User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 16

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thomas Ricciardi

You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 4#Thomas Ricciardi as "[d]eletion endorsed". However, Thomas Ricciardi still exists. Per your close, shouldn't it be deleted? Cunard (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good catch. I have deleted it. NW (Talk) 15:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the sppedy deletion you overturned

That is okay, I didn't notice the notable awards she earned in the article and promise to scan the article more thoroughly. I am using the new page patrol script. It makes tagging pages very efficient.--Unioneagle (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Thanks for deciding to scan articles more thoroughly before tagging for deletion; it really helps with our interactions with new users. NW (Talk) 16:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Armand Morin

I don't know why you declined. I saw no claim of notability that met WP:BIO and the only source was the subject's own website. Article was created by an WP:SPA created to promote the subject. -Drdisque (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"His online marketing...have generated sales of over $76M" and "Armand Morin speaks extensively around the World" are certainly enough to avoid being speedily deleted. There is no harm in going through the AfD/PROD process. NW (Talk) 22:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

re: Super Granny, Polar Golfer and Tornado Jockey

Hi, my tagging of these articles as CSD-A7 was based in part on the rationale of a previous deletion of Super Granny. I will strive to be more careful in my assessment of new pages in the future. Jarkeld (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! NW (Talk) 22:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Ariconte's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quick note

Hi, NW ~
I noticed you corrected an SPI entry made by an unregistered IP just recently. It now appears in the "Waiting for CU" category, instead of the "Waiting for Clerk Approval" category - having leap-frogged past a half-dozen other earlier requests awaiting checkuser attention. Could you please mark Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters as clerk approved, if that is its correct status? Thanks much! Xenophrenic (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that shouldn't be in that queue at all, and I am frankly inclined to deny that CU request in any case. However, I'm too busy to look over the evidence posted, so I will leave it in the proper queue for another SPI clerk to take a look at. NW (Talk) 01:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren

I noticed you clerk declined this checkuser request. Did you see that the archive includes IPs that admittedly were Digwuren, one of which is listed in the current case? I suspect that is why it was included, as there are no edits from that IP since mid-January. However, it could be used for a checkuser.--chaser (talk) 02:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I did see the old case, but those IPs were fingered in February 2009. Even if the IPs were connected with this new account, I would question any block based on evidence that old. NW (Talk) 02:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Only if he moved house. I misspoke slightly, as the IP that he copped to is not the same one, although from the same city and speaking with people as if the same person.--chaser (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. In that case, that should be enough to run a check. I shall update the SPI page as such. NW (Talk) 02:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Basket of Puppies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Basket of Puppies 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Schools

Ah, of course. How foolish of me. I didn't even notice that it explicitly stated that. It seems I only read bold text. :D I'll be more careful in the future. Reach Out to the Truth 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I give up. I'm apparently way better at fixing things than accidentally causing them.

Alright. I'm just never going to look at userspace ever, ever again since it's just that cursed A7 variant that gets me every time. After reading about... 50 ANIs of related and about 10 ArbCom cases where it was incidental, there was actually an officlal ArbCom statement from this past April. Well, pretty close, and rather contrary, but it still technically happened. Administrators may delete inappropriate userspace pages, either speedily where the inappropriateness of the material is blatant, and otherwise through MfD sounds good. Oddly then then 2 statements later say it's never their job to decide what goes into userspace and that admins get to go that anywayandmrrr... ok. Pounding my head on my desk isn't going to help. I also don't think I want to know what the total number of people involved in all ArbCom cases is about 20.

Right. So technically do nothing to "theoretical" A7-9s in userspace. ...Unless there's a copyvio image issue, or. Um... if it's trying to sell me prescription drugs it's G11, G10 if someone is apt to die, and MfD if it's just been sitting there pretty blandly for awhile even though the user may be active elsewhere? Ok, the depth of A7 is will never be completely under my control, and since I trust you and ArbCom decision more than myself I'll just pretend it's as easy at the first 10 words or so. I'm at least glad that Dylan Childs didn't go amiss for me as well. I remember reading something very serious about WP:CHILD last week and hadn't run into it before. Sorry for my troubles~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a confusing issue to be sure, but the general rule is that matters of notability and verifiability don't really count for userspace, while the rest of the policies (BLP, advert) still do. As for Dylan Childs, I think I deleted that one as well. Just for future reference, tagging it as WP:CSD#G10 might help in the future. While it technically only just fits, it will get the attention of an administrator much faster, which is important for these types of articles. Thanks for all of your good work! I hope to continue to see you around the wiki. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Cheers, NW (Talk) 12:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much. I really appreciate your kind intervention. I am honoured. Take care. Dr.K.^praxis_logos 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. :) NW (Talk) 00:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor XXV

You need to re-open this. The idiot's back again with two new socks (that I know of). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The button here can be used to file a second report while the first one is still unarchived. Feel free to use it. NW (Talk) 19:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello! You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belial in popular culture with "The result was keep. 'listcruft' is not a valid deletion rationale. Perhaps this could be merged/redirected to Belial, but that is an editorial decision that should take place on the talk page of this article." An account who said to "Delete. Pure listcruft." has gone ahead and redirected anyway with no discussion. I undid this unilateral redirect, noting "discuss redirecting on talk pages instead when AFDs close as 'keep'" Instead of doing that, he just went ahead and reverted me with no explanation why. Then, I asked him to "see WP:BRD; you have been warned about edit warring before", which he ignored and once again redirected without explanation. I am not going to edit war with him and a different editor has undid his third revert and restored the article, but as the closing admin, this should probably be brought to your attention should he revert Dream Focus next or continue to act against or without consensus. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note A Nobody. I have warned the user to stop reverting and discuss it on the talk page. If I have to, I will block him. I'll watchlist the article and keep an eye on it for the next few days. Cheers, NW (Talk) 20:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured article deletion

Any particular reason why you've deleted the main page article? Valenciano (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake! I was checking some options in the delete menu and accidentally clicked enter. When I tried to undelete it, the large number of revisions crashed my browser temporarily. I think it should be good now though, with an additional semi-protection because the large wave of 4chan attacks. NW (Talk) 20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You scared me there for a second. Good to see all is well. KnightLago (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WOTD

