User talk:NuclearWarfare

arbitration extension request

To NuclearWarfare and AGK: Per notice to me at User talk:Doncram#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence deadline approaching, I understand you are the drafting arbiters. I request more time and greater wordcount and diffs allowances, for the evidence period. I've been actually sick, and am busy with real-life obligations, and have been overwhelmed also by the complexity and unpleasantness of the case (though I have started a statement and could plug along with necessary support). The history/evidence for this case is vast and complex, and I am finding the process of searching for relevant diffs to be very time-consuming. Evidence for the case needs more time and space to develop, so that the arbitration conclusions can be effective. Also, Cbl62, who I hope will comment in the arbritration, reports he was travelling 10 days and unaware/unable to participate in this diff at my Talk. Also Lvklock was apparently incorrectly notified the evidence phase would run to January 24. Also I am outnumbered. For all these reasons I humbly do request more time, to January 24, and request space to be tripled for me. (I'll watch here for reply, and will notify AGK). --doncram 08:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Also I am very unfamiliar with the arbitration process, and am unsure what notice of the arbitration / what requests for participation are allowed. I have not made any requests. This is a painful process and I am unsure how to proceed in several ways. --doncram 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. I've had a word with my colleagues and the extended deadline (til 24 Jan) is okay as is the increased wordage/diffage you've asked for. Do keep it as concise and focused as you can though as that is the most effective way to make your points.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. I definitely want to echo what Roger said about keeping concise. While we are allowing your request, I would certainly appreciate it if you could keep to twice the normal limit if possible. Longer is certainly not always better. NW (Talk) 16:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Old DRV of yours, apparently circumvented.

FYI I placed a speedy delete tag on Fort Hood terrorist attack. In Nov 2009 you closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 20 with request not to be recreated "..unless it is brought to DRV and recreation is permitted". It was recreated in 2011, and as far as I can see there was no subsequent DRV to affirm this. Do you know of one? Was there a side conversation somewhere? Tarc (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't, but I'm actually leaning towards "send it to RfD" again if you want it deleted. It has been several years since that incident and I think consensus may have changed substantially since then. NW (Talk) 18:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunno if they'd have much of a leg to sand on as officials have explicitly declined to label it an act of terrorism, but we can see how it goes if needed. Tarc (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not saying that the article should be titled that, but I think a keep argument citing WP:RNEUTRAL would do much better job in 2013. NW (Talk) 22:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Some time back...

In March 2010 you userfied the article Jami Floyd to me. I took the content off wiki and stored in on my harddrive... which died, causing me forever lose that early version. In working toward getting Jami back to mainspace despite an earlier article on her being deleted, my contention is that even if her private life is not well covered by media, her career in television meets WP:ENT and her awards meet WP:ANYBIO. While the new sandbox article is still a work-in-progress, I seek your opinion. Please take a look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd and advise. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a stretch to me, but at least it is well referenced. The issue as I see it is that nothing has really changed since it was last deleted. The page just looks like a cleaned up version of [1], which while good, doesn't address the issues that were already decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jami Floyd. NW (Talk) 17:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, showing that the new version is far, far better sourced than the old... to easily and properly support her meeting WP:ENTand WP:ANYBIO when the earlier, essentially unsourced, version did not. Had this new version been the one looked at by Sandstein back in 2010, I do not think it would have been sent to AFD in the first place. The last AFD might better been closed as 'no consensus' (sorry) with the instruction that the thing needed proper sourcing as a BLP. Toward the !voter's comments... THF makes no policy-based argument, PinkBull was incorrect to assert that she had not won any major awards, and Benjar was incorrect to imply that someone could be notable ONLY IF the GNG is met. A pity that the 2010 AFD did not have greater participation, and worse that I did not have the time back then to improve the article sufficiently so that those three might revisit to see their "concerns" addressed. Just wanted to let you know that I think it might survive a return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it certainly doesn't meet WP:CSD#G4, but if you are thinking about bringing it back into mainspace soon, I would still advise going through DRV. NW (Talk) 04:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

After three years? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Curtaintoad/Userboxes

Hey NW. Hey, can you please cross my edits to User:Curtaintoad/Userboxes again? Thanks, CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 09:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)