User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 26

Article/Ken Zaretzky

Hi Nuclear Warfare, I assume that you are an administrator. Thank you for your work with this article. Ken Zaretzky is a very important figure in the ADHD Coaching Field. How do I either appeal the deletion or get some help writing an article on him that will pass muster? I actually believe the citings were pretty good but maybe the article neeeds to be written differently. Thank you, in advance, Yesimhuman (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, and if anyone has not said this to you yet, let me be the first to do so: Welcome to Wikipedia!

The reason that Ken Zaretzky was deleted was because the AFD discussion was unable to show how Mr. Zaretzky met our notability guidelines. Do you have any sources that indicates that he actually does meet our guidelines? If so, I would be happy to help you prepare a draft of the article for resubmission to the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) 19:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the welcome. You are in fact the first. My experience here so far has been something significantly less than pleasant. Hopefully that will change.

There isn't a lot of coverage on ADHD Coaches at all, however in that field Ken Zaretzky, MCC is one of the very most notable. Here is what is out there. A newspaper article or two that he is quoted in. A magazine article about couples with ADHD in which he is the only coach quoted. Another magazine article about how an ADHD Coach can save a relationship in which he is quoted extensively along with a couple he was working with. Half of the couples quotes had the word "Ken" in it. 2 or 3 Radio Shows he has been on. There have been many more but I would have to search those stations archives to get the MP3's of those appearances. He was known for years as the "couples Guy" among ADHD Coaches and has given talks on that at both CHADD and ADDA (The worlds two primary ADHD Organizations) conferences on coaching coupled where one or both have ADHD and reports of those talks would certainly be in those two organizations Website Archives. He gave a presentation on ADHD Coaching at The International Coach Federations International Conference a couple of years ago (In St.Louis) That is the worlds leading Organization for coaches and some notice of that would be in the ICF's Website archive. He wrote a book on Coaching practice Development and he has given talks on that all over the country. Many of the reports of those talks will be in the organizations that hosted his talks website archives. He is the Co-Founder (Co-founding Father) of the ADHD Coaches organization. There is a link to a page in that organizations newsletter in which the president at the time referred to him as that. He is also a founding Board of Directors member of the Professional Association of ADHD Coaches which is a credentialling Organization and he is listes as that on thier board of directors page. There is a segment of a television show which has aired many times on PBS stations internationally which is on ADHD Coaching which features him as the ONLY coach and shows him working with a client. Also out of about 15000 Coaches credentialed by the International Coach Federation only about 600 hold the MCC credential (the highest) of them only about 6 are ADHD Coaches. He Also gave a talk on ADHD and Sleep Disorders titled "jetlag for Life" at the ADHD Coaches Organizations first international conference a reference to that is still on thier website.

Wouldn't that establish notability for an ADHD Coach? Aren't different fields measured by different standards? What I am saying is that in HIS field he is one of the two or 3 most notable. If he isn't notable enough then the whole field gets pretty suspect. Shouldn't he be measured for notability in relation to the field he is in? He did found or co-found BOTH (This is quite proveable) organizations in his field. I could probably come up with more but most of that (not all) was cited in that article. For an ADHD Coach that is about as good as it gets. But if you were to ask ANY ADHD Coach and many life coaches the Question "who is Ken Zaretzky?" you'd get an answer without any hesitation. THAT is pretty notable within his field.

Can't notability for a professional be determined in relation to his profession? Please take a look at the citings if you could in the last article and let me what more would be needed (I thought that notability had been established within his field pretty well) and tell me what else would be needed? I'm sure it's out there and if I know what to get I'll get it.

Thanks again in advance,

Yesimhuman (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Ken Zaretzky does meet our notability guidelines. I would advise you to bring the matter to WP:DRV. You should detail exactly how Mr. Zaretzky meets the criteria at WP:CREATIVE, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. If you could provide links to back up the listings of Mr. Zaretzky's accomplishments, that would also be useful. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Robin Sage

Hi there. I have to disagree with this edit you made to Robin Sage. I think the picture meets WP:NFCC#8 since the appearance and the looks of the fictional woman Ryan created were essential for the scam to work and as such seeing the picture he used may aid the reader significantly to understand why so many people fell for it. I would ask you to restore the image or, if you still disagree, to use WP:FFD instead. Regards SoWhy 08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think you make a reasonable enough argument to keep the image. I have undone my removal and will not be sending it to FFD. You may wish to contact DragonflySixtyseven; he was the one who first alerted me of the image and might have a different opinion. NW (Talk) 01:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I will do so. Thank you :-) Regards SoWhy 06:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Energy & Environment

Hi mate, regarding your offer to access This for me. Greg has done it and my suspicions were confirmed. Thanks for your help mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you ask Greg to forward the article to nw.wikipediagmail.com? Misrepresentation of sources, especially those that are hard to access, is a serious matter that can have very serious consequences. NW (Talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall forward what he sent to me, he basicly copied and pasted all mention of watts into an e-mail mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oi biatch

IRC now please :)

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

:o

Actually, I'm at work waiting for an experiment to finish. I'll be on IRC/Skype in three hours or so though! NW (Talk) 18:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Way to be on Wikipedia at work.It's not like I am... ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 18:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, I wish I could be on here while at work. Dick. :P  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Psh, it's better than analyzing over and over again why my experiments keep failing. This way, I can just hope they will work on the next run through! NW (Talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WOT

Regarding this edit do you have something that's scanning or did you just happen to check? Maybe I should use that tool too. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a tool on their website, but it seems that the ranking is done by people on the internet, which unfortunately means website by crazy people rank low,[1] but websites with more porn/intentional amusement value[2] rank relatively high (I've had far more problems with ads at ED than I have at Chiu's site). The obvious problem with users ranking these things is that a lot of people get viruses/adware/rootkits/etc which display shit even when they are on safe websites, and then in their ignorance they get into a huff and attribute problems to an unknown website that they visited instead of blaming themselves or their family members. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, I use this addon (Firefox only, I think there is one for Chrome too) while browsing. It's pretty neat, and is also quite helpful for source identification while googling. Sites by loons often get pretty low scores, so you don't waste time on them.

TGL: Probably the case, but I just wanted to be extra careful. NW (Talk) 03:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting a corrupted download so I will try to remember to try again later. Seems useful. I probably have too many addons already (Zotero and Zemanta, and a lot code/html inspection tools, and various adblockers and popup stoppers etc) so what's one more! Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

There is this "user" (see "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Portugal08x). Regarding is edits on individual players, he will do solely this: inflate stats in their infoboxes - yes, i meant it right, INFLATE, not UPDATE. That constitutes vandalism, methinks.

Of course, you are "the master" but if it was me, he would have to be start thinking of a new account...All the best to you, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 03:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Article tags sanction

As you are an uninvolved admin who commented in the uninvolved admin section of the Article tag sanction, I alert you to this.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

PMID

Hi NW, regarding this post, I believe you are looking for User:Diberri/Template filler. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:cite pmid is regularly filled out by a bot. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 17:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like your question is already answered[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much guys. NW (Talk) 18:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Watts

Since you have seen the sources that ScienceApologist has represented as calling Watts a denialist, would you please weigh in on the talk page. Minor4th 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw elsewhere that you havent had a chance to look into this yet, and I understand how that can be. I'm glad to see that Greg is holding off on the RfE until after you have looked at it. I have intentionally stayed away from the talk page on this because I was hoping you and/or others who were not involved in the dispute could take a look. Attempts are being made to muddy the issue, so I will ask you to look specifically at these items: Here's a brief recap of the essence of the dispute: SA added text saying that Watts is a denier and included an edit summary that said three peer reviewed articles support the label "denier"; User Wenchell changed the word "denier" to "skeptic" with appropriate edit summary; SA reverted Wenchell and said again that according to the sources Watts is a denier; on the talk page marknutley took issue with SA's characterization of the sources as "peer reviewed" and also disputed that any of the sources called Watts a "denier" or "denialist". One of the sources was behind a pay wall and had to be provided off-wiki by GregJackP. You have been provided that source. SA continues to maintain that the articles are peer reviewed and that they place Watts in the denialist camp. Several editors have attempted to correct SA in stating that the three sources are not peer reviewed and none call Watts a denier or place him in the denialist camp. Sources indicate that Watts is a skeptic, not a denier. Inclusion of SA's edit would be a BLP violation, including a perjorative label that is not applicable and not supported by the sources cited by SA

The issues: 1. Are the three sources cited by SA peer reviewed articles as SA is representing? 2. Do any or all of the three sources characterize Watts as a "denier" or "denialist"?

Thank you for looking into this. Minor4th 19:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Article/Ken Zaretzky

Hi NW, I found what i think is an impressive number of new suporting links. What I'd really like is to see the article correctly re-written. I think there is a significant number of new links and support of notability. I'm at the point where I am conciously incompetent. Would you still help me do a better draft of that article using both the new and the old resources? I think the notability case looks pretty strong in light of the additional thinks I found online.

