Jump to content

User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

SPI: Rayesworied

Just wondering. You marked off the investigation that I filed today for Rayesworied as completed. But there's no comment or any administrative action taken. Was anything done? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps those templates should be changed. What I meant was that I listed it in the appropriate queue. NW (Talk) 16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay. Thanks the explanation and for also handling the case. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 16:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

tx

for the semi protection of al-awlaki. happy holidays.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

  Set Sail For The Seven Seas  3° 35' 45" NET   00:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!


The Thing Merry Christmas is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:TTTSNB/Merry_Christmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The Thing Merry Christmas 00:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Gamer

Yes, I had intended a very short protection length to halt the edit warring. But I suddenly had a domestic problem, inadvertently hit "protect" without changing the duration, and wasn't able to come back later to fix it. Thanks for putting it back to normal, Marasmusine (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Glad that everything worked out in the end. Cheers, NW (Talk) 16:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Another CosmicLegg sockpuppet account

Account Ducky610 (talk · contribs) fits the edit habits of permanently blocked CosmicLegg. Ducky610 has also edited using 58.164.113.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is the IP range and ISP blocked by Avraham here on November 30, 2009. 142.167.165.203 (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide a few diffs to look at here? It would be much appreciated. Cheers, NW (Talk) 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Note that in this earlier CosmicLegg report here several accounts were named as well as many IPs. Initially Thatcher found no evidence on the accounts but in the next CosmicLegg report J. Delanoy found several CosmicLegg socks including naming and blocking some of the ones listed in that December 4 report. No follow-up was ever done on the left-over accounts from the December 4 report. And none of the IPs were ever cross-checked to the IP range known to be used by CosmicLegg. All of the IPs listed in that December 4 report (some of which match the 58.x.x.x IP range blocked by Avraham on November 30th) are all very active on the pages shown in the contributions of those other IPs in that December 4 list. With new IPs showing up daily on the articles frequented by those older IPs from the December 4 report. Simply based on the habits of all the earlier tagged CosmicLegg accounts, there should be no doubt that an investigation into all those December 4 IPs would likely turn up a huge backlog of CosmicLegg accounts that have been created for ongoing disruption of Wikipedia. 142.167.165.203 (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and Merry Christmas.

Thank you! I don't remember asking for rollback, but I'm sure it'll come in handy. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Hi NW, I saw you were active, could you sort out the ip rangeblock or whatever it is still not allowing this editor to edit. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, happy new year to you NW. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

hello...

hey, i am Mikael, i saw that i was accused as a sock puppets of members whose names are Basyirun, Desta Men and another one which name i forget, by the way, the member Desta-Men is actually me, but two others are not me, both Basyirun and the one you mentioned,

  • i had had the problem with User:Merbabu in editing, he always deleted my editing while the article i wrote actually had good references, i sent him personal attack and i was warned for that, then i said that i was really sorry and guarantee that i will not do that again, yet the following days, i saw that both Indonesia and Jakarta's article got many changes from him, i undo his work then he was seeking the administrator, finally i can't edit anymore..
  • as i can not edit the article which has been edited by Merbabu, i though that it will be better if i logged-in as another person, my purpose is not to make chaos here, but to enable me to edit again, well, if my doing then is absolutely wrong, you may give User:Desta-Men back and delete my account as User:Mikael07,

i just want to edit peacefully and work together with other editors, but it seems that some editors are very hard to accept that, i also didn't know that alternate account is provided here with some regulations,

so, User:Mikael07 is User:Desta-Men but not User:basyirun and another one

thanks--Mikael07 (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please stick to using one account (the Mikael107 one) please? Thank you. NW (Talk) 04:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

ban from editing

User:Alin0Steglinski/sandbox

Please do not post anything like this on Wikipedia. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing. NW (Talk) 22:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do inform me what was posted, I was in the hospital with no access to wikipedia (blocked on their network) from NOV 12 till DEC 22. my account had to have been compromised therefore I will change my password after posting this. I would like to possibly find out what was posted so maybe I can find out who gained access. thanks!

your page is watchlisted now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alin0Steglinski (talk • contribs) 22:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What was deleted was a list of email addrseses (a little over 30) posted to that page. They had been posted there on October 29. NW (Talk) 04:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

New SPI case

Do you mind adding this new case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carmendi, to its appropriate queue? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done :) NW (Talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 19:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

About two weeks ago I had my laptop stolen. With it, I lost all my Wiki links. Would you mind sending me the link to the account creation service page? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Here you are. Cheers, NW (Talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. According to my computer's time, you did that before 3:17 even occured here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Cavendish-portrait.jpg on Commons

appears to be Joseph Priestley per 1, 2, for instance, as noted by more than one editor. Could you advise how to deal with such? Best wishes. Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the file to File:Joseph Priestly-portrait.jpg and removed the image from across all WMF projects. I hope that is good? Please feel free to tell me if not. Cheers, NW (Talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. If and when you have time, you can consider pointing me to another way of dealing with such mistakes (to avoid bothering you ;). Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Bringing it up on commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard or User talk:NuclearWarfare is probably the best thing to do in the future. :) NW (Talk) 22:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/P dump

Hi NW! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/P dump needs listing. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One more: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aziz090. Singularity42 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Both listed. Best regards, NW (Talk) 04:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You can ignore

