User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 36

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



Given this I have taken an interest in User:TouchPoints. I see that you have blocked them for abusing multiple accounts. Would you be so kind as to inform the community just what other accounts were involved and what evidence you relied upon to determine that they were the same user? We would like to also be on the look out for similar abuses, and I also wouldn't want anyone to believe that you might simply be blocking accounts which hold views with which you and some of your close associates disagree. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer your question if you answer my two questions: What other accounts or IP addresses have you used to edit Wikipedia? Why did you create User:William M. Connolley/Arbitration committee sanctions? NW (Talk) 06:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"What other accounts or IP addresses have you used to edit Wikipedia?" Please don't ask for personally identifying information. "Why did you create User:William M. Connolley/Arbitration committee sanctions?" I assume I used an edit summary, although I don't remember exactly, check there for your answer. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to get back to me when you're ready to answer. Your edit summary, if you are curious, was "Add page to track sanctions". NW (Talk) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't wish to reveal my IP address(es). Why don't you ask a checkuser to give them to you? Regarding the edit summary it answers your question, no? So are you going to back up your block with evidence or were you just leading me on? --Good Sumaritan (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Might be GR, perhaps. Though I might have expected more subtlety William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to ruin your guys' fun or anything, but I blocked Good Sumaritan for quacking. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Ed. NW (Talk) 14:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


Are you interested in closing the SI RfC alone? I'm not sure if Future Perfect is around at the moment. Alternatively, I could add a request to the "closure requested" section of WP:AN. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Good work with the close of that RFC. Nice to see someone is willing to make the tough calls. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear admin NW: Thank you for your closing that RfC. I believe your closing is leaving the title issue as status quo including "forbidding the initiation of further move requests until 2013”, and the title-tag there should also not be moved. Regard. --Lvhis (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Any tags similar to {{POV-title}} should be removed from all articles in the topic area. NW (Talk) 00:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


I saw you blocked in that one TBAN violation case on AE. Did you want to keep that one open to see if that will work or did you just forget to close it? --WGFinley (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to leave it open for a second opinion because I blocked so quickly after the filing, but I support it can be closed now. NW (Talk) 16:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

can you rein in Mathsci please

He just diffed the section you collapsed as evidence against me - the guy is out of control. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

<sigh…>Addendum: Look, I'm strongly resisting the urge to pull out hundreds of diffs of Mathsci's petulant behavior and slime him the way he's been consistently trying to slime me. I really don't want to go there; I'm reasonable convinced that there are 'circumstances' which make Mathsci incapable of restraining himself on these issues, and I'm trying to be graceful about it. But it's very frustrating to have this guy digging like badger after every crumb that he can twist into a personal attack against me. If you can't get him to focus on the topic, at least convince him to stop trolling me so that we can get through to the end of this debate in some semblance of dignity. Can you do that please? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I have three times now sent private email messages about the problematic nature of Ludwigs2's edits on the case pages to the clerk and senior arbitrators. If Ludwigs2 wishes to make any commentary on my editing relevant to the case, he should add carefully documented diffs, drawn from article pages, talk pages or project pages, instead of making wild and unsubstantiated claims on the case pages or anywhere else. It might also not be a bad idea for him to think twice about editing wikipedia after having "slugged down" glasses of port, The result is editing which shows no evidence of circumspection. [1] Possibly the exaggerated nature of his comments in the diff (or even above) is related to his port consumption: it's hard to say, but I have rarely seen such exaggerated conduct in an ArbCom case. I am a very minor party. Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Mathsci, you are a very minor party: your only purpose in this case is apparently to slander me. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the few times you've made useful contributions to the discussion, but those represent only a small percentage of your activity here. All the rest - all the rest - is you talking shit about me. It is absolutely appalling the amount of effort you put into character assassination. You've been doing this to me for a year, on and off, and I've watched you do it to others - do you really want me to diff out all of the endless ad hominem attacks you spin out against anyone who opposes you?
I don't want to be like you, so I don't really want to get into that. I just want you to stop trolling me so that I can get on with the happy task of forgetting that I ever met you. Stay off my back and out of my life and I will stay off and out of yours, and that will make everybody in the entirety of Wikipedia very, very, very happy. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
??? Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry: what part of "Stop trolling me" do find confusing? I'm happy to explain if it's not clear to you. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
??? Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Again: what part of "Stop trolling me" do find confusing? --Ludwigs2 22:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This was quite funny to begin with, but has now become boring. If neither of you has anything new to say, why don't you not say it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Part of the answer lies here. (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC) ipsock of banned user Echigo mole
Take it up with Mathsci, Will: he seems content to talk shit all day long so long as it's all about other people (or at least as long as it's about me), but he doesn't seem to have what it takes to face criticism of his own behavior. Not really my problem, except that he won't stop yammering about me. If he won't get off my back, and none of the people who are supposed to administrating this thing will intercede, then he's just going to keep on needling me until sooner or later I get pissed off and start shooting back. Won't that be fun! Wikipedia is such a godawful stupid place sometimes. --Ludwigs2 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


Both of you, take a break. The workshop is closed for 24 hours now anyway.