Congratulations, NuclearWarfare! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, November 17th, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week! Décémbér21st2012Fréak | ^Talk 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Composers of the World

Are you familiar with this account? It seems to be active again. Is it spamming? See here etc. Thanks. --Klein zach 00:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I actually had an email conversation with this user. "Thank you so much for your quick reply. I understand now why my links were deleted and will in the future work on adding to the article and citing the sources- again, thank you for the great idea." I believe their links are to a good and useful site, but a mass addition like they are doing is unhelpful. Do you think you could bring this up at ANI? I would like to get another opinion before taking any action? Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll raise it with the Composers project and see what they think. --Klein zach 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Timeshift9

I have unblocked Timeshift9. The block was completely unjustified and manifestly excessive, and I will be referring your actions (and mine in reverting them) to AN/I. Orderinchaos 04:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that summarily unblocking a user without so much as an unblock request is considered rather poor form. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did so then *immediately* took it to AN/I. The idea being, then, that the community would decide the appropriate resolution. I have done my bit to defend WP:BLOCK policy. Orderinchaos 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Timeshift9

Hi. You recently (and correctly) blocked User:Timeshift9 for breaching WP:BLP on Nick Xenophon. I have no problem with the block itself, but ask if you might consider reducing its length.

On the one hand:

Timeshift added unsourced material to a BLP, and restored that material when removed in good faith by another editor. These are breaches of the BLP policy.
The burden is on the editor adding material to an article, to add the soruces. It is not acceptable to add unsourced material and then just fact-tag it for others to fix.
Timeshift has been around for a while, and should "know the rules" by now.

On the other hand:

The material Timeshift added is uncontroversial, and can in fact be sourced by anyone with a little time to spare.
Timeshift sought advice at a popular and relevant noticeboard when his initial edit was removed, and a long-term and very experienced editor advised him to restore the deleted material. What he should have done was seek advice at WP:BLPN, and the advice he should have got was either to source it himself or take it to the article talk page only, rather than restoring it to the article proper. Be that as it may, he appears to have asked in good faith, and followed the advice from someone apparently reliable.
Timeshift has been a routine defender of Australian political BLP's. His block log is not exactly spotless, but given the quantity and quality of his edits, this incident appears a little out of character on his behalf.

Again, I'm not objecting tot he actual block, which I think is deserved. Timeshift also hasn't asked me to appeal on his behalf and for all I know he's happy to go away for a week and presumably source the Nick Xenophon article. This is just a passing request for review of a block on someone who is otherwise (by and large) an asset to Wikipedia political pages. Euryalus (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested to see the thread above, actually. WP:ANI will probably have a thread soon enough, and your comments would be much appreciated there. NW (Talk) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The issue seems to have developed a life of its own - my typing was too slow to keep up with events! Rather than adding to the fast-expanding saga I'll leave it alone from here, but thanks for the reply. Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, NuclearWarfare. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Amador Valley High School

Hello NW! Amador Valley High School is up for FA review again - I was wondering if you would be interested in revisiting the article and perhaps leaving your comments. Thank you! - Deltawk (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
Message added 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
Message added 16:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

reply #2

		Cookies!
		For all your efforts as a Wiki Admin

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:174.50.39.146

Cheers for taking care of that. I hate to be a pain, but is it possible to diable his talkpage access? He's hyucking it up there with some witty verbiage. Cheers, Crafty (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems to have been done by another sysop already. Cheers, NW (Talk) 13:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Edwin P. Morrow

Thanks for your comments on my FA nom of Edwin P. Morrow. I've added source information (as much as I can gather) for the image of William O. Bradley. With regard to categories, I never work in Wikimedia Commons, so I don't really know the category structure there. Could you help with that or refer me to someone else who could? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do the Commons work myself; it isn't too difficult and I work at Commons pretty frequently. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! NW (Talk) 21:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illness among Jews

In light of some of the discussion in this AfD I've split the article to give Illness among Jews and Medical genetics of Ashkenazi Jews, since I think the marriage between the historical sources dealing with "Jews" in general and the modern genetic sources that deal with a defined ethnic group was a very uncomfortable one. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine with me. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 00:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Counter-revolutionary

Not the same individual as User:Sussexman. He was blocked for editing as Nicholas Corsellis QC which I simply don't believe. Kittybrewster ☎ 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Counter-rev was definitely a meat-puppet of User:Sussexman - they edited from the same domestic IP within minutes of each other, and did so multiple times - Allie ^❤ 05:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

hp

Will you please take another look at hp. There appears to be only one editor that continues to redirect the page to horsepower. Until a consensus can be determined in that favor, the default should probably be to the dab, especially since WP:REDIRECT indicates that redirects are used for capitalization issues. Regards —Eustress ^talk 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you hammer out a small consensus on the talk page with those who were involved in the edit war? Thanks. NW (Talk) 12:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The current "vote" is 3-2 in favor of redirecting to the dab, and I have asked the dissenting editors to reconsider. However, as WP:CONS says, "policies and guidelines reflect established consensus." And since WP:REDIRECT seems quite revealing in this matter, I don't believe another, less rigorous "consensus" is needed. Please advise. —Eustress ^talk 16:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As for the editors who disagree with you, let's wait for them to reply. A solid local consensus is always the best thing to gather for disputed articles. NW (Talk) 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Vehicle tracking system

Please reinstate the article Vehicle tracking system. I've read your page on speedy deletions, and the rationale you gave in the deletion log ("advertising or promotional material") simply does not apply in this case. The article (to which I was not a contributor so far, so I have no vested interest in it) did need improvement, including a strong need for more references, but Wikipedia has tags for that purpose. Deletion of the entire article was not warranted.

The article was not promoting any particular product or manufacturer. In fact, in a Google cache of it as of Oct. 17 (6 days before you deleted it), which I saved, there is not one single mention of any manufacturer in the entire text (not counting the last few See also listings).

