that it is grossly partisan and unrepresentative William M. Connolley (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Consensus is irrelevant for BLP William M. Connolley (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC) readers should know whic hblogs she has posted on - really? Would they also like to know what she has for tea? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Get someone to check it for neutrality before you post it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC) MN has tagged this [1] but the discussion that should be on the talk page is missing. MN: please explain why you have tagged this (with the wrong tag too, but we don't expect miracles) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Curry's notability with the general public - ah, can you see the mistake you're making? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC) No, not obviously, and not yet. You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable, but that doesn't mean her biog should reflect that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not reading your mind. I'm reading your edits. We are a resource for the general reader - yes, but not all articles are written from that point of view. Nor should Curry's biog be drowned by the excitement-of-the-moment, just because that excites some people William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• "You have no interest in her science, and that is regrettable". Please explain to me how that isn't an actionable personal attack and baiting. Like I explained to you before, with diffs, WMC has been treating other editors this way, including newbies, on article talk pages for about five years. Are you going to do anything about it? Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

  Brought that particular diff up on WP:GS/CC/RE. NW (Talk) 23:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• What is your opinion of that comment? Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a bit iffy on it. On the one hand, it certainly is not the model of civil discourse; on the other, it is not exactly rant-level blockable behavior. To me, it falls into one of those gray areas where there really is no appropriate response. NW (Talk) 00:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

NW, there is also the "we don't expect miracles" quip, directed at Marknutley. You may not know this if you're not a "regular", but WMC has been regularly mocking what he perceives as MN's lack of intelligence for several months now. In one case, he remarked that MN didn't know a scientific paper from wrapping paper. This long term condescension has been brought up repeatedly on the RFE page, and I believe he's been specifically warned for it (but I can't say for sure). So "we don't expect miracles" may be harmless when taken in isolation, but when it's part of a continuing pattern of condescension and baiting, it's more serious. ATren (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Be aware that if we're going to use an expansive definition of incivility and baiting, then patronizingly telling another editor to "relax", accusing someone of "snarkiness" (an ill-defined term that tends to be in the eye of the beholder), or referring to editors' comments as "crap" might well qualify. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Boris, all of those diffs are comments on actions, not editors, and they pale in comparison to the condescension of WMC saying another editor thinks a scientific paper is something you wrap chips in. That kind of thing has no place here. ATren (talk) 03:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This and this are as battlegroundish edits as I've ever seen. I filed a Wikiquette alert about it. NW, it's wrong that editors have to put up with this belittling and baiting behavior on these article talk pages. I've never seen Tillman, the object of that remark, be anything less than civil and collegial in his talk page interactions with other editors. For him to be treated like this is just wrong. Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Spiral Architect

00:07, 24 October 2009 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted "Spiral Architect" ‎ (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: No demonstration of notability (see WP:MUSIC). If references exist that can prove notability please add them. They do not have to be in English but they do have to meet the reliable sources)

Hello!

I believe the above page has been deleted in error. It was deleted for lacking in notability in music, despite two members of the band being individual notable musicians (criteria number 6 for Notability (music))(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asgeir_Mickelson and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinar_Gundersen). The rest of the band members are also heavily involved mainly in the Norwegian metal scene.

Can the article be restored?

Kind regards Anna Lindman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golgahtroll (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 April 2010

(talk page stalker) NW, I see you are on Wikibreak; I have restored the article as a contested PROD and will advise Ms Lindman on her talk page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for handling this John. NW (Talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

issue solved

the issue is solved thanks Iureor (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The name was User:Iureor. With a capital i (Wikipedia's default font is annoying in this regard). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

so that is what happened lol thanks :) Iureor (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI

@$&%!