YOu can ignore my amendment to that case. I hadn't seen your entry. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

you have response

[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning User:Gerbelzodude99

When he started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (4th nomination), he notified the article creator, but he also only notified Peter Isotalo, TheWeakWilled, and Abductive. Notice how all three "voted" last time: Peter Isotalo, TheWeakWilled, Abductive. Why notify only three editors who said to delete versus myself and everyone else who said to keep in the earlier discussions? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User was blocked in an unrelated matter (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Drawn Some). NW (Talk) 01:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. It could still mean, though, that some of the comments in the discussion were canvassed in addition to the sockpuppetry. For what it is worth, I think there is a real chance that it is indeed Drawn Some. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loew's Cemetery, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Charles Johnston, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eversharp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Ellis (spinster), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (4th nomination) are all articles created by Richard Arthur Norton, which means that the bulk of Gerbelzodude99's AfD edits are to discussions concerning articles Richard created. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Possible_topic_ban_if_this_continues, an admin proposed banning Drawn Some from Richard (Drawn Some similarly had an overwhelming percentage of AfD nominations of articles Richard created or comments in AfDs after Richard commented), which IronHolds, Sky Attacker, Jayron32, Salih, Ikip, and Ben MacDui all supported. Only S Marshall had some reservations. Not too longer after, Drawn Some stopped editing. This new account was created shortly afterwards and immediately dove in AfDs, which caused the first suspicion of sockpuppetry. It therefore seems reasonable to suspect that it is a new account of the same person trying to get around what looked like an imminent topic ban from one editor. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

concerning "Discrete Mathematics, Algorithms and Applications"

Hi Nuclear, I'm a relatively new user to wikipedia, and i'm wondering what you meant by "cross-namespace re-direct"? Does it mean that there are 2 similarly named pages? I believe the page was moved by another user who did not mark the legacy page for deletion, and now both pages have been deleted, the other also with the same reasoning (cross-namespace redirect). Seek your clarification :) Cheers

Nkf31 (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A Redirect refers to a page that will automatically send you from that page to another one. An example of one would be Mysore, Karnataka, which would automatically send you to Mysore. A cross-namespace redirect (CNR) would be something that sent you from a page in article space to another namespace; "userspace" in this case. CNRs are generally removed from article space, which is what happened with your article. As for Discrete Mathematics, Algorithms and Applications, it was moved to User:Nkf31/Discrete Mathematics, Algorithms and Applications, where you can work on it before moving it back into article space. I hope this helps. Feel free to ask for further clarification if not. Cheers, NW (Talk) 00:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Nuclear - understood! Thanks a lot! Nkf31 (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet request

In line with your Dec 27 comments at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations, could you please investigate User:Mypleis. He has all the hallmarks of being a sockpuppet of User:IslamForEver1: his only article edit is to revert Ahmed Deedat to a version of his liking, he then does dummy edits to his user and talk page so they appear as blue links, to not immediately give away that he's a new editor. For a similar example, see User:Reachaveg. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged NW (Talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick service :) Thanks. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a Quick Question...

If one editor (myself) defines "Somaliland (as) an unrecognized state", as per the List of states with limited recognition page; whilst another editor defines "Somaliland (as) a secessionist region in northwestern Somalia and is recognized as such by every country & international organization in the world", as was said on the Somali Arabic page (in edit summaries), then is it showing both sides of the argument?

I should note that both statements are in fact true, depending on one's point of view (because no state regards Somaliland as de jure independent, it is de facto independent). Since its a matter of opinion, then which opinion should trump the other, or neither? On the page in question I was trying to incorporate this to make it neutral, but my edit keep getting reverted by this editor. I was hoping you could give an explanation as to what is wikipedia's policy on this and how I can edit all the correct information in. Please reply to me on my talk page. Thanks, Outback the koala (talk) 02:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed an interesting issue. I confess that I am not too familiar with the history of Somaliland, but I would think the answer would be "it depends on the context". May I ask how you are trying to include the information (diffs would be nice)? NW (Talk) 02:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Some helpful diffs would be as follows; one, two, and three of me adding info. And my info being deleted; one, two, and three. I resorted to this in the end cause I wasn't sure about breaking the 3RR. The history of the page in very short; its here. If you're not sure, What can I do to find another editor who might know wikipedia's stance on this issue(how to deal with partially recognized/unrecognized states on Wikipedia in a neutral manner?) Outback the koala (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The other editor is User:Middayexpress if you wanted to know. I dont understand why he's so aggressive in protecting his opinion.. Outback the koala (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Asking for a third opinion by opening a discussion on the talk page and then posting at WP:3O sounds like a good way to start. NW (Talk) 05:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this?

Details are at User talk:Bigred58. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

a second IslamForEver1 sockpuppet

Could you also deal with User:Witchunt, for the same reasons as User:Mypleis above. Thanks. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 14:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hey, I just saw that you gave me Autoreviewer rights. I didn't even know what that was until I got the rights, but now that I know, I very much appreciate you granting them to me! lol — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) NW (Talk) 17:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Again?

