This is an archive of past discussions with User:NuclearWarfare. 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.
Hi I saw that you deleted the "wave strategy article" because the book has been banned??? The book that initially meantioned the "Wave Strategy" is used by different universites as a text book in international management.
Cheers, Raid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.243.202.146 (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
UnBlocking request for IP Addresses of BOLT Browser
Hi,
I am Lokesh Joshi and work for Bitstream Inc. (http://boltbrowser.com). We have a very popular mobile browser called BOLT Browser which works on server client architecture. This has minimal load is on the client (mobile phone), and user can experience the Desktop Like browsing experience. For more information please see http://boltbrowser.com.
Recently many of our users reported the following error from Wikipedia while editing the content:
"174.132.56.156 has been disabled by the following reason(s):
This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or xombie computer. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia."
I request you please consider BOLT as legitimate cloud computing based mobile browser. This is not at all an open proxy and users will have to use BOLT client to work through the BOLT servers. More over the originating IP of the handset is available in the headers, so the individual user can be tracked in abuse cases.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kari Ferrell. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oakshade (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The Station
hello nw. Back in august there was an afd for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Station_(YouTube) which resulted in a delete. Was wondering whether you would consider userifying that old article for me? Mashable's new ratings have it as 2nd most popular webshow on the internet as of Sept 09, so I am thinking it may legitimately achieve notability soon.--Milowent (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
NW, with as much traffic as you have on your talk page, and the frequency with which you have to archive your talk page, may I make a suggestion? Could you add this to your main talk page:
{{archives|banner=yes|small=yes}}
Woah, I had no idea that existed. That looks like it is very useful. If there is any way you could do me a favor and incorporate that into {{talkheader}} or add {{archive box}} to my user talk and make it work, it would be much appreciated. NW(Talk)03:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
that will do it. But, there is a subtle difference between the two searches. {{archives|banner=yes}} searches both the current talk page and the archives. The {{archives}} searches only the archives - not the current talk page. You can see the difference if you search for Szląchedzki with each search. However, lately, the servers have been overloaded (from what I've read at the technical village pump), and the rest of your current talk page has not been indexed - so you won't find it with either search until the indexing is done. Which search template you use is a matter of personal preference. The {{archives}} template is nice because you can list the archives you already have - as you can see by the way that Katerenka set it up for you.
I see Soap has already done this for you. Do you want the search to always be visible even if the archive indexes are hidden (collapsed)? Or do you prefer the search hidden with the indexes? stmrlbs|talk00:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"Do you want the search to always be visible even if the archive indexes are hidden (collapsed)?" < That would be cool. NW(Talk)00:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
done. Just remember that the search only picks up what has been indexed, and I don't think they are running it as often as before. stmrlbs|talk01:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks and another candidate for semiprotection
Thanks for protecting King Cobra; it's been a persistent target, and I've been make numerous reverts per day. Could you take a look at Black Mamba and see if it warrants the same level? The two of them are about neck-in-neck for level of vandalism, at least given the number of reverts I do for each. Thanks! Mokele (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I see a couple of good faith edits by IPs there, so I don't want to semi-protect it at this time. If the vandalism increases, feel free to ask again. Thanks, NW(Talk)00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
About iYY(software) deletion
I have modified iYY (software) this page according to WP:N and WP:VER, but It still deleted. Why there is no further instructions for my second modification? I am willing to put more effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.146.194 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi NuclearWarfare. I just discovered that the article on Natasha Barrett (composer) has been deleted. Wonder if you could userify it please so that I can do some work on it to try to bring it up to standard. I looked for some discussion that led to the deletion but could not find it. She won the Nordic Council Music Prize in 2006 for one of her compositions, and I am confident that a well-written article can establish her notability. In deleting this article, you've managed to create a dead link on the BBC website! (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/a6000891-c012-4580-9cd9-04f746817c4b) Is it not some evidence of her notability that the BBC chooses to devote a page to her? Best regards, Hebrides (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if I consider myself qualified to just review part of an article and remark on just that at the FAC. That particular part seems good though. NW(Talk)22:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Userbox
I didn't see any change cause I thought that was the template for the userbox. I seem to have lost the userbox code for wanting to become one. I will try to find it, however, if you have it, please let me know. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox)02:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I used {{administrator}} template thinking it would be that but when I looked a the diffs I noticied no change and couldn't even find any difference in my user page at all, so I tried that other template and didn't notice it was a top page icon. So yeah, I didn't see that it changed it. Thanks again. Happy editing! --A3RO (mailbox)02:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Account creation interface
Hi. Since you are an admin on the account creation interface, would you please approve me? I have been waiting a while. Thank you. One more thing. How do you get the custom message when you edit your talk page? Btilm04:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I am unsure whether you have the requisite experience, and will defer you to another ACC administrator.
