|
User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 19
There seems to be consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:JRG.2FCorey_Worthington to get rid of Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Corey_Worthington. What do you think of a G6 deletion of this file? It seems roundabout to copy it back to mainspace and then do a G4, but I suppose it's doable. In theory, an action like this should be appealable to DRV (since there was a past AfD and a DRV) but most likely no one will bother. EdJohnston (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I rather like the idea of keeping the history in the place where it originally started. I moved the incubator page back to Corey Worthington, deleted it per G6, and then salted the page. I think that should be good enough; DRV can handle an appeal if necessary. NW (Talk) 07:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
- gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
Hi NW, if you still do FAC image reviews, would you be willing to review the images for Muhammad al-Durrah incident? The nomination page is here, and the section describing the images, here. In particular, it would be good to know whether, in your view, the fair-use images are justified. But if you're busy or don't do these reviews anymore, no worries. Best, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I still do image reviews, although I am a bit busy right now. I'll try to get to your FAC as soon as possible. NW (Talk) 14:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like David Fuchs got there before I did. I'll take a look in a couple more days to see if there is anything I could help out with. NW (Talk) 03:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi NW, could you explain why you protected that page? My understanding is that full protection usually only occurs when needed, not preemptively. Was there a discussion somewhere I missed? Hobit (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- A bit of IAR, perhaps we could say, in addition to a request from another editor at the DRV. Could you explain why you would like it to be unprotected? NW (Talk) 20:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because A) there is no good reason to protect it and we don't protect pages just because we might not like what shows up and B) I think all the issues with this topic and admins acting via IAR needs to end. C) there is certainly the potential for an article there, just as there is with any deleted article. When more sources show up no one should have to go to you or any other admin to unprotect. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Articles are routinely unprotected via WP:RFUP when their subjects become more notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- My position has always been that any administrator is free to overturn routine actions like this one if they have good reason to do so. If the topic becomes more notable, my action can be reversed. However, I would rather avoid another drama-filled AfD if the article is recreated with no new sources. NW (Talk) 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! That user doesn't fit the usual MascotGuy MO at all. If it is MG, it's the first time in literally years he's interacted on talk pages and edit summaries. What am I missing? This is genuinely interesting. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm actually not really sure myself, but J.delanoy confirmed his checkuser was accurate twice on his talk page. Figure it might just be best to let Functionaries-en handle it. NW (Talk) 03:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there again NW, a user came to me with a question regarding this User. He's been quite a problem, and while I don't edit the page he's been most disruptive on(and I haven't looked into what he's been doing there), his comments on his talk page are quite profane(here's an example). I was hoping you could tell me what can be done in a case like this. Thanks. Outback the koala (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Warned him. If he does something like this again, please tell me. His editing behavior is unacceptable. NW (Talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- thanks :) Outback the koala (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- To give you an update, this anon user replied to you here. His editing style has not changed, but worsened. He has been blocked for 24 hours just a minute ago, but I strongly believe he will return after that period and continue with his disruptive editing. Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Update, this is user is active again since January 8th, see his contributions, [1]. The edit summaries speak for themselves. Could you please put an extended block on him? This has to stop. Outback the koala (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- He hasn't edited for four days. If you can find him editing under another IP, or if his disruptive behavior starts acting up again, please feel free to tell myself or another administrator (using WP:ANI). NW (Talk) 12:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Please let me know what else you need. The images were previously reviews by Zscout370, but I want to address any and all concerns mentioned at the review. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking a while to get back to you. The images in your articled look fine. NW (Talk) 17:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like Twinkle deleted this page erroneously. You might want to uncheck the "delete redirects to" box for stuff like this. Cheers, –xenotalk 21:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, wasn't expecting the user talk page to be redirected. Undeleted. NW (Talk) 21:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the more immediately germane question is why you're singling me out for some sort of special responsibility to answer for what I do or don't plan to do about it. Out of the several thousand people who got some variation of the same message posted to their talk pages, I'm the only one who somehow has to make some sort of special public statement about it? Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I just happened by your userpage today, and I was struck by the fact that you had created several hundred unsourced BLPs. If you notice, I also left the same note for User:Rebecca, whose user talk page I happened upon today. As sysops, we ought to set an example for other editors. Do you happen to know where a list of people to whom the message was sent out to lies? (in a format where one can see how many unsourced articles were created). NW (Talk) 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- The vast majority of them, for what it's worth, are articles I created years and years ago, before Wikipedia had the sourcing requirements that it has now — I've been editing on here since 2004, and a lot of the processes have changed over time. So I'll certainly have more than my fair share of work that doesn't meet current standards, but that's because the standards changed after I did that work, not because I'm not properly following the rules as they stand now in my current editing.
- I plan to do what I can, when I can, but I certainly don't plan to make it my singleminded priority to immediately and obsessively remedy every article on the list within the next 24 hours without regard to whether I have anything else I need to do. My only plan is to get to what I can when I'm able to.
- I'm not aware of a list that's organized by number of articles, though; I only got a "list" of other users who got the same message by looking at the bot's contribution history. Bearcat (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- That seems perfectly fair. I am well aware of your extensive contributions to the encyclopedia, and I don't want to make it seem as if I am being harshly critical. The post was merely meant to be a small reminder, to "not forget the sourcing!" Your indication that you won't forget it is enough for me. Thanks! NW (Talk) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough — sorry I read your initial tone as more lecturing than you intended :-) Bearcat (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
|
|
The Article Rescue Barnstar
|
| The Rescue Barnstar 3 - to be awarded to people who rescue articles from deletion or assist in identifying and rescuing articles. This can be independent of or in cooperation with the Article Rescue Squadron.
