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.

Cookie

The Second Coming of The Cookie Monster has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Contentious

Good morning NuclearWarfare - with regards your recent change at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons which has been commented about here - I am just writing briefly to detail a diff of my response to Dank's comment for your information and in case you want to add further comment.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Pleasure - cheers!--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Gottfried Mueller? Why?

Just wondering why you deleted Mueller's page. I know he died the other day, but I think he needs to be memorialized in some respect on Wikipedia. Why is it gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.98.17 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you typed in the name of the article correctly? I cannot find anything ever having existed for "Gottfried Mueller". NW (Talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Block

Wow [1], thanks. I had commented to the unblocking admin that lifting the previous block didn't bode well, especially since it had only been about 9 days. I also posted the diffs of the first 2 edits to his talk page, which were vandalism edits to Jamie Lynn Spears. I've dealt with this IP quite a bit the last couple of months and I didn't think there was going to be a difference. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to contact me if you ever need any assistance :) Regards, NW (Talk) 03:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Zords in Power Rangers: RPM

Could you extend similar protections to Zords in Power Rangers: Jungle Fury and Zords in Power Rangers: Wild Force, as these are the other two articles hit by the same vandal. He has just been really hitting the RPM page lately.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Semi-protected for six months. NW (Talk) 03:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few other articles in the category he infrequently hit:

• Zords in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers
• Zords in Power Rangers: Dino Thunder
• Zords in Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy (only twice)

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Might as well semi-protect those, I guess. Done for 3 months each. NW (Talk) 03:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple others but they're the main articles and probably shouldn't be semiprotected (Wild Force & RPM). I'll stick them on my watchlist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

166.203.229.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the second IP used by this individual tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Nikita Zotov for FAC

After a quick reading and correcting some typos I find the article got better than before my wikibreak and is worth submitting to FAC. Just a note:

• "and taught him religion and history" - might need rephrasing or deletion - the article clearly shows that he taught more than that. Materialscientist (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris sect

Hi Nuke,

• could you have a little closer look at this Brahma Kumaris (BK) business?

What you have here is nothing more than a deeply involved adherent of the sect, (BK Simon b), attempting to control the topic on their religion. This has been going on for years and is a repeat of the Jossi/Scientology episodes.

The defense of the huge and unnecessary box that BKSimonb recently placed on the topic, is simply yet an attempt by the Brahma Kumaris to discrediting the topic. it is entirely disproportionate.

Historically, one of the reasons the topic is so well referenced is because the Brahma Kumari tag team attempted to question or discredit almost each and every sentence turning the topic into an advert for their religion.

Through all this, Simon has become well skill in playing the Wikipedia and I am afraid that you are just yet another admin that he is being suckered in.

I appreciate that as a volunteer, you have little incentive to invest your time in doing so and that it is so much easier just to kneejerk over what is being presented to you, and so I apologize.

Under the circumstances, I do not think removing the box is "vandalism".

Thank you. --The Murli says, be accurate (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hi there nuclear warfare, nice to see you again. You recently blocked an IP for vandalism. I'm not sure if you're aware, but I accused the IP of being a sock puppeteer here, so it's probably only fair that you unblock the user. ceranthor 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, saw the closure. Disregard, plz. ceranthor 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hawthorne (Series)

One editor ("Cirt") has repeatedly taken down information that I had added to the site without any recourse, but when I started to edit his long list of selectively negative reviews, he knew how to immediately get an Administrator to block any edits from the site for several days. Another editor tried to add one of the many positive reviews about the show, but the site was blocked. If any of us are able to add positive reviews, and in the event Cirt takes them down, I would be grateful if I could ask for your help with that section of the page. As for the two sentences of cast, plot, and production descriptions I added to the site, I do not believe they were copyright violations. If I may cite the Wikipedia Copyright page, under "acceptable uses," it mentions that "brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes" (wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content.) I did only use brief quotations, cited from the official site, because they had the best, most complete descriptions about the show, just as many other editors also reference official sites. This one editor has also been able to take down the day of the week, and the time the show airs, even though it might be of interest to viewers looking for that information. He added ratings from a competing show, which may raise questions about whether he is manipulating the page. Wikipedia is such a great resource for information, but this page reads like one person's diatribe. I am asking if you could please restore the revisions of September 1 regarding the cast, plot, and production team. Thank you for having gotten back to me. Cotto 10:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

deletion review

Hello, please take a look here. -- Seelefant (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How can a simple user request lead to the deletion of "about a thousand articles"? Were these all stubs on politicians? Is there a list of these articles? Please clarify. -- Seelefant (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This should explain most of it. NW (Talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, if I piece this together correctly, you, user:Jennavecia and user:Ironholds have deleted ~1000 articles (ok, "sub-stubs") on conservative german politicians, simply because user:Blofeld who originally created them, asked for it??? And you didn't check whether any of these were MPs, what would make them encyclopedically relevant and not an unambiguous subject for speedy deletion? -- Seelefant (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

They were bot-created one-line biographies of living people and no sources were included, and the author had asked for the deletion. To me, that is most certainly enough reason to delete, no matter how notable they are. They may be recreated at any time by anyone if sources are provided, but not via bot creation. NW (Talk) 20:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't even know there was such a thing as bots creating articles. -- Seelefant (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What Blofeld essentially did was gather a list of all German politicans of this party and have a script create an article like the title "PERSON is a politician in XXX Party". Previously, we had no rules against this sort of thing; a recent Village Pump discussion now does prohibit this sort of thing. Regards, NW (Talk) 20:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin Solondz