Mathsci, my advice to you would be to just leave the discussion. I think you have made your points about Ludwigs effectively enough, and, if you don't intend to get involved with the topic area further, there is nothing left for you to do. NW (Talk) 05:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

gladly. --Ludwigs2 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Per your comment

You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the steps you've been taking at the Muhammad images workshop. I think you've been using your discretion in entirely appropriate ways, and doing a good job of it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


I started January 2012 al-Midan bombing per your suggestion at ITN.. Is it fine enough to be posted? WikifanBe nice 06:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is decent enough. Want to go mark the ITN/C discussion as "Ready"? NW (Talk) 06:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the quick response. WikifanBe nice 07:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


I see you have converted all cquotes to quotes in the Text sections. That's fine by me. I don't care which is used. However, eventually someone will come along and change at least some of them back. What I want is stability. Either we should be using cquote or quote. I know the arguments for each. I suggest that wiki-policy be clarified so that the back and forth regarding this issue will end. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The policy is clear; see the documentation at Template:cquote. NW (Talk) 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That is clear to you. As in any dispute, each side sees itself as representing the clearly correct point of view. I suggest expressly referring to legal text in the policy. There is clearly a dispute regarding whether using cquote is correct. I'm not disagreeing with your view on this matter, but many do and so I feel that Template:cquote (or some other wiki-policy) be amended to expressly cover this dispute. SMP0328. (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you point me to where this matter has even been discussed? I was not aware that this was a controversial issue. NW (Talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Evidence deadline

NW - I'm adding my evidence soon, but I'd like to know the actual deadline. Do I need to do it this evening or do I have through tomorrow? The message (saying that it closes on the 11th) is ambiguous, and while I don't imagine anyone's going to be uber-rigid about it, it would be nice to know the expectation. --Ludwigs2 03:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's probably best to clarify with AGK, but evidence deadlines in my mind have always been 23:59 on the date in question. NW (Talk) 03:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't think there's any need to bother AGK. I'll put it up tomorrow morning, and if there's a problem we'll work it out. --Ludwigs2 05:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hans Adler's evidence

Because he's probably the decider, I asked AGK on this talk page about the extent of Hans Adler's evidence. But since you're the clerk, I'm letting you know too. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I am seriously confused now. What is the regular purpose of the Workshop section "Analysis of evidence" with the instruction "Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis"? When I became aware that it exists and has a more appropriate format for responses by others, I moved my detailed analysis there, but now you have moved it back. The complaints by Tarc and Mathsci do not make sense to me other than as part of an attempt to exclude evidence they don't want to be considered in the case. (This may be related, by the way. I have asked Mathsci for clarification.) Hans Adler 00:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to do some reworking of the sections to make it flow better, but thanks for asking me to to take a second look at this. You are definitely right, and it was my error. NW (Talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just figure I'd drop a clerk a line, I'm unwatching the entire Arb case page and walking away for a bit. One can only take being called a racist...and then done so again when you call them on many times before one just decides to pull a Malleus and fucking unload. I don't fault the way you handled Adler's evidence thing, btw, this ain't over that. I wish they'd just wrap it up and vote tonight, honestly. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    Now here's something we can agree about. I am quite shocked to find that the external pacing of an Arbcom case (the first one in which I am listed as a participant) has turned editing Wikipedia into a very unwelcome chore. Suddenly the world is full of so many other, more attractive things to do... Hans Adler 07:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of A Scandal in Belgravia

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of A Scandal in Belgravia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Warden (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?

This RfC discussing the above issue may be of interest to you. Dpmuk (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Training Request

Sir, I've been with Wikipedia for some time and would like to try my hand at helping be a clerk for ArbCom. Would you be some kind as to take me under your wing to become a clerk? Buffs (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall start a discussion about this on the Arbitration Clerks' mailing list. NW (Talk) 19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Buffs (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Resurrected from the archives Any answer? Buffs (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Still being discussed on the mailing list. I think people are still settling back into the routine after the New Year, as it has been rather quiet on the lists as of late. NW (Talk) 19:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No worries. Just didn't want it to drop off the radar. Thanks once again! Buffs (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Replied via email. NW (Talk) 13:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The so-called Moonlight Sonata

You asked for an experienced editor to properly close the Requested move (back). I doubt that you will find one, because everybody experienced I know of was involved. You are probably aware that a former move discussion (now archived) in September (which brought us to the current situation that Beethoven's Classical era music travels under the bias of a Romantic era perception name which doesn't do justice to it and which can't be used for the years between creation in 1801 and nicknaming in the 1830s) was closed on a 2:1 so-called consensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Experienced and uninvolved doesn't necessarily mean knowledgeable in music history (though I can think of at least two editors who fit that description—User:Tony1 and User:Wadewitz), but merely knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy. The principles of policy are generally strong enough for even someone who doesn't know much beyond what the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods were to close the discussion properly. If no one stops by to close it in the next few days, tell me and I can close the discussion. NW (Talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I just realized that I don't find the former discussion in the archives, but it's in the history, needless to say that I am the one who spoke up against the move then and who wrote about facts and myths, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I came to say: relief, but see you know that already. Back to content, and playing the piano, finally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I've made a strong objection to your reversion, see [[2]]. We've had many of these technical issues in the past and it's always been very difficult to find an uninvolved editor willing to take the time to read and study this kind of discussion. However what I particularly object to is your demand that the eventual closer gives "a detailed summary of why WP:COMMONNAME is not strong enough to retain the title where it is". That's an attempt to influence the closure according to your own personal viewpoint. Regarding User:Tony1 and User:Wadewitz, the former is indeed a sometime music editor. Wadewitz is a literature editor who has no music experience AFAIK. --Kleinzach 00:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I see that others have answered you on the talk page, and the discussion has already been closed. Would you still like a response? NW (Talk) 18:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What is fiction?

