User talk:NuclearWarfare

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



Template:Actinium protection?[edit]

Hi. I was hoping you could downgrade all the symbols you protected en masse in Category:Chemical element symbol templates. Template:Actinium (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), for instance, has 9 links to it but no transclusions, but it's under sysop-level protection. I'm kind of "locked out" of working on them, and would like to see them semi-protected or fully unprotected. There's just no real vandalism of them to begin with. Would you do that?

By the way, started this conversation over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Actinium. Thanks, meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Edited 06:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Drop to no protection? Meteor sandwich yum (talkcontribs) 19:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Done for all articles in that category. NW (Talk) 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You rock. Now I can categorize & improve them! Thanks! Meteor sandwich yum (talkcontribs) 23:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed[edit]

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

  • By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3[edit]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mupen64[edit]

Hi,

Can you restore the full history and talk page for that article. I am currently working on several emulators (mainly Project64) for possible restore. Ii would help me to see the state the article was in. Thanks Valoem talk 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Let me know when I can delete it. NW (Talk) 21:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I was hoping to maintain the article as a redirect with history intact. I've been going through a wave of restorations lately and was hoping to merge Mupen64Plus with this article, I have found some citations such as this one, Digital Trends here. I plan first on restoring Project64 following the discussion here. Valoem talk 14:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. NW (Talk) 15:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinion needed[edit]

NW, since you have blocked User:Beyond My Ken for "3" RR, I bring to your concern. After he has violated "3" RR on the dispute here, User:Beyond My Ken is going out of the way accusing me for my content addition which is supported by WP:RS.EconomicTiger (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

EconomicTiger is one of a series of sock or meatpuppets editing on behalf of American Academy of Financial Management. See the article's talk page for more details. AAFM is a "diploma mill" whose operations have been exposed by the Wall Street Journal. They've been very active on WP trying to protect their "image", including a bogus legal threat, and other activities attempting to keep the facts about the "Academy" out of the article. EconomicTiger is simply the latest editor representing AAFM - probably he or she should be blocked indef, as their intent is not to improve the encycylopedia, but to bolster the rep of their organization. BMK (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
NW, There was a sockpuppetry case here and I was cleared after CU. Even User:Beyond My Ken participated on the sockpuppetry discussion; but now accusing me. Is that he is not accepting the CU results or misleading you here. I have come across this "Academy" like other professional institutions which I have edited. But I found something strange here and taken some interest. Most socks edited the "Academy" are from USA, but I am from Asia. I have previously created many articles including, Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, Exnora International, Daily FT, Vels University.EconomicTiger (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG. NW (Talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI thread check[edit]

Unresolved

About this ANI thread OP 16:14, now in ANI archive. A simultanuous ANI thread is here with mostly same topic, editors and timestamps).

I have some issues with and questions about your contributions to that thread.

1. 13:43 "DePiep, you have made your case and should step back". Well, since I initiated the review request, I am quite allowed to discuss there. On top of this, given that I was personally attacked in the very first response, I have the right to speak for myself. I do not see why I should have shut up as you judge. If there is a guideline that says so (or a guideline that allows admins to hold it against me when I react to personal attacks), please inform me.

2. "let the community comment at the move review" - As with previous remark: I don't see why I sould be disadvised to push back against bad faith accusations. As it appears, more so since the admins of that community did not find it necessary to warn BHG against personal attacks.

3. 17:05 "Furthermore, your tone did not serve to calm matters down but instead has unnecessarily escalated this rather minor conflict". After an inconsequential apology for misreading and "see[ing] at most minor fault by BHG", you throw in this "tone" remark without substantiating. Could you provide diffs and quotes that made my tone cause the issue? How is that in the timeline? How am I supposed to respond to such a casual injection anyway?

4. "I see nothing wrong with BHG's [BrownHairedGirl's] comments". You can see it that way. I maintain that BHG writing "falsehood", "lie", "dishonest" is introducing judgement of bad faith. The editor could have used neutral words to argue. The timeline: OP 16:14 by me, 17:36 first response, by BHG (in the editsummary: "blatantly dishonest"), and 18:54 my response.

