User talk:NuclearWarfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

John Richards (radio personality)[edit]

I was answering a semi-protected edit request for a user for John Richards (radio personality), and I noticed it's been indef'd by you since 2010. However there isn't any reason given for it. Do you remember what the reason for it was? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: I gave up my WP:OTRS access some time ago. Any admin with OTRS access is free to review the ticket and override my action if they so wish. You may wish to ask at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, if this has not been dealt with already. Best, NW (Talk) 01:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:MediaWiki default[edit]

Could you unprotect the user talk page? If not, could you explain the "bot spam" issue, and how it could be fixed? Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chess: Bots tend to drop talk page messages on that page because it's often an exception that isn't caught in coding a bot. Since no one controls that account, there is no reason for bots to need to be doing that. Protecting it should have solved that issue. Best, NW (Talk) 01:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Michele Adamson[edit]

Please tell why you would delete the page for Michele Adamson, and more importantly, how to get information on the history and status of her beautiful voice. I can only imagine two reasons, in either case, be it congratulatory or wtf-ish, I am still disappointed. I would like to hear more (read 'ALL') of her glorious singing, and be able to do so without the laborious and unnecessary research since there was at one time a page devoted to her self. Some direction, please? 2601:7:4100:D47:226:BBFF:FE03:5066 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Patriko2601:7:4100:D47:226:BBFF:FE03:5066 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted after a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Adamson; the community did not feel the article met the inclusion criteria for creative professionals. NW (Talk) 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


I saw your comment about forgetting about the election, - you obviously don't need new arbitrators ;) - I asked the candidates, saying that my favourite comment had 4 words. Here's a nutshell, I like the replies, - one candidate even mentioned common sense! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, now I have to make sure I voted against that last candidate. NW (Talk) 23:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You mean last-mentioned? First in alphabet, making common sense the first word shown, behold ;) - "Go and sin no more" was another option, a recommended response in many arb cases but not here where most agreed that there was no sin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Responding to your note[edit]

NW, thanks for your notice and note here. You did ask to drop you a note if you feel this behavior is continuing--actually what you're seeing today is the continuation of similar, worsening behavior by that editor that's been going on for maybe two years now. He ignores WP:TPG, taking pointed potshots at editors despite being referred to that guidelines, oh, I don't know, I'd estimate over 100 times by now.

He is a textbook tendentious WP:SPA (last 500 edits) who comes to the article with clearly-stated, extremely negative personal views regarding the article subject, here he uses the article Talk page to express his views that it's "an act of rape" (along with a reference to the "cabal" he believes exists), can provide more.

He does seem to recognize his article content views aren't being accepted, but instead of listening to WP:PAG-based reasons why, he blames this on a "cabal" or (more colorfully) a "coterie" blocking his efforts. In this edit he actually names, in addition to myself, a list of well-established editors (Yobol, Doc James, Alexbrn, Flyer22), plus "the rest of the Desert Patrol"(?). The idea that consensus may be against the ideas doesn't occur to him.

The likelihood of his being a productive editor is, in my view, essentially nil. If you have any advice, it'd be appreciated. Zad68 03:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Wish I had more advice to offer. Circumcision wouldn't fall under any of the ArbCom sanctions, and to the best of my knowledge, it wouldn't fall under any community sanctions either. Is that correct? I'm perfectly comfortable doing an independent review of their edits and taking administrative action as I see fit, but I just want to know what my options are ahead of time. NW (Talk) 04:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Your understandings are correct. Appreciated, whatever you might do. If you need help digging up particular edits to support suspected behaviors I can do that. Thanks... Zad68 04:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
@Zad68: After having reviewed the talk page pretty extensively, I think a topic ban discussion on ANI is warranted, but honestly, an indefinite block with a conditional unblock if he or she were willing to agree to restrictions would accomplish the same goal quite a bit easier. I know you're not uninvolved and thus can't make that decision yourself, but what does that analysis strike you as? Just right, too harsh, too power-grabby?

PS, did you see this story on the CDC's recommendation regarding circumcision today? NW (Talk) 16:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, this has been going on for such a long time so I'm sure there was a lot to read. I agree a topic ban is justified and your planned path forward is a great solution. I have had the thought of putting together an ANI case for some time now but for a situation like this it's just so time-consuming to do and shepherd through (especially with how polarizing this topic can be for some), and I've always had other things I've wanted to do with my Wiki-time (limited these days) so it's just never been enough of a priority for me... although honestly I've probably wasted more time now dealing with that Talk page than I would have dealing with it in another venue.

Regarding the CDC's considerations, no I hadn't seen that, thanks for the pointer. If it actually goes anywhere and ends up being an actual decision it might be worthwhile to mention in the article. Thanks... Zad68 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I vanished for a couple days. Should be taken care of now. NW (Talk) 17:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for handling. I'm hoping you'll continue to monitor, but also I'll be sure to notify you if problems continue in that direction. Zad68 03:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm basically the least reliable person ever these days (I just logged onto my Wiki email for the first time in a week and saw literally ten emails on one topic that I haven't addressed, and I'm not sure if I will be able to). But it looks like this situation is resolved now. NW (Talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Responding to his note and your note and ghost notes and notes that allude but do not name - Hi ! Will we make sweet music with all these notes ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


NW, thanks so much for that cleanup of citations at PANDAS, but ack ! It was not until I saw your edits that I realized that I had missed an IP edit that had made some good changes, but had also removed inline attribution of direct quotes, removed acronyms, and worse ... had converted textual mention of primary sources by secondary reviews to primary source citations! Those were not intended to be citations-- they were mention of the specific studies mentioned in secondary reviews. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

@SandyGeorgia: Ack, sorry for causing trouble then! Let me know if and when it would be fine for me to stop by the article again to fix up anything. NW (Talk) 16:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It was no trouble-- it led me to see what had happened! I'm sorry you had to do all that work for nothing. The (well-intended) IP saw inline mention of primary sources, as they were discussed in secondary reviews), and converted them to citations. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

PS, search the forums at latitudes dot org ... they hate me. That is a pseudoscience-promoting parent advocacy support group that is also a commercial site (the owner/author has books for sale, and her work is fringey ... she puts in enough science that her followers believe her). Most of the traffic at PANDAS comes from there, as you can see from their posts about the evil one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


Adjusted further per here [1] Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment there. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sexually transmitted disease#Requested move (2014)[edit]

You participated in previous related discussion. There is an ongoing move discussion, and I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)