Is this section accurate? Is it complete? Please take a quick look. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible protection mishap

It appears as if the page was protected too soon. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the WMF has asked that any decision be communicated to them by 23:59, and we closing administrators need time to analyze and summarize the discussion, we decided to close it slightly early. Sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused everyone. NW (Talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks for letting me know. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Coordinated SOPA reaction in early 2012 RfC

As a closer of Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action, should Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Coordinated SOPA reaction in early 2012 RfC also be closed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Could you please do so? NW (Talk) 01:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For the nicely written SOPA RfC summary. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Beautifully written.[3] Lara 01:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I certainly can't take all the credit though; the other two co-drafters were just as integral as I. NW (Talk) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to add my thanks and congratulations. This is an important moment in reasserting the right to free access to information and knowledge worldwide, and its significance is profound. Thank you for playing your appropriate and historic role. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Urgent: error in the count of users - see SOPA initiative talk page

Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#Please_correct_the_wrong_numbers_-_this_is_embarrassing.21 Please respond over at the SOPA initiative talk page. Boud (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action

Hi. As the blackout has ended, can you unprotect this page, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Never mind! Risker got it. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Arbcom subpages

Hi NW. This is just a formal notification that, since the Muhammad images case is drawing to a close, I had the three subpages deleted in my userspace that I had used for preparing evidence. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

proposed decision - Muhammad

I took the step of hatting two sets of comments on the talk page: one an opinion from Eraserhead when I was asking for the opinion of the arbs, and another multi-post bit because ASCII decided to troll Anthony. you can revert it if you like, but I'd prefer if you didn't. --Ludwigs2 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quim (footballer born 1959)

Hi there NUCLEAR, VASCO here,

as always, request the same (pretty much): could you please protect this page for a couple of weeks (article being toyed with, has to be the same "user", but his IP is dynamic as can be - hence, no way i'd get in touch with the person to ask them to stop)?

Attentively, happy 2012 (a bit tardy :() --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really see the problem. Can you explain what's wrong with this series of edits for example? (And happy 2012 to you as well!) NW (Talk) 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks here and below. As far as QUIM's article goes, removal of correct playing position in intro, and this addition in the end of story: "In January 2011, Quim was considered the best Rio Ave FC football player ever." Where's the source for that? And the person can talk to me if they want, i have an account and a standard IP, they haven't, assuming they know (but the most important stuff is removing correct info over and over again, and adding unsourced stuff). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
OK. I have semi-protected it for a month. Hopefully they will come to the talk page to discuss the matter. NW (Talk) 03:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


Ah man, another request (just saw it now): could you please deal with this Indonesian vandal accordingly - i tried to talk to him on several occasions, don't know if he does not speak English or is just mocking me...

I'll elaborate: he's been removing (without NO summaries whatsoever, in the vandalic actions or ANY of his edits! please see here - also lots of "blanked the page" or "section blanking" by the chap) the runner-up classifications in footballers' articles. What is a runner-up position? Finishing second in some competitions grants you a medal, therefore it's an honour; in competitions between national teams, the THIRD place is also an honour (see him "contribute" here here and here

Appreciate whatever can be done in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


I guess my reputation (sometimes i have bouts of uncivility towards vandals and the sorts, have already served a block for that, fair it was) precedes me, and even the newcomers now that i'm up to no good, out to disrupt the good spirit at WP...

For this message (please see here - see first part), got this reply (here, enough said. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


It'll be a privilege to nominate you for being a bureaucrat, in case you are open to it. Kind regards. Wifione Message 08:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

For better or for worse, I am unsure I would pass a reconfirmation RfA, let alone a RfB. In addition, I have spent a lot less time in recent months watching RfA as I used to, so I'm not sure how in touch I am with things anymore. Thank you for the offer though; I greatly appreciate the thought. NW (Talk) 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understand your perspective. Again, thanks. Wifione Message 17:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the quick fix! Not sure how that happened. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 17:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, amusingly enough, I think I had had the page open and noticed the typo before Courcelles fixed it the first time around. I went and did some other things for a while and then fixed it without even noticing that the two of you had a brief edit war ;) NW (Talk) 17:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I thought your edit summary was a little odd for a revert of a revert...anyway, your quick typo fixing is appreciated. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

POV pushers

Thanks! That is a very kind and gnerous comment. I wouldn't want to discourage you from writing a Signpost essay on this topic - it is always important. Feel free to quote me however you wish. Have you thought about writing a WP: essay on the topic? If so feel free to incorporate whatever I wrote and let me know (as you know, anyone can contribute to an essay - once you get the ball rolling there may be other people who could contribute and turn it into something that many mor members of the community till turn to as a point of reference - you never know!) Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Creating a page name for Gulzar Group of Institutes

We have noticed that you have deleted the page of the same name (Gulzar Group of Institutes) because of some reasons. We have modified the details according to rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Can you please help us to create the page for Gulzar Group of Institutes.

Waiting for your quick and positive reply!

Thanks & Regards Gulzar Group of Institutes

The article still needs a bit of work, but I have restored it to here. NW (Talk) 18:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We have again submitted the page Gulzar Group of Institutes but can't know how to replace image logo. Please guide us how to change the logo?

See [4] and scroll down to "Upload a new version of this file". NW (Talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for A Scandal in Belgravia

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad case

I think you should do an update of passing remedies again. It looks like there has been a change in the votes for remedies and also in the votes for closing. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I just passed through it. Assuming nothing significant changes, I'll probably end up closing it in about 24 hours or so. NW (Talk) 01:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wong Kim Ark

Hi. I'm a bit confused by this edit. I can't see what was changed. Was this just a matter of adding/deleting spaces? If so, was it really necessary? If it was just adding/deleting spaces, I'd rather revert it in order to reduce confusion by myself or others trying to do diffs between versions. Regarding this item, the numbers are Taishanese tone marks. — Richwales 04:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the first diff: I think most of it was whitespace cleanup, but there were also some refs that I converted to use the template and others which I had to fix the naming system after Citation bot did its thing.