Excessively Brief (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

TheDarkLordSeth

You were involved in an appeal filed at AE a week or so ago by the above user in relation to his topic ban from the Armenia topic area. Could you please take a look at User talk:AGK#TDLS AE appeal, and if you can, offer comment? He makes some compelling arguments, and I am inclined to think that a topic ban was too harsh and/or that a second chance is in order. Thanks, AGK 13:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy for the next few days, but I'll try to pop in with a few comments early next week. NW (Talk) 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Posted on your talk page. NW (Talk) 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Couple process questions

I was surprised that you would add a proposal regarding one editor Marknutley to an RfE for a different editor. This seems confusing - shouldn't there be a separate request? I started to comment following it to ask this question, but I thought this was an admin only section. I looked, and didn't see the notice, then I realize it got caught up in the collapsed section above. While it seems like an uncontroversial change, I didn't want to move the collapsed section below the notice myself.--SPhilbrickT 12:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make any cosmetic changes that you wish. I'm not really one for what I perceive to be needless bureaucracy, but if you feel that discussion on Marknutley merits another section, feel free to branch it off appropriately. NW (Talk) 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite annoying (and no, it's not PARARUBBAS now)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO from Portugal here, hope your wikibreak was a happy one,

I would like to know your input on this user, Zombie433 - i am writing to you on the advice of User:Daemonic Kangaroo, the last person sending him a message (i on turn sent him a "briefing", asking his opinion).

Developping: although he is not a vandal, his English skills are very poor, he writes no summaries, etc. The worse, he engages in overlinking like i never saw, sometimes in same line, a by-product of his English "skills"...Never mind the LEVEL 4 on his talkpage, please!

More (and Kangaroo is a shining example of this, and so am i): i sent him a message about minding overlinking and tenses in an encylopedia (Kangaroo about unreferenced BLPs), he did not answer (ditto for Kangaroo), and also has the custom of REMOVING messages sometimes minutes after they arrive at his talkpage, what on earth is this?

Do you think anything could be made? Thank you very much in advance,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Vasco, I'm so sorry about this, but I'm afraid I'm a bit too busy to help you out. Perhaps one of my lovely talk page watchers could help out here? If not, well, Juliancolton seems like an excellent choice to ask. ;) NW (Talk) 01:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Will do so my friend, thank you for the tip. Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"When Adam delved and Eve span"

This was actually a multilingual international little verse couplet, which was recited in several Germanic languages and dialects. I don't know that it's exclusively associated with John Ball... AnonMoos (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the origin of the couplet comes from Wat Tyler's Rebellion, at least according to my source (R. R. Palmer (1995). A History of the Modern World (8 ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 007048262. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) The book is only an intro level book though, so it could be wrong. I would be happy to delete the redirect if you so wish though. NW (Talk) 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete it; what I ideally want in its place would be an article discussing its different occurrences in various historical contexts, but I'm not competent to write such an article myself... AnonMoos (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Dolores Del Monte and Jackie Rainbow

You PRODded these two Playmates and they were deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored them, and now notify you in case you wish to take them to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have sent both to AfD. NW (Talk) 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Sure, no problem. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for agreeing to help out. NW (Talk) 01:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

You know, a user has to constantly violate the policy in order to be blocked. If a user violates the policy once, you should gently remind them. I'm undoing your edit. Sonic120 (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. Egregious violations of BLP require no warning, nor should they. People who violate the policy like that obviously have no concern for ethics or not doing harm to other people, and should be shown the door immediately. NW (Talk) 01:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that users are only blocked when they repeatedly violate the policy. Sonic120 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of these vandalism blocks are most definitely BLP-related. Not too many occur with warnings.[32]

Then, why do you think that there are uw-unsourced templates? I think that you should only block them without warning if it is very severe. Sonic120 (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The templates exist because some people like pointless bureaucracy. I'm not talking about unsourced additions either, I'm talking about egregious, vandalistic attempts to harm the encyclopedia. User:NuclearWarfare/Vandal Warnings for more. NW (Talk) 01:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, since you clearly explained it. Sonic120 (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 184.82.9.68

Why did you block 184.82.9.68 without talk page access? I don't see how the IP is revoking its talk page access. Sonic120 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a /b/tard abusing that IP, which is likely an open proxy. They often abuse talk pages. NW (Talk) 02:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

About IP vandal

Hey I saw you recently blocked IP 129.74.109.78 because of edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists/Buckethead task force/Freekbass. However, the history is very confusing and I believe the similar IPs 129.74.87.97 and 129.74.86.235 should also be blocked for multiple vandalistic edits. It's unclear whether they're the same person or not. Do you think we should csd the article then? Deagle_AP (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on, but I have deleted most of the vandalistic revisions and semi-protected the page. NW (Talk) 02:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Vera Baker

