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.

Mimi Macpherson

Fake timestamp inserted so this does not archive for a while. I will remove it if the issue is resolved: 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

NW, given your very strong opinions about BLPs, I'd suggest that you not close AfDs or DrVs on them in the future. I don't believe 5% of the admin core would have closed that DrV that way. Admins really shouldn't be taking admin actions on stuff they have strong opinions about and I can't imagine you see yourself as not having strong opinions on BLPs. Hobit (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have erred in your closure, but will leave it there. The problem we now have is WP:GNG can you explain in light of your closure what constitutes notability on this person, what we have is 15 years of sustained and substancial media coverage in every media outlet in Australia, we have sourcing as a TV presenter in Australia for The Discovery Channel, She is a Radio presenter in Queensland as well as goto source(expert) for comments for national media outlets in relation to Whales conservation. Gnangarra 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you folks suggesting that admins not have opinions on anything (which I'm sure most admin candidates have when they were non-admins)? Or should admins not have brains when closing such discussions? –MuZemike 06:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins shouldnt close when they are actually expressing an opinion, but I dont care about the closure. I care about WP:GNG so far everyone thats closed discussions on this matter have been unable to answer what we are required to produce as sourcing beyond that which is expected for any other BLP. The subject meets notability more thoroughly than most people but its decided she isnt notable since NW made that decision on the balance of the discussion presented obviously NW has some idea about will be required to have the article. If NW cant define it how can we mere mortal editors do it? Gnangarra 07:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The ideal case is the uninvolved administrator. NW is highly involved in BLP issues and takes a very deletionist stance. Just as a Star Wars fan shouldn't be closing Star Wars AfDs leaning toward delete as keep, neither should someone with a strong opinion on BLPs close an AfD (or DrV in this case) against consensus. I think it's pretty obvious, but apparently it needed to be said.Hobit (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This close is really very poor. The original reasons given for deletion had no basis in policy, and the arguments for endorsement of the close equally had no basis. To give weight to people who argue that Mimi Macpherson is not a notable person is to throw reality completely out of the window, and are you going to actually defend people who cited WP:BLP1E? As for "no longer a public person", she certainly was a public person as recently as last October,[1] and what ever happened to "Notability is not temporary"? This sets a horrible precedent: anyone who isn't an A-lister who doesn't like well-publicised negative aspects of their life appearing in a Wikipedia article simply has to complain to Jimbo, and up will pop people arguing that 2+2=5 to get it deleted. Fences&Windows 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that Gnangarra and Fences&Windows are likely correct when they say that this person meets the notability guidelines. The AFD and DRV both arrived at a rough consensus that supported that opinion. That's all fine and dandy, but deletion guidelines clearly state that the subjects wishes may be taken into account, which I am not going to apologize for doing. Until Wikipedia gets a near-foolproof way for protecting BLPs, I am nearly always going to do so when making a decision. Does that make me biased? Maybe. But not so much that I am going to stop closing AFDs, especially because not a single one of mine has ever been overturned. I could be wrong, but I don't believe so. NW (Talk) 22:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

NW-don't let this get to you, good call. This thread is about sour grapes. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