If for some reason you aren't able to could you help me find someone who you think would be good at it and willing to help? Yesimhuman (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl I have found to be a very helpful individual and administrator. You might want to try asking her for assistance. NW (Talk) 22:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU!...I'll get in touch with her

Yesimhuman (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Mimi Macpherson

Fake timestamp inserted so this does not archive for a while. I will remove it if the issue is resolved: 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

NW, given your very strong opinions about BLPs, I'd suggest that you not close AfDs or DrVs on them in the future. I don't believe 5% of the admin core would have closed that DrV that way. Admins really shouldn't be taking admin actions on stuff they have strong opinions about and I can't imagine you see yourself as not having strong opinions on BLPs. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have erred in your closure, but will leave it there. The problem we now have is WP:GNG can you explain in light of your closure what constitutes notability on this person, what we have is 15 years of sustained and substancial media coverage in every media outlet in Australia, we have sourcing as a TV presenter in Australia for The Discovery Channel, She is a Radio presenter in Queensland as well as goto source(expert) for comments for national media outlets in relation to Whales conservation. Gnangarra 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you folks suggesting that admins not have opinions on anything (which I'm sure most admin candidates have when they were non-admins)? Or should admins not have brains when closing such discussions? –MuZemike 06:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins shouldnt close when they are actually expressing an opinion, but I dont care about the closure. I care about WP:GNG so far everyone thats closed discussions on this matter have been unable to answer what we are required to produce as sourcing beyond that which is expected for any other BLP. The subject meets notability more thoroughly than most people but its decided she isnt notable since NW made that decision on the balance of the discussion presented obviously NW has some idea about will be required to have the article. If NW cant define it how can we mere mortal editors do it? Gnangarra 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The ideal case is the uninvolved administrator. NW is highly involved in BLP issues and takes a very deletionist stance. Just as a Star Wars fan shouldn't be closing Star Wars AfDs leaning toward delete as keep, neither should someone with a strong opinion on BLPs close an AfD (or DrV in this case) against consensus. I think it's pretty obvious, but apparently it needed to be said.Hobit (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This close is really very poor. The original reasons given for deletion had no basis in policy, and the arguments for endorsement of the close equally had no basis. To give weight to people who argue that Mimi Macpherson is not a notable person is to throw reality completely out of the window, and are you going to actually defend people who cited WP:BLP1E? As for "no longer a public person", she certainly was a public person as recently as last October,[5] and what ever happened to "Notability is not temporary"? This sets a horrible precedent: anyone who isn't an A-lister who doesn't like well-publicised negative aspects of their life appearing in a Wikipedia article simply has to complain to Jimbo, and up will pop people arguing that 2+2=5 to get it deleted. Fences&Windows 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that Gnangarra and Fences&Windows are likely correct when they say that this person meets the notability guidelines. The AFD and DRV both arrived at a rough consensus that supported that opinion. That's all fine and dandy, but deletion guidelines clearly state that the subjects wishes may be taken into account, which I am not going to apologize for doing. Until Wikipedia gets a near-foolproof way for protecting BLPs, I am nearly always going to do so when making a decision. Does that make me biased? Maybe. But not so much that I am going to stop closing AFDs, especially because not a single one of mine has ever been overturned. I could be wrong, but I don't believe so. NW (Talk) 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NW-don't let this get to you, good call. This thread is about sour grapes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

so little understanding for someone with such community trust. I'm trying to understand how the article of a notable Australian gets deleted and what it will take to move forward(re-create), the admin of the afd closurer said nothing except take it to DRV, WP:AWNB discussed the implications of the afd closurer – you screamed canvassing(though there wsnt any) but I waited anyway and the DRV wasnt listed at AWNB. The DRV was closed as endorsing the closure I seek more detail, NW explained then you popup making an unnecessary comment, if your intent is to start a bush fire on the issue your going the right way about it. I suggest you go take a happy pill and do something productive and leave it to us experience editors to discuss this in a civilised manor. sorry NW for this response but after 5 years here the discussions about Mimi have generated the worse reactions by a crat I've ever seen Gnangarra 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to add NW I wasn't too happy either. We could have used semi-protection indef or even full protection. Outright deletion is like hitting a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. Think about it, so where does influence stop? You do know many political parties of various countries watch and edit wikipedia don't you? So this sort of decision gives a tacit green light to all sorts of people on how information can be influenced by the subjects themselves and hence undermines the credibility of the 'pedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There wouldn't happen to be an OTRS ticket I could read, is there? Depending on the wording of Ms. Macpherson's request and because the consensus really was leaning towards overturn to keep, I could be convinced to modify my closure to "restore but add on Reviewer FP and Semi Protection". NW (Talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good approach. I don't recall seeing any discussion about an OTRS ticket as such, just that Jimbo had intervened after some communication with the subject. I think the best the best thing would be to ask Jimbo about the exact exchange. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on Jimbo's talk page here. NW (Talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you NW, as I suggested in the afd I'd have no problem with a heavily oversighted restoration or even a fresh re-creation so as address BLP concerns. As Cas expressed the subject isnt the issue, the issue is the decisions and process outcomes that make it plausible to request deletion of all but a few 100 BLP articles on the similar grounds. I'll leave it here when you've had discussions with Jimbo give me a shout and I'll be happy to help if theres a need, also note I'm on the OTRS en-info queue as well. thanks Gnangarra 02:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I had requested that we hold off on even having a DRV until I finish talking with the subject. Due to the time differences and her busy schedule and mine, that takes longer than one might hope, but there is no hurry on any of this. What I propose we do is hold another DRV (I will gladly initiate it) in a couple of weeks, likely for the purposes of bringing back the article, including some fresh sources - on paper - which will be (ideally) scanned and sent to OTRS.

The biggest problem with this biography is the problem identified in the initial deletion request - she really isn't notable in and of herself, but only through being the sibling of someone famous. It is likely true that she meets some of our existing guidelines, but I think this only points to some failings in those guidelines, which haven't adequately contemplated cases of this nature.

Arguments have been made that she's a "household name" in Australia - although without proof. But even if she is a household name, the fact remains that not very much is known about her other than a handful of negative tabloid-style events which would not, in and of themselves, even been covered in the press, save for her being the sister of Elle Macpherson. A DUI, a bankruptcy, an alleged sex tape on the Internet. If these things happened to most people, it would not be in the press, and correctly so - but in her case, the press attention was a mere side effect of her sister's fame.

At the same time, Mimi is well aware that a google for her name gives pretty sad results. Nothing much about her is known, and the Internet is sadly mostly interested in the sex tape - so "slutload.com' (*sigh*) appears 2nd in the google results, while her own site appears 8th. She's sympathetic to the idea that if a *quality* biography of her, warts and all... but importantly "and all" - meaning genuine coverage of her entire life as opposed to the random collection of tabloid tidbits we had at the outset of this- could give a much better impression of who she really is.

What I'd like for us to do is wait a couple of weeks until she's made up her mind and we've really thoroughly assessed the situation privately as to what might be possible here, and then hold another DRV *with her considered and well-advised opinion* taken into account. Notice that I don't say that it should absolutely rule the day, but that it is legitimate to take it into account, and that this is - per the DRV close - a borderline case where that seems incredibly relevant.

I will forward my entire correspondence with her (after I get her permission, of course) to OTRS, so that others may review the situation as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jimbo, this doesn't look negative nore non-notable, and neither does this which is about the family not just Elle, nore this, nor this or this, so I am not too impressed with a comment like that about lack of proof. She is on television from time to time here and would be recognised by plenty. Look, I didn't argue too strongly at the time as I do sort of agree that maybe some folks famous for just being famous we could do without, but we need some sort of algorithm - as things stand she veers too far into notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

nor this note the show as proof she's a "household name" in Australia and no mention of Elle. Gnangarra 13:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Jimbo didn't carefully review the sources as he had information "straight from the horse's mouth". It's a very easy mistake to make--when you get close to the middle of things you can easily miss stuff. A careful review of the sources makes it pretty plain she's very notable and that her notability isn't based on her sister's (though it likely started there). She is, by our rules, notable for 3 or maybe 4 separate (though related) careers: TV show host, whale conservationist, and running her own business. Her work with her fathers business may be a forth. She won an award for her own business. Admittedly it apparently went belly-up, but that doesn't detract from her notability. She's in no way boarder-line notable nor is her notability solely due to her sister. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Enwiki problem, need an admin

Thought you might be interested. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fun. I don't think I should be the one to block him, but perhaps someone could leave a note at m:SRG for the stewards? NW (Talk) 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I know right? If he consistently starts becoming a problem, I might just report him myself... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Account Unification

I unified my accounts following, but it only seems to have registered me on a hand full of Wikis. Your account exists on many, many Wikis (see here), but mine exists on 16 Wikis (see here). Any idea what went wrong? — Fly by Night (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Your accounts on other wikiae will be automatically created as you visit them. –xeno^talk 18:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Would it be possible to address this matter as Mandarax suggested might be possible here? You can reply on this page – I will watch it for the moment. Tx much. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your email just now; tell me if you want to continue the discussion via that or here. NW (Talk) 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops.—Kww(talk) 16:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI I have unblocked based on the results of the applicable SPI. Risker (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

All right, that's all right with me Risker. NW (Talk) 12:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I left a (somewhat late) comment at the ANI, but it might not make much sense or be worth much - if so, please ignore. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi NW, I was wondering if you could review my DYK nom for Temple House Castle and Manor, thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 00:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, although the result might not be what you were expecting. NW (Talk) 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good work but please read WP:CFRD If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used, I personally don't see the need to revision delete this anyway. As you did not contribute the stub you should not have revision deleted the credit to those who started the article and wrote it. Polargeo (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I didn't remove the actual attribution of who contributed in what order to the page, but just deleted the actual revisions. I took my lead on this from Cary Bass, who did the same with an office action to Texas Instruments signing key controversy last year. I could make a null edit to the page to indicate in my edit summary who contributed most to the article, if you think that would be a good idea. NW (Talk) 13:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I don't think there is anything to be gained by preventing users from seeing the edits and by restricting it to admins in this case. Do you? Also technically you are not following the guidelines for revision delete. I don't really see why it matters what previous office actions were in this minor situation. Polargeo (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as the list of contributors is maintained, attribution requirements are met. Per Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content, "c) a list of all authors" meets the requirements of WP:CC-By-SA (which is actually more than is required to meet WP:GFDL, which requires "List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.") The history serves to provide this, even if the text is redacted. What we can't redact, obviously, is the names of the contributors.