This barnstar is awarded to NuclearWarfare for restoring and sourcing Dana (Korean singer) after it was disruptively deleted. Thank you. Ikip 07:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
|
If you're serious about the view that administratorship is incompatible with the creation of a large number of unreferenced biographies, I'd strongly recommend adding that view to the requests for comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link MZM. I have endorsed a few views, and left one of my own on that subject: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#View by NuclearWarfare. NW (Talk) 19:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Nuke. Who was de-admined for copyright problems? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Craigy144 is currently at Arbitration, and it looks like he will be desysopped. Richardshusr resigned last week as a result of this ANI thread. NW (Talk) 20:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. More players to add in on this round of the MMPORG. You might find this video documentary of a Featured Article related discussion interesting [2] (captions must be turned on). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
As User:Dickensfest. What is the proper procedure. I thought he had the IP blocked. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Alexander Spesivtsev, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
- Fully agree with the basis for the prod; I've sourced the article and removed the prod. I could only find one reliable free source. In light of the significant BLP issues here (an accused serial killer and cannibal), I have pared back the article to only the minimal detail that's given in the source and removed perjorative categorisations of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Great, thank you very much for sourcing the article. The article was a pretty egrigious violation of BLP, and I'm glad that we have a proper encyclopedic article now. Again, thank you! NW (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Three weeks and still nothing, does it normally take this long to block sockpuppets? --88.109.171.84 (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
As you were the one to topic ban this user from all Balkans-related topics, I thought you might be interested in this notification on their talk page, which they removed. I have also put a notice on ANI (see WP:ANI/User:Human Rights Believer ignoring a ban) and have notified the user of that thread. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a brand new arbcom opened up against Coffee, the administator who supported Scott MacDonalds behavior.
Coffee's behavior is a precursor of the "disruption and drama" and "utter contempt" that editors will now have moving forward. Mr. MacDonald cannot have it both ways: he cannot show "utter contempt" for "community consensus", intentionally creating "drama and disruption" then two days later attempt to create "community consensus".
As I wrote in the arbcom:
- "Arbcom sent a powerful, empowering message to editors like Coffee by giving them amnesty: our community rules don't matter, and administrators will be forgiven and rewarded for blatantly breaking our community rules"
As I learned in the KWW RFA, if editors say a blatant falsehood enough times, it becomes truth. Already people are stating that no rules were broken in the RFC BLP, when no one could argue that rules were broken, and I argue they were broken with "utter contempt".
Excuse me but I have an administrator to desysop. You will be happy to note that my focus on Scott will be minimal in the next few days, as I focus on Coffee's rich edit history.
I look forward to your comment supporting Coffee in the arbcom. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):an olympic medallist for f**k's sake 22:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi: I've redirected it to Ahmad Yusuf Nuristani instead, who appears to be the same person. RayTalk 02:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought that might be the case, but I wasn't too sure. But thanks for checking it out and confirming it. NW (Talk) 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, if you fixed your proposal, I would support it. As written, I cannot. The section highlighted in black is absolutely appalling to me:
- Therefore, the repeated introduction of unsourced BLPs or the failure to clean up unsourced biographies of living persons that one had created a while back after a reasonable amount of time is a violation of WP:BLP.
This places responsibility on individuals for articles that they may never have worked on. It makes them accountable for any changes subsequently added. Being the person who clicked on "Create this page" does not make one the owner and they should not be obligated to make changes. If it read, "or the failure to clean up unsourced biographies of living persons they recently created after a reasonable amount of time" then I could agree with it. It punishes people for good faith efforts they made in the past.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- If one made a good faith error in the past and are now willing to fix it, then that is fine with me. To me, someone refusing to clean up BLP violations and unsourced BLPs that they themselves introduced into the encyclopedia is akin to someone saying "it is not my responsibility to clean up copyright violations which were among my first edits to the encyclopedia." Even if those copyright violations were made four years ago, that does not absolve that person of their responsibility to fix their mistakes, no matter in how much good faith they were made. If I were to rewrite my statement at the BLP, I would actually change it to the following: "Therefore, the repeated introduction of unsourced BLPs or the failure to clean up unsourced biographies of living persons that one had created after a reasonable amount of time and reminders is a violation of WP:BLP." NW (Talk) 23:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's look at some of Rebecca's articles (and I use her only because I saw her list yesterday.) Rebecca wrote the initial article on Sergei Shamba in 2004. She made 1 edit in 2005. The article has been edited close to 50 times since then and is drastically different from what she wrote. In fact, while she may have written the initial version, there is no way that you can say that she created the current version.[3] Or how about Tsebin Tchen another article which does not look at all what Rebecca wrote. And here is the coup de gras, Bill Forwood. Rebecca wrote this article in 2004. Her fourth edit to the page was to blank it! Somebody else undid her edit. According to this measure, and your note on her page, she is still responsible for it because she created the page!
- The problem is that 4 or 5 years after the fact, the creator may not care about the article/subject. The author may just as well assume that the article is deleted---in fact, that is what would likely happen with a CopyVio. The problem is they can't delete it, it is no longer their article. They don't own it and they don't care what happens to it. If it goes to AFD they don't care. Plus, your comparison fails, if somebody introduced a copyvio 4 or 5 years ago, they were acting outside of guidelines (insofar as to violate the law) even at the time. Our expectations were much different about sourcing than they are today.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say to leave the burden of sourcing on the creator. If anyone runs upon a BLP with violations and doesn't clean it up, they're sort of worthless themselves. Leaving it to notify someone else to go remove such information is in itself a violation, in my opinion. Laziness isn't a good excuse. The burden of sourcing, however, regardless of when it was created or how much it changed, should stick with the creator. Regardless of what the policies were then, this has always been an alleged encyclopedia, the definition of which isn't new. Lara 00:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Then you are putting a new responsibility upon the article creators---one which has never existed and is being extended retroactively. In an ideal world, yes I agree, a person should be willing to help. In reality, there are articles that we've written/worked on that we don't care about. I've had at least one article that I wrote nominated for deletion---wherein I didn't get involved because I didn't care if the article was deleted or not. My problem is entirely with the time-line. I've you may feel a certain way, but making a change that acts retro actively, which is essentially what this does, it is establishing a Ex post facto law. A rule that places a burden on a person that was never intended originally. It is this additional burden that is contrary to WP:OWN. Again, I have no problem with saying, "Hey Balloonman, you wrote an article can you clean it up?" Or sanctioning a person who currently creates unsourced BLP's... but saying a person owns responsibility for an article they wrote 5 or 6 years ago, despite not working on it, is major change of policy and practice. Even you would have to acknowledge the absurdity of claiming that Rebecca is responsible for Bill Forwood.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- If they are unwilling to clean up the mess they created, then I personally do not trust them to be an administrator. Administrators should not approach Wikipedia with an attitude of "I made these messes, but it was so long ago that I shouldn't have to clean them up." I'm not saying that ArbCom should immediately pass a motion saying "Admin So-and-So is desysopped", but I do think that the administrator should either clean up the mess they made or resign. To me, that's the only honorable thing for them to do. I cannot see how the community could continue to have trust in someone that refuses to fix articles which now have become violations of the BLP policy. Perhaps that is ex post facto, but times change and administrators have to be willing to adapt.
