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.
All I have done is added text fom a Guardian article, then put it back when an unregistered, semi literate user removed it. So, I have no idea what you you are talking. about Have you actually bothered to read the history of the article ? I really don't appreciate being threatened, told off or patronised by a total stranger. I really don't. Please reply in English if you can, without hiding behindWikipedia robo speak. I explained that the anonymous user was biased because this wasn't removed "Goldsmith is described by reporters to be of a gentle disposition.[1] That's why I undid his removal
First off, it doesn't really matter if The Guardian has published what is essentially an attack piece, or at least a piece with a heavy point of view, on an individual. While it is fine for them, it is fundamentally against one of our core policies, neutral point of view. Our job is not to parrot what the news media say, but write a balanced and neutral article. It would be acceptable to say "The Guardian, in a 2010 news story, heavily criticized Goldsmith for [something]", but not to just quote one of the more pointed statements in the news story. I hope that helps explain things; if not, I'll be happy to try to explain further. NW(Talk)01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I understood perfectly well, but I was not at all happy with your behaviour or the other guy, who jumped in with more biased nonsense when I deleted his fluff piece, which thankfully someone else undid (his undo). As well as being pathologically right wing, the Goldsmith family are multi billionaires who can afford many servants. The Edward Goldsmith article was hagiography, but all it takes is for one or two servants to gang up on a human being. The same thing happened to me on a NASA page. These people are well versed in Wiki robo language and can bully their way to success. I respond with sarcasm. Please read this article to see where it all went wrong for Wikipedia editing. In my view the moderators often make things worse by failing to see subterfuge and being officious and offensive. Not that anything can really be done in such an open system
Thank you for so quickly blocking vandal Bighead45. As Bighead45 inserted personal contact information that will need to be expunged from edit records entirely, Hideki Tojo needs another edit deletion. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I have added the reference articles to Brandy Howard's page per your request...
You said_
"I have undeleted the page and moved it to User:Trannytime/Brandy Howard. Please do add the references above to the article. Once you are finished, it does have to go through a review process. NW (Talk) 00:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)"
I'm sorry I'm a dumbass. I tried to do the necessary steps for a deletion review, but I wasn't quite sure how. Do you mind helping me set it up? If I need to do it on my own then I'll try it again- but I got half way thru and I thougt- maybe I'm supposed to let NW do it. I don't know . Let me know.
The deletion review process does seem overly complicated. That's not very good; that has to be worked on. In any case, I set the section up for you. It is located here. You may wish to make an additional statement, but one is not required. NW(Talk)20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
45g
I was about to block the account indefinitely for a NLT violation (see this thread); but didn't want to change the block you had already applied without discussing with you first. Or should we let the SPI work itself out first at this point? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up: the characters list nomination has failed, likely due to lack of comments (it was closed after a week of no comments). In the intervening periods, I've been doing some small copyedits and fixes to the list. I was hoping if you could do a quick look through the list or conduct a copyedit. That would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Is that a templated message you added? Haven't seen it before. I like it, concise, professional and sympathetic, a good diffusing tool. SGGHping!00:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for closing the discussion about Category:Models. I proposed to rename the category so as to make room for other types of models under the category scheme. Since then at least two editors have taken on their own interpretation of things, which I reverted. I believe this goes against the duly arrived at consensus. Is there a way to get some help enforcing the consensus? Be well,Greg Bard23:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I restored the situation to the way it was supposed to be according to the proposal which attained consensus. Previously "Cydebot" was placing everything robotically under Category:Models (occupation) (which certainly makes no sense at all). The whole point of the proposal was to make a space for other types of models: economic models, mathematical models, etcetera. I think the distinction between conceptual and physical models make complete sense, and will help a great deal in organizing things.Greg Bard23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Your edits seem fine to me. I'll watchlist the page and make sure that action that needs to be taken is. NW(Talk)00:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
NW, I changed this to a disambiguation category, which seems more appropriate in the context since just saying "models" could also refer to the Category:Models (occupation) category. Gregbard is wanting to make it a container category for just two of the other categories that use the word "model". Doesn't it make sense to use it in the way that will allow linkage to all three categories, which is what I have done? Note that several of the incoming links to the page are referring to that page in the sense of "fashion models". I've read the discussion and I honestly can't see a consensus for doing what Gregbard has suggested. (The issue of what to do with the old category wasn't really addressed by those who commented, except by the nominator.) Since "models" is ambiguous (which was the entire point of the discussion), should it not be a DAB category? This may simply be a misunderstanding of container categories vs. disambiguation categories—I don't see this as a good use of a container category, since the occupation models have little to do with the other type of models. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe that this is in the spirit of the consensus. You seem to think that this about the name "m-o-d-e-l" and that these things are not otherwise connected. A model represents something else, which was spelled out well in the category description. All of the "models" being categorized are models in this sense. So therefore, your characterization that professional models have "little to do with the other type of models" is not accurate. They are "models" of ideal human beauty, or health , etcetera. Greg Bard01:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Then under your reasoning, Category:Models (occupation) should be a subcategory of Category:Models, but you didn't include it as such. As I suggested, to accomplish what you are looking to do, a DAB page is the normal way, as opposed to a container category. If it's important to include a link between the two categories you were subcategorising together, then you could link them by putting a {{CatRel}} at the header of both. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(s) Ah, what we have now is more along the lines of what I was thinking. I think what I was confused about when I read the diffs was that while the page content matched what they were at the time, the categories did not, as they are generated dynamically. In response to Gregbard's original question, this was not something I forsaw at the CFD, and I think this would be best handled either via the talk page or at another round of CFD. NW(Talk)01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings, I appreciate your Partial Protection of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, but since the main offender has been registered since 2008, he just went ahead and reverted to the POV version right after you PP'ed it. I have contacted him on his Talk page, cited over a dozen examples of his version's inappropriate content on Discussion, filed on Noticeboards, and given clear Edit Summaries for every one of my edits. He however has refused to come to Discussion or the noticeboards, and gives almost no Edit summary or Talk comment except vague allegations of the NPOV 10kB verison being "disrespectful" and "unjustified." I'm sure that with a glance you can tell the 10kB version is more wiki-appopriate, and Thelonerex has reverted the article a dozen times in the last week. Can anything be done about his POV pushing and refusal to communicate or justify, especially given that (except for one article about some Pakistan gov't office) his edits have been largely Pakistan POV-pushing? Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm; that was actually my mistake while protecting. I had meant to full protect it, but apparently I hit the wrong button and only semi-protected it. It is now full protected (and reverted back to the 10k version per WP:PREFER). I'll add a note to Thelonerex's talk page about the consequences of reverting without attaining consensus for the future. NW(Talk)18:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you please reinstate the edit protection until the editors work it out on the talk page? You have an SPA up to the usual tricks. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here, hope all's fine by you,
Could you please lend me a hand - not literally! - at Antonio López Ojeda's article? Someone (i would not be surprised if it was vandalism!!) changed the last name (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_Ojeda&diff=prev&oldid=347252031), this person is not called "OJEDA" but, as article states, "HABAS" (you can check the two external links i provided for confirmation). Apparently, once the page is moved once, only administrators can "re-change" it. Could you get it done please?
All for the moment, keep it up, have a good weekend,
Just so you know (and in case something can be done) my friend: opened my account for some "no-holes barred" editing and...VOILÁ!! This person still on my case, now he "profitted" from a friendly message from a good user and wrote this (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=cur) ...Charming no?
Template:chlorides is'n really needed and is not much as a template so it should be deleted and why did you protect it?
Ebe123 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem. The other reason I unprotected the TFA is because of Special:AbuseFilter/58, which is now catching most or all of the vandalism. I believe the TFA generally has an editnotice these days, but I'm not really sure if that would be faster than checking the main page. NW(Talk)02:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The protection probably isn't necessary any longer, but was more to stop the situation that I thought someone else was dealing with. Thanks for helping out. I have removed the semi-protection. NW(Talk)19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on recent contributions, Sego Lily (talk·contribs) seems to be a sockpuppet of White Trillium (talk·contribs). Both their userpages start out with the edit summaries "add box", "add template", and "add pict". The layout of both userpages are identical. Also, they use the edit summary "add cmt". Just like White Trillium, Sego Lily is reverting vandalism at the start of his/her account. Goodvac (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That category is supposed to be for authors only, not for the books they wrote. A more appropriate category (if it existed) would be 'Books written by Americans'. Best, NW(Talk)11:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe that the privacy policy prohibits me from disclosing that information without the consent of the person who emailed OTRS. My apologies, NW(Talk)19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in the process, not the identity of the people involved. Do I understand from your answer that the process is that somebody writes to OTRS privately and says "There is some information on Wikipedia that isn't correct", and then somebody at OTRS decides if the information should be removed or or not? Do individual editors or administrators make that decision, or is there some kind of collaborative process? How does one decide if the bit of information in question is something that should be handled through that process rather than the normal editing process? Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, for matters relating to private information, things are nearly always handled in this manner. Depending on the case, the OTRS ticket number may or may not be cited when the OTRS member makes the change. What decision to make is nearly always left in the hands of the single volunteer who handles the ticket, which is why they are almost always chosen solely from very experienced editors and administrators. OTRS members will handle nearly any task sent to them relating to the content of an article when it affects an individual person (otherwise, we will point out the standard editing process). A couple of the mailing list threads at Wikipedia:OFFICE#Originalia, although slightly outdated, explains a lot of what OTRS handles.
I hope that helps. I feel like I wasn't very clear, so if you're at all confused, please do request clarification. Best, NW(Talk)21:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser still running...Also, checking the first edit of the new account, i discovered that AGAIN (!!), this "person" has had two simultaneous accounts, because we blocked the previous account way before 21/04/2010.