Hi. You semi-protected Anwar al-Awlaki a few days back. The article is very much in the news (a few thousand hits a day), and ABC just ran this major piece on him (which I am pleased to see looks like a summary of the wp article). Vandalism mainly by IPs has started up again. Time for another protection? Or would you prefer that I just let you know if it worsens?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it and semi-protect it if the vandalism worsens. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 18:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Amy Pond

Please revert your removal of info at the article Amy Pond. This article is full protected. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done so, and will continue the discussion on the talk page. NW (Talk) 04:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles

I am in the process of eating Tostitos and restaurant style salsa and drinking egg nog while my mother watches an ailing family member downstairs and so have been up look at the article on the above internal link. Anyway, I noticed that you deleted one of them some time ago per this discussion and so wonder if his entry should be removed from the list? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it probably should have been removed, so I went ahead and removed it. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 06:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
You are welcome! Fascinating list incidentally. I am only familiar with a handful of the editors, but thought it neat that Roger Ebert, someone from Mythbusters, etc. have edited our project! It makes you wonder how many celebrities have edited that we are not even aware of! There is no article on who I am in the real world yet, although when i searched for my name, I see four articles actually cite me... Best, --A NobodyMy talk 06:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

CosmicLegg

It's a shame that Ducky was blocked without a checkuser being run, because I think frequent checkusers need to be run to uncover all the socks about. What do you think? Enigmamsg 04:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser was actually run in that one (J.delanoy is a checkuser and presumably looked for sleeper socks). NW (Talk) 04:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I'm shocked he didn't come up with anything. I know he's a checkuser, but it seemed he just checked Ducky. Enigmamsg 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Epica124 (talk · contribs) is also a sockpuppet of CosmicLegg. 142.167.188.142 (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Care to lay out your evidence here? Thanks. NW (Talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New case

I have been directed to you to add Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Before2012 to WP:SPI, as I am not familiar with the area. Thanks,  Cargoking  talk  15:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian19 as well, to save on headings. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Both listed. Thanks you two. NW (Talk) 17:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI page, OSA disruption

Hey, thanks for blocking the IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/124.168.164.121. Looks like there is a bit more administrative stuff left to be done? Cirt (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Marked the page for close. It will be archived once (if) the bot comes back online. Thanks for the report. Cheers, NW (Talk) 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Can you log those 2 blocks, at the bottom of WP:ARBSCI? Cirt (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot about that. Logged them both. Cheers, NW (Talk) 17:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Cirt (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Sarah182 unblock request

Hello NW. I saw your comment in the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/John254 sockpuppet case about Sarah182. The checkuser comment in the SSP indicates that Sarah182's status is not clear. Since you've been able to get more specific information from Alison, and you have some behavioral evidence, do you want to decline Sarah182's unblock request? EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would not feel comfortable declining an unblock request on a block that I have made. However, I will ask Alison to double check the block. Does that sound good? NW (Talk) 18:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I didn't know you were the blocking admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Given the sophisticated nature of Sarah's initial edits to the encyclopedia (at AfD), I don't think there's much doubt she's edited before. She has 'splaning to do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending close

I agree that we shouldn't have done cases languish in the pending close section until the bot gets back; but I moved those particular cases there because they hadn't had a second pass on the close (the |archive step). Are we skipping that step now, so cases with the close template should just be removed from the page? Nathan T 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, although the pending close category certainly has a lot of them that are only at the {{SPIclose}} stage rather than the {{SPIclose|archive}} stage. Your method sounds fine. NW (Talk) 23:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
In [2] this case, did you mean to leave the sockmaster unblocked? Nathan T 23:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Was passing over that case quickly at the time and just blocked the socks. I will look over it again soon to see if a block of the sockmaster is necessary. NW (Talk) 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gigogag sock

Hey Nuke, could you list Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gigogag for me at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations? Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Cheers, NW (Talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A 3rd IslamForEver1 sockpuppet

User:Live4Iron, reverts in the same way as the ones above. Sorry to keep doing this, but hopefully if we're more persistent than him he'll go away, and I can't request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations because it is still read-only, . Peter Ballard (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked indefinitely and  page semi-protected. NW (Talk) 00:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Image question

I would be most grateful if someone could explain me this old glitch: please look at the front image of Optical_fiber#Termination_and_splicing featuring ends of two cables. Don't know what I see, but I see an aspect distorted image File:ST-optical-fiber-connector-hdr-0a.jpg. I have cropped it yesterday at commons and it still looks distorted on my PC now, though I tried to purge the page - in fact, I always see it this way if I change the aspect ratio (cropping) of an image. Sorry for bothering. Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I have no idea why that would be. Perhaps you could bring this up at WP:VPT? Sorry I can't be of more help; I am just completely baffled. NW (Talk) 04:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A noiseless patient spider,
I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated,
Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding,
It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself,
Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.

And you O my soul where you stand,
Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space,
Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them,
Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold,
Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul."

—"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman

Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Awadewit, and Happy New Year to you as well! NW (Talk) 16:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Icc-cwc2007 mascot.jpg

Hi, Wish you a prosperous new year.

I am a sysop from ml wikipedia and does some minor edits in en also. We have an image, nominated for deleting at ml wiki, which was copied from File:Icc-cwc2007 mascot.jpg. Can you please explain the reason for deletion of this image from en wiki so that I can do appropriate action at there also. With thanks --Vssun (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Our non-free content criteria requires that each non-free image have a rationale attached for using the image. This particular image did not have that rationale, so it was deleted. I hope that helps; please feel free to ask me to clarify if not. NW (Talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Many many thanks. --Vssun (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

COM / ANI

Hello NW, Happy New Year.