Thanks for your inputs, mate. Regarding your question, i saw only (and it was enough!) the example provided in my report, Paulo Sérgio Bento Brito, where he removed, just because, five (!!!) references. What he still does, in EVERY account, is the following: appalling English, overlinking to the fullest extent (if he refers to a team five times in a text, which is in itself needless, he will link it five times), gluing all the sentences in the text (no paragraphs for the man) and destroy all club wikilinks - for instance, the right one is S.L. Benfica (which can be hidden), he removes the dots and creates a re-direct, SL Benfica.
So, i imagine, with all i said above summed up, that only a very small percentage of his edits are good, less than %1 methinks...
I wanted to discuss this with you, but arrived too late :(
I explain: some of his edits are actually good, like this one here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FC_Pa%C3%A7os_Ferreira_squad&diff=320255487&oldid=317853355); he tends to keep squad templates reasonably updated and accurate, so i would not revert those, Nuclear - in fact i have reinstated his versions (three squads). But go right ahead, revert the rest - as i see you are doing - he is a disruptive editor (prior he was a disruptive vandal!), his edits other than those referred, the squad templates, add NOTHING in content.
Brilliant job man, i only re-reverted, as mentioned, those three templates. By the way, with those reverting process you initiated, does it mean he is blocked? I haven't seen anything in user or talk page...
please please wait the full 7 X 24 hours. 15 hours early is substantial. This is one place where it matters--many afds turn around near the end. Perhaps the resting confused the timing, but the overall times was still 6.5 days. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the actual closing on V.V.L.N.Sastry today, but just a reminder. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That was a mistake; my apologies. I usually try not to close them too early, but this was a case where I must have slipped and not looked at the timings. Thank you for the notification, I shall strive to remember to close them on time in the future. Regards, NW(Talk)00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
re: Speedy deletion declined: User:Drums885
Thank you for your feedback. Should I have used "db-band" or is speedy deletion wrong entirely in this case? It appears to be a non-notable band article as a user's page. YellowFives (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It's in userspace, so A7 doesn't apply. The person is free to work on their article in userspace and move it to the mainspace when the band meets WP:MUSIC. I have watchlisted the page, so if they move it, I will be aware of that fact. Regards, NW(Talk)02:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please review and comment on your closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Christgau, as it appears the only evidence of notability of this person is an entry in "Contemporary Authors Online." It appears that he is a living person of questionable notability, and at 4k-2d, I wonder if that falls in the "no consensus defaults to delete" range. Please comment. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Hipocrite. In general, I am in favor of the idea that no consensus BLPs should default to delete, but the discussion at that AfD seemed to me to indicate a consensus to keep the article. There seems to be a general agreement that the man met the notability guidelines after Zagalejo's post, which was the first one that really brought in new evidence, which is always something to weigh a little more. If you want, I will be happy to reopen the debate to possibly get some additional voices, but I think my closure was the correct one. Regards, NW(Talk)15:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
No wonder I kept getting an error when I tried to move my sockpuppet investigation page; you're way ahead of me. Thanks for correcting my mistake. - eo (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the invitation Dank. I haven't followed the discussions on WT:SOCK too closely – I mostly try to stay focused on WP:SPI when in that area, so I don't think I'll comment. I look forward to reading your piece when it comes out though. Thanks, NW(Talk)19:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checking that, I wasn't sure if going to AN was the right way to go, but I figured it was best to leave the situation. DCGeist (talk·contribs) seems to have a bit of WP:OWN going on with that article now, but it may be nothing. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I decided that whenever global renaming comes around (I hear it is coming fairly soon - within a year, possibly), I would switch to using my real name as my username. NW(Talk)23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please check the permissions-commons@wikimedia.org queue for a confirmation e-mail from oopsfotos@tiscali.nl giving permission to use File:Helmut kleinert memorial.jpg under a Creative Commons licence? The relevant OTRS ticket needs to be added to the image page. This is the one issue still outstanding from the featured article candidacy of Inner German border and needs to be resolved urgently if the article is to secure the required slot for featuring on the Main Page. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello NW i saw User:You have been muted and two others on the AIV queue, but I could not tell if the sock claim was correct. How did you decide they should be blocked? What I saw was a dubious name and useless but harmless contribs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Edits like that are typical of Hamish Ross and Grawp; they are simply dummy edits to try to get the account past the autoconfirmed mark. In addition, the long name that makes a phrase is something very typical of Hamish Ross, if I remember correctly. So it was merely a matter of me remembering the typical sock patterns; there was really no other way to figure it out. NW(Talk)21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wait, really? You can get around semiprotection by manually writing an edit URL? That can't possibly be intended. --King Öomie23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, realized that. On that note, why is it that protection log entries with expiration dates say "(indefinite)" at the end? --King Öomie23:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The protection logs are really split into two logs - editing protection and move protection. The two are normally kept together, but can be configured separately. In this case, J.delanoy's userpage is set to full move protection, with no expiry time listed (hence, it will be left move protected indefinitely). NW(Talk)23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
May I ask why you deleted an article where consensus had clearly not been reached (3 to 2 is hardly consensus) and had only been discussed a few days? Your decision seemed rather premature and sudden. An explanation would be appreciated.
