Jump to content

User talk:NuclearWarfare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanished user 201913 (talk | contribs) at 21:51, 21 February 2010 (→Another SOCK bites the dust?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace
Notice Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

SP report

This report is worthless with no detail at all to link me to anything I object to being check usered on the back of this report , please let me know if this has been approved wih this evidence in my case. thanks. This is fishing gone mad. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you'll be glad to be exonerated by a checkuser; the times I've been checkusered, I've welcomed it. I see sufficient evidence of you involving yourself in a non-neutral way across these articles, with an uneven understanding of policy and guideline, and the Off to Rio is certainly suggestive of Brazil, to say the least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well rio, brazil, la la... sorry, you will need more than that to warrant a check user. I need no exoneration, your report on me is laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then laugh, and be glad you intend to be exonorated-- no problem, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself. I will not be checkusered on such a report. It is not a fishing tool. I can be exonerated but the view out of my window is still the same. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally personal opinion, I could be wrong - seems to me Off2riorob is strongly opinionated, as I am, and we might have clashed here and there; but I doubt that he would engage in socking. I guess we'll find out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A check user will simply exonerate me from this baseless and hollow report, check user is not for fishing and my personal details should not be checked on a whim. If I am check user,d on the back of this report I will be very upset. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The details of checkuser results are confidential. If the one targeted for checkuser protests too loudly, it's often interpreted as fear of discovery, and often it turns out to be true. The user called ItsLassieTime is a good example. Complained loud and long about how checkuser wasn't needed. That one already had a red flag because it had forgotten which ID it was using at the time and answered a question for user A in the voice of user B. "Oops!" Turned out the user had a motherlode of socks. A time or two some ill-informed soul has accused me of being someone else's sock and has threatened an SPI. My response has been, "Go for it." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is precisely why frivolous accusations of socking are harassment; because it virtually requires a checkuser stamp of approval to clear the air. Which isn't even always possible - checkuser is fallible and doesn't always produce clear results, especially for similar users who happen to live in the same large city. Rd232 talk 14:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have seldom seen checkusers get it wrong. They tend to take a conservative approach - too conservative, sometimes, which can be frustrating. I don't fear checkusers because (1) I am no one's sock and (2) the last time I looked, I've had the same IP for over a year. I don't think being in the same city is sufficient evidence to convict. For example, Rio de Janeiro is not exactly a village. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm just reporting what I've heard checkusers say - go find one and ask if you don't believe me. In this instance, I don't think it'll be an issue; and I rather wish somebody would get on and do it. (Apologies to NW for conversation on his talk - let's end this here.) Rd232 talk 16:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SandyGeorgia:_enough_is_enough, since it relates partly to people you blocked based on that SPI report. Rd232 talk 13:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything, NW, and sorry you have to make such tough calls: I suppose your salary is as good as mine at FAC :) And thank you again for the monoscript; I goofed yet again on Ludwigs2 at ANI, thinking he was an admin, but the tool works great, and I hadn't been to his userpage since you installed the tool. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the life of a insane Wikipedian :) NW (Talk) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

Howdy. I am curious why User:Constitutional1787 is tagged with {{blockedsock|Scalabrineformvp}} when here it said the account was unrelated? I'm not trying to dispute anything, I'm just trying to learn.--Rockfang (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is not totally infallible. In this case, the account jumped into a middle of a contested dispute and began reverting. If that wasn't a sock (possible used from a home IP, or Starbucks, or something like that), then it certainly was a meatpuppet, which for our purposes can be treated the same as a sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thank you for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scalabrineformvp is still blocked as sockmaster, but the alleged socks have been unblocked. Are there other socks that account is blocked for? I'm a little confused because trying to get facts rather than opinions out of the related discussions is difficult. -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Unblocked NW (Talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of 99.31.73.22

Why did you block 99.31.73.22 (talk · contribs)? There was one disruptive edit from that IP address calling the veracity of that article into question, and I wouldn't call that vandalism unless it were definitely proven to be so. It's plausible that it's a misguided attempt, perhaps by a young user, to be productive. I attempted to begin a dialog with the user to address any concerns they had, but you stepped out of turn and blocked them without a single warning. I don't usually contest other folks' blockings, but unless I'm missing something, this looks absolutely ridiculous. I want to AGF, so please explain your reasoning. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed the template you used specifies the block was "for persistent vandalism", which obviously is not the case. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you are right that I blocked him incorrectly. I was blocking quite a few vandals from 4chan yesterday, and I guess I was a bit too block-happy when watching the recent changes feed. I have unblocked; hopefully this user was indeed acting in good faith. NW (Talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Maybe my last message was not all that crucial, but this one is: the all-encompassing vandal has another account, called User:Ghjkl890 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ghjkl890 - see for instance how he, at Žarko Tomašević, again removes REF, i already reinstated it); please block, revert (except at this case and João Aurélio, i already took care of that) and, should it be possible, i think it is, delete all newly-created pages by this "editor".