I've been doing the same thing lately. Technically, WP:C procedures trump WP:REVDEL with copyright issues, but the procedures outlined in the WP:C advice are pretty onorous and result in nice, unwieldy lists that provide no more information, like so:[6] Talk:Chatfield, Minnesota/Attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. I just don't agree with the action. I think in minor cases like this I don't see the need to hide the revisions. It strikes me as making things more awkward for users who come along and wish to expand the article when they cannot see what was in it. Polargeo (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not ideal, I know. But we run the risk of people inadvertently restoring copyrighted content down the road. I have seen it happen more than once, I'm afraid, and have even done it myself. :/ (Some article types are more prone to this than others.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand you have seen it more than once. I would be surprised if there was anything you hadn't seen to do with copyright :). But to hide revisions to cover for that 0.05% of the time, particularly on less severe copyright infringements (e.g. a few sentences out of a tourist information leaflet)! Seems to be an overstretching use of the tools to me. Polargeo (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the hook still feasible, I've linked Perceval family to Sir Perceval. Thanks. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You would have to expand the article to meet the minimum requirements for DYK first. NW (Talk) 23:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so then when I nominate it could I expand-self nom or not? Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 01:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you 5x expand it from its current status in 5-7 days, that should be fine. NW (Talk) 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have unhidden the revisions. I take full responsibility. If Copyright is readded I have it on my watchlist. Polargeo (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. NW (Talk) 16:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it's worth it, up until now I haven't even heard of the castle, I'll do it in the near future. Thanks anyway. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A new admin

Have you met User:GorillaWarfare? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they're cooler than I am. Apes are pretty awesome :) NW (Talk) 23:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. XD AboundingHinata talk 00:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Again?

I've been questioned offline as to whether I should try for adminship again. You were one of the early opposers last time. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think you should. It is my opinion, don't take offense. AboundingHinata talk 15:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure, to be honest. I would have to look into your edits to ANI, REFDESK, etc. over the past few months to give you a fair answer. NW (Talk) 19:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Since someone answered initially, who I didn't ask and never heard of before, I see the same problems would arise, namely a rash of drive-by shootings. It's interesting to note that a significant number of the "opposes" from last time have since been banned or indef'd. There's a lot of hand-wringing lately over the lack of RfA's. And those who are so foolish as to run for admin are submitted to the same old popularity contest, to be shot down by not-yet-banned users. If the powers that be are really worried about the shortage of new admins, they'll have to improve the process somehow. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Wikipedia has "no powers that be" and RFA reform has been talked about for as long as I've been on Wikipedia. There is absolutely zero consensus about what to do, or indeed what the problem is. Until, and unless, it is broken broken beyond all hope, nothing will happen.--Scott Mac 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I won't be, I assure you. Wikipedia has painted itself into a corner with its policies, and the drive-bys have been getting more belligerent all the time. Maybe when no one applies for admin some year, maybe the dimly-lit bulbs will start to come on. I see frequent backlogs in AIV and other places, and no one doing anything about them, probably due to the shortage of active admins. Until someone decides what the right priorities are, it will only get worse. I am perfectly willing to do the drudgerous admin work from time to time. I don't misuse rollback or the other extra tools I've been given. But I also don't "kiss up". Hence, I'm not "qualified" to be an admin. I'd like to know what I've done that's so much worse than some of the admins who fly through the process and are later banned due to gross malfeasance that I wouldn't even think of committing. Something's wrong with this picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't disagree that something's wrong - although whether any two wikipedias will agree exactly what iswrong and what can be done about it is a debatable point. You're not being totally consistent though. If drive-bys are what stopped you, I'm not sure how you would "kiss up" to them.--Scott Mac 20:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

By not telling it like it is. By pretending to be something I'm not. By coming to their defense when they do something belligerent, and clucking "assume good faith". Until I get adminship, and then run wild for awhile, until finally getting banned, but wasn't it fun? No, none of that is my style. If that's what they still want in an admin, rather than wanting someone who's willing to do the work, then I'm still not interested. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As another drive-by comment, that might as well be a very pessimistic view of a possibly good-faith comment on how you're not ready for RfA. There's nothing to suggest otherwise from AboundingHinata and certainly nothing to suggest AboundingHinata will be banned or indef'd. And really, if NW opposed, you're not just getting your brand-name haters against you; there must be something about you that makes you unsuitable for adminship (though I will note the entirely incorrect ageist nonsense about a joke on your userpage was highly amusing albeit depressing). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 21:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What I've discovered in my small canvass of some of the "oppose" votes is that what they want in an admin is someone who's willing to kiss-up and lie in order to get the job. In short, nothing has changed since the last time. I offer to help, and the response to me amounts to "F.U." Fine. Go tell the hand-wringing editorialist at the Signpost the reason no one wants to run for admin anymore: that the "opposers" don't want people who are honest and are willing to do the job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have an conflict of interest, or not, but I don't like you. AboundingHinata talk 00:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock Review

An IP address is caught in a rangeblock you placed in July. If you have a moment, can you stop by their talk to review the request? TNXMan 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems to be related to Wikipedia:Abuse response/84.203.0.0/17. Perhaps it might be better if we created an account for this user? NW (Talk) 19:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits to RfA

Just thought you should know I made a slight alteration to your comment on my RfA, and you should feel free to revert if you really think gender-neutral literally means both genders at once ;-). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh my! NW (Talk) 19:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blablaa

Well, here's a fine pickle. Arbcom reject Kiril's request for action (which ought never to have been brought in MHO, but there you go). In the meantime, Jehochman has promised to include Blablaa's allegation of systemic bias in the Arbcom case (as it's the basis of Blablaa's excuse for his bad behaviour), and Sandstein (I think it was Sandstein) has even unblocked him so he can take part in the Arbcom case and explain all this systemic bias stuff. I think the outcome is right, but lordy! does it make it look as if none of you guys (Arbs or clerks) actually read any of the stuff posted on the page. Anyway, expect eruptions from Blablaa when he finally figures out what you've posted on his talkpage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I really actually didn't read the entire case; I just saw Newyorkbrad's email to the clerks mailing list and archived it then. Hope this doesn't turn out too badly. NW (Talk) 04:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Blablaaa's talk page.
Message added 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I really should not be commenting at all due to my involvement, but I wanted to let you know about this in case you did not see it -MBK₀₀₄ 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 04:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Race and intelligence implementation notes

Hi NW, by my counts Finding 2.1, and Enfocement 1, are both failing, see my note there, everything else looks correct. Paul August ☎ 14:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the double check Paul. NW (Talk) 14:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Oh, and as for the preference calculations, here's how I calculate them:

• F1.1 is preferred over F1, since F1.1 is preferred by 4 arbs (SirFozzie, Rlevse, Roger Davies and Shell), while F1 is is preferred by only 2 arbs (Coren and Cool Hand Luke) (Carcharoth and Kirill having no stated preferrence).
• R5.1 is preferred over R5, since R5.1 is preferred by 4 arbs (Carcharoth, Roger Davies, Shell and Cool Hand Luke), while R5 is preferred by only 2 arbs (Kirill and SirFozzie) (Rlevse having no stated preferrence).

Paul August ☎ 14:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I updated the FOF issue, and sent an email to clerks-l about Remedy 5 and 5.1. Looks like it's hurting the head of every clerk who looks at it :) NW (Talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's good for their heads to hurt ;-) It really isn't that difficult though. Given two alternate proposals, A and B, the general procedure is to list each arb who has acted on either of the proposals and assign to each of these arbs their preferred proposal, the proposal which has the most preferences is the preferred one . Doing this for 5 and 5.1, for example produces the following table:

Arb	R5	R5.1	No preference
Kirill	√
Carcharoth		√
Roger Davies		√
SirFozzie	√
Rlevese			√
Shell		√
Cool Hand Luke		√
Totals	2	4	1

Paul August ☎ 20:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This explicit enough?

Hi WMC: After a discussion on ANI and on Jehochman's and Sandstein's pages, I have changed the block to expire around the original time it was set to expire (tommorrow during the early afternoon), and have re-enabled talk page access. I do have a condition, however until such time as you or others can convince the community or the Arbitration Committee to rescind the CC general sanction on you, please do not edit other people's statements. If you have any questions, I have put this talk page on my watchlist, and you can also email me. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I thank SF for re-enabling access here. I reject his condition and note that the original block remains invalid: nothing in the CC probation allows restriction of non-CC related pages, such as this one William M. Connolley (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I put WMC's link in the ANI thread, but since that is spiraling out of control like the Creature that ate Sheboygan.. figured to make it clear here :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that WMC was disputing the fact that he could no longer edit others' comments on CC threads. What I think he was saying was, and I do agree with him on this, was that the administrators who placed the sanction/blocks on him overreached when they attempted to apply this restriction to all pages on enwiki. WP:DSN was never made policy (a shame I think, but side issue), so the only areas where the sanction under WP:GS/CC could apply are articles and talk pages (as well as closely related projectspace pages) that are directly related to Climate Change. Do you have a differing opinion? NW (Talk) 18:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The previous blocks were for the exact same thing. He may have disagreed, but the way to deal with sanctions you do not agree with is to discuss them and if the community or Committee agrees, have it lifted, not go ahead and ignore it because you know better. That's just disruptive. SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like events are moving along rather quickly. Atama just unblocked WMC. If people make this into a wheel war I think I am going to have to buy an internet banhammer and smack a good twenty people with it. NW (Talk) 18:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, look like it's a moot point as Atama has now unblocked. I disagree, but I'm not speaking with any greater authority in the area than any other admin (we do have to figure out if General Sanctions have the same inviolability as AE sanctions). Let's see how it turns out. SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hah! GMTA.. and I agree, there's been enough sturm und drang already, let's hope noone takes it to the next level. SirFozzie (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, don't knock Storm and Stress! There are some great works that make use of it.