With regards to the example you gave...perhaps. But what about this article? Rebecca created the article about four years ago, left many unsourced remarks about someone's political beliefs and actions (which could have been very damaging to their career), and still has not returned to fix the article. I consider that appalling, and not at all how an administrator should act. I am interested to hear your (and Rebecca's, if you wish invite her to this discussion) thoughts on this matter. NW (Talk) 02:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- So basically what you are saying is that you believe that an editor who creates an article is then responsible for that article and in fact owns the article and must keep an eye on it. That leaves me a little confused as I understood the point of Wikipedia was to have many editors from around the world all working incrementally to produce an encyclopedia and that ownership was discouraged. It seems that if unsourced material was left in the encyclopedia for four years then it is a failing of the encyclopedia rather than the person who first put it there. If the community has chosen to ignore the lack of referencing that would seem to be a community failing. It seems your entire argument relies on ownership and negates the community aspect. It was the communities job to fix the article if it needed fixing, by improvement or deletion. Do you expect in the future that all BLPs should have a reference at the bottom to the creator of the article? Would you like to see the creators of the articles discussed rather than the information contained within? What you are proposing is the exact opposite of the notion of a community incrementally building an encyclopedia. Weakopedia (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- A person is responsible for making sure the content they personally add to an article is well-sourced and meets the appropriate content criteria, such as copyright policy, BLP, NPOV, verifiability. We give leeway to this for new editors who have not had the time to learn how to write and source according to our standards, but we should expect a higher standard for experienced editors and administrators. Let's ignore the issue of who created the article for now. Say someone added 5,000 bytes of unsourced content to each of 50 politicians' who just barely meet WP:POLITICIAN. I don't know about you, but I would hold them responsible for cleaning up what they messed up, not some vague and amorphus "community." Deflecting responsibility onto a vague "community" only allows the person to avoid having to admit fault for their mistakes. NW (Talk) 15:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- (ec)And I would agree with you if it was recent. The apt analogy in the real world would be a builder who built an office building in 1980. When they built the building, they did so according the the standards are expectations of the time. In 1990, the Americans With Disability Act goes into effect that requires buildings to be handicapped accessible. Do you now require the builder to go back and redesign the building because it is no longer compliant with current expectations? No, they are not required to. Even buildings with Asbestos/Lead Paint, two major problems, the builder is not retroactively required to clean up the problems. In all three cases, the expectation is that when the building is worked on again, that the building will be brought up to code at that time---that it is the owner's (not builders) responsibility to ensure that happens. (Although the asbestos industry was sued because it was shown that they knew the dangers decades before it became public knowledge.) Even the auto industry, when they perform recalls it is not because the rules have changed, but rather because they were not followed.
- Your proposal puts an ownership responsibility on the creator and will have a chilling effect on the project. This proposal, while you may believe it is their obligation has two logical offshoots down the road: First, that the articles creator would be required to ensure compliance with EVERY new policy/guideline issued. Not just BLP, but anything that may come up in the future. If that goes through, then who will ever want to write a new article? I mean, who knows how many articles that you wrote in good faith today, based upon today's expectations, will have entirely new expectations five years down the road? Who would want to take that responsibility for ensuring that their work conforms to expectations in perpetuity? Especially, as they don't 'own' the article---oh wait, they are responsible, which is even worse... more responsibility, but no more authority. Second, if a user is responsible simply because they were the one that clicked, "create this page," then the next logical step is to make "major editors" of pages responsible for the article content. In other words, why not extend the requirement to anybody who has ever edited an article that is an unsourced BLP? "By editing an unsourced BLP, you are responsible for the article." I mean, often times the primary editor of an article is not the creator---thus why not make editors responsible? Hell, Lara essentially ensinuated that above, If anyone runs upon a BLP with violations and doesn't clean it up, they're sort of worthless themselves.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, I just think that once the article has been created that Wiki has enough policies in place to make sure the article gets refined to a useable condition. If every article on Wikipedia had to be perfect before it got in there would be far fewer contributions and it is better to have a large community working to refine a lot of stuff than a smaller albeit more committed group working on relatively few articles, which maybe sounds more like that Larry Sanger project, maybe. Anyway if an article has that many problems and no-one is working on them it really ought to be deleted, especially if it is copyvio or whatever which should make it deletable no matter how long it has sat there. In that case it is the communities fault if the copyvio remains unless the article creator is actively reinserting deleted content. Rather than make this a violation of BLP and therefore something punishable why not just delete the article or alternatively ship it back to the article creators userspace with a note to improve? That would put the responsibility back on the creator without frightening new or inexperienced editors away. And if someone did add 50 unreferenced sections all at once I would hope there are policies in place to revert the lot and have them start one at a time, I am sure I have seen something like that happen before now over at ANI. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Usual thanks for the quick shutdown of the bane of my life :). I really must count them, when I am reeeaalllystuck for something to, but I reckon I must have a few hundred pages watchlisted on his account. (Actually what I really must do is write a long-term abuse report, as he is becoming a pest). Anyway, cheers. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- It was no trouble at all. Thanks for spotting it! :) NW (Talk) 00:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just completed the LTA report. Time to share the joy, or something ;) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 Unresolved Hey, where can I get a list of all of my unreferenced articles? You gave me a list of all my articles, but there are way too many to check them. I hope if they consider deleting the pages, I can be notified so that I can give them references. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not really sure, but I think a someone with toolserver access might be able to generate a list. I'll ask MZMcBride if he can generate a list for you. NW (Talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is determining what's "unreferenced." Is there a specific metric you had in mind? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, VASCO here, hope all's fine with you,
New account by the vandal, called User:Fghjkl890 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fghjkl890). A new thought has emerged; please revert ALL his edits, to see if he will stop annoying us and leave the site, i think he is not welcome in any way here.