Regarding the second: Thanks for clarifying the matter so quickly! NW (Talk) 04:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see where you made some non-whitespace changes in this particular edit. But I still strongly feel that the whitespace cleanup is simply going to make life harder for people trying to track revisions to the article. With (hopefully) your blessing, I'm going to revert the whitespace cleanup and reinstate the substantive edits made after that point. — Richwales 04:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Having the whitespace all neat and standardized generally makes easier for me to edit, but I do not anticipate being a significant contributor to the page in the future. Whatever works best for you is fine with me :) NW (Talk) 04:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Out of curiosity, are you using some special editing tool which automatically normalizes white space in an article to conform to a specific standard? — Richwales 05:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js. It does a fair number of other things besides that, including HTML --> Unicode. NW (Talk) 05:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at WP:OP.
Message added 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

closing glitch

Mlpearc closed the Muhammad case at 04:33 and John Vandenberg voted at 04:41-05:34. JV's vote would have changed the result of remedy 6.1, so it's probably important to unwind this.—Kww(talk) 11:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh fun. I'll get in touch with the rest of the clerks and figure out what is left to settle. NW (Talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
They've already told me that close didn't really mean close, or some such. I disagree, but Hans told me not to push it.—Kww(talk) 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahlquist v. Cranston

At Talk:Ahlquist v. Cranston, there are now three editors recommending that the article be refocused on Jessica Ahlquist. For my own part, I think that there is no rush as the published retrospective views could begin late next week if the case is not appealed. Not that there is any such thing as a formal quorum, but enough editors have expressed opinions that it is time for another look.Novangelis (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Commented there. NW (Talk) 21:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't say much for your comment. Instead of accusing other editors of not reading the policy you cited and one that you didn't, discuss the policy. I would encourage you to revisit your comment about other editors. The closest thing to an absolute exclusion for writing under the name of a person is if the person avoids publicity and that does not apply, so this is a matter of policy interpretation. "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." While you did provide some useful commentary on policy, perhaps you could offer better insight on where the line is drawn. This is not a clear-cut case by just citing those two policies. You pointed out why the broader event (or object in question) makes for a clunky title, but didn't really say why the case, which is only part of the event, should be the focus. Sometimes the person is synonymous with the event (which is not the case here). This lies somewhere between. I get a feel for what you want to say, but perhaps you can say it better. I might even propose a revision to one or both of the one-event policies to offer better guidance (if you don't beat me to it).Novangelis (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Novangelis. I read your comment at Talk:Ahlquist v. Cranston and am not entirely sure if you are still looking for a response from me. Please let me know if you are; I will be happy to oblige if so. NW (Talk) 20:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If no one else comments, hopefully the matter will be closed, at least as long as nothing changes dramatically. No one discussing policy is currently objecting. I'm not a big fan of the BIO1E/BLP1E policies, not because they are a bad idea (quite the opposite), but they are ambiguously written and unevenly applied. I seldom see anyone argue them rationally (myself included, but I'm trying).Novangelis (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone

I'm letting you in something I discovered yesterday and today about when Stone died. Your edit here[5] made me think you might be interested in this knowledge.

Stone died at his home, and not while a Supreme Court decision was being read by William O. Douglas. The proof of it is here.[6] A 1946 news article published one day afterwards.

The information about Stone dying on the bench was originally edited[7] into the article in 2006. Your edit put in a citation stating the information came from John Paul Stevens book 'Five Chiefs published in 2011. Stevens twice claimed in the book that Stone died while on the bench.

Over the last day I proved it's blatantly untrue. Yes Stevens was a clerk back when Stone died, but the newspaper proves that his source on the CJ's death was wikipedia. Just letting you know.- William 17:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. Stevens could have gotten his information from elsewhere; searching the Internet tells me that is just a common enough belief. I feel like this edit probably has the right of it, but the matter could simply be settled if we can find an academic biography of Harlan published any time in the 60 years after Harlan's death. NW (Talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I can shed some light on this.
The Court was in session with Chief Justice Stone presiding on April 22, 1946, which was a decision day, when Stone was suddenly overcome by a stroke. Reportedly, he mumbled something not fully coherent about the case whose decision was being announced, and then lapsed into unconsciousness.
The senior Associate Justice, Justice Black, immediately gaveled the Court into recess and Stone was removed from the Bench. He received medical care, but was pronounced dead a few hours later. (In the interim, the Court had reconvened and Black had announced the Court's judgment in the cases being decided that day, which was necessary in order for Stone's votes in the cases to count.)
These details can be verified in numerous sources on the history and Justices of the Supreme Court. Probably the leading biography of Stone is Alpheus Thomas Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law (Richard Posner has criticized Mason's book as too adulatory, but that wouldn't be relevant on this sort of detail), but any biography of a Justice who served in the 1940s would mention the circumstances of Stone's death. This would likely include numerous popular books of the past couple of years including Court Watchers by Clare Cushman (the chief editor for the Supreme Court Historical Society) or Nine Scorpions by Feldman, among others. I'm away from my books at the moment or I would insert a source into the article instanter, but instead I'll leave it to one of you to do it if you wish.
Incidentally, Justice Stevens was not a Supreme Court Clerk while Stone was Chief Justice. He clerked (for Justice Rutledge) during October Term 1947, meaning from mid 1947 to mid 1948, by which point Fred Vinson was Chief Justice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that Brad. I stopped by the library earlier today and verified what you said (using Mason's biography). A very astute memory you have, although I suppose being alive when it happened helps Face-wink.svg NW (Talk) 19:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have time for a FA review?

I've nominated Birth control movement in the United States for Featured Article status. It has had one successful review so far, but needs two more. If you have time, perhaps you could look at the FAC page and do a review? Any comments you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks, --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. I have gone through the article and left some comments using the <!-- --> markup. Just let me know once you've addressed those points; I'll take another look at the page after that. Best, NW (Talk) 18:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the article, and for raising those cogent questions. I've addressed all six issues. The changes can be viewed here. Please let me know if there are any other improvements I can make to get the article to FA quality. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. I'm satisfied with the changes you made; you can feel free to remove the hidden comments. I'll go ahead and leave a comment on the FAC page. NW (Talk) 19:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Noleander (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome.