Huh?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Was thinking about closing the AfD, did so, and then decided that I had screwed up while closing it. I reverted my edits, undid my deletions, and will leave it for an other administrator to close. NW (Talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. The lack of comment was confusing. I'm heavily involved, so I can't close it myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hamed Minhaj

Hi,

i am writing to you regarding the above article that i wrote on 21 sep. it was due for deleting on 29/09/09. I wrote on the discussion that i have the news paper in which Mr. Hamed story has been covered to proof my claims about him. i also have received a copy of documents from afghanistan investment agency ( Government body) confirming the company's investment and services in Afghanistan.i also have the news paper in which they have covered about hamed baba foundation. i have spend a lot of time in doing research and i am sure that noone will go that far in their searching as i have. Please kindly advice me how to load those news papers. in one of them he his picture has been printed in the full front page. please advice me how to load them to you guys for your reference. and kindly restore the article as i have and will spend time to get it right. i am a kind of person when i start a research then i will finished with facts and proofs. i will like to write more articles in future about notable people from Afghanistan. Kindly help me and do not throw my hard work in the bin. please restore the article and i am ready and willing to make it right. waiting for your kind advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the article, but keep in mind that it needs to be cleaned up and demostrate some sort of notability, else it may still be deleted. NW (Talk) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please kindly advice how do you want me to add the newspapers and documents i have received. they are hard copies. please kindly guide me.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For newspaper, please use the {{cite news}} template. If you need help with using that, please ask. NW (Talk) 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaxy Girls

Hi, I was hoping that you could give me a little education. I see that you just relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaxy Girls. Looking at the comments from the first go around I would think that it is a Keep, what criteria do you use to determine which way to go? I've only recenly become active at AFD, so I'm not questioning your decision I just want to learn. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I noted that the first keep voter, User:Judo112, has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. He had also been trolling AfD for the past few weeks, so I mostly ignored his vote. Besides that, there was the nominator, you, and Kieran. I usually prefer a little more discussion, so I decided to relist it in hopes of getting one or two more people to comment. I hope that helps, NW (Talk) 20:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So you actually research the validity of the editors, that's very impressive. Thanks. J04n(talk page) 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gl-117

Hi NW, you have just deleted GL-117... could you please temporarily restore it (along with its talk page) to preserve the revision history, and userfy both to User:Mokhov/GL-117? Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 Sure thing. Done. NW (Talk) 02:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That was fast! You even included the question mark "?" ;-) I will work on it in peace when get time to fully research sources. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Want me to fix that ;) NW (Talk) 02:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I just fixed it, thanks :) --Mokhov (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this...

[2] Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for all your tireless work :) NW (Talk) 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI:Nrse

The SPCUClerkbot overwrote your endorsement, so I added it back in, and manually inserted the case into the proper subpage. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. NW (Talk) 03:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It took me awhile to figure out what the bot was doing, but it looks like I got everything right. The case in the right spot so I suspect I did the correct manual edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination)

Thank you for undertaking the difficult task of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). I believe that the debate should have been closed as "delete" instead of "no consensus". The "keep" arguments were mostly per WP:IAR. None provided compelling reasons to keep the article, whereas the "delete" arguments were well-grounded in policy.

Throughout the course of this discussion, no reliable sources were found to establish the notability of this website. Would you please re-read the debate and re-examine your closure? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good close. There were differences of opinion on whether there was enough substantial independent coverage in reliable sources, which is the very essence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Save for ChildofMidnight, none of the other editors (even the "keep" votes) believed that there was "substantial independent coverage in reliable sources". The reliable source that CoM believed to be substantial was quoted here. I refuted the depth of coverage as being a passing mention here and here. kelapstick (talk · contribs) also believed that the sources were not significant coverage, as did DoriSmith (talk · contribs) (see here). The "keep" votes did not agree or disagree with CoM's analysis of the sources and instead mainly concentrated on WP:IAR (see the links I provided in my initial message: 1 2 3). Cunard (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One source had multiple paragraphs. I'm not sure why Cunard is so adamant on this particular AfD, but it has a whiff of COI. The website has been discussed in reliable independent sources. Some editors think the coverage is enough to establish notability, others do not. That is the very definition of no consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

True, the source had multiple paragraphs, but in the AfD, I already explained why this source is insufficient because it is a passing mention. As I said above, kelapstick and DoriSmith also believe that the sources are insufficient. In this AfD discussion, only ChildofMidnight believes that the sources are not passing mentions. The "keep" votes did not mention the sources, but instead believed that the article should be kept per WP:IAR.

I do not have a WP:COI with this topic. Where did I hear about this topic? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination).

Why do I believe this article should be deleted? At the AfD, I wrote "In a nutshell: the lack of verifiability means that the original research in Bullshido.net may or may not be true. Since there is no way to verify this information, false information may start seeping in. This will damage the reputation of Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. NW (Talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisting AFDs

A few of the AFDs that you have relisted lately weren't removed from the old AFD log. Please make sure you do remove them, or if you are using a script, check that it isn't broken. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Chocolately goodness!

Thanks for helping to review images at FAC! We value our reviewers and encourage you to keep up the good work! Awadewit (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, delicious. Thanks Awadewit! NW (Talk) 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)