This is an archive of past discussions with User:NuclearWarfare. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Good luck with your RFA and luckily it appears it should pass. Man you were quick fixing the formatting issue! When I went to fix it you'd already done so :) Aaroncrick (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Knave of Hearts (talk·contribs) - Alluding to one of the articles you edited. (There is a knaveofhearts (talk·contribs), but that user only had one edit several years ago, so that there shold be no conflict.)
Your off-wiki name. (Works for me!)
I would really recommend changing the user name; I'm not making that a condition for my vote, but I do think it makes sense specifically for someone who works a lot with new users: The current name is aggressive and will feel offputting especially to the nicest newbies. — Sebastian01:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey NW, thanks for the welcome message. I feel welcome already except for somebody deleting my contributions to the list of best selling artists talk page for some reason. Why is that? Mecuy (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I think they had suspected you were a "sockpuppet" of another user who had been "trolling" that page. A checkuser has established that you are likely not that user, and so I have readded your post to that page. Hope that helps, NW(Talk)18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey thanks. I'm bothering you again, somehow i am not able to edit anything on the same page, even the topic that I started. why is that? cheers Mecuy (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It's no problem at all. The page has actually been semi-protected, which means editing of the page is limited to users with more than 4 days and 10 edits of experience. If you want, you could write out a statement, and I will be happy to move it over to that page (just as a temporary measure while you wait for your account to be able to bypass the semi-protection). NW(Talk)16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. In a recent SPI about me, you closed the investigation stating that you did not find conclusive evidence to establish sockpuppetry on my part. [1] Can you please explain which accounts/IP you checked versus my own and the depth of your behavioral analysis? What are the implications of your determination? Thanks. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇssnɔsıp23:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I didn't actually run a checkuser against you; for that, you will have to ask Avi. As for behavioral evidence, I remember looking through mostly just the history of that page, as well as assorted things through all the editors' contributions histories. I think I determined fairly well that you were unconnected to any of these accounts, but I was unsure of the rest; it was just too muddled to conclusively determine. Hope that helps, NW(Talk)23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
NW, I set up a dummy test of transcluding an SPI with section headers. Can you take a look at it and tell me if this looks like what happened when you transluded the BullRangifer SPI with the section headers into the SPI "waiting for clerk approval" page? These are dummy spis and the "awaiting SPI approval is in my sandbox". However, I did not dummy all the templates.
so, please take a look here at the sandbox test transclusion I set up [2]. Is this is creating the same problem? Is the problem the sequence of the section headers doesn't make sense? Thanks --stmrlbs|talk08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of the problems are because an SPI with section headers is interspersed with SPIs in the old format. What do you think of how this looks? [3](the section divider doesn't have to be pink ;)) --stmrlbs|talk19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the headers might have to be shifted down one (Level 2 headers to Level 3, etc.), except for the main one. Could you try that out? NW(Talk)19:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
can you be a little more specific? so, you want 2.1 to be 2.2.1? how about "2 EGGLI ANDREOU_2"? do you want that to remain where it is? or do you want that to be 2.1?
Perhaps it might be easier if you tell me how you would like the sectioning? Each user should start at what level? and the sections below each user be one level below? --stmrlbs|talk20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Attempt One has problems because comment sections aren't subsections of their respective reports; Attempt Two solves that, but still has problems because reports are not subsections of their respective categories. As best I can tell, the hierarchy should be thus -- from the main page: page (L1), main category (L2), subcategory (L3); from the case subpage: case (L4), report (L5), comment section (L6).
Pretty much. Normally, I would have kept it at the original name, but in this particular report, the results were too stale for a Checkuser to be established. NW(Talk)20:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
ACC
Hey, sorry I appreciate you're pretty busy over at RfA right now but is there any chance you could reactivate my account on the ACC tool? I've had a pretty hectic few months and have been unable to use the tool, and I just tried to log in but since it's been more than 45 days, I can't use it. Cheers :) Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 12:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, it seems that not only were you suspended for inactivity, but you were also suspended for another reason: (Suspended by OverlordQ because "Please pop onto IRC so you can explain why you dropped req: 24280"). I'll unsuspend your account, but could you please read over WP:ACC/G before you handle a request? Thanks, NW(Talk)15:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that was a while back, it ended up being a complete misunderstanding on my part regarding shared IP addresses and a dodgy decline I did. We sorted it a long time ago :) See this if you're interested. Thanks anyway. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations, NuclearWarfare! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, August 25, 2009! Keep up the great work! Note: You could also receive the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week! If you wish, you can add {{User:Midnight Comet/WOTD/UBX|August 25, 2009}} to your userpage.