I was wondering if you might be interested in collaborating with me on cleaning up Roe v. Wade, which I just put up at Featured Article Review? I noticed that you commented on the article's talk page yesterday. NW (Talk) 19:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. We can collaborate on that article's Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Frank Murphy See Also section

I severely edited down the links which numbered over 30. Take a look at Earl Warren, John Marshall, and William Rehnquist's See Also sections and compare it. Another editor doesn't like what I did and reverted. I brought it up on the talk page before and after my edits. Could you take a look and put in your two bits? Thanks.- William 18:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Commented at Talk:Frank Murphy. NW (Talk) 19:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Deso Dogg

Hi Nuclear!

Let's look at this edit. You removed the sentence "According to German officials, music like that from Deso Dogg influenced the perpetrators of the 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting." Now, this is supported by the following from this source: "German authorities say people like him inspired the shootings of two American airmen at the Frankfurt airport in March. The 21-year-old man accused of the killings, Arid Uka, whose trial began in Frankfurt on Wednesday, said he opened fire after seeing a video that claimed to show Muslim women being raped by men in US military uniforms. Uka said he was listening on his iPod to nasheeds calling for opposition against occupation forces and the West as he travelled to the airport just before the shootings. “It made me really angry,” Uka told the judge."

So, considering that, what would you believe is the best option to express the information? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "German officials have attributed Deso Dogg's music videos as an influence of the perpetrators 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting". But that seems to be very much guilt by attribution, and I'm not sure how comfortable I am with that in a BLP. NW (Talk) 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How to display?

How'd you do it? I can't find "one-revert-per-24-hours restriction (1RR)" anywhere on the Abortion talk page. -Attleboro (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the notice you see at the top of the page when you try to edit ([8]). NW (Talk) 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry ...

but I noticed you mentioned in an AN/I thread here, and thought you should know about it. cheers. — Ched :  ?  23:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ched. The heads up is much appreciated. Since people seem to agree that I'm uninvolved, I'm going to see if a range block is feasible. NW (Talk) 00:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna

Hi, the redirect Anthony Bologna is to nothing. Can you do something about it, either delete it or redirect it to Timeline of Occupy Wall Street, or preferably unprotect it so when/if there is an article or paragraph it can be edited? BeCritical 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I redirected the article and lowered the protection to semi. It should not be recreated without agreement at DRV. NW (Talk) 19:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks (: BeCritical 21:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Abortion article titles notification

Hey NuclearWarfare. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:United States Academic Decathlon

Category:United States Academic Decathlon, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

About my topic ban - Samofi

Hello, sorry that last days I have broken my topic ban and Iam disposed to hold out an aftermaths. Few months ago I was editing topics outside of my topic ban and I had no problems with other editors. But I was observing situation about these disputes and I had to react. I did not want to hurt anyone with my edits but I could not watch what is happening here. Its like a monopolizing of these topics by a group of editors with unific point of view from one geographical location. Its kind of hierarchy among them, they have topic circuits which they control and edit, some of them are specialized only to writing the reports on editors with different opinion. I told all I wanted to say and I will again edit geographical and economical articles (outside of my topic ban) if the complete ban will not applied on me. Wiki community is like living organism (like a town), people make a ideological clusters, but people also change and I hope that neutrality of Wikipedia will well-preserved in future. Thank you for reading. --Samofi (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. If you want to edit in areas covered under your topic ban again though, you really need to ask for a lifting of the topic ban first. Otherwise, you may be blocked for violating the topic ban (no matter how justified you feel your edit is). Best, NW (Talk) 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

continues to DESTROY my user page (see here, one year and counting, just for telling the piece of garbage (that's what he is!), politely (!), Quique Flores was the most common name in EN.WIKI. Several other users have done just the same, he attacks only me! --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Err, I'm confused. Who is the piece of garbage that you are referring to, Xxxx or Flores? Either way, could you please tone down your language? It won't be helpful in trying to resolve this situation without blocks. NW (Talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for my language, hard to keep a cool head after i did NOTHING and the other guy keeps taunting me! Of course i mean XXXX93, you can block me for violating WP guidelines, i won't protest, but what on earth is this? I tell one user one simple thing, politely, and he goes on this insult crusade?! Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm certainly not planning on blocking you right now; in any case your behavior was no way as bad as his. I have warned the other guy to cut it out; if he doesn't, I will block him. But I would prefer to avoid that if possible. NW (Talk) 16:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the understanding. Oh, and i don't see the Colombian "user" (User:Scoelho86 - who some say might be HIM! - has told me he's 14 or 15 years old, they have edited several times from the same computer, according to User:Satori Son, 100% reliable) cutting it out anytime soon, especially since i am - even though i try with all my might not to - the "feed the troll" type :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
And i repeat, SEVERAL users told him what he was doing in Quique Flores was wrong, he attacks only me! Please block him so that he, as anon, cannot "contribute" to the extreme makeover of my page (User:Hut 8.5 has told me he could 100% and indef protect my userpage, but that's hardly a common practice and the level of vandalism is not that high), because he will continue, with this and other accounts (let alone the anon IPs). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry for trying to tell you how to do your job, i was just trying to keep from being insulted by (no words to describe) for doing my edits correctly. Sorry, i guess i'll have to live with it when it can be prevented. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Keep it up, striving for a clean WP! Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


Whack a mole? Is a range block possible? Noformation Talk 09:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely; it seems that they have access to such a large number of IPs from so many ranges that it wouldn't be worth it. I have collapsed the discussion. In the future, you might just be better off reverting and asking for page protection (as I'll not always be around). Hopefully you'll get intelligent administrators at WP:RFPP. Best, NW (Talk) 15:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Xxxx693 (as anon)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

regarding your warning to this "user", here's what he thought of it: he went to my talk page, as anon, and wrote me the following poem: "que tan llorona, menos mal que lo acepta...como le pone quejas a los administradores de WP, a User talk:GiantSnowman, a User talk:Satori Son, a User talk:Thumperward, User talk:Hut 8.5...definitivamente que nenita...lo unico que falta es que le vaya y le ponga quejas a su ma.mi.ta...llorona, y ma.ri.c.a portuguesa"; roughly translated: "What a crybaby faggot, at least he admits it, how he complains to WP admins, what a crybaby indeed, only thing left to do is cry to your mommy, crybaby portuguese faggot" (seen here