Oh fun. Hopefully checkuser will get on this soon to root out any other accounts, although I will block him if he continues editing with this account. NW(Talk)21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Pauley Perrette
I was curious how Jimbo can support putting a year long semi-protection to this article. [2] The article isn't frequently edited and from looking at the history, any inappropriate edits are reverted immdeiately. I've semi-protection refused due to relative lack of current activity at WP:RPP. The reason given is "Excessive vandalism: long history of vandalism/harassment/blp violations - as well as recent ones". I've watched and edited this article for some time now and I am not of the opinion that this article is a target for "excessive vandalism" nor have I see a hint of harassment or BLP violations. How does this happen? It seems knee-jerk to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Administrators generally have a great discretion when choosing to semi-protect BLPs. I myself have done much longer protections based on OTRS complaints and other such matters. In any case, this sounds like a matter you should take up with Jimmy. NW(Talk)03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Please see this before closing
[3] I think two points need to be considered before closing that request; I put it in the admin section to get your attention but it was moved, and I just want to make sure you see it before closing. Thanks. ATren (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the heads up ATren. I have withdrawn from the general sanctions page for now until Hipocrite's comment is cleared up, but I shall take what you said into consideration if I return before the request is closed. NW(Talk)01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment/Climate change probation
I have started working on a Request for comment on the Climate change general sanctions to follow through on the opinions rendered in the establishment discussion that the probation should be reviewed after a few months; the working draft is at User:2over0/GSCC RfC. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate if you would review the statement of concern with an eye to quickly bringing uninvolved editors up to speed. I would like to take this live by the weekend. This is an open invitation, and you should feel free to edit the statement as you see fit and notify any editors you think would be interested. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Oddly, the checkuser has not produced any results yet, but the vandal has not edited more (must be busy opening three more accounts!).
Sadly, i found this (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.238.115.129); this anon user, who has edited today, continues to persist in removing stuff from boxes which are correct. I remember warning (or asking an admin to do so) this chap (just don't remember if the IP was the same, but both are from Denmark, 100% sure!) about his behaviour, see what good it did...
Given that the IP is standard and has been active (today as of latest), what can be done? Ty very much in advance, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You can take my honest word for it, i don't kid around with vandals, this is a case of such, but if you would like for me to provide examples, i will (although it would not help much unless you are familiar with soccer) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you happen to remember the other IPs? I could possibly perform a rangeblock if he has access to a small number of IPs, but I don't know if that one IP by itself if worth blocking. Also, for the IP that you listed above, are all the edits error-introducing, or just the most recent one? NW(Talk)19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously i understand if nothing can be made of this, it was my mistake for conveying the falsehood of this being a single person "operating". I apologize for that and bring a most "reliable" report upon your request. Cheers, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately I do not know if there are any technical measures that can be used to stop these guys; the IPs are certainly too far apart to hit with a rangeblock. I'd recommend waiting to see if the person from the 84.238.115.129 IP edits again; if so, appropriate blocks can be handed out. I think we are probably good for now though. NW(Talk)01:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
After you unlocked his talkpage, he pasted in a copy of an email he'd sent to OTRS, which contained the address & phone number of the copyright holder. I've rolled it back [4] and asked him not to do it again - do you think it warrants removing the revisions? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I must say I find your closure of this AfD completely shocking and incorrect. There was a clear consensus to delete here based on the WP:NOT#NEWS argument. How could you possibly justify a keep close?? Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Death of Gerry Ryan. 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. Nsk92 (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
AGW BLP concerns
[5] If have observed anyone else consistently trying to attack Singer in his BLP, please propose their names for ban consideration also. As pointed out in the enforcement request, it appears that the only other editor who has tried to do so was Raul654, and he has left the article alone for more than a year now. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Cla68, note "not seeing perfect behavior on all parties" does not necessarily equate to "consistently trying to attack Singer." The former could for example include edit warring to remove well-sourced if not entirely positive information on the subject, or persistent inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced peacockery. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, recently I noticed that FellGleaming removed the section on the Gore/Lancaster/Revell controversy. I'm probably going to readd that section, and perhaps even start a separate article on it. FellGleaming, however, appears to have left the article alone since then. I do sometimes see editors trying to remove adequately sourced, appropriate but negative material from some BLPs, such as the volcano stuff from Ian Plimer. I will be, as I did with Plimer, doing my best to keep that from happening. If NW knows of anyone else whose editing behavior in the AGW BLPs has been as problmmatic as WMC's, I hope he will propose them for topic bans also. Do you remember the long-running edit war to keep Lawrence Solomon from being described as an "environmentalist?" What was up with that? Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend not restoring the Singer-Revelle-Lancaster material. In particular, under no circumstances should there be a link to the original depositions or testimony in the case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, so you support FellGleaming's removal of the material. Anyway, please voice your concern in that thread on Singer's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