Hello NW. I am involved in a conflict over on Vera Baker. I encountered the article through vandal patrol, and an editor insists on adding rumors, while providing sources to tabloids. If you would like (it's totally optional) please look into it. As I interpret the BLP policy, this should be removed per WP:GRAPEVINE. Thanks, (signing off for the night) Airplaneman ✈ 04:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fun fun. Thanks for the heads up. I removed the section and semi'd the article for three days per BLP concerns. NW (Talk) 04:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Airplaneman ✈ 04:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, another example of why wikipedia will never be considered a credible source. Partisan editors cleansing everything so that only conventional wisdom remains. So was National Enquirer not reliable on John Edwards? Wikipedia needs to evolve.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crackenstein (talk • contribs)

The National Enquirer is not a reliable source. It may have been correct in Edwards' case. That really does not matter in assessing reliability. NW (Talk) 16:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Very inconsistent to delete these reports that are spreading quickly while keeping allegations against President Bush and John Edwards which derived from similar sources up. These actions give off the impression of a liberal bias thus jeopardizing Wikipedia's legitimacy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.149.115 (talk • contribs)

I assume this is in regards to Vera Baker. Can you point me towards these allegations against Bush and Edwards? NW (Talk) 14:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know when John Edwards turned into a conservative. Anyway, reports about Edwards managed to move beyond the Enquirer. And I hope nothing about Bush in Wikipedia is sourced solely to the Enquirer. If so, then you might have something, otherwise...no. Yes, the National Enquirer has been vindicated in the past regarding their coverage. Doesn't mean they are now something we call "reliable." Seriously, what encyclopedia would use the National Enquirer as a sole source? I'd like to think we have some standards... Auntie E. (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your mishandling of Vera Baker

I have commented in all three sections where you have inflamed the Vera Baker story. I wish you would have thought out what you are doing. Talking the quotes of a random unknown IP address, as the single basis for your request for an article's deletion is amateurish. You locked down the article before experienced editors could attempt to handle the news. You locked down the article without first going into Talk and working with anyone else. You have mixed the roles of individual editorship of a specific article with your roles and responsibility as Admin. Looking for boilerplate to justify you actions, and posting it as rationale is self serving.

I suggest that you consider the other drivers on the road, as you are sloppily cause unneeded havoc. Your alias correctly implies you are a careless bomb thrower, that roles should be solely as an editor, rather than as your role as an admin. Bad work on your part. --Tombaker321 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My action was thought-out fully, and if you note, has been endorsed by every other experienced editor who has commented. Opening the deletion request was my obligation per Wikipedia:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. If you look at the page history, I had commented multiple times before using my administrator tools. I recognize that using both the administrator tools and the edit button on an article is rare and most of the time should not occur, but BLP enforcement is one of those times where procedural issues are set aside for the betterment of the encyclopedia. You'll also notice that I referred my actions to the administrators' noticeboard, and I would have had no problem with my action being reversed if the community did not feel it was appropriate. If you can gather consensus for something to be included, please do so and then ask for it to be included with an {{editprotected}} request. There is no deadline, and it is always better to act conservatively with regards to biographies of living persons. NW (Talk) 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that suggest you are obligated to ask for the article's deletion. Unlike what you say above other editors are saying to keep the entry. Please look at those within your RFD. There is a section that you missed reading on when to RFD, it goes over when to use the process, it has one sentence in bold, which you avoided reading. It says If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

So how is it this entry is not possible to cure? Why could not restriction be placed FIRST to have only registered users be able to make changes. You have not considered these things. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence to which I'm referring is " Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I, note his reason on the article talk page, and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion asking for a registered user to complete the nomination." I'm not saying I agreed with the rationale for deletion. I'm just saying that I saw that the rationale was a rational one. A proper analogy would be that of the rule of four. Despite the fact that four justices must agree for a case to be taken, 9-0 affirmations are issued every year. (Also, you seem to miss the fact that I had semi-protected the article. An autoconfirmed user decided to add the information anyway, requiring me to bump up the level of protection) NW (Talk) 03:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically I think you should set it back to semi-protected and let the article be able to be edited by real editors, not anonymous and questionable posters. I am certainly not saying that the entry needs to have some sort of giant commentary, but it can reference the matter, the same way that she gave an interview to, when she denied it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1076695/Obama-hit-affair-smears-following-claims-attractive-aide-banned-wife.html If the entire entry was gone, which I don't advocate, I would be happier than to have it locked up totally, with the flag marked for deletion. It has the appearance of censorship. This article had more opportunities for correction by editors than it was given --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Her name isn't mentioned once in the article - it'd be OR to infer. Also, anonymous =/= questionable. Airplaneman ✈ 05:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale File:Jury-mast-knot-ABOK-1168-diagram.png