Have a fine week, from Portugal,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 Done. And have a fine week yourself. NW (Talk) 22:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, why was the T.U.F.F. Puppy page deleted?76.255.214.133 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Curious
- There was a deletion discussion in which a group of people agreed that as of now, there are not enough reliable, secondary sources to merit inclusion just yet. Presumably, around the time or a few months before it airs, there will be enough sources to merit recreating the article. NW (Talk) 12:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) I've blocked two blatant socks in the last couple of days: User:Davesmith35 and User:Davesmith36, both continuing the thwarted crusade of sockmaster User:Davesmith33. As you know, I'm not often rooting around the sock drawer. Is it possible for a checkuser to determine if there is a common underlying IP that can be blocked, or is the block-on-spot approach sufficient? 36 didn't do much, but 35 might have been briefly active enough. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Update: evidently he also edited yesterday as an IP: [Special:Contributions/87.114.161.141]. In the thread at my talk page, it's suggested this may not be static, as it is a Plusnet account. Just thought I'd drop that off as an FYI, in case it changes any advice you might have to offer. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Theoretically, your block would hit his underlying IP as well, but there are ways to get around that, the most common of which is having a dynamic IP. I'll ask a checkuser to take a look into it. Cheers, NW (Talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- P.S. Thank you very much for writing up the summary at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Craigy144. NW (Talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm glad I noticed your report there! I was a bit off my stride over the weekend and didn't even realize stuff had been going on there. Thanks for checking with J. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) How weird is that? They are definitely socks, but they have a very dynamic connection. Special:Contributions/Smithy123456789 may be him, but without knowing the first person's editing habits, I can't be sure. Other than that, nothing that I could find. J.delanoygabsadds 20:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Does Spec Explorer strike you as being spamish? -WarthogDemon 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cleaned it up some. I'm not really involved with software on Wikipedia, so I don't know if that article should exist as a standalone one or should be merged with another article. NW (Talk) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.[4] I probably only had a very off topic or biased ref handy when I stubbed that out.... -- Kendrick7talk 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Glad to be of help. NW (Talk) 00:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Recently, you commented on the featured topic candidacy for Major League Baseball awards. As per the ongoing discussion there, two lists are being added to the topic, but have not yet gone through FLC. This is just a friendly note, in case you are not watching the FTC, asking reviewers to comment at the FLCs if you have time. The first article's nomination is underway. Thanks for your time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this. If I recall correctly, that is the first one of those to wander up to my talkpage - is there an admin merit badge for that, or are those only for successfully resolving disputes and generally mopping up around the place? - 2/0 (cont.) 05:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- There probably is, but your thanks is good enough for me :) NW (Talk) 11:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Delicious carbuncle, why aren't the IP addresses he is using blocked. He is a banned user. What do I need to do to report him? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would think it would be highly unlikely that Delicious carbuncle is Torkkman. Could you reopen the SPI (using this button) and lay out your evidence there? Thanks. NW (Talk) 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- What makes you thing no? The account was started a few days after the last one was closed, the new user's first edits are to properly format an AFD and vote in several other AFDs. And of course bringing another of my articles to an AFD. While this particular one should be deleted, the odds that four random new editors would pick a random article started by me to delete, within their first 50 edits would be 3 million to the 4th power. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Not ony do I apprecate your offer of an unblock to participate in discussions on my situation, I also appreciate that your posted on WP:AN rather than on WP:AN/I, thus insuring that discussion may be somewhat less frenzied tha might be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do have one practical question: during this unblock, am I limited to participating in the discussion on WP:AN, or may I make other edits as well? Until I hear from you I will, of course, refrain from any other editing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the thread on AN looks to be wrapping up now, so I would say feel free to edit any topic you wish. For the time being though, could you avoid anything controversial? Thanks. NW (Talk) 11:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly, I will. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I see that you redirected Ed Fitzgerald and H Debussy-Jones (user and talk pages) to Beyond My Ken. I have one question: should I label those pages with the "User Alternate Acct" template, or leave them with just the redirects? If so, should I use the "Master" template as well. Thanks for the advice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The redirect is probably good enough, but if you wish to use the templates, feel free. If you do use the Alt Acct template, please do use the master one as well. NW (Talk) 21:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks -- on second thought, I think I'll leave them as is, as long as you think that is sufficient. If you think better of it, let me know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This user has removed the kshatriya citations (with references) on the vellalar & Gounder wiki page based on his own POV. We had a discussion on that in the Vellalar talk page where I clearly shew him that his argument are not enough/valid to do any changes (& I have yet to give my summary of the debate). When we read carefully what he wrote in the Vellalar talk page, we can clearly see that he has a racial vision of India and is trying to propagate hatred among among indian communities. According to his real vision, POV, Vellalar can't claim Kshatriya status because they don't belong to his so called Aryan race. This is POV & really dangerous... Independant people do not talk anymore about Aryan race or Aryan features. I have also noticed that he uses several wiki acccounts (at least 2)& added, removed things through IPs: Jack.Able & Zero.vishnu are the same. I noticed that through one of his IP (161.139.195.17) he used to remove the word Kshatriya in the mukkulathor wiki page; I checked all his contributions with this IP (Talk:Mukkulathor (→Kshatriya) & Talk:Kshatriya (→Nair)) and we can see that sentences wrote by this IP are now signed by either Jack.Able or [Zero.vishnu]].Rajkris (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,
Man, this really takes the will to contribute away, all of it!! Created a page yesterday, about an important and controversial (the latter because some people want it!) figure in Spanish football, Ángel María Villar. Little more than one day after, the vandalism has begun, with nonsensical edits, ALL of them belittling the person in question.
Do you think page protection is possible? I would really appreciate, and WP at large as well i assume. Thank you very much in advance,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Page protection definitely looks warranted here. I have semi-protected the page for a month; if the vandalism restarts after that, feel free to ask me to protect it for longer. NW (Talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi NuclearWarfare, thanks for simplifying the Vernard Poslusney title. I created another page: "Monsignor Don Ottavio Michelini", which I would like to simplify to "Don Ottavio Michelini". Would you be kind enough to explain how to change a title? Thank you. AcuteInsight (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there AcuteInsight! Help:Moving a page explains this as well, if you cannot figure it out from my explanation. The process is quite simple though. If your account has more than 10 edits and has been around for more than four days, a button called "move" should appear at the top of the page, right next to "history". If you click that, that should take you to a menu for changing the title of the page. If you cannot get to that page, you can use Special:MovePage/Monsignor Don Ottavio Michelini, which will work just for this article. Hope this helps, NW (Talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi NuclearWarfare, thanks so much for your kind help. AcuteInsight (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Could you restore this/userfy it? when I linked it I gave it a once over and didn't see anything that was obviously a hoax unless it has been changed since then. He's a genuine hockey player who is still playing.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- The most recent versions of the article were simply vandalism. Before that (in 2007), the article was an article on a Canadian composer (since deleted by prod). From what I can see, the article was never about a hockey player. Feel free to recreate the page as an article on the hockey player though. NW (Talk) 00:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you block 67.87.223.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and protect the 69 IP's talk page. Thanks. Momo san Gespräch 05:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done NW (Talk) 05:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering why you deleted my Wilde Boys article? Almost all of the poets I listed have books, and Mark Doty is a major poet--as is Mark Bibbins. And both of these are part of the literary salon. Would you like me to list their books?
