User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Vandals get off far too easily - Join the discussion

Do you believe that vandals get off far too easily? I'm thinking about proposing a change to the blocking policy, but I would be interested in hearing others' opinions first. Please feel free to leave your thoughts at User:NuclearWarfare/Vandal Warnings, and invite anyone you wish to the discussion. NW (Talk) 00:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Closing RFAs

I only closed because it expired and was clearly not going to succeed but then again if it's a problem to you, I'll leave it to the user. –BuickCenturyDriver 03:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: Legal

Sorry, I do not see the request you said you received from NonvocalScream in his contributions history. Was it a result of off-wiki stealth canvassing?

Regardless, I am going to guess that you have not actually read any of the discussions between the two of us on this topic. If you had, you would understand that I do not care either way about the removal of the text he does not like; my initial objection was to the out-of-process nature of his change. Since that time, I also object to his assertion that this change is urgently needed when the text in question was added 768 days ago, and I strongly object to his claim that the desires of OTRS volunteers override Wikipedia's official Consensus policy.

Again, I have no opinion on the removal of the text in question, and in fact I understand and sympathize with the frustrations expressed by both you and the other OTRS volunteers who have commented at WP:UTM. However NonvocalScream is mistaken about the irrelevance of the official WP:CONS policy, as neither his opinion, nor my opinion, nor even that of the whole OTRS team trumps the Consensus policy. Since the info-en email link was added to the template more than 109 weeks ago -with no objections from anyone outside of NonvocalScream's most recent 20 edits- it seems reasonable that we could discuss the issue for a couple of days in order to determine consensus (however I see that he resumed railroading his opinion after just 19 hours). — Kralizec! (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Filter 294

Hi again NW! I noticed MiszaBot triggered 294 earlier today. I thought you might want to know. I will exempt bots from that filter, but you might want to check to see if your archives are a bit off due to the missed archive. Also, I made another adjustment to that filter due to an ongoing attack. I assume you want to leave it enabled. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice it did not redact

According to the page history, the attack contribution before this has been removed from the public archive, but it was not reverted immediately after, so it is still public. mechamind90 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't really mind. If an oversighter wants to redact it; that's fine with me. I really don't care that much. Thanks for your concern though. NW (Talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Andresutz again...

Hi, I notify about the new incarnations of Andresutz, see here. He's persistent and he believes that is a war, so from now is very important for the sysops in en.wikipedia to watch permanentely the articles about channels for kids, specially the Boomerang Channel. --Taichi (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I hardblocked his IP range (90.121.64.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))) for a couple of months; hopefully that should stop him. NW (Talk) 03:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Aaxloop

Could you delete Aaxloop's contribution? Woogee (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles Wallert

To whom it may concern ,

My wikipedia page "Charles Wallert" was deleted under the accordance of G12 for Blatant Copyright Infringement while i own ALL the Copyrights for myself and Recording Studio in New York City which is Bluewater Recordings . An administrator by the name of JClemens has deleted this page while unknowingly realizing that this page is legit . Can you PLEASE undelete this page or bring it to his attention that he deleted a page that should not have been deleted for any Copyright reasons because i have tried to contact him on his administrative page by clicking talk and it gets me nowhere . it is greatly appreciated . Mr. Wallert is a highly respected professional in the music industry of notable achievements and below are a few of the many links that verify and support these claims . i trust that this page will be restored without any need for further action . please contact me back via email at .. Info@Bluewaterrecordings.com or Cutts927@aol.com

I have attached a few of the many links supporting these claims .

Thank You , Charles Wallert President/CEO Bluewater Recordings 3/2/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.2.149 (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Hey NW, I saw your comments on ChildofMidnight's talk page. I hope I wasn't out of line in going ahead and userfying that article. I probably should have encouraged him to go to the closing admins (plural since it wasn't just the one article), but I truly didn't think about it. No disrespect intended! LadyofShalott 04:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, it's totally fine. I was just curious; that's all. I had no problem with you userfying the article. In fact, I thank you for saving me that extra bit of work. :) NW (Talk) 04:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Then all is well - good! :) LadyofShalott 04:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

About the "user" on my case for about a year, and given that you blocked the other IP (a very good tactic the 31hr block, since this is most likely a VERY dynamic IP): upon seeing this (here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=347514372&oldid=347509419), could you apply the same treatment? I swear i will stop feeding the troll(s) - in fact i have not addressed one word to this "person" in months, and he continues...

Cheers, keep it up, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised I didn't have your talk page watchlisted. I have dealt with this IP, and be sure to try to help you out against any other harassment that this person gives you. NW (Talk) 16:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Permission

Hi NW. My SPI was re-opened. This time I was able to make a defence statement. But,by my own lapse in protocol, I quoted your unblock message to me in my defence statement. I apologise for that. I should have asked for your permission to do so. User:Tim Song has removed my NW quote here. Can I have your permission to re-add.... or can you take time to conform yourself your statement of February 4th, 2010. Thanks and take care! Wiki libs (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You have my permission to readd the statement, which I confirm to be correct. NW (Talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling the trolls...

Boy, it sure looks like you are doing a good job of it. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Kirstie Allsopp

NW, did you really mean to semi-protect Kirstie Allsopp for five years? I've no real problem with it if you did, but wanted to check. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did intend to protect it for that long. NW (Talk) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, actually. I'm still hopeful that soon all the BLP's will have some level of protection like this one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a SPI Clerk (to ask a question)

Hi, I am looking for a SPI Clerk to ask a question of if a couple of edits/editing behaviour by a group of single purpose accounts is worth a SPI or am I unjustly jumping to conclusions (bad faith). I would like a second opinion before opening a SPI. Thanks --blue520 06:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and ask me on my talk page. Tiptoety ^talk 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Will do, Thanks--blue520 08:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Community de-adminship

You are receiving this message because you contributed to Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC and have not participated at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC or been directly informed this RfC has opened. Please accept my apologies if you have been informed of and/or participated in the RfC already.

This RfC has opened and your comments are welcome and encouraged. Please visit Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

On your bold decision to grant CoM Autoreviewer rights :) —SpacemanSpiff 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Latino Australian

Hi! It seems that you deleted the redirect Latino Australian a few days ago. Why was this? I think it's a possible search term, and should be kept as a redirect. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was cleaning up a cut/paste move, and forgot to leave a redirect behind. You are free to recreate the page as a redirect if you wish. NW (Talk) 16:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Jafeluv (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jami Floyd

Too many articles worth improving... too little time. As I was making my evening rounds ([1] [2]) and swinging back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jami Floyd in hoping to improve the article, it was gone. Please userfy to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd and I'll spend some time whipping it into shape in preparation for the folks at WP:Incubate. If I give them enough, they may work further and eventually approve it for return to mainspace. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• (jes' passing by:) Aw MQS, are you in love with her? That's so sweet! Good luck... Drmies (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

  I should be so lucky. Never heard of her before today. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

   Done NW (Talk) 10:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My last contributes

Hello, NW! You warned me about my unreferended articles. I want to explain for you, it's like this; I'm very young (age 14) and I don't know how to create a reference and because that I have not done it. I hope you understand this and thaks for your attention! BjörnBergman 13:14 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. You may want to give Wikipedia:Citing sources a read. I think it would be quite helpful. Please do ask if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 03:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky PROD template

Hi NuclearWarfare/Archive 21! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Playboy Playmates

So, will you be helping me listify all those Playmates after they get deleted and I can't see the articles anymore? Dismas|^(talk) 13:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

They already are in a list: List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. I have only been prodding those that have little or no information beyond what is listed there; I am not too invested into the area to know whether or not the people meet the other criteria well enough. NW (Talk) 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. You're a deletionist. Screw the articles. Dismas|^(talk) 16:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe...