As for GS and AE inviolability...I think they should, and I think that's the general expectation among admins. Is there any chance that ArbCom would pass a motion about that if I filed a request for clarification? NW (Talk) 18:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no contact with other arbitrators on the CC issues (part of my recusal).. but I did bring it up on the Climate Change General Discussion page. I'd suggest kicking off a discussion there, could be useful. SirFozzie (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was actually thinking on a more general level; there are some other General Sanctions that this would be applied to as well – Barack Obama, Momma Grizzly Sarah Palin, The Troubles. I'll pop a comment on the general discussion page though. NW (Talk) 18:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

.*nods*. You may want to open a new section for that on the main GD page.. that would be useful. CC is different from the other ones, other than the Barack Obama one, none of them have a dedicated sub-board dedicated to the enforcement of the GS, and the Obama one has been deprecated pretty much (No edits at all in 2010) SirFozzie (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

FYI: I added an active sanction to your list here. ATren (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually removed your addition – Risker only wanted things added since June 13, and the Fred Singer sanction was added around the end of May. NW (Talk) 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, sorry about that. I didn't know the context. ATren (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple mistake. It's not a problem. NW (Talk) 23:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:99.231.81.164

see bottom of User talk:Grapebowl. —fetch·comms 03:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Only warning

Do not do anything like this again.

Now – before you react, please think about what it is you'd be reacting to, and why it would be appropriate for you to revert while it is not appropriate for me to revert. Think also about why the editor I reverted received no warning, yet you came to my talk page and made a vague threat of some unnamed consequence for an unspecified infraction of an unnamed policy. I left a very clear explanation of my actions, backed by policy and also backed by the discussion of the admins previously involved in agreeing to and imposing the previous sanction. Keep in mind that my action did nothing other than preserve the status quo and call for discussion. In light of the earlier discussion about the smooth operation of the Wiki, consider carefully what harm or disruption was or was not caused by my edit and whether it was designed to help the encyclopedia or hurt it. Please be very clear about what you're trying to enforce here and whether or not your judgment is clouded by any strongly held opinions, because from where I stand you are not on real solid ground. A quick look at your enforcement actions in this topic area paints a picture that does not speak highly to your neutrality and even handedness. Minor4th 05:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

NW, your warning is misplaced. I'm starting to wonder if you're not gradually drifting into WMC's faction, as your recent actions have been more and more one sided. ++Lar: t/c 11:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th: I have responded on your talk page.

Lar: I made a sanity check with a functionary after the reversion. If you want, I will email you their name, and you can ask them for logs on what I said between 23:45:44 and 23:47:37 EST. NW (Talk) 12:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, send it all. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Minor4th's talk page.
Message added 05:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rollback

I take no position on whether Minor4th's revert should have been reverted or not, but I really don't think that you should have used Rollback to do it. Rollback is really only for blatant vandalism, not genuine disputes about the legitimacy of an edit or a revert. I'm sure you know all of this already, though, so i'll skip the lecture. Could you please consider performing a manual revert (or even Twinkle) with an edit summary for situations like this? Thank you, The Wordsmith^Communicate 08:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I will try to keep that in mind in the future. My bad, I agree. NW (Talk) 12:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for the confusion about vote tallies (R & I.) I get how it works now. Thanks for looking into it, though. No need to reply. Lo, i am real 10:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Advice much needed

I've got a real copyright mess going on, and since it spills over into sock puppetry I'm not quite sure what to do. Basically, Hetam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is certainly also operating as 117.254.247.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 117.254.250.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 117.254.249.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 117.254.73.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and probably a whole host of other IPs. (I know there is no doubt, as under two different IPs and the registered name, he added the same content to multiple articles:[7] [379931907=1&oldid=379930828].

Now that he has a registered account, at least we can make sure his messages reach him, but I'd like some advice on what else to do. At what point do we use Template:IPsock? It would be beneficial to tie these accounts to him in case a copyright investigation is ever needed, but I don't know how rotating IPs work.

If he persists (and I hope he will not), is it possible to do range soft block of some kind so that at least we can make him log in? On a range of what I know he's using alone (117.254.0.0/16), up to 65536 people would be blocked. Yikes. Sock block would seem to be the only option, if any block were to be imposed at all.

Advice? Por favor? It would be much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. This looks like a tricky issue. Perhaps the best way to do track his contributions would be to make just a simple list of all the IPs he has used on a CCI page, without using IPsock (because he is no longer using those IPs). If semi-protection is possible, then I would go with that, but if it isn't, a soft rangeblock would be the only solution. NW (Talk) 13:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm strongly suspecting I'm dealing with somebody's sock here, maybe User:Surajcap? Comments I'm seeing in articles he's edited suggest that he is being greeted as disruptive by the editors of those articles, but I don't know the subjects well enough to know why...beyond the pasting issues, that is. :/ Sometimes it seems never-ending, doesn't it? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

:( NW (Talk) 14:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd have saved myself a couple of hours if previous investigators had tagged this. :/ Evidently, it was already known who he was. Shoot. Either way, my own investigations have confirmed the connection, so I've indeffed him and another account as socks of User:Surajcap. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request at User talk:Climate surfer 23 on hold

Hi NW,

I have placed the above unblock request on hold. Would you please comment (preferably at the talk page itself if possible), before I make a decision? As the blocking admin, I'd like to hear what your response to their latest unblock request is. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

When you have a minute

Hello, NuclearWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WT:FA

Just a courtesy note: I mentioned your name at WT:FA#Move protection for FAs. The thread might be of interest to you anyway. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

please stop

Please please stop over using your ability to revision delete. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This was a perfectly valid use of revision delete. I forwarded the diffs on to a recently active oversighter who in fact acted before I did, but missed a few things. NW (Talk) 14:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't concur with your overzealousness and I think it is a bad reflection on the way wikipedia is going. Polargeo (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Another ping. In case you are unaware, there has been significant further discussion at User_talk:Lar#Please_revert. ++Lar: t/c 19:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I have both pages watched, and am following the discussions on both. I will comment in the future, perhaps, but not now. NW (Talk) 19:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Didn't want you not to be aware. Do you feel that it's a fair characterization that "concerns have been raised to you about your role by multiple folk " as I asserted there just now? By the way, are you recallable as an admin? ++Lar: t/c 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

NVM... User:NuclearWarfare/Recall. As a note that means you're eligible to initiate recalls against any admin that uses my criteria, in case you were wondering. ++Lar: t/c 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that is an accurate statement, though I certainly don't agree with everything in that section.

For a while, I actually used a modified version of your and Lara's recall processes,[8] but I eventually gave it up for a much simpler (though far more vague) process. The old one seemed far too bureaucratic for a non-binding process. NW (Talk) 19:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiya NW

I nominated the Australian federal election, 2010 for DYK can you please review it if possible, thanks. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 07:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's ineligible for DYK, as it is up at ITN now. NW (Talk) 14:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, can the nom be placed on hold since when it's off ITN it can be placed on DYK. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Spare your time? 09:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No, if it runs at ITN, it is not ever eligible for DYK, I believe. You may wish to get clarification of that at WT:DYK. NW (Talk) 10:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus

Haha, I'd forgotten about that. I created it quite a while back during one of the interminable "look, we CAN add lots and lots of pretty non-free images to our articles on Grand Theft Auto, because there's lots of us and we say so!!!1111" episodes :) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A Favour

Do you by any chance have access to the royal society of chemistry? I`d like a look at a review within it.[9] the Organic geochemistry link. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to that particular one, but I do have access to a couple of the reviews that come up when you do a Google Scholar/JSTOR search for that book, including Bushaw-Newton, K. (September 2009). "Molecules, Mud, Moon Rocks, and Microbes". BioScience. 59 (8): 710–12. doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.16. and Shapiro, R. (2009). "Book Review – Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History". Astrobiology. 9: 138–139. Bibcode:2009AsBio...9..138S. doi:10.1089/ast.2008.0915.. Would you like either of those? NW (Talk) 15:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No thanks mate, i already have those, at least for now. An editor seems intent on removing sourced reviews from the article mark nutley (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Article tags sanction

In regards to this edit,[10] I have added a neutral message to this editor's talk page[11] and have restored the tag.[12] Please review my actions and let me know if I've done anything incorrectly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, though perhaps you could open a discussion on the talk page? I'm not really sure if that's the best idea because of the voluntary restrictions, but it's an idea. NW (Talk) 15:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

courtesy note

This is a courtesy note that I mentioned you in a post at Lars talk page - User_talk:Lar#Possible_TGL_coaching--SPhilbrickT 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. Thanks also for helping clarify things on that RfA - I think for being so helpful, you should get that 10% of my Wikipedia paycheck ;-). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:)

Best of luck. Try not to get sucked too much into the administrating of the site; the timesinks are annoying and content is far more important anyway. NW (Talk) 15:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

wholesale revert?