Vehicle tracking systems are used in personal vehicles (e.g. cars), private vehicles (e.g. trucks) and public vehicles (e.g., transit buses and rail cars), and there are several different types of systems and different manufacturers. Of these areas, the one I know the most about is transit. Around half (maybe more) of the transit systems in the United States now use vehicle tracking systems (for a variety of uses, including telling a waiting rider how many minutes away - in real time - the next bus is, at a given geocoded bus-stop location), as is mentioned in the middle of page 3 of this American Public Transportation Association document. There is certainly some overlap with the article, GPS tracking, but some vehicle tracking systems do not use satellite technology at all. Someone created an article called Vehicle Tracking Systems (plural and improperly capitalized), which unlike the one you deleted, falls far short of Wikipedia's standards and was an orphan. After you've reinstated Vehicle tracking system, I'll merge those two and make the plural a redirect to the longer and much better article (but it may take a week or two for me to find time, though I'll try to do it much sooner). SJ Morg (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct; that was a mistaken speedy deletion. I have undeleted the article. Good luck with your quest to improve it! NW (Talk) 12:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. SJ Morg (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Update

Despite your warning, he is still edit warring across various articles. In the second example below, he clearly has reverted someone five times within 24 hours and despite another user warning him and this after just a day of being warned by you for edit-warring in one location and despite a history of it. I apologize for the length of the below, but as you can see it is widespread, has been going on for a while and warnings are just being disregarding:

User being reported: Doctorfluffy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit war A:

Previous version reverted to: [1]

1st revert: [2]
2nd revert: [3]
3rd revert: [4]
4th revert: [5]
5th revert: [6]
6th revert: [7]
7th revert: [8]
8th revert: [9]
9th revert: [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See below for explanation.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Kimber_Henry

Edit war B:

Previous version reverted to: [11]

1st revert: [12]
2nd revert: [13]
3rd revert: 16:40, 19 November 2009
4th revert: 19:01, 19 November 2009
5th revert: 06:28, 20 November 2009
6th revert: 16:16, 20 November 2009
7th revert: 20:27, 20 November 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User_talk:Doctorfluffy#Wimpy

Comments:

User is currently engaged in multiple edit wars over fictional character articles. User in question has been warned for edit warring elsewhere and has a history of engaging in long-term edit warring that while perhaps not technically always being 3RR in 24 hours, nevertheless goes well beyond 4 reverts total and will continue to do so despite being undone by multiple different editors. Another recent example of an edit war warning can be found here. In most of these cases, the user in question redirects fiction/popular culture related articles and the undoes anyone who challenges his redirects. He has again, been doing so for months now and should know better. Other examples I recall were [15], [16], [17], etc. or [18], [19], [20], etc. or [21], [22], [23], [24], etc. Another long-drawn out edit-war from this user is the following: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], etc. --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous. I have blocked him for 55 hours. Thanks for the notification. NW (Talk) 21:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome and thank you for the fast action; hopefully it will help prevents future disputes like the above. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

For you and anyone else who reads this discussion, the reason I chose to warn H Debussy-Jones and Maxpower03 rather than block them like I did Doctorfluffy was because I had previously warned Doctorfluffy just a few days ago and the other two editors had not received a warning yet. NW (Talk) 21:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That is understandable. As I had reverted Doctorfluffy in some past discussions, I have decided to stay out of participating in any of the reverting on the Wimpy article. The Wimpy one does seem two be two editors reverting each other, whereas most of the other instances is Doctorfluffy "versus" at least two others. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm admittedly a little unhappy that I've been given a warning for something that I've had no interest in pursuing for at least a month. I was never engaged in a "versus" war, and was merely updating the page in question to fit Doctorfluffy's standards. Yes, I had some problems with those standards, but I was never engaged in anything that could be perceived as damaging or out-of-line. In the end, it was Doctorfluffy who cut off all forms of communication with me, despite several attempts on my part to continue a reasonable discussion with him over the article. All attempts were ignored, so I requested some editorial assistance in mid-October. An editor there (SpinningSpark) was extremely helpful and offered a lot of constructive advice which I took on board. I have not touched the article in question since October 17.

While I don't intend this warning to be "taken away", I wanted to put across that I think it's entirely unjustified that I was brought back into this. As a relatively new user of Wikipedia, I was unaware of the "three-revert rule", so I apologize if I may have breached that. But I believe a warning, in this instance, is extreme and unnecessary. Just my two cents. Maxpower03 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have noted the dates of those edits; I thought I was analyzing recent evidence but quite obviously not. I shall remove the warning. NW (Talk) 23:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please note that some of my evidence above pertains to old edit wars to be used as evidence of a pattern of long-term behvaior by Doctorfluffy. I indicated the dates and times for the 3RR violation the last 24 hours and those focus on the Wimpy article. Sorry for any confusion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Maxpower03 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

New SPI report not showing in open cases list

Hi NuclearWarfare,

I just filed a new SPI report [38] but after a day it hasn't showed up in the Open Cases list on the main SPI page. I used the button provided on the main SPI page to file it and it all looks normal. Have I missed something?

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 06:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot must be a little off. I have filed it manually for you. Thanks for the report. NW (Talk) 11:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Way to go!

This is really great. Way to stand up for the rights of a blocked user with over 270 sockpuppets associated with him, who has sent me and other users threatening, harassing emails for years. Way to go! — goethean ॐ 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ask ArbCom to review my actions if you wish. But quite simply, our policies are our are policies, and we have to abide by them. NW (Talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully support NuclearWarfare's removal of that link and, in fact, he and I discussed it contemporaneously. I have my doubts as to the genuine value of the WP:LTA page; it acts as more as a memorialization of the ill-behaving editors behind multiple accounts than it does a useful repository of information for those who work to limit their impact, and I say that as someone who deals with sockpuppets on a near-daily basis. The link did not meet our requirements, it was attracting disruptive behaviour, and there was no genuinely useful information in it for people unfamiliar with that series of socks. Risker (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Block

The block did not work. [39] ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 14:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Week-long range block implemented. NW (Talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about

I haven't engaged in any edit war. It was actually another user who did 4 or even 5 reverts in the same day, not me. A proof of what I'm saying is the fact that my contributions remain unchanged so far and the only objection came from that particular user, who didn't even have a user name.