I've asked for a review of my block of Crotchety_Old_Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Wikipedia:Ani#Block_review_please. As you had previously blocked him for socking, I thought you should be made aware of the discussion. In retrospect, I should have notified you when I modified your previous block. My apologies for not doing that. Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue that you modified my block; don't worry. I have commented at the ANI thread. NW (Talk) 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistaken warning

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that I just discovered a warning on my talk page from 2008 (timely, I know) stating that I had vandalized the MCI Inc. page and that my contributions were reverted. Generally, the only changes I make to a page are spelling and grammatical errors, and only in rare instances do I change content, and then only in my area of knowledge. I do not vandalize. I therefore believe that the warning was intended for someone else, especially since the edit shows on my contributions page as an edit I made to a Crayola Crayons page. In fact, I dont think I've even seen the MCI page before today. So to conclude, I am removing the warnings from my contributions page and will continue to fix grammatical and spelling errors on the pages I frequent. Thank you. Blue (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean a warning I gave to your IP talk page. If indeed this is the case; I wish to apologize for that mistake. I shall do my best to ensure it does not happen again in the future. NW (Talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:98.248.33.198

Hey! I didn't even have time to request deletion! (Thanks) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) NW (Talk) 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Was this SPI moved too quickly?

Hi NW, I'm wondering if the checkuser work was finished on SPI/Wikid77 before it was marked as complete. There is no indication of the result for the suspected IPsocks. Given that the actions of those IPs were what seem to have induced PilgrimRose to create a sock, it seems only fair to get an answer whether or not the IPs=Wikid77. I'm also puzzled why the identified Wz777 sock isn't blocked.LeadSongDog come howl 20:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth asking the checkuser who ran the check in that case. I didn't really familiarize myself too much with that case. NW (Talk) 20:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Will do.LeadSongDog come howl 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jessica L.

I want to thank you for your dedication on keeping blocks and information up to date for example this this edit. Its the small stuff like that that ends up helping a substantial amount when trying to compile information in case of future need. Your effort does not go unnoticed. MrMacMan Talk 22:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear NuclearWarfare/Archive 18,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.

December21st2012Freak Happy New Year! at ≈ 00:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yo ho ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks! NW (Talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Velirs Wiki Page

Hello, a user called Chola yadava is vandalising the velirs wiki page. I have provided many references written by different scholars to illustrate what i have written. He has removed all my ref without any justifications; it seems he has done such things to other wiki page. he wants to put his POV, it is not normal. Please do something to prevent such vandalism. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have given the user a notice to refrain from doing so without giving a reason. Best regards, NW (Talk) 18:08, 1

January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the user Chola yadava has again vandalized the Velirs wiki page. He has done the same thing despite your notice. This is not at all normal. This is not good at all for the reputation of Wikipedia. I'm working hard on wiki, although I have many other work to do, especially on the Velir page. I have provided many good references (written by different scholars) which support what i have written (i will put in line citations for each ref); he has removed all, as if he was the king, the one who holds the truth. Instead, he has just put one web link which contains a POV article written by members of a particular community (i think he belongs to this community). What i have written is the point of view of the scientific community, that's why i'm able to provide many different references (this is not his case). He has no right to do this, he's acting against wikipedia philosophy.Rajkris (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello NW. Victoriousm has been hit by this autoblock. He has almost no edits so it is hard to check behavior. It is conceivable that Victoriousm is the same person as User:Medjool. It's also been discussed at Wikipedia:SPI#Quick_CheckUser_requests. Since the IP may be shared, and the autoblock will expire soon, the only way to see if this is Medjool evading his block may be to watch the edits of Victoriousm for a while. You may be able to tell if he is making edits that Arab Cowboy is not allowed to make due to his restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I received an email from Medjool that I will forward on to the Arbitration Committee that is somewhat related to this. I suppose it is best to lift the autoblock. NW (Talk) 18:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

You have said here that Arab Cowboy is topic banned and also from talkpages: [3]

And here you say that he can use the talkpage: [4]

So what is it?

Clarified. The template didn't exactly do what I want, so I posted a new section on the page. AC is banned from both the article and the talk page. NW (Talk) 21:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also there is another account: Nefer Tweety, I had filed a SPI before against him and it couldn't confirm any connection between him and Arab Cowboy, [5] It was the Nefer Tweety account that "told" Arab Cowboys sockpuppet to go to the Asmahan article: [] The history has showed that NF have almost exclusively backed up Arab Cowboy and his edits,[6] NF has never before posted at any article that the Medjool account has.

Is this behavior enough to confirm him as also a puppet?

Also is there a possibility where I can make a case to someone for indefinite bann for Arab Cowboy from the Asmahan article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An indefinite ban for Arab Cowboy is actually impossible from the sanctions that the Arbitration Committee gave. I actually gave the maximum possible sanction that the Arbitration Committee authorized through my topic ban, though he will be blocked if he violates the ban. As for Nefer Tweety, that message is certainly very suspicious. I have posted a comment to his talk page. Depending on how he responds, some sanctions may be in order there as well. Thanks for your notice. NW (Talk) 21:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I just thought that because he not only violated his topic bann but also used another account the punishment would be harder. Anyway, I saw a typo of yours: [7] "until June 15, 2009" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Fixed that. Thanks. NW (Talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Nefer Tweety's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Input request

Am I crazy here, or is this a common situation that actually prevents many suitable articles from ever meeting DYK? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. NW (Talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I posed the question here to see if guideline might require a tweak or two. Happy New Year, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Regarding the situation (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive), here's another sock (21st or 22nd!!!), this one named User:Tgb098 ("contributions" here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tgb098), and counting. So far, nothing new, he does not desist, i do not either!!

