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.

Battleground

[1]? I wasn't aware that you might be inclined to take action against editors who treat AGW as a battleground. If so, would you like some names and diffs? I know of one editor in particular, a former admin, who has been treating the AGW topic in Wikipedia as his own personal battleground for at least five years, perhaps longer. Are you willing to give him the same litmus test you just gave me? I'm not being facetious here, I'm really interested in your response. Cla68 (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Names and diffs would certainly be appreciated. Although I respect Dr. Connolley's work very much, I still greatly dislike the edit that you pointed out. If you could bring up names and diffs (taking sure not to single out one "side"), that would be much appreciated. NW (Talk) 21:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to get into this here and now? Before the enforcement board started, NPOV and battleground problems were rife in AGW-related BLPs, and although several editors were involved, on both sides, one "side" in particular stands out as the worst abusers, in my opinion. A good thread to get started on it, in my opinion, is here. Another is here, in which WMC and Kim D. Peterson removed positive information from a BLP on an AGW skeptic, and then were unable to come up with legitimate reasons for removal of all of the material in question. An independent editor from the BLP Noticeboard intervened before they finally backed off. In my opinion, it's the BLP stuff that truly shows that there was a battleground, POV agenda at work here. I'll post more examples over the next few days if you like. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are some diffs from the Global Warming talk page from June 2006, a month I chose at random. Notice the frequent use of the word "septics" and the condescending and rude treatment of other editors, many of them newbies: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Those are just from three days. That kind of behavior used to be the norm on that talk page. The only reason it ever calmed down somewhat was because so many regulars finally started getting fed up with it and started making some noise, resulting in the topic probation. Believe me, if you want to find any evidence that WMC and a few other editors have been treating AGW like a battleground, it doesn't take very long to find much evidence. Do you need more? Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not really had the time to look into it, though June 2006 is a bit further back than I am looking for. I'm not searching for a long-term pattern, just a short term one. Evidence from March and April 2010 would be much preferred. NW (Talk) 04:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I thought you were asking me to prove that WMC and a few others have been treating the subject like a battleground for an extended period of time. Since the enforcement period started, I think most of any dubious behavior on everyone's part, including theirs, has been reported to the enforcement board. The problem is, it seems like editors who have been acting this way since 2004 or 2005 are getting the benefit of the doubt, while newer editors to the topic are getting stomped on fairly hard. Like I said, I was surprised when you cornered me on my opinion, but you haven't, as far as I can see, done the same to the others who have been POV-pushing on this topic (yes, that is a supportable statement) for years. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling the the enforcement page isn't really catching everything or giving out sanctions fairly to all users, but to confirm that, I would have to do my own digging, as things really have gotten too partisan at the moment. What pages would you say are some of the most heated at the moment? NW (Talk) 04:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll list a few. Notice here that a familiar name is trying to use a blog as a source in a BLP to add criticism (some of those sources are valid, but the last one is a blog). This is along the lines of what I told you before of certain editors doing dubious things to sceptic's BLP articles. I'll see what else I can find... Cla68 (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Now, notice here that the same editor removed negative information from another BLP, of a supporter of AGW, citing the sources as "poor." Now, the removal might be legitimate. But compare the two edits together. In one, the editor adds negative information to a sceptic's BLP using a blog, and then removes negative information from an AGW proponent's BLP, stating that the sources, among which appear to be the Wall Street Journal, as "poorly sourced." Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here the same editor adds negative information to a sceptic's BLP and cuts a supporting quote, but then adds a positive spin to the BLP of an AGW supporter. Now, these edits, independently, may be ok, but together they show an editor who focuses on adding negative material to certain BLPs and maintaining positive information in others. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for these Cla. I'll be sure to look into the edits. NW (Talk) 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal(s)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Maybe you could be on the lookout for this anon IP (please see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.201.98.10 - has not edited in a while, but it does seem a dynamic one, and makes pretty vandalic "contributions").

Also...FINALLY!!!! Found another sock (hope it's just this one, this "person", for some time, had the custom of creating two accounts at once) of vandal Pararubbas, called User:Pol890 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pol890). Please revert ALL edits, block and, in case he has created any new pages, remove them, these folks gotta learn.