Attentively, have a nice weekend,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Do you think you could open the SPI case anyway though? I want to see if we could get a checkuser to block his underlying IP. NW (Talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, i may be a little "on the hasty side", but i have been looking every other hour in the report page, and nothing besides your last entry has showed. Does this mean no conclusion as yet been reached. That idea of yours (underlying IP) would surely be a GREAT development, man. Take care, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sock edit history

Its three days now since you said you would look at the edit history and decide, this time delay has imo caused disruption and i would request you end the discussion and make a decision as to whether there is enough detail to warrant a check user on my account, thanks. yes or no, please close the speculation Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. NW (Talk) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

web archive

Hello again, i wanted to know that if a page no longer exists, and we then find the web archive version, is that still the same. as the original link. and also could those be used to do references? Gman124 talk 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. If the original citation would have been {{cite web|url=http://www.foo.com|title=Bar}}, the new citation would be {{cite web|url=http://www.foo.com|title=Bar|archiveurl=Link to Internet Archive page|archive date=Some date, which is actually necessary or the template breaks}}. NW (Talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why is the citation so long for that? also i was talking about from web.archive.org they keep archive of most of the web pages we see. Gman124 talk 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the way it is. You can use the web archive link in the archiveurl parameter, but the other three parameters are still critical. NW (Talk) 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. :) Gman124 talk 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, so it was accepted? Didn't think it needed to be, but that is ArbCom's choice. Also, why I am I even responding? This a routine message that you no one going to read the reply to. Must be a sign that I'm going mad. :) NW (Talk) 03:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was a routine message to everyone who commented on the request, I did read the reply and no you are not going mad, as far as I can tell. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. :) BOZ (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

like minds on 2010 Austin plane crash

We both protected the article in the same second. Well synchronized agreement, wouldn't you say? —EncMstr (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike? ;)
Incidentally, are you sure it was in the same second? I've heard people say that before, but I have never figured out how they could get the accuracy down to more than a minute without using some sort of IRC monitoring feed. NW (Talk) 05:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You actually did:
  • 2010-02-19T00:20:07 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs | block) protected 2010 Austin plane crash [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Move warring) (hist | change)
  • 2010-02-19T00:20:07 EncMstr (talk | contribs | block) protected 2010 Austin plane crash [move=sysop] (expires 05:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (current article name is descriptive and neutral) (hist | change)
(One of the options under "Preferences" -> "Date and time" enables you to see the seconds.)
But I came here to say thanks for fixing the mess I created by moving the redirect. There were lots of great minds there I think. :) Ucucha 05:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Wolven

Hi - sorry to bother you. Some time ago you userfied Nick Wolven for me, but it seems to have disappeared. I tried to find it under my contributions but I don't see it under there either - did all the material I added simply go away after a time period was passed? I put in a few more hours of work there and it seems to have just disappeared - is there any way to get it back? Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still seems to be at User:Luminifer/Nick Wolven, though it was blanked by Tedder as you hadn't worked on it in some time. Do feel free to undo his edit, though please remove the AfD tag and any categories on the page. NW (Talk) 05:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was just a copy of it that I made when it got deleted. When you userfied it, I made a lot more changes - including his cover story in Asimov magazine in December, and a lot of reviews. I don't know what happened to the userfied version of the page you created - I forget the name, it was something / Nick Wolven. It's disappeared entirely from my contributions without a trace. Luminifer (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that would be Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Nick Wolven. It's restored now. NW (Talk) 14:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the welcome. How come you have such a scary username? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.81.249 (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I promise I don't bite :)
I, being the ultimate failure in creativity, chose for my username the article I happened to be reading at the time – Nuclear warfare. I really ought to change my username, but it is such a hassle to do across many wikis that I decided I would only do it when I decided to change my username to my real name. NW (Talk) 05:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On images

Hi NuclearWarfare, you were so kind to start an image review in October last year here, and Stifle weighed in, too. Would you please check the images of the present version here? The last time things stalled over some ambiguity but I believe it's all clear now and won't take up much of your time. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NW, if you are too busy to check please tell me also, then I'll perhaps ask Stifle. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry for not getting back to you. I am a bit busy at this time; could you please ask Stifle? Thanks. NW (Talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Hi there NUKE, VASCO again,

A favour, man: could you please change the page Carlos Eduardo Ventura to Duda (Brazilian footballer)? There is only one more footballer named as such, his article being duly named Duda (Portuguese footballer). I tried, but the move was blocked.