so little understanding for someone with such community trust. I'm trying to understand how the article of a notable Australian gets deleted and what it will take to move forward(re-create), the admin of the afd closurer said nothing except take it to DRV, WP:AWNB discussed the implications of the afd closurer -- you screamed canvassing(though there wsnt any) but I waited anyway and the DRV wasnt listed at AWNB. The DRV was closed as endorsing the closure I seek more detail, NW explained then you popup making an unnecessary comment, if your intent is to start a bush fire on the issue your going the right way about it. I suggest you go take a happy pill and do something productive and leave it to us experience editors to discuss this in a civilised manor. sorry NW for this response but after 5 years here the discussions about Mimi have generated the worse reactions by a crat I've ever seen Gnangarra 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to add NW I wasn't too happy either. We could have used semi-protection indef or even full protection. Outright deletion is like hitting a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. Think about it, so where does influence stop? You do know many political parties of various countries watch and edit wikipedia don't you? So this sort of decision gives a tacit green light to all sorts of people on how information can be influenced by the subjects themselves and hence undermines the credibility of the 'pedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There wouldn't happen to be an OTRS ticket I could read, is there? Depending on the wording of Ms. Macpherson's request and because the consensus really was leaning towards overturn to keep, I could be convinced to modify my closure to "restore but add on Reviewer FP and Semi Protection". NW (Talk) 22:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good approach. I don't recall seeing any discussion about an OTRS ticket as such, just that Jimbo had intervened after some communication with the subject. I think the best the best thing would be to ask Jimbo about the exact exchange. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on Jimbo's talk page here. NW (Talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you NW, as I suggested in the afd I'd have no problem with a heavily oversighted restoration or even a fresh re-creation so as address BLP concerns. As Cas expressed the subject isnt the issue, the issue is the decisions and process outcomes that make it plausible to request deletion of all but a few 100 BLP articles on the similar grounds. I'll leave it here when you've had discussions with Jimbo give me a shout and I'll be happy to help if theres a need, also note I'm on the OTRS en-info queue as well. thanks Gnangarra 02:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I had requested that we hold off on even having a DRV until I finish talking with the subject. Due to the time differences and her busy schedule and mine, that takes longer than one might hope, but there is no hurry on any of this. What I propose we do is hold another DRV (I will gladly initiate it) in a couple of weeks, likely for the purposes of bringing back the article, including some fresh sources - on paper - which will be (ideally) scanned and sent to OTRS.

The biggest problem with this biography is the problem identified in the initial deletion request - she really isn't notable in and of herself, but only through being the sibling of someone famous. It is likely true that she meets some of our existing guidelines, but I think this only points to some failings in those guidelines, which haven't adequately contemplated cases of this nature.

Arguments have been made that she's a "household name" in Australia - although without proof. But even if she is a household name, the fact remains that not very much is known about her other than a handful of negative tabloid-style events which would not, in and of themselves, even been covered in the press, save for her being the sister of Elle Macpherson. A DUI, a bankruptcy, an alleged sex tape on the Internet. If these things happened to most people, it would not be in the press, and correctly so - but in her case, the press attention was a mere side effect of her sister's fame.

At the same time, Mimi is well aware that a google for her name gives pretty sad results. Nothing much about her is known, and the Internet is sadly mostly interested in the sex tape - so "slutload.com' (*sigh*) appears 2nd in the google results, while her own site appears 8th. She's sympathetic to the idea that if a *quality* biography of her, warts and all... but importantly "and all" - meaning genuine coverage of her entire life as opposed to the random collection of tabloid tidbits we had at the outset of this- could give a much better impression of who she really is.

What I'd like for us to do is wait a couple of weeks until she's made up her mind and we've really thoroughly assessed the situation privately as to what might be possible here, and then hold another DRV *with her considered and well-advised opinion* taken into account. Notice that I don't say that it should absolutely rule the day, but that it is legitimate to take it into account, and that this is - per the DRV close - a borderline case where that seems incredibly relevant.

I will forward my entire correspondence with her (after I get her permission, of course) to OTRS, so that others may review the situation as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jimbo, this doesn't look negative nore non-notable, and neither does this which is about the family not just Elle, nore this, nor this or this, so I am not too impressed with a comment like that about lack of proof. She is on television from time to time here and would be recognised by plenty. Look, I didn't argue too strongly at the time as I do sort of agree that maybe some folks famous for just being famous we could do without, but we need some sort of algorithm - as things stand she veers too far into notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

nor this note the show as proof she's a "household name" in Australia and no mention of Elle. Gnangarra 13:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Jimbo didn't carefully review the sources as he had information "straight from the horse's mouth". It's a very easy mistake to make--when you get close to the middle of things you can easily miss stuff. A careful review of the sources makes it pretty plain she's very notable and that her notability isn't based on her sister's (though it likely started there). She is, by our rules, notable for 3 or maybe 4 separate (though related) careers: TV show host, whale conservationist, and running her own business. Her work with her fathers business may be a forth. She won an award for her own business. Admittedly it apparently went belly-up, but that doesn't detract from her notability. She's in no way boarder-line notable nor is her notability solely due to her sister. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point...

I was not sure when the pending changes trial ended, so I just went with both. If you see any edit-warring on the page, feel free to shut it down, relocking the page, and blocking any/all edit warriors SirFozzie (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Pending Changes trial ends around August 15. Hopefully it will be judged to be a success and we can start bot-adding it to all of those un/barely-watched BLPs.