I ask that if you actually would like my support for the currently ill-formed proposed policy that wholesale reversion is not an ideal way to go about it. Thanks. Collect (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Huggle again

Hi. A month ago you revoked Jeff G.'s rollback permission for misusing Huggle. On Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback RGTraynor expressed concern about someone using Huggle to revert good faith edits by others. Turns out Jeff G. is again using Huggle to rollback good faith edits. See Jeff G's talk. Should this go to AN/I? 64.105.65.28 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could, though perhaps a more extended discussion with an admin who has more time than I would prove fruitful (off the top of my head, User:Xeno or User:Shirik would be good people to try). NW (Talk) 21:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Human herpesvirus 7

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ken Zaretzky

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ken Zaretzky. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Unblock

I propose to unblock User:Inter-man. The account he was accused of being a sock of was unblocked nearly a year ago, and the sock investigation did not seem conclusive. Rich Farmbrough, 08:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

I remember not doing too close of an investigation here before I blocked because of the CU evidence. However, you are free to speak to MuZemike/Brandon and then overturn the block should you wish to do so. NW (Talk) 11:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I unblocked, on the grounds that it's not a big deal. Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC).

Hi

NuclearWarfare has been made a member of the Order of the Mop, for their work as an admin and is entitled to display this award for being such a great admin, Kind regards and happy editing, MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 11:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For a userbox version go here.

Fridae'sDoom has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for all your hard work and enjoy the cookies! To our newest admins, good luck with all the requests enjoy your shiny buttons and do us proud!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom at 11:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC).

The Hockey Stick Illusion

Nuclear Warfare -you said you were going to block the next person who edit warred over the Hartwell Paper, etc.[13] Although discussion is ongoing on the talk page about sources, WMC is removing large chunks of sourced text without comment on the talk page. This includes the reference to the Hartwell Paper. This is the second time he's done this in 24 hours,[14][15] despite warnings on the talk page[16] as well as on his own talk page.[17] Please deal with this and follow through on your warning. Minor4th 12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that he added a comment on the talk page simply stating that he removed the material because he doesnt like it. No matter, he has been warned repeatedly. Minor4th 12:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• See also removal of "Climategate" against talk page consensus and despite the sources referring to it as "Climategate" -[18] Minor4th 12:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Minor4th. Not judging anything but one of those warnings appears to be after the edits took place. Please play fairly. Polargeo (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The warning was after the edit took place, and then he did the same thing again this morning after the warning. Minor4th 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I accept your representation as okay. However, warnings from you should carry very little or no weight as you are the one in conflict with WMC. Polargeo (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• See also removal of sourced content without adequate justification here, 2x in 24 hours:[19] and.[20] He was warned about this as well and continued to remove the content:[21] Minor4th 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another warning by you and this time a templated warning. Are you following WMC about in an attempt to get him banned or blocked? Polargeo (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever hear of this? He should template WMC. He is no better than anyone else. GregJackP Boomer! 13:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a fairly POV edit as well. I think I know what WMC is doing, but I think it isn't necessary for me to try to interpret it for anyone. Cla68 (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Minor, NW is not going to take any action against a member of the bloc/faction/cabal. He has been provided with clear-cut evidence in several cases and hasn't done anything, and when I went through his block log I could find no evidence that he has ever blocked an AGW activist. Same when an AGW proponent lies about a source - it's OK, while you and I get blocked for placing sourced information into a BLP. I would go tell another admin, or take it to one of the noticeboards. Telling NW won't take care of the problem. GregJackP Boomer! 13:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Just so you all know my position I would personally ban WMC from article edits in the CC area for 1 year but not article talkpage edits. Just so you all know. Polargeo (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC) I would also ban Minor4th and GJP from ever editing a CC article or its talkpage indefinitely but that is just my opinion. Polargeo (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Gee, why does that not surprise me. Why not list us as Scibaby socks at the same time? Isn't that standard practice? GregJackP Boomer! 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we stay focused... NW, are you going to do something or not? That's the question. Plenty of warnings have been given. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Minor4th 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you block him Lar? You appear to be commenting here as an involved party or else you would take action. Polargeo (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

NW has said they would block... my blocks of WMC tend not to stick. Maybe NW would have better luck. Maybe you would. Why don't you take a look, drop the rhetoric about the talk page organization, and see if you think there's merit to the concern? You're non partisan, right? You'd block WMC if the facts warranted it, right? ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Recap for NW attention

Copying the action items here to get out of the discussion above. Please keep other commentary above this section break:

• Nuclear Warfare -you said you were going to block the next person who edit warred over the Hartwell Paper, etc.[22] Although discussion is ongoing on the talk page about sources, WMC is removing large chunks of sourced text without comment on the talk page. This includes the reference to the Hartwell Paper. This is the second time he's done this in 24 hours,[23][24] despite warnings on the talk page[25] as well as on his own talk page.[26] Please deal with this and follow through on your warning. Minor4th 12:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[copied from section above]

• See also removal of "Climategate" against talk page consensus and despite the sources referring to it as "Climategate" -[27] Minor4th 12:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[copied from section above]

• See also removal of sourced content without adequate justification here, 2x in 24 hours:[28] and.[29] He was warned about this as well and continued to remove the content:[30] Minor4th 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[copied from section above]

• [31] appears to be a fairly POV edit as well. I think I know what WMC is doing, but I think it isn't necessary for me to try to interpret it for anyone. Cla68 (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[copied from section above]

Minor4th 14:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I simply don't accept Minor4ths tactic of separating out his own prefered comments and then specifying where others should comment on an admin's talkpage. It is simply distasteful wikilawyering. However much I may agree with anything you say Minor4th your strongarm tactics are putting me off your arguments and have been for quite some time. Polargeo (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange days indeed

Oh look, people are talking about me. How odd. Some notes:

• I didn't see NW's warning (actually I did see it, but I'd forgotten about it).
• If anyone had reminded me about NW's warning, I'd have self-reverted.
• Actually I already *have* self-reverted.
• Certainly in 3RR or other related issues, self-reversion is almost always grounds for not blocking.
• Isn't it odd - not one of the people obsessing over the minutiae of this issue have managed to notice that?
• I wonder why that might be? Could it perhaps be that people are rather more intested in just gettnig me blocked than anything useful?

Meanwhile, does anyone care to actually address the substance, which is that more than 50% of the HSI article is devoted to repetitive unstructired reviews? I realise that there really is nothing of substance to say about this book - but wouldn't it be better to let the article shrink, rather than calling attention to the lack of substance by this desperate bulking out?

William M. Connolley (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you dropped the snark people would pay better attention? ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"ditto" Polargeo (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it. So, lets be clear: had you noticced the self-revert, or not? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Wow, 27 edits in such a short period of time.

In response to the comments above:

• With regards to The Hockey Stick Illusion: Given WMC's explanation and self-revert, I am not inclined to block.
• With regards to Climatic Research Unit email controversy: Minor4th's edit was a fairly contentious change not inline with how the term had been described in months past. Perhaps Minor4th is correct about this issue, but this is a content dispute where WP:BRD and not WP:TE applies.
• With regards to Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History: Template:DTTR explains fairly well why WMC didn't really listen to Minor4th's templated message on his talk page. Note that two outside (well, at least one outside, I do not know how involved Thparkth has been in the topic area) editors have agreed with WMC on Talk:Echoes of Life: What Fossil Molecules Reveal about Earth History. The discussion should be continued there.
• With regards to Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years: That edit still stands and there is nothing on the talk page save WMC's one comment where he remarks on the size of the reviews section.

NW (Talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, that's certainly one way of looking at it. So multiple warnings on user talk pages can be ignored? That's a new one on me. Isn't WMC under an editing restriction or two? Minor4th 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple slapping {{subst:uw-remove}} isn't exactly a way to engage in constructive discussion. I am fairly certain that an editor who has been here for six or seven years does not need to be told about edit summaries, page histories, the welcome page, and the sandbox in a rather patronizing tone. That tone is appropriate for newbies who generally don't know what they are doing, not for experienced contributors. On Echoes of Life, WMC removed content once, then reverted you and immediately explained why on the talk page. That isn't really "ignoring" from my perspective.

I do not believe that WMC is under an editing restriction that applies in this situation any longer. NW (Talk) 18:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't William currently under a sanction not to edit other editors' comments also? See here:[32] NW, he's testing how far he can go without facing consequences, and you know it. He's deliberately violating his sanction that he thinks shouldnt apply to him. We all know it. As far as your explanations – if any of these events had happened in isolation, those explanations might cut it, but these events happened one right after the other, repeatedly – and if he's not under 1RR, then that sanction just expired. He was going from article to article reverting mark nutley specifically.[33] (no comment on talk page),[34] (no comment on talk page),[35][36] Why in the world would you make excuses for that? I had to go revert Connolley on all these to keep mark nutley from rising to the bait and getting himself in trouble by reverting WMC himself – which was undoubtedly WMC's purpose. Put an end to it. You know it's the proper thing to do. Minor4th 18:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• In fact he is under a restriction from editing others' comments on talk pages:[37]

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing comments made by other editors, for a duration of two months. The WordsmithCommunicate11:55 pm, 10 August 2010, Tuesday (17 days ago) (UTC−5)

Please take appropriate action so that I do not have to put the community through a request for enforcement. Also, until a couple of weeks ago, he was under an editing restricting requiring him to initiate talk page discussion before reverting at all – his sanction expired and now he's back to the same behavior.