Attentively, have a nice week,

VASCO, Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the user. Just waiting on checkuser confirmation before going ahead and enforcing the banning policy. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 21:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

St. Anselm

You were right about the points there; it is within two weeks of Avery Coonley and therefore -3. Not that it matters, because the article isn't even an FA and I removed it. Ucucha 20:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be a bigger problem, yes. NuclearWarfare hopes that no more articles are nominated for 12 days :) NW (Talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

You'll note I went to some effort to avoid bumping Decathlon after you commented. Hope he runs it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that, and I thank you very much for your kind efforts. Obviously it's a bit hard to keep an article with -1 points up; I am rather amazed it stayed up for as long as it did. NW (Talk) 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SPI and Armenian monasteries

Hi and thanks for your comment on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quzeyli. And yet, it carries on with an ip... I made a request for semi-protection of the three concerned articles, but it is still unadressed. What should I do? I can't carry on with reverting... Sardur (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else took care of that. Oh, and reverting sockpuppets is an exception to WP:3RR, I believe. NW (Talk) 20:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please move

Hello, NW! Can you please move the article Category:Skåne County to Category:Scania County. I can't do it myself. BjörnBergman 15:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"Skåne County" is the correct name. See WT:SWEDEN. Theleftorium 18:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

News (?)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

From what i have read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas/Archive#Comments_by_accused_parties_2) the matter seems to be closed. However, i can't seem to understand what the conclusions are, could you be so kind to explaining it in a nutshell? Thank you very much in advance.

Also - could this be the evil work of Pararubbas - today, my computer has received a "gift" - some trojans, nothing serious i hope, but annoying nonetheless...The fact was that i logged in to WP today and had to insert both username and password (logical after i erased everything, cookie included, to try and resolve the mess) and, three hours later, had to do it again! Reverse karma? Who knows?!?

Again, thanks a million for your hard work, keep it up,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The account was indeed Pararubbas, but he doesn't seem to have any other accounts at the time. A good sign :) As for your computer issues, that is certainly troubling. Not sure how that happened; hope your have good anti-virus software. Could just be a glitch in the system though. Best, NW (Talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Star _Wars_sequel_trilogy_(3rd_nomination)

Hey, I don't know if I am allowed to do this but I thought I'd ask as you terminated the 2nd nomination for this article. The nominator, GaGatelephone and the first responder, Starwarsdarthvader were both found guilty of sockpuppetry (See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins/Archive#Report date April 13 2010.2C_20:49_.28UTC.29), so I was wondering if it was possible for the 3rd nomination of that article to be terminated. Many thanks. Shockmetric (Talk to me) 10:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD closed as speedy keep. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 11:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Alejo Carpentier GA nomination

Hi NW! The Alejo Carpentier article has been nominated for GA status. Apart from this being a requirement for our Spanish 365 group project, we also believe that the article is close to being able to attain GA status. We have completed a majority of your previous recommendations regarding the article's maintenance. We need to have someone to review the article for GA status. For this, we humbly ask of your service. Please let us know if this is the right way to go about getting someone to review our article for GA status or if there is a more automatic process. Also, Ettrig (talk) has brought to our attention that someone feels that our photo is copyrighted and can't be used. This surprised us because Jbmurray (talk) had told us that it was fine and actually used it as an example of what to use as an article photo! I have left a message for both Ettrig and Jbmurray about this and haven't received a response from either party yet. If you could, would you please let us know what you think about this situation? Thank-you very very much!! :) Katie322 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems like an appropriate use of a fair use image, although I would encourage that you expand on the rationale. See File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg for an example of a good rationale. NW (Talk) 18:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that you feel it is an acceptable photo. As for expanding the rationale, I certainly agree that the rationale for File:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg is above and beyond what we have now for the Alejo Carpentier photo. Unfortunately, I'm finding it difficult to add information to our rationale because the photo was added in 2007 before we took up work on the article and the link only brings me to a webpage with just the photo. I don't feel as though I can add information if (1) I don't have any idea where it really came from, (2) if there really are no other free images which can be used, (3) if it was really released into the media for promotional use only. Is it acceptable protocol for me to ask the wikieditor Dr. Blofeld (who uploaded the image) a few of these questions? Thank-you! Katie322 (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)