Hopefully the right thing will be done, he'll get tired (rest assured i will keep a close (pair of) eye(s) on this if he does not), have a great 2010,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked and tagged NW (Talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Shooting star DW the end of time

When the Lord President throws the diamond, the shooting star is shown to be simultaneously appearing. Is these two events happening at the same time? --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Will respond on Talk:The End of Time. NW (Talk) 01:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

Hi, I saw your comment in the Admins' noticeboard. I know I have misused the tool, but the user had a bad past. I believed his edits were vandalism. I reverted them again. I think this rollback feature removal is not fair. I have discussed it on IRC and I said I was going to be more careful using it. But if you don't want, OK. --MisterWiki talk contribs 03:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You had previously been warned twice about misusing rollback.[8] Please use Twinkle or the native Undo function for a couple weeks at least before reapplying for rollback. NW (Talk) 03:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Tensie Whelan

I think you're a bit over-eager to delete the whole page without warning. What gives you the right to do so? if you have any issues with it, pls discuss them on the talk page or put a tag on it, so they can be addressed. I would be happy to know what your issues are so i can do something with them. Just a full delete coming out of nowhere is not on, IMHO. Feahl08 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The page was a unambiguous copyright violation. If you wish to recreate the article, you may, but it has to be written in your own words and now be plagiarized off an external website. NW (Talk) 14:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

About Gallifrey Base

They are reliable, as an official continuation of Outpost Gallifrey. See: RSN thread and FAC where its reliability was convincingly argued. Sceptre (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. I have added back in the other reference, but not removed the blogspot one. I hope that is good? NW (Talk) 21:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It's fine. Traditionally, we have used GB/DWNP for overnights, but Yahoo's just as reliable; I was just countering the proposition GB isn't reliable. Sceptre (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Prep 2

Opps, I just saw that right after I placed the inuse tag you were about to also set it up. Sorry about that. I usually look to see whether it has been at least a couple of hours between Prep area edits. It is also good to have multiple editors preparing queues. Apologizes, as I would have just as quickly undid my edits to allow you to continue. Kindly Calmer Waters 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I just made that one edit before going off to do other things. Please feel free to continue. NW (Talk) 22:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion from my talk page

FYI, I didn't care for your deletion of WGB's plea from my talk page. I still ended up going to read about the whole sad episode to date, and the effect of your edit is to make me wonder if WGB's complaints have substance, if editors have taken to following him around and reverting his attempts to communicate with other people. I've reverted your deletion, but don't plan to take any further action; in future I hope you'll trust me to manage my own talk page, short of anon-IP vandalism and the like. Stan (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Because the thread had essentially been completed by that time, and he had posted on the talk page of every single bureaucrat, I didn't think that it was necessary for them to go through and read what would already be a closed thread of someone crying admin abuse by the time they read it. But perhaps you are right; the reversions were a mistake, and I shall refrain from doing so in the future. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Brave little user!

Brave little user! [In deceptively mild voice ] User think Bishzilla *cute*, eh? Little Nuclear Warfare learn cute! Bishzilla more nuclear ! [/me stuffs little Warfare in pocket. ] bishzilla ROARR!! 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

Ack! Little NW scared! NW (Talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User 'Andrew Maitland / Glenmorangie'

Hi NW, I'm concerned that a user appears to be using various sock puppet aliases in order to drive a very pro POV article for Glenmorangie whisky while adding various negative/non-constructive edits to other whisky brands.

The user names that I believe are one and the same user are -

AndrewMaitland (named after a founder of Glenmorangie), 82.12.117.210, Iainr (name appears to refer to a prominent member of the Facebook Glenmorangie fan club), IainRuss (name appears to refer to a prominent member of the Facebook Glenmorangie fan club), WilliamMatheson (named after a founder of Glenmorangie), and Glenmorangie

Perhaps you could check it out - the articles on Glenmorangie and Chivas Regal amongst others have been edited by these users. Thanks, Darryl.smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl.smith (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you please lay out your evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glenmorangie? Thanks. NW (Talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Joerifkind, formerly User:Yunglilhaze

Hi there. Not entirely sure where to bring this, but since you were the unblocking admin, I thought this may be a good start. Since successfully appealing his block (something I endorsed), User:Joerifkind (who has undergone a successful name change from User:Yunglilhaze) has recreated his vanity page (Frankie Hayze) at least twice, deliberately including false references in an apparent attempt to fake notability. This was previously discussed over at the original AfD for his article. Frankie Hayze has now been blocked for four months, but I feel that this user has abused the trust that allowed for his unblocking. I also have a question: if User:Joerifkind were to be blocked once more, would his original username, User:Yunglilhaze also become blocked as a result? Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that the article is create-protected, it would seem a bit punitive to block (although it would certainly be an option if the disruption continues). Please feel free to contact me if he continues to create pages.

Also, if the account is reblocked, he would not have access to his old username, as it does not even exist anymore (unless he recreates it). NW (Talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

Can you take a look at my DYK on the January 1 page. If it's not allowed to ask a DYK participant this, sorry. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any special reason it has to be done right away? January 1 was not too long ago, and there are many more hooks below yours that are still waiting to be reviewed. NW (Talk) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No. Sorry for bugging you. Joe Chill (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Just be patient; someone will review it eventually. :) NW (Talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

More vandal news

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Interesting doubt i now bring forward to you: found out this anon IP from Pararubbas - trust me it's him, editing from England, and i know his editing pattern from five universes away - and it has been active for more than your average day now ("contributions" here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/92.3.165.203 - watch how he, in the second article from the top, "kindly" removes REFS he is not supposed to!).

My question is: is it possible to block this IP? I would really appreciate it, and i think WP in general.

