User talk:NuclearWarfare

comments requested

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_interaction_ban_violation Nobody Ent 15:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You have mail

Hello, NuclearWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NewtonGeek (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Redactions requested

Please see my comments here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You have mail

Hello, NuclearWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

NewtonGeek (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

AE on Zachariel

Last year you formally warned User:Zachariel of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS. I have requested arbitration enforcement here due to his persistent disruption. Skinwalker (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Pointy section

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#WP:Office_revision is simply pointy and should closed. Nobody Ent 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Asking about use of ArbCom talk page

Since I'm not a party to the case, what are the rules that I have to follow to provide input there? How can I improve my behavior there? NewtonGeek (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The rules are set out on the top of the page. Things are generally enforced a little more stringently for non-parties, but in general, I haven't noticed any problems with your behavior thus far. Do you have anything particular in mind? NW (Talk) 05:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, a couple of Arbs separately mentioned there might be a problem. I told one of them I'd check with the clerks to see if I'm mistakenly doing something without knowing. I was warned by SilkTork for the reverting matter separately also. I know why he had to do that and it seems justified to me. Thanks for giving me feedback. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 9#Justin Bieber on Twitter

Regarding your close of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 9#Justin Bieber on Twitter, regarding the sentence "I think that as per DRV norms, that means we let the original closure stand?" Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews states:

If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

Would you rule on whether the closure is endorsed by default (and explain why you chose not to relist) or whether the article is relisted (and explain why you chose not to endorse by default)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I would choose the first one. We have already had quite a wide range of comment on the deletion review. I think that it would be better off if people spent their time on the RFC rather than arguing further on a DRV that doesn't look like it will come to a consensus any time soon.

Thanks for the heads up. Do you think I should go back and update my closing rationale? NW (Talk) 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, would you update your closing rationale? This will provide a measure of finality that the current close does not. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

PPACA edit

I don't think symbolic is the right word. Your citation says the votes are about scoring political points. So perhaps the comment is that the votes are politically motivated, but that is obvious, as they are indeed politians. I'm pretty sure that Boehner's motivations include highlighting the continued Democrat resistance to the repeal of this law, which repeal is favored by much of the public. This in turn could help elect Romney and Republican senators. Hardly symbolic if it works. Perhaps you can find a cite that uses "symbolic", but there are probably others that show Boehner's motives to be substantial... Bottom line, TMI for the lead. RegardsThomas Pain 67 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbolic still fits, I think – Ghandi's march to the sea didn't stop being symbolic just because it helped get the British out of India. But it's not something I care about all too much. Feel free to remove the parenthetical if you wish. NW (Talk) 19:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no realistic expectation by anyone that these votes will result in an actual change to public policy, and thus they're symbolic. That seems obvious, but also not worth arguing about, I suppose. MastCell ^Talk 20:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

PPACA

NW, that's now 2 re-reverts on the PPACA page in the same number of days with no attempt at consensus-building. Please stop WP:EDITWARRING before you are reported. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stopping to discuss every little thing makes editing quite cumbersome. One or two reverts isn't the end of the world—do you actually have any objections to the edits I have made? NW (Talk) 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I understand you might find consensus-building cumbersome (don't we all) but it's how things work here. Please delete your additions and state your position on the talk page so that we can hash it out. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

AE

Thanks for the note about the AE [1] and the advice. Regards. --Flexdream (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Troubles AE

Hi there. I was impressed (from my position as March the guilty bastard in, Sergeant-Major defendant) with your comments on the 1RR complaint brought against me by User:One_Night_In_Hackney. He has now raised yet another Troubles-related 1RR, albeit on an article about islamist terrorism in London, and I think that with your existing knowledge of the situation you would be a valuable contributor to this case. Thanks. --FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)