I closed the AfD after the standard time that they are left open – 7 days. I saw consensus to be indicative of the fact that that the man did not meet Wikipedia:BIO#Basic criteria, which is the standard inclusion guideline for all biographies, and closed the AfD accordingly. NW(Talk)04:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"I saw consensus to be indicative of the fact that the man did not meet basic criteria." Seriously, how can you call 3-2 consensus? To delete an established article (it had been up for nearly a year) where only 5 people had commented on leaving or deleting and one in which multiple, legitimate sources were given, is without question rash. I realize you are an administrator, but per Wikipedia regulations, it certainly doesn't give you sweeping powers to single-handidly choose weather a disputed article stays or goes, especially given the circumstances.
I will definitely be appealing your decision to another administrator. Please let me know the procedure for doing so. And if you are confident you did the proper thing, you shouldn't fear an appeal.
Deletion appeals are usually conducted at WP:DRV, where the community (and not just one administrator) can review my close. Please feel free to file a DRV; the instructions on how to do so are given there. If you cannot figure out how to do so, just ask, and I will be happy to file it myself. NW(Talk)01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify a bit for NW: It is a 4-2 consensus, not a 3-2 (the initial nominator should also be included as a "delete" vote). Additionally, the main concern brought up by the nominator and by delete voters, that no third-party sources exist, was not addressed by keep voters. I doubt the AfD was closed improperly, and I doubt the decision will be overturned even if it is sent to WP:DRV. On the other hand, from what you wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Fields, Doug Fields looks as if he should be able to pass WP:AUTHOR. If you can find reliable, third-party sources, I have little doubt that the article can be recreated. Ask NW to userfy the page and (probably at User:Flavius Constantine/Doug Fields or somewhere similar) and work on it. If the conditions for notability are satisfied, you will be allowed to move your draft into mainspace. If you have any further questions or need help, don't hesitate to let me know. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs01:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Laura Dekker
Hello, can you put a copy of the article in my userspace? I will keep an eye on it and resubmit if the situation changes. Thanks --Neozoon00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi NuclearWarfare. I was just talking with Jamie(S93) about becoming a trainee clerk at SPI. I am interested, but need a clerk to train me, if you have the time, do you think you could train me? ceranthor12:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do so. I have left a note on the clerks' coordination page to see if anyone has any objections. If no one does, I'll add you to the list in a day or so and start teaching you the ropes. NW(Talk)14:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Can you tell me how it works? I've put it in my monobook, but I'm afraid I have no idea what to do with it. :D I hope it's not just incompatible with my other js stuff, because I can never remember the proper protection template! --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. Funny that you posted here, but I was just about to post on your talk page on a completely different thing. And yes, below the toolbox on the left hand column, there should be a box called "protection" If you use that, you should be able to just click a button, type in a time to the box that pops up, and the tag will be placed for you. I hope that convoluted, flu-affected explanation helped; if not, I'll try to explain further (or have someone else do so). Regards, NW(Talk)20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Gasp! It's awesome! And you explained it beautifully, flu notwithstanding. :) Thanks. (I hope you feel better! And, oh, and I've replied at my talk. :/) --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Having now verified infringement in something like 12 of 40 articles (with a total of about 470 to check) and with a good many that may be drawn from print sources I don't have, I've requested assistance at WP:Biography with a full process here. If I do not get takers to help evaluate the print only sources, the only choice may be to proactively delete under the provision of Wikipedia:Copyright violation that permits such deletion presumptively. We certainly can't assume its clean. :/