I am genuinely curious why my article, which was well written, was deleted. Especially since the salon is super legit.
Thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Contemporarypoetry (talk • contribs) 06:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there! While the poets you mention may be quite notable, it did not appear that you club itself was notability. By meeting the notability criteria, we generally mean that the club has to have been reported upon in multiple, secondary reliable sources. If you can provide evidence of your group having been covered in such sources, I would be happy to undelete the article for you. NW (Talk) 06:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Talpis is back to vandalizing the article again, this time using the alias Grifo17 . You have blocked him and I also have asked him to stop and please discuss why he wants to delete notable names of Mexicali's natives and past residents. He refuses to cooperate. I need your help again. Is there a way to lock the article?--XLR8TION (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have blocked his new account indefinitely, and told him to request unblock on his main account. Further action can be taken if it is necessary. NW (Talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, XLR8TION came to my talk page as well and I came here to make sure everything was under control. Evidently it is, so thanks for dealing with this. Best, HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
What's the proper avenue to take if you suspect an editor is faking sources? --NeilN talk to me 23:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Depends. Is this a long-term contributor or a relatively new one? NW (Talk) 23:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- New. See the bottom of my talk page and User talk:Dr Steven Armstrong --NeilN talk to me 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would ask him to email you a photograph of this supposed source. If he cannot do that, it would be pretty clear that he is here only to disrupt. NW (Talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, good idea, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 00:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding your move-protection of Ode on a Grecian Urn, there is a bot that move-protects Wikipedia's featured article every day. I don't think that it should be indefinitely move protected, as it will only be highly visible for twenty-four hours. Do you want to stick with the indefinite move protection? This is all basically your opinion. Thanks for the time! -- Schfifty3 01:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Can you honestly think of a situation where that article will ever have to be renamed? I would think it is safe to say that it is going to be the most famous work of that name for basically forever. This protection will at least ward off page-move vandals from a high-profile article, always a good thing. NW (Talk) 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey there NuclearWarfare, hope you are doing well. The results on this case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils came back as  Confirmed. What sort of blocks do you think should occur? Cheers, Cirt (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I not sure. I haven't really looked into the case that much though. Have you tried asking Jehochman what he thinks? NW (Talk) 03:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- He was involved already in the prior investigation, and he was the one that had implemented the special restrictions for Kils (talk · contribs) instead of a block on the master account. Subsequently, checkuser investigation shows that those restrictions have since been violated. So... thoughts? Cirt (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well...I dunno really. It sounds like he was doing this in the best of faith, but I expect a lot of people's patience has grown thin. I really haven't follow the discussion that much; anything from an indef block to another warning would be fine with me. NW (Talk) 03:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay well if you are not following it too closely, then no worries. I certainly feel that the restrictions here were violated, however. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Bill Clinton
Let's have the Wilipedia community determine if Hillary Clinton's opposition to Bill Clinton's chief legacy - NAFTA, is relevant.tuco_bad 03:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
Hey NW, I saw in the edit history that you had protected the article, but there is still IP vandalism going on. Do you mind checking what's happening? (Or telling me what I'm not seeing...?) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just turned on move protection; not edit protection. IPs and newly registered users can still edit the article. I think it probably should be kept that way, unless the vandalism gets much worse. NW (Talk) 03:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- So, where do you draw the line? I have noticed that other admins will protect much sooner for less highly visible article. I'm not criticizing you, and I agree that it's not terrible, but I am wondering if you have a rough guideline you use. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- In a normal case, I would protect much earlier; that is true. But per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection, it is best to try to keep the TFA unprotected whenever possible. NW (Talk) 11:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wikipedia:For and Against TFA protection was interesting reading. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you edited this page last night. Please make the following additional edits: please change the information regarding Nancy Leaderman to what it was previously. It should read "Nancy Leaderman, the Upper School Principal, earned her BA and MA in English from the University of Maryland at College Park. She has been a teacher and administrator for 20 years and has worked at the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland, Baltimore Hebrew University, Goucher College, the Cardin School, and Beth Tfiloh Community Day School. She joined Schechter as Upper School principal in August 2007."
Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.95.43 (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for alerting me. I've cleaned up the statement you mentioned. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 21:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi NW. Paulotanner, after causing disruption on Led Zeppelin article and getting blocked by Camaron, is now using anonymous sock IPs to disrupt the article. If you further see his contributions, he has a long history of disrupting and deconstructing articles, and more than 70% of his edits were reverted by other editors. I sent him (his sock) a warning on his talk page page, but he removed that, and added unhelpful edits again, then again, and for the third time. He's from Brazil, the IP is Brazilian too, and has the same editing patterns. I've also informed Camaron about this, but he doesn't seem to be available right now. This user obviously deserves an indefinite block as per WP:SOC policy. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like Camaron is on the scene. NW (Talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, he's playing a very active and effective role. I informed you about this for two reasons: * Camaron was offline at that time and * You, IMO, specialize in WP:SOC investigations. Thank you very much. --Scieberking (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Paulotanner's sock puppetry has been confirmed but he has only been blocked for a week, not indefinitely per WP:SOC. I request his block period be extended. --Scieberking (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I suggest you go take that up with MuZemike. NW (Talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
As the consensus was clear to restore and you didn't, I think it's fair to say that you didn't close the DrV per the consensus found in the DrV. Could you please restore it and list at AfD if you feel it should be deleted? I think we've had enough breaching experiments recently. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I will not undelete a BLP-violating article unless someone is willing to take the responsibility to source the article. Are you offering to do so? NW (Talk) 00:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not at this time as I'm not even sure what was in the article. In any case, would you prefer I ask another admin to do the undeletion so you don't have to take an action you disagree with? You are of course welcome to have your own opinion on the matter, but as closing admin your job is to find the consensus in the discussion, not replace it with your own opinions on the matter. The DrV was about as clear as one could hope, so I don't understand how your actions can be viewed as anything other than a "supervote". Hobit (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- If another administrator undeleted the article without either sourcing it themselves or getting someone to do it, I would speedily delete the article per WP:CSD#G10. BLP takes precedence over any local consensus. I have no problem enacting the decision of the DRV if someone is willing fix the BLP problems that exist. NW (Talk) 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Understood. I'll take the DrV to DrV then I guess. Thanks for your time. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
hi i understand that the page on the colour Green is semi protected
can i edit the article?