Thanks a million (again) in advance, have a great weekend,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It has been  Done :) NW (Talk) 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of 70.90.111.61.

I think you were somewhat harsh here. You blocked it only after it had received a "level 1" warning. Also, the only edits to its talk page are mine and yours, so that's the only vandalism it's done. - Zhang He (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly the same person vandalizing since the 4th of February. I take a pretty hardline approach to vandalism. No need to let them continue vandalizing because we haven't warned them enough recently. NW (Talk) 23:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so who's the sockpuppet of 70.90.111.61? - Zhang He (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article deletion benjamin cannon

Hi there, could you send me a copy of the article and criteria for deletion please? I would like to rewrite it such that it would be applicable for wikipedia.

I'm assuming you are talking about Benjamin cannon? Do you happen to have any sources that would allow it to meet WP:MUSIC? NW (Talk) 02:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User issue

I tried to create User:Kfailssc, but I pressed the "similar" button. I tried to create it by overriding it, and it's supposedly already created, even when it doesn't show up on my log. Do you know what is going on here, because I would create the account, but it won't let me. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user does indeed exist, and I'm pretty sure you created it.[1]
Hmmm, I think I've had this issue before now that I think about it. On my user log for the account creator page, it shows that I closed it as a non-created thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Warning about canvassing

My original post to Okip's talk page was here I refactored Okip's topic header. This was the original one: [2]

We both know the rules. We both know that contacting editors who are involved in an ongoing discussion is not canvassing, and is allowed.

To paraphrase what Fritzpoll posted on my talk page:

I believe your accusations against (me) are in violation of our policies on personal attacks. Specifically, the section which defines one form of personal attack as:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

If you would like, I would happily post the applicable guidelines.

Don't lecture editors about rules they didn't break. Since I did not break any rules, I would appreciate an apology from you.

Okip 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make a big deal about this but Okip and I have had enough conversations about this and many other topics and I would prefer that any posts he makes on my talk page not be used against him. He could have easily emailed me his concern. I appreciate your point of view but I really don't want to be used as evidence, thanks J04n(talk page) 17:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okip, the issue with edits like this are that they are not neutral and ask people to focus on one specific section of the RfC. By contacting several editors who you know share a similar point of view as you, you overwhelm a smaller discussion within the larger RfC. If you had asked a few editors "I posted some of my thoughts here, would you care to take a look to make sure I didn't misrepresent anything?", that would be fine. But your post was targeted to more than a couple of editors and wasn't exactly neutral. But those are just my thoughts. NW (Talk) 20:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help with verifying free images

Hi, I noticed you're an admin on Wikipedia Commons and I'm looking for some advice as I've never uploaded images before. I found somebody willing to release his pictures under CC-BY-SA, which he published on an internet forum post (URL: http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/23233-go-thunder-go-4.html#post407806). I asked him to add the following text under his pictures:

"I am releasing these images under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC-BY-SA)."

I've uploaded one of them to commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JF-17_background_Mirage_5_ROSE_foreground.jpg) as a test, adding the above URL as the original source and as proof of permission. Can you see any problems that would cause it to be deleted? Thanks for any help you can give. --Hj108 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great! Thank you very much for uploading this. NW (Talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, thanks again for checking it out. I'll tell the owner you liked it, he's an ex-Air Force guy who was happy to help me illustrate the JF-17 jet fighter article I've been working on. He's got quite a few more good ones which I'll put up soon.--Hj108 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jeremy irons

why did you delete it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.27.75 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this mistake. I was trying to purge an revision from the history, but apparently my script stopped midway and the article stayed deleted. Should be fixed now. Cheers, NW (Talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks it was shocking :D (78.161.27.75 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks

Hi NuclearWarfare, thanks for touching base with me. I always wondered if one of my welcomees would make it big. It looks like you've made a big difference here! Regards, Accurizer (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Enlightenment

Thanks for nominating my article. It's the first one I've done. --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Popp

With pleasure. bneidror (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another SOCK bites the dust?

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

regarding this situation (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marvingroves/Archive), where you efficiently intervened, i think (i do not want to sound pedantic or anything, but i don't think, i AM SURE) the vandal has come up with another account, now called User:Markvermeulen ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Markvermeulen).

Why do i say this? Because at Oleguer Presas, he inserted (falsely!!) this player has represented the Spain national football team internationally, a pattern in the vandal, inserting this kind of lie in footballers' articles. If you take 30 seconds to read this section in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleguer_Presas#Personal.2Fpolitical_writings), you will see all the more that it has been a vandalic "addition" by this "editor".

Do you think something can be done about it? So sick and tired of PARARUBBAS and his siblings...

Cheers, ty in advance as always, have a great week,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&oldid=345513359"