This contributor was given a strong warning of copyright in August of this year. I have not yet found any infringement that postdates that. If I do, I will block. Even if I do not, a block may be advisable if he or she does not respond to these concerns in a responsible fashion. Again, Wikipedia:Copyright violation makes clear that protecting the project in these kinds of cases is paramount. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to be! It's easy to mediate such a dispute, to be honest. Just try to keep steering the conversation towards the article itself, and have them debate certain paragraphs. Just give it a shot; you'll do fine! NW(Talk)20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Always best to give in to the disputants if you have other options. But I'll be sure to follow every diff. Thanks for helping out! NW(Talk)20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought it might not be speedy deleted. But in my opinion, there is no album listing and the band is also redirected to the lead singer's article. Maybe I will try an AFD. --WriterListener21:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yo NW, I've userfied this on request at REFUND and now the editor wants to return it to the mainspace. As you closed the AfD as delete, can you take a look at User:Elk Salmon/Quiet Internet Pager? If you're happy with the updated version, we can de-userfy; if not, the author wants a community discussion over it (DRV most likely). Cheers, Skomorokh, barbarian 00:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer that this go to DRV, as notability still doesn't seem all that clear to me enough that I would vote to keep that at AfD. I don't think the article has changedenough since the AFD and I would prefer to let the community evaluate if it has in any case. Thanks for the heads up Skomorokh. NW(Talk)00:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw where you restored this article, but I wasn't sure why. I was clicking "delete" at the same time my mind was registering your "restore" log entry. Was there something I missed? Cheers. TNXMan01:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that there was something odd about this article as opposed to its sister articles, Fabric 36 and Fabric 38. I was going to investigate them a bit more fully, but got pulled off to another task. I'll take a look now. NW(Talk)15:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the exemption you granted. I usually edit from home, but on the occasion yesterday when I requested an unblock I happened to be at the library. I assure you I will not dishonor or abuse this newly-granted privilege on the relatively rare occasions (I predict) it will even be necessary to employ it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Nick Wolven
Hi -- some time ago you deleted Nick Wolven, as it was almost notable but not quite (according to the debates).. Well, now Wolven has got the cover story of the latest Asimov : [2] -- should this debate be reopened or undeleted? Luminifer (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I can userfy it for you, and you can add content to the article in userspace. After you do so, I'll take a look at the changes and either move it to mainspace myself or send it to DRV. Does that sound good? NW(Talk)01:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you realized your error in his edit to dent, but he's still blocked for vandalism. (By the way, I've gone through and prodded a couple of his apparently-non notable contributions.) --NE202:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused by why you deleted this logo, without me being consulted. The rights to the logo are owned by Churchill JCR. Under the constitution, as President, I'm able to release this onto Wikipedia. Please can you restore it. WikiWebbie (talk) 10:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you send me the link of the image? If it is a logo, it is likely that I deleted it because of an assumption that it is unlikely that a Wikipedian would own the copyright to such an image. I'll be happy to undelete it, and I do advise you to email OTRS to certify the permission for the rest of your images. NW(Talk)11:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Doug Fields. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
Re: CSD for Test Page
I apologize - I accidentally clicked the wrong tickbox when going to apply the CSD tag. I'd meant to cite it as a test page instead of nonsense. Sorry about that. DJBullfish20:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Keme Nzerem
Thanks for your message about the declined speedy deletion of Keme Nzerem. I am aware of speedy deletion guidelines. When I tagged it, the article was slimmer than it is now (just "Keme Nzerem is a British journalist who works for the the Television Channel 4 as a News achor[1]. He Joined Channel 4 in 2001"), so it hardly gave any notability claim. Thanks for your patience, Goochelaar (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
At first I thought your deletion of the article was sabotage. The perpetrator hid all traces of the procedure. I saw your handle, but there was no log on your pages of your action--no place for collateral discussion. Instead, this is a deliberate act on your part. The basis you used however is in error. While there are literally hundreds of articles on wikipedia about minor porn actreses, this actress has a nearly ten year body of work, awards, cover articles written in industry publications. There was a decent, well documented article (as best can be documented in the world of adult films) encompassing several paragraphs. It certainly was in the top half of adult movie star articles on Wikipedia. 152 films, listings on all the major film listing services and if you happened to try a true google on her name or likeness, you would get a flood of content. In short, she is famous. The original article is not my work, but one that several other people had compiled over several years about a now retired, porn actress. I only discovered its absence by accident when I went back to check on a point of information there.