Appreciate the feedback that you left here [4]. I am assuming that would be for vandalism related sock attacks only(?). BTW, good luck with your RFA "confirmation". Cheers! --CobraGeekThe Geek22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
That's correct. For registered users, or if the IPs become too large of a problem, please file another SPI case. And thank you! NW(Talk)22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Unconstructive Edit
Thank you for your feedback on my edit but I am just not seeing how it was unconstructive. I thought that a list of people from the Nation of Islam who are significant, famous or otherwise noteworthy was better titled Notable versus noted. I surely is not a big deal and have no issues with it being reversed, but I am just curious about how it was percieved.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Elmmapleoakpine! I'm afraid that I was working too fast and I reverted your edit without meaning to. I have struck the warning from your talk page; you are free to undo my edit on Nation of Islam. My apologies, NW(Talk)02:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Re:File:Zotov2.JPG
Off course it was created and published in Russia. I thought PD-Art tag would be more than enough considering the art age, but you also might know that antiquity copyright is extended in Russia to about 1944 (can check) vs. 1923 for US. Just for you to know why I always upload to WP rather than to commons - there are all kind of unexpected issues, which I can't easily track on commons, thus I wait for some time to settle those before moving the image. Should be no problem here though. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind - verbatim copy of your excellent example of how to break it to them softly [5]. I cited you, but let me know if you'd rather I come up with my own version. However, I as I mentioned before - I can't imagine how you could have said it any better. I am only saddened now that the opposes continue to pile on, instead of just letting it die a quick and neutral death. 709:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it's no problem at all. I too originally took that message from someone who I believe took it from someone, so we are just passing down the tradition of using that for NOTNOW RfAs. NW(Talk)12:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Andrew Vinius
On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andrew Vinius, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello NuclearWarfare, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tootsie Duvall has been removed. It was removed by Pablomismo with the following edit summary '(deprod - article needs improvement though.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Pablomismo before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
NW - I could use your help. You noticed that two of the pictures I put on the Illinois Wesleyan University Page were marked for speedy deletion because they don't have information on their copyright status. Now, I took the pictures myself, and they haven't ever been copywrited. What additions do I need to make to each picture to prevent their deletion? In the source description I listed that I created the work myself. Let me know, and I'll be happy to make the additions. Thanks! As you can see, I'm VERY new to editing. -RJ User:Republicofjosh01 11:22, 26 August 2009 (EST)
{{cc-by-sa-3.0}} and {{GFDL}}: This allows anyone to use the image if the release their own work under the same license AND credit you as the original creator of the image.
{{cc-by-3.0}}: This allows anyone to use the image if credit you as the original creator of the image.
{{pd-self}}: Anyone can use this image without any condition.
Just pick one of them and add it to the image, and you'll be set. I hope that helps, but if not, feel free to ask me for a further clarification. NW(Talk)15:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Great! I'm working on it right now. -RJ User:Republicofjosh01 11:32, 26 August 2009 (EST)
Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans
Hi there,
I placed the page describing Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans. It was deleted. I didn't have a chance to edit, what was wrong specifically (Which sections were flagged). Was the entire piece article wrong? We are a valid non-profit and I have seen other non-profit pages on wikipedia. Please let me know what sections were specifically not conforming to the rules so I can correct them.
Pshaw, admin vaccine is nothing. Wait until you get the crat vaccine; they always use the same needle. :) Anyway, congrats, I know you'll do well. Just don't be hasty and perhaps you might not need a booster shot. bibliomaniac1522:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Earlier today you deleted a bunch of expired PRODs, which is all fine and good except for one thing - many for them weren't expired yet! PRODs are expected to run a minimum of 7 full days, not 6 and half. Its not the end of the world, as I will simply restore anything that I find to be notable, but it does make patrolling them more time consuming. Please be more careful in the future.
When I looked at your log, I also saw a bunch of R3 deletions done in batch. They appear to have all been craeted by User:Tyciol back in 2008. This user appears to have a history of making questionable redirects, but very few of these actually fit into r3 even if they had been recently created.
R3 only applies to implausible typos and clearly invalid redirects. For example, The Criminal Code of Canada redirecting to Criminal Code of Canada isn't very useful but it isn't an R3 candidate either. Others were clearly appropriate such as What You See which redirects from a song title to the album on which it was found.