i want to add a comics/entertainment section for the colour green and some more stuff on camouflage as well
wondering when i can edit the article. Iureor (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I would highly advise discussing your changes on the talk page first. Green is a good article, which generally means it is pretty comprehensive and well-structured. But as for actually editing the article, you can do so any time, as I have just added a permission to your account that would allow you to do so before the normal time. NW (Talk) 12:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Who do you imagine they might discuss the matter with on that talk page. There has been no activity there for 6 months, and little activity on the article for the same time period. It's a 'good article' which means that it didn't make the grade for 'featured article' but yet was good enough that everyone has abandoned it to it's fate. Looking at the article I would venture to suggest that in this case 'good' means 'could do better'. Discussion on the talk page shouldn't be necessary before editing this article in good faith as the article does not belong to anyone who might take a look at that talk page. Weakopedia (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wrad and Keraunos, the primary authors of the page, are both still active on Wikipedia and presumably still watch the page. As restructuring the article is a fairly major change, it is always nice to get consensus first. NW (Talk) 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for that Iureor (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi NW, just to inform that user Talpis is using a second sockpuppet in the Mexicali article, check this Special:Contributions/Geluk17. Cheers.--Jcmenal (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
You removed the image under a wrong pretext. The policy says "no free equivalent", not "no free substitute". The image you removed has no free equivalent, so the fact that it can be substituted with something else has no relation to what the policy says. I believe it would be correct if you to reverted your edit and restored a stable version until consensus is achieved.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have reverted back to an older revision for now. As for if the image should belong in the infobox, I believe that is a matter better suited for the article talk page. NW (Talk) 01:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You continued to revert after the page was protected. You should not have done this. Even if we ignore the fact that the image does not meet the NFCC, it should not be there. This is really not on. You have really, really crossed the line here. I advise you fix this. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, not only did I self-revert, but I reverted to the version before the edit war, which is clearly allowed per WP:PREFER. Further discussion of this can take place on the talk page. NW (Talk) 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It became an edit war when the image was added back for no good reason. This is semantics. I stand by what I said, I feel your continued reversion was wholly inappropriate. You know as well as I do that that image should not be there; being polite and giving everyone a chance to be right for ten minutes can go to hell... J Milburn (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, could you please take a look at Talk:David Lewis Anderson and User talk:Nothughthomas and tell me if I'm way off base here? This is the first time I get this sort of reaction from a fellow editor and I don't really know what to say/do. I feel bad since it seems they've given up on WP, but I don't feel like I was wrong regarding the CSD discussion. Please do let me know. XXX antiuser eh? 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I really don't have time to take a detailed look at this. Could you ask on WP:ANI please? Thanks. NW (Talk) 03:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I went ahead and did that. XXX antiuser eh? 07:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,
No, no vandal(s) now, but i think your valuable assistance is needed. Some user (DEFINITELY a fan of the club due to his username) moved a page, needlessly enlarging Gimnàstic de Tarragona (Spanish soccer club)'s name. It now stands Club Gimnàstic de Tarragona S.A.D. and i would like to have it reinstated in its previous denomination, if you please.
Example: it's like having an article as such: instead of BARACK OBAMA, then BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (and to add insult to injury, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA Phd, that's superfluous). In the case of the football club i mentioned, S.A.D. stands for Sociedad Anónima Deportiva (Spanish for Anonymous Sporting Society), that is highly uneeded in an article's name and, besides, the full name is mentioned (as in 99,99999999% of other clubs, not 100% because this user "ruined" the average) in INTRO, so, in this club, Gimnàstic de Tarragona would suffice, methinks. Also, it has created a number of needless redirects now, and, in the future, when creating more players for this club, it will take a lot longer because of the enlarged name of the club.
Attentively, from Portugal,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Vasco. I have moved the page back per your request. Hope everything looks good now. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm really having a very serious issue with User:antiuser. Despite my best efforts he is engaged in lobbying many multiple users against me, as a result of the speedy deletion of a UFO conspiracy article he was engaged in. He's working overtime to flood admin Talk pages with every conceivable complaint and I simply don't have the bandwidth to keep up and jump from page to page to page, 24/7, defending myself. I have no doubt that, if you shop around to enough admins eventually you can get anyone banned on wikipedia. I think my days here are likely numbered and I'm at a loss of what to do. I think an ANI complaint would simply make matters worse as it would lead to more lobbying and "block shopping" and I don't want to reply in kind by "block shopping" because I don't think it's contributive to a positive environment. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't have the time to look into this. Might I suggest a few administrators if you need some assistance? User:Juliancolton, User:Tiptoety, User:Tanthalas39 all might be able to help. NW (Talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you have closed the debate as "No consensus, default to delete per subject request." Is there actually an WP policy which takes the views of a BLP subject into account? Varsovian (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yep; you can see it at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Biographies of living people. NW (Talk) 15:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply.Varsovian (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I came here to tell you that I considered submitting for a DRV, because I think it is inappropriate that the same admin that receives the request closes the AfD, and also that no consensus defaults to keep. I wasn't aware of the policy mentioned above, so I guess another admin could still close it as delete.