I did resurrect the original article based on an internet archive, improved upon it, and re-posted it causing "copyright" warnings from BOTS to come up. But the information I posted is in fact wikipedia original information that has since been copied FROM wikipedia. Yes, it will probably not get significant further updates. Retired people, like dead people, don't usually add to their resume. They don't show up in current events--Google News. If you limit your searches to those limited vehicles, you can easily blind yourself to the true merits of an article. Even pornography has a history.
Self important, self appointed administrators like you are ruining Wikipedia. I have lost count of how many many more significant, academic articles, much less those less important articles about major niche porn stars, have been mis-deleted by people like you. We need to gain information, not destroy it. Its all knowledge lost. You have a seriously flawed system here. It only gives, in this case, one week for people to respond--about a subject many people, including myself, are not fully open to discussing. The vast majority of Wikipedia users do not know HOW to respond. The limited number of people who understand the quirky, limited communication system or administrative heirarchy on Wikipedia is microscopic. I've written and contributed to hundreds, possibly thousands of academic Wikipedia articles under another name, yet I barely understand how you decide an article is deletable. Yes there are written standards, but very few minds, VERY FEW OPINIONS, interpreting those words. There NEVER is significant discussion. At best you get a handful of comments. Many useful articles just disappear. I have felt like a one-armed paperhanger trying to defend some articles from bot attacks and (I am withholding the expletive) people like you who do not understand the subject matter. I welcome modifications and improvements. Attacking and deleting--destroying is easy. It takes much more time and effort build.
NuclearWarfare is an apt title for you. Nobody wins in a nuclear war. Please find another hobby to spend your time. Get out of the destruction business. {Pornjihad (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)}
Well, unfortunately, someone has to do the dirty work of deleting articles on here and NW is one of our hardest working. Either way, what you can do now to fix this is to have other people look at the deletion and see if it was done correctly. In my opinion, it was (and twice) but whatev. What you need to do is read Wikipedia:Deletion review, then file a review of the deletion and if, as you say, it was done incorrectly, it can be restored. You do get to have your say and rather than beating on NW here, you can maybe find redress there. If you like, the deleted article can be temporarily moved to your own userspace for review and maybe rework - just ask and I can do that myself! - Alison❤09:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
NW is working hard, but I do not think censorship of content, reducing the size of the knowledge base, is a virtuous goal. For trying to stand up for this article, my user name was banned and blocked. I'm not sure I've done everything correctly, I've already discussed the oblique nature of this deletion and appeal process. I have now posted the appeal. OsamaPJ (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem James. Good thing someone didn't delete it! And remember, you can still get the 5x expansion, don't forget :)NW(Talk)02:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Changes in the queue
Sorry for kicking out your lead hook proposal. I was re-editing the prep areas and got an edit conflict. I don't like politics either, but we're lacking catchy, and especially US, hooks (most approved ones are european). Feel free to re-add your hooks - there is a lack of people to fill up preps and queues. I actually approved the hook you added, but it can still wait (far from T:TDYK bottom, and there are many queues to fill for today). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi NW, thanks for your note saying that your questions might be merged etc. Of your six, I haven't included two in the "themed" presentation, which may be adopted for the election:
Do you support Arbitrators being elected longer than a two year term? Would you accept a term longer than two years if appointed to one by Jimbo Wales? [this is the subject of an RfC right now]
Name, in order from greatest to least, the entities or people you believe should have the most influence over individual Arbitrators and over the Arbitration Committee as a whole. [Can you explain your intended meaning? :-) ]
The first question could probably go; I wrote it before the RfC and didn't update it when I readded my questions. As for the second question, I based it off of one from last year that said something along the lines of "Rate the following four groups by what their influence on the Arbitration Committee should be: Jimbo Wales, the WMF, the Community, and ArbCom itself." I was hoping that the candidates would come up with those groups by themselves though. If you feel my question is a bit too vague, please feel free to change it so it makes sense. Thanks, NW(Talk)16:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that anyone could conclude there was a consensus for deletion in that discussion, let alone any policy-based rationale for deletion in that discussion at all. As I brought up with the nominating editor User_talk:Crotalus_horridus#Merkey_AfD, the nomination was questionable. If you don't mind, could you explain your decision? --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to ask about this AfD as well. In particular, did the subject unambiguously request deletion? If yes, where? Thanks. --Cyclopiatalk21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion seemed to indicate there was considerable disagreement as to whether the individual met the notability standard or not, as evidenced by the comments that ranged from "I don't see the notability here, just a series of entries that do not add up to notability" to "This one clearly passes the notability guideline WP:BIO vis-a-vis sustained signiicant media coverage of different things he has done." When you take into account the fact that the subject seems to meet the standards of a non-public figure and wants the article gone[3] (other links likely available, but I'd have to ask some more tenured editors on where to locate them), I saw reason enough to invoke this guideline and delete the article. My apologies for not leaving a closing rationale; one was warranted and I was in error to not write one. NW(Talk)22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I think some closing rationale should be added to the AfD if possible.