And I will be sure to do that. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question - I noticed that you removed semi on the Monckton article but left pending changes in place. The article has been frequently affected by problematic editing from IP addresses and some sockpuppets. Which is the better way of dealing with that, pending changes or semi? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably semi, with use of level 2 pending if necessary. I'll make the change to that if the issue comes up again. NW (Talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll notify you if it does come up. Hopefully it won't, but I suspect it probably will... -- ChrisO (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take long for the IPs to turn up and start deleting things. I think we do need semi again - the article has been semi-protected for most of its history, but has been severely disrupted by IP editors during the relatively short periods of its unprotection. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(added) FYI, the IP is now adding accusations of fraud against living persons. I've raised this at WP:AN/I#Accusations of fraud - oversight needed. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. I'm surprised that SirFozzie reprotected the page, I didn't think there was any need to do that. His choice though, I suppose. NW (Talk) 02:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Favor

Can you please semiprot Public opinion on climate change? Our old friend has discovered it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Reblocked the new sock and semi-protected for two weeks. That can be lengthened if necessary. I'll keep an eye on it, but just pop me a note on my talk page if I miss anything. Cheers, NW (Talk) 03:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy service! Expect a little something extra in your next pay packet. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Know any free way to get access to the journal articles listed here? It would be rather annoying to download them all at work and email them to myself. I can remotely login to my work account from home, if that would help. NW (Talk) 03:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of my domain, sorry. MastCell or Tim Vickers would know about the medical literature. Can you download them at work and put them on a USB stick or something like that? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably could do that, but I'm not sure if I'll have the downtime to do that over the next few days, might be rather busy. It would be much easier to just do it from home in the evening if possible. I'll drop a note on MastCell's talk page. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of the best answer for you. I have proxy access to the library of an academic medical center, so I can log in to the library proxy from home (or elsewhere) and then access the library's online catalog of journals. That probably doesn't help you much, though. You've probably already noticed, but Chuh et al. is freely available through PubMed Central ([2]). I can email you the others if you'd like, but it sounds like you've got access from work so I'm not sure that would help... MastCell ^Talk 04:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Sent you an email, though after re-reading MastCell's comment I may have mis-read your request. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@MastCell: Nah, it's all right. I was hoping to be able to download them from home somehow, but logging into to the website and poking around doesn't seem to get me anything. I think the computers hooked up to the servers at work have access to all of these journals though, so I should be able to find 10 minutes during the day some time and download them all. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

@Guettarda: It's much appreciated, thank you. That should save me some time tomorrow. NW (Talk) 04:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I was ref-hunting anyway when I stopped by to see if there was anything exciting going on over here. Guettarda (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Though I would comment. In google scholar under scholar preferences tab you can enter institutions you are affiliated with and if you have the right password assess literature from home. If you are unaware... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is all a bit new to me, and that piece of advice is certainly very helpful. Thank you very much! NW (Talk) 22:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A sad day?

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

From what i have read in his page, Satori Son has retired from WP (there are two seemingly contradictory templates joined, one - the old - saying he was an "on-and-off" editor, and now the new one, saying that he left :().

Being the latter the case (as it obviously is), don't take it so bad if i "over-harass" you with Pararubbas-related issues, you know what they are :) In the meantime, i have found nothing "connecting" to him, but he still has not left any comments in Satori's talkpage either (as if he would!).

Now, for a little technical favour man: can you please fix an error i made in my user page? For aesthetical reasons or to scare off the vandals (still dunno which!), i tried to insert the "rollback" template there, and failed miserably...Could you have a look please? Many thanks in advance.

May the WIKIforce be with you, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. And it's such a shame to hear about Satori, hopefully he will be back soon. Of course, you are always free to ask my help on anything. NW (Talk) 01:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Can be a sad day indeed! Reporting:

About this Portuguese user (as i) Pitadodocu: clearly a S.L. Benfica fan, who will add nonsense in articles even when boxes and links say different (like in Nélson Oliveira, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N%C3%A9lson_Oliveira&diff=prev&oldid=375034526; or in Artur Futre, a player which was now playing in the regional leagues of Portugal, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artur_Futre&diff=375721700&oldid=375036359), only to make a given player look like Cristiano Ronaldo - i bet he, as anon, was the one who created Futre's article, with the results you can see in the article's history...He also has no English skills whatsoever, and writes no summaries. Some of his behaviour is thus, clearly close to vandalism IMO.