5. For now, I'll leave other problematic diffs by BHG aside (present in the ANI). Basically, they show more of the same.

6. I still find it astonishing that you did not find any message to make to BHG's tone, in the same threads where you found my tone a cause. Apparently there was reason to block an editor [1] for writing "grow up" [2] and "are you drunk?" [3], but writing "falsehood", "dishonest", "lie" in a WP discussion does not even need a warning. It is these uncheckable inconsistencies that makes ANI rather useless, and gives bad experiences to editors like

-DePiep (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Response please. -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Why no reply? -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

This is FYI. IMO, it would have been better form to wait until the other party either laughed or bitched, and let everyone else either chuckle or yawn. But whatever. Hope you find something to laugh about today! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday was indeed hilarious, thank you for your thoughts. NW (Talk) 13:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pseudoscience sanctions[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Pseudoscience sanctions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Appeal[edit]

Hi Nuke, please show me the place to appeal against the topic ban you indiscriminantly gave me - can't see it at all! Ta :) Cjwilky (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the page didn't have the link I thought it did. Just do a search for "Appeals" on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement; that should do it. NW (Talk) 14:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking I was losing it not finding it there! Thanks :) Cjwilky (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It's unclear where to post the appeal. Cjwilky (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
A new section at WP:AE. NW (Talk) 15:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that :) Though I shan't be bothering, if this is the way wiki works, I'm gone. Cjwilky (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey Nuke...[edit]

Wanted to make sure you saw this. Very sad news. Nathan T 15:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw it yesterday morning, went the whole day dropping in and out of a daze. Incredibly saddened and shocked to hear. NW (Talk) 15:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Abortion vs. termination of pregnancy[edit]

Unresolved

Regarding your edit here [4], I think "poorly settled" would have been a more apt description. Our present definition of abortion clearly cuts against WP:UCN. I am glad, however, that you noticed and "corrected" the link problem which would have had readers going to "termination of pregnancy" to learn more about the distinction between that and abortion, only to wind up back at "abortion" again. Also, take a gander at this page: [5] which, of course, defines "late termination of pregnacy" as, you guessed it, "late term abortion". Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please review[edit]

Please review the generally productive discussion at Talk:Electronic_cigarette (and then, obviously, unblock FergusM1970). NE Ent 01:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed. Not unblocking. NW (Talk) 14:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Eurasian Treecreeper[edit]

This was a featured article. Apparently accordingly it is admin-only protected. I sought to move it to Eurasian treecreeper, which I thought was the orthography to be used for articles titled with vernacular names of living things. Please either reduce the protection (I think I am whitelisted at WP) or move it.

I wish there was more consistency in this regard so the links from Wiktionary to WP did not always have to be checked and often rrevised. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have unprotected it, but I'm vaguely aware of some controversy with this issue. Maybe you should consider bringing this up on the talk page or at WP:BIRDS before you move it? NW (Talk) 18:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's what WP:BIRDS says on the matter:
The common name of a species used to be capitalised to differentiate it from more general terms[1] but following discussions, it has been decided that capitals will be used only for parts of the name that are proper nouns.
Unfortunately I suppose each relevant project (LIVERWORTS, ALGAE) may be having, has had , or will have this controversy.
Anyway, thanks. DCDuring (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Disarm the nuke;[edit]

I don't understand the Nuclear protection of Marshall Mathers, as in full protection, but I think it's overkill—when conventional means like semi or less is more than sufficient, in my opinion; please reduce it. I posted an edit request, at first, but I now think unprotecting it to a lower degree is a better option. Especially after seeing these:

so unprotected, and free to edit. So This is step one; asking you—hopefully this resolves in the single step. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really remember why I chose to full protect it (it was four years ago), but I'm guessing it was a misclick. Unprotecting... NW (Talk) 17:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Right back at it[edit]

Hi NW, you blocked FergusM1970 for WP:TE at Electronic cigarette, among other problems. I'm sad to inform you that within hours (perhaps even minutes) after that month-long block expired, the editor went right back to it, making the same kinds of edits. Could you please check it out and see if further action is necessary. Thanks... Zad68 14:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Nobody told me I can't edit there, and nobody at that article is complaining about my edits.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up User:Zad68. I have indef blocked; I don't see any reason to go to AN/ANI first on this one. Literally the sixth edit on the talk page is [6]. NW (Talk) 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This guy has been an intractable problem at Stanton Glantz, too. — goethean 17:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi NW. I was looking at this block. I know User:FergusM1970 vaguely and would like to help him if it is possible. Do you think you could briefly give some background regarding this block, when you have a chance? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This block i don't understand (and i do understand the previous ones, and agree with them), could you explain? :) That Fergus disagrees with other editors is not a blockable offense, nor is being a WP:SPA such. I see a small inkling of editwarring (2 reverts of an IP editor who didn't use the talkpage, and in fact ignored the talkpage). Is there something that i overlook? The comment about an author being an aerospace engineer is actually correct, and not afaict a WP:BLP concern (Had he gone further on this i would agree though), there are problems with this review, and the authors are very strongly in a particular (scientific) political camp on this issue (as another editor on WT:MED noticed before this[7]. --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC) [i react to this not because of Fergus really, but rather because other editors use this to quell disagreements[8]] --Kim D. Petersen 00:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
John, it may be useful to start with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Uninvolved admin input: edit-warring and BLP violations at Stanton Glantz, which was the first time I became aware of Fergus. It also might be useful to take a look at a couple sections above the most recent block message, starting maybe near the beginning of 2014.