William M. Connolley is required until 2010-08-03 to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:01 pm, 3 February 2010, Wednesday (6 months, 24 days ago) (UTC−6)

As far as the warning on his talk page, that's a requirement before imposing sanctions. So I don't think it's proper for you to tell me not to warn him for behavior that could be a violation of probation – whether by template or otherwise. I brought this to you because you had issued a warning specifically on HSI, a warning which he acknowledges having seen. This is a good opportunity for you to step up and act like an admin You've blocked mark nutley for much less. Minor4th 18:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact he is under a restriction from editing others' comments on talk pages - certainly am. But I don't understand the relevance of that to the current discussion. What edit are you claiming violates that? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

::[38] Minor4th 18:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

NVM - it's an old strikeout. Minor4th 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Minor, why bother with this here? NW is not going to take action against anyone in the AGW camp. As far as I can determine, he has never blocked anyone on that side of the argument. He is not going to do it and you're wasting your time. I would take it to RFE or to another admin that may actually take action. Just my two cents. GregJackP Boomer! 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: are you guys demanding that NW block William for an edit which has already been self-reverted? Or are you demanding NW block William for striking talk-page trolling from an abusive sockpuppet? I get that you want William blocked, but the rationale remains a bit unclear to me. MastCell ^Talk 18:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but the edit is from May. I presume he was hoping that no-one would notice the timestamp William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I crossed it out when I realized it was from may. And to answer Mastcell, no – I want WMC to edit collaboratively and quit hounding mark nutley and reverting his sourced content, and quit making reverts and POV edits against consensus, and failing that yes, block him. Minor4th 18:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it's from May - how did you find it? Or, to be blunt, are you going through WMC's edits looking for actions that might get him blocked? Ravensfire (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire, did you ever hear of assuming good faith? Why would you assume that he's following anyone around? There have been other more recent edits on that article that Minor has mentioned - could it be that he just observed the struck out comment that way? GregJackP Boomer! 19:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was leaving a comment on that talk page and happened to see the strikeout (which is bizarre on any page other than CC related talk pages). I checked to see who struck the comment and saw that it was William – I overlooked the date, and that was my mistake. I'm really not a big fan of blocks, and I'd always prefer they be used as a last resort only. What would be better would be for WMC to stop editing in such a disruptive way so that blocking is not necessary to restore (relative) peaceful editing. Minor4th 19:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@GregP - I see very little, if any, WP:AGF from either side on this madness.

@Minor4th - gotcha. My apologies. The disruptive editing is not, from my view, a one-sided affair. Your reverts today on Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years with out participating in a meaningful way on the talk page don't help and only contributes to the already massive WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. At least WMC explained why he was making the removal. Ravensfire (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell - nope, I don't really care if he's blocked on this, I'm just pointing out that NW wouldn't block him anyway. I think that Minor is wasting his time here.

@WMC - I pointed that out to him off-line, and he struck the comments on that. As a separate issue, you really should consider not following MN around just to remove his posts. It may not be your intent, but that is what it looks like. I'll support you when you are right (for example the Climatologists issue), but on this issue, it doesn't appear that your edits are anything but a POV issue. GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Conveniently, just *after* I pointed out the same thing to him online. As to following MN around: you need to AGF yourself: I have a watchlist, the articles are on it. @NW: as far as I can see, this discussion has become pointless, and I'm not going to follow it any more. Could I ask you to post on my talk page if there is anything you think I need to respond to? Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall. NW (Talk) 23:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break 2

Well, as usual we're confusing issues again. Let's none if us pretend that WMC has not previously been sanctioned for disruptive reverts. He was on a 1RR parole, and he had an editing restriction imposed requiring him to discuss on the talk page before making any reverts. Since that editing restriction expired, he is right back to the same disruptive behavior. On three articles created by MN, William reverted mark by wholesale deleting sourced book reviews - twice without any explanation, and no discussion on the talk page. This is precisely what William was sanctioned for in the past. After restoring the content and warning him myself, on each of the three articles he reverted again, and his only "discussion" on the talk page was that he didnt like the article that way. On the HSI he deleted only reviews that were favorable to the book, with only a comment left after his secind revert to tge effect that he didnt like all those reviews in the article – no discussion - and this was after two prior warnings from NW on the talk page about edit warring over the sourced reviews. NW warned to block the next person who edit warred over the Hartwell paper, a warning WMC acknowledges he saw. Nevertheless he reverted out the content twice after the warning. I warned him on his talk page twice – warning being a requirement under GSCC, but NW says it's ok for William to ignore my warnings. Despite my warnings, he continued to make the same deletions of sourced reviews, and according to NW that's perfectly fine for William to engage in the same disruptive behavior that got him sanctioned in the past, editing that would have been a violation of his restriction three weeks ago. Arbcom has proposed that he be site banned, topic banned and restricted for exactly this kind of behavior – yet NW gives him the go ahead without so much as a stern word of caution. NW, I think you need to stop enforcing in this area because your judgment is clouded. Why have you only taken admin actions against "skeptics"? Why have you only protected articles to the pro AGW POV? Why did you block mark nutley for removing BLP violations and fail to even admonish ChrisO for reinserting the BLP violations? Why do you issue stern warnings on article talk pages, but give Connolley a pass when he twice exits against your warning and against consensus to push his POV and taunt mark nutley? You were so quick to warn me when I reverted a modification of WMC's restriction and threatened to block me without even explaining what the violation was. You hairtrigger blocked mark without even finding out what the underlying dispute was; you refused to even admonish ScienceApologist after you became aware that he had misrepresented sources – after specifically requesting GJP to send you the offline article he cited. You unprotectec a page on WMC's request one day after an Arb protected it, and you didnt even wait for additional commentary. Please explain your actions and why you only enforce against one ideological bent. Minor4th 20:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that last bit is a fair question, NW. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lar, if people aggressively and confrontationally questioned you in this manner on your talk page, you'd regard it as tag-teaming, harassment, and baiting by "factionaries". I don't understand why you think it's OK to egg on this sort of behavior when it's directed at others. MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The difference is, Lar is right. :-) ATren (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Ah. MastCell Talk 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

NW, why hand out warnings if you're not going to enforce them for one side? ATren (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Enforce them how? By blocking someone for an edit they've long since self-reverted? By blocking someone for a strikeout from 3 months ago? Despite all the sound and fury, those are the only two actual justifications I've heard put forward here. I asked above for clarification of the rationale for enforcement here, but I didn't really get an answer, so I'll ask again. We don't do pounds of flesh here, or at least we try not to - so what sort of sanction are you demanding? Based on what rationale? MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a moot point anyway. As far as I can tell, NW has never blocked an AGW activist. Probably won't in the future either (past performance is the best predictor of future performance). It is a waste of time and energy to even discuss this here, and everyone would be better served by going back to righting articles (pun intended). :o GregJackP Boomer! 22:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of sound and fury here, as MastCell put it. If you're here to complain about my bias, you can leave now. As I have said before, RFC is an open and valid choice (I'll even be nice, and waive certification requirements), but if you aren't willing to do that, then we have nothing to discuss. I will however try to address the issues Minor4th brought up.

• I warned him on his talk page twice – warning being a requirement under GSCC, but NW says it's ok for William to ignore my warnings. – Except he didn't ignore your warning. He explained himself on the talk page.
• Why have you only protected articles to the pro AGW POV? – Err, not true at all. The only CC page I have fully protected since May (which is as far back as I checked through the logs) was The Hockey Stick Illusion. The last person who edited the page before I protected it was Marknutley.
• Why did you block mark nutley for removing BLP violations and fail to even admonish ChrisO for reinserting the BLP violations? – Mark was edit warring; I didn't see the edits as BLP violations. There was a whole thread on it at GS/CC/Re, if I remember correctly.
• Why do you issue stern warnings on article talk pages, but give Connolley a pass when he twice exits against your warning and against consensus to push his POV and taunt mark nutley? – Which page? THSI? Echoes of Life? I believe I addressed both of those above.
• You were so quick to warn me when I reverted a modification of WMC's restriction and threatened to block me without even explaining what the violation was. – I thought we had left this behind us? You explained your position via email, I noted it and said I understood your reasoning, though I could not at the time.
• You refused to even admonish ScienceApologist after you became aware that he had misrepresented sources – after specifically requesting GJP to send you the offline article he cited. – Yes. I received the article, asked SA to clarify, he did. It looked like a content dispute to me and I was also far too busy at that time to dig that deep into a content dispute, so I handed the matter off to ArbCom (via GregJackP). They also saw it as a content dispute.
• You unprotectec a page on WMC's request one day after an Arb protected it, and you didnt even wait for additional commentary. – WMC made a request to me, I analyzed it and thought it seemed reasonable. I assumed that Rlevse was off on a wikibreak at that time (he had a traveling message up), so I unprotected and left him a note. There was no need to be bureaucratic about and submit a notice at AN or whatever.

