|This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to NuclearWarfare.|
You topic banned this user, hes back at it
YOu topic banned user Jimmuldrow from Sarah Palin related articles due to his behavior vis-a-vie obamacare diff. He's back, more or less following the same script diff. Bonewah (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- The script doesn't work anymore. I have no idea how to fix it. NW (Talk) 13:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Mentioned you in an ANI thread
Hi NW, wanted to let you know I've mentioned you in this ANI thread regarding Tumadoireacht, whom you blocked about 3 months ago for disruptive editing. This ANI thread is about a topic ban (I didn't start the thread). Consider checking in there with your perspective. Thanks...
Zad68 03:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now that a topic ban is being discussed by others, it probably wouldn't be proper to short-circuit procedure and indef block, but at this point something more is warranted. NW (Talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw the ANI thread about that article: apparently it was copied from another wiki which has CC-BY-SA licensing like Wikipedia, so copying is permitted as long as attribution is supplied. The problem (from what I could tell) was that whoever copied it didn't supply the necessary attribution. I have no view about whether the topic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the first place, but assuming it is, instead of deleting it, couldn't we have just fixed the attribution issue by adding a cite to the other wiki? I didn't see the article before it was deleted, so don't know if there were other possible problems. Thanks. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- It still would have violated the plagiarism guidelines. But more importantly, as you note, it was just a lot of fancruft that was not notable enough for Wikipedia to begin with. Best, NW (Talk) 19:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
La goutte de pluie
While researching on this ongoing sockpuppetry since 2010, I came to know that at least 2 accounts(DanS76 and Zhanzhao) that were used during the RFC/UA and ANI re:La goutte de pluie were owned by a single person. Since this matter is equivalent to long term sock puppetry, I would be glad if you would want to discuss further.
I have also restored an earlier version of La goutte de pluie's UP. They haven't socked for 3 years now. Revert if you disagree. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is no time restriction on when to use the sock templates. It's one thing if that user wants to come back and make a fresh start, but otherwise we don't just blank pages like that. NW (Talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Very strange bug from a user-script of yours
Your mark-blocked script causes a strange bug in the latest version of Firefox where having it installed prevents the use of the up or down arrow keys within the edit-box. The result is that the only way to jump around in your entry text is (shudder) the use of the mouse. ResMar 00:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind. After loading and testing several pages it wasn't your script. I have no idea what it is, but it seems my ability to scroll or down using the associated keys is going out and coming in, and I still have no idea about the source. I'll query VPT. ResMar 00:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Mark-blocked script marking globally locked users?
- It's not my script unfortunately; I imported it from ruwiki. Might be worth checking on one of the technical noticeboards to see if someone tehre knows how to modify it. NW (Talk) 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Please snow close ISIL move request
Hi NW, you closed a move request on ISIL in January.
Can you please participate in, Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 19 April 2015, or if it meets your standards for SNOW close, then explain that nothing has been said that hasn't been argued? I think this is going to take a lot of time, and I don't think this is going to reach any consensus. ISIL may not be the best name, or "perfect" article title, but it is in common, widespread usage and there's no consensus to move the article on ideological grounds. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Done. NW (Talk) 14:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)