Kim, I don't disagree with the facts of your statement but I do disagree with your framing. It wasn't that Fergus was diving back into an article with a point of view; it was that he was insisting on talking about the same lines of argumentation that had derailed things in the past. Might it have been possible to wait a bit longer before blocking? Sure. But I've seen enough time wasted on medicine-related articles going round and round on the same issue that I figured I would try to cut it off early. If Fergus is willing to accept certain unblock conditions to avoid this situation in the future, I would be perfectly fine with him being unblocked. I'm not sure what those conditions are, but many other admins are smarter than I am.

I'm not sure if I'll be around this long weekend (Memorial Day here in the US), but if you want to take any action to reverse me and don't think it's necessary to consult me, please feel free to go ahead. Best, NW (Talk) 02:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Zad68, since you have reviewed that talk page recently, might you may be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)##MEDLINE versus other databases? Best, NW (Talk) 14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, that was useful. I have made the user an offer and we shall see what he does with it. Enjoy the holiday weekend! --John (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I've unblocked, with conditions. Thanks again. --John (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
John, sorry for not being around the last couple of weeks. Thanks for taking the initiative to look into this. Best, NW (Talk) 12:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Notification[edit]

I know that you will most likely see it because i have highlighted your name in the message to the other user, but i notify you anyway about this message (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smalljim#Manuel_Cajuda). Serious situation, indeed...

Attentively --AL (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Already taken care of. I always contact you on the matter of page protections because you hand out lengthy protections more often than not (just saying because of what i have seen during our wikirelation, not overall), and this countryman of mine is really trying his best (worst!) in Manuel Cajuda's article.

Sorry to bother you, keep up the good work (by the way, i am leaving WP for good on 12 July 2014, so after that really can't be bothered about who vandalizes what!) --AL (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi AL! Sorry, I haven't been that active on Wikipedia in 2014. Glad that this is already taken care of, but why are you leaving Wikipedia in six weeks? NW (Talk) 21:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Tired mate, just plain tired. Not fun anymore, pretty much a chore after eight years. I've never been one to follow much guidelines (one reason to leave), and the idiot vandals like the one described above took care of the rest (that's number two for you :)).

However, whistle if you need anything until the "doomsday", i will gladly help! --AL (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the close[edit]

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
For a timely and considerate close of the HRC move review. NickCT (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really the close I was hoping for, but granted it would have been hard for you to make any other. It would probably be an understatement to say this topic has received its "day in court", and I for one plan to respect the moratorium. NickCT (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As a quick postscript I didn't get your point re "neither side is making policy-incompliant articles." Did you mean to say "arguments" rather than "articles"? NickCT (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Quick post-post script; it might be wise to for you to comment at and/or close this discussion. NickCT (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
And also probably best to put a notice box documenting the moratorium in the talk page header. I just added the move review close result to the move log on the page. PaleAqua (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nick! I think I've taken care of everything. Thanks to all who cleaned up after me; Move Review is not a place I usually tread. NW (Talk) 21:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A minor tweak is needed in the HRC move review close. The consensus at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#A simple solution is in favor of a moratorium for a period of nine months "from May 1, 2014". That date will be February 1, 2015, not March 2015. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've changed it. NW (Talk) 11:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The move review closure itself still reads "until March 2015". I note, also, that some participants in the moratorium discussion would have preferred a stay of six months (until November), rather than nine (until February), but were willing to compromise by going to the longer period. bd2412 T 13:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, that's what you meant. I had only fixed it on the talk page. I had read the arguments for a shorter period and opposed to one at all, but I think my 9 month decision was still a fair summary of the consensus. NW (Talk) 12:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unprotect 10:10 page?[edit]

Hello. Would you consider unprotecting the 10:10 page? It's several years out of date, and given the opportunity, I'd like to do a comprehensive update.