In short, you shouldn't be blindly batch deleting every redirect the user made just because he has made a lot of bad ones. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, are you sure about the Prods? I went through the category, and I thought I only deleted things that clearly said "This article may be deleted without warning." On the other hand, I kind of tuned out the red box and only looked at the rationales after a while, so that indeed might be my fault.
As for the batch deletion, I agree that The Criminal Code of Canada was a mistaken deletion. If you find any like those that I obviously made a mistake on, feel free to reverse it. However, there was a local consensus to count song --> album redirects as R3s, I believe. I can see if I can find that for you, if you wish. NW(Talk)22:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure about the PRODs. You deleted most of the Aug 19th prods at about 18:00 UTC. Many were expired, but some were up to 6 hours early. I also just now noticed that you added create protection to Loogaroo (which I have since restored as a contested prod). The page had only been created 3 times and the first one was completely unrelated and both the previous deleted version were nearly empty articles. The creations were in 2005, 2006, and 2008. Three times in 3 years isn't sufficient reason for create protection, esp. given the circumstances of the deletions. Additionally, it is probably best to make it semi-confirmed only rather than admin only unless you have reason not to.
Clarification on the R3s: do you mean just for this particular user because redirecting a non-notable song is the normal way to handle such entries.
No, no, please continue. Better for me to learn of all my screwups now, so I can learn for the future. Thank you for the note on the prods; I shall be sure to keep your advice in mind.
Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Explicit's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I saw that you deleted a talk page for this entry and decided to contact you with a suggestion/question hybrid. This has to do with information provided about the Loogaroo, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Loogaroo. I'm afraid this is entirely wrong, the author of the page seems to have his/her mythical creatures confused, the content description seems to refer to a Soucriant/Soucouyant http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Soucriant, rather than a Loogaroo/Lougarou, which invariably is male, and while a creature of the night, definitely NOT a vampire.
I'm new to Wiki editing and wanted to pursue the proper channels for correcting the misinformation rather than just making wholesale changes.
Hi. I noticed that you are in ACC right now. There is a request that I'm currently handling. The requester had a 2 month block and a history of vandalism. Should I create the account? BejinhanTalk14:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
In this case, because the IP is no longer blocked, they still have the power to create new accounts without going through ACC. I would create in this case, as the IP is probably no longer an open proxy; ProcseeBot would have reblocked it if it was. NW(Talk)14:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yay! Congrats on adminship! This was a tad overdue in my opinion, but good news nonetheless. @ J.delanoy: haha, we need to git the new SPI admin to WORK. :P JamieS9319:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Me again, but not to complain this time. This AfD could have gone either way and your judgment to delete was reasonable. However, I am asking your permission to undelete it in order to merge the material into Cricket in Canada per Spaceman's suggestion.
Of course. I didn't see much to merge, but if you can find something, you are of course welcome to undelete the article. NW(Talk)01:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe I should think about adding one of those "if it is an uncontroversial admin action, feel free to reverse it" tags to my userpage. NW(Talk)01:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted page Steven Walker
Good evening. I noted today that you deleted the page for "Steven Walker" and I wanted to ask if you could provide some clarification.
In the AfD discussion, the reasons for deletion that were suggested included vanity (which is patently false, since I am not the subject of the page), and that he is "just not notable", which is listed as an invalid justification for page deletion WP:JNN. Evidence to support the subject's non-notability was limited to "Podcast awards are not notable" and that the sources were considered unreliable, despite being provided from the Boston Globe, Sacramento Bee, Roanoke Times, and Runner's World. (Ironically, he was also interviewed by the BBC [1] today as well.)
I thought I had provided adequate information in response to these arguments, however, if I have misunderstood the process of AfD then I apologize. If you could help me understand why a subject that 'has created ... a well-known work (over 200 podcast episodes), that has been the subject of an independent of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (references above) does not meet the criteria for notability under WP:PEOPLE (2.4.3), I would greatly appreciate it.