Watch the history logbook for that page and try to understand what the real conflict was before jumping to conclusions. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

These diffs ([40][41][42][43]) say otherwise. It doesn't matter if the other user is an IP; this sort of thing should be discussed on the talk page. NW (Talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One Media Player per Teacher

Just a friendly heads up on One Media Player per Teacher, as you were the deleting admin. The creator of the article has requested that the article be restored, and since prods may be restored on request, I've done so. However, I've advised him to fix the reference issues quickly and tagged the article as a COI. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#One_Media_Player_per_Teacher). Feel free to take this to AfD if you like. (I've also posted this to the editor who placed the prod.) Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like someone else has already done so. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

igloo

Hi NuclearWarfare, and thanks for your interest in igloo. Before using the program, please read the following information carefully - failure to do so may result in your test access being revoked.

igloo is a JavaScript-powered, browser-based anti-vandalism tool, which means you do not have to download or install anything on your computer and it will work on multiple operating systems. However, it does mean that the performance relies on that of your browser and it may operate more slowly than downloaded programs. You must have either Mozilla Firefox 3+ or Google Chrome to use igloo, as it is currently incompatible with other browsers.

igloo relies on a system called iglooNet to assist you in finding and reverting vandalism. It is this system that transforms the program from a pretty version of recent changes to an actual anti-vandalism tool. Naturally, this is beyond the power of a client-side program, and igloo will regularly communicate with an external, non-Wikimedia server. Because of things like server logs, and the iglooNet abuse tracker, this may allow your IP address to be attached to your username - something which is otherwise impossible on Wikipedia. If you do not want this to happen, you MUST NOT USE IGLOO.

If you decide that you do want to test igloo, please keep in mind that it not wholly stable, and you may experience problems where it performs an invalid edit, or other unwanted action. If this happens, fix any mistakes you've made, apologise to anyone you've offended, and let me know. I don't take any responsibility for your use of the program - if you aren't willing to fix any errors, don't use it.

igloo is already quite powerful. The following is a simple guide to using the program:

The igloo interface is similar to that of other software, including huggle. Recent changes appear on the left, and diffs appear on the right.
igloo sorts diffs based on iglooNet data so that edits most likely to be vandalism are displayed first. You can press spacebar to view the top diff, or click on any diff to view it directly.
When you find vandalism, press 'Q' or click the revert button to revert the change, and issue a warning to the user. igloo automatically issues the correct warning. It will ignore existing warnings that are more than 5 days old, and restart from the beginning.
The iglooNet assertion system tags clean and dirty edits with colour coding - if it suspects an edit is vandalism, it will be flagged as red, and if it believes it to be clean, it will tag it green.
At any time, you can re-review diffs you have already seen by pressing backspace or using the icons to move through the diff history.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions or other feedback, I'd love to know. If you hate it, and won't be using it again, please let me know why - and I'll remove you from the test whitelist. If you now try and use igloo, you should find that it will allow you to use the program. Thanks, and good luck! Ale_Jrb ^talk 11:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiki libs

Hi, I'm messaging you since it looks as though we may have missed a sockpuppet on the Wiki Libs investigation.

Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fozforus with blocked Libs' puppet http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wether_B&oldid=283087295

Libs' sockpuppets modus operandi with his sockpuppets appears to have been in each case to slap together a user page with some userboxes. Fozforus' first actions as a putative new user was to enrol in three wikiprojects [44]

Other proven libs socks for comparison: [45] [46] (and see contributions - same pattern [47]). Blocked User:Alisprings was not yet used for sockpuppeting, but libs also started by creating the puppet - [48]. User:Fair Deal is much older, but starts the same way: [49], as does User:Aussie Ausborn at[50].

Basically this behaviour sticks out like a sore thumb. Anyway, apart from that there are very incriminating edit patterns, check out: Bon Jovi at [51]. Wiki libs has a major obsession with genres for his pet metal bands, and numerous of his socks are active there - see for instance, [52] by 'GripTheHusk', then, a few hours later: [53], much the same edit, by Fozforus (in between them is 142.167.182.250, another definite libs sock, from the same 142.167. range as several socks reported previously, but it's stale, so that's just an aside).

If you go through the other edits by Fozforus, they are all **highly* incriminating if you've seen Libs' editing patterns, e.g., [54] where Queen are removed from glam rock, the discussion at [55] (scroll up also for use of numerous Libs' sockpuppets in this 'debate'), this: [56] 'talking to self' episode on AN/I. Also this: [57] and this: [58] on the Pete Townshend child pornography debate (see closed SPI - large numbers of Libs' sock puppets used here). There is more evidence, I think this is enough though?

As an aside, Wiki Libs (as himself) is denying his sockpuppetry here: [59], when it is plain from the contributions: [60] that it was him. Evidently he has to be formally 'convicted', as he hasn't the sense to admit what's obvious. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting that a checkuser would not have picked this one up. The behavioral evidence seems pretty good, but I'll request a checkuser to make sure. NW (Talk) 02:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR

I would like to notify you that the 3RR that you placed here here was not of any wrong doing of this user. The other one, User:Chasewc91, however is a sock of previously blocked user's User:Pokerdance and User:D.C. Blake and has a habit of edit warring over all articles over issues like genres, formatting against MOS etc. Bookkeeperoftheoccult is an extremely noted and reverred user who, I may say, understands policies better than anyone else. The other one, I don't really vouch for. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If Chaserwc91 is a sockpuppet, then that should be dealt with through the apprropriate channels, if you please. NW (Talk) 05:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Satoshi Tajiri image deleted

Why was this image deleted?