I'm learning, even though it's VERY HARD for me to control myself, and i did not reply whatsoever now, only requesting that the proper actions be taken against this "charming person". Attentively, sorry to bother you - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasn't around to handle this, but thank you for leaving it for another administrator to handle (which apparently was done). Trolls troll mostly to get you upset and respond in kind, so denying them their wish is often the best way to handle things. NW (Talk) 06:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


Hi, do you mind clarifying what you meant when you closed the case on Anonimu? I noticed it was not a typical close with "No action taken". My understanding was that it was too verbose, and no one will look at it unless is brief. I made a briefer one (maybe not brief enough?) and I was slapped for it. I believe the case is serious and the evidence more than substantial, but I don't know how to present it because I am not that versed with all these procedures. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Has HJ Mitchell addressed the issue to your satisfaction, or would you like me to comment? NW (Talk) 21:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I would really need your feedback as well. When you closed the case you didn't bring the arguments of HJ. I think the arguments of both of you focus on various technicalities as reasons to dismiss a serious situation and well documented report/case...--Codrin.B (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding our recent chats..

I'd be interested in seeing what you think about some thoughts I wrote up about the case, and some of the things it stirred up: Mind if I email you the thoughts and see what you think of it? SirFozzie (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be very interested to read them. Send me an email anytime. NW (Talk) 16:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Just here to say that I received your email. It's been very busy here recently though, so I might not have a chance to reply for the next few days. I will try to do so soon though! NW (Talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It's been a really terrible past few weeks. Your email is still sitting in my inbox, and I will respond! NW (Talk) 01:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Deny me my indiscretions, will you!?

Apparently yes, and it's probably all for the best. Nice catch. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you generally make such great comments that I have to read your diffs in full :) NW (Talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

NW, you've got mail, and it's a new gmail addy for me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Got the three emails. Will reply later this evening. Best, NW (Talk) 01:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Help please

Hi NW. The account has been doing vandalism since 2009--some just silly edits, but some on more technical articles that have few watchers where it might be missed. Let me know if I need to give you some examples. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Gandy. It looks like from the talk page that the IP address is registered to a school district in Pennsylvania. I don't think it's really necessary to block at this time. It's probably not the same student each time, and even if it is, I don't think I can justify an indefinite block on the IP based on its present edits unless the district webmaster emails WP:OTRS and asks. NW (Talk) 01:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh OK, I get it. Kids need to have a little fun. When I was young we just stole beer and stuff like that... Face-smile.svg Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Part of my fun in high school was social networking on Wikipedia. Whoops. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

How to log a topic ban

Hello NW. Regarding your comment here. Don't you want to log this in WP:RESTRICT as a community ban? Since you didn't mention any Arbcom case in your closure, I don't imagine it would go in one of the cases. If you think a second admin should do this, I could do the honors at WP:RESTRICT if you wish. The extra authority of an Arbcom sanction may not be needed in a case where the community's opinion was so emphatic. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I totally forgot about WP:RESTRICT. I can handle it from here; I'll just log it as a topic ban placed by the Wikipedia community. NW (Talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

SkyTrain article name formatting

Hi there, you've participated in format-related moves of articles about SkyTrain stations such as Oakridge – 41st Avenue Station back in September 2009 [9]. I recently looked through articles for other SkyTrain stations. They currently use both spaced and unspaced forms, and I suggested standardizing on one of the forms. If you have any particular opinion about this, please chime in at Talk:TransLink (British Columbia)#Article naming standards. Thanks!- --user:Qviri 02:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

edits to judgement

Thank god. People were wondering what "the MoS disputes" were. The other changes were necessary, too.

But it brings the question of why the points are silent on WP:TITLE. It's inexplicable. Tony (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Quim (footballer born 1959)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

as i thought it would, it happened again: protection expired, the anon "user" in this article returned, and did not dignify me with any feedback. Could you please extend the page protection? If his edit was from today (he has to have a neverending supply of IPs) i would try to reach the person (although i see no point on doing that, i see where he's coming from), but it's from more than 10 days ago...

Thanks for whatever you can do in advance, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

My 150 edits in a short period

Most of these edits are only me getting rid of my typos and the problems i have with working with such a hugely clumsy interface that wiki provides which favours people who are more familiar with the environment, the rules, the appeals, and so forth etc etc. So i dont think you drawing attention to my difficulties producing the edits is a fair reference to the difficulties other editors have in reading the much smaller number of actual readable edits. Anyway some editors like Connolley like deleting but they dont seem interested in appearing much at the talk pages - which again favours the experienced editor who realises that a person can waste a lifetime at the talk pages while an endless number of people arrive to frustrate any actual edits of pages. Be bold as they say. And to hell with it if that becomes necessary if nobody will cooperate. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


Thanks for the note. I got your points, but to be clear, I put a lot of effort to gather a plethora of information (mostly diffs) for a very complex case. I will keep in mind this 500 words limit for the future, but I tried to be as comprehensive as possible, given the complexity and the extensive experience of the user in question, who after many blocks and conflicts has become extremely versed in dodging reports on him/admin reviews (instead of becoming versed at how to behave, collaborate and what are the Wikipedia's values). Because no one wished to look at the case I brought forth, he "got away with murder". While I understand this is volunteer work and people are busy, limiting ourselves to very rigid rules (500 words/report 1RR same day) a clear cut case with a long history of violations was completely ignored in the end. I took a break from contributing and I'm very turned off. You may end up losing someone who made a lot of positive contributions and keep around a very negative/disruptive person with a history of violations which speaks for itself. And I am not sure how is this going to help Wikipedia. But like I said, I'll take note of these technicalities I wasn't aware of, although I'll reserve the right to be disappointed and disagree with the handling of this case. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

They aren't so much technicalities as advice based on what I have observed as being helpful for reviewers who don't have multitudes of free time. I know it can be frustrating, but I hope that the advice helps for the future. Sometimes less is more. NW (Talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

OTRS Volunteer Material?