I was using the one I was rather than F2 because F2's definition on WP:CSD doesn't 'explicitly' state it can be used if the only description shown is for a file on commons. If the description/definition of F2 is specifically amended to address this, I can switch to using that. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It was an accidental script misfire on my part; don't worry about it. NW (Talk) 23:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs in BLPs

Per the decision to restrict Marknutley from introducing sources, which you supported, what is your view of this edit? ATren (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When I clicked that URL it redirected to Scienceblogs. Cla68 (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting an Error 404 right now from [33], but if it was indeed a Scienceblogs redirect, WMC's edit summary is correct here; the citations given in that paragraph are enough to verify the information should one wish to. NW (Talk) 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuke, I don't really know what is going on here (nor do I want to...), but the link redirects to http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/01/hissink3.php —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably smart to avoid this Ed. [34] seems to be redirecting properly for me now; not sure why it wasn't earlier. NW (Talk) 21:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you defending that sourcing? Really? Associating someone with LaRouche in his BLP and sourcing to a blog? I'm sure you're misremembering, so please check again. ATren (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Read again. The source is the papers themselves (which are explicitly referenced). The blog is added convenience. Would you be happy if just the blog was taken out? Why? Or why not? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the papers are not about LaRouche's association with the journal, are they? This is a gratuitous reference to LaRouche added to a BLP and sourced to a blog. It's as clear a BLP violation as they come. ATren (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

So you complain not about the claim that the papers were published in LaRouche publication, but about the quality of the sourcing for the claim that LaRouche Publications are published by LaRouche? Sorry, but that's common knowledge, and trivial to verify, e.g. by clicking on the link provided. You're grasping for straws here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, adding an association to a controversial figure into a BLP on such flimsy grounds is completely unacceptable and you should know that. What is special about those two papers? Why are they mentioned specifically? Are they notable? The fact is there is no source for this implied association with LaRouche; it's not in the papers themselves, certainly, it's only in the blog of a scientist who opposes him and dug up this otherwise insignificant linkage in an apparent attempt to smear him. ATren (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes stephan i see how linking to tim lamberts blog were he wrote so presumably Jaworowski believes that these are the product of a huge conspiracy as well. It should come as no surprise that Jaworowski's theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche, renowned for his belief in various conspiracy theories. I can see how that was an "added convenience" mark nutley (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you comment on

This please mark nutley (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. NW (Talk) 19:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ask again

NW, you weren't able to examine the link before due to a 404, so I'm asking you to do it now to make sure you are willing to defend that sourcing. I think it's a clear-cut BLP violation and I'm guessing that perhaps you misremembered it, but the thread above has diverted so I want to make sure you don't miss my request for confirmation. Do you support that edit as a valid use of sources? ATren (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing a clear-cut BLP violation. At worst, the blog is an unnecessary link (which I still cannot go to without getting a 404). The fact that Jaworowski wrote those journal articles is sourced below. The fact that 21st Century Science and Technology/Fusion Energy Foundation was cofounded by Lyndon LaRouche also does not seem to be in question. The fact that he has published papers in both peer-reviewed and un-peer-reviewed sources is not a non-trivial fact. There is of course the matter of whether the association is necessary, but that is not a BLP matter. NW (Talk) 19:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the blog link which i had removed and was reverted back in [35] mark nutley (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

