User talk:NuclearWarfare

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Wejer

Wejer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unrelated. Please use caution, not every editor who is skeptical on AGW is Scibaby, and Wejer's editing did not fit the pattern in several significant ways. Thatcher 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was my mistake. I had misread the time stamp of your post as 9 December 2009 instead of 8 December. Since you said all confirmed, and your time stamp (14:49) was the latest in time (but not in date) of the posts, I figured that every account listed could be blocked. I shall extend my apologies to Wejer; that mistake was definitely something that I should have been able to avoid. NW (Talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To NuclearWarfare: I accept your apologies, and do not hold any grudge against you as part of this incident. Yours, Wejer (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I'm working with a user you blocked earlier today, could you hop on the en-help channel? thanks, ceranthor 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:67.246.40.144

The block on this IP address expired yesterday yet he is still making unblock requests. I'm not sure what should be done here. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Last Res0rt speedy declined

I was about to ask why you declined speedy, but then realized that one of the references on the page had more than a cursory description and link to the site. I'd checked a few Google search results and found nothing but trivial webcomic review site entries for the comic, but I missed that one. Now I do think our criteria for web notability is too lenient, but that doesn't change the fact that you were right to decline speedy. Sorry for the hassle. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to send this article through AfD (though I would recommend giving it a few minutes first). NW (Talk) 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

206.78.172.226

Any hint on why did you report them to AIV rather than blocked them yourself? Regards Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was using Huggle, which automatically reports if the warnings have been met. Usually I block myself after a few warnings, but I guess I missed this one. NW (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Never mind - by no means I was telling you should block yourself - just my curiosity (I never used Huggle). Materialscientist (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Google Watch

Hello, concerning the recent Google Watch AFD, I ask that you reconsider the statement that you made when you closed the debate. You stated that "there is sufficient consensus in this AFD that the article should not exist as a standalone article." However, there is no such consensus. There are 18 !votes for delete and 9 for keep, with a few other users supporting a merge. This is a majority, sure, but it is not consensus. One way to break this deadlock is to look at the arguments supporting each side of the issue. Some of arguments made by those supporting deletion, however, do not hold water. One user, MzMcBride, did not even provide an argument, and then two other users cited him (among others) as the basis for their decisions! Most of the deletion votes said that this article had no assertion of notability or that it did not meet WP:WEB and had a lack of reliable sources, but that was before User:Cyclopia provided links to multiple books covering the website in detail. In light of these and other sources provided by various users, I find it difficult to believe that this article does not satisfy the notability guidelines. Other users stated that the subject was no longer notable, even though WP:NTEMP clearly states that notability is not temporary. For these reasons, I would ask that you reconsider your decision on this issue. A deletion review might also be helpful, to allow the article to be reevaluated in light of all of the evidence. Thank you for your time and for your service to this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebellum (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I participated in the AfD) I think the closure accurately reflected the consensus at that AfD, FWIW. More importantly, though, I really don't want to see this at DRV. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This ^. @Kate (parlez) 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When closing this AfD, because of the subject matter, I took special care to weigh the arguments presented. I'm not really sure that I can say more than that I disagree with the conclusion you drew. My apologies for not being able to be able to respond more constructively. NW (Talk) 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I would have pretty obviously preferred a "keep" outcome, I'd say that your closure was anyway well-thought and it is a reasonable debate outcome. I was coming here to express my appreciation. I do not think a DRV is needed. --Cyclopia^talk 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your concern. NuclearWarfare, I'm sure you took all due care to weigh the arguments, but I disagree with your conclusions so I have gone ahead and listed the page at DRV. See note below. Cerebellum (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• More importantly, did you even read the Wikipedia Review thread which was bizarrly kept in the nomination for the duration, which contained threats from the person who nominated the article for deletion toward anybody who considered voting keep. If you didn't, which as you didn't even comment on it [1] suggests you didn't, then I can't see how anybody can properly weigh the arguments in that Afd, which had numerous other problems of procedure and fact which were also pointed out many times but which you also never commented on, as a fair or neutral consensus for mergeing. MickMacNee (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I did the WR thread. If you notice, I actually posted to it (after I closed the AfD; I had not read it before I went to close the AfD). And I have no real answer for your question other than that I simply disagree with your reading of the consensus. NW (Talk) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • "I had not read it before I went to close the AfD" - please clarify, did you read the thread before you closed the Afd, or not? If you did read the thread before closure, then I want a direct statement from you regarding your opinion of the specific issues raised about its content and how you read the Afd consensus with regard to those issues. If you hadn't read it before closing, then I suggest you set-aside your closure as you clearly were not in full possession of the facts to be able to do so, and let someone who has read it and has properly assessed those claims to close it, with all due consideration to all the issues. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I read the thread for the first time approximately five minutes before I closed the AfD. As for what you want me to say, I'm not really sure. Sure, the discussion should not have happened in an ideal world. But we can't control what happens in an offsite discussion. As the all participants in the AfD were experienced users and presumably knew to give their opinion based on the merits of the article rather than how their attention was brought to it, I decided to discount any canvassing angle when reading the discussion. Did you mean for me to talk about something else? I'll be happy to explain further if you request it. NW (Talk) 15:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I was not referring to canvassing, and I never even mentioned the word if you look again above. I was referring more importantly to the implicit threat in that thread to anyone who would vote keep, and the implications of that on the Afd.
        • Your five minute claim is worrying though, because in addition to that threat aspect, a lot of that Afd debate referred to general issues arising from the involvement of WR and Brandt, and if you either missed the relevant parts of it in the debate and the thread, or gave scant regard to those points, that is extremely worrying. Brandt's statements regarding the article and what he would be doing once he managed to persuade editors to agree to his own nomination to delete it, for example. And as you mentioned it, I do find it odd you discounted the issue of canvassing based merely on the experience of the participants. You would not do the same for example if a content POV focussed organisation in an external forum proposed deletion of a particular article in a basic COI manner, based on apparent NPOV concerns by claiming without proof that there had been certain changes in the relevant policies in the last year. The issue here is the same. If editors with a particular fringe view of the BLP policy well outside the normal view, are recruited into voting in an Afd, where they then claim there exists an apparent yet unproven change in website notability, that is still undue vote stacking, and it is certainly not a way to gather a neutral expression of site wide consensus on the issue. I do not doubt there were some good faith delete votes, and it is a separate issue as to whether the debate should have even been occuring thanks to GAME and BATTLE issues, but there is compelling evidence that this Afd has been manipulated towards an agenda POV interpretation of policy, seeing as the 'consensus' was markedly different to just a year ago, when everything was pretty much the same apart from the way the nomination occurred and was advertised. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Google Watch

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Google Watch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerebellum (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The weekly Policy Report in the Signpost features community feedback on policy pages; see for instance here, here and here. We're putting together another one for the Signpost 9 days from now at WT:Consensus#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit within the last two months at that talk page, but all responses are welcome. I'm not watchlisting, so if you have questions or comments, please drop a note at the policy talk page or my user page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Decahill

I think this account is an illicit sockpuppet of user:Platia, which was banned as a clone of user:Lima and user:Soidi. Since the maximum allowed limit is currently only one sockpuppet, this account should probably be banned. See for instance [2] about Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, where the same warning message is left in the editbox by two different accounts ADM (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is an alternate account. I have said so above. Is it illicit? I have also stated that, if this account proves to be illicit, I will immediately close it. Please point me to the rule that states I can have only one alternate account, and which will of course oblige me to close this account and to apologize for my inadvertent transgression of the rule. Decahill (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)