_{17:45, 21 September 2009 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Satoshi Tajiri.jpg" ‎ (Deleted because "Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons". using TW)}

I looked on commons and there isn't the same file there. So what happened? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons for the reason "The actual original source of this image is an official Japanese Pokémon website. Bulbapedia is a wiki, meaning that every user can claim that such a photo is in the public domain (more examples of "public domain")." The image was the same image that was on enwiki, and the deletion seems appropriate. NW (Talk) 19:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So, it was deleted because it was obtained from Bulbapedia, who obtained it from an official site? Could we just reupload it with the official site sourced then? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Bulbapedia obtained the necessary permission to host this information with an appropriate free license? NW (Talk) 02:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Maria Bartiromo

Just wanted to thank you for stepping in at the article and acting decisively. A shame the article was in that state, and even more a shame that it stayed that way for so long. Oh well. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. NW (Talk) 03:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ipswitch IMail Server

Hello. May you please restore this page to a subpage of mine (which was deleted after quite a long existence as spam)? I'd like to rework it to make it un-spammy. Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; see User:Airplaneman/Ipswitch IMail Server. NW (Talk) 00:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Airplaneman ^talk 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Soidi

I noticed that you blocked user:Platia because he was a sockpuppet of user:Lima. Why don't you also block user:Soidi, since the latter is also a sockpuppet of user:Lima ? I find that Soidi's edits are somewhat a violation of sockpuppet norms, since he reverted on behalf of user:Platia in one article called canon 915 after Platia's edits were reverted. It's inappropriate to restore material from your very own blocked sockpuppet, since it indicates that the user acknowledges his own sockpuppetry. ADM (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On User:Lima, Lima clearly states that Soidi is his alternative account, which is allowable per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I shall mark the Soidi page to indicate the same. NW (Talk) 00:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed AfD

Hello. Just to let you know, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamilia Wawrzynia and only deleted the redirect. The article itself is here, as the page was moved during the course of the discussion. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 05:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I have fixed the issue. NW (Talk) 11:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock IP

Hello there. The IP 99.231.81.164 has only made four edits, all four personal attacks on me. I have no idea who it is a sock of, but it is clear that this is a sock of another user. As an SPI clerk, I am asking you to help me as to how to proceed. If this is a long term user venting through an IP, that user needs to be punished for this. Thanks. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Probably just the IP of some vandal that you reverted; a SPI report isn't worth it. Another sysop blocked it for 48 hours; that should be good enough. NW (Talk) 20:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfP for Africville, Nova Scotia

I made an RfP for this article earlier today, to which you responded that the troublesome editors had been blocked. However, unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible), I do not see any indication that they have been blocked. When you have a chance, can you point me in the right direction? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the entire range[61]. Cheers, NW (Talk) 22:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you for that. Checking the individual pages revealed nothing. Now I understand why. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es

He is at it again, please have a look. [62] ◅ P R O D U C E R _(TALK) 10:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Made a few comments there. NW (Talk) 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promate WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:User:December21st2012Freak/Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

December21st2012Freak  ^{Happy Thanksgiving!} 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for rollback

If would be helpful if u could take a look at my request for rollback [63] and get back to me ASAP pday2387 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. NW (Talk) 18:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Lilian Edwards

I note that you closed a recent AfD on this article as "keep", and I have no problem with that -- my issue is that, when I patrolled it as part of clearing up the backlog at NPP, I noted that about 90% of the article is a direct quotation from her university's website. I recognize that a speedy tag for copyright violation would be unnecessarily contentious, even though I have no quarrel with this individual's notability; I've placed a prod tag on this because I want to ensure that the potential copyright violation gets dealt with, but I am in your hands as to what happens from here. Your comments would be very welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. In the future, {{copyviocore}} might be a better choice than prod, but I have dealt with this particular case. Thanks! NW (Talk) 20:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged -- I wasn't familiar with that particular template and appreciate the suggestion. I confess this hasn't happened before in my experience so I was floundering, but did want to ensure that the situation moved forward positively. Thanks for your assistance and prompt attention to this; now I feel confident the situation will be resolved. If there's anything further with which you'd like me to deal, I am at your service. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

/16 block

Editing from 78.1.0.0/16 has been disabled by NuclearWarfare for the following reason(s): Block evasion: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aradic-es

Err... I have no idea who "Aradic-es" is. I hope that you're aware that the IP range you blocked probably covers thousands of people. Tapir (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked a checkuser to look into the block to see if it is appropriate to lift it, as I don't want there to be too much collateral damage. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 23:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Ammonium Sulfamate 99.5%,3600 tons output.

Hi NW Thanks for your note. What CSD had I marked it as? What would have been a more appropriate CSD? THanks peterl (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You had tagged the article as "G1: Patent nonsense". A better rationale might have been either "A1: Lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article" or simply marking it as {{db|A quick reason explaining how the page was not an article and had no chance of ever becoming one.}} Cheers, NW (Talk) 03:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about tlx db. peterl (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It really should just be {{db|reason}}; the tlx was just to link it to you. NW (Talk) 03:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronic != "today"

Why bother semi-protecting an article with chronic vandalism problems for just two days? Seems like a complete waste of your time, because it accomplished absolutely nothing. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism had only really just picked up again recently; before then it was only an edit or two every day. That might be frequent vandalism, but not so frequent as to require semi-protection, especially for such a highly trafficked article. NW (Talk) 23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The vandalism level didn't "just pick up again recently"; it's been going on like this for months. It will sometimes go a few days without being vandalized, but then another dork will come along and it gets several in an hour, then again the next morning, etc. It's a heavily-trafficked, stable article... whose primary contributors are now vandals. I don't understand why you evidently want that level of vandalism, but if you do, then why protect it at all? Doing it for two days was absurd, and two weeks is little better, because it's based on the notion that the situation will be different at the end of that time, and it obviously will not. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you are definitely right and it was my mistake to not protect for a while. I have changed that now by extending the protection for quite a while. NW (Talk) 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch (5th nomination)

I'm sure you realize you closed this three hours and change early. There was a reasonable amount of concern about and good argument against deletion and the decision of "no consensus" was also likely. What are your reasons for closing before the normal end of debate? Sswonk (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