NW (Talk) 23:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• If WMC self-reverted, then there isn't a problem. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• NW - I appreciate you answering. I dont agree with your reasoning on some things, but reasonable people can disagree. I am going to move on from this inquiry now. One thing I do want to mention about your warning to me - i did not bring it up to dredge up dead issues, and you are right that we did resolve it off wiki, and I should not have brought it up at all. Please accept my apology for that. Minor4th 01:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course. NW (Talk) 01:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think that you misunderstood me. I wasn't complaining about your bias, I was pointing out that it exists, making this exercise pointless. Instead, I was merely stating that editors should spend their time doing something that may actually accomplish something, like editing. I have no interest in taking you to an RfC, I've already learned how that works with admins, nor would it accomplish anything. I just thought that Minor and the others were wasting their time. I'm not upset or concerned about your actions and bias, I just recognize it, in the same way that I recognize other biases, including my own. It would be like asking me to state that the Indians have been treated fairly by the federal government - it ain't goin' happen, so why waste time discussing that with me? I felt that Minor and the others were wasting their time, that's all. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI

Hi! You offered to point me at some useful SPI help pages - I'd like to belatedly take you up on that offer. No time like the present, eh?! TFOWR 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of pages to help out administrators at SPI, including WP:SPI/AI and WP:SPI/G. For detecting sockpuppets in the first place, I can think of nothing more comprehensive than Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry. NW (Talk) 13:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Image query

File:Minister Božidar Đelić with students of Matematička gimnazija.jpeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hi, I'm looking at OTRS 2010062710010597 and can see that you recently restored and deleted the above image, one that this ticket refers to. Could you let me know what the issue was? The apparent copyright holder / photography wishes to release as PD. Fæ (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I had to dash off for a couple of seconds right after I started reviewing that ticket; I didn't want to leave the image undeleted in the mean time. Feel free to go ahead and restore the image if you think that is appropriate. NW (Talk) 13:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do, I'll log progress on the ticket. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What did you do

with my user page? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

See your talk page. NW (Talk) 01:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain

rem a bunch per advert, BLP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prakash_Amte&diff=next&oldid=274611514

Please explain this revision.

Kindly do so at the talk page of the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Appropos of nuthin

And i've probably mangled the faux french. Was reviewing my talk page for dull, obsessive reasons and came acros a thread in which i made a comment about a picture of the Taj on your user page. Clicked through. Love the current photo – great shot.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again NW

Hi NW, I nominated The BIll for DYK, thanks again. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 00:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was this article salted?

Resolved

Mimi Macpherson was deleted after what the closing admin described as otherwise a "pretty easy no consensus close"[39] because of a request from her publicist (I think, from reading[40] ). I don't know (or care) enough to claim that she is notable on her own, but[41] fairly clearly suggests that if she is not notable that her name should redirect to Elle Macpherson, a famous relation. There are also five occurrences of "Mimi Macpherson" in other articles already.[42] However, I was unable to create this redirect because the article had been "salted".

Now I'm concerned about this because there was no discussion of salting in the deletion review, and WP:SALT gives the impression that the intent is to stop repeated creation of articles, whereas this one was deleted only once. Macpherson herself makes a strong case for notability in her own biography[43] --- provided it's written her way. I think that the "salt" tool is becoming overused, without any real discussion or awareness in the broader community. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have created a redirect and fully protected it. With the subject's request for deletion, I do not feel it is appropriate for any article to be created about Mimi Macpherson without a draft going through DRV, which is why I salted it to begin with. Jimbo Wales said he would be speaking to Ms. Macpherson to see if it is still her intent that an article about her not exist on the English Wikipedia, so if you were interested in creating an fuller article on her, then you should talk to him. NW (Talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's a start. I thought DRV was a deletion review, not a place where people ask for permission to start new articles from scratch. But I won't push the issue for this article, because the subject isn't interesting to me. Wnt (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Resolved

There is an unblock request at User talk:Dago Dazzler. What I can see is not sufficient for me to assess the request, so could you, who must know more about the circumstances, look at it? Thanks in advance. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing of that unblock request only confirms my opinions that this is an abusive alternative account that is here to stir up trouble. JohnWBarber (who I actually always confuse with you!) explains it well at ANI (ANI archive). NW (Talk) 20:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

AE?

Resolved

• Doesn't the A in AE mean Arbitration, by which I infer that Arbs make the decision? You are just an admin... what empowers you to close it? Tks. • Ling.Nut 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Never mind. I see now. Tks. • Ling.Nut 06:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest logging the 'Mass Killings' 1RR restriction on the Digwuren page

Hi NW. Per this notice you're the creator of the 1RR restriction on the 'Mass Killings' article: Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#1RR restriction. To save other admins from trawling through the dusty arb pages, it would be helpful if you could add a note about this restriction at the bottom of WP:DIGWUREN. There is a section there for recording 'article-level discretionary sanctions.' Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me; I had forgotten to do that those many months ago. Now logged. NW (Talk) 21:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IPCC

I see you've edited it. In that case, maybe you'd like to join the discussion at requests for prot as to whether it should be unprotected or not? Oh, I've just looked, everyone is too scared of arbcomm to touch it or even dare comment :-( What a happy place wikipedia is nowadays William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel the article probably ought to be unprotected (quote me on this if you wish), but everyone is too scared of arbcomm to touch it or even dare comment :-( is probably pretty accurate, with the additional caveat that I really don't have time to take that detailed of a look; I have been able to come online for just very small time intervals recently. However, John Vandenberg is right in that an extra few days (even two weeks, really) or so probably won't hurt all that much. I'll check on the talk page discussion tomorrow, as it seems well on the way to resolving itself. If everything seems OK, I'll check with Jayvdb about unprotecting the article. NW (Talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Woo careful, you can get into trouble for saying that kind of thing [44] :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A clearly labeled sarcastic comment obviously designed juxtapose both situations in hope that John Vandenberg would see things from your perspective is certainly not the same as you being "uncivil and antagonistic to...toward administrators..." I'm disappointed with that diff, but then again, I am rather disappointed a great deal by this proposed decision. NW (Talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Rlevese is running away from it :-). Meanwhile, did you get anywhere with Jayvdb? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That was rather interesting about Rlevse. I am just as much in the dark as you about why; the clerks-l email thread didn't explain anything really.

I haven't spoken to Jayvdb yet. I did however post on the talk page of IPCC with something to refocus the discussion. NW (Talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting conversation. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Witch of Pungo

I finally found a site with a great synopsis of the details of the legal proceedings, plus one with the original court transcript plus one with the transcript in modern English. This gave me plenty for Grace Sherwood and enough for the summary in Pungo, Virginia. It's now at T:TDYK under "The Witch of Pungo". I thought you'd like to look at it and maybe review for DYK. Thanks for the prior and future help. My first double DYK hook too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Pungo. When I was a kid (in Virginia) I thought that was the coolest name for a town... Pungo, Pungo, Pungo. Right up there with Bumpass. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually knew someone whose last name was Bumpass or Bumpas. SBHB-feel free to help on the articles too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put up an alt hook that'd be good for Halloween. Give it a look. Check mail too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Took a look at the page. Looks good. Emailed you back. NW (Talk) 03:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ramachandra Naidu Galla

Hi NW. This is a bit of an odd note, but, hey, process :-)

A few months back you closed a rather desultory deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galla Ramachandra Naidu, a scrappy article on an Indian industrialist. I came across a recreation of this on IRC today - someone repeatedly trying to delete it as no claim of notability, which didn't seem right - and I went in to clean it up and so on. Notability seemed fairly well established, but I noticed after I'd done the legwork that there'd been the early AFD, so I suppose it means I've de facto overturned your decision to close it.

Do you mind? I'm happy to run it past DRV or the like - I really don't know what the due process ought to be here - but the old discussion was pretty vague and the old article was pretty atrocious, so a recreation with sourced and significant content seems not unreasonable. But I don't want it to seem like I'm sneaking off and overturning your decisions willy-nilly, so I thought I'd run it past you! Shimgray | talk | 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I trust your judgment entirely in these matters. Feel free to take any action you wish, irregardless of any previous decision I may have made. NW (Talk) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 13:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Attention please

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here, longtime "no see",

I would like for you to have a look at this situation: at László Sepsi, a Romanian user "dedicated" this summary to me (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Sepsi&diff=383274942&oldid=383161917). If you check the previous 10, 20 summaries, what did i say to make him go all "Don't edit here again, this article is MINE" (keep in mind it's about a Romanian footballer, and the user also hails from that country)? I think nothing!

Also, after he re-verted my work, he wrote the sentence, in CLUB CAREER: "He impressed at Gloria for offensive game , and has attracted the eye from Europe teams. He making 45 apparences for Gloria .", which means, of course, NOTHING in English (horrible language, mixing past and present tense, having a go at POV/WEASEL, etc). Also, not the first time he shouts at me, although this was the first time in all-caps (see previous "politeness" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmin_Contra&diff=375443917&oldid=375274919). In same section called CLUB CAREER, he divided it into sub-sections which consisted of storylines with sometimes one, yes ONE (!) line. And i have to "get out!"?!?

(Some of) the stuff in previous paragraph leads me to this: he has ZERO knowledge of English, writes almost no summaries, and does not answer to talkpage messages, sometimes not even to his countrymen (one would think he would not reply due to not knowing English, but that theory falls to the dirt when it comes to his fellow Romanian users - i know what i am talking about, i checked the latest "stuff" in his talkpage).

All in all, i told him i would watch Sepsi's article closely (please see full message from me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zupfk#Pay_attention), politely but to-the-point. I would greatly appreciate it if you could monitor this stuff (especially the Zupfk user, i will eye Sepsi's article from time to time) for a while, if it's not too much trouble.

