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.

Thwack!

Whack!

For not matching div tags in this edit and breaking everyone's watchlist :) Shubinator (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Looks like Preview wasn't good enough to catch that. Thanks for fixing my mistake.

Also want to ask, would this update to the watchlist break anything? NW (Talk) 16:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, unmatched tags can be tough to spot.

The watchlist update looks good now. You might want to run it by Xeno just to make sure. Shubinator (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Drafted to do research

... the short answer is yes (I added the L.A. Times obituary to source Gajdusek's military service). In theory, everyone was liable to the draft, including researchers. If they were drafted and turned out to have relevant skills from their civilian life, then they might be assigned to an appropriate command. Gajdusek was assigned to the Walter Reed Army Medical Service, presumably because he was a research virologist in civilian life and the military was interested in viruses for the obvious reasons. As another example, my personal hero, Tom Lehrer, was drafted in the 1950s. Since he was a mathematician, he was assigned to the NSA - basically, he was drafted to do "applied mathematics". MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The reason I was surprised was the only war that I could think of that was going on at the time was the Korean War, which mostly required men for the infantry, if I recall my history readings correctly. Do you know why the US Government bothered to assign him to Walter Reed instead of exempting him, besides the obvious answer that it is simpler and cheaper to force someone to work on something if they are your employee rather than a contractor? NW (Talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I can't say much more about Gajdusek, because the sources are somewhat limited, but when Lehrer was drafted he basically went along with it because it was very hard to get an exemption; you had to be in a reserved occupation, which was narrowly defined. To be honest, though, that's pretty much the limit of my knowledge about the draft. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America. :) I saw your edit summary here [1], thanks so much for the quality upgrade to B-class, and the kind comments about your assessment of its current level of quality. Much appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hockey Stick Illusion

Re the protect: fair enough, if that seems correct to you. I put it to you (m'lud :) NW (Talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)) that an alternative approach would be to semi it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed Including with likely sockpuppets - would a CU on the anons be in order? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. If I were a checkuser, I might check the IP ranges to see which logged out users (most likely) are edit warring, but since I'm working on limited information, I don't know if I could do per WP:SILVERLOCK (2nd bullet point). NW (Talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be useful, but I'm not sure if the checkusers really have the time or the inclination to look into this. A formal SPI is probably unnecessary, but an email to a few of the newer and hence more active checkusers might be worth it. NW (Talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Doubt

Hi there wiki-warrior, VASCO here,

Could you please (if you can't then nobody can't :)) clear me on why did this edit of mine, as anon, merit the tag "possible BLP issue or vandalism", in the article's edit history (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gonzalo_Arconada_Echarri&diff=385996580&oldid=377889246)? Really bizzarre, to say the least.

Cheers, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably as a result of the word "sacked"; sometimes the edit filter will pick up on these things and flag it for review. It's not a presumption of wrongdoing or anything like that, but it is nice because a lot of articles get vandalized that this filter picks up, unfortunately with some false positives as well.

By the way, how come you didn't add a source to the article when you added that bit of info? NW (Talk) 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...please don't delete my posts

Ummm...please don't delete my posts.[2] This is not polite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are edit-warring

Can you please self-revert? You are edit-warring.[3] [4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Enforcing ontopicness on an extension of the administrators' noticeboards != edit warring. If you have an issue to bring up, please don't try to slip it in; raise it through appropriate channels. NW (Talk) 01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, you don't think that WMC's edit warring in the BLP of a climate change sceptic is related to his edit warring at RealClimate of The Hockey Stick Illusion? Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if I was wrong - which I am not - this gives you no excuse to be edit-warring. You are an Admin. IMHO, admins should be held to higher standards which includes not acting in conduct unbecoming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to "DOUBT" - additional request

Hi there NUKE, VASCO (again) here,

as you requested, added references (albeit in Spanish, those contents are pretty much unlikely to be written in ANY English sources) to my additions in the Gonzalo Arconada Echarri's piece.

Additionally, some requests my friend: again with the vandals, could you please protect Tomáš Ujfaluši's page? Injured someone - let's assume without wanting - while playing his sport, has been called all sorts of crap by various "users" ever since.

Also, remember this exchange we had which led to this message from you this anon user (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.238.115.129)? Well, he continues with his infobox shenanigans (as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Pinto&diff=381681336&oldid=380596126), has been warned for that and did not reply whatsoever.

Another anon "user", this one seemingly taking a liking to reference removal (see "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/163.1.61.2). If this one gets blocked, i better be expecting some insults in my talk page man! Thanks a million in advance, as always, take care - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also (found this just now), is the stuff this user Uncle G is doing, with the assistance of a bot, correct (as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Soloz%C3%A1bal&diff=386506332&oldid=372667304)? It seems really bizzarre, please "investigate", cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done on the first two; the third was only a single edit last week, so I think we can let it go for now. Also, as for what Uncle G is doing, yes unfortunately his work is OK. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo/Task explanation explains more, but basically there was a single editor who violated our copyright policies for a long time. We only caught him very recently. NW (Talk) 21:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK)

Would you mind restoring a copy of Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK) (with edit history) to User:Codf1977/Dissident Congress / Populist Party (UK) - Have no intention of returning it to main space I just want to do a bit of research into it and it can be deleted once finished with it. Codf1977 (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I just emailed you the text and the edit history? That might make things easier. NW (Talk) 21:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Tagging - Request for Help

Would you take a look at Joanne_Nova and render your opinion on the six (yes, six) header tags that were recently added to the article. A couple editors are refusing any attempt to remove them, without giving clear rationale for why they should remain. IMO, one or two of these may have some merit; the rest are clearly spurious. Thanks. Fell Gleaming^talk 22:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)