3 out of 168 hours is not really much to make a fuss about. It hardly would have effected the outcome. ^Chillum 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, given the number of people who participated, it might have been wiser to wait. There was a major fuss when things didn't go the way a lot of admins wanted when David Shankbone was closed 6 hours early. I'm not making a fuss, I want to know if there is a good reason for not waiting, like dyslexia on reading the time or even "Who the f--- cares. It's over." If closing early was a mistake, that's one thing, but if not, closing this way can look like NW wanted to beat someone to the punch to advance a point of view. Alison obviously had more than the stub status in mind when she nominated. I for one am not going to DRV, but someone might. Sswonk (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"dyslexia on reading the time" describes it pretty well; I thought it closed at 00:40 rather than 04:00 when I closed it. I don't really think it is necessary for me to undo my close in this case, as three hours is not really such a big deal, but I shall try to double-check the time in the future. NW (Talk) 02:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Closing early can raise suspicion that it was to prevent a random, unbiased administrator from closing the discussion. This looks honest though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass Killings Communist Regimes

Yes, but there is no category for deleting a biased piece of propaganda against Communism, and it has flawed facts and no neutralising articles such as mass killings under fascism/capitalism and there's no excuse because there have been plenty.thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.216.157 (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a reason to edit the article to make it better, however; there was no consensus to delete the article in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. NW (Talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wells (general)

Hi NuclearWarfare. Thanks for semi-protecting the above; even for a TFA, that vandalism was getting out of hand! Annoying buggers they are. Anyway, thanks. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's been going on for the past week or so on all the TFAs. I'll see if I can't write up an Abuse Filter to deal with the issue without semi-protecting it. Cheers, NW (Talk) 00:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Block 172.162.111.91 Please

Keeps harassing my talk page... thanks A8 UDI 02:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Already done. NW (Talk) 02:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NW A8 UDI 02:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

PSSAYM box.gif

I noticed that this image was speedily deleted. What happened was that I was working on the Wiki page for the album Popular Soviet Songs and Youth Music by :zoviet-france: online, and had uploaded that and PSSAYM CD.gif to accompany the article. The browser I was using crashed, which took all my changes with it. I worked on it offline on Wordpad and, when I went to cop and paste these changes in the article, I got those notices and the box GIF was deleted. It is a cassette box created by the band for the original release; it's long out of print, very rare and nigh impossible to pirate to look like the original ceramic box (with the time required to do so, one may as well go to the auction sites and look for an existing copy for sale). Both images were obtained from discogs.com. While their pages are technically copyrighted, I am sure that this is meant to indicate their code, basic layout and original writing, and not the information and images about other people's music releases which they speak about. There is also nothing in their terms of service about usage of other people's images/information in other locations. If you could please restore that image (or allow me to restore it), I would appreciate it. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyevocal (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you reupoaded the image here. That should be acceptable for use for your article, and I shall not mark it for deletion. Regards, NW (Talk) 17:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Climatedragon's block

Hi NuclearWarfare! Could you reply to the unblock request on User_talk:Climatedragon so that it can be resolved? I agree that the account is probably a sockpuppet (although I'm not sure I agree with the policy that prohibits them.. but that's a different issue! :) but it's just not right to just fillibuster or delay responding to leave the person blocked. Better to resolve it outright. Thanks for your attention! --Lewis (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

As I am the blocking administrator, I do not feel comfortable being the one to review the block (as I would decline it). If I were the one blocked, I would not be happy having the blocker also be my reviewer. I am happy for any other administrator to take whatever action they feel is correct. Regards, NW (Talk) 14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Okay...so I answered your quick request. Three cases have been checked/verified, and are ready for blocks/closing - Leslie Roak, John254 and Atlantispy09. Dominic is working on the IP one, awaiting someone else's second opinion. Please ask Brandon or J.delanoy to do the Scibaby ones, I'm not familiar enough with the MO. That leaves Lear21, and again if you can get one of the regulars to handle that one you'll be all caught up. Risker (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Risker! NW (Talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread on Repeated Reverts at Solid

I'm not sure Logger9 will leave and see his message only as an apology. Just an example, his opponent, Marie Poise promised to leave for good some time ago, and she's back, and I can't see any trigger for that. It is likely he'll return seeing his work is taken to pieces. This is merely to say that some conclusion needs to be reached on that thread before archiving it - not to start it again if and when necessary. Your thoughts? Materialscientist (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Would if be OK, if Logger wants to work on the articles in the future, to set up a system where I will work with him to build articles in summary style in userspace and then take responsibility for moving them into mainspace? NW (Talk) 14:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support that and offer my help, but I would also listen to what others say. I've been trying to talk to him and brush up his articles for quite some time, but recent tasks overstrech me. Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC) PS (thanks for fixing my blunder on user:Sharpshooter118118 - I returned to reblock and found you there - running to work in haste :-)

Thanks for the advice, and no problem. NW (Talk) 22:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for what i did

But i want to report on this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BWCNY

he keeps editing stuff on this page for no reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations_bus_fleet and he accused me of doing stuff i didn't post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenovabus (talk • contribs) 16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talking it over with him on his talk page or on the article's talk page civilly is your best option here. NW (Talk) 16:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

ACC

Hey NW, long time no see. I was suspended from ACC back in August/September due to inactivity, and I'm interested in coming back to ACC (and what I loved doing on Wikipedia in general). Could you please un-suspend my account? Thanks in advance! --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs, review) 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you were suspended by OverlordQ with the following reason given: "You made a few mistakes with recent requests you marked as Too similar. I will contact you on your talk page shortly." Did you end up talking this over with him? NW (Talk) 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That can be seen here. I was unsuspended, then suspended again. I was unsuspended again after that, then I didn't get suspended again until the typical "45 days of inactivity" suspension back in late August/early September.

I will understand if you decline my request based on this - but please do understand that back then, I was less mature and much jumpier than I am today. --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs, review) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I'll unsuspend your account, and regrant you the accountcreator permission. NW (Talk) 01:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't necessarily asking for the ACC userright (I was originally planning to wait until I hit the limit again before asking that back), but it will still be helpful nonetheless; thank you. :) --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs, review) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.