The article documented multiple, notable events where Merkey had a substantial role, each sourced by multiple, independent, reliable sources. As such, the article met WP:ONEEVENT many times over.
While there were many complaints of BLP problems with the article, none were specific and no one made any attempt to identify such problems in the article or the article's talk page.
Well, thanks for providing a rationale now. I guess you meant the result was "no consensus -default to delete" and it is indeed within policy. I would have preferred a link indicating that the subject explicitly requested deletion, but anyway it is fine with me. Thanks! --Cyclopiatalk23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You tagged it as A7, but it was actually an attack page (G10). Please take greater care to identify attack pages; they need to be removed more quickly than non-notable people. Thanks, NW(Talk)03:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Why are anon blocks 31 hours?
Hi NuclearWarfare. I saw you blocked yet another anon vandalizing editor (71.13.118.74) -- good job!
I'm curious why I keep seeing anonymous editors blocked for 31 hours. That's an unusual duration, so I'd like to know how that became the first-block duration of choice. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
You know, I'm not really sure myself. It's in the standard block options and in the most commonly used block script (Animum's easyblock.js script), so I guess it became a default like that. Asking one of our more tenured sysops (User:Manning Bartlett is an active old-timer that might know) might be an option to try. I'll ask around myself; your question has got me thinking... NW(Talk)21:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'll keep stalking watching your talk page for the answer. Meanwhile, have a WikiCake to keep your energy up:
A More Perfect Onion (talk) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of cakes by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Look at it from the perspective of the vandal: they probably get a library hour or something, and they use this hour to vandalize. If you block for 24 hours, they'll just come back the next day fresh off the block and continue vandalizing. 31 hours sets the equilibrium off a bit =) See also: MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions#31 hour block?. –xenotalk21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
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, 10, November 2009! Keep up the great work!--ColdplayExpert00:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!
Technically, you could possibly get away with doing so, but it is best to avoid it for cases where you might accidentally mess up and cause a bigger fuss than it is worth. Thanks for bringing that to my attention though; I'll address it now. NW(Talk)01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so just to be clear, not many people would mind if I close unblock requests that are obviously not addressing how they will improve behavior, as long as I tell them what would be an unblock request that could be granted?--Iner22 (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I would not go through and deny any unblock requests. But I would definitely try to help out blocked users in explaining how they could be unblocked. NW(Talk)01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you please respond to my protection request on wp:rfp? It is urgent that it gets done asap because it is my sig. Thank you. Btilm02:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess it was fair to delete that article as having no context, but as I saw it "Neema Barnette" could also be a name, and short articles containing a name would fit A7 better than A3. I dunno, that one could have gone either way. --tennisman14:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
*ceases worrying* After reading WP:WIHSD, my NP patrolling has become a lot slower, I've been questioning the rationales a great deal more lately...¯\(°_o)/¯ --tennisman14:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The range 142.176.64.0/18 (at least, it would probably have to be expanded to 142.176.64.0/16) would have to be blocked to take care of that. I'll block the range for a short time; hopefully that should solve things. If not, please tell me, and I'll talk with the checkusers to see if we can put up a longer block. Thanks, NW(Talk)04:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The decision was clearly not keep, it was no consensus.
When you write keep against a review it causes lots of problems; particularly with later reviews, it's viewed as an unequivocal endorsement, whereas in reality it was certainly nothing of the kind.
Please can you change the result summary to the actual result, which is No consensus - presumptive keep.