Hope all's fine with you, keep up the great work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, that isn't so great. I haven't really the time to monitor his work, but I have left him a note on his talk page. Could you alert me if any other problems come up? NW (Talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Passed

Well, my RfA passed (just!) so I've come to leave a message here to say that I will be happy to take a look at the OTRS queue. I would like to gain a better understanding of the BLP policy and make a real attempt to show the opposers that I can be trusted. Cheers, BigDom 11:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I am quite busy now, unfortunately, but perhaps you could drop me a note about this in a week or two? NW (Talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I will return in the near future. BigDom 16:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Is there another edit war brewing at Mass killings under Communist regimes? Is the 1RR restriction still in place? Bobanni (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating the thread. A user Mark Nutley who threw absolutely artificial accusation on 1RR violation against me (part of the discussion is there [45]) now attacked another user there [46]. Since you NW are the administrator who imposed 1RR on this article, I invite you to comment on that there [47].--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you examine the "edits" closely - the current version now affirms that this is all anti-semitism <g>. Suggest reversion to the stable (that is, not cut by more than half) article with full protection at this point. Collect (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The user TFD, who is you old opponent on the article's talk page, is also a zealous opponent of any anti-Semitism. I believe, you should discuss the issue with him first: probably you both will come to some common terms at least about that. In any event, since your opposition to TFD's edits and vise versa is one of the major article's issue, it would be good if you both tried to fix anti-Semite issues together (as soon as you realised that the problem exists).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry I couldn't take a look at this for so long. It looks like the issue has moved on since then; is there anything more for me to do? NW (Talk) 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What's good for the goose...

I see that you have article-banned, GregJackP.[48] In the interest of fairness and consistency, can you please issue the same article-ban against WMC, too? He's clearly edit-warring.[49][50][51][52][53][54] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

@AQFK: I think you need to read what NW wrote: viz, When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently. You are being far too simplistic by simply counting edits and disregarding content, a mistake that NW didn't make. Read the terms of the ban: it is not based on revert-count, it is based on understanding what is going on. This is in fact very similar too, if not the inverse of, the wording on the edit warring page: just as you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't hit for 4R, conversely you can be edit warring even with one revert William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I didn't think admins are allowed to rule on content issues. But even if admins are allowed to rule on content issues, that doesn't negate the fact that you are edit-warring. Two wrongs don't make a right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong both times. Once again, read what NW wrote. It wasn't a content ruling (not that there is anything to stop admins making content rulings; it is only arbcomm that arbitrarily imposes that limit on itself, and it doesn't keep to it). And sorry I got my "converse" text a bit confused: I meant to say, really, that even lots of reverts doesn't necessarily make for edit warring. You can't do these things by edit count, much as you'd like to: it takes thought too William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation regarding content issues. I wasn't aware of that. But still, it looks like you were edit-warring. Can you please explain which of those diffs shouldn't count as a revert and why? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That was covered already: you're conflating edit warring and reverting. I've tried to explain why they aren't the same thing William M. Connolley (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed that post. Where can I find the diff by diff explanation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're down to wikilawyering / tendentiousness now William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Making unsubstantiated accusations isn't helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but *you've* just made an unsubstantiated allegation of making unsubstantiated allegations. Which was yet more pointless wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This matter was addressed at WP:AN3 by Spike Wilbury at 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC). His decision seems appropriate to me. NW (Talk) 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notification

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. GregJackP Boomer! 17:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More suspect decisions from you

NW, since when do we allow editors to spin what they've said in reliable sources words? If, for example, Fred Singer or someone from that "side" of the debate came here and started removing stuff simply because they now assert it's not what they meant, do we allow them to do it? ATren (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would allow Fred Singer to remove content on things that he supposedly wrote, assuming it was easily verifiable that the person removing the content was actually Fred Singer. Now, should consensus on the talk page rule otherwise, the material could be included, but by no means should anyone edit war to keep the material in in the meantime. NW (Talk) 23:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that. You're biased, as proven by the lack of action against SA and the action against me. One reversion does not constitute an edit war, and you lied when you stated I "continued to edit war" the article. You sir, should be ashamed of yourself. It will be OK, I'll be topic banned (or blocked). GregJackP Boomer! 23:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, you recently started editing AGW topics. You are no longer an uninvolved editor. Even if you had banned both Greg and WMC, which would have been a more fair and logical course of action, I still wouldn't have supported it because you are involved. If you take any more admin actions related to the AGW topic, I will be reporting you to ArbCom or whichever other authority is appropriate. I'm really sorry that I had to say this to you. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that any of my admin actions is inappropriate on the basis of current involvement in the topic area, make your case now. I do not believe I have edited any CC page substantially enough to disqualify me as an involved administrator. NW (Talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to make the case to you. You know better than me which articles you have edited and which opinions on content you have expressed on the article talk pages. If me or someone else has to make the case to a third party that you are involved, I will do so. The first time I saw you editing a CC BLP and giving an opinion on its content on the talk page, I assumed you were forfeiting your status as uninvolved, so I was surprised to see you take action today. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When you get a chance, can you please respond to my question?

Unless I missed it, I have not yet received an answer to the following post.[55] When you get a chance, can you please respond? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have responded. NW (Talk) 01:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm...The discussion there seems to be missing a few a diffs.[56] 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement and it seems that WMC's edit war goes behond a simplistic 24-hour timelimit. Also, the the explanation there is that "Discussion is ongoing in (multiple) places on the use of sources, and blocking anyone at this point is only going to hinder discussion." Certainly, blocking GregJackP will also hinder these discussions.

In any case, I don't see a comparison between GregJackP's edit-warring with WMC and WMC's edit-warring with GregJackP. Granted, some editors have accused you of bias. But, you can quickly put these accusations to rest by issuing a similar sanction against WMC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem....to those posting about CC issues

Folks, please let's stop spreading these discussions all over the encyclopedia; there are too many places in which these conversations are happening. If it is related to a sanction put forward by NW, please discuss it on the appropriate sanction board. Believe it or not, we arbitrators are trying to follow all of this, and the more this is spread out, the more likely that we're missing a key component. Thanks, all. Risker (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you delete the pages User:Wayne Olajuwon/vector.css and User talk:69.115.214.211? Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done for the first one, not sure why you want me to delete the second one. Feel free to email me if you want to keep it private. NW (Talk) 15:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I want you to delete it because that talk page hasn't been edited in a long time and I'll email you if I want to keep it private. Wayne Olajuwon chat 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We don't really delete user talk pages except in extraordinary situations. This really isn't one. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Are you following me? [57] seems strange that you would turn up on such an obscure article :) mark nutley (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You caught me :)

Yeah, I was looking over the edits of climate change participants and realized that I hadn't heard that name before in a climate change context, so I clicked on the article. It was nice to see that it was a uncontroversial article that you were working on. Great job, keep it up. NW (Talk) 22:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Witch of Pungo

See User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC and WOW! It got 7.6k views while at DYK, my third highest ever, and qualifies for DYK Stats — Rlevse • Talk • 02:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood - Witch of Pungo FAC filed

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. Thanks for your help and encouragement, it's been great. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

I reviewed your last 500 edits, takes things back to August 25. You have had little involvement in editing these articles I only found a dozen or so edits altogether on them (not counting the Arbcom case). Of these they were all prima facie admin action except for the last two I reviewed [58] [59]. I believe these two edits were meant to break impasses and suggest alternative courses of action and don't constitute involvement. --WGFinley (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the edits to the Monckton article. The talk page edit gave an opinion on controversial content. Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs or at least a wiki-link for those who are not immersed in CC articles? --WGFinley (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try to post them later today (Japan time). Like I said, I was surprised to see NuclearWarfare's actions today, not just because they were so one-sided, but because he took them in the first place. If he wanted to continue to be an admin related to CC, why did he start editing the CC articles? Anyway, I'll get some diffs up later. Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

With the name now I had something to search in his diffs. IMO his involvement has been in identifying sources for a BLP article and the content of information in a BLP article. He hasn't edited the article that I've seen and only seems to be helping to bring the article into BLP compliance from what I see. That's administrative. For the record NW asked me to take a look at this for an outsider's view, I've never been involved in CC and he wanted an opinion. --WGFinley (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, once an admin starts collaborating with the parties in the CC troubles, they have become an involved editor. More importantly are NW's edits to the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article, such as this one. Wgfinley, are you aware of the controversial history of this article? This is the article that basically resulted in ChrisO's de facto ban for BLP violations. This article has been locked-down twice, once by an arbitrator, for edit warring by the different CC factions, now embroiled in a drama-laden, huge arbcom case. And NW is going to make content recommendations to this article and feel that doesn't conflict with being an uninvolved admin? Come on!

Your collaborating diff is working on an OTRS request, are you serious? I can't imagine things too much more administrative. What I've usually found is that many editors heavy in the controversy see admins who work on area long-term as involved because they try to help with impasses and discussion, they're quick to call "you're involved" when the decisions don't go their way but ignore it when they do. To be honest I think some people who cry involved have rarely read WP:INVOLVED. --WGFinley (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one. Note that I agreed with his recommendation (If you're talking to me NocturneNoir below, notice that I don't take sides when it comes to NPOV content). When we had that exchange, I assumed at the time that NW was giving up on staying uninvolved, because to get involved with controversial content in an article so central to the CC dispute basically dictates it. So, I was very surprised today to see him acting as an uninvolved admin. In that edit above, NW was disputing an edit by Minor4th. Minor4th and GregP, from what I understand, are off-wiki friends. NW, once you started to influence the content of a controversial CC article as an editor, which you did with Monckton, you were involved. You should know this and I shouldn't have to tell you. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't say anything so I'm assuming you agree the OTRS issue isn't involvement. Now, apparently, asking a question about why something is a BLP violation is involved? Admins are charged with taking immediate action on BLP violations, asking what a violation would be something an admin does all the time. Definitely doesn't constitute involvement. --WGFinley (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Wgfinley, but I disagree. I guess I could say the opposite, "definitely involved." He wasn't removing a BLP violation, he was asking why some content couldn't remain, in other words, influencing content. Cla68 (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I find a great deal of humour in the notion that blatantly biased parties are calling NW out for being 'involved' and biased. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 03:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

fyi Cla, my comment can be broadly applied to the entire CC situation, where biased people call others biased in attempts to influence bias. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 00:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)