Take care, keep up the good work,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the IP doesn't seem to have edited in a little less than 36 hours, which is probably a bit too much to block. Do you think you could keep an eye on it, and tell me again if he begins editing with it? NW (Talk) 22:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

Still in the news, still thousands of hits a day, with higher levels of IP vandalism ... bringing to your attention so you can consider if the current v rate warrants semi-protection again.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, went ahead and semi'd the page for three days. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Sock puppetry, what do I do?

User:Cali farax and User:Cali geedi44 seem to be literally completing each mother's sentences and supporting the other on the Dahir Riyale Kahin page. What should I do? Outback the koala (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you please fill out an SPI report here? Thanks. NW (Talk) 03:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated sock report

I added some new IPs here [9] if you could please add it to the queue since I'm not sure how. Thank you very much! Siawase (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 12:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry about that - bugzilla:22033 made my list a bit off. Was going to re-add but you beat me to it =) –xenotalk 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It was an easy mistake to make, and an easy mistake to fix. Best wishes :) NW (Talk) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dalejenkins#Report_date_January_6_2010.2C_19:50_.28UTC.29

As you were involved in an earlier related report, the above discussion may be of relevance to you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

anyone can be an admin

so what are you bragging about? get a life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.95.119 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course! That is close to one of the things that makes Wikipedia so great; not that anyone can be an administrator (which is true), but that anyone can become a valued contributor here. Feel free to sign up for an account or continue editing on your IP to find out yourself! NW (Talk) 21:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI

I'm unfamiliar with the new checkuser/sockpuppet procedure. I have added a new report to an existing, archived case (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gerryh7). Can you please add it to the queue for processing? Thanks, TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Added. NW (Talk) 12:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much, TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-opened sockpuppet investigation of Gigogag

I have re-opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gigogag, as I suspect User:Dock26 Pwnage may be a sockpuppet of the same user. I have never opened an SPI before, and am not sure if I've followed the procedure correctly. Any help you might lend is appreciated. Cnilep (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I fixed it up some. NW (Talk) 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. Cnilep (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Rasputin72

User:Rasputin72 has appeared since the blocking of sock account for User:Torkmann with a similar editing pattern and is now exhibiting the same behavior. Do you run checks of banned users when suspicious edits from new accounts begin to appear again? See his contribution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ku Klux Klan In Prophecy which is as disruptive as his three nominations of the same article at AFD under three different usernames. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torkmann; if there is anything else you want to add; please feel free. NW (Talk) 12:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Account Creation Interface Request

At about 03:49 on 8 January 2010 (UTC), I filed a request for a Account Creation Interface Account. I am wondering if there is a problem with my confirmation edit, or my qualifications. Hamtechperson 02:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We generally look for a bit more edits than you currently have. I have declined your request for now; please feel free to reapply in a few months. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 02:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
How would I do that? Do I need to recreate the account? Thanks, Hamtechperson 04:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please do so in a couple of months. NW (Talk) 16:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy?

.. that you are using to blank and protect AfDs here? -- Kendrick7talk 14:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The template used itself links to the policy. Nathan T 16:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
What Nathan said. See WP:CBLANK. NW (Talk) 16:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I don't see how that AfD is causing anyone "emotional distress, libel or invasion of privacy." Perhaps the policy should be updated? -- Kendrick7talk 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Tool query

Hello. I am trying to help out with a possible sock issue, but cannot seem to find a tool I used in the past that looked for intersections in the edit histories of two different users. Would you happen to know what I could find it out? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's what Im thinking of, you'll want to talk to User:Betacommand, as it can only be run by him ... however, there might be another one now that's more open. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocking

I totally object to User:Jennifer500 being blocked as an obvious John254 sock (don't even have to look) before anyone got a change to play. Please be more considerate in the future. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason you would like me to allow a sockpuppet to edit? NW (Talk) 04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a joke. You seemed to be one of the few on wikipedia with a sense of humor. My bad. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
My bad :) NW (Talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I thought so. ;) --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Tork mann

Hi, Nuclear Warfare! I just saw my name brought up in connection to some accusations of me being another user. Just because I edited a article for deletion page on an article he was interested in, he falsely accused me of being this old nemesis of his. True, I voted "delete" on that article but I do a lot of stuff on articles for deletion. I am not that guy. Can you please help me? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would advise you to lay out your evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torkmann#Comments_by_accused_parties_.C2.A0.C2.A0. You may be interested in reading this before you do so. Best regards, NW (Talk) 04:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Well all the evidence I have is my contributions, which you can see too. What more do I need to do? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I mean, you were the one that approved this investigation -- So you thought it was some likelihood of me being guilty? Or was that one edit on the AFD in question all you saw? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, you could either try to refute the points he brings up or just wait for a checkuser. I would advise doing the first one if you can. NW (Talk) 04:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The reason I endorsed a checkuser was because I thought there was a chance – certainly not a certainty, just some likelihood – of you being a sockpuppet. Please don't take it personally, it was more of a feeling that I got scanning your contributions rather than any one edit. NW (Talk) 04:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well, I don't know who this other user was, so I dont know how his contributions match mine. I'll take a look. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Good evening. I have responded at length on the page you referred me to. Sorry for the misunderstanding, if any. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. I'll try to have a look later. Cheers, NW (Talk) 04:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DeMaris Williams and Corresponding talk page

I had DeMaris Williams on my watchlist, and it seems that the second deletion was contested on the talk page after being deleted. Because it was deleted for A3, I doubt it had substantial content, but I wanted to make you aware. Additionally, it seems User:DemarisD has created this page twice today, and it has been speedied both times. (Username suggests WP:COI) I'm not sure what should be done, but because you deleted what could be regarded as being contested, I wanted to make you aware of the whole situation. Regards, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Prep area

Did I do this right?: Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Joe Chill (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You did indeed. NW (Talk) 20:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy NuclearWarfare's Day!