I made my closure after a close analysis of the discussion and whether the votes applied to the article in its final form. I believe my closure to be the correct one. You are free to send this to DRV if you wish, but I frankly don't see the point. NW(Talk)16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're actually claiming that it wasn't no consensus, then I will have to DRV it; you've clearly acted improperly and not weighed the votes correctly, but if it's no consensus, then it should be reflected in the result.- Wolfkeeper16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Wolfkeeper, please be advised the AFD is not personal, so drop the angry tone, this is not about you. If you feel the closure was inproper, then I absolutely encourage you to bring it for review. But please stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you does not follow policy, always assume good faith. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
We had one admin on this particular review that simultaneously broke 3 different rules on this review. Previous reviewers have closed similar reviews and then it was clear from their later actions that they had changed the vote. The only way to handle this kind of abuse is keep the admins transparently honest. It doesn't do them any good to have people question their reviews; they must do the right thing, and be seen to have self-evidently done the right thing. When you have keep votes like this, it is no longer at all self-evident. Did the reviewer change the result or not? If it really was no consensus, then they automatically have changed the result in a very real sense. It has real effects on the later discussion- the presumption is that if it was a keep, that it was clear that this was so.- Wolfkeeper20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
While I don't agree with WK's adversarial tone, I will agree with his/her note that some sort of closing comment would have been appropriate. Given the length and complexity of the debate, a simple "the outcome was keep" appears to trivialize the concerns expressed during the discussion. PowersT18:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't read or looked at the debate, but I can confidently say that DRV rarely if ever overturn a keep to a no consensus or vice versa. Tim Song (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The core problem is that reviews are being handled as a vote, but it isn't; but it is if that's the way it is being handled.- Wolfkeeper20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
(to NuclearWarfare) Please add a closing rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pissing contest. Two participants of that discussion have asked that one be posted. Summarizing the arguments of the debate will allow the users to understand how you weighed the arguments. This will allay Wolfkeeper (talk·contribs)'s concerns that you counted the votes. Note that I do not disagree with your close of this AfD, but in divided discussions, it is best to provide a rationale. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the closing rationale. Well-written. I encourage you to add a closing statement whenever there is doubt (or the possibility of doubt) by the participants as to what the result should be. Best, Cunard (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I also thank you, NW. But I would also suggest that, in the future, if there is some question about whether the proponents of a particular course of action still agree with that course after the article has been revised, that you ask them whether they still agree. I, for one, had no idea I would need to "reaffirm" my position, nor do I have any idea how to determine at which point in an AfD I should do so. PowersT15:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
In general, it is best to comment and reaffirm positions after either long debates or large rewrites of the article. NW(Talk)21:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have no position on the specific case but I agree with NW, that any editor should re-comment if there have been substantial arguments against his or her position OR if it is likely that the closing admin may find the arguments have been OBE - such as a major re-write or, at MfD, blanking of the page. (oops, forgot to sign. --Doug.(talk • contribs)14:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC))
I'm not actually the one who tagged it; I have no vested interest, and simply trusted the original reporter. I restored it after it was deleted by the article creator in violation of policy. Noq was the original reporter, you should probably let him know. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I ended up deleting in any case after talking to a Welsh administrator. And sorry about the notification; my script seems to have wrongly identified you as the one who tagged it. Cheers, NW(Talk)20:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. It's a good idea, but I'm afraid your change may bury us. :) It's basically a good idea, but we need to work out details. I've removed it for now to hopefully unclog the system, but please see the template talk so we can come up with something that works. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am probably becoming a pain in .., sorry for that. I've pulled out Jim Trickey from a lead hook this morning because I thought the article is somewhat weak for a lead and would fit better with a non-lead hook. I would appreciate your word on that as I feel awkward repeatedly demoting lead hooks. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! No hard feeling here (32 hooks/day anyway). I understand that I should take many things less responsibly (especially DYK) - its just my nasty nature :-) Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Please review deletion of Jane Burgermeister. She has gain a lot of public interest recently, with the new H1N1 vaccination. People need to know who she with a neutral Wiki.
Well, that is for the reviewing sysop to decide. Try to post some diffs that show the two accounts talking in the same manner, signing the same way, using the same style of edit summary, etc. That should help the reviewing admin. NW(Talk)20:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I leave it to others to enact the calming. I'll be torching and pitchforking about the steward issue when it's more appropriate to do so, but I've said what I needed to say and now I've moved on. Someone should convince Giano that he wasn't in the wrong till he flipped, post haste, however. Hipocrite (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, DerHexer might have been in the right, actually, because of the confusing nature of the edit and the highly viewed nature of ANI that allows him to use the steward tools on enwiki. It's a rather confusing issue which you really have to know all the details to understand, so I think it is best if we all back off for now. NW(Talk)22:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Antiuser's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi. I just wanted to point out that you just granted rollback rights to an editor who is a complete newbie (user:YellowFives), and already involved in edit warring with separate editors as evidenced by the last two series of posts on his talkpage.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I did note the discussion on YellowFives user talk and on ANI. However, after reviewing his contributions, I felt that it was OK to assume that he will do the right thing with it, as overall his contributions seem good. If you see him misusing rollback, please tell me, and I will remove it from him. Thanks, NW(Talk)21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Aimless Device item
Hi,
I've recently re-"posted" an item about the Belgian band Aimless Device; apparently, you deleted the previous version because of the lack of source or reference. Therefore, I added two well-known references for this band: a link to discogs.org, and a link to muziekarchief.be, a web database of Belgian bands managed by the Flemish Community.