The consensus of the discussion was that the subject was not notable. The issue with the reliable sources that you provided were that they were of a too trivial sort for inclusion, I believe. This, for example, has a tiny amount of information on the discussion. In any case, as the closing administrator, I cannot simply overrule the consensus formed there, which was that the article is indeed not notable. However, I can undelete and "userfy the article for you, and if you change it enough that notability is more clearly established, you can ask me or another administrator to look it over, and we will move it into the mainspace for you. I hope this helps, NW(Talk)02:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Pal, I would like to discuss the No Consensus conclusion that you reached on the above AFD. It was evident from the tally that the Delete votes were more than the Keep, so I believe the result should have been a Delete. In addition to this, let me clarify that the position held by this gentleman in the bureaucratic hierarchy of my country Pakistan is not at all something extraordinary. Besides I am myself working in the same Grade of bureaucratic structure in another department and should then I be asking for a page for me as well?. He is just another brick in the bureaucratic wall. If this page stays then I am afraid a lot of other similar resumes will follow. I am discussing this with you as per procedures otherwise I would have enlisted a review request. I hope you will understand. My best. -- MARWAT 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note that per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and Wikipedia:Consensus, AfDs are not a vote. With this particular AfD, I did not see a consensus either way for deletion or keeping the article, so the default was to keep the article. It did not help that the AfD was being heavily hit with sockpuppets, and that both sides were giving bad arguments during the discussion. If you disagree with me, feel free to renominate the article after a few weeks or request at review of my analysis at WP:DRV. NW(Talk)00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the nominator Marwatt on the consensus built for deletion. Suppose all the users, including the nominator Marwatt is even using a Sock, it nevers turn an Un-notable into Notable. --WikipedianBug (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to say that it really isn't my call as to that matter. If you wish to contest this matter further, please go here. NW(Talk)21:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Braintree AFD
Hey - I noticed that you closed an AFD earlier, only to revert the close. Any particular reason to keep this one open? It looks like the article has already been deleted, but the AFD is still there and the broken redirects are still in place. Thanks! UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence15:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What happened was that I accidentally closed the AfD far too early, and I wanted to give it time to run to the full 7 days. I thought I had undeleted it earlier, but I was getting database errors around that time, so perhaps I didn't. The article should be undeleted now (but likely only temporarily until the AfD closes). NW(Talk)15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
On August 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article My Boy Jack (film), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I would like to request that the suspension on my account at ACC be lifted. I have discussed with User:Funpika but he has not been able to reply. There is discussion on his talk page. Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk21:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, before I re-grant your access, I want to know if you understand your mistakes. Could you please explain them to me in your own words, and how you have improved? NW(Talk)21:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think my main mistake was misunderstanding what Matt said. He said he was assuming good faith, I should have waited for him to deal with it before I assumed that he meant for us to create the account under WP:AGF. the only way to deal with this, and to make sure that it never happens again is to just stay away from all requests that are marked as handled unless the user is asking for input.--Gordonrox24 | Talk21:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
yes, that helps a lot. I changed it so that the section header levels would reflect what you indicated, but evidently the print is made very small for some reason. I will see if there is some way to override this.. perhaps bluntly by making enclosing the headers in <big></big>.. I don't know why this happens. You can see it happening here --stmrlbs|talk02:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
First, congratulations on getting a shiny new mop. Reasonable close on this AFD though I recommended "blowing it up and starting over" (WP:NPASR). A "delete" resulting from that AFD would have been tainted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. And what about you? :) And I definitely agree with you on this AfD, though I did see a few things that might be salvageable, so I wanted to give some time for that. Relisting might have been an option, but the delete votes came at the end, so I don't think they actually affected the actual discussion. NW(Talk)16:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd honestly forgotten submitting the above article for DYK, and am not too pushed either way. However I really find it bizarre that anyone would change a piece of text in an article to something inaccurate, and then tag their own addition with a {{fact}} tag(?) I mean, why say something inaccurate and then tag it as inaccurate? (Unless as some kind of a test) No response necessary - I just found the whole edit sequence very strange. Guliolopez (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Yikes, did I write barracks? I think I had just read the previous sentence and that stuck with me when I rewrote the sentence, and I added that instead of prison. My apologies, NW(Talk)23:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
That's alright. That explains it. In terms of the supporting cite - Had I had the book to hand in which I read it, I would have cited that, but have added two online refs instead. They are not as strong as I might like, but it is pretty well-documented that Elizabeth Fort became a depot for female convicts in the mid-1800s - before they were "transported" (Males were sent to Fort Westmoreland on Spike Island. Females to Elizabeth Fort in the city.) Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Guliolopez (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Reminder
I don't see anything wrong with observing and expressing my opinion. What I saw was User:Camaron adding a tag to the article without explaining what he thought was wrong and how it could be fixed. All he said, was that he didn't like the controversy section. And in my opinion that wasn't right. I wish that I was wikipedia savvy enough to throw you some wikipedia policy that Cameron violated, but I'm not.