Still, as a matter of principle, I wonder how do you prevent people from just claiming the subject requested deletion? If I was to demand proof that he indeed has requested so, how would you confirm it? Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. walk victor falk talk 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you demanded proof, I would forward the email conversation to an oversighter that I trust. Since they are cleared by the WMF to handle non-public information, I hope their word would be good enough for you as well. NW (Talk) 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick reply; may I ask what reasons he provided if any for not having an article? walk victor falk talk 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I would really prefer not to share that, unless you have a reason beyond pure curiosity. If you do have a legitimate reason to know, please tell me, and I will ask him if it is appropriate to tell you. NW (Talk) 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's only pure curiosity; I haven't been involved in an AfD before where the subject requested deletion. I like to know how things work, that's why I edit wikipedia... This OTRS thing that Spartaz speaks about sounds like the right thing to do.¨walk victor falk talk 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the most obvious thing would be to forward the email to OTRS and were this an OTRS email it would breach the foundation privacy policy to reveal the contents to a third party. Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you had dedcided to speedily close a couple of AfDs as keeps. I was wondering what the rationale was behind the decision to speedy keep? The debates were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GermaniumWeb and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectrum Health. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- They were nominated by a sockpuppet of a banned user. I really ought to have put that in the closing summary. My mistake. NW (Talk) 00:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, makes sense now :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to ask the same question, then looked around and found the sockpuppet indication. But still I would suggest the nominations were arguably right, the 2 articles not notable, and the AfDs could have been kept open to see if consensus was found. Sussexonian (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to renominate those articles for deletion if you wish. This speedy closure was done completely without prejudice to a future nomination. NW (Talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,
Now, we DO have a vandal - the same!!! - new account User:Ghf098 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ghf098), please block and revert all, except Kabwe Kasongo, which i will myself improve/arrange.
Funny how this "person" still has not attacked me in any wiki-way. I know his level of English is appalling, even though he edits from the country, but it's really odd (although i don't complain the least :) ).
Cheers, and thanks a million for the recent page move, keep it up,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Done NW (Talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please remove, strike-through or revise your following statement here[5]. I believe that this is the first time I've filed a request for enforcement on this editor. To say that I am "filing report after report" is simply not accurate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree wtih AQFK. There was nothing constructive about your assumption of bad faith Nuke. The report on edit warring looks legitimate to me and should be treated as such. The fact that there are numerous reports on William's behavior is a direct reflection of his highly abusive conduct. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- ChildofMidnight: I don't think your accusation of bad faith is helpful. I would rather think that NW simply made an honest mistake and confused me with some other editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do apologize for that remark AQFK. I had been getting quite frustrated at the battleground nature that climate change articles seem to have become. ChildofMidnight is right; I did assume that this was a bad faith report filed in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Looking back at the evidence after some sleep and with an undistracted brain, I can see that my statement wasn't really called for and wasn't really accurate either. My apologies. NW (Talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. A lot of people are frustrated. It's been handled poorly so far (in my opinion). We'll see what happens. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. When you get a chance, I'd appreciate it if can you change your comment. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sure thing; I just went ahead and struck it. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 18:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you semi-protect Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah? The 172 vandal has been attacking it recently. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Done 01:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could help us with this article. SandyGeorgia continues to argue that the article is biased but will not assist us in any way in identifying ways to change it. Note my comments:
- My reading of the introduction to this article and the BBC article is that both provide an equally balanced view. If anything, the BBC article's beginning is more favorable to Chavez. However, if you think there could be more balance in the lead, you should write a suggested lead and place it here so we can understand what you are talking about. In the meantime you are placing a POV tag on the article without explaining what specifically can be done to make it NPOV. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Either provide an alternative lead or stop wasting our time. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The person placing the tag should provide reasons why the tag is justified, which you have not done. Do you think that the lead is biased because it omits to mention that the (non-democratically-elected) King of Spain told Chavez to "shut up" after he called the former Falangist José María Aznar a fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- You must be specific. I have no idea what changes you desire. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- You should discuss these issues here first. By the way, i would be agreeable to content dispute resolution for this article, but have no idea what changes you want made. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I and other editors have removed these tags. Could you please assist us in resolving this dispute. What do we do now?
The Four Deuces (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have read the discussion on the talk page. SandyGeorgia has provided clear and concrete examples of showing that the article is not neutral, at least in some areas. If you really cannot see that, I would highly advise taking a break from the article for now. If you wish, you may also try seeking a third opinion, although I can't imagine that it should help too much. Just continue discussing the issue on the talk page, and try to understand Sandy's concerns and her proposals. NW (Talk) 21:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- You should read the discussion which begins at Talk:Hugo Chavez#Neutrality where Sandy defends the POV tag by saying, "One just needs to read the talk page to see the reasons of the lack of neutrality". Two of the previous discussions were entitled "Anyone object to mentioning his mental illness?" and "He is a dictator". The Four Deuces (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi NV,
I believe I've been most patient with the situation but now I'd like to ask what's the procedure with this 1RR restriction you imposed? Is there anything I should or even can do about this? -An editor keeps reverting [6] [7] [8] etc. by claiming "see talk" etc., but in actuality simply ignores the relevant discussion. [9], [10] [11] [12]. I wouldn't actually bother just yet only if the message from overe there wasn't more than clear, as the editor sees "no reason to continue this pointless discussion"[13]. Any suggestions?...or is it me who's missing something here? Thanks for your time!--Termer (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Termer. After looking over the article's history, I fail to see the reverts you are referring to. Would you mind providing me with specific diffs which highlight the reverts you are talking about? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- huhh, I really messed up those diffs, here they are again [14] [15] [16], also fixed it in my original post. Thanks for looking into it!--Termer (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- PS. + here is the original bold edit [17] (or another way to put it: not discussed rewrite of the entire lede) that ever since gets reverted back to no matter what.--Termer (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- ...and that[18] is the relevant discussion on the talk page. I was very surprised to see the above text. Since I left some posts on this talk page it has been automatically placed in my watchlist, and only thanks to this coincidence I noticed this post here. In connection to that, I am wondering what is a purpose of this discussion. If it may lead to some kind of block, it is naturally to expect it to appear on ANI. If not, then what is the reason for spamming this talk page?