That should be good enough to make sure it isn't speedily deleted, but please try to make sure the article meets the inclusion criteria for bands, which I am not sure it does currently. Otherwise, it still stands a chance of being deleted through a discussion process. But thanks for your work! NW(Talk)16:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
MurmurHash
Through an odd turn of events, I've wound up adopting MurmurHash, which you deleted some time ago. My first attempt at restoring it led to Jclemens deleting it as CSD-G4; recreation of previously deleted material, so I took his advice by creating a new version of the article in my user space, keeping it short and well-cited.
I would appreciate it if you would take a look at it and tell me if you think it deserves to be restored in this state. You can find it at User_talk:Phil_Spectre/MurmurHash.
It's got plenty of sources, but it was deleted for not having any reliable sources at all, and it still doesn't. And I'm pretty sure that Phil Spectre has a WP:COI on this, i.e. he wrote it or something, he's awfully keen on it.- Wolfkeeper20:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The only person with a potential WP:COI is User:Aappleby, who did write it and has been completely open about his identity. However, I have nothing to do with him, and in fact, I initially supported not only the deletion of MurmurHash but also Fowler Noll Vo hash. After filing an AFD for the latter, I was persuaded that the right way to handle bad articles is to trim them down and add citations; to fix them, not kill them. In the interests of parity, I eventually felt compelled to fix MurmurHash. So please WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL. There is no conspiracy to force MurmurHash down anyone's throat, and if anyone here seems to be awfully keen on something, it's certainly not me. What is your fixation with deleting this article? Phil Spectre (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
WP:G4 states: "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and Content moved to user space for explicit improvement." As the page is not sufficiently identical nor is it unimproved, it is excluded from G4. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs20:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Where did you get the NOR from? I can equally well read it as: "This excludes pages that are not... pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies", and the difference is that this version actually makes sense- people can't recreate articles that still have the same problem it was deleted for. According to you they can just rewrite it a bit, and even if it's still obviously got all the same problems...poof it reappears. No, that's not what it says.- Wolfkeeper20:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is to be read strictly, not vaguely. The "and" in the statement logically means that if any of those three items, including "not substantially identical to the deleted version" is satisfied, G4 does not apply. It's not a logical "or." And yes, according to me, and G4, if the page is not "substantially identical," it does not fall under the G4 speedy criteria. If it has the same issues, it can easily be deleted under AfD; I simply don't understand the rush to delete this page. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs21:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted page: [Loa Stefansdottir]
Hi, the page 'Loa Stefansdottir' has finally been deleted. Though it's not really DELETED. The person by the name of 'Loa Stefansdottir' wishes not to have a wikipedia page discussing her insignifigance as the top google hit when searching for her name. Anything we can do to purge the page in true Nuclear Warfare fashion? Cheers -Alex
Well, that is really on Google's end, not ours. However, you can contact them and have them remove their cache with the instructions given here. NW(Talk)17:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for your notice. I tend to disagree though about the notability of this person. First of all, the article is totally unsourced and this is the third or so time that it has been added to Wikipedia. Googling "Shahidul Islam" comes up with all sorts of entries but nothing that would point at a noteworthy journalist. Moreover, upon a second look I found that this article is a copyvio of [6]. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Who knows what timezone you are in, how old you are or whatever, but still, I can't stop wondering the reason to why you would suppress information. Don't misunderstand, I'm not here to give you a hard time, I'm just curious really (and drunk I might add). It was just a party joke between friends, luckly I saved the page before you deleted it :)
My problem is this. I would understood it if I was fucking up another article or generally being a pest, but it was you who asked me if I wanted to make an article. And the article isn't really about the dog even, but about my relationship with my friend. You can argue that Wikipedia isn't the right fora and I read you, but as I said, it was just a joke. When did you get so serious. When did the idea of a website anybody could edit become this?
I thought I was helping. You had no article about Pilou. I thought I was contributing. I even felt good there for a moment. Until you came around of course. God knows what the thoughtprocess looked like, when you promptly deleted my "irelevant" piece of information, but I admit I am curius.
I understand the fact that I can't hold you responsible for Wikipedias way of doing things, but ask yourselves; what did just happenned? For all I know, maybe it even will make you a happier human being. If that is what you are, who knows these days. Anyways.
_at_Disney%27s_Animal_Kingdom_(16-01-2005).jpg)