You were warned, you said i could "harass" you ;) Cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I asked for it, didn't I? :)

I left left the user a note on his talk page. I agree with you, and will block him if his behavior continues. NW (Talk) 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen

This? Just letting you know mark nutley (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He knows [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mhmm, WMC got it right. I wasn't sure on my judgment call on this one, so I decided to step back entirely and let another sysop who is experienced with sockpuppets handle it. NW (Talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

I'll ask that you take a look at Mass Killings again. User:BigK HeX is serially removing multiple reliable sources, with vague comments about NPOV and Weight - the only problem is that there are no opposing POVs to weigh - the obvious solution is for him to add his favorite RS POVs, rather than remove RSs.He is also editing my talk page comments, and accusing me of violating 1RR (on my talk page). Any help keeping order appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have limited time at the moment, and I am afraid I simply don't have the time to look into this situation. If the situation is as bad as you claim it is, I suggest you kick the matter up to ANI. NW (Talk) 01:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Illusion

In the past, you seemed to have some concern over the use of The Hockey Stick Illusion as a source. A scientific organization, the Geological Society of London, just gave the book a positive review. Since the voluntary topic ban appears to have collapsed because of the new delay in the ArbCom's decision, I am going to resume using the source as a reliable source in climate change articles. I just wanted to give you a heads-up. Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Errr... I'm going to be the fly in the ointment here. I would stop short of saying, or implying, that the book was endorsed by the Geological Society. It received a sympathetic review in the Society's publication. According to that publication, books are advertised for review, and any fellow may sign up to review the book ([4]). I don't think that the Geological Society can be said to place its official imprimatur behind every opinion expressed by one of its volunteer book reviewers.

In this case the book was reviewed by Joe Brannan, who appears to work in oil exploration and production for Shell Oil ([5]). In terms of the actual official viewpoint of the Society, it seems to believe that "the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels caused by the combustion of fossil fuels must be corrected", which is rather different than the message conveyed in the book review. I'm not saying the review is irrelevant, only that it should not necessarily be presented as "the Geological Society of London gave this book a positive review." MastCell ^Talk 23:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is not labeled as an advertisement, and otherwise carries the society's implied endorsement or editorial control, since thy have placed no disclaimer on the page ("This review does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Society"). I will reword the statement in the article, however. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As a fellow of the geological society of London (FGS) who has recieved the Geolsoc magazine (Geoscientist) for a number of years and who personally knows people who have written book reviews for it I can categorically state that this review is in no way a geolsoc endorsement of anything the review says, that is not the way book reviews in the geolsoc magazine work. Polargeo (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, which articles specifically do you plan to use it as a source in? The only recent edits of yours that I see to climate change article or talk pages are to The Hockey Stick Illusion and Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. NW (Talk) 01:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still working through the book, but it has a lot of details which would be of benefit to expanding the Hockey stick controversy article. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on several times before, there's simply no need to cite the book for general background info. That info will be reported elsewhere in other, indisputably reliable sources. A pragmatic approach would be to use those sources rather than this book. If we're talking about specific scientific details, the book is hopelessly unsuitable as a source - it's written by a non-scientist presenting a fringe POV based around a collection of inaccurate, quote-mined, speculative or disproven claims and conspiracy theories. This review by an actual climate scientist should give anyone pause before they consider using it as a source. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the number of positive reviews may have bolstered the case that it has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not based on the reviews that I have seen. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