User:NuclearWarfare has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as NuclearWarfare's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear NuclearWarfare!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rlevse! NW (Talk) 00:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New case

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay, thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Listed it. Thanks for reminding me to take a look at the category; found a couple more to list as well. NW (Talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ip-collateral unblock

Much appreciated.

Note: Not that you have time for it or much care, LoL, but there is a delightful irony in this story ... in that the only time I had ever been ip-collateral blocked before, was when I first created the account ... and was declined an unblock (over-enthusiastic range-blocking admin was later desysopped) ... and THIS time I am the cause of the collateral, and was granted the unblock. LoL)

See also: User:Proofreader77#The story of how Proofreader77 came to be

Cheers. Proofreader77 (interact) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS permission

We have the permission on the apple photo. Thread is "York photo issue". Please process, also check your email. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up Rlevse. I have made the appropriate changes to the image tag; everything should be great now. The DYK hook should run within the next few days. Congratulations! NW (Talk) 12:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Will the pic appear too? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course :) NW (Talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

My god this is appalling!!!! He keeps coming back, new account User:Jkl098 ("contributions" here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jkl098 - no need to revert, only one rubbish that i already cleaned up), sock 21 or 22!!

I promise to you this idiocy started not because of any "feeding the trolls" move on my part or anyone else's, he started creating redirects, removing LINKS/REFS and gluing sentences in storyline before anyone talked to him or insulted him, and he has NEVER written a summary or engaged in any conversation (talk page, investigations) in his life.

This behaviour is one of the most miserable i have witnessed here in WP, but i guess the only way is this one - Revert, block, ignore.

Thank you very much as always, keep it up,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Handled. Also, just for the future, the all caps message here was probably a bit unnecessary. But everything seems good now. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 03:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I am sorry about that, mate, but this "person" is really making me insane (more literally than i would like to admit), obviously he is not mentally challenged or a small child, otherwise he would not be able to handle so well a computer, so what gives with this behaviour?!? Again, i apologize for my "verbalities".

Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

About the deletion of my page

I read the tutorial for contributing to Wikipedia, and it said that I can put a page under my user as a special page to significantly reduce the risk of deletion by an administrator. What I don't understand is why you deleted it anyway. The whole reason I put it at the location it was in was to avoid its deletion. I will make the page again, but I would greatly appreciate it if you leave the articles about my family the way they are. If I can find any secondary sources about them, I'll include them and make a redirect page for the article about the family member in question so that people can see it and know about my family. The only part of each article that won't have a NPOV will be the first section that doesn't have a subtitle. This section will indicate my relation to the person, my opinion of them, and how well I know or knew them.
Some questions I have to ask an admin. If the only source I find is a record that proves the person exists or existed, would that count as a secondary source? Also, if I were to write an autobiography of my life so far, would I need sources if I specify that I'm the one who wrote it? I'll even help you by putting the page on my watch list and deleting any changes that I don't make. I mean, theoretically, if the article is written by me about me, then the person who wrote it is the most reliable source of all. I may need to give credit to my father and stepsister for telling me some things that happened right after my only concussion, but for the rest of the article (which would include an autobiography and other information about me), the best source is the author himself. I'll just try it and see if I can get the article going.

--Mast3rlinkx (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: If you're concerned about it, sorry about the long post. It's a habit I'm trying to break. At least it's not the most harmful one ever. : )

Update on the last statement. I just figured out what to do about the secondary sources you said are required. I could possibly give you a way to contact my father and stepsister online so the readers can ask them if what I give them credit for is true. That way, you can also get a point of view other than my own, and therefore not biased in the same way as I am. I'll put your talk page on my watch list so I know when you reply what you think of this idea.
--Mast3rlinkx (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not so much that there were no easily verifiable sources within the article (although that was a major issue) but that the article makes no claim to meeting the notability standard for biographies. We cannot accept biographies of people who do not meet that criteria. NW (Talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

move at T:TDYK

This is fine with me. I had actually put it in that location originally, but saw that User:Bradjamesbrown had commented against another entry "please do not place hooks in the special occasion holding area at nomination- request they be held, and then they can be moved after approval", so figured i ought to put it in the regular queue. To be honest, i had originally thought that they did start in the regular queue, but noticed a nom from Ucucha in the holding area without a tick, so emulated that. I don't mind where it goes, but I am a little confused... Cheers :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting. Well, as long as it ends up on the main page on the 26th, I suppose it doesn't really matter. Congrats on your excellent work in making that 26-parter, by the way. Is that a new record? NW (Talk) 10:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI case

Feel free to comment here. It might also help to explain why he was never blocked for the original abuse of a sockpuppet. A few of us are left scratching our heads over that decision. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If the sockpuppetry is not terrible egrigious, as it was in this case (the sock had barely over a dozen edits), then the usual course of action is not to block an experienced contributor if possible. However, if this user in the currnet case is found to be a sock, then a block is most definitely in order. NW (Talk) 10:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for rationale. I realized earlier that since he only abused one account, that might've also been the reason. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protecting for a few days?