I'm fairly new here, and I learn as I go along. Today I learned that I should never argue with people who have tiny brooms on their userpages. Otherwise they'll get their colleagues to ban those who stand on their way. Anyway, considering that you have one of those brooms on your page, I should probably shut my mouth... Lida Vorig (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
No, no, please don't shut yourself up. Reasonable discourse with any editor, no matter if they are an administrator or not, is perfectly reasonable. Let's take your post from 2:12, 28 August 2009 for example: "I agree with Meowy, this seems like an attempt to rid the articles from "unfavorable" content. Why wouldn't wikipedia cover the harrasment of Azerbaijanis, whose only "mistake" was voting for their neighbors song. And this comes from a country that claims that it's the most tolerant country in the world. So yes, I think if there is information supported by verifiable and reliable sources it should be included." That could have been worded far better to make your point stick. If you had made the following changes instead, it would have been far more effective a statement: "I agree with Meowy, this seems like an attempt to rid the articles from "unfavorable" content. Why wouldn't wikipedia cover the harrasment of Azerbaijanis, whose only "mistake" was voting for their neighbors song. And this comes from a country that claims that it's the most tolerant country in the world. So yes, I think if there is information supported by verifiable and reliable sources it should be included." I hope that helps; please do reply to this if you wish for me to explain any point further. Thanks, NW(Talk)01:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I should've put a reference. I hope this is enough. Since I don't trust you to click through I'll paste it here.
"Azerbaijan is among the most tolerant countries of the world.
This has been repeatedly stated even on state level. Our country serves as an example for other CIS states"
Thank you for dealing with this swiftly, your actions seemed appropriate for the circumstances, so your off to a good start as a new administrator. I think I should say more clearly why I thought the comments by Lida Vorig were unhelpful, it was not the comments about Azerbaijan that were the problem, it was the suggestion that I want to get rid of "unfavourable" content, which at least implies bad faith intentions, despite the templates I added and the comments I made saying nothing of the sort - they said to integrate the material into the article as a whole so not to need to a controversy section, not to delete it. My advise to Lida Vorig is that he/she should familiarise him/herself about the situation and what is being proposed before commenting. My administrator status also had nothing to do with it, I was taking action as an editor, it was only Meowy that appeared to make an issue of this. I do recognise however that the actions by Lida Vorig were minor in this incidence, and that is why I requested a warning, not a block. Thank you again for implementing this request. Camaron · Christopher ·talk09:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the followup; it was very informative. Quite honestly, I would have thought that the point was rather minor compared to the other sentence which I would have preferred to have her strike, because it added nothing to the situation and needlessly offended many rather than a few. In any case, thank you for the followup, and I hope to see you around in the future. NW(Talk)14:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The subject of Rafala was not to establish notabily. It had been established by the RELIABLE and PROFESSIONAL review sources cited in the article itself. I am at a loss to see how those sources can be ignored. I am also at a loss to see how the comments cited are not good enough. Under professional guidelines, they are professional actions, as comments made about a person's work reflect upon the notablity of that work and the person in question. This is industry standard practice, and even paper-bound encyclopedias do it.
I think what was done in the deletion of the Rafala page needs to be considered again.
The consensus of the discussion was that the subject was not notable. The issue with the sources that you provided were that they were not considered reliable according to these stanmdards. In any case, as the closing administrator, I cannot simply overrule the consensus formed there, which was that the article is does not pass the inclusion criteria. However, I can undelete and "userfy the article for you, and if you change it enough that notability is more clearly established, you can ask me or another administrator to look it over, and we will move it into the mainspace for you. I hope this helps, NW(Talk)16:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll do my best but at this point their is no new information I can find. If you can leave the page available only to me, I can fix it as new information becomes available.
Additionally, me and several colleagues in the profession do take issue with some minor points of the wiki standards you cited. Those genre review sources are considered professional and reliable. Why you do not see them as reliable sources is strange. Everyone in the field of science fiction, reviewers and authors, note those sources as reliable and they are accepted by the industry as such.
I humbly submit that wiki needs to update its own policy on this matter to ensure that it is keeping up with professional standards.