[64], [65]- is it possible Occult and friends are actually CosmicLegg? --King Öomie 16:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems likely. Thanks for the report; I have reopened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CosmicLegg to see if a checkuser can sort it out. NW (Talk) 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

+RazerCrane (talk · contribs) ---King Öomie 22:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Avraham found that one, and quite a large number of other sockpuppets as well. NW (Talk) 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Account creation must be a full-time job for that guy, jesus. What's the point? --King Öomie 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Wonder if he gets paid! This guy kept on adding fake/ malicious links as a Pete Townshend/ The Who fanboy and also used foul language such as "What the *uck" and "ridiculous" and "crap". --Scieberking (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion declined: M. Haroon Abbas Qamar

Well, may be I am not fully aware as to what does credible assertion of importance mean. The article contained an only link to what looked like an advert site, which I removed, and claimed that was the one of the largest Urdu networks. If so, I doubt this network and its founder are notable. BTW, could you please also check Daily Al-Qamar which I nominated together with Haroon? It contains the same link inline. If you find it credible also, it would be fine to correct another mis-nomination of mine. --Abanima (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw "one of the largest Urdu networks" as enough to pass A7. However, feel free to nominate both article for AfD though if you feel that they don't meet the notability criteria. Regards, NW (Talk) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sir. I'm multilingual and I speak/ read Urdu very well. This article Daily Al-Qamar seems to be overstated. I've contacted many guys and no one in Pakistan barely knows Daily Al-Qamar and/or a newspaper network with that name. All in all, their official website (http://www.alqamar.org/) is a parked (for advertisement) page on GoDaddy Inc. IMO this article should be deleted or cleaned up. If they want to prove their claim to be "one of the Largest Urdu News and Literature Network", they obviously need strong references. Thank you. --Scieberking (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the appropriate place to deal with it is AFD, not through speedy deletion. NW (Talk) 10:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Scieberking (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the custom?

I answered your question with an "I'm not sure" because I was wondering what the custom was on candidates voting, and I wonder if it has changed what with the secret ballot. I have no strong views; I am content to do what everyone else does. But as candidates could be several percent of the electorate seems to me an ideal solution would be that candidates should vote conscience, not strategy.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the consensus in the past has been for candidates to abstain from voting or only vote in support of candidates as a gesture of good sportsmanship. Note a several stream of opposes for John Vandenberg last year after he voted in opposition for several candidates. With secret voting, however, a lot of this changes. As votes will never be known, the whole issue of not opposing because the candidate might serve with someone whom he opposed is avoided. I would say it is preferable for candidates not to vote at all, as voters won't know if how the votes were cast. I'm not really too sure on this myself, so raising this on the election talk page might be a good idea. Cheers, NW (Talk) 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I won't vote then. And it wouldn't surprise me if SecureVote fails to live up to its name.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am informed that at least eight arb candidates have now voted. In view of that, I've left a note on the questions page saying I will vote. I'm not going to do it right away though, and will give some thought to the questions you asked and ask other editors whom I respect. Thanks. Your thoughts welcome, I have this watchlisted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something to raise on WT:ACE2009? I personally certainly won't hold you voting against you, but others might take that into account. NW (Talk) 21:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New editwar battleground for Tygart

Hi, NW. It appears User:Valerius Tygart disagrees with the SPI results where checkuser J.delanoy confirmed his abusive sockpuppetry. Since the archiving of the case, he has attempted to insert or delete text to and from the case page several times. You and I have both reverted his edits, yet he continues, and is now parroting your edit summary back at us. He has been edit-warring with me on the Bill Maher article since his blocks expired, inserting inappropriate BLP content once per day for two weeks now — I'd rather not have him warring with me on this front, too. I checked Tygart's explanations/excuses for his abuse of socks, by the way, and they don't prove true — unless all of J.delanoy's checkuser confirmations are in error. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken appropriate action in regards to the SPI case. As for the Bill Maher, that looks like a standard content dispute. I would advise raising the issue on WP:BLPN or WP:3O to get a third opinion. Regards, NW (Talk) 18:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the prompt response and suggestions. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again, NW. I intend to report Tygart at WP:ANI and/or WP:3RR for tendentious editing, ignoring talk page concerns and slow-burn edit warring (still trying to determine the correct venue). I also plan to note in that report that Tygart is presently editing while under a 72-hour block issued by you on one of his sock accounts, unless you advise me not to do so. It is my understanding that an editor should not be continuing to edit on some accounts while blocked on others, but I am not sure if that was your intention - so I am asking for clarification. I'm still going forward with a submission to WP:BLPN as well (still digging up numerous diffs and links), but I intend to address Tygart's editing behavior in the meantime. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would advise you to focus just on the editing behavior for now, as while the IP is like Tygart, there is no proof of that, and it is better to keep the discussion on just one issue. Regards, NW (Talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No proof? I assumed this edit by checkuser J.delanoy was proof enough. If that confirmation is not sufficient, then what is the next step for obtaining that proof? I've already commented on his editing behavior at AN/I, but I'll strike the SPI parts if you really feel the "two" editors making the identical repeated edit to the Tygart case page are not the same editor, as J.delanoy claimed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That part of J.delanoy's comment I missed. In that case, block evasion is most definitely relevant. I'll take a look at the ANi thread in a little bit. NW (Talk) 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

72.226.206.86

Hi NuclearWarfare. 72.226.206.86 is requesting unblock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to note that nmap scans don't check or confirm open proxies, as typified by the open port 80 on this IP which was only open for authentication. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To add to what zzuuzz said, it might be useful to take a look at how the open port identifies itself when it prompts for a user/pass. In my case, the router name was WRT54Gqq. I am pretty sure that by default, all LinkSys wireless routers identify themselves with "WRT"-something. So if you see an open port 80 that identifies itself as such, there's a good bet it's somebody with a wireless router who is unaware (as I was) that you can access the router's configuration remotely by default.