I try to stay cool under fire, but I ruffle a feather or two now and then. Is there any chance I could get you to review my recent editing history and give my your opinion as to whether or not I might make a good OTRS volunteer? If you are too busy, no worries. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey NW

A few months ago you gave me a rollback option for deleting edits. I noticed today that it does not appear as an option for me anymore. Can you direct me to where I may find out what happened to it? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

AE comment


I have left a comment at AE, but I find that comment about not taking as comprehensive a look as you would like to be troubling. I would ask that you look at the content in this dispute. At the very least I suggest you give the dispute over that warnings section of the 9/11 article a good long look.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have. It's a complex dispute though, and I worry I might not be getting as full an understanding as someone who observed the whole matter for a few months would. I'll wait for other responses. NW (Talk) 01:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, if I come off as a bit confrontational about this. Honestly, I just don't like having to defend myself in these situations so I tend to be a little overbearing and sloppy about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I have suggested an alternative to topic bans at the AE case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, how much did you look into the background of this dispute? Specifically, when you lifted Tom's ban what did you look at?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You may want to see my latest comment on the AE case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Oh great, another problem. At Heat, which you've tangenitally involved yourself with, so... User: Kmarinas86 seems to want to split the page up. [10] reduced the page to redir to the disambig, and then created Heat as a transfer of energy and Heat as energy (I assume by cut-n-paste; I haven't checked in detail). I've reverted those; user:Chjoaygame has already reverted at Heat. At Talk:Heat#Then_what_about Heat as energy.2C_Heat as a transfer of energy.3F Km says, rather oddly, The proposal was not a move anyway. So I went ahead and defied convention. I have now have split the articles. Your job now is to delete them. Enjoy. Would you delete them (as in, the now-pointless redirs)? I think it would be a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC) And he has now re-created the split articles, and I've re-removed them William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

To User:NuclearWarfare: Discussion regarding my most recent proposal has not been forthcoming yet, but please consider the merit of splitting articles. I have done so in advance in attempt to show people what it looks like. Instead, it is reverted, yet no arguments had been made against it just yet. So much bickering has occured for over a year at Talk:Heat over semantics and similar issues. In my opinion, splitting the article is a way to improve upon Wikipedia's treatment of the subject of Heat. Furthermore, this will also save many hours of tension at Talk:Heat. Discussions over there have represented a considerable drain of Wikipedia resources.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk
20:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What a load of crap. Scientific consensus my arse. You have simply shut me down because it is inconvenient

People like me actually suppport the greenhouse theory!!!

And you treat me like this!

What a joke. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Look, I don't particularly care what you think of the greenhouse effect. What I do care about is you reverting against multiple editors and using relatively poor quality references compared to what is actually out there. WP:SCIRS might be a good read, if you have the time. NW (Talk) 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Aje has now broken the topic ban you imposed: [11] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
not one single person has objected against the Skeptical Science links I provided
Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
And again [12]. Unless your topic ban was narrower than usually construed. Perhaps you could clarify? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
It was not clear to me what a topic ban was. Non-wiki people have no idea how all these strange procedures go on so that the insiders can constantly frustrate the genuine people trying to help create a well referenced resource, which they imagine Wiki exists for. Your behaviour was disgusting and you know it. Never once did you genuinely want me to discuss those links on that page. You are what the bible calls a hypocrit. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
  • NW, a couple of suggestions. Your notification to AEJ as of 15:07 today doesn't actually specify a period of topic ban: from the log it's clear that the topic ban no longer applies, as it has been superseded by a block of the same length. Perhaps this should be clarified on AEJ's talk page.
    There's also the matter of a lot of comment by AEJ at talk:Heat, including this restoration of AEJ's comment after he'd been topic banned, and subsequent edits by AEJ. Archiving or deletion of these comments could be appropriate, but as I'm an involved editor and Damorbel (talk · contribs) has chosen to join in, this is something I'll leave alone. . . dave souza, talk 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yikes, who knew that heading off for a few hours would lead to this? Probably something that I should have forseen, but hindsight is 20/20. It was also a mistake to say "articles" instead of "pages", I think.

Andrewedwardjudd, please see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban for the description of what a topic ban is. It would have lasted for 48 hours, what I hoped would have been enough time for you to sit back and reflect on the guidance essay that I linked to you. The bottom line is this: you are trying to incorporate material based on sources that appear to not be giving you an accurate depiction of reality. If you take out a few related textbooks from your local library, that might help you better understand the topic and in turn, help you better improve the article (as higher quality summary sources are often the best at basing an article off of).