You added File:Hand gottes.jpg to Template:Did you know/Queue/2 without protecting it (or more specifically, without uploading a local copy from Commons). When an unprotected image is added to the main page, anyone can change the image to a picture of a penis or goatse or even feces! Please take note of this. — RockMFR17:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I had thought I had asked a commons administrator to take care of it, but I guess I forgot about it. Also, while this shock tactic may be an easy way to get new admins' attention, I really must ask for you to stop it. There are far more effective ways to say this without yelling at a sysop who made a simple mistake just once (I would estimate that I have had anywhere from 30 to 50 DYK images protected before, so I know the drill). Thanks, NW(Talk)20:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think a little shock is warranted; the main page gets close to 80 hits every second. Potential vandalism to it is a big deal. — JakeWartenberg22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
why did you delete the alice yard page? it's a beautiful place that more people need to know exists. i hope you had a good reason, whoever you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.37.0.244 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Smartse's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Modern Buddhism
My god...are you serious?!? Did u even read the discussion? We already discussed it at talk:Buddhism and we discussed it here now. In both debates there was only one person who wanted to keep the article/not redirect it, and that person btw never really participated in the debate/ didn't answer to specific arguments, maybe even doesn't fully understand them, i sometimes suspect. This is getting ridiculous, sorry... do you really want us to repeat the whole discussion, again, just because it wasn't the right place to discuss it in your opinion?!? Andi 3ö (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Seriously...what am i supposed to do now? Shall i copy/paste the whole discussion to talk:Modern Buddhism. I can tell you, the only result, even if all the editors think it should be turned into a redirect or a disambiguation page, there will still be one who is against it and will revert any implementation of the result, like he did before. Honestly, i need help here. Please tell me what to do. Andi 3ö (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is only one editor actually against it: the creator of the article himself. In the AfD there were two other keep votes: one completely, the other mainly based on formal grounds (like yours), with the latter one adding a generic argument about how the lengthy Buddhism article should be split into smaller ones (see disscussion there). Andi 3ö (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and a disinterested (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept. If not enough people have joined in the discussion to judge consensus, the article will be relisted for several more days.
Merge, redirect, etc. are legitamate options, but if a discussion has already begun on the talk page, the AfD process should not really be the way to decide things; the dispute resolution process should be used instead. AfDs should only begin if the original poster wants to see the article deleted; not merged or even redirected. NW(Talk)21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
ah well, but as it happens to be like that now, do you really think we should have to redo the whole discussion for a third time and/or get in even more opinions via an RfC? All of this because of ONE person, the creator of the article, who simply refuses to accept the obvious? And all of that because of this little formal defect in the AfD? Is there no other solution? Andi 3ö (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I could help you out in your discussion regarding the merging of Modern Buddhism. It seems that the article has already been made into a disambiguation page though; is that not what was wanted in the first place? NW(Talk)22:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
oh, right :)) someone's assisting me by reverting the revert of the revert of the revert of my making it a disambiguation page, if you know what i mean.... Anyway, i guess it's only a matter of time until User:Jemesouviens32 reverts it again, so if you'd weigh in on talk:Modern Buddhism with a sentence or two to clarify your position, that could prove really helpful... thanks, Andi 3ö (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
NW I believe that regardless of the above smoke screening by Andi 3ö you made the correct decision to keepModern Buddhism
Andi 3ö and I need conflict resolution in order to come to some form of closing regarding this article. In order to give my version of what is taking place here or what I perceive is taking place, I kindly request that you review my last post on the Talk:Modern Buddhism Thank you for your objective thoughts.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I shall take a look at the page again, though I must say, I don't anticipate much changing from the consensus earlier. I advise you to take the dispute resolution route if you wish for an outside third opinion, however. NW(Talk)20:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the fine work you are doing on behalf of Wikipedia, its editors, and (ultimately) the readers who come to us in search of information and education. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. While you took the proper decision of a Speedy Keep on the AFD, however, the AFD tag is still placed atop the article. This also needs to be fixed and taken to the discussion page. Having said that there is another article on a legendary singer Khayal Muhammad which was nominated by the same user who was blocked for placing bad faith AFDs. That also may require the same action. If you could kindly check on both of these things. Many thanks. -- MARWAT 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I think it was the way the AfD was filed that caused my closing script to fail; thanks for the notice. I have removed the tag, and also closed the Khayal Muhammad AfD. Cheers, NW(Talk)00:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello NuclearWarfare, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ben Weinberger has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary '(contest prod - subject appears to be a notable businessman (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Ben+Weinberger%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a))'. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
I actually declined to block that particular IP because it had not been used for almost two weeks, and not since for a month before that. While it could indeed have been a legitimate block at the time, there is simply no point now. NW(Talk)20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you take a look at your comments here an verify that they are located in the correct section? I suspect they were intended for the section immediately above (I have noticed frequent submissions have a tendency to change section numbering at inconvenient times), but do not wish to move them in case I am wrong. --Allen3talk12:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, as you were the closing admin for this AfD I'd like to get your input on this. It turns out that one of the primary voices for the keep side, LoverOfTheRussianQueen, was just indef'ed as a sock of NoCal100, arguably one of the worst of the Israeli-Palestine topic warriors. NoCal was banned from I-P per ArbCom decision, but has now socked twice since then to earn an indef. If LoverOfTheRussianQueen's comments were discarded from this AfD, would that have affected your "no consensus" finding?