NW, that's one I'd missed before, but it's quite serious. He has also added RealClimate to Singer's page and of course there's the infamous Martian thing. And the Lyndon LaRouche association in Jawarowski's BLP sourced to his friend Tim Lambert's blog. That's just 2 BLPs, and I know I will find many more examples once I start looking harder, but how many pieces of evidence are required before admins recognize that this is a long term pattern? Recall that you recently sanctioned Marknutley for much much less than this -- he added a single blog source for content that was also repeated in the New York Times -- so you've already set the bar for sanctionable BLP behavior and WMC has far exceeded it. ATren (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I must have missed this section with all the other comments on my talk page recently; my apologies. ATren, I'm afraid that RealClimate is not something I feel comfortable passing a judgment on, as I do know that there are times when it is acceptable to use as a source (and of course, times when it is utterly unacceptable to use). The other points seem to have been discussed in other areas, but could you please provide the diffs for the RealClimate additions as well as any WP:RSN or similar discussions on Wikipedia? Thanks, NW(Talk)01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
The policy is extremely clear that self-published sources can never be used in a BLP, unless it's the subject talking about themselves. So, WMC's use of RealClimate, and edit warring to do so, are very clear violations of one of WP's most strictly enforced policies. Strictly enforced, that is, except apparently in this case. Cla68 (talk)
I agree with you, but without knowing the context of the situation, I really cannot act, which is why I asked for diffs. NW(Talk)19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Little correction to Cla here: The policy doesn't state what you say it does. BLP in the context of the policy is not about material that happens to be on BLP articles, but about material that is about a BLP. Context not location. There is a subtle difference. It is quite alright to source material on a BLP article to an SPS (according to our policy on SPS of course), as long as it isn't about the person. It is not alright to source BLP material (ie. about a person) anywhere (ie. any article (or talkspace)) to an SPS. This is a difference that is often overlooked, but one that has a large import in some of the diffs you present. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
No, that is a generalization that doesn't hold water, there is lots of material within for instance the Singer article that isn't biographical (as there is in most such articles). But to illustrate my point about BLP: This is a BLP violation "Y says X is a CC denier" if sourced to an SPS (no matter the context it occurs within). This is not a BLP violation "Y stated about the paper, written by X, that it falls outside of the mainstream" (assuming that Y is within the exceptions to SPS) - and of course more context can be attached, that would make it fail... (due weight, npov etc) It is the material that defines BLP - not the article within which it occurs. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see in the BLP policy where it qualifies the use of self-published sources like that. In fact, the policy appears to be written in a way to try to keep that kind of interpretation from being made, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." RealClimate, Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, and DeSmogBlog all fall into this definition, and therefore cannot be used in any BLPs unless the BLP subject him/herself wrote the piece in the blog begin quoted. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Read what you just quoted: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person." Not everything in a biography is about that person; there's typically background material, explanations of events, and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I was about to write the same thing, it is the "about a living person" that is the important aspect, and that aspect applies to all articles, be they biographies or regular ones. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, that little skirmish between you and Lar looked like it ended well. I shall most definitely take your comment into consideration. NW(Talk)01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
[15:09:26] <NuclearWarfare> That was essentially 3-4 against you, 3-3 if you're discounting BozMo
[15:09:45] <NuclearWarfare> That's not even counting Lar
[15:10:44] <[Wordsmith]> Several of those opposed to it are arguing that consensus of admins is irrelevant, that any uninvolved admin may impose the sanction
[15:10:57] <[Wordsmith]> the wording of the general sanctions agrees
[15:11:16] <[Wordsmith]> Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith.
[15:15:01] <[Wordsmith]> Given his diffs, WMC has demonstrated a persistant inability to edit that article in compliance with our policies
[15:15:26] <[Wordsmith]> I could have invoked BLP special enforcement as well
[15:18:05] <NuclearWarfare> I'm not saying you don't have the right to
[15:18:42] <NuclearWarfare> But doing so against consensus is a mark of disrespect against your fellow sysops, who came to opposite conclusions as you
[15:23:12] <[Wordsmith]> I'm not seeing the 3-3
[15:23:36] <[Wordsmith]> 2/0 is hardly an uninvolved admin, he edits the topic area and heavily defends WMC in all cases
[15:23:50] <[Wordsmith]> LHVU and Lar agree with me
[15:24:19] <[Wordsmith]> You seem to agree with a lot of what I said, but feel that SV's conduct should be examined as well (and I agree with that)
One omment by PeterSymonds here
[15:25:10] <[Wordsmith]> Lar is somewhat involved, yes, but not to the point that his opinion is invalid or unfair
[15:25:24] <[Wordsmith]> BozMo doesn't say that he should not be banned
[15:26:28] <[Wordsmith]> Cenarium's wall of text is ridiculously complicated, but analysis of it shows that it fails to understand the entirety of the issue, and devites a rgeat deal of space to asserting that the media's comments on WMC should not matter - an I agree with that, it didn't affect my decision
[15:26:39] <[Wordsmith]> devotes*
[15:27:12] <[Wordsmith]> and the 1rr restriciton that he proposes is already active on WMC
[15:31:44] <NuclearWarfare> 1) You're arguing the merits of the arguments of uninvolved administrators as if you have the sole decision maker here.
[15:31:44] <NuclearWarfare> 2) 2/0 is uninvolved. If you dispute that, start an RFC on him.
[15:31:44] <NuclearWarfare> 3) I would disagree that a topic ban is necessary. So you're [sic] interpretation of what I think is wrong.
[15:31:44] <NuclearWarfare> 4) Considering that BozMo struck his comments saying that he feels WMC should be banned, I think it's reasonable to assume that he feels WMC should not be banned
[15:31:44] <NuclearWarfare> 5) Cenarium's proposals may not be on target, but his overall analysis is sound and is against the ban.
[15:31:44] <NuclearWarfare> 6) The usual practice has been to propose a decision and if others disagree, attempt to hammer out a reasonable compromise. Instead, you just went ahead and acted on your own opinion without informing anyone else that you were going to do so.
I'm not sure of the appropriate action to take from here, but I just want to let you know where I stand. NW(Talk)20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
NW, after what I've seen of WMC's editing of the Singer article, including restoring a link which contained private details, I believe those in the Wikipedia community who care about our BLP rules will thank you and the other admins for imposing this sanction. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm interested in discussing when we userfy and incubate articles, but while doing some review of our deletion policy articles, I noticed a need for some technical copy editing to tighten up the wording of the existing articles. (For example, some options are listed in our deletion policy that are not mentioned in XFD and vice versa.) I'm not sure where to start such a discussion—whether it belongs on the discussion page of Deletion policy, with notices on XFD talk pages, or someplace central like VPI. I considered, and rejected VPP, as I am discussing only copy editing, not policy changes, at this time. I picked three sysops I respect to ask for advice.
