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)

• I see nothing wrong with [7]. Could you please explain further? As for the Oreskes diff, there appears to be a talk page discussion on it. I shall take into consideration the rest of what you linked me when I go digging this weekend. NW (Talk) 00:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• By the way, these two comments [8] [9] appear to be unnecessarily combative and I think were intended to be of a baiting nature. At a minimum, they were not in the spirit of cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Like I said, WMC has been doing this for at least five years. Do you think you could get him to stop? Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 15 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)

Yes, that is certainly acceptable (and encouraged). NW (Talk) 19:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a message for Dr. Blofeld (talk) about the photo and requesting more information on its origin. I also noticed that on Dr. Blofeld's talk page there are many bot responses about 'orphaned images'....I'm wondering if (due to his history of unsatisfactory images) we should consider just putting a different photo up, if one can be found (as may not be the case if what Dr. Blofeld says is true). Are you quite sure that this photo should be able to stay if we improve our rationale? Thank-you! Katie322 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned images are not really a problem; that means images that were once used have been replaced by a better image. There is no problem with that. The image would be perfectly fine if a better rationale can be written. If you can find your own image, that would be even better. NW (Talk) 21:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Nancy Murdoch

Hi,

What are you talking about? The article is referenced?

Confused.

Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schoeid (talk • contribs)

The article is referenced now, but not when I tagged it for deetion.[10] If you removed the tag, thank you for doing so. NW (Talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Brexx

Lil-unique1 decided to take the Brexx problem to a wider community at WP:ANI#Long term sock puppet and ducker.. I'm not sure it was necessary, but not sure it's a bad idea either. You may wish to participate.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Bad Faith Assessment

Your assessment at the CC probation page is quite wrong. WMC made an extremely brief statement which added nothing without context. My reply to him was civil. His response was not to answer the questions I put to him put to accuse me of bias without evidence. Reminding him of the restrictions against him shouldn't be necessary, but it was his choice to use terms like bias when referring to other editors. Your accusation of baiting is clearly wrong when WMC was the one using terms like bias. Your accusation of battleground(ish) mentality is directed at the wrong editor. Weakopedia (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

HELP!

Hi there "wiki-warrior", VASCO here,

could you please help me (no vandals now, promise)? I was improving (hopefully) Stefano Borgonovo's article, when i saw i screwed up in the display of REF#1. Could you have a look, please? I am about to lose my mind, can't see where did i err.

Thanks a million in advance, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That is certainly very strange. Try as I might, I cannot seem to fix that. Perhaps you could try asking at WP:VPT? NW (Talk) 02:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done, by User:Equazcion. Nice teamwork there!! VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your quick response at Tel Keppe. (Taivo (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Potential canvassing

NuclearWarfare, I'm a bit concerned about the implications of this post: [11]. I'm not very tech-savvy, but is there a way to monitor this? (Taivo (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Not especially. You could let him know of WP:MEAT but that's about it. WP:MEAT is a policy enforceable by blocks though, if it comes to that. NW (Talk) 23:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi there NUKE, VASCO on the loose again,

Could you have a look (just a quick glance will do it i believe) to the edit history at David Silva (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Silva&action=history)? Plenty of idiotic vandalism in the last month (even this or last week). I think a protection, small or full, is duly justified but, as always, i leave it in your hands.

Take care, have a cool weekend (without too many vandals annoying would be great!), VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see a bit of vandalism on the page that lasted a while, so I have semi-protected it (per liberal semi protection essay) for three months. NW (Talk) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. How about this one? Man, it's getting beyond stupid! I think i already told you before, but i'll "refresh" you: we are talking about an average player, has done nothing greatly remarkable in his career, and his page is vandalized EVERY WEEK...Pityful.

Hopefully something can be done, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not so sure on this one. Bit of vandalism, but not enough to meet either the essay I linked above or Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection. Think it is better to hold off for now and protect if it gets vandalism later. NW (Talk) 00:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks for unblocking me

swift & efficient, i appreciate it 129.116.15.110 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Following up

Thanks for the advice; sometimes I forget. Following up your offer, allow me to bring this to your attention. It's especially discouraging because he was blocked for incivility just two weeks ago. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes I think that full topic bans would be more productive that constantly having to enforce civility paroles. I have removed the post and left a note on his talk page. NW (Talk) 02:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing MN request?

Unresolved

Hi. I notice you're generally accepted as neutral and have recently commented around. Would you consider closing Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Request concerning Marknutley, which is hanging? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you read BozMo's proposed close, can I draw your attention to User_talk:BozMo#Proposed_close? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

NT has declared that his only intent is to revert anything not accepted by AC: [12]

And right before this he once again reverted to ACs edit [13] without participating at the talkpage.

NT has been blocked before for doing ACs edit: [14]

Can I please get some admin attention to the SPI based on behavioral evidence? [15] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left a warning on NT's talk page regarding the first diff. As for the last one, it should come all in good time once someone with sufficient time takes a look at the case. NW (Talk) 11:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Bias

SD is pushing statements that are unsubstantiated and have not received consensus on the Talk Page. Consensus is now impossible since you have personally banned the major contributor to the debate, so you are leaving SD with a monopoly on the page. You are clearly a biased adminstrator and I ask that you be removed from this case. Reverting unsubstantiated edits on this article and others on the same arbitration case would not be disruptive. Since you clearly dis-agree, then another admin is invited to examine this situation and my last edit. What you should be examining is SD's mountain of complaints against a very simple edit I made on this article. Is this not clearly a unsanctioned attempt to silence all opposing opinions? You are falling into his trap and are thus not qualified to continue on this case. You can also look at Cactus' response on Asmahan's Talk Page after SD's mountain of complaints against a very simple edit I made on this article. I am not reverting to AC's edits as SD lies. I am editing my own mind. There was NO threat in my reply but you chose to see it that way due to your bias. Nefer Tweety (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cactus edit at the Asmahan talkpage has nothing to do with the comments that you made, it doesn't look like Cactus disagreed with NuclearWarfares warning: [16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Nefer Tweety, I agree with NW's view of your statement "I will revert any statements that have not received consensus with all parties prior to the arbitration." It can only be read as a threat: that you plan to remove any new edits -- even if there is new consensus. I am not sure if you meant it that way but that it the way it reads. An intransigent stance like that is never compatible with Wikipedia policy. Please read consensus can change. Also NF, your misplaced anger against NW here is only shooting yourself in the foot. I suggest you re-assess your position. And SD, it would be preferred if you could refrain from entering every conversation. It is not helpful. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)