BTW, I have it set to auto-watch when I edit a page, so if you reply here I'll see it. Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It would have most definitely affected my final finding, though by how much I am unsure, as LoverOfTheRussianQueen certainly played a large part in the overall discussion (which was what I based the final decision off of). I think the best thing to do here would be to relist the AfD, as I wouldn't feel comfortable overturning the close from no consensus to delete. Regards, NW(Talk)21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you think DRV would be worth going to at all? Usually they are filed because someone thinks the closing admin was wrong somehow, but I certainly don't think that here of course, you didn't do anything wrong at all. But is it within DRV's purview to consider new information about the AfD participants? Tarc (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really well versed enough in how DRV works, but I would doubt that it would be worth going there. Another AfD would take just as long as a DRV, and would be far simpler to deal with in case some DRV regular decides that these sorts of things shouldn't be brought to DRV. Regards, NW(Talk)22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) On much the same topic but from a different viewpoint, I came by to thank you for relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew J Newman rather than closing as no consensus. My !vote (mini-essay?) came rather late in the proceedings, and I feared it would be closed as no consensus rather than relisted (for the first time, i stress in light of the above).
While I'm here, would you mind if I sought your advice on one minor procedural issue: Andrew J Newman's publications in Islamic Studies appear to focus on Persia; would it be OK to move one of the debate's transclusions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East#Other to the more specific Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Iran in case some potentially interested editors have watchlisted only the latter in the hope of encouraging more discussion? Qwfp (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC) PS: its past time i shut down for today, so even if you choose to reply quickly as the box above my edit window suggests is likely (going to have to figure out how you do that—the box, that is, not the quick reply), I won't read it or respond until tomorrow now.
I haven't really ever worked in deletion sorting, but that seems to make sense to me. I tried todo it myself; could you tell me if I messed something up?
It does seem that you are overdoing the multiple relisting just as I did when I started AFDing. IMHO in almost all cases AFDs should be closed one way or another after 14 days. Now of days I only relist twice if the AFD has no participation aside from the nominator AND it hasn't been sorted. I posted more detail on this in this thread at WT:DELPRO. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This user thinks most administrators do a good job but has no wish to join them.
Oh well, seems I was right to be surprised at the relisting. Didn't realise admins can effectively overule each other on such decisions, and I haven't checked the (absence of) rules on how long AfDs should run after a relisting, nor had I noticed that you're a new broom. I made this userbox to go my userpage over a year ago and haven't changed my view. Best of luck in your new role! Qwfp (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah well. From what I understand of relisted AfDs, they can be closed at any time, but I was kind of surprised at this one. In any case, I don't think that the closing admin would mind if you renominated it in a few weeks. And nice userbox :) Any particular reason you don't wish to go through an RfA? You strike me as quite a reasonable editor. NW(Talk)12:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, you strike me as quite a reasonable administrator ☺. It just seems like a lot of aggro for no clear reward to me, but I'm glad others see it differently ("it's a dirty job but someone's gotta do it…") else it would be anarchy around here. Maybe it's down to personality—I participate in AfDs so I guess I must enjoy a good reasoned argument, but I really dislike being the arbiter or telling others what to do, as opposed to what I think, and I hate it when things get heated. If I enjoyed wielding a bucket and mop my kitchen floor would be a lot cleaner than it is!