I would suggest just doing it at WT:DELPOL, with courtesy notices linking people to the discussion placed on all relevant talk pages. NW(Talk)13:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Anything over six months is certainly enough to renominate in my book. Please feel free to renominate the page for deletion. NW(Talk)19:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Someone a while back in the Wikicup got on my case to make sure to MOVE pages from my sandbox and not just copy/paste to make it clear the work was done during the cup run. That requires playing around with the article history (because the Wikisoftware forces you to delete the old page that's there when you move to a page that already exists, then I go back and restore it's history). I think I got it all though. BTW, wanna approve the DYK hook(s)? :) Staxringoldtalkcontribs19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I was so absorbed with Huggle that I didn't even notice my page had been hit twice. Thanks for taking care of it! I appreciate it. WikipelliTalk23:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not remember extensive details of the Lost finale, but there are some points I could make in a summary section.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)
Hi. I'm afraid I disagree with your edit here. The consensus in the discussions was that the wording of WP:PORNBIO should change from "well-known award" to "notable award". It wasn't even suggested that ANYBIO should be changed. The term "well-known and significant" is subjective and meaningless, and may even lead to lower notability standards as some will argue that an award can be well-known without being notable. There at least needs to be a discussion about changing ANYBIO first. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine. I'll bring it up on the talk page, but as it stands, ANYBIO is not sufficient. I recently saw in an AFD that people were attempting to use an educational grant as a type of "notable award". NW(Talk)22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Two (wiki)birds with one stone?
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,
I need your help on two subjects, please, hopefully you may "rise to the occasion"...
1 - There is this highly annoying user, Zombie433. Not a vandal, no sir, but i feel he has the approach of treating WP as his personal site, with as little interaction as possible. I have sent him messages about overlinking, other users have addressed him about unreferenced BLP's, he does not care, he removes messages and does not respond. How to find that? Easy as you very well know (blessed be EDIT HISTORY - in this case that of a given user talkpage, and also that of user who sends original message).
He also claims to be a "LEVEL 4" in English, he is not (a 2 would be most generous!), so he continues to engage in overlinking, writing appalling sentences in articles, and when people try to (politely) address him, he does not care. Ah, he also writes ZERO edit summaries.
I had the idea of contact a polite German user, Hubschrauber729, but he has vanished into thin air - no edits in nearly four months. It consisted of sending ZOMBIE a message in German (i can speak a little, but i want no errors nor misunderstanding in what i want to convey) and see what he had to say (although i believe he CAN understand Simple English, he just cannot be bothered to interact). From your talkpage, i see you don't speak the language, but i was just thinking if something could be made, through Google Translator or similar, so i would send him an original message, and it would also display in German.
Another thing: i also addressed ZOMBIE about the tense one must use while writing in an encyclopedia (mostly past tense i believe, and certainly NO FUTURE), he also ignored that and writes here like he's talking to friends in a bar! Quite annoying...
Protected both of them in number 2. As for 1, I'm not so good with disputes like this, to be quite honest. I do know that SoWhy is a very friendly German sysop. I think that he would be delighted to help you out. NW(Talk)22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
No offense taken. I probably hadn't explained myself very clearly, as I'm not thinking very clearly at the moment. First massively hot day in a while will do that. Anything in particular you want me to try to explain? NW(Talk)03:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks/HELP!!
Thanks a lot my friend, will definitely message the user you suggested (also thanks for the pages protected).
Hey NW. . .Ive talked to you before thru email. . this is Behdad Sami
I spoke to you about 2 months ago. I had some1 from Korea vandalyzing my page and you helped me out big time and I appreciated it very much. I need your help again. My page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behdad_Sami . . . someone has made an attempt to put it under review for deletion. Please take this review away and please do not let them delete my page. As I told you before, I have a lot of people that are against me, critics, haters, etc and they are trying to take my accomplishments away. Basically one person who doesnt know anything about me says that my page should be deleted because they cant find enough sources?!? Theres over 3 magazines and 1000 websites that have covered me and have articles on me. I became the worlds first iranian to ever play pro bball in the USA and they are trying to take that away from me. It makes no sense when theres proof all over the world. just one google on my name brings more and 1000's pages, magazines, a Gatorade reality show, and much more and everything including NBA.com has given me the title of the worlds first iranian to ever play PRO bball. Please dont let them take this away from me bc that would be a huge slap in my face and hard work. I have gone thru and removed their links they put on my page for deletion but If theres something as an admin. that you can do, please help me out again. You helped me so much the first time and I really need you again. Thank you
P.S And another thing i have to mention, the wikipedia user "Stacey Robert Greenstein" wiki id= UtherSRG, is the person that sent in the request to delete. This person has been harrasing me on Twitter and it got to the point where I had twitter suspend my account. He asked me questions and specifically about wikipedia and now he sends this request?! Its not a random thing. This is someone that has something against me and The world knows what I have accomplished, its made history, enough to get me in 4 magazines, some1 creating a youtube tape, being a guest of honor at a bball comp, celebrity bball games, not to mention over 1000 web pages and my biggest was being selected to be on a Gatorade TV show. Just bc this guy doesnt know anything about me and has been harrasing me on Twitter, gives him no right to try to take something away from me. NW, please block this user from being able to access my page, if he is not blocked, he will persist to vandalyze and take away everything I have worked for.