Full disclosure: I work for 10:10, but would be doing this in a personal capacity. I understand that 10:10 has received plenty of (often well-founded) criticism, and it isn't my intention to suppress this, or downplay the things the organisation has got wrong in its time.

As you'll see from my contribution history, I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, so apologies in advance if I've gone about this the wrong way. Please do set me straight if that's the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simuove (talkcontribs)

@Simuove: I have unprotected the page. Please review WP:COI before you edit, and consider when it would be best to seek out advice from another editor in the page's history rather than editing it yourself. NW (Talk) 12:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@NuclearWarfare: Thank you, that's really helpful. I'll read the conflict of interest advice carefully before I make any changes. Would a post on the article's talk page be the best way to get advice from another editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simuove (talkcontribs)
Indeed it would. It is quite possible that no one is watching that talk page, so you may wish to ask some specific individuals listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force to come by if you don't get a response. NW (Talk) 11:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

2023 Rugby World Cup[edit]

You (rightfully) deleted the 2023 Rugby World Cup page in 2009 because there was no meaningful content, and the page remains "protected from creation." Since that time, a number of years have passed, the tournament is closer, bidding is likely to formally begin around 2016, and there are already several media reports about which countries have publicly declared their interest in hosting the tournament.

I am requesting that you remove the "protected from creation" status to allow interested editors to begin adding content to the page. To get a sense of what the initial article might look like, and to assure yourself that there is sufficient content and sufficient reliable sources, you can take a look at the following wiki section: Rugby_World_Cup_hosts#2023:_TBD.

And for further context, in case you think that creating an article about a sports event that is nine years away would be a radical departure from wikipedia practices, there are already articles in existence for sports events even further into the future — 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics. Thank you for your consideration. Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 03:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Advice[edit]

Hi NW. It has been a while since I last wrote to you. I am surprised you are no longer an arbitrator (I always considered you were the only one that, well, cared about the editors getting the bottom end of the stick). That aside, and please forgive me if that topic I brought up is bothersome, I am writing to ask for advice on how to remove the topic ban that was placed on me about a year ago.

I think that my time since then has been spent on very positive editing, mainly getting articles through GA and FA status (I'm in-line for my third one: the Falkland Islands). As you can tell, I followed your earlier advice and went about to demonstrate through action that I am not the "evil mastermind" (or whatever) that I was painted as during the proceedings a year ago. I am really proud of the work on Pisco Sour and Falkland Islands, mainly for having dealt with partisan controversies through dialogue and friendly communication (not that I was doing anything much different at the time of the arbitration case).

If you have some available time, I would appreciate some pointers on how to finally put an end to the topic ban. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 03:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarshalN20, my apologies for the length of time it took me to respond to you. If you feel that now is an appropriate time to review your topic ban, I would recommend that you post a request listing all the work you have done since the ban and also spend some time in your request detailing work you would like to do in the future. There really isn't any more advice I can give beyond that. Just make your statement as clear and persuasive as you can, and it simply be a matter of ArbCom agreeing with your point of view or not. Sorry I can't help any more than that. Best of luck, NW (Talk) 17:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Balance[edit]

I'm sure it means less than nothing to you, coming from me, but I can't help but register my serious disappointed with your approval of Jenks24's re-listing of the LDS church move request, since he specifically said that the purpose was to allow one side of the discussion more time to respond. I really had thought you were more unbiased than that. BMK (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Why would it mean less than nothing to me? Your point of view is a perfectly reasonable one; I just have come to a different conclusion. I will always take reasonable criticism into consideration. NW (Talk) 11:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos[edit]

Hello NW, and welcome back to AE! Do you agree that this thread reached consensus to limit appeals to once every six months? If so could you notify the user and add it to the log of WP:ARBIPA? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I will do that, sorry about the trouble I may have caused! NW (Talk) 02:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Sir, I read your message on my talk page. Can a user successfully get his TBan lifted? If so, how?—Khabboos (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, that didn't last long! He's been socking and violating his topic ban, as well as creating disruption in the homeopathy area. Take a look here: Of socks, topic bans, and failed AEs..... I'm pretty sure that User:AcidSnow (who filed the SPI) will be interested in your reaction. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Commercial Providence.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Commercial Providence.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)