In any case, thanks for the quick response!!! I appreciate the unblock, as well, as zzuuzz's help figuring out how the heck I had an open port I didn't know about. Thanks! --72.226.206.86 (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the useful information. Will certainly keep this in mind when dealing with these situations in the future. Cheers, NW (Talk) 21:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Input requested

Hi NW, if you have a moment would you care to comment at Talk:List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters#Fact tag necessary for common language knowledge?? Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Enlightenment on speedy delete, notability, and malls

Hi, I've just been log trawling, and noticed that you removed a speedy-delete tag placed on Charter Place by Alastair Rae as discussed at this talk because A7 does not apply to shopping malls. I'm trying to clarify my understanding of speedy deletes - I've read the speedy delete criteria, and from that I can't understand where your reasoning comes from. If you take a mall to be an organisation, then it would seem that A7 would apply. Can you help me understand why it doesn't, and under what category an article on a non-notable mall would fall? (FWIW, I'm not particularly interested in the particulars of Charter Place, I'm interested in speedy delete criteria in general). Lissajous (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that malls in general should be sent through WP:AFD. I wouldn't really count them as organizations per se, although this might be a useful point to clarify at WT:CSD. Regards, NW (Talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ack, thanks. Lissajous (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Just wanted to leave you a note regarding the questions you asked of the candidates. Based on your phrasing, we seem to disagree on a few things regarding the committee, but I actually liked yours a lot. I think they forced me and (some) of the candidates to think about things more directly, and were very helpful in my decision-making process. 'Preciate it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

. NW (Talk) 21:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Wikipedia Watch

Hi. I just noticed this AfD you closed. I am concerned because the website indeed passes WP:WEB: it is especially covered in Italian sources for example, see this, from the leading Italian newspaper and also this. The site is also cited in academic literature, see here for example. Adding this to all the other mentions makes it notable, or at least "not as non-notable". Judging on the AfD, it should have been a no consensus.

Also, the nomination was somehow tainted by explicit COI/canvassing: see this thread, which among other things contains Brandt quote below:

"All three articles should be deleted because no one will miss them. Help me out here; the AfD for Wikipedia Watch is about 22 for DELETE and 16 for KEEP at the moment. I'd could use a stronger showing for DELETE. Only two days remain!"

which is worrying to say the least. Could you comment? --Cyclopia ^talk 15:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above assessment, the nomination for deletion was motivated by dislike for inclusion of the article, based on views that the article was an example of "navel gazing". The argurment for deletion had an undercurrent of WP:IDL, explicitly stated by the nominator. The poor arguments for deletion based on WP:WEB constituted a majority, but not a substantial or huge amount of the !votes. Further, the debate was closed three hours prior to the standard seven full days usually given for deletion discussions. WP:IAR and certainly WP:SNOW were not called for here. NW claimed above[66] that s/he "thought it closed at 00:40 rather than 04:00 when I closed it"; an early closing when another administrator would have been just as likely to close as "no consensus" raises further concerns. This was not a BLP issue yet the author's desires carried undue weight and should not have been included in the discussion or nomination. It appears the article was not ~~nominated or deleted~~ promoted for deletion to benefit readers, but to satisfy a more opinionated feeling that "it had to go". That is unfortunate for the project if it is indeed the case. Sswonk (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Cyclopia: As those sources were not mentioned at the AfD, there was no way for others to analyze them to see whether or not they meets WP:WEB. And as for the canvassing, I was unaware of it. Not much I or anyone else can do about it though. I am not really sure where to go from here. Perhaps DRV would be your best bet? Also, Sswonk, your unfounded comments about some hidden intentions of mine are blatantly untrue and I would like you to withdraw them. NW (Talk) 16:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW, I had trouble phrasing that so as not to accuse you of collusion of any sort. That wasn't what was intended; "nominated or deleted" refers to the process leading up to your action, including the arguments and !voting. How does the changed wording look? Sswonk (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I meant at all. I disliked your speculation about any affect Daniel Brandt's involvement had in my analysis of the debate as well as your implication that I closed it early so that I could have the close my way. NW (Talk) 17:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The early closing was disquieting, without regard to whether it was intentional or not. You were informed it was closed too early and could have undeleted and reopened without further comment, but you chose not to. I can't speak to how you view what I wrote, the summary of my feeling is that the early closing adds to arguments questioning the result, purely on a procedural note. Sswonk (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Sswonk, closing the AfD debate early would not have changed the result at all. NuclearWarfare has already explained why he mistakenly closed the debate early, so please cease in your bad faith assertions. The underwhelming sources presented at the debate, as well as the cogency of the "delete" opinions and the weakness of the "keep" opinions, led NuclearWarfare to close the debate as "delete", which was the only close possible. I am certain that NuclearWarfare would not have closed this AfD if he had a strong opinion about the article.

To Cyclopia: if you wish to resurrect the article, I recommend that you ask for userfication, add the above sources to the article, and then request restoration to the mainspace at DRV. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good, thanks. If only I had time *sigh*. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Do Not Delete the American Art Therapy Association's Page

Dear Nuclear Warfare,

i see that you deleted our page....why? I have recreated it, and I would respectfully ask that you not delete it again. Thank you for your courtesy.

Summer3212 (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:COI, WP:COAT- all trounced by your addition. I've undone it again. Please find a way to include this link without your association's mission statement, which is completely unacceptable even in their own article- let alone one simple about their field of work. --King Öomie 15:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The above is in response to your additions at Art therapy. It seems to me like your association now has a network of users dedicated to increasing your presence on Wikipedia. This is generally frowned upon, the idea being that if your organization is Notable enough for inclusion, someone unrelated to it will write the article. I suggest you read WP:COI carefully. --King Öomie 15:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

We are the largest association of professional and credentialed art therapists...of course we should be included in any reference to art therapy. There are several other organization that are included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summer3212 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source for that assertion (not your own website)
Wrong, see WP:NOTE and WP:DUE- the opinion of your bosses is not guaranteed relevant on ANY issue beyond the dealings of your own company (and that does not include Art therapy in general)- your assertion here is like saying "Well, Ford's mission statement should be included in every article about cars, look how big they are!"
Articles are weighed on their own merit, never as a comparison to others. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
The includability of your company is directly proportional to the quality of the article presented- the lack of a GOOD article about the association is in no way a free pass for any BAD article someone submits. Bad articles will be deleted if not improved, regardless of whether a replacement is forthcoming. --King Öomie 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)