[10] <- there's been a huge spike in views for this page, should we semi-protect it? Outback the koala (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be too much vandalism to the article. Let's not protect it unless the vandalism really goes up. NW (Talk) 00:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Another case

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City, thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Listed. NW (Talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI Clerk

I was actually looking at that page the other day thinking you guys needed help. I'd love to help out myself If you'd like. Auntie E. (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for offering! Do you think you could leave your name at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks#Trainees.3F? Thanks. NW (Talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

AAA

Anwar al-Awlaki -- once again, the semi-protect being lifted, the IP attacks have heated up. Just an fyi, in the event you think further semi-protection is appropriate. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected; thanks. NW (Talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a question

Hello. I wanted to ask if it would be possible for you to merge histories of two articles. well someone copied and pasted Disney XD onto Disney XD (United States), when they moved Disney XD -> Disney XD (United States) (to make a diambig page). So this left the talk page and also the page history that should have been on Disney XD (United States) still on Disney XD page. So, could that be fixed? Gman124 talk 19:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was rather annoying to clean up. I think I got everything in the end though. Does it look all right? NW (Talk) 19:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Yep. And thank You for a quick reply to that. thanks again. :) Gman124 talk 19:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Help required

Hi there NUCLEAR, VASCO here,

No, this is not about "the vandal" this time, although it has to do with his field of "expertise", Portuguese football: at this page (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Vit%C3%B3ria_FC_Squad), within the template, there is an odd symbol at the very end that is not supposed to be there, i have tried over and over to remove it, but it gets worse when i try. Could you please remove it?

Thanks a million in advance, as always, have a great week,

from Portugal, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I tried a bit, and I couldn't really figure it out. Perhaps asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would be more helpful? I'm sorry I can't really help you out; I'm pretty technically clueless. NW (Talk) 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the template. The odd symbol appeared on the page after this edit. Best, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Marcus Wallenberg Problem

While doing random page patrol, I found this: Marcus Wallenberg (1956–). I was about to move it to Marcus Wallenberg but discovered the second page was a redirect to Wallenberg family. So I'm not sure what would be simpler to do here. Should I just blank the 1956 page, and the redirect? Move the 1956 content to the redirect (which would make need for a disambig page as there are two separate Marcusus), or merge the content into the Wallenberg family page? -WarthogDemon 03:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved the (1956-) page to Marcus Wallenberg (after deleting the redirect there). If you feel that the article is not independent notable, feel free to just merge the content; if not, it is probably good as is, although I suppose that a disambig page could indeed by created. NW (Talk) 03:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: SPI Clerking

Thank you very much for taking me on. I'll try and be in #wikipedia-en-spi as much as I can. Just to clarify, do you plan train me yourself? I'm guessing so from this edit, but just wanted to make sure, and if so, do you plan to do most of the instruction via IRC, or on Wikipedia? (either is fine). Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 07:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do indeed plan to train you myself. I was thinking about doing most of the instruction over IRC, so whenever you have the time to get online is when it would happen. If I'm not in the channel when you come in, feel free to ask any of the other clerks for assistance; the clerk-trainee relationship is fairly fluid (for example, although I was technically PeterSymonds' trainee, Nathan ended up teaching me most of what I needed to know). Best wishes, NW (Talk) 10:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I seem to be encountering a connection failure with the IRC at the moment. I have gone through all the open cases and all the ones pending closure adding them to my browser history, and they'll remain there for the next three weeks (if they're needed). I'm logging off right now, but if there's anything further you want me to do just ask and I'll try and do it tomorrow. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you list the unlisted cases in Category:Open SPI cases? After that, the ones needing clerk approval might be ones to address. You can endorse the cases if there is a reasonable possibility of sockpuppetry. You might want to look over Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerk_and_checkuser_procedures#Process_overview_for_clerks first though. NW (Talk) 00:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do that this afternoon, regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, its taken a little longer than originally predicted, however, all cases at Category:Open SPI cases are now either pending close or listed correctly at WP:SPI. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 07:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Perhaps it is time to move ahead with checkuser approvals then. Do you want to pick a case from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Awaiting Clerk approval to endorse/decline? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#CheckUser has some more information about when to accept a case; I would be happy to look over any cases you wish me to. NW (Talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The webchat interface went down, if that's what you were using. There was also a message from Christel (Freenode staffer) that they were having problems fighting off certain types of attacks, and banning somewhat indiscriminately. Nathan T 00:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MRR: many thanks and suggestion

Hi. First and foremost, many thanks indeed for volunteering to help out with the educational assignment Magical Realism Reconsidered. As always with such projects, it is of course the responsibility of the students to take the lead in editing the chosen articles, and above all to do the research and contribute reliable sources. But any help, however small, that established Wikipedians can provide, perhaps above all in guiding new users unfamiliar with the technicalities and protocols of the encyclopedia, as well (at a later stage) with copy-editing suggestions and the MOS, is very much appreciated. Please, however, feel no compunction to go above and beyond what I know is your usual generosity on the site. The project's success or failure must depend in the last analysis on the effort that the students put in. But I know that they will be extremely grateful for anything you are able to do, and indeed it is ideally part of the project that they also learn to work with people such as yourself: they are contributing to a public site, and their ability to negotiate with other editors and deal with feedback is an integral part of the exercise.

My only suggestion is that, in line with the discussion here, you might want to indicate on the project page an article or articles that you are particularly interested in watching and helping with. Again, you should not feel you have to do this; we are pleased for you to aid the project in any way that you see fit. But it does help if a particular group working on a specific article feel that they have an experienced editor or two to whom they can turn in the first instance.

Again, many thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive_18&oldid=1143359856"