Dave, it's technically a violation of the topic ban, but people have responded to it since. Just leave it be for now, I think. NW (Talk) 23:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good guidance and fully answers my questions. . dave souza, talk 23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I blocked him a couple hours ago, so... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of which, if he says he is going to respect the topic ban, I think we should go ahead and unblock. I think that AEJ has the potential to be a good editor but just needs guidance. I'm not sure how best to provide that guidance without being overbearing or patronizing though... NW (Talk) 23:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I'ld like to disagree with your comment, AEJ has been active for a while now, and has been tendentious in a few places, not just the recent dispute. I don't think you can expect a change in behavior anytime soon. LK (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that, I was going to say the same. See for example Heat and its talk page, where he is doing much the same thing. Also, I ask you to have a word with Aej re civility, which he has clearly forgotten: the title of this section; misc stuff on my talk page e.g. [13]; on article talk pages [14]. Which is not to say that he doesn't have the potential to become a good editor, but right now he is far too convinced that he is right about things he is wrong about William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not terribly optimistic either. Looks like Dougweller is handling the civility matter now, but I anticipate that this is not the last time we will have to take a look at AEJ's editing. NW (Talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, he doesn't seem to have calmed down much. I'll leave this in your / Dw's capable hands William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to reverse my block if/when you feel it's the right thing to do. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that Andrewedwardjudd has strong feelings about the matters he writes on, he is capable of (and does) engaging in logical discussion, something which is not the case with more agressive editors who are currently contributing to Heat; I refer to the common assertion of 'you are just wrong' or 'balony', these editors should have time in the cooler long before Andrewedwardjudd. For me the banning of Andrewedwardjudd, while leaving the others untouched, lowers the status of Wiki admin. just a little. --Damorbel (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

He violated a topic ban and then made legal threats. I don't see that he shouldn't have been blocked. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
"He violated a topic ban..." Yup, seems it is the topic ban that started the matter, so the legal threats are in second place. It's this enthusiasm for banning that I find extremely questionable. Banning people from discussion is extreme, there has to be a serious reason for it, not only is being disagreable utterly insufficient, resolving disagreement is the purpose of discussion. Climate change is very controversial, banning people from this is going to be seen as censorship, this has got to be a major POV failure for Wikipedia. Sorry, but this is very bad news for other contributors. --Damorbel (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you've noticed that Andrew's talk page contributing has now been replaced by Andrewswife acting as a relay.[15] Not sure if something constructive can come of this, but I find it a bit uncomfortable so thought I'd draw your attention to it. . . dave souza, talk 22:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Resolved by proxy, so to speak, so no need for any action. Thanks anyway, . . dave souza, talk 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mitch Gaylord

Can you provide something on talk:Mitch Gaylord clarifying the reasons for the removal - nothing that reveals confidential data, but something from a high level that can be shared with those of us who can't view the ticket system. The consensus on the talk page was that the material was reliably sourced. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of language, in accordance with recent editor. If there is good reason to keep it out, I won't revert again, but please do discuss the matter on talk:Mitch Gaylord. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not sure if I really can. I haven't responded to the ticket in question, but left a note in the ticket system. What I can say is that I think the issue not of reliability but more that the information is not fully necessary for readers interested in the subject because of his notability. ("The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.") I think Dweller has access to OTRS; perhaps he can take a look at the ticket?

And my apologies for not investigating the history of the article before removing the material. That was really entirely my fault. NW (Talk) 20:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I'll post on Dweller's talk page asking him to look closer. In the talk page discussion, that wording from WP:BLPNAME was discussed. I initially agreed that the article only needed to mention that there was an ex-wife and number of children - but eventually agreed with the rest of those in the discussion that the ex-wife was notable on her own (the privacy issue wasn't relevant) and that the connection was reliably sourced, so agreed with the others in the discussion with mentioning of her name. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the ticket in due course. As you can see at the article talk page, consensus among the editors was that the relationship was important to mention, but the nature of Drigg's work was not. This seems sensible for someone who is notable herself, and is mother to his children. --Dweller (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to find ticket #6494632 in the system. NW, do you believe that the current state of the article goes against the ticket request, without good policy justification? --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


NW...a bot archived John's AE case against where do we go from here? I'd rather not see it reopened, but also don't want this hanging over me without some verdict.MONGO 16:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad case

For some reason I am inane to contribute to this Muhammad case. Can you fix that? I would really like to participate. Thepoodlechef (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This case has been closed for over a month. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. I am new to the committee so I might be wrong in my assumption of your question. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It says that voting and stuff will continue until April 19? Thepoodlechef (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mimi Macpherson

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mimi Macpherson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello NuclearWarfare. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade FAR

Hi NW! The Roe v. Wade FAR has been ongoing for a while and has been moved to the FARC section. It could use some comments on whether the article should be kept or delisted. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello, I would like to ask you how can I delete my account. Thank you. --Samofi (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Pea bean

I understand the Pea bean was PRODed in February 2011 and that you were the deleting admin. I was 13000 miles from my computer at that time otherwise I would have raised concerns about the deletion. Even if there was an uncontested PROD I would have expected a redirect to Green bean to be left behind. Can you therefore restore the article so that I can work on it to improve its content and refs? I could easily create a re-direct myself but, were I to do that, I would loose all the previous history ,text and discussion. I have no problem if you wish to restore and immediately convert into a re-direct as that would also make the original text , history and talk page available again. Many thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have now raised this at Requests for undeletion.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Eldrin Bell

Why was the page on ELdrin Bell deleted? (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Amendment timeout?

Do requests for amendment timeout? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What a bizarre co-incidence: [16]. Good job I'm not at all cynical William M. Connolley (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In the next election, let's ask the arb candidates if they intend to deal promptly with amendment and clarification requests. It's understandable that hard questions could take a long time, but I'm puzzled that more straightforward requests also languish. For instance, why couldn't they chime in at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. Jclemens made a perfectly sensible suggestion on April 3, and then, nobody else responds. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for your input

You commented a couple of months ago on SirFozzie's user talk page about an issue where I inadvertently violated a topic ban by commenting on another topic-banned editor's arbitration appeal (User talk:SirFozzie#Prioryman topic ban?). The same issue has come up again but kind of in reverse, where another topic-banned editor has commented on my own arbitration appeal, but apparently without any reaction from the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. I've asked them to clarify their position on the issue, given the apparent discrepancy. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for clarification: Jayen466 involvement in my ARBSCI appeal. I'd like to invite you to the discussion - if you have any views they would be welcome. Prioryman (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please delete the redirect page Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...? to make way for a page move.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Long time no see!