- I would also like to note that other editors modified the text proposed by me further, thereby supporting the changes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi NuclearWarfare
Much appreciated! Peteinterpol (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the decison on the Herman Rockefeller deletion. I don't say that because it "went our way", but because you made the call on the quality of the debate from both sides. Used you as an example of a "good admin" in a discussion about this here. It's people like you that give me Wikihope! So...an appreciate Barnstar from me (only the second I've given in quite a few years involvement in WP)
|
|
The Admin's Barnstar
|
| In appreciation of your good work as an administrator
|
- Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! NW (Talk) 21:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I notice that you relisted this article's AfD. However, the AfD had only been open for three days. I thought that AfDs are supposed to be listed for seven days, at which time they can either be closed or, if there is no consensus yet, relisted. Was this an error? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- It...was. I'm not exactly sure why I did that, though I remember having a reason at the time. It's no big deal; the AfD will be closed at the proper time regardless. NW (Talk) 04:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I commented out the relisting, because I originally thought that I could close the AfD as a "keep" given that the article had already passed the relisting point and there is a clear consensus to keep. But since the AfD hasn't been open long enough, it wouldn't be appropriate to close it now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- The reason, I think, was that there may not have been as clear a consensus to keep as that suggested in the close. There was a suggestion that the keep decision was based on a vote count and not on the actually reasons for the keep ptoposals. That, incidently, may be a problem with non-admin closes. In this case, the non-admin who closed says that he normally proceeds if there is 90% support one way or another. Although that might not be a bad guide, it's not a vote and if 90% haven't argued their case properly, it would be wrong to consider that a consensus view... Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It seemed like it had a lot of support to keep, but I was likely wrong in closing it as the re-opening has suggested. I usually close it when there is about 90% support, but I don't think I saw the second oppose there. Sorry for all of that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you are closing AfDs based on percentages, you are doing it wrong. Could I please ask for you to not perform non-admin closures on AfDs in the future? Thanks. NW (Talk) 19:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi NuclearWarfare, I was not sure I should have told you about this, but I've decided I should to prevent you from repeating the same mistakes in the feature. Endorsing that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbz1 was wrong, more than wrong. It was filed out with the only purpose to harass me with no evidences whatsoever. By endorsing it you misused the tool, the tool that is way too important to misuse it even a single time. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your account was checked because someone thought it might be compromised. As in, they wanted to see if someone had been logging into it from somewhere other than your normal areas. No one actually thought you were a sockpuppet, and frankly, given as the filer is an admin, the clerk endorsement NWF issued was well within reason. The level of anger you're showing over this is way over the top. --King Öomie 16:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. The request was filed with the only purpose to harass me. If you have read the post to AN/I that was linked to from the SPI (which I assume you never have), you would have known that first they wanted to see, if I was a sock of user:Israelbeach, but then they decided that SPI will produce no results because Israelbeach has not been around for quite some time, so they ended up requesting SPI on me versus two accounts, whose only contributions were ... to attack and harass me, and then they said that even, if SPI would come out negative, I will be blocked anyway. That SPI was fishing and harassment in its worst. Even, if I am to adopt you version, that SPI was just to check, if my account was not "compromised", there were zero evidences that it could have been "compromised". None of my edits was disruptive in any way, none was a threat to any Wikipedia article! IMO it is better to miss one or two socks than to endorse SPI on an innocent person. Socks will be caught anyway sooner or later. For an innocent person it is hard to get over the humiliating process. I believe the lesson should be learned, and endorsing fishing no evidences SPI should never be repeated.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there Mbz1. I think you might have misunderstood why I endorsed the checkuser. It was fairly obvious that the accounts were sockpuppets, and I wanted to see if the sockpuppets' IP could be blocked to prevent this sort of harassment against you in the future. That is why I added the phrase "just to check the sockpuppets". If Versageek checked you as well, I'm afraid I have no control over that. NW (Talk) 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the calm response! Yes, you are right I misunderstood why you endorsed the checkuser, yet I still believe that the SPI the way it was requested should not have been enforced at all. A new SPI should have been filed out, while the one in question should have been deleted. I will post the same message at Versageek talk page. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I wrote the page User:Evanofthecosmos/Datacap I'm not sure if I'm supposed to send this to you or not. But let me know If it needs any editting and I'll happily do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanofthecosmos (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- That looks good enough. Do you want to copy/paste the content there to Datacap? NW (Talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, why was this page deleted? I have provide you a source/references for this cemetery! Why!?
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=cr&GSmid=47058947&CRid=20797&pt=Calvary%20Cemetery&
http://www.stpiusxblgs.org/calvarycemetery.html
Thanks
Wolfdog406 (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- The article was deleted through the proposed deletion process, which allows an article to be deleted after a week if no one objects by removing the tag. I have undeleted the article for you, but bear in mind that the article can still be taken to WP:AFD if someone feels it does not meet the general notability guideline. NW (Talk) 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean to reduce protection on this? I can't tell if this was a mistake, or an attempt to see if the new edit filter is going to work. I don't actually mind, but want to make sure I didn't do something wrong last night, and understand what's going on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. Apparently Twinkle's batch protect will protect over an existing protection, something that I was unaware of. That was indeed my mistake. I have reverted my protection there, and I'll take a look at the rest of the articles I protected to make sure I didn't override any other protections. Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, NW (Talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ooops, partially my mistake too. I didn't notice the "2011" part, and though you'd changed it to 1 day protection, but without the move protect. I see what's going on now, feel free to protect for whatever duration you think best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I was not intending to revert. I hit the wrong button. I tried to undo my reversion, but Tan beat me to it (I explained to him following his comment on it). Sorry about the confusion. Ironically, I was actually following my own advice, which is to post an edit summary where there's doubt. If I had simply hit "rollback", I probably would have beaten Tan to it instead, but then it would have looked weird. But it looked weird anyway, sigh. Then someone else tried to add it back, and then it got removed again. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, that's perfectly fine :) NW (Talk) 23:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Kind of an ill omen, though, as today I seem to be attracting trolls and impostors like flies (which I realize is an insult to the flies). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
I have noticed their has been a photo of Ontario PC Leadership Candidate and Deputy Leader, Christine Elliott uploaded. I was wondering if you could please edit the image File:Christine Elliott Campaign Launch.jpg by cropping the sides, and the top. So that it could fit better into articles and be more useful. Thanks, Qaqwewew
- Done; see File:Christine Elliott Campaign Launch cropped.jpg. NW (Talk) 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there,
Not to be a pest or anything but since you've been so helpful. I have noticed their has been a photo of Ontario PC Leadership Candidate Randy Hillier uploaded. I was wondering if you could please edit the image File:Randy Hillier.jpg by cropping the sides, and the top. So that it could fit better into articles and be more useful. Thanks, Qaqwewew
- Done; see File:Randy Hillier cropped.JPG. For anything else, could you please ask at the Graphics Lab? Thanks. NW (Talk) 02:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
|
Unresolved
