User talk:NuclearWarfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I need to get in touch with nattyrbumpo about hisncherokee wars article[edit]

Please contact ame at I would like to ask about the sources for a couple of your statements.I am sure there is a better way of doing this on Wikipedia but I am new to it. Bob Davis````

Please feel free to email me at this link and explain further, but right now I have no idea what this is about. NW (Talk) 21:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Fernando Otero's article - your edit in August 2011[edit]

Dear Nuclearwarfare Hope you are very well. I'm writing to you regarding your edit on Fernando Otero's article in August 2011. I've added references. Please let me know if it's necessary to add more. Thank you so much :-) Victoria Plebs Vickyplebs (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. NW (Talk) 21:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction[edit]

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

My RfA[edit]

Choco chip cookie.png
Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations[edit]

It's now been over a year since you indefinitely fully protected Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Do you think it can be unprotected now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. Yes check.svg Unprotected. I'll keep it watchlisted though. NW (Talk) 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Palin[edit]

To set the record straight, the topic ban 3.5 years ago is because many reliable sources say that Palin's death panel remarks didn't quite fact-check, and you apparently think they do, based on zero references that you chose to mention in those 3.5 years. If you believe in death panels that much, you have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to intimidate, threaten and censor, regardless of how strongly you feel. Editors such as yourself used mass censorship for years to portray Palin as never having said a single word about death panels. Now you allow that she said two words about death panels, and said much more about foreign policy.

I don't expect anything I say to change what you say or do, just setting the record straight about what we both know about the honesty of your opinions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're right that I'm not going to change anything I say or do based on this comment. NW (Talk) 19:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Alakzi is one of the most helpful, bright, thinking and even mind-reading editors I had the pleasure to know here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


I put this on the users page but it was reverted so I'll just diff it here in case you didn't see [[1]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, NW, you around? I'm pretty sure this isn't sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, for reasons I outline at the SPI. I saw you say, at Alakzi's talk page: "For the record, I am perfectly comfortable with another administrator reversing this block if they feel the behavioral evidence isn't strong enough." But if you're around I'd like to discuss for a minute or two first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm on mobile for the next few hours but should be on my laptop again soon after. If we can't connect in four hours go ahead and unblock. NW (Talk) 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to be around in 4 hours - need my beauty sleep - so we won't be able to connect then. I'd love to try to straighten this out before then, as I'm probably off-wiki much of tomorrow. Let me see what Mike V says from his CU, but I'm probably going to unblock unless there's a surprise. If I end up wrong you can laugh and point at me and I'll owe you a beer. OK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, won't be a straight unblock for Alakzi, will talk first, as he/she does seem to have gone over the edge a little. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at it a little more I can totally see how I misinterpreted the evidence to see what I was expecting to see. I was very unhappy with the rape comparison and made my interpretation of the editing histories fit what I expected. Your explanation is a lot more rational than mine. Feel free to work it out and then unblock. I'm still on mobile and I'm not fully clear what I'm next going to be on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 02:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi NW, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakzi just came to my attention and I felt obliged to comment, although I'm quite short on time at the moment. I've participated, briefly, in the move discussion that started all of the current drama, and am familiar with the users involved. I was surprised to see an SPI started (by the author of the essay in question, who was going to essentially get his way on the matter in any case), not very surprised to see the discussion there escalate, and shocked to see a WP:NOTHERE block of a productive editor who is obviously feeling distressed, frustrated, and railroaded by the way he has been treated recently. Yes, the comments at the SPI are over the top, but to call someone who's been a productive member of the community for months "not here" because he made inappropriate comments in a frustrating situation is entirely wrong, and does not seem to have come from a thorough understanding of the context. (For one thing, just look at the history of the article the two users collaborated on - the sock thing is clearly specious.)

Honestly, this is the first situation I've encountered since returning to Wikipedia this past January in which I felt this uncomfortable with the way another user was treated. If I had the time right now to manage the resulting potential drama I may well have unblocked already. (edit conflict) after getting distracted IRL with this window open for while Oh, I'm glad to see others have stopped by with similar comments; I should be around 4-6 hours from now and will follow up then if things haven't been sorted out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to all[edit]

I apologize for the mess that's been made. I'm back home now (though about to go to bed) and have had a chance to review everything in a little more detail. I think that Dirtlawyer is right: I definitely overreacted to that post; read Alakzi not trying to get involved further as being sneaky and evasive; read the edit war over WP:ROPE as something that only a troll would do. Someone mentioned that it reminded them of a now-banned and un-CheckUserable individual acted—I had been thinking exactly that. All the warning signs after that seemed like they were pointing in the same direction. It appears that I was very wrong, and I wanted to apologize for the overly hasty administrative block, User:Alkazi.

To whomever asked about the block length: even absent the sockpuppetry suspicion, the block would have been of indefinite duration as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Indefinite blocks. NW (Talk) 03:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you NW. Pssst, fix the ping, username is typo'd :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's also addressed to only one of the two editors who were wrongly blocked; and in any case the apologies should be made on their respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a red link any spelling. Do red-link user page owners get a ping, anyway? - Ping or not, perhaps an apology on the user's talk would be a good idea? Not for the user but as a clarification for others who look there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --ceradon (talkedits) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)