His association with LaRouche is unsourced. Mentioning someone as controversial as LaRouche in his article is indeed a violation of BLP. I'm disappointed but not entirely surprised you would not see that (but then, nothing surprises me in this topic area anymore). How is this different from the Marknutley sourcing kerfuffle for which he was sanctioned? I'm curious in your answer here, because currently I cannot conceive how you can accept this sourcing and reject Mark's. Explain to me how Mark's sourcing merited a sanction while this is considered acceptable. ATren (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I understand better what you mean now. I don't entirely agree as to the seriousness of the violation, considering that the Wikipedia link backs up the assertion that the journal was founded by LaRouche quite well, but I do understand and agree with you that LaRouche connection should have been sourced more firmly on the Jaworowski page itself. NW (Talk) 21:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the seriousness of the violation, note the original text which WMC added was sourced to a blog entry, which then referenced WMC's own blog in the lead sentence. So you have WMC adding contentious information to a BLP sourced to a blog of someone he seems to know, and for a posting which actually links back to WMC's blog. Yes it's serious. Much more serious than Marknutley adding a section to Curry's article, which referenced skeptic blogs but in the context of a New York Times article which also referenced those blogs. They're both violations to be sure, but quoting Curry's own words in an incident mentioned in the NY Times is a far cry from linking someone to LaRouche based on a blog posting. As an analogy, CRU is associated with Climategate heavily in the skeptic blogs -- does that mean that everyone associated with CRU should have "xxx is associated with CRU, which is known for the Climategate scandal", even if there is no evidence of involvement in that scandal? ATren (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, upon further reflection I would say that you are correct about the fact that the LaRouche connection, though not necessarily the rest of the sentence, was unnecessary in this case. However, as I do not edit climate change articles, I'm still curious as to what admin action you are seeking. There does not seem to be a need for administrative involvement at this point... NW (Talk) 02:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: The COI

In regards to the recent COI that was closed, there was a lot of IP hopping and account creations with puppets. However, I still don't understand this edit history. Do you want to explain? I understand the filing party was blocked however, User:Beyond My Ken is also a puppet. --A3RO (mailbox) 16:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the link I posted there? It has all the background. NW (Talk) 19:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see it now but in regards to the original issue at the COI noticeboard will that stop him from continually editing the Yesterday Was a Lie article? look here. He can't, he represents a severe case COI. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, additional links to previous discussions and cases were provided to me. I admit, this was all very confusing and I was just trying to figure out what exactly happened, plus this issue was all over the place making it difficult to track it all down. Take care. --A3RO (mailbox) 23:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI

FYI I've posted an ANI thread about UltraBibendum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a user you were involved with back in September.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI for AIV

Do editors get this pay raise? :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, strictly administrators only. What do you think we're proposing fund this pay raise anyway? Your salary, obviously. NW (Talk) 02:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see the RFA's now...

• Oppose We can't afford another admin at this time. ALI ^{nom nom} 02:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

*in my best LOLcat speak voice* I can haz adminshep and a monies too? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Block of Onefinalstep

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sorry to involve you but the editing I did included discussion with you.Onefinalstep (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Chichester, Pennsylvania

Hello, I am an editor who was previously uninvolved in the dispute. I feel that in cases of good-faith disagreement, dispute tags should be left in place until there is consensus to remove them. In other words, there should be a presumption in favor of leaving the tags.

If consensus is needed to add a dispute tag, then what are the tags for?

In this case, the edit war was between two editors, with one of them merely trying to bring the dispute to the talk page.

The version of the page that you protected does not have the dispute tags, which I had been about to add back. Could you please revert the page to the version with the tags? Thank you.Ucbear (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the page in the following way: [36]. NW (Talk) 05:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That will do perfectly, as far as I'm concerned. Ucbear (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi NW, would you mind if I unprotected that page again? The "dispute" seems to have been more of a misunderstanding. Current consensus on the talk page appears to be that it's reasonable to assume that MarcusHookPa's info about the local pronunciation is in fact true (it is certainly plausible, and although – strictly speaking – it is unsourced, its factual correctness is in fact not being challenged by anybody else); at the same time, Kwami was correct about how that information should technically be encoded in IPA. I've tried to explain this to Marcus and don't really expect more trouble over this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, please feel free to unprotect the page. NW (Talk) 18:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

UnrefBLPCreator

Hey Nuke (if I may), I just left a note at User talk:Buenosasires for an editor who is in the habit of creating articles (often BLPs) without any references at all. The most recent case is Eric de Doncker, which was BLP PRODded. I'm dropping you a line because a. you prodded one of their articles for that same reason and b. you have the power. Is there anything else I can do? Do you have any suggestions? Drmies (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your note was quite right, and covered all of the points that needed to be said. If you see him continue to create unsourced BLPs, please tell me. I would be willing to block the user for creating such articles. NW (Talk) 15:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice of you to say so. I will keep you posted. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy

Hello NuclearWarfare/Archive 22, You left a message on my talk page:

not deleting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kick-Ass_2:_Balls_to_the_Wall

My reply:

ok, it was short when I flagged it, seams like it has been expanded

_{If you can not see your message anymore, I have probally archived it.}

Sophie 17:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

sectioning in sockpuppet reports

NW, I've been meaning to ask for a while how the sectioning of the sockpuppet reports is going? I've looked periodically, and I don't see any problems, but I figured you would be the one to ask. I'm referring to the changes I made to the sockpuppet format after this discussion: Why can't section headers be used for SPI and this discussion: Proposed solution for section header problem. stmrlbs|talk 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

They're going great! I haven't heard of any problems, and they certainly have helped things out. Thanks so much for your help those months ago. NW (Talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that! Thanks for your comments, and cooperation in helping me get it tested and into place. stmrlbs|talk 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

Hey Nuke, long time no talk! How's adminship treating you? Hopefully not too bad lol. Anyway, could you please delete User:Cornucopia/Work, User:Cornucopia/Sandbox2 and User:Cornucopia/DexterEps for me? I've been quite lax lately and have no use for them any longer. Thanks! Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey there. Nice to see you around as well. I'm kind of wondering why I ever decided to run for adminship; it's only reduced the amount of article work I do. I most definitely need to write a few articles over the summer; this long spell of only admin work can't go on forever. I have deleted those three pages for you. Best, NW (Talk) 15:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I too haven't been really active lately, but I hope to write a GA or two in the coming months. Well good luck with all the admin stuff, and don't let it take too much control! Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hello. I fear your assistance is required regarding the Zac Goldsmith article once more. As you can see [37] the user replied to the ANI thread, with a diatribe beginning with WP:NOTTHEM-style comments, without accepting why his actions on the article/talkpages were inappropriate, and ending with accusations of both of us "threatening him". Subsequently he removed longstanding RS-cited content presumably not sufficiently negative for him from the article by misrepresenting the full length newspaper interview as a "daft opinion piece" [38], along with making a slew of personal attacks [39] to the ANI thread. Thanks. 92.30.111.99 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Brandy Howard page deleted

Hi! I wrote you on March 18th about Brandy Howard's page being deleted. At that time, you responded promptly telling me the following..

Hi there. The article was deleted following this discussion for failing to meet Wikipedia's specific notability guidelines, including but not limited to WP:ENT and WP:BIO. To meet these, the subject of the article would have to have significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources. If you could get those, then I would be happy to undelete the article for you. NW (Talk) 09:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I now have accumulated several websites that I hope will be considered reliable secondary sources so that you can un-delete the page!

First, she has a webseries on Autostraddle.com. This is an established webseries which has been airing since February. There have been 5 episodes and a special psa. I'd like to add this to her Wikipedia page if we can un-delete it. Here is the link.

[40]

Second, she is mentioned in an article in She.mag this month featuring her writing partner. The article shows her picture (not the cover, but inside) and discusses their movie Nicest Thing.

[41]

Third, The movie she co-wrote Nicest Thing is mentioned in this article on MTV.com regarding Melissa Eheridge and Tammy Lynn Michaels break up.

[42]

Fourth, (this was used as a previous source) her picture, name and movie are mentioned in this article on AfterEllen.com

[43]

Fifth, her movie and her name are mentioned in Autostraddle's Icon's of 2009. She is listed under number 13.

[44]

Sixth, again her movie and her name are mentioned in this article on outmedia.org

[45]

Seventh, her movie and her name are mentioned in this article on Logo.com (you have to roll your mouse over the picture of Julie Goldman to read the blurb)

[46]

Eighth, her name, her movie, and her webseries are all featured in this Boston Edge article

[47]

I hope this is enough verifiable content to un-delete Brandy Howard's page. I'll check back to see what you think. If not, I'll keep compiling.

Thanks NW!

Trannytime (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have undeleted the page and moved it to User:Trannytime/Brandy Howard. Please do add the references above to the article. Once you are finished, it does have to go through a review process. NW (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)