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

I would like to know about the possibility of blocking this anon IP (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.138.196.250). I am pretty much at a loss for info, don't know if it's dynamic or standard, all i got are these one-day "contributions".

Why do i ask this from you? Because it is vandalism, this "editor" specializes in inflating F.C. Porto football players' stats, thus making it vandalism, i reckon...

Thank you very much in advance, have a nice week,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know if there is any reason to. That IP hasn't edited in two weeks; that's well beyond the usual limit that we block for, simply because a block won't accomplish anything. On the other hand, if we could fly to this person's house and melt his computer...:) NW (Talk) 18:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the cool link. Definitely worth a look beyond that first sketch, will do :) - VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please move

Hello, NW! Can you please move the article Honolulu County, Hawaii to the article Honolulu County. BjörnBergman 19:20 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that page has been moved several times in the past. Could you please open a requested moves discussion? Thanks. NW (Talk) 18:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Okay, I am always willing to retract my incorrect statements. I see it as a strength, and an a Achilles heal of others who do not.

Based on bad experiences in the past, I have a strict rule not to shoot the bull with editors who strongly disagree me, as those words often will come back and haunt me later.

Anyway, my true apologizes if I lumped you in with editors who you tend to support on all other issues. Okip 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate you taking care of some heavy lifting at my user and user talk pages. I've declined move protection as I'm not overly concerned that this is going to be a chronic problem. If you have any input to offer that would indicate I'm overlooking something important in my decision making process, I'd be interested in hearing it. See ya 'round Tiderolls 06:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated your gesture

Hi,

I really appreciated that you dropped a line in my talk page on the IRC meeting. Unfortunately i could not make however i read the second draft and find it appealing. Thanks and see you in Strategy wiki pages. --KrebMarkt 08:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Help (redirect)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

I once had the help of User:VirtualSteve in the protection of several pages connected with AEK Athens F.C. - Greek association football club - due to a vandal inserting lots of false information in several players' articles.

Once the protection expired, he returned, "contributing" once again. Upon reading this message (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:VirtualSteve#Vandal) i sent Steve (he seems to have taken a well-deserved wikibreak), could you please "take his place" and do what i asked there? Some folks never learn, treating WP as a personal toy - thought this person had given up by now...

Cheers, have a great weekend (hopefully not reverting vandals!),

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I have protected the page; tell me if there are any more you would like me to protect. NW (Talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot my friend. I would do nothing more all day than asking you to protect pages the way things are here...And what on earth was this (i see you also received a similar gift)?!!?!? (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=347868631&oldid=347726930)

Have fun, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• +1 IP from same "person", he continues to vandalize away (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.138.196.166). Oh boy...Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

F.C. Porto vandal

+1 IP from same "person", he continues to vandalize away (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.138.196.166). Oh boy...Cheers, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This and the other one you gave me seem to be from a few days ago. Generally, we don't block unless the IP has been active in the past 24 hours, just because the IP might have changed hands since then. NW (Talk) 01:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Rollback

Thank you for granting me rollback. Your confidance in me is much appreciated. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 15:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ack!

I was just about to self-revert after reading this. Would you perform the reversion on my behalf with a suitable edit summary, please? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been done as you desire :) NW (Talk) 00:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Much obliged! -- Scjessey (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-delete

Hi. Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Dale Murray, Sr., I assume it was an oversight that you didn't actually delete, right? I've nearly done that myself! Just making sure in case you had agreed with the author off-wiki to hold off on deleting... Wknight94 ^talk 01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; thank you for catching that! NW (Talk) 01:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Re-protect

Hi there NUKE, VASCO again here, unfortunately,

Why unfortunately? Because i want to ask if you could protect (again!!) Ángel María Villar's page. The protection was lifted, the libelous additions began...

Thanks a million in advance, cheers,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. NW (Talk) 02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

New SPI not showing up on list

Hi,

A newley filed SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada isn't showing up on the main SPI page list after about 40mins of filing it. This happened once before for Lucy's SPI page IIRC.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's on there now, put up by an SPI clerk. --Bsadowski1 09:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OTRS and AFD

FRANAMAX posted the ticket number, and I cannot find the correspondence where it was first given. And as for your oppose, I respect it, and can only asure you that if I were in any way involved in an AFD discussion, I would never close it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

New Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi-related AN/I

Hi, just noticed you at AN/I. When you have a free mo', could you just check over this AN/I thread? Many thanks, eric. Esowteric+Talk 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh

Thanks for archiving that ... did I contact you off-Wiki, too, and ask you to do that? :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :/ NW (Talk) 01:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings; [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is Mattisse, and she's doing that, well, not only is she resetting the clock for a comeback request, she may be putting a bullet in it. I object when I perceive she is receiving unfair treatment, but is she does it to herself, well, she used the second bullet on her own foot. Say Lah Vee, or whatever.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky prod

Hi NuclearWarfare/Archive 21 ! The template workshop has now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that policy can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and we hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Volume of deletions

Can I suggest that you slow down on the deletions by spacing them out over several weeks instead of putting out so many at people are overwhelmed and don't have time to be voting, discussing, improving etc? - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviosly have had time to look at this and reply. Is there a reason you ignored this? - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's an oops on my part. If you check back through my edits over the past few days, you'll notice that I have made few, if any, deletion nominations. NW (Talk) 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if an occasion to nominate a group of bios like the Playmates will come up again, but the more reasonable thing would seem to limit an editor to no more than 7 a week unless there's a good reason then it should go under CSD. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sock Applications

I just ran into User_talk:99.149.87.66, and after he pretty much said he's using multiple accounts I informed him of guidelines. However, he responded saying it's not against policy, and I quite honestly don't understand policy well enough to be of any help. What do you think? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 05:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What he's doing is technically fine per policy (or at least not terribly wrong), although I really don't understand why he would be doing it... NW (Talk) 18:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fairly bizarre. One would think they would make controversial edits using an IP... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible

Resolved

 – Dealt with by PeterSymonds. NW (Talk) 23:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

to protect this. Somebody changed my comments, which I did not notice before. I changed it back to the way it was in archive. They were changed again. I would appreciate, if you are to protect my version. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not resolved. My comments were altered without my knowledge. I'd like my initial comments to stay there. The case is at AN/I. If I am blocked, I am blocked, but I'd like my comments to stay, as I've wrote them. Is it so much to ask for? Please, please help me. Thanks--Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi NE, thanks for the message you left at Daedalus969 talk page. It was very nice of you. Now back to the altering of my comments. According to this policy "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism". My comment was neither trolling nor vandalism. According to this definition of PA it was not even PA. Of course it was uncivil, but there are no rules to alter my comment the way they were altered. If it cannot be changed the way I posted them, it is better to delete them. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments were changed, as you were told and warned by an admin as they were personal attacks. Per WP:TPO, they have been removed, as they were personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

You placed Mass killings under Communist regimes on 1RR restrictions.

There has been massive series of edits with no explanation. So much has been deleted that many sections are now one or two sentence paragraphs. A lot of properly sourced material has been deleted. Is this really 1RR restriction? Bobanni (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No actual reverts have taken place within the past week. Trimming the article is not the same as reverting a recent edit. NW (Talk) 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory mediation

Hi NW, I've never been involved in a mediation case so I have no idea how they work. How long do we normally wait for the various editors to provide their opening statements? It seems like ^^James^^ and jbolden1517 (who wasn't originally invited) are sort of draging their feet here. Would it be possible to proceed with what we currently have? I'm eager to press forward with the article towards FA status and a chance on the main page and SOPHIA's tendentious objections (which she continues to burden the article's talk page with) appear to be the final obstacle to that. "Help me Nuclear Warfare, you're my only hope." Eugene (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about waiting until tomorrow (around this time UTC) to post my next set of comments. I'll ask James to try to contribute today if he could; if not, I suppose we could move ahead with the mediation. Does that sound good? NW (Talk) 18:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pleased as punch. Eugene (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Danielson Gomes Monteiro

I request to ban the user:Dancornea for 1 day. He just not follow the rule and given enough waring for vandalism for 1 year. Matthew_hk tc 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem like obvious vandalism to me. Could you please bring up your reasons for why you think the user should be blocked at WP:ANI? Thank you, NW (Talk) 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Brandy Howard page deleted

Uuum,, All of this is somewhat confusing, and I don't want to waste your time, but basically I was hoping to get Brandy's article back and make the changes needed to get it posted. AND I was hoping you could help me by telling me specifically what the article needs to fit the standards. I am certainly able to drum up more articles and websites pointing to her notability. I accept the possibility that she just may not be notable ENOUGH quite yet. However, her star meter is around 6000 on imdbpro.com and that is very high. She's got a webseries thats getting many hits and some other things I can show as notability.

Can you walk me through what I need to do? Thank you! Trannytime (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

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

SPI stuff

Hi. :) If it's not inappropriate for me to ask, can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Roman888? There have been literally daily ANI reports since this guy was blocked, and a brand new sock has popped up since the SPI report was filed five hours ago. I don't know if a rangeblock is even possible (since for all I know, he would take all of Malaysia with him), but if it is, it would be a big help, since he's socking to repeatedly violate copyright. Anyway, I just thought I would check and see if it's possible to nudge the listing so we can relieve the situation if possible. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been endorsed by User:PeterSymonds. :) Here's hoping we can do something about it other than Whac-A-Mole! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Michael Ignatieff

Michael Ignatieff seems to have stabilized and I think it is ready to have a chance at full unprotection. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I unprotected the page; please do re-request it if vandalism starts to pop up again. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of Liberal Party of Canada, and Alfred Apps

Thanks re: Ignatieff. I will certainly be watching it for vandalism. I was also in the process of requesting unprotection for Liberal Party of Canada, and Alfred Apps for the same reason. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Done as well. NW (Talk) 15:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect Latin American Australian

Is indefinite semi-protection for editing needed? According to the protection message it was protected for move-warring. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The "page moves" were done using cut and paste moves, which the indef semi was meant to stop. NW (Talk) 22:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the quick reply. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

<personal attack redacted>

I can't believe you would let something like this stay, NW.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Leila Pahlavi

Just want to drop a line thanking you for semi-protecting it. Work has taken more of my time lately, so I'm not able to monitor my watchlist as vigilantly or as often. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

I have mentioned your name at ANI here. Unomi (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ACI Request Appeal

Hey, can I have ACI access now Nuke? Hamtechperson 16:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You're a bit green for my tastes, but...why not.  Done NW (Talk) 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help!

User:PCE

User:PCE just asked me to blank their userpage. I can see the history, but do you think it is worth unprotecting now? Please comment over at my usertalk if you have any thoughts - 2/0 (cont.) 21:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at MWOAP's talk page.
Message added 02:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi. These accounts:

• User:Filmsnoir‎
• User:2Misters‎
• User:Cubert‎
• User:Helicon Arts Cooperative‎
• User:Smokefree‎
• User:Somaterc‎

which you blocked as a result of this checkuser investigation have today had their user and talk pages re-directed to those of a new account User:B-Wuuu. On B-Wuuu's user page is written:

"Broke some Wikipedia rules. Got punished. Time for a fresh start."

Can you tell me if this "fresh start" has been approved by someone, or if this is block evasion? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that because User:Stifle dealt with an OTRS request regarding User:Helicon Arts Cooperative, Ive brought this to their attention as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, another editor opened an AN/I report about this situation. [4] Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I commented there; thanks. NW (Talk) 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Hi. Since the noticeboard report about this user has scrolled off the board without attracting any real attention, or any action being taken, I have filed a sockpuppet report here. I wanted to let you know because you commented on the AN report, and I didn't want you to think I was trying to go around behind your back. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

TFA/R

Hi Nuke. Don't know if this has been brought up over at TFA/R, but could USAD be considered basic subject matter (+1 point)? ceranthor 22:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The competition certainly covers basic subject matter, but I don't think it really is basic subject matter. Most American high schoolers haven't heard of it, let alone 12-year-olds. NW (Talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I had heard of it before, but you wrote the article! The article, btw, and its FAC. ceranthor 00:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't get to your article last night. I left a review on the FAC page just now though. NW (Talk) 22:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. ceranthor 19:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail

Hi,

I sent you an e-mail concerning a private matter. I would appreciate it if you could attend to it as soon as possible.

Anuj (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I have received the email and have replied. NW (Talk) 18:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please move

Hello, NW! Can you please move the article Malin Akerman to Malin Åkerman. I can't do that myself. Thanks for your attention! BjörnBergman 20:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, NW!!! :) BjörnBergman 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Again, baffled (sometimes i am allowed to move a page, sometimes i am not) i ask for your assistance: can you please move Adriano Moreiro's page to "Adriano MOREIRA" (as you can see, from person's full name and the 2 links i have provided, his last name is wrong in title)?

Thanks a million (again) in advance, take care,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page to Adriano Moreira (footballer), as there already was a Adriano Moreira. I hope that works for you. Best, NW (Talk) 23:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Brilliant catched man, did not notice that disambiguation was "in order". Thanks again, great job! VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Curious question

In closing the WQA section, did you rely on my checkuser finding, or did you come to the same conclusion on your own? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I had figured that the user was a troll sockpuppet after I reread the discussion and saw him posting "My opinion is fact." I went to go block him and saw that you had already done so. NW (Talk) 23:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP sticky prod

Please see:Wikipedia talk:Sticky prod policy#Length of time before deletion
After no movement on this thread for nearly five days we sudxdenly get four postings within one minute (somtimes less) of each other, all expressing exactly the same opinion. Seems rather odd to me. What do you make of it?--Kudpung (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

How are the IPs getting through

I noticed on my watchlist your talk page is a battleground, and that it is semiprotected. How are the IPs editing? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 00:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is unprotected now (23:46, 23 March 2010 MuZemike (t | c | block) m (0) (Changed protection level of User talk:NuclearWarfare: Per NW's request ([move=sysop] (indefinite)))). NW (Talk) 00:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 1) Ah, got it. Need to read the protection logs better. (Maybe I'll edit conflict an IP :P or as it seems another user) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 00:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Question about block of user 74.105.122.87

Hi. I was curious about your block of User 74.105.122.87. I see only one edit from the user, one warning (from me) and all in the same minute you blocked the user. I'm not complaining, mind you, just curious about your reasoning for such a quick block. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at the history of this page... -- Flyguy649 ^talk 00:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To be honest, I find the warnings policy to be quite ridiculous. So I ignore it. NW (Talk) 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, the vandals are likely coming from 4chan, in particular the "/b/" message board, and are responding to threads encouraging them to vandalize particulra pages with particular words, and so could be considered meatpuppets of each other. —Soap— 00:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There's actually a lot more that are being blocked without warning. Check the bot log on WP:AIV for all of the attempted attacks here that are just being filtered, auto-reported, and blocked. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, got it now. Thanks everyone. SQGibbon (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For putting up against all of these attacks by 4chan and hardly even flinching. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to refrain from unprotecting the page from IPs

In an entire page, the only IP edits that I saw were presumably death threats, except for one by 68.61.122.14 which just replaced some content with the word "cancer". mechamind90 02:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism is not really a big deal to me. I prefer to keep my talk page open to IP (and newly registered) editors whenever possible. NW (Talk) 02:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage earlier. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jami Floyd's Page

Hello NuclearWarfare,

First of all, I am totally new to Wikipedia as a contributor (as a user, I am a devoted fan) so forgive me if I am a bit dense. I see that the "Jami Floyd" page has been "deleted" which from what I can see in tracking the history on Wiki, seems to mean it has been moved to an editor's sandbox. The note suggests that you put it there. Can you tell me why. Although I did not create the page, I do have a personal and professional interest in it.

If i am pestering the wrong person, please let me know and I will gladly bark up another tree.

Thank you for all that you do. I cannot tell you how much I rely upon Wikipedia, in my work, with my children and just for fun in life. It is such a tremendous resource and has become a part of the human cultural fabric.

Best,

Jami Floyd

Hi Jami, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have a great time editing here; it really is a great place to contribute to. The Jami Floyd article was discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jami Floyd earlier this month, and the general consensus was that there were not enough published, reliable, and independent secondary sources about Jami Floyd. Most of the editors generally felt that the other relevant inclusion criteria, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE, were not met as well. MichaelQSchmidt disagreed with the other editors, and I offered to move the page to his userspace while he dug up sources. I hope this explains things; if not, please feel free to ask me to explain further. NW (Talk) 01:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there NW, I hope I am replying in the appropriate space. I think there is a way for me to email you directly and stop taking up space on your page, but I can't quite figure that out. I'm really very good on computers. Not sure why I'm such a dolt here. But I'm having fun with it, I have to say! I will try to figure the email part of this page out.

But in the meantime, I do have two questions. I didn't start the Jami Floyd page (I remember being quite surprised when it first came to my attention), but I can sure provide sources for all of the information contained thereupon (it is amazingly accurate!). All I need to know is how to do that. Do I contact Michael Q. Schmidt; or would that be a breach of Wikipedia etiquette?

Also (and this is more a matter of curiosity), I wonder what flagged my page? There are public figures on Wikipedia even less well know than I; I would imagine their sources are reviewable too? Any idea why my page came under review? It's been up a long time...

Thank you so much for your time and attention. I promise to stop pestering you...

Hi Jami. I'm glad to help; please feel free to ask me anything you wish. If you do wish to email me, there is Special:EmailUser/NuclearWarfare, though communication here is just as fine. As for your next option, I think the the best thing to do would probably be to contact Michael on his user talk page. It certainly would not be a breach of etiquette, and I am sure he would be delighted to have the extra help. As for why the page on you got flagged for attention, I am not really sure. Pages are nominated by whoever happens to see them and nominate them, not in any particular order. NW (Talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your comments regarding my work on the article Tom Cruise Purple, in the thread at WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Expert assistance needed

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here (by the way, nice "people" which have dropped "marvellous" words in your talk page lately!!!),

Could you assist me please on this one (or give me your views on what to do?)

I sent this message to user/admin Satori Son - enter copy/paste: (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Satori_Son#Expert_assistance_needed), and he politely declined to assist. Hopefully you can have a look and decide to do something about it, if you see it fit. Not vandalism, but extremely suspicious.

Attentively, VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really too sure on this one Vasco. I am not familiar with the subject area, but some of the recent edits seemed OK[5]. Could you give me an example of one of the suspicious edits that you are talking about? NW (Talk) 23:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• As i told you before, not a vandal per se. It's just that, as the "original message" that i hope you read conveyed, he antagonizes people, lies (to me he told he was going to agree on something, then did the opposite, no messages whatsoever), and writes no edit summaries whatsoever, unless he's aggravated. Also, the fact that he has had more than one account and the IP has been pointed out by a user (or admin) that he did so to avoid close scrutiny (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:99.235.160.143#Infobox_images).

Other than this, i can live with everything he's been doing. I just don't want to be accused of edit-warring or something of the sort when reverting his deeds (at least i use the edit summaries, albeit not always to full satisfaction of other users, i admit it). Cheers, take care,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The links you had pointed out were rather confrontational, I agree. However, they all seemed to be from his old account's edits in 2009. If it is just a matter of him not explaining his edits, if you are doing so, then if everything should be fine for you. NW (Talk) 23:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, i forgot to "overelaborate": see for example Raul Meireles. We had reached an agreement to not compress club names in story, only in box. Well, he backed off on that "deal", and did a strange mix: shortened some clubs (FC PORTO to PORTO) while enlarging others (CD AVES or AVES to DESPORTIVO DAS AVES), quite coherent, no? And this is done in dozens of players extensively, and he also only "allows" for some clubs to be written in full in storyline, the others no chance.

NUKE, you are not, however, correct in one approach: the message he received for, inclusively, removing warnings in his talkpage then confronting the admin who placed it, dates from FEB.2010, so it's fresh.

Hopefully some compromise will be reached, if not there are worse matters here at WP, i'll give you that. :)

Cheers, have a cool weekend, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools - Talk page watchers' help requested

Could one of my lovely talk page watchers please take a look at National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools? I saw it as I was heading out, and it certainly needs a bit of cleanup. NW (Talk) 23:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate that. It just looks like someone being silly and putting Google as a reference. Tommy (message) 01:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Side note, An IP claims that this edit is also something not unconstructive. Am I just missing something or is he playing with me? After reading what you wrote, it would appear that this minor edit would seem to be caused by a desire to disrupt Wikipedia. Thanks for listening Tommy (message) 03:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just a troll. NW (Talk) 03:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Donner Party Memorial.jpg

Hi NW, thank you for helping out with this image. Is it possible for you to add the original licensing (just the words will do, be it GFDL, public domain, or such) to the Original upload log section. Thank you again. Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done as you requested. Sorry for making you check this image over and over again. NW (Talk) 13:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wende Bartley's deleted page

You deleted Wende Bartley's page. Reason given: record company article on artist who shows no real notability. lacks evidence of satisfying wp:music. using TW

I would like to re-post that content. I am a small, independent webcaster of an internet radio station that partly specializes in experimental music http://www.eiderway.com/BeforeandAfter.html. Wende Bartley is one of the experimental composers featured on my station. As such, her work is outside mass media traditions. However, a Google search using the keywords [Wende Bartley Composer] yields over 6,000 pages mentioning her work. She has received numerous commissions and awards from the Canada Council, Ontario Arts Council, Toronto Arts Council, and the Laidlaw Foundation. Her works have been performed and broadcast throughout Canada, the U.S. and Europe. Ms Bartley is a prominent figure in the Canadian new music scene, and as such has received multiple grants from the Canadian government, and is frequently covered in the publication Musicworks, which covers that community. She is also covered in many websites devoted to conferences, festivals, and musical organizations.

Please let me know if this is OK.

- Mark Whitnall

Mark, could you provide any specific examples of reliable sources that cover Wende Bartley? NW (Talk) 15:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Wende Bartley:

McCartney, A. IAWM Journal, June 1966: 16-19 http://www.iawm.org/articles_html/mccartney_worlds.html

McCartney, A. Canadian Electroacoustic Community, 1994, review of Wende Bartley CD http://cec.concordia.ca/econtact/Women%20in%20ea/bartleyCD.html also reviewed by McCartney in Musicworks 66, Fall 1996, p. 53

Foley, D. Wende Bartley. Canadian Music Center, 1998 http://www.musiccentre.ca/apps/index.cfm?fuseaction=composer.FA_dsp_biography&authpeopleid=11251&by=B

Other articles on Wende Bartley in Musicworks (cited at Library and Archives Canada, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cmpi-ipmc/028001-110.01-e.php?q1=%22Bartley%2C+Wende%22&c1=author&brws_s=1&PHPSESSID=c2eabc89pr6p6ra64u54gmvh86 ):

1. Creating audio landscapes / Bartley, Wende (Musicworks; Spring 1988; 9-16) 2. dis word breeds my rhythm / Bartley, Wende (Musicworks; #42; Fall 1988; 14-19) 3. Hybrids of time, timbre and traditions: outline of a compositional process / Bartley, Wende (Musicworks; #39; Fall 1987; 12-15) 4. In tune with co-creation: the musical practice of Wende Bartley / Bartley, Wende | Copeland, Darren (Musicworks; #90; Fall 2004; 18-27)

See also the following websites for festivals, workshops, and conferences featuring Wende Bartley: Sound Travels 2009: http://www.naisa.ca/deepwireless/2002/bartley.html Metageum 2007: http://metageum.org/Metageum07/WendeBartley.htm Energy Healing Summit 2010 Voice ++ 2006 http://www.openspace.ca/node/318 Earth-Echo Workshop 2006 www.openspace.ca/node/319 In and Out of the Sound Studio conference http://s171907168.onlinehome.us/andrasound/conference/index.php?page=participant_bio New Music Arts Project's soundaXis http://www.soundaxis.ca/events/music_sound.html

I have undeleted the page for you. Could you please add these sources as soon as possible? Thank you. NW (Talk) 20:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I will!

Please block an user

Hello, NW. An IP, 62.56.144.7, is vandalizing articles. Please block him. BjörnBergman 16:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV might be a better place for this in the future. NW (Talk) 15:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the Filter article

Any particular reason for the deletion of the page for the band Filter? Maybe there is something I am missing, but the band clearly meets the criteria for notability. There are currently pages on Wiki concerning their 4 albums. They have hit songs that played throughout 2000. Take a picture reached #12 on the Billboard Top 100. Not to mention there are currently hundreds of Wiki articles that contain links to the Filter(band) page that are now dead. Only thing that I can think of was it was mistakenly deleted. However since I am not sure how to go about recreating the page, thats something you should probably handle. Coradon (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to know as well. It may not have been the best page, but over the last month or two I've been working on fixing it up and it certainly didn't warrant a deletion, unless I'm missing something too...Sergecross73 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a script broke halfway through completion, I've restored the page in the meantime. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Thank you for catching the mistake for me, and my apologies for the inconvenience. NW (Talk) 20:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please block

Hi, NW! The user 99.160.139.181 is vandalizing articles. I think that you need to block him one month. BjörnBergman 16:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, WP:AIV would be a better place for this. It is far too stale to act upon now. NW (Talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Filter too broad?

[6] - Not sure if this was a false positive? -- Cirt (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it was. I have reported it, and reported it at WP:FALSEPOS. NW (Talk) 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Block request

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

could you please re-protect Unai Emery's page? This "user", with a "familiar" IP (would not be surprised if it is the person that's been on my case for reporting them, after they vandalized a few pages), after the protection expired, returned, undoing my edits.

Interestingly enough, in a move contrary to WP rules, the – were all reverted to -, and the good wikilinks i provided were all summarily destroyed. Also "interesting", the first time the page was protected, i received this "charming" message on my talk page (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=324464489&oldid=324303890). I would greatly appreciate if a bigger protection was implemented, and i better prepare for more insults now (an IP with an history of vandalism, check this one here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Normanhurst_School&diff=prev&oldid=342904625).

Attentively, have a great week,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I reprotected that page for you. I am not sure if there is a need just yet to protect your page, but I shall be sure to do so if any vandalism starts. Is that all right with you?

Also, are the edits that this IP is making accurate? NW (Talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• About the first part, thank you very much my friend, great work. You can protect my page anytime you would see fit, NOW i would not mind at all :)

About your second question, i am not quite sure i understand, but take a look at the person's talkpage (here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:85.115.52.180); with that, and the example i provided below, it is clear that (although i am not sure how many households use that IP) most of them are downright vandalism.

Cheers, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Last-minute addition: but the last IP that "contributed" to Unai Emery's page before you protected it was different than the one that called me a (sic)"cunt": definitely the same person, 100% sure, has to have a dynamic IP.

See you around (what aggravates me the most is that the person which seems to have a taste similar to mine - in soccer that is! - does not want to discuss anything with me about changes and approaches and resorts to insults from the start), keep it up,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

CMT Compromise

NW, I fully understand and respect your position regarding "ruling" on the Christ myth theory mediation case. Even so, reading your post on the matter left me a little deflated; a part of me had been hoping that this mediation was going to be the end of all the arguments. The article's detractors have done everything in their power to thwart its FA chances--at least in its current form. (One even objected to using sources published by Oxford University Press because he claimed a conflict of interest; apparently OUP publishes Bibles too.) Most of the detractors have drifted away over time (some only after having been blocked for various policy violations) but it seems there's always someone else to take their places.

I'm hopeful that Sophia and ^^James^^ will accept the compromise and we can move on. If they don't, however, what's the next step? Do Bill, Akhilleus, and I (along with a few others) just have to dig our heels in and keep up the fight indefinitely? Or is there some body which can legitimately "rule" on the matter? Eugene (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see. While there is no committee on Wikipedia that can rule on content decisions (by design, not omission), a successful resolution of the mediation would establish a strong consensus that would require an equally strong consensus in the future to change. So while there is no body that can rule on the dispute to end it, completing the mediation process would certainly be a way to stop it through the enforcement of WP:CON. NW (Talk) 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here (no talkpage "news" for me so far),

could you please move Claudio Andrés Bravo Muñoz to the more accurate (and enough) Claudio Bravo (footballer). It's a needlessly long game and, as disambiguation well states, there are only TWO, this footballer and the painter.

Thanks a million in advance, keep it up,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 22:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

EEML sockpuppets at Occupation of the Baltic States

Dear NuclearWarfare, I suspect that some topic-banned WP:EEML member have used a sockpuppet to essentially distort consensus in this request to move. I have asked User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for advise (see a relevant discussion here), but apparently he is on a wiki break. I do not know how to properly submit SPI cases, so I am asking you as an active clerk to help me out with that. If you think that this case does not have merit, let me know and I will drop the matter.

I believe that either User:Martintg or User:Vecrumba (based on their history of contributions to Baltic related articles) or both used a SPA User:ISerovian as well as this and this IPs to circumvent their topic bans in order to help out their fellow EEML member, User:Sander Säde to distort consensus being built at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic States. (Igny (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

ISerovian is clearly a sockpuppet of someone. I am not seeing the connection to Marting, Vecrumba, or Sander Sade, but that might just be me being unfamiliar with the area. A checkuser is unlikely to turn up much, but you are welcome to try. Simply follow the instructions at Wikipedia:SPI#Submitting_an_SPI_case to submit a case. NW (Talk) 01:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how to list three possible suspects, so I filed a case under name of Martintg here. (Igny (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

JOE PASQUALE--PERSONAL LIFE PAGE

HI

Why have you removed the personal page of Joe Pasquale. The vast majority of information on that page is in the public domain

Joe Pasquale did meet his first wife at her daughters christening. Joe Pasquale is not the biological father of Kerry Louise Pasquale, who was christened 'Partridge'

Joe Pasquale's first marriage did break down before New faces and they did divorce. He did marry his second wife Debbie and they are seperated

He has had two children with each of his wives.

As an administrator your job should not be to pull a whole page from wikipedia to protect anyone if this information is true and already in the public domain.

So please explain why you removed the whole page, this is censorship of the worse kind in my view, are you a personal friend of Joe Pasquale?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.172.173 (talk • contribs) [7]

Can you provide a reliable source for any of this? And no, I have no connection that I know of to Mr. Pasquale. NW (Talk) 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can find reliable sources for the vast majority of what was written in the personal page of Joe Pasquale, what parts do you doubt were not true and if you feel some were true why delete the whole page?? Joe Pasquale has 4 children that is a fact, Joe Pasquale has one step daughter that is also a fact, Joe Pasquale left his first wife Alison whilst he was working at a holiday camp, Joe Pasquale was divorced by his first wife and married his second wife,

He fathered two children with each wife and he left his second wife. What proof do you require, please advise and I will provide it. However when I do will you allow the page to go back up or is it censored for good ( The good of Joe Pasquale) There have been people deleting information about Joe Pasquale and his personal life in order to hide what are facts. I thought that wikipedia was about facts.

Please inform me which sections of his personal life you can find no proof of and I will send it too you

All of the material you have posted violates WP:BLP, which says "material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The burden of proof is on the person wishing to add information; it is their responsibility to provide sources. Do you have any? NW (Talk) 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do have proof and sources, how would you wish to receive them. Shall I add links to this page so you can view these facts are already in the public domain. Joe Pasquale has already commented on many of these things in interviews, I can list some interviews also if you wish

So shall I add the links to this page??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammie62 (talk • contribs)

Please do. NW (Talk) 09:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for the rollback. It's much appreciated! TDL (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kent Glowinski

Done. Thanks for your close; "somewhere between consensus to delete and no consensus, default to delete" is exactly what I would have said. Steve Smith (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much Steve. I added a link to the OTRS ticket on the AfD. NW (Talk) 16:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Slavko Goldstein

Hi NuclearWarfare! I have provided three reliable sources for Slavko Goldstein article. If they are sufficient, please remove tagg for deletion. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. Thank you very much for adding those sources Kebeta! NW (Talk) 14:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Category

Sorry for that mistake. Thanks for fixing my screw up there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Macaulay feltham

Hi, could you tell me which rationale you used? I was thinking maybe it should be vandalism. Thanks, Xtzou (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You tagged it with WP:CSD#G1, which is generally used for strings of random characters or for complete gibberish. 'WP:CSD#G3: Vandalism; would have been acceptable here, and 'WP:CSD#G10: Attack page' would have probably been the best. But it's a minor thing really. Again, thanks for all your work patrolling New Pages. Happy editing! NW (Talk) 20:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Blanking page

The directions on Abdullah almutairi said to blank the page when I put the template on it. So I did, but I wasn't sure if that was right. How did the template know that the page should be blanked? Thanks, Xtzou (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Magic :)

In fact, it involves a bunch of crazy code that I won't pretend to understand. You can view the code here though. NW (Talk) 21:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Harasser

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

don't know if this will be the case or not (probably not) but, here's the tip: the anon "user" that has been on my case continues (see new IP here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.165.221.251). I edit massively at Yannick Djaló, so he "contributed" too. Pityful...

Hopefully something can be arranged, cheers,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Fun fun :(

Unfortunately, a block can only really be justified within 12 hours of the most recent edit, unless it is obvious that the IP is static. NW (Talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• I "knew it" man. Of course in his case it is dynamic, have seen nearly 50 since he "came into my life". Oh well...Happy Weekend, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please undo that?

Hi NW, Could you please undo the collapsing of my comments on that talk page? I certainly think that WP:DEL is more likely to have a wider variety of people and as the proposal is to change the WP:DEL policy it belongs there. I appreciate that you are trying to keep things in one spot, but I think the discussion belongs where the policy is to be changed rather than somewhere else. Hobit (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They are debating almost exactly the same thing, and it looks like WP:STICKY will become a policy page. You are free to undo my edit if you wish, but I really think it would be better to continue discussing things at WT:STICKY. NW (Talk) 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See you there. Outback the Koala (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring Tbranch's user rights. I do hope he edits again. He seems to be an expert in population surveys for certain species of whales, so the next time a new population study is published that might be when he stops by here again. Regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Extremely dramatic diff, IMO:

viz. <3 Heyitspeter (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi NW, thanks for this, I should have blocked that account myself after indef blocking User:GADFLY46 but simply forgot to do so. Your cleanup efforts are appreciated. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Byron Pang

I have some questions about Byron Pang. Do you think, for example, the photo showing full frontal nudity under the External links section is ok for a blp?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtzou (talk • contribs)

In this case, probably not actually, per WP:LINKVIO (it is however acceptable per WP:BLP, as it is a publicity photo and not a candid capture). Could you remove them? NW (Talk) 18:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ok. You are saying to remove them, right? I will remove ones that are hosted on a blog. Probably the editor will put them back though. Xtzou (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of ACC templates

Hello! A few ACC templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. This notice is because you are an ACC admin. Thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Friend of yours?

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&details=2445857

Now blocked 33 hours by Icairns (who got to the block button before I did). Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's JarlaxleArtemis and his friends at /b/. Maybe they will grow up one day. Thanks to you and Icairns for catching this. NW (Talk) 22:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems. That filter's been running hot all evening with repeated attacks on Nawlinwiki (specifically mentioning Grawp); just wondered if it was the same idiot! Tonywalton ^Talk 22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Voxpuppet

Thanks. i'm a trigger happy idiot. I did go to unblock him myself but you beat me to it. Theresa Knott | token threats 00:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. :) NW (Talk) 00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

re AQFK block

I concur with the block, but would suggest that when enacting any sanction relating to the articles covered by CC probation, outside of obvious vandalism, etc., that a quick look at the enforcement request page is advisable. Perhaps even a request for a pre-block review? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks for the advice. NW (Talk) 11:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

MOS taskforce

Hi there: I saw your post at WT:MOS. We have started a program to rationalise the MoS mess that has grown like topsy, uncoordinated and overlapping in many places. This push seems to be making some progress; I expect it to go on for most of this year. The hardest, conceptually, will come later: MoS main's relationship with MOSNUM. Tony (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at WP:RPP.
Message added 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Immunize (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair-use

Could you take a glance at Illinois (album) and see if I am correctly implementing fair-use there with the different versions of the album art? Jujutacular ^T · C 21:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not an expert on fair use, I would say that the one thing that needs to be improved is the "Purpose of use" section. You currently just have a generic "Purpose of use"; you would need to expand why the two alternates are important to a viewer's understanding of the article. Also, the source needs to be improved; "www.amazon.com" is not sufficient. NW (Talk) 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried the appeal thing like you suggested.

I hope that this is what you were looking for. :3 Macai (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just saw the discussion over at WMC's talk page

No, no, no:

• 1. Replace "Al Gore" with "John Doe." Is it a BLP violation then? Hipocrite (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC) John Doe is not WP:WELLKNOWN. Al Gore is. John Doe doesn't have a Nobel on his mantle. Al Gore's is next to his Oscar. John Doe doesn't have thousands of conspiracy theorists all over the Internet saying he's in it for the money. We treat John Doe a lot differently on Wikipedia than we treat Al Gore.
  2. Obviously, there is the matter whether it is important enough to mention in the article, [...] NW (Talk) 19:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Who is the most well-known advocate in the world for AGW? The former vice president of the United States. How can we have an article on this subject and not mention Al Gore? The Google search I linked to on the GSCC complaints page shows that oodles of conspiracy theorists have commented on it.
  3. perhaps because the article is being used as a WP:COATRACK to say and link insulting things about Al Gore? I believe that is it. If there's not a statement about Global Warming Conspiracy Theory in the linked article, which there's not, it's about Al Gore, being coatracked inapropriately into another article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. There is no reason to mention Al Gore in an article about Global warming conspiracies? None?
  4. Does an editorial in an investment rag satisfy WP:RS for WP:BLP? Not in my view. Vsmith (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Vsmith didn't even know IBD is a newspaper. It's a source about the source's opinion. Besides, Nsaa on the GSCC complaints page pointed to the 1-million-circulation Wall Street Journal with it's op-ed featuring Brett Stephens' conspiracy theory. Actually, anything is reliable as a source of its own opinion, as long as we have no reason to believe the opinion is insincere. It is presented in the article as some conspiracy theorist's opinion.
  5. but the mention of coatrack made it all much clearer. Keep thinking. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Despite being read up on the basic science level of global warming, I know surprisingly little about the political controversies that surround it (most of what I know about the politics comes from seeing mentions of it as I read about other American politics). To be honest, what I know of Al Gore's impact in the politics of climate change is that he made his documentary. It is a conscious choice; I would rather be literate in the science of a field – what is actually happening – rather than worry about the current politics of the moment. But if I am to work in CC probation articles in the future, I cannot just leave it at that, I suppose. When I next have some free time, I will be sure to read up on the matter some more. NW (Talk) 03:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this matter just hinges on Wikipedia policy and sourcing. The conspiracy theorists, even in normally sane venues like the Wall Street Journal editorial page and (I think) the IBD editorial page, are either nutjobs or acting like nutjobs. The equivalent of the conspiracy theorists on the other side actually have a stronger case: there are industry types who appear to be in this debate primarily because of their own special interests (and we would expect somebody to be doing that on each side). In an article I was trying to get deleted a while back, Climate change denial, I found this very good news report. [8] Brett Stephens in the Wall Street Journal can be irresponsible if he wants and imply or claim that Al Gore is in it for the money, but I think Gore's history on global warming goes back a lot longer than any business interests he's had since he left office. But we have an article about nutball theories, so we should have the damn nutball theories in the article. It isn't even a contentious matter that they exist (but that's an argument for the GSCC complaints page, and I've just made it there.) People seem to have a hard time (here and elsewhere) with the idea that WP is here to cover facts as well as we can, and if a fact is in an article, that doesn't mean we endorse it, and if we think a fact is relevant enough to show readers, that also doesn't mean we endorse it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Block versus topic ban

Hopefully, there won't be a "next time", but if there is, can you please issue a topic ban rather than a complete block? I contribute to many areas of Wikipedia and see no reason why a content dispute should affect my ability to contribute elsewhere. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be a strong disincentive for abusing the rules. If you don't want a block, the much easier solution is not to break the rules. StuartH (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

When there's a WP:BLP dispute, the safest course of action is to temporarily remove all contentious material - positive or negative - and discuss it on the talk page before restoring it. Unfortunately, doing the right thing isn't always the popular thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was not valid BLP enforcement, so what you said has no bearing on the conversation. But if it comes to this again, I shall consider what you said, though I make no promises. NW (Talk) 20:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's all I ask. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Timo Lavikainen

I have commented on the correctness of your edit at Wikipedia:Help_desk#New_ref-system Jc3s5h (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

final checks before Christ myth theory FAC

Hi NW,

Thanks for your help with the mediation. I'm fairly happy with the results. I intend to submit the article for FAC in the next couple days but I wanted to check a few things with you first. In her final post, Sophia said she thinks that FAC will fail for the following reasons: (1) the article has too many sources, (2) some of the sources are low-quality, (3) the arguments section contains synthesis, and (4) the section "affirmation of a historical Jesus" reproduces material found at historicity of Jesus (well, actually, it doesn't all appear there--but it should). Now some of this just seems like sour grapes (is it really a bad thing to cite a lot of different sources in a controversial article?), but some of the complaints are more substantial. Since reading these critiques, I've cut the article's two sources that were arguably low-quality and I've included relevant citations to independant third-party sources in the arguments section. That only leaves (4). I've asked about this on the article's talk page but I've gotten little response. What do you think; should I be concerned about this last issue going into the FAC? Eugene (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should probably mention that in your FAC nomination statement and try to get the opinion of reviewers. NW (Talk) 19:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ITN

Thanks for posting the update. I've delivered the credits for you. Having noticed your edit summary (I have T:ITN watchlisted) you don;t have to archive old items. There's a record of it on the article's talk page (or there will be for this one when I deliver it) so old items just come off when needed for main page balance. Thanks again, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for helping me out. I look in at ITN only very rarely, so the process was all very confusing for me. Is there a guide to updating the template anywhere? NW (Talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Essentially, all you have to do is add an appropriate blurb (if you're lucky there might be on on ITN/C that you can use or rework) and start it with {{*mp|6 April}} then reset the timer. If the balance needs to be adjusted, the bottom item should come off or older items go back on, but that's easily dealt with at WP:ERRORS and by the admin regulars if it's a problem so you needn't worry too much about that. I assume it's easy once you're used to it, but I wouldn't know for sure because I've never edited the template. If you find yourself updating it again, that's all you need to do. There are people who spend a lot of time dealing with balance who will fix it quickly if it's off and I'll deliver all the credits. How's that for a quick guide? Useful? Useless? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

An indicator that HJ Mitchell is obviously the sock of an admin, (or really involved in ITN). That guide could be really useful: the process for ITN is not nearly as streamlined as DYK from what I've seen. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite useful! I feel like you should be sharing your knowledge even further. ;) Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I might just have to start that. You're the second admin to ask for advice today so it's definitely needed. Thanks for the idea and hopefully it will encourage more admins to help out at ITN. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've bluelinked it and given it a shortcut, WP:ITN/A, I'd appreciate any feedback since you actually are an admin and since it was your idea! If you like it, I'll propose it on WT:ITN and WT:MP at a more reasonable hour! All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, great work! I cleaned it up a little bit. This should definitely be very helpful for new administrators.

Speaking of new administrators, why are you not one? NW (Talk) 04:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Because I put my foot in my mouth in the middle of my last RfA! I've had 2 offers of a 2nd nomination and I've agreed I'll stand again at the end of the month so if you want to be co-nom, I certainly wouldn't turn you down. Now, I'll be off to see what everyone else thinks of those instructions! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

re Talk:July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike_controversy#The_video_file_is_biased

Hey there. What you are looking for, I believe, is called ffmpeg2theora. It is a handy dandy tool, indeed. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the website, and it went right over my head :)

Are there any guides for how to use this? I am on a Windows machine. NW (Talk) 03:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Have you asked the uploader at Commons, Rama (talk · contribs)? -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Alejo Carpentier page

Hi Nuclear Warfare! The Alejo Carpentier group was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing our article and making suggestions about what we can add/edit in order to bring it up to good article status. Any suggestions are welcome! We are handing it in as our final project on Monday April 12th. As such, a prompt response is GREATLY appreciated :) Thank-you! Katie322 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be delighted to help out. I shall try to get it done as soon as possible. NW (Talk) 20:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have posted my initial comments on the talk page of the article. NW (Talk) 00:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, NW!! They are a great help! Regarding your comment about the Baroque section of our article, what did you mean by 'expanding' the section? Thanks! Katie322 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just the inclusion of any more sourced material. If it isn't possible, that's fine. NW (Talk) 20:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal on notability guidelines

I've got a notability iron in the fire already right now, trying to get WP:NEO moved out of the MoS page that its in now and into either a notability guideline proper or into WP:NOT. When that move/merge/whatever is done then I can start thinking more about a fundamental change in notability standards. I have raised the issue here, but I was met with surprising resistance from people who don't see a problem at all with a lack of secondary source coverage. The key is going to be making sure people realize that the subject specific guidelines are being applied in a way that gives topics a complete pass on reliable sourcing. I didn't fully comprehend how far this mentality had gone until I had that conversation with the people on WT:PROF. Gigs (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start an RfC with the first statement going along the lines of "All articles need to pass or need to be able to the verifiability policy. If no sources exist, they may not be included in the encyclopedia regardless of whether they meet individual notability guidelines." Or something much more detailed and better worded. I would think it would be pretty hard to argue against that (though clearly some people with a fundamental failure to understand core policies can). NW (Talk) 01:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good start. The WP:ATHLETE RfC does give me some encouragement that we might be able to do it in smaller chunks though. I think the primary problem will be the argument they presented at WT:PROF... that once notability is established (through any of the subject-notability guidelines), that relying on primary/selfpub sourcing is acceptable. Technically that already violates WP:SELFPUB #5, but that doesn't seem to be a very widely enforced clause, probably because it's hard to enforce content-wise. What are we going to do, remove the sourcing and leave it unsourced? Gigs (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete it as "Impossible to properly source", in my dream world. NW (Talk) 01:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed

As my first {{Endorse}} I was hoping you could double-check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Timurite. No rush, just when you get a free chance. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good call on your part. NW (Talk) 03:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The DLS

This seems to be just sitting there - I hesitate to enact a topic ban, even though the consensus is absolute, since he's characterized my attempt to give him another chance as personalizing the dispute - ironic, but there it is. What are your thoughts on this? IMO time to Make It So and move on, but perhaps I'm the minority (?) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus at WP:AE supports a topic ban, but I have not had the time to examine his recent edits. If he has improved his conduct, perhaps the topic ban would be unnecessary. I will try to remember to take a look tomorrow (hence, the {{unresolved}} on the top of this section) if it has not been archived yet. NW (Talk) 03:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems that Tim Song took care of it, though there is an appeal up now. NW (Talk) 22:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bahtiyar Can Vanlı

I have provided ref. for Bahtiyar Can Vanlı. Please consider this. Best Regards --Hanberke (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a reference. I have removed the deletion tag. NW (Talk) 04:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture of monument for Irguns in userpage

You closed this discussion. I wasn't informed about it by Supreme Deliciousness and I think that was very UNWP:CIVIL from him. He should be reprimanded/banned. I had things to say (this photo was taken by me which is why I had a special interest in it, and I would gladly have removed it if asked, I don't do things for spite - please add this to the original discussion as well). Amoruso (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wehwalt's posts in the thread. I agree with them. NW (Talk) 12:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I sent you an email

Hi, I sent an email to you, and I'm just letting you know since you said it would be a good idea to tell you. Thanks, CoderCat (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Responded. NW (Talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

to quick for me.

Special:Contributions/Luke_the_man_o Dlohcierekim 18:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

copy of deleted article

May I please have a copy of the article you deleted? http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Cannon&action=edit&redlink=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artherd (talk • contribs)

See [9]. It will automatically be deleted in a month. Please do not repost it without filing a WP:DRV. Thank you, NW (Talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Avatar Characters

Hi, it's been a while. But I decided that I might as well have a try at the Avatar Characters list FLC since I spent so much time on it. Since you were a big help and a large contributor to the list, I'd just like to notify you. The nomination page is here. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It has been a while since I have looked at that (or even had it on my watchlist). I'll try to remember to take a detailed look at it soon. NW (Talk) 22:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lenin

Damn you're quick, you were a click ahead of me at every step :-) Guy (Help!) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The advantages of that evil thing ;) NW (Talk) 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - re: Pope Benedict XVI

Thank you for this. I have been fighting a losing battle with POV pushers on both sides of that article all day. Nice to finally have someone else step in and help out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I have a question for you: would you still considered me uninvolved enough to take administrative actions on that page? NW (Talk) 21:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I would consider us both to be uninvolved... because we became involved as a result of the ongoing edit war. ;-) Based on what I saw, I probably would consider Thad to be involved (at least on that particular point, but I think that has been quelled do to NW and my interjections.) BTW, NW, you beat me by just a hair on the main article. I was making my talk page post first, before making my attempt to shut down the aarticle war. ;-)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring? A Question

I'm not sure if this is edit warring. I'm not involved, but for my own knowledge in the future, what should I do in this situation? Outback the koala (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

That is edit warring about a particular point while continuing to improve the rest of the article. Doesn't actually happen very much, and the best thing to do might be to just drop a note asking them to settle it out on the talk page. NW (Talk) 22:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks alot. Outback the koala (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal(s)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Maybe you could be on the lookout for this anon IP (please see here - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.201.98.10 - has not edited in a while, but it does seem a dynamic one, and makes pretty vandalic "contributions").

Also...FINALLY!!!! Found another sock (hope it's just this one, this "person", for some time, had the custom of creating two accounts at once) of vandal Pararubbas, called User:Pol890 ("contributions" here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pol890). Please revert ALL edits, block and, in case he has created any new pages, remove them, these folks gotta learn.

Attentively, have a nice week,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the user. Just waiting on checkuser confirmation before going ahead and enforcing the banning policy. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)