Behdad--71.93.237.199 (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Any chance you're willing to take a look at the cases in the WP:CP backlog (since MRG's still away) which are pending permission? I can compile a list of articles to make it easier if you'd like. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, since I know you're active right now, I'll start with you if you don't mind. Whenever you get bored or have to work on something else, I'll go ahead and bother Blurpeace. I've listed all the ones in our backlog that have at least claimed permission to use, but of course there's no telling which ones have actually sent anything.
I'm not sure how to set up an anchor, but if you could do that, I'd have no problem with switching the name to CC. NW(Talk)21:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you just say (right above the heading) {{anchor|Global warming|Global Warming}} (you can have up to 10 different targets there) and then change the heading, but I'm not 100% sure. I can give it a go if you want. ++Lar: t/c21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I was about to suggest what Lar suggested above, though using a different method. Not sure what is inside the black box of that template, but there are several ways to ensure links don't break when changing section titles. Which reminds me of another handy trick. I think it was you who pointed out that notices about 2-week-long elections vanish quickly when place on noticeboards, but there is a way around that, namely to use the method mentioned at Wikipedia:Publicising discussions, which says: "Using a future timestamp in a hidden comment as described at User:DoNotArchiveUntil is one method of delaying most archiving bots from archiving a notice." Though that does rather depend on the bots being programmed to recognise that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Zaid Shakir
NuclearWarfare, I am not sure what the proper route is to pursue this, but I request that the user Imzaid (also goes by Monteil for some reason) be banned from editing the page of Zaid Shakir because of overt conflict of interest. "She" writes in this diff [8]: "Second,I am the wife of Zaid Shakir and set-up this page 2yrs.ago"
I honestly wouldn't mind if she continued to edit the page but I continue to run into the same problems over and over again as she either lacks a fundamental understanding of Wikipedia policies or purposely ignores them. A few examples: 1) Inserting commercial links and spam linking:[9] 2) Unexplained deletion of sourced material:[10] Imzaid also never includes an edit summary, making it difficult to know why she made certain changes. I asked the user to make smaller changes one by one, but Imzaid's blanket changes make it difficult to have any sort of reasonable conversation on the merits of those alterations.
Plot Spoiler, I must apologize. I am quite busy at the moment, and really cannot afford to try to mediate another dispute at the moment. Just thinking aloud, but perhaps Future Perfect at Sunrise or Stifle would be able to help? NW(Talk)02:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I see that you have both deleted and restored the contents of the above page. For your information the page contents are awaiting OTRS approval i.e. the authorisation has been submitted and contact has been received from the Permission team. Please do not delete this article as the Permissions teams will soon be confirming the licence. --Meeslow (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I have OTRS access, and have read the applicable emails. You may want to check out the replies that the OTRS agent sent in response to your email. NW(Talk)13:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought about it for a few moments; I'm thinking that the guy is trying to be inflammatory with a name like that. Just my opinion and I can soften up the block a bit. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't have blocked at all. Sure, if he was vandalizing, that is one thing. But a declaration of homosexuality, even in a username, is not forbidden by policy. I really think we should unblock with apologies, in the case that we scared away a newcomer. NW(Talk)23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm good with that. However, I'd like to suggest that he create a new account so that this doesn't happen again. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Indur
You removed the ref i found and asked if watts up had a search function, it does but as it is a blog are we allowed to use it in a blp? mark nutley (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
While it is a blog, it is occasionally acceptable to use blogs and other self-published sources to establish simple, matter of fact things like this. Ideally, one would want to use a secondary source, but I think that this would be fine. An example of an article that I wrote that uses sources like this is Thomas E. Wartenberg. Your reference looks great; I just reformatted it slightly. NW(Talk)16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello NW, I am trying to slowly but surely address the points for improvement that were brought up at my RFA 3 months ago. In you oppose, you said, "To be quite honest, I was very unimpressed with the quality two of the three GAs you mentioned: The Sea of Monsters and The Titan's Curse. Not only does more information need to be added for the articles to be properly comprehensive, but the formatting and sourcing needs quite a bit of work." I am beginning to work on those to try to alleviate this concern; may you please elaborate on what needs to be done and how I may go about doing it so I can get a better picture about how to improve them? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈04:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what I was referring to with regards to formatting (perhaps you fixed it already?), but I do believe I remember what I meant by sourcing and comprehensiveness. Literature articles should usually spend a great deal of time talking about both the critical reception and themes of the work. Critical reception is mentioned in both the articles, but only very briefly, while a themes section is nonexistent. If possible, it should be expanded a great deal. I understand that the series is a children's/young adult's series, but if it was a children's best seller for three years, then there is bound to be more out there. NW(Talk)20:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really that into modern children's literature, so I really wouldn't know. LexisNexis and JSTOR are always good places to start though. NW(Talk)22:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the file was eligible for the license migration at the time, the bot just didn't approve because it had an OTRS pending, and User:Leonard^Bloom forwarded an email with permission just now but the original email was from before August 2009 and so it was eligible, right? Could you please check? Thank you very much. Hekerui (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It