How many have you read? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I read the three Marknutley presented and they do not reinforce the source becuase they are book reviews and therefore have a less rigorous method of fact checking than the book itself. So therefore cannot be used to verify the fact checking credentials of the book. Polargeo (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Polargeo, the "reviews" presented to date show such obviously incorrect or fringe views that they undermine any suggestion that the book has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. As they're by lay reviewers with no claim to expertise in the field, it's not surprising that they don't notice this and instead are enthralled by the rattling good yarn. . . dave souza, talk 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've been struck by how the reviews of the book appear to be largely from people who have already expressed support for the denialist POV. It strikes me as a kind of mutual masturbation process - denialists giving positive reviews to a denialist book. The outcome is no more meaningful than, for instance, creationists praising a creationist book, or supply-side economists praising a supply-side economics book. You only really get interesting reviews from people who come from a different perspective and have sufficient expert knowledge to critique the work in question. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the book reviewers' expertise in a field, this is a 'nice to have', but certainly not a 'must'. As for the book reviewers having a POV, that's fine. All sources have a bias. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem would only arise if the book were to be used to cite a matter of fact rather than opinion. Since the book is unreliable. it should not be used as a source on the facts. The fact that the reviewers have opinions is to be expected, but the fact that the reviewers and the author know absolutely nothing about the science and are presenting a very slanted and inaccurate history of paleoclimatology is what disqualifies the book's use as a source on the facts. --TS 22:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily true that none of the reviewers know anything about the science. One of the reviewers is a petroleum engineer for Shell Oil, and a surreal discussion is underway on the talk page of the book as to how much of that affiliation we should disclose to Wikipedia readers. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TS, in Wikipolicy terms the book is a reliable source for the views of its author, however the author and the book are questionable sources for facts. They're also promoting a tiny minority view on the relevant field of science, albeit a view with significant minority political support in some areas. As for slant and inaccuracy, the inexpert reviews shown for the book clearly indicate that it's inaccurate or misleading.A more informed review has been published in a blog, but although the author is known as an expert in the relevant field he posts under a pseudonym and in my view it doesn't meet WP requirements as a reliable source. Nonetheless interesting, particularly if you want to look at the use of statistical techniques in the field of science.[6]
ScottyBerg, the Shell Oil chappie describes himself as a layman about paleoclimatology in another of his reviews, so his expertise is questionable. . . dave souza, talk 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thanks. As a layman, his employment at Shell is of even greater importance in identifying this person in the context of his review. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen (and possibly even contributed to the comments thread at RealClimate) Tamino's review. I agree that we probably can't cite it as is, although his identity isn't exactly secret. --TS 23:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Having read the Climategate emails and studied the context in which they were written, especially the ones that disparage McIntyre and Climate Audit with fairly strong language, I think I understand why no one at RealClimate has issued a formal, signed-with-their-real name, response to Montford's book. Anyway, Montford's book provides details on the controversy I haven't seen anywhere else. Any information I add to the article using the book as a source will be presented in neutral language. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Work at Wikipedia

...forever. They still haven't learned, have they? NW (Talk) 01:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

International Journal of Hematology

thanks for correcting the category on International Journal of Hematology. However, why are you creating such minimal stubs (not just this journal, others, too), that could be challenged by people that want to delete them? They are barely definitions, so they could even be speedied (no indication of notability). It should not be difficult to flesh them out a bit. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide for some tips. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that is a terribly crappy stub for one so experienced as you. Come on NW :) Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I would rather create substubs than have the journals be redlinked in my article. I want people who wonder "what kind of journal was this published in" to be able to click on the journal article and see the publisher's name, which society organizes it, and a link to a website. I possibly could write more, but I'm just not interested enough to do so. It's a wiki after all, maybe someone else could do it one day.

Also, these could not be speedied under WP:CSD#A7, as that criterion does not apply to journals or any sort of published media. NW (Talk) 14:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• This particular one indeed cannot be speedied, but if it were an Internet-only journal, it could be speedied as a non-notable website. And I disagree with what you say about redlinks. If I see a redlink in an article, I may be incited to create the article. If I see it bluelinked, I may not even click it to get to see the "article" telling me that "Foo journal is a scientific journal", which hardly is helpful info at all. We have problems enough convincing people of the notability of well established journals, without needing to complicate those discussions with substandard stubs. --Crusio (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI clerk bot

Δbot has been approved, so I can say this now without prejudicing the request. Sometimes at WP:BOTREQ you have to be persistent and ask multiple times. It might be that the first time a willing bot op was on wikibreak (I was, back in December), or it might seems that someone else is taking care of it (at the discussion there was talk of someone getting and running the code for the old bot), or a willing bot op might just have missed it the first time. If Δbot ends up blocked or deapproved, I would be willing to have AnomieBOT take on the task. Anomie⚔ 11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the message, I will keep both your advice and your offer in mind. Best, NW (Talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TheNeutralityDoctor

In case you didn't see this, TheNeutralityDoctor is asking if you would unblock them.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. As I explained above to Mark, I handed the role of reviewing admin off to Prolog, who I forwarded Avraham's email to. If hu wished to, then hu was free to unblock TND. He chose not to, as did MastCell later. NW (Talk) 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)