BTW, If you're looking for chances to wield your new powers, or try your hand at calming troubled waters without, there may be a storm brewing at "Chen model" related to a recent AfD. I think I could use a hand if your watchlist isn't too long already. Thanks, Qwfp (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
What about the 3RR evasion on Chloe Vevrier? G&E (talk)
Could you please present this evidence on the SPI page, so that the users accused have an opportunity to refute it? Thanks. NW(Talk)21:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
My main beef isn't sockpuppetry, it's deletionism. But when I tell him on his user page, he, of course deletes it. He has been blocked 48 hours for this in the past on at least one occasion. Is there a way to stop him from harassing me (and me him)? G&E (talk)
Hi, thanks for your message. I csd'ed this, because I didn't think that being a murderer was enough claim for notability to make this ineligible under A7. I'll prod this then. I don't think WP can or should have an article on every murderer that ever walked on this planet (or Australia for that matter)... Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Prod would probably be the way to go here (who knows, maybe there are other books about this guy), so that if someone can possibly find some information, they can salvage the article. NW(Talk)12:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Permission for Semi-protected Article
I'd like to be able to edit Hollywood Undead's page. I noticed that nothing is mentioned about their two filmed concerts of the TCB tour, and their upcoming DVD with that footage. I've been a fan of theirs since the beginning and I'm always up to date on my knowledge of what's going on with the guys. If you allow me to edit their page, I can keep the article up-to-date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaishoSin (talk • contribs) 13:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I could grant you the ability to edit that article, but could you first please read over WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS so that you understand how you will have to edit this article? After that I will be happy to give you the power to edit this article before you hit the four day, ten edits mark that will allow you to edit the article normally. NW(Talk)14:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you please reopen this discussion? It was relisted three hours ago, one comment was added about half an hour ago, and while I was responding to the comment you closed the AFD. There were at that point three keep !votes and two delete !votes, with none of the keep !votes well-grounded in policy. Even setting aside the question of weighing the arguments, a relisted AFD shouldn't be resolved by the happenstance of the first vote following the relisting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh no. And just when I have had to start cutting back on my time here on Wikipedia (back to classes). I'll try to get to a few tonight, but some longer term solution has to be found, because I know Awadewit will be away for a while, and I believe David Fuchs is also starting classes soon. Have you checked with Jaapalang, and with some of the FfD/PUI regulars? NW(Talk)21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I put in a request at WP:MCQ, and Stifle has just about knocked out the entire batch. Still, if you can do any image reviews of FACs that are not on the "Image review needed" list, that would be great, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
day late dollar short but HERE
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
I have no idea; I just did the tagging based on the blocking. You might want to ask the blocking admin in this case. NW(Talk)18:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I left a note for Risker and will do likewise for Versageek. Maybe you could answer one question: Would the broader range of IP address blocks also theoretically prevent him from updating User talk:Pioneercourthouse? I think he has edited it about 2 hours ago, which I'm assuming was before the IP blocks. The point being, if he's editing after those blocks, does that mean it's still not a broad enough block? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots18:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
He was on a pretty big IP range before. Risker blocked a /22 about 100 minutes ago, and Versageek expanded it to a /18[9] about 75 minutes ago. I think that should stop him for now; has he edited since then? NW(Talk)18:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
His last edit to his talk page was at 16:48, and his last sock attempt was at about 16:45, so it's been about 110 minutes. Notice he continued to create socks even as he was pleading his case on his talk page. A thoroughly bad-faith user. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots18:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Risker told me it's "95% certain" that Max Antean is PCH. And if so, that might explain where the other impostor "socks" of Axmann8 came from last spring, and some other impostors as well. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots19:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that this sounds really useful. If it is bot-generated, it would be really useful to work some of that into the standard AfD template. Nice work! NW(Talk)18:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
WikiThanks I am really heartened by your response, especially because I know you tend to support deletion. Thank you so much.
In many case, in fact in most cases, it will hurt the chances of the article being saved, because most articles which go up for AFDs have ZERO hits, even with the correct search term:
The more I study AfDs, the less inclusionist I have become. There is a lot of bad, inappropriate articles out there, which I never say before I started looking closely at AFDs.
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar may be awarded to those that show a pattern of going the extra mile to be nice, without being asked.
This barnstar is awarded to Nuclear Warfare, for always making kind comments to editors, often bridging an ideological divide which with a little continued comprimise and compassion such as you have displayed, can maybe be overcome.
As here, would it be okay if I created a new section 'deleted redirects' and put them there? I would like to compile the red links to figure out what people are saying are mistakes so I can look at common themes with them. I can create a section with your name so that people know you deleted them if you want. If possible if they could be moved to a section like that that would be cool, since with outright deletion we lose scope of how many were there in the first place and how many were gone. The custom on the other page is to use a strikethrough but it was suggested to have a section for redlinks so people can focus on blues yet still review reds. Tyciol (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, that would be really useful. I think the section (or perhaps even transcluded subpages) would be the best way to go. NW(Talk)01:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
: 24 August 2009
Done. If there is a problem, feel free to notify me. —Animum (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