was licensed under the GFDL on June 30, 2009. I cannot remember what that implies for license integration though; would you care to take a look at it? NW(Talk)20:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It's been a while, forgive me :) Thanks for taking a look; I couldn't even remember the appropriate page to find this stuff out. NW(Talk)20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the time it is about just getting the feel for an editor's behavioral pattern, backed up by checkuser evidence as necessary. In general, if a new editor jumps into a contested edit war, citing Wikipedia policy like the back of their hand in order to act disruptively, it is pretty clear that they are a sockpuppet. The more cynical would call it guess-and-block, but a number of factors do play into it. As for those two accounts you mention, I'm not sure. That's something where checkuser evidence would be helpful. Could you please list those at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby if they haven't been listed already? NW(Talk)00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you help with another OTRS question? The uploader added Ticket#2007031010017409 as permission, can you check if that's legit so it can be taken out of the pending category? Hekerui (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, someone did inform you. Check your archives from an email timestamped 03/20/2007 02:38:49. NW(Talk)22:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Jennifer Korbee 6 09 File
A photo I uploaded with permission from the photographer has been deleted. It was said that documentation was not received for use of this since June 2009. The photographer e-mailed the address provided on this site, providing adequate documentation that would allow this site to use his photo. In regards to the deletion, how many times does permission need to be granted for the photo to remain on Wikipedia? I tried to upload the photo again, being that it was deleted for no reason at all, and I am unable to do so because of its deletion history. Is there any way that this could be restored, considering an e-mail was sent, granting permission to this site? Thank you! JennFan24 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an exact timestamp, but I do know that it was sent in June 2009, the day of or the day after the photo was originally uploaded. JennFan24 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Being that it's a private e-mail address, I don't feel comfortable posting it; would it be best if I just sent him a message, asking to resend his documentation so the file can be reinstated? JennFan24 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That would work, but the easier solution might be to email me his email address. I'll treat the email as confidentially as I would any OTRS email. NW(Talk)23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Not so much, really. If I ever see you on Skype I'll fill in all the boring details ;) By the way, that was a totally subtle hint for you to get on Skype more often. Totally subtle. NW(Talk)01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems like Satori Son got to him before I could. Feel free to ask him if I don't seem to be around. I'll ask a checkuser if it is possible to do a larger rangeblock. NW(Talk)17:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you help with enforcement of the 1RR rule in the Gaza flotilla clash page
Hi Nuclear, I'm not really sure of the proper procedure here. Quite recently Ruy_Lopez joined the editing team. Some of his edits seem good, but many are reversing things already discussed in the talk page. I undid one of his changes and told him why and have tried to converse with him on his talk page. I encouraged him to join the discussion and explain why he thought his edits should be made. Instead he seems to be in a bit of an editing war with other users and still has not contributed to the main chat.
Should I escalate this and post to Wikipedia:ANI? Or are you the right person to come to for help?
Oh, c'mon; I saw no evidence that Maashatra11 was aware of the 1RR restriction -- he hasn't been a longtime editor to the article -- and I warned him of it just minutes before you blocked him. His second revert was undid again, so it's not like he gained anything from it anyway. -- tariqabjotu19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I hadn't seen your post when I blocked. He really should have seen and read the warning given by the edit notice seen when editing the page though. I would be happy to unblock (or allow someone else to do so) if he indicates that he has read and will abide by the 1RR restriction. NW(Talk)19:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Aha... when did that get there? I guess I haven't actually been editing the article though. In that case, I endorse the block. -- tariqabjotu19:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
revision delete
I do not see how your revision delete of Hipocrite's comments comes under the necessary criteria in any way. I cannot undo it because I am effectively banned from acting as an admin on said page. I know I am an awful stickler for policy. It annoys me sometimes. Put more simply even if this is a good thing in this case I think this sort of decision is the start of a bad thing for wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm seeing the revision deletion as a way to prevent a sockpuppeteer from learning more about ways we identify him, along the reasons why TW removed Hipocrite's post in the first place. Feel free to undo my action if you disagree (regardless of any ban you might have), but perhaps you could check with one of the other admins who frequent the page first? NW(Talk)23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand and I won't undo it but I think this is a pretty marginal ignore the rules and I don't like censorship unless absolutely necessary, even when you think it may be doing some good. Polargeo (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually I would advise you just unhide the revisions because ATren has had a detailled discussion on User talk:ClimateOracle about how he may have been spotted. Hipocrite is not really revealing anything that has not been revealled anyway. Polargeo (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I made a report of a possible sockpuppet at what I think was the right page. (of User:Inniverse). Just wanted to give someone who is a SPI clerk a heads up in case I screwed up something. No clue who the sock master is, but the pattern of editing off a new account is really weird, and apparently disruptive. I have no axe to grind on this, just though it worth making a note to someone who might want to check. Montanabw(talk)18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I wrote an article..
and you deleted it. I'm not mad or anything. I just wanted to know if you liked it just a little. It was about Da Cowz. I mostly wanted to know what you thought about the reasions why it shouldn't be deleted on its talk page.
I read your article as well as your talk page comments. I just couldn't see how the article made any attempt at meeting WP:CLUB, the notability standard for companies and organizations. NW(Talk)03:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope so. I'll restart a discussion on the OTRS mailing list; if checkuser hadn't picked up on something there, we probably wouldn't have identified my error. NW(Talk)20:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since Sabra2 is another account named in the SPI (as socking for UrbanCowboy12, whom you blocked for socking), shouldn't that one be blocked too? Thanks. Equazcion(talk) 22:47, 3 Jun 2010 (UTC)
I second this inquiry, forthwith (pretty please?). The accounts have been determined to be confirmed as related by a CU. At the very least, Sabra2 should be blocked yesterday (the IPs are more difficult, I'm sure, as was the intention of the sockmaster). Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I missed this, sorry about that. I took care of the accounts; I'll leave the IPs, SRQ, and tagging to another clerk. NW(Talk)13:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Greetings
Greetings NuclearWarfare - I can understand you having removed sundry tags over at Hans Adolf Von Hindennburg but I'm a bit surprised that you also removed the "expert" tag 'cos I had the idea that it would get the attention of folks who actually know something about the subject - if there is anything to know. Curious regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If it's a hoax, the expert tags won't really be able to do very much. In any case, I'm surprised that the tag still exists; I don't think that anyone uses it to find articles to improve. NW(Talk)01:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that - I was hoping kinda that there was a group of admins out there who were experts in different subjects for such cases. Sigh! BTW, do admins override an AfD in hoax cases if they consider it a clear case, or do you just let the process reach its logical conclusion? Do first-article hoax editors get final warnings/automatic blocks? Wishful thinking.--Technopat (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks very much for your script to mark blocked users. I installed it just now, and it immediately paid off, though not in a way I had anticipated — I discovered (to my dismay) that a barnstar I got a few weeks ago had been "awarded" to me by a banned user's sock. I'll admit I was kind of sorry to see that illicit bit of pseudo-recognition go, but your script definitely saved me the embarrassment I would surely have received if someone else had discovered the problem first. Richwales (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You discover all sorts of interesting things when using it. Reading old RFAs and ArbCom cases in particular is quite interesting. Glad to see that the script is of help to you. Tell your friends ;)NW(Talk)01:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hiding recent edit filter tags that have already been rolled back
Hi NW. It's Friday morning here and I was bored at work so I went ahead took a shot at the script. It was pretty easy (despite how long it took me to figure it out) - up and running here. Could probably use some error processing and would be nice to pass parms (like default show/hide) but right now it does exactly what I was hoping for. Any suggestions for improvement are welcome. 702:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, remember when you told me that you deleted the T.U.F.F. Puppy page because there wasn't enough items to support it? Well, there are storyboards on the blog of a person who works on the show called Heather Martinez. Is that enough to support the page getting back on here?76.255.214.133 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't have a link, but I can give you the address: heathermartinez.blogspot.com. And it's for invited readers only, so there might be a problem retriving them.
I wouldn't really think it would be enough, especially after a full AFD discussion on the matter. But if the IP could draft an article, perhaps in the Article Incubator using any sources he could find, it might work. NW(Talk)16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Millatfacebook was blocked, and with 2 days User talk:Aloneking47 sprung up only updating the same page (MillatFacebook) as the former. Upon seeing the edits, they appear to be from the person in coming from someone within the organization/pushing the org. Take for example these edits [12] + [13]
Furthermore, he seems to have got the image from the site listed (which someone in the org. would know immediately it can). Granted on its own this is not necessarily suspicious but in combination with other acts it seems so.
I was wondering what the next move would be? I came to your page because you are listed as a clerk at the Sockpuppet page.Lihaas (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey NW, there's a thread here regarding User:Derek R Bullamore's autoreviewer rights which you removed back in December. Myself and another admin have indicated we'd like to hear from you before re-granting the right, so if you have anything to add, your input would be appreciated. Thanks for your time, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I didn't know it would go and do all that until I clicked 'submit' and then assumed it was OK when it went ahead...! Sorry for the bother! ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢16:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you happen to have a date for when he supposedly sent an email to OTRS? I can't find anything in the recent emails to permissions-en. NW(Talk)01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi NW. I went to look up information on this subject only to find that it has been deleted. Since he's still making news (see recent Guardian story for example) I believe this decision was mistaken. How do I get it recreated? Freakshownerd (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Ask the admin who deleted it to move it to your userspace so you can work on it, then when you think it`s ready ask that admin to look it over and if he gives it the ok you should move it to mainspace mark nutley (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be that Matthew Hoh was deleted for failing WP:BLP1E. Before I undelete it and move it to your userspace as mark describes above, could you point me to some sources that were not discussed at the AfD? NW(Talk)16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I posted some at the bottom of my talk page. He's probably the most notable oponent of th current Afghan war strategy and has first hand experience as an officer and a diplomat. It's somewhat awe inspiring that we don't have an article on him frankly. It is a fairly significant historical event and and a news search shows him cited and discussed and interviewed quite frequently. Freakshownerd (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I just submitted a new SPI for a user (Sun05061981), I found evidence, I submitted the form, but I do not know which list to add it to (the bot is down, I guess). Could you give me a hand with this? Also, if you see that my SPI may just be thrown out or is unsuitable, please let me know. Thank, A p3rson ‽02:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The case seems to have been handled by Shirik last night. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. NW(Talk)14:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Resolved
-2010-05-31T22:17:00.000Z-File:Cruise0116.jpg){kind=link}
