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.
I have decided that it might be a good idea for me to step away from the administrator tools for some time. Accordingly, if you are here to ask a question about an admin action I may have performed, please either to the administrators' noticeboard or to the talk page of another administrator, all of whom for the time being I am granting permission to overrule any admin action I may have made. NW(Talk)03:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that have the tools back, I will be archiving this. Thanks for all those who helped out over the past three months. NW(Talk)02:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello NW, I've been meaning to write a page like this for quite a while and was wondering if I could borrow steal this for use as a starting point for mine? What is said in this page is exactly what I would like to say to my victims fellow editors about deleting content they created. Happy new year, Airplaneman ✈01:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I stole it almost verbatim from Gwen Gale (see the note at the bottom of the page). It's under CC-BY-SA, so just give attribution as it is due. NW(Talk)03:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Lots of people are going to give a reaction. Putting Obama is just campaigning for him. Boehner and Pelosi, the two main House people should be added and that is it. If you add Obama, then you should add governors, senators, congressmen, etc. Having Pelosi and Boehner is fair since they are opposite party members.
I've given this careful thought and note that I am not anti-Obama. I am the one who first put it in the article! Nesteoil (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
We are not doing this to make sure that both parties get "equal time". We're just going to pick the most important actions and run with those. In this case, that would probably be Obama/Biden, Pelosi, Boehner, someone from the courts or the Justice Department (for Judge Roll), Reid, McConnell, some Senators/Congresspeople from Arizona, and the Senators/Congresspeople who worked closely with Giffords. NW(Talk)20:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Of the ones you mentioned, Biden's really shouldn't be there. The courts are not going to comment. If a judge comments, they should be impeached. Reid and McConnell are Senators, not Congressmen.
Boehner and Pelosi is appropriate. Obama is too pandering in my opinion, but can be allowed. The Arizona governor should be allowed in spite of no involvement of the state government but the governor is head of Arizona. Palin's comments shouldn't be allowed in the article. How about the Pope?
One problem is that Wikipedia becomes a eulogy. When there's an earthquake, about 100 foreign leaders comment. Why is one leader more important than another? Like your name suggests, sometimes you have to drop an atomic bomb and wipe all those name out. ha ha he he heh heh Nesteoil (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
That's blatantly inappropriate. Please redact that, or else I will have no inclination to speak to you. NW(Talk)21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
When I read it (15-30 minutes ago), they pretty clearly identified him as the shooter, not merely said "named by sources". My bad if it doesn't say that anymore. NW(Talk)21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice of them to get it wrong, and then change it without comment. "The gunman is now in police custody in Arizona and has been named by sources as Jared Laughner." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
I'm enjoying the discussion at DrV about the nature of weighing !votes/options/strength of argument. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
AN/I
NW, please don't close discussions that are still active, particularly not after an objection. When people stop commenting it will be archived. There's no need to try to pre-empt that. SlimVirgintalk|contribs09:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that there is no more admin action to take. All the thread is doing now is taking up a lot of space on a ridiculously overcrowded noticeboard. NW(Talk)17:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
AN/I isn't just about admin action; it's for issues being brought to admins' attention. When you see people discussing and asking questions, and when you try to close it down in the face of that, it's disruptive, as is trying to close again when you're reverted. If it's not being archived, it means people are still talking, so let it be. SlimVirgintalk|contribs07:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sanctions and such
Thanks I was leaving the computer lab as you posted all that to my talk repealing my editing restrictions--it's a real weight off my Internet shoulders. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to give a quick thanks for your time in consideration of my ACC request. Your concerns are entirely reasonable (and, honestly, something I rather expected), and, to be blunt, it's refreshing to know that there's a professional level of honesty sitting around the mire. Cheers! ♪Tstorm(talk)04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1SaleADay
Hey NW, I see that you relisted the piece I wrote about 1SaleADay. This is the second time this article has been relisted. The piece originally had several tags on, but due to some helpful edits most have been removed -- as you'll see in the article's history. The piece was originally tagged for deletion by User:H66666666, however he has not responded to my post on his talk page for close to two weeks.
The page is receiving over 300 hits a day, and no one has agreed with H66666666's contention that the "article does little more than promote." As you'll see, the piece does not promote the company at all, it merely lists the facts that are out there. It is well-sourced with notable coverage and keeps a very NPOV. The Trademark Dispute in particular is of interest to many in the field and has already drawn a contribution.
I relisted the debate because hardly anyone had commented since the previous relist, certainly not enough to make a consensus one way or another. Hopefully the matter will be resolved by next week. NW(Talk)23:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed there is hardly a consensus in the debate, but I question whether it should be there in the first place. Only one user has an issue with it and that was before the article was modified by other editors. A request to review the piece in its current form has gone unanswered for some time now. While the debate hasn't garnered much opinion, the article - along with the tag - is seen by many yet no one has agreed with H66666666's contention. The few who have commented on the debate have all been Keeps, albeit weak ones. My best, Mordechai10 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Call for ArbCom Clerk volunteers
I already shot off an email to the mailing list, maybe a little late, but I was wondering how long it should take for a response. I've also noticed that there are no clerks currently in training, which I'm guessing means nobody's yet been picked. Thanks, dmz00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Demize! No, you aren't late at all; we are actively discussing your request and haven't chosen anyone yet. We will be sure to let you know as soon as we make a decision. NW(Talk)00:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I just saw you closed the debate. At the same time however, multiple users involved in this debate were investigated as being sockpuppets here. It was determined that User:Jeff Unaegbu, the creator of the article, was using them per WP:CAST. So, I was wondering if you could relist the debate now that the checkuser process is over with. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion here . User:Gwen Gale has unilaterally unblocked Binksternet, despite a clear consensus on AN/I that the block, given for Binksternet's harassment of me, was appropriate. [1] This was Binksternet's 6th block in 6th month, last time he was blocked, he also promised to "stick to 1RR" only to engage in further disruption right after he was unblocked. So he has been basically let off hook, I suspect off-wiki lobbying by another admin to have played a role in this unilateral, out of the blue, action. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I worked with Binksternet on the Port Chicago disaster article, which he took to FA status, and have found Binksternet to be a quality editor. I'm not sure what's going on here. I've asked him about it on his talk page. Cla68 (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I made a couple comments in the properness of the thread on ANI, though I didn't comment on the underlying action itself. I don't think that the unblock was a great idea, but it was discussed on the user's talk page and Xavexgoem appears to be talking about it with Gwen Gale. I don't think that I shall be commenting, as the parties seem to be working it out among themselves. NW(Talk)02:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Since you initially mentioned this paper on my talk page, I thought you might be interested in some follow-up. Kudos to the Times for attempting to explain Bayesian probability to the masses. MastCellTalk20:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating. My knowledge of Bayesian analysis is limited to what I have gleaned from reading Bayes' theorem. Is there any particular webpage or book you would recommend for someone to look into gaining a cursory knowledge of the subject? NW(Talk)03:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your question earlier. As for Bayesian probability, our article kind of sucks (or rather, it jumps way too quickly into arcane technical aspects). My introduction to the concept was during my professional education, in the context of clinical biostatistics and evidence-based decision-making. I can't remember what text was used, or even if there was a text (as opposed to just discussion). PMID 19691089 is not bad as an intro (let me know if you can't access the full text).
The basic concept is pretty simple, at least as it applies to clinical medicine. You start with a pre-test probability - that is, the baseline likelihood that something is true, based on what you know. For instance, the pre-test probability that someