User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Helping with SPI?

Hey NW. I know of the eternal backlog on SPI, and I was wondering if I could lend a hand. I've read the administrators' instructions page, but it's still a little intimidating. What's the best way to get started? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

TPS at your service :D In any case, the best way to get started is to look for obvious duck cases. Where people are having accounts with similar names. Single purpose accounts made only to remove tags, etc. Just blocking and tagging the sockpuppets is a great start, you can let others deal with the masters, which is more discretionary. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh, alright. I've left you a note on your talk page about a case I just did so you can review and see if I horribly botched anything. Should I add myself to the SPI clerk list? And going forward, should I harass you or NW with questions? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Either/or. Don't add yourself to the clerk list yet, you'll need a clerk to adopt you, although we have a shortage of admins so just got to Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks and ask, and somebody will make you a trainee, as I am currently. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello HelloAnnyong! NativeForeigner is exactly right with their advice. I posted on WT:SPICLERK with some further advice. Best, NW (Talk) 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick query

Hello, NuclearWarfare, I hope you are doing well. :)

• I was wondering if you could deal with this issue at WP:AE [1], of users interspersing threaded-comments inside subsections of other users? It would be best to instruct these users not to do so, and to keep their comments to their own individual subsections for statements. Please see also threaded comments already starting in this subsection [2], this one [3] and this one [4]. The users in question are Bigweeboy (talk · contribs) and Edith Sirius Lee (talk · contribs).

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing Cirt. I have left a note on their talk pages. NW (Talk) 18:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Could you please remove the threaded discussions from the above-linked three places, and move them to more appropriate spots? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: This is now  Done. :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

My Mistake

Sorry for that mistake on the ArbCom page. Should I delete my comment or move it to another section? --BwB (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just moving it to your own section should suffice. Thanks! NW (Talk) 21:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Jmh649's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yes and I removed the comment 2 days latter here [5]. Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. NW (Talk) 03:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

it took a while but here it is, account # (if am i not mistaken)....51!!!! What on earth is this ("contributions" here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poiuytrewq089)? I would appreciate it very much if a checkuser was run on this, to see if there are any sleepers.

Why? Because this account has only a few days of "life", has very little inputs (but, AGAIN, he has created an article admins have deleted! - this one http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Portuguese_Liga_Breakthrough_Player_of_the_Year) and i haven't heard from him in two months or so, i bet he has more accounts (hope to be mistaken tough).

Again, ty very much in advance, take care and have a good week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Brought it up at SPI; hopefully it can be taken care of there. NW (Talk) 03:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email. Shadowjams (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zuko and Iroh.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zuko and Iroh.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

Please do not restore the image. Per character images are not support per WP:NFLISTS. Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

DRV

Hi there - just a quick note (as the nominator doesn't appear to have informed you or discussed it with you first) that an AfD close of yours is at DRV here. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have commented there. NW (Talk) 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change

NW, you may remember some months ago we disagreed about the Monckton BLP. I've proposed a finding of fact about that episode, and propose we discuss it further there. --JN466 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure if I plan to enter the discussion at this point, but I'll keep an eye on the section. NW (Talk) 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:Wayne Olajuwon/Archive 1

Can you delete the page User talk:Wayne Olajuwon/Archive 1 because I requested it to be deleted? Wayne Olajuwon chat 21:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been done already: "(del/undel) 21:30, 17 September 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User talk:Wayne Olajuwon/Archive 1" ‎ (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace) (view/restore)"

In the future, tagging your page should suffice; there is no need to alert individual admins to your situation. NW (Talk) 22:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you delete my edit from the Hookah article? Wayne Olajuwon chat 02:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) why would you want to do that? the only things that are RevDel'd are Copyright Violations, personal info, and personal attacks, for the most part. Pilif12p :  Yarr  02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Email alert

I just sent you an email via Wikipedia. Please respond ASAP. Cla68 (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have replied. NW (Talk) 23:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For the quick self-revert :) Yes, the fact that WP:MEDMOS seemingly contradicts WP:COMMONNAME can be confusing. For the record, the rationale is here ("neutral and common convention specific to [the] subject domain"). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Next time, I'll let them know myself as you did here, but it has more clout if it comes from a non involved editor, preferably an administrator. I suppose the AN/I thread can be closed and we'll see if this editor will now cooperate. Thanks you!--MONGO 02:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inés Sainz

Can you close this deletion discussion that I started but have since decided to withdraw? Thanks. Truthsort (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is another person opining to delete the article, so I think it is best if it runs through the 7 day process. Of course, if he retracts his vote, I would be happy to close the AFD for you. NW (Talk) 16:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He made the deletion vote at a time when the article was in a poor state. It has been improved since then. Truthsort (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

House

Hey, you were the first active editor I saw on the list of members of the House taskforce. Care to weigh in here regarding the (lack of) notability for individual episodes? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

About the "Disruptive editing from Oclupak"

NW, I hope you don't mind if, to avoid spreading around documents relating to the issue at hand all over the place, I have responded to your judgement on MY talk page. It is only after having posted my response that I discovered, upon arriving here, that you seem to wish all correspondence to take place on YOUR talk page. It's a bit late for that but, if you insist, I could copy/paste my comment over here. Please advise. Oclupak (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that isn't the case. I just want discussions to be held where they began. I'll change my edit notice if what is there is confusing. NW (Talk) 14:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

No it's not User:Pararubbas :), but you might want to have a look at this "user", User:Roz10 ("contributions" here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Roz10).

Apparently, all his actions consist in vandalism, whether it is inserting insults (here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tom%C3%A1%C5%A1_Ujfalu%C5%A1i&diff=385771997&oldid=385342884 and here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Khirbet_Abu_Falah&diff=354975868&oldid=291909376), or rubbish POV/weasel (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&diff=363443031&oldid=360639957).

As always, glad to be of service, have a nice week and all - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

temporary restore for discussion at Deletion Review

I restored Black hole naming controversies for discussion at Deletion Review--you seem to have deleted it again during the review--I assume it was accidental, so I restored it, in the hope the present discussion there will come to a conclusion. I certainly do not intend to edit war, and if you think I did wrong, feel free to revert me. If I misinterpreted, my apologies. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm fine with it. I think you're confusing the two DRVs though. I deleted the article per the AFD, which took place in between the two DRVs. NW (Talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about the sequence. Some days I wish we would simply flip a coin. Thanks. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 14:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lower protection level request

Hi NuclearWarefare, I was wondering if you could please lower the protection level of Template:AFC submission from Full protected to semi-protected. Thanks, --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 15:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thwack!

Whack!

For not matching div tags in this edit and breaking everyone's watchlist :) Shubinator (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Looks like Preview wasn't good enough to catch that. Thanks for fixing my mistake.

Also want to ask, would this update to the watchlist break anything? NW (Talk) 16:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, unmatched tags can be tough to spot.

The watchlist update looks good now. You might want to run it by Xeno just to make sure. Shubinator (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Drafted to do research

... the short answer is yes (I added the L.A. Times obituary to source Gajdusek's military service). In theory, everyone was liable to the draft, including researchers. If they were drafted and turned out to have relevant skills from their civilian life, then they might be assigned to an appropriate command. Gajdusek was assigned to the Walter Reed Army Medical Service, presumably because he was a research virologist in civilian life and the military was interested in viruses for the obvious reasons. As another example, my personal hero, Tom Lehrer, was drafted in the 1950s. Since he was a mathematician, he was assigned to the NSA - basically, he was drafted to do "applied mathematics". MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The reason I was surprised was the only war that I could think of that was going on at the time was the Korean War, which mostly required men for the infantry, if I recall my history readings correctly. Do you know why the US Government bothered to assign him to Walter Reed instead of exempting him, besides the obvious answer that it is simpler and cheaper to force someone to work on something if they are your employee rather than a contractor? NW (Talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I can't say much more about Gajdusek, because the sources are somewhat limited, but when Lehrer was drafted he basically went along with it because it was very hard to get an exemption; you had to be in a reserved occupation, which was narrowly defined. To be honest, though, that's pretty much the limit of my knowledge about the draft. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America. :) I saw your edit summary here [6], thanks so much for the quality upgrade to B-class, and the kind comments about your assessment of its current level of quality. Much appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion

Re the protect: fair enough, if that seems correct to you. I put it to you (m'lud :) NW (Talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)) that an alternative approach would be to semi it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed Including with likely sockpuppets - would a CU on the anons be in order? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. If I were a checkuser, I might check the IP ranges to see which logged out users (most likely) are edit warring, but since I'm working on limited information, I don't know if I could do per WP:SILVERLOCK (2nd bullet point). NW (Talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be useful, but I'm not sure if the checkusers really have the time or the inclination to look into this. A formal SPI is probably unnecessary, but an email to a few of the newer and hence more active checkusers might be worth it. NW (Talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Doubt

Hi there wiki-warrior, VASCO here,

Could you please (if you can't then nobody can't :)) clear me on why did this edit of mine, as anon, merit the tag "possible BLP issue or vandalism", in the article's edit history (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Gonzalo_Arconada_Echarri&diff=385996580&oldid=377889246)? Really bizzarre, to say the least.

Cheers, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably as a result of the word "sacked"; sometimes the edit filter will pick up on these things and flag it for review. It's not a presumption of wrongdoing or anything like that, but it is nice because a lot of articles get vandalized that this filter picks up, unfortunately with some false positives as well.

By the way, how come you didn't add a source to the article when you added that bit of info? NW (Talk) 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...please don't delete my posts

Ummm...please don't delete my posts.[7] This is not polite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are edit-warring

Can you please self-revert? You are edit-warring.[8] [9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Enforcing ontopicness on an extension of the administrators' noticeboards != edit warring. If you have an issue to bring up, please don't try to slip it in; raise it through appropriate channels. NW (Talk) 01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, you don't think that WMC's edit warring in the BLP of a climate change sceptic is related to his edit warring at RealClimate of The Hockey Stick Illusion? Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if I was wrong - which I am not - this gives you no excuse to be edit-warring. You are an Admin. IMHO, admins should be held to higher standards which includes not acting in conduct unbecoming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to "DOUBT" - additional request

Hi there NUKE, VASCO (again) here,

as you requested, added references (albeit in Spanish, those contents are pretty much unlikely to be written in ANY English sources) to my additions in the Gonzalo Arconada Echarri's piece.

Additionally, some requests my friend: again with the vandals, could you please protect Tomáš Ujfaluši's page? Injured someone - let's assume without wanting - while playing his sport, has been called all sorts of crap by various "users" ever since.

Also, remember this exchange we had which led to this message from you this anon user (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:84.238.115.129)? Well, he continues with his infobox shenanigans (as seen here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Pinto&diff=381681336&oldid=380596126), has been warned for that and did not reply whatsoever.

Another anon "user", this one seemingly taking a liking to reference removal (see "contributions" here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/163.1.61.2). If this one gets blocked, i better be expecting some insults in my talk page man! Thanks a million in advance, as always, take care - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also (found this just now), is the stuff this user Uncle G is doing, with the assistance of a bot, correct (as seen here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Soloz%C3%A1bal&diff=386506332&oldid=372667304)? It seems really bizzarre, please "investigate", cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done on the first two; the third was only a single edit last week, so I think we can let it go for now. Also, as for what Uncle G is doing, yes unfortunately his work is OK. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/Task explanation explains more, but basically there was a single editor who violated our copyright policies for a long time. We only caught him very recently. NW (Talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK)

Would you mind restoring a copy of Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK) (with edit history) to User:Codf1977/Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK) - Have no intention of returning it to main space I just want to do a bit of research into it and it can be deleted once finished with it. Codf1977 (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I just emailed you the text and the edit history? That might make things easier. NW (Talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think that is best then yes. Codf1977 (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 16:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Codf1977 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Tagging - Request for Help

Would you take a look at Joanne_Nova and render your opinion on the six (yes, six) header tags that were recently added to the article. A couple editors are refusing any attempt to remove them, without giving clear rationale for why they should remain. One or two of these may have some merit; the rest I believe are spurious. Thanks. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't impressed by either anyone's behavior here. But I was disappointed that you never chose to address Viriditas' point about notability, and have advised him/her to send the article to AFD for community consultation. NW (Talk) 15:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've AFD'd the article. Perhaps all marginally-notable folk should automatically go to AFD. Anyway, this will settle it, one way or another William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained reversion.

Any reason why you reverted me? [[10]]? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Accidental misclick. My apologies! NW (Talk) 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

UBLPs by Autopatrollers

Hi NW, I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled#Autopatrollers_who_create_unreferenced_BLPs, as one of the Autopatrollers who I was about to deflag was flagged by you just after they received some uBLP warnings. ϢereSpielChequers 16:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented; thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 16:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerking

Hi there mate, I'm ready to help out as a clerk if I can. Where do you want me? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. So traditionally, the easiest method of communication has been over IRC in #wikipedia-en-spi ^connect, an open channel that is houses a bot that watches SPI pages and does other interesting things. If I am not around when you are, anyone listed at WP:SPICLERK should be willing to help. NW (Talk) 15:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Scrubbing history

I have seen some admins totally remove stuff from pages as offensive and whatnot, is it possible to do this here? [11] as IP`s just keep reverting all that junk back into the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's possible to do with selective or revision deletion, but that would involve a bit too many edits for my comfort. I have semi-protected the page for 3 months though. 18:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cheers mate, it was getting quite tedious there :) mark nutley (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. A couple of the IPs he's been using have been temp blocked, but since he's IP hopping (and it's probably one person since they all come from Spain), blocking one or two of them isn't very effective. — e. ripley\^talk 20:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

Hey, why was my request for arbitration removed? I am not good at navigating the administration here on Wikipedia, but I am faced with very abusive editors here. Jclemens, Collect, and FellGleming are making bad faith deletionism their only goal on my page, and the page is suffering tremendously. The page was even blocked because of their nonsense and now I can't even contribute there anymore.--Screwball23 talk 18:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The request for arbitration was removed because, as I explained on your talk page, there did not appear to be any evidence of prior dispute resolution. Please follow the steps on that page before attempting to move to arbitration. NW (Talk) 01:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at WP:RFPP.
Message added 10:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've declined the request. I think that there's clearly a problem, but semi won't necessarily solve it. Full may be the answer, but probably not just yet. TFOWR 10:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. NW (Talk) 16:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hi, one of your admin actions has come up for discussion. If you would like to leave a comment it may be helpful. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Request_removal_of_topic_ban --Duchamps_comb MFA 13:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in all fairness, you would consider some sort of term/time limit on your topic ban?--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather prefer just lifting the ban once you show that you can edit well on other articles. NW (Talk) 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already said I see/know what I did wrong, admitting fault. As well said I would stick to a strict 1RR policy in the future on Obama related articles. Look at my last 90 day contributions to see what I have been up to as their is nothing else I can show/prove to you, except I have fully respected your ban.--Duchamps_comb MFA 21:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts?--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really interested in continuing this discussion; whatever happens on AN is good enough for me. NW (Talk) 02:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess we will be having this discussion every month or so over at AN until you do feel like discussing it or feel like putting a time limit on your heavy handed ban. Good day.--Duchamps_comb MFA 03:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could go edit constructively in another topic area, either controversial or not so controversial. If you prove yourself there, someone will lift the ban (and indeed, any admin has my permission to do so without consultation for this case). If you don't, and continue to post appeals, do not by surprised if the community grows tired of it and imposes sanctions. NW (Talk) 19:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken Zaretzky (Draft in my userspace)

Hello Nuclearwarfare, Back in August an article was deleted by you about Ken Zaretzky. The Article was written by yesimhuman. When he contacted you about it you said that you thought that Ken Zaretzky actually may meet the notability guidlines and suggested to him that he appeal it and present his additional links. He did so. the administrators decided that the decision should remain (because correct procedure was followed) but that there could (should?) be another article written about Ken Zaretzky. Yesimhiman asked me to write it because he didn't feel confident in his abilities as a writer. I have done so (he did help me with facts,etc) and the draft is now in my userspace. Could you please take a look at it and give me any ideas or suggestions or let me know if you think it's ok as it is? Please note that the catagories (at the bottom) are wrongly formated intentionally so that the draft doesn't actually show up in any categories until it is ready for prime time. It may be ready now. Thank you! Youngshakespeara (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm a bit busy now. Hopefully these editors won't mind, but do you think you could try asking Ron Ritzman or HelloAnnyong their thoughts on the page? NW (Talk) 03:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Russell Grant

I saw your comment on User_talk:HelloAnnyong#Russel_Grant enquiring about why my edit was removed so thanks. I would like to contribute to the article but I struggle without any constructive feedback about why my edit including any formatting improvements I made to the article was removed in it's entirety . I have made my views known on Talk:Russell_Grant which is all I can do I suppose. --Holkingers (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in this subject, so I will leave it up to you. I might suggest WP:3O for getting a third opinion on the matter though. NW (Talk) 03:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/19 September 2010 Baghdad attacks

Hi,

I have an issue with the closing of this AfD, as it stands your close, is a de facto keep, which elevates a guideline (WP:EVENT) over a policy (WP:NOTNEWS) and by saying "Perhaps these articles should be visited in several years time, when we have the hindsight of history to judge whether in fact these articles are actually notable" you give the impression that the article should not be re-nominated during that time.

I would like you to reconsider this AfD in the light of the following :

1. Guideline (WP:EVENT) vs Policy (WP:NOTNEWS) - should not the policy take precedent.
2. Despite requests in the AfD, there is not a single source for this that is not on the day of the event and therefore zero indication that this is going to have any "enduring notability".

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 06:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Guideline vs. Policy is not as clearcut as you are making it out to be, especially if there is no consensus (as there was here) as to which should apply. Contradicting cases of the two should not be handled by simply elevating one over the other, but in trying to divine a larger consensus, through the use of an RFC or such. Perhaps you could try an RFC to convince others of your broader viewpoint about how our policies and guidelines should be applied to articles like this? If there is consensus in that, it will make things quite a bit easier.

Also, if I am not mistaken, I think this is the first time someone ever challenged a close of mine for being too inclusionist :) NW (Talk) 12:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but I have seen AfD's closed in that way before, I agree there was no consensus on a !vote basis, however disagree that it even passes WP:EVENT - for example the WP:INDEPTH section and fails the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE part. Also the closing comment is a real issue, as any future AfD, unless the "several years" has elapsed could be seen as a bad faith one. Codf1977 (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the second sentence was merely a recommendation; it does no harm (yes, yes, I know) to keep the articles in the encyclopedia while we wait for history to tell us if the article is notable; "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Perhaps the article could be renominated in 3-6 months, but until then may I recommend again the RFC option? Of course, if you disagree with me, you are free to take the article to DRV; I won't hold it against you :) NW (Talk) 16:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a good close, FWIW. --John (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not inclined to take it to DRV as I cant in all honesty say that close was wrong in that there was no consensus (could argue that a re-list might have been an option) but would you mind re-visiting the text of the close to reflect what you said above that "Perhaps the article could be renominated in 3-6 months" - as for the RFC, there are a number of other NOTNEWS vs EVENT AfD's working there way through the system, so I will see how they resolve before going that route. Codf1977 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

 Closure modified slightly NW (Talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked open proxy

Hi NW. I'm learning about open proxies. Re: [12], I noticed you appended "/20" at the end of the IP. What does this do? Does that block the whole range? What effect does this have exactly? Thanks for the help, œ^™ 20:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocking the /20 range blocks every IP between 98.143.144.0 and 98.143.159.255. That would be 98.143.144.0, 98.143.144.1, 98.143.144.2... 98.143.159.253, 98.143.159.254, 98.143.159.255. As for why that IP range consists solely of open proxies, I really couldn't tell you. Betacommand knows about these matter far more than I do, and I trusted him when he told me that they were OPs. NW (Talk) 20:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that range consists solely of open proxies because it belongs to americanproxy.org, a website dedicated to providing anon IP addresses (see the template I placed on the talk page). I figured as much that /20 blocks the entire range, but what confused me was when I checked some of the block logs of other IP addresses in that range ([13] for example) they weren't blocked.. or, they were blocked by someone else ([14]) .. Maybe it just doesn't show up in the local logs but in some other logs, I dunno, I'll take your advice and ask User:Betacommand, Thanks. -- œ^™ 21:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. Blocking a range won't affect the block logs of a single IP, it will only generate a log action for the range. In fact, it is even possible to have multiple blocks active at once: [15] NW (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see how confusing this can get! So is this tool the only way to discover if a particular IP is affected by a rangeblock? -- œ^™ 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This tool, linked from the bottom of the page as "Rangeblock finder," will also work. NW (Talk) 00:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Hello, I am the user that outed the Elgor007/Elgor008 thing. I have a question. I could not find the notify template tag for suspected socks, and by the time I found an old sock and tried to copy the template, you had already done the blocking. FFR, what is the template that generates:

{| align="left" style="background: transparent;" || [[File:Puppeter template.svg|35px]] |} Your name has been mentioned in connection with a [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sockpuppetry]] case. Please refer to [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/username]] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|the guide to responding to cases]] before editing the evidence page.

Thanks Sven Manguard _Talk 21:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be Template:Uw-socksuspect. NW (Talk) 00:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Hart

Unresolved

Hi. If possible, I'd like your eyes on the Kevin Hart (poet) page. You can see my full explanation on the talk page, but the short version is 2 entirely "new" editors came and made sweeping changes; I reverted the first; later after the second came, I partially reverted that second person, because I had forgotten about the 1RR restriction. Due to some edit conflicts, I had difficulty self-reverting, but I think that I have done so correctly--that is, I attempted to fix my mistake and undo my breaking of the rule. If I made any errors in that regard, please tell me and I will happily fix them. Of course, if you feel a block is warranted, I do understand, because even though I tried to correct the problem, I did, for a few minutes, break the rules. I remembered the article being under restrictions, just not the specific 1RR restrictions--it was my responsibility to re-check those restrictions before reverting again. At the same time, I would like you to consider the situation as it stands now--two new editors making very bold and sweeping changes that don't match the previous consensus--editors who came directly to the Hart article with these changes ready to go, and, while they made edit summaries, they have yet to discuss the changes on the talk page. I'm concerned that there may be an attempt to circumvent those restrictions, although that attempt may not actually be intentional (as there's not any reason to believe these editors even know what the talk page says). I humbly accept your judgment on both my own behavior (although obviously I'd prefer leniency :)) and the actions of the new editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add one particular thing I noted in the edit summary: the current new editor, User:Librarianguy refers to Hart as "Professor Hart," which, at least in the U.S. (where Hart is currently teaching) is normally a title only used by that person's students, which to me implies a potential conflict of interest. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Possibly on the latter part, although not always; I generally use Professor/Dr. interchangeably even when referring to professors I do not know. On your former post, as long as you recognize your mistake there is no need to take additional action. I haven't really got a chance to take a look at the new editors yet, but have you attempted to converse with them on their talk page? NW (Talk) 00:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it's up to 3 "new" editors coming directly to the article and adding massive amounts of new material (the article has increased in size by over 50% in the last 24 hours, and that's even after at least 10-20% of what was there before being deleted). I have left comments on all 3 of their talk pages, and at least he second two edited after I left comments, meaning they should have seen the "You have new messages" announcement. If they sincerely are new, spontaneously interested editors, it's always possible that simply don't know about talk pages, including their own.

One thing that struck me this morning was the that one of editor 3's deletions was identical to one of editor 1's, with basically the same rationale--removal of half of a criticism quote because they claim it's criticism of the subject of Hart's work, not of Hart himself. I don't (yet) intend to open an SPI, I've only ever done so once or twice before, and then it was indisputable. In fact, subtle differences in the language of the edit summaries makes me think that they may well not be the same editor but are actually a group of people working together. The thing is, at least some of what they are adding is actually good material, I think. Some of it (like using Who's Who as a reference, or removing what looked to me like reliable sources) seems to not be. So I'm still really hoping we get some talk page discussion, as I think the knowledge and sources these accounts are bringing will be helpful if we can actually talk about it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete

Can you delete Talk:2010-11 Golden State Warriors season? Wayne Olajuwon chat 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would he? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 20:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is a redirect. Wayne Olajuwon chat 00:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you created it and you want it deleted, tag the page with {{db-g7}}. Next time, I won't delete it for you. NW (Talk) 00:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about OTRS

Hi. I just saw in my Facebook that Cheryl Bachman contacted me about the matter of that other Cheryl Bachman, but I didn't get her message until now. Nonetheless, what you said about OTRS to that other editor on your archive talk page 23 has me interested. I often meet celebrities like Cheryl when I photograph them at public events that I cover, like the upcoming Big Apple Con and New York Comic Con, and I am often asked for help regarding material in their articles that is incorrect, defamatory, etc. I usually just tell them to contact me if they want, but I'm wondering if telling them about OTRS would be better. I've heard of OTRS, but don't know a lot about the details, and that Wikimedia page looks kinda hard to penetrate. Can you tell me how it works, and what info I can give notable people when they ask me for help with problems in their articles? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Volunteer response team has a pretty good explanation, but basically what happens is anyone can email us, to either our main info-enwikimedia.org queue, or any one of our subqueues. It would be best if they could explain exactly what is wrong with the article in question, and hopefully an OTRS volunteer will act on the issue promptly. If you have any specific questions after reading that page, please do ask. I would be happy to help you out. Best, NW (Talk) 03:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking about image use. Some people decline to allow me to photograph them, or prefer to use one of their own photos for their articles. Although I'm always trying to improve my photography, I'm still an amateur, and use a regular digital camera (at least for now), and some of my pics may not look awesome (though some do look okay, if I do say so myself). For this reason, some notables ask if they can add their own pics. I usually tell them that if they don't want to use mine, it has to be in the public domain or free-licensed. Like I said, I heard of OTRS, with which notables can grant permission for WP to use their pics, but I'm not sure about how it works, and would like to learn in order to be more helpful to these notables. Can you tell me how that works, or should I use that link you provided above? Thanks again! Nightscream (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In those instances, you probably want to refer people to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries (aka WP:CONSENT) or Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The former is probably better if the material has already been published elsewhere. Best, NW (Talk) 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that seems a lot simpler than I thought. So by just sending an email with that filled-out template to the email address at the bottom of the page, a notable doesn't have to donate a photo into the public domain or free-license it for public use outside of Wikipedia?

Also, who uploads the photo if it's attached to the email? The OTRS volunteer who reads it? Nightscream (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, they do have to release it under a free license just like any other upload, but the complex uploading process will often be done by the OTRS volunteer who handles the ticket. NW (Talk) 02:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so if it's going to be free-licensed in any event, what benefit does OTRS have over merely uploading it themselves? Is OTRS nothing more than a way to facilitate the process for notables who don't understand or don't want to bother with the Commons upload form? Nightscream (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's one function of it. There is also confirmation of permissions granting or that someone is actually who they say they are, fixing articles (especially BLPs), handling inquiries from the public, etc. NW (Talk) 03:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so let me make sure I got this: I was once under the impression that all non-Fair Use images had to be either public domain or free-licensed. Then I learned, or was told, that this is not true, that copyright-protected images can be used with OTRS permission without them being in the pd or being fl'd. Which is correct? Nightscream (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your prior understanding was correct. Note that things like {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, which used to be an acceptable license, now redirects to {{PD-release}}. NW (Talk) 19:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

And i am the uncivil...

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Again it has happened, now in my anon "account". I went a little over the top in a summary (in the previous case i reported to you not even that), got this response, at Festus Agu (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Festus_Agu&diff=387812777&oldid=387812298), please check my edit before to see if i said something that merited that comeback...

I have sent a message to the user in question (silent but deadly, NEVER writes a summary, when he does it's this?!?!?), hoping for some "closure". Seriously, this is getting a bit too much! Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Another thing that blows the/my mind: i have never used more than the word "idiot" or similar when (unduly) insulting vandals or akin (unduly i repeat it, it's against site policy), i often receive messages/warnings/threats in my page five minutes after doing so. I am called a "c*nt" and told to "f*ck off", these users never receive a word, be it a warning or similar? What gives man? Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, no way was that appropriate on his part. I'm not sure if he was right or not (his essay should definitely be proposed for possible guideline status; if it isn't accepted, it should be marked historical), but I have echoed your notice on his talk page. Hopefully he will respond positively; if he does something like this again, please let me know. NW (Talk) 19:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• He sent me a message apologizing, i accepted it, solved. And for another nuisance, immediately! I bring this to your attention (nothing to do with the guy above): in Rubén Gracia Calmache, vandalism of the highest nature was inserted (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Rub%C3%A9n_Gracia&diff=388022134&oldid=388021822). What happened? Yesterday, this Spanish player almost broke his leg after a ghastly collision (i saw the footage, no point discussing if it was intentional or not, we'll never know and it's not important, but the injury was serious), playing against a Belgian club. Well what do you know? The "user" who did that in his page is...BELGIAN!!!

Checking the IP's contributions (please see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.190.253.146), it sure looks like one of those addresses that are used by several people - almost no vandalism overall whatsoever - so blocking is "unfair" so to speak. I leave it in your capable hands, cheerio, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

10:10

Hi. I don't know if you want to be 'pinged' as an admin over this, but I think there will be 'fun and games' starting about now at 10:10 over the No pressure film that they just brought out, and then withdrew. If you'd rather not, perhaps you would pass this on to some other admin. --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for now. Thanks for the heads up.

Also, this video (which I haven't seen) was apparently made by the writer of Blackadder? How on Earth did people not find that amusing? NW (Talk) 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. Here's an indirect link[16]. You have to move fast to find a viral copy not shut down yet! I know, po-faced right-wingers pretending to be offended, and that they have no sense of humour. We know how they chuckle when 'Nanny' gets out the whip and the baby oil. --Nigelj (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:BLP

Hi, just wondering if you have any further comment regarding this discussion? I'm hoping that the current proposal at {{BLP/sandbox}} may represent a suitable compromise to all, but discussion seems to have stalled so it would be good if you could offer your input, assuming you're still interested. Regards. PC78 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Commented. NW (Talk) 16:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection of user warning template

User:HJ Mitchell directed me to raise the matter of the protection of Template:Uw-uhblock. Right now, I believe it is the only user warning template that is fully protected rather than semiprotected. Could you change the protection to semiprotection? --Bsherr (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 15:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. --Bsherr (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter 324

Why did you disable it? It isn't supposed to be disabled for inactivity, as the target has spurts of activity that do not always occur at the same time. In fact, as soon as you did disable it, a sock of his got through. Please re-enable it, and add a note in that regard.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One vandalism edit every three weeks is not worth an edit filter. Semi-protection or pending changes would have a far better use here. NW (Talk) 16:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not always '1 every 3 weeks'. Sometimes he goes on sprees, and there isn't always someone around to fix that. Semi protection doesn't help as we were trying to allow for real users(eg, not socks) to edit the article. Also, 'worth' is rather relative, we were told an edit filter like this, being limited to a single article, was not very costly, and we did discuss it with several admins to make sure it was okay, so please restore it pending a discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to ask any other admin to take a look at this. If they think it's worth it, they have my permission to reenable it without consulting me. NW (Talk) 14:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pew Forum: undo apologion from "Hermitstudy"

You merit an explanation (apologion) for the "undo" of your edit. As an historian I notice trends in history having recent developments that exemplify not only current events but portend what may follow. The past 80 years in Europe primarily show a popular trend toward Protestant theology among Catholics, which has become evident among United States Catholics during the past few decades (since 1935). The survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life discloses the current state of a trend which is not a recent phenomenon, neither is it limited to the United States of America, and which in the context of the article on transubstantiation is consonant with the previous segment on Protestant opinion. The recent decades-old popular opinion among U.S. Catholics resonates with the European trend and appears to be on-going, not transitory, hence the inclusion of the survey results. The survey is new. What it reports is the current state of a substantial trend. Your alert response has merit, but lacked an historical perspective. —שלם (shalom, "peace"), pax vobiscum ("peace be with you") Hermitstudy (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hermitstudy, your conclusion is entirely original research. In addition, while the Pew Research poll was interesting, the transubstantiation article is meant to be one on the concept of transubstantiation and its history broadly over time, not devoting a paragraph to every new poll that comes out about what Catholics in one country believe today. NW (Talk) 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just thought you should know, the above editor has called you a vandal here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No Pressure (film)

The brew-ha-ha over this 10:10 film has spread onto this new sub-article. By some coincidence, Climatedragon (talk · contribs) is making accusations there that I think might be referring to your own good name. I just thought you'd want a look. --Nigelj (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Warned Jprw and Climatedragon about violating 3RR, as they both were certainly edit warring. I think the article doesn't require semi-protection at the moment, but I'll keep an eye on it. NW (Talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I got the warning -- please understand that ClimateDragon is repeatedly trying to include information that is very badly written, often badly sourced, and often misplaced in the article. Occasionally he'll get something right and unearth a good reference (he's done this once) but in general it is very difficult to reason with him as he is impeding the progress of the article. Jprw (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm keeping an eye on it. 3RR is a bright-line rule that you really want to follow though; no sense in getting yourself blocked. Don't hesitate to ask for a third opinion at WP:3O or on the content noticeboard; that will usually solve problems a lot better than reverting. NW (Talk) 14:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Payano

Sorry about getting testy in that edit summary. I thought I'd linked the correct ref for that info, but upon rechecking I had not. That's my fault. I have now linked it to the correct source. -Dewelar (talk) 03:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. And indeed, I probably should have done a deeper search before nominating that article for deletion. Best, NW (Talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, just leaving you courtesy message to alert you to the concerns I have regarding your delete decision that I raised on the climate change proposed decision page.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Worrying_and_not_good--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Two points: (1) I was appointed as a trainee clerk during the middle and have recused myself from acting in an official clerk capacity. In the past, I have posted to the clerks-l mailing list in the past about this case, but have recently decided that such a thing is not good practice and have decided to stop doing so for the future, except to bring up matters that might be overlooked (and then not post after that). I have not sent any emails to arbcom-l in relation to this case. (2) While you quote one part of policy, I tried to follow Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, as I always do when closing AFDs. NW (Talk) 00:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have recused yourself from the case and no longer email other ArbCom members on their email list. Do you email privately any ArbCom members about this case or do you email any of the people who are subject to the case? I read the deletion policy for admins and it does not support your deletion. There were no copy violations, no sockpuppetry, no libelous material, no original research etc etc. People who voted keep did refer to policy and guidelines when making their votes, you just basically said "I disagree and am discounting your vote, bang delete". This is a misuse of your admin tools. Engaging in devisive and partisan behaviour as an ArbCom clerk is sending a message to your fellow ArbCom members, even though you do not intend to do so is sending a message that you have extremely strong feelings on the topic area and thus that may influence how they vote. There was already one ArbCom member who stepped down from the case who would not reveal why which was a bit mysterious, I imagine people will be wondering if you had any effect. I don't want an answer but just giving examples of how your actions are going to lead to suspicion and lack of trust in the case. Furthermore, and probably most importantly, it makes a mockery of the whole case, there are several people being sanctioned for relatively moderate misconduct and it could be argued that you are behaving worse! People can cite your conduct and request that their sanctions are reduced or overturned. Can you not see my point? I am not trying to get one over on you and as you can see I said I do not want you sanctioned but I would like you to stop and think about what you are doing and cease. I am not just basing my concerns on this incident, I have seen other wikipedians who are involved in the case raising other concerns about your actions in the climate change arena.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:DRV is the appropriate place to continue this discussion - there's a valid question of admin discretion that can be discussed productively. This conversation is taking an unfortunate turn towards being personal. That's not a promising sign. Guettarda (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Guettarda, I am trying to not be personal; if it were personal I would be collecting diffs and reporting to AN/I or similar, I have no desire to cause NW harm, I just would like to resolve a few issues. I am not particularly interested in whether the article stays deleted or is restored, although if someone wants to start a WP:DRV discussion that is fine. I was not aware of it at the time I made the above post but it has since been brought up here that other users have felt he has misused (I assume in good faith and note I chose the word misuse not abuse) his admin tools in the same topic area, so WP:DRV is not the appropriate venue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are just that, discussions. Not votes. Which is why the name of the process was changed from "votes for deletion" (VFD). If it was simply a matter of counting votes Cydebot could do all the closes and we wouldn't need DRV. Exercising discretion in an AFD close isn't misuse of tools - it's appropriate use of tools, it's well within the community norms. It's entirely appropriate to disagree with an AFD close. It's entirely appropriate to seek the opinions of others through the appropriate venue (WP:DRV). It's inappropriate to frame this as somehow inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

NW: I came by to ask you to reconsider your close of this particular AFD. I wasn't aware til I dropped by here that this AFD had fallen afoul of an ongoing Arbcom case, but I do think that your close was against consensus and the common understanding of WP:PROF#7, which makes an explicit case for academics who get frequently quoted as experts of some kind in the popular press due to their academic credentials, which fits this particular subject to a T, and I found Guettarda's arguments unconvincing in this regard, as did, evidently, the overwhelming majority of commenters. I'm not sure I care enough to initiate a DRV, but this particular close raised an eyebrow, as it were. Cheers, Ray^Talk 02:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, NW. I'm not complaining about your deletion of the Tim Ball article, but I thought you were the right person to ask to explain the process to me. A link would suffice, or I can always ask Dave souza. The deletion was surprising to me since so many editors voiced our wish to keep it, with good, logical reasons, and there was no logical reason I could see to delete it. But I don't want to argue that point. WP deletes articles every day and can't be the repository of every single fact in the universe. The small gap left in the encyclopedia, though regrettable imho, is insignificant. I'm curious about the process, never having been involved in an AfD that ended this way. Is there a committee that reviews the input and votes? Does just one administrator make her own decision? Can a simple editor such as myself be privy to the name/s of the people or person who decide/s? Are cases randomly assigned? Or do admins choose the cases they wish to decide? Thanks for your work and best wishes. --Yopienso (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See the link NW provided in his reply, above. Guettarda (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not email any arbitrators for case related reasons. You seem to be glorifying the role of the Arbitration clerks a bit much; let me assure you that we have no impact on the decision whatsoever, or at least no more so than we would as regular editors. NW (Talk) 01:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

My complaint about NuclearWarfare

If you're confused by NuclearWarfare's viewpoints this letter will help you sort things out. It will give you a new mental map upon which to fix your own position so that you can better comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms. For starters, NuclearWarfare is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. NuclearWarfare will take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit long before he can convert me into one of his flunkies. Although his overt incendiarism has declined, a covert form still survives and may be an important factor in fueling a tendency and/or desire to carry out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against his rivals.

NuclearWarfare recently went through a totalitarianism phase in which he tried repeatedly to distort and trivialize the debate surrounding moral relativism. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we derail NuclearWarfare's laughable little schemes, or is it sufficient to find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts? I have searched numerous sources for answers to that question. No two sources seem to agree on any given point except for one, that NuclearWarfare's oppressive slurs hurt others physically or emotionally. NuclearWarfare then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

When I first heard about NuclearWarfare's bait-and-switch tactics, I dismissed them as merely illiberal. But when I later learned that he wants me to have an identity crisis, I realized that NuclearWarfare's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. People tell me that NuclearWarfare is a hypocrite who preaches morality and virtue while simultaneously stretching credulity beyond the breaking point. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. That's it for this letter. I hope that typing it was not a complete waste of energy. Unfortunately, I do realize that my words will probably trigger no useful response in the flabby synapses of NuclearWarfare's brain. I just felt obligated to go through the motions because I find much to disagree with in his stances.

This complaint was generated automatically by Scott Pakin's Complaint Generator (http://www.pakin.org/complaint/). Any resemblance to actual Wikipedia dialog patterns is coincidental, but somewhat ironic. MastCell ^Talk 15:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration question

A central component in arbitration is interaction with Arbs and other parties - I and others may have questions for the Arbs, or the Arbs may have questions for us. The case bar at the top of the case's pages lists four talk pages:

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Which page is used for asking Arbs questions or requests for clarification? Is the main case page talk page also the main talk page for the case? Would it make sense to merge/redirect all minor talk pages to the main talk page? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In practice (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change for example), the discussion moves along from evidence to workshop to proposed decision as the case progresses, and each talk page is used during each phase of the arbitration. The main talk page should probably be used after the case concludes. I am not entirely positive on which one would be the best approach, but I think that at this point, a post on evidence talk, with an email to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if no one responds within a day or so, would be the best move. I'll double check with the other case clerk though, and ask him to post here. NW (Talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. "Fragmented conversations hurt my brain" too, and I'm wondering if it would work to have a centralized discussion page for Arb cases. I suppose the main page could work for this purpose... -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

NW pretty much sums up the use of talkpages, i.e. there is a talkpage for each stage of arbitration. The main case page and talkpage don't get used once the case has opened, and once it has closed, if things are unclear, you should start a Request for clarification or a Request for amendment, as appropriate. Probably best if you give us an example of what question you want to ask, and we can point you to the most appropriate location: we're after all here to help. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well recall that "fragmented conversations hurt my brain," just as they do NW's, and this applies to Arbcom and its cases just as much as anywhere. Having a centralized place for discussion just makes sense. Where discussions take place should not be dependent on what kind of questions I have. I suppose I could offer some samples of questions to you, whereby you could direct me to a proper place to post them, but why can't I just post them to a place where I know they will be read by Arbs? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 21:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the suggestion about giving an example was so that we could respond less theoretically to your initial question. If you want to post directly, the evidence talkpage is likely the most watched right now, and the logical place given the current phase of arbitration. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUSE

I see that you were a member of the House Wikiproject. Would you want to help bring the project back? thanks--Talktome^(Intelati) 17:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. NW (Talk) 03:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of topic ban

If you're going to take action about the issue involving me at AN/I, I'd appreciate it if you could look at the complexities of this issue that have been described in the arbitration amendment thread. Even if I am part of the problem, I think it's very clear that the overarching issue plaguing these articles involves more than just me. Because of the specifics of this situation, sanctioning me without addressing the rest of the issue might make the whole issue worse.

If you don't want to bother reading the entire amendment thread, I'll try to summarize what I consider the most important points from it:

• Occam was topic banned from these articles for edit warring, tag-teaming, and false claims of consensus. I have not engaged in any of these behaviors - and as far as I know, no one thinks I have. For most of the time I've been participating there, most of the other participating editors thought my contributions were useful. Since Occam was topic banned to prevent him from continuing to cause disruption, it's not clear that it would accomplish anything to extend the ban to someone who has been contributing constructively without causing disruption. This point was made by Tim Song, Vecrumba and Maunus.

• Although Occam and I share an IP address, WP:SHARE does not really indicate whether it applies only to observing policies, like 3RR, or to editing restrictions as well. This point was made by David.Kane, and was not addressed by the arbitrators. I also do not fit the definition of meatpuppet, since the majority of my edits are in a completely different topic area from Occam's involvement. [17]

• The editing environment on these articles has rapidly deteriorated since the end of the arbcom case. The most consistent problems are tag-teaming, obvious POV-pushing, and refusal to discuss content on the talk pages when reverting. Occam's statement has documented several examples of this. [18] Although admins have in some cases agreed these things are problems, nothing has been done about it even though discretionary sanctions are authorized. The overall effect this behavior has had is to drive off almost all of the editors who don't agree with the viewpoints of the users engaging in it. There are least six editors who used to be involved there, but have quit out of frustration because they couldn't tolerate the environment created by the dominant group. As this has happened, the editing environment has steadily grown more unbalanced and hostile.

This last issue is the most important one, and it's basically why I got involved here to begin with when I did. At that point I was one of the only editors left who seemed to care about doing anything about this problem. For the past week, Maunus has been the only other active editor left who cared about this, and he also quit the articles out of frustration less than a day ago. With both of us gone, I'm worried that we've reached the point where anyone who disagrees with the dominant group of editors will be driven away very quickly.

Since my main reason for getting involved here was to try and stop this problem from continuing to worsen, I would accept a topic ban if something can be done about the rest of the issue. But I feel very strongly that topic banning me without addressing any of the underlying problems would, in the long run, cause more harm than good both on the editing environment of the articles and the articles themselves. Alternatively, instead of simply topic banning me you could leave it up to arbcom to decide what to do, since presumably they would be examining the whole situation. I think that's the best option - several editors have commented in the AN/I thread that it sets a very bad precedent for an AN/I thread to override an issue currently under consideration from arbcom. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, a number of arbitrators had already informally decided on the amendment page that you should not be editing those articles, and therefore my action was just a formalization of that. You are still free to request sanction of those other editors at arbitration enforcement; at least then one decision or another will be made. I do not thing the best course of action is to lift the topic ban at this time, and would advise you to either make your case at WP:AN or WP:A/R/A. NW (Talk) 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanx,

Forgot to put the "user:" Appreciate your assistance.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) NW (Talk) 16:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WritersCramp

Hi, that editor you blocked requests unblock. There's something I don't understand about that block; could you please take a look at WP:ANI#WritersCramp ban evasion?  Sandstein  16:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Commented at ANI. Best, NW (Talk) 16:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Ball

Why did you delete http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Timothy_Ball ? There was 10 votes to keep, and only 4 to delete. Please explain. Also, where would I file a complaint about you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.175.160 (talk)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ball for NW's closing rationale. Wikipedia isn't like most companies, so "filing a complaint" is unlikely to get you far. If you still want to pursue it though, you can try WP:ANI. WP:DRV would be more productive. Shubinator (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What Shubinator said. NW (Talk) 15:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I will pursue it, and for a long time because in my firm opinion what you did was clearly biased and a horrific act. In your closing argument you can't even provide a valid reference as to what is considered a "notable" scientist. Timothy Ball was a professor at University of Winnipeg, has a Ph.D. degree in geography from the University of London, has numerous honors awards, has written numerous scientific papers. Besides, I didn't know one had to be a "notable" scientists to be on WikiPedia. I've seen countless highly questionably scientists on WikiPedia, but so what? It's called information. You can also add a "Criticism" suction to the page. If this is WikiPedia's new stance, then maybe wikipedia should be replaced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.175.160 (talk • contribs)

Truely, it was a horrific act. And I don't think you can claim that using the word in this way in any sense trivialises the word "horrific". Perhaps it could even be said that you made a "holocaust" of the Tim Ball page - only such apparently over-the-top statements can fully express the outrage that some feel William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Other notable climatologists include but are certainly not limited to Michael E. Mann, Roger A. Pielke, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, others can be found in Category:Climatologists (though likely not all of those are notable). Although all of these scientists have PhDs and are university professors, that alone would not make them notable. What does make the notable is that they stand out in some way from the rest of their peers, either through the general or specific notability guideline, which are meant to be used to indicate that someone is likely notable. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to cover everything or even provide information on something or someone that may have been mentioned in the note. Also, perhaps rethink your wording. There are very many "horrific" things that occur in the world today; hardly anything on Wikipedia is an example of one. NW (Talk) 03:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You make no point. 1) Notable scientist is an opinion. So take a vote. 2) 2.5 times more people in the discussion voted to KEEP, not delete. So you went against the vote. 3) He does not have to be notable to be listed at wikipedia. 4) There is no limit to how listing wikipedia can hold, like you suggest. So I'm still in almost disbelief that you deleted it. That had a lot of great information. You just deleted it. It tells me you're probably biased and dislike to guy. If true, then what kind of misfit does that make you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.175.160 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, you don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. People do have to meet our notability standards to be included, that's why I can't create an article on myself. Also, Articles for Deletion is not a vote. The strength of the arguments made counts far more than how many people make them. If 30 people said "Keep, I like it" and one person pointed to how it fails our criteria for inclusion, it will be deleted. If you wish to contest the deletion, head to WP:DRV. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to interpret your sentences. If you're suggesting every scientist listed at WikiPedia must be a notable scientist, then you're incorrect. Furthermore, Timothy Ball did not create that WikiPedia page. BTW, IMO Timothy Ball is a notable scientist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.175.160 (talk • contribs)

Cross en.wiki and Commons matter

Hi. Since you're an admin both here and on Commons, you're in a position to review a situation which has developed. If you've got a bit of time (since it's a bit convoluted) I'd appreciate your input. This is the Theodore Roosevelt coat of arms dispute that you may have seen in passing on AN/I.

• [19] Original discussion on Talk:Theodore Roosevelt in which questions were raised about part of Xanderliptak's coat of arms, specifically whether the three small shields at the bottom were original research or not; the consensus of the discussion was that they were, and therefore the original image couldn't be used on en.wiki
  • [20] Xanderliptak's original image, from Commons, uploaded under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
  • [21] Edits in which Xanderliptak attempts to retroactively change the upload license
  • [22] Xanderliptak's contribs on Commons. It appears to me (I've sampled a few of them) that all of the many edits he made today are his retroactively changing the upload license conditions of all of his images to require his approval of any alterations. AnonMoos reverted some to remove these changes, and Xanderliptak reverted back.

• [23] Discussion of original Roosevelt coat of arms on admin DrKiernan's talk page
  • [24] Comment from admin DrKiernan on Xanderliptak's talk page

• [25] AN/I complaint by Xanderliptak, closed as a content dispute for return to the article talk page
  • [26] Behavioral complaint on AN/I brought by Roux about Xanderliptak, which resulted in both being blocked for 24 hours

• [27] A bookplate used by Roosevelt in his life, which I uploaded to Commons as a possible replacement, under PD-old
  • [28] Edit history, showing Xanderliptak's attempts to delete this image using speedy deletion, inappropriate in this instance
  • [29] Commons deletion discussion: this was opened by me in response to Xanderliptak's attempt at speedy deletion; Xanderliptak argues that a bookplate made for TR in his lifetime (1858-1919) can't be determined to be PD as pre-1923

• [30] My alteration of Xanderliptak's original image, removing the OR embellishment but otherwise not disturbing the image, which I uploaded to Commons, and which was put into the Theodore Roosevelt article by DrKiernan
  • [31] Edit history, showing Xanderliptak's inappropriate attempts to delete this image via various means, including uploading his image over it

• Commons user talk page discussion:
  • [32] Me to Xanderliptak
  • [33] His response and continued discussion
  • [34] AnonMoos response to Xanderliptak's attempt to upload over my altered version

From my point of view, it certainly feels like Xanderliptak's attempted deletion of the bookplate and, especially, my altered image, is retaliatory and bordering on harrassment, although I'm also prepared to believe it's just bad case of ownership, but in either case it seems disruptive to me. Xanderliptak doesn't seem to fathom that by uploading his image he lost some measure of control over it, just as in the original discussion he never quite got why his embellishments to the coat of arms, which weren't prescribed in the written description in the reference he provided, could possibly be original research under Wikipedia policies.

I'd appreciate it if you could look into this. I'm prepared to be told I've done something wrong in all of this -- although at this moment I'm not sure what that would be -- I'd just like this back and forth to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In reading this over, I see I'm not quite clear about what I'd like you to look into as an admin on both projects -- it's not the content dispute, but Xanderliptak's behavior on Commons. The rest of it is just background necessary to understand how it arose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

...and to undo his retroactive license changes, which I've just found out about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not notified Xanderliptak about this posting, since I'm not sure you'll be taking this on. If you let me know that you're going to look into it, I'll notify him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've sorted this out, for now at least. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, John, thanks, I hope you're right. And NW: thanks for considering it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for handling it John. NW (Talk) 18:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you were keeping up, Xanderliptak opened this discussion on Xeno's talk page. I think there's a problem with this editor, which is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later, but I'm endeavoring to disengage before I get myself into trouble. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That IP

... suppressed - Alison ^❤ 02:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I wonder...why didn't you just respond to the ticket I added to OTRS? NW (Talk) 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

O_o - because I'd not checked my mail in a while :) - Alison ^❤ 02:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Featured List Criteria section 3b

Hello. You are receiving this message as you previously posted in the ongoing RfC on whether Featured List Criteria section 3b should be modified or eliminated. Based on feedback and commentary received during the section-by-section analysis of the current criteria, I have proposed a new version of the criteria here. I would like your input on ways to improve and refine this proposal, in hopes of reaching consensus to implement this change to the criteria. Thank you for your attention. –Grondemar 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

You can see what User:Pararubbas thinks of your suggestion brought fourth in the talkpage of the "unfortunately wiki-deceased" User:Satori Son (see here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Satori_Son#Deleted_pages), he continues - will he reach 100?!? New account called User:Polkjhyuiop, "contributions" here (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Polkjhyuiop i have already reverted everything); it's very fresh, and the last account we blocked is from last month already, would not be surprised if he has more "sleepers"...Is a checkuser possible?

He continues, although i seriously doubt he understood anything from the memo you sent him, he edits from England but his grasp of the language is very very poor indeed. What really surprises me is: why did he write Satori and has not tried to make contact to me, who have (duly!) destroyed most of his "work". I have longsince stopped being abusive towards him (in the past two years, neither abusive nor anything, i have kept a total low profile), but if he shows he can communicate, as seen with Satori, why the silence towards me and the whole of the community? Strange, indeed...

As always, thank you very much in advance, happy week, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked. NW (Talk) 03:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC on WP:NOTNEWS vs WP:EVENT

Following your advice I have started a RfC on WP:NOTNEWS vs WP:EVENT at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#WP:NOTNEWS vs WP:EVENT. I waited until the end of the process on all of the AfD's and DRV's before starting to avoid even the appearance of canvassing.

Re Admin tools : hope it's not to long. Codf1977 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. And I'm not really sure how long it will be. Perhaps it will be long, perhaps not. NW (Talk) 02:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Outline of Saskatchewan has gone live

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 02:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail

Per your note. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Nuke is it part of this articles restrictions that if someone adds text which is reverted out and is being discussed then it ought not be added back? I looked at the dirwugen page but can`t actually see what the restrictions are on the page apart from the 1r thing mark (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have to ask, it's a safe bet that no matter if formally allowed or not, it's probably not a good idea unless reasonable consensus exists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

IPOF, the statement is that "Some anti-communists" think something. No cite for a claim. No cite that it is only "anti-communists" with that opinion, etc. IMHO, placing such a contentious claim in the lede without having clear basis for it in the body of the article is pretty much asking for problems. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't explicitly forbidden (the only restriction on the article at this time is 1RR) but is not a good idea regardless. I'm assuming this refers to the request that is currently on WP:AE? I have resigned my admin tools, so I won't be commenting over there, but I broadly agree with you and Sphilbrick. NW (Talk) 17:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why have you resigned as an admin? You were pretty good at it mate mark (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, lots of reasons. A form of burnout is the main one though.

Thanks for your vote of confidence though. It really does mean a lot. NW (Talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Advise Needed

Hi NW,

I recently got this message on my talk page, and quite frankly, I don't know what to do with it. Should I take any action? Is there a notice board for this? Your opinion on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Many Thanks, Outback the koala (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I read this page and try to have them contact OTRS, as they would probably be in the best position to respond. NW (Talk) 21:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your input is requested

I have started an RfC on inappropriate userboxes, i.e. those that don't follow the introductory paragraph at WP:UBX:

"A userbox (commonly abbreviated as UBX) is a small colored box ... designed to appear only on a Wikipedian's user page as a communicative notice about the user, in order to directly (or even indirectly) help Wikipedians collaborate more effectively on articles."

How does a userbox about a user's own preferences in regards to what topics on Wikipedia they hate and what type of sexually explicit material they like and actively view help Wikipedians collaborate with one another? Which is the question I am raising.

This introductory paragraph over at WP:UBX contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED so I'd like you to weigh in at WT:UBX, it'll only take 5 minutes of your time. I've sent this message because the topic has not had much community input

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 20:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC).

Rlevse moved to active

Just to let you know, I've moved Rlevse to active on the Stevertigo case per the note on my talkpage. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect of Pediatric cardiovascular surgery

Hi. I have reverted your redirect of this article. Please see the recent AfD discussion. The decision was keep, not redirect. If you want to contest the decision, please use the standard process, rather than simply redirecting. Thanks for your consideration. — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have closed many an AFD in my day (example), so I know how AFD works. It is pointless to have a standalone article with absolutely no content besides a dictionary definition. See also this comment by another sysop (and physician) Jmh649. NW (Talk) 15:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm sure you know more about WP than I do. Second, as an administrator (or resigned administrator, or whatever), I'm sure you feel more entitled to run things than I do. However, you didn't participate in the AfD, nor did Jmh649. If you disagree with the AfD's result, you can start the AfD again or request a deletion review. Instead you redirected the article. However, you have not followed the WP policy on redirection instead of deletion. After you redirected the article, I restored it. You have not attempted to reach consensus with me. I request you do so here after you restore the article. (I have no desire to start an edit war.) — Respectfully, HowardBGolden (talk) 16:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My tone (and indeed actions) were a bit haughty and self-important. My apologies. I shouldn't have been that way.

I'll revert myself and open a discussion on the talk page. Best, NW (Talk) 21:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

On rethinking, I don't really care about the matter enough to pursue the discussion further. I'll leave the matter be, with the article intact and not redirected. NW (Talk) 22:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. This weekend I'll try to add some more content to the article from the references I added on 9 October 2010. I'm not a medical person, but I can summarize the description of what sort of cardiac surgery children have and any distinction between adult cardiac surgery and pediatric surgery. — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. I would much rather have a fuller stub than a redirect, so such a thing would be awesome. NW (Talk) 03:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the AFD I'm going to chime in on this one. Redirecting and merging are editorial decisions and a "keep" close at AFD does not mean that the article must remain an "article". NukeWar made an ordinary editorial decision as an ordinary editor. He was not exercising any kind of administrative authority. (which he currently doesn't have anyway) If you disagree with it you are welcome to revert and/or discuss it just like any other edit made by any other editor.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the original redirect after the AfD was closed. NW was simply being bold. I was mistaken to criticize it. I should have merely reverted it. In any case, I do think the article can stand alone, and I hope to add more content this weekend that will make it more than the dictionary definition. (I hope others who understand the field will take it from there.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at EdoDodo's talk page.
Message added 08:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

PG

Can you have a look at User_talk:Hersfold#Polargeo_2 please? I'm puzzled as to why PG is indef blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an odd situation. The weird thing is that PG had so many sockpuppets for so long. I'm hoping that if he agrees to just stick to one, this whole thing can go away and he can either edit or take a break in peace. NW (Talk) 01:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is odd. Remember that he became an admin at a fairly early age and isn't that experienced, and has no particular revulsion for socks. I suspect that the socks were just for fun / playful, though I'm just guessing. As I said there, I can't see evidence of abuse, and certinaly nothing justifying an indef block. My suspicion is that people are so pissed off with Cl Ch that they have lost all sense of proportion (which seems rather ironic considering how arbcomm went out of its way to defned scibaby). However, it looks like arbcomm are now investigating though the usual veil of secrecy (we aren't even allowed to know who the arb that initiated this complain was) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Too late: the witch has already been burnt: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Polargeo.27s_administrative_permissions

SPI question

Hi. :) I think that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/STATEHOUSE1839 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OSUHEY/Archive are the same user. Two socking Ohioans who violate copyright in creating articles about state representatives seems unlikely. Can I merge the two investigations into one, or is it better not to? Can I upgrade the tags to name Osuhey as the sockmaster, or should I not? The quacking is pretty powerful here, but I don't want to do something outside of protocol, and I thought perhaps you could advise, being my go-to SPI guy and all. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI has some pretty weird methods as far as redirection goes. I made the proper changes to the case pages; feel free to update the tags if you are sure about the connection between the two. NW (Talk) 20:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I appreciate that. I am very sure it's the same individual. I know checkuser data would be too stale to prove it, but the odds of two people doing this with the same kind of esoteric subject are pretty slim. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Malia Obama

Please immediate revert your redirect. You say there is consensus. Yeah, consensus to keep. See Malia talk page. Furthermore, no objection in over 1 year. Thank you.

I think you will refuse. Therefore, this is notification of arbitration, which will come. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page consensus cannot overrule broader community consensus, as expressed by several deletion discussions, and if I remember correctly deletion reviews. Moreover, the page is currently protected against editing by anyone who is not an administrator, and I no longer have access to admin tools. NW (Talk) 21:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The last discussion for deletion, according to the talk page, was 2 years ago. Therefore, you are in error.

I hereby ask you to submit to mediation and to get your revert reversed. I can accept your explanation that you mistakenly thought it was a consensus but that the deletion discussion is over 2 years old. However, what you either cannot do or will not revert your revert so arbitraion may be needed. Sorry, if you turn off the power to the city and people die, you are responsible even if you did not purposely kill people. You reverted and now you can't undo it. Presidentmalia (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really interested. Take it to Arbitration (or possibly deletion review would be a better choice?) if you wish; I am sure one of the other arbitration clerks besides myself would be happy to assist you. NW (Talk) 21:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

could you please re-protect Unai Emery's page? I have constantly improved it, rephrased language links and grammar, removed caps where those were not needed, corrected stats in infobox. I was reverted on the grounds that "the last user's version is better than yours Vasco Amaral", which is totally false.

Please protect it (if you see my explanation fit) before this escalates any further. Last time it happened, i was severely insulted ("C*NT") afterwards, but i am prepared to take the heat. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NW is no longer an admin and can no longer do such a thing. If you want the page protected, please go through the normal processes at WP:RPP. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 18:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I can't give you a hand, but as NN says, I have resigned my admin tools for the time being. NW (Talk) 02:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your (temporary) resignation comes as a surprise, NW. I came here to say that the draft questions page for the general questions for ACE2010 are up for discussion at an election sub-page, not the draft user-space page. Could you transfer your comment there? Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/Questions Tony (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now it's been moved back to where you posted. Tony (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it is all sorted. :) Feel free to move to my posts in whatever way you think makes the most sense. Best, NW (Talk) 16:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

TFA/R

We haven't gotten a response from Elcobbola on the image question and time is starting to run short. Ideas on an alternate editor to pass on the question?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Try Jappalang if it's image-related. – iridescent 15:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, dropped Jappalang a line on his talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Jappalang is excellent, as is Awadewit if Jappalang is unavailable. Awadewit's on a wikibreak at the moment I believe, but I think she would by happy to answer these types of questions if you email her. NW (Talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Hi NW,

As you might remember, you gave me an official topic ban for R&I articles following an AN/I thread. One of my concerns with the issue was that other editor behavior on the articles was not being addressed. When I brought this up with you, you told me if I felt other editors’ behavior on the articles was a problem I was still free to bring it up at Arbitration Enforcement, even though I am topic-banned from participating in the articles directly. [35] One of the arbitrators also told me in my user talk here [36] that I had permission to post at AE about editor behavior that I considered inappropriate, as long as I didn’t keep doing this excessively.

I’ve now posted about this there, and the thread is here [37]. This is the first time I’ve ever made an arbitration enforcement request, and it’s about the exact same editor behavior that I was requesting admin attention for when I was told I could post there by you and Shell, so I’m definitely not doing anything other than what I was given permission to do. However, none of the admins who are commenting in the enforcement thread seem to be aware that my topic ban specifically allows this, and they’re completely ignoring my explanation about it. I'm worried that this AE thread is going to be closed before anyone addresses my concerns about editor behavior, possibly with additional sanctions for me under the assumption that this thread violates my topic ban. Do you have any advice about this? It seems to just be a misunderstanding that the admins commenting in this thread aren’t aware that I was given permission to post it, but I don’t know what to do to get them to understand this. I’ve already tried explaining it to them in their user talk, without success.

Thanks in advance. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at the AE thread. Thank you for contacting me about this. NW (Talk) 19:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick action. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation about this is still being ignored. Like the first two admins who commented, RegentsPark is of the opinion that regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of my report, it was a violation of my topic ban for me to post it because my topic ban was intended to prevent me from having any sort of influence over the content of these articles. Since your topic ban specifically allowed me to post this here, and you gave me that permission in the context of us discussing the same editor behavior that my report is about, I don’t think it could be right that this is what you intended.

I'm concerned that RegentsPark might have a conflict of interest here, because he’s expressed strong opinions about content on these articles both during the arbcom case [38] and on the talk page for the articles themselves. [39] [40] [41] Quoting what he said about this during the arbitration: "Unless some action is taken to deal with these purpose driven accounts, once the narrowness of their interests is apparent, I fear that we will continue to present a view to the world which indicates that black people are genetically less intelligent than most other people and that it is a generally accepted view that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States was an act of state terrorism. Whether these are true or not, neither view is accepted by their respective academic communities as anything other than minor or fringe, but that is not what wikipedia presents to the world." Since I disagree with his view that the hereditarian hypothesis about race and intelligence is a "fringe" view, I presumably fall into the category of editors who he thinks need to be "dealt with" for the sake of what he considers the integrity of the articles' content. After arguing this view, it doesn't seem like he should be uninvolved enough to make a decision about what type of involvement in this dispute is and isn't acceptable from me.

Also, is it acceptable for Mathsci to be commenting in this thread? He's topic banned from these articles because of the incivility and battleground tactics that he was engaging in on them, and his behavior in the AE thread looks very similar to what his topic ban was intended to prevent.

I really don’t know what to do here. Nearly everyone who's commenting in the AE thread seems to either be unaware of the details of this situation, or to have a strong vested interest in its outcome that has nothing to do with what's consistent with the arbitration remedies. And as long as this is the case, the odds of the AE thread reaching a conclusion that’s reasonable seem pretty low. Is there anything that can be done to prevent this from happening? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

One reason why I dropped my admin tools was so that I would be able to avoid drama-pits like this one. I'm not going to make any statement on RegentsPark, but I do agree with you on Mathsci. I have always found AGK to be a scrupulously fair administrator, perhaps you could try making your case to him and seeing if he will comment on the AE thread? NW (Talk) 14:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll contact him in his user talk. I’m concerned about the fact that his userpage says this month he’s too busy to respond to messages promptly, though, and that he’s been idle for the past two days. If this problem can’t be dealt with quickly, the AE thread will most likely be closed soon with additional sanctions for me under the assumption that I violated my topic ban by posting it. Do you have any suggestion about someone I could contact about this who would be able to deal with it quickly? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps IronGargoyle or TFOWR? NW (Talk) 16:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

clarification please...

Could you please look at this comment, and clarify:

1. Whether the comment in your edit summary applied to the restoration of info about Rotunda's sexual harrassment suit?
2. If so whether your comment was a warning you would block anyone who restored that material?
3. If so whether you thought you could offer an explanation for this warning.

I suggest Talk:Kyndra Miller Rotunda is the most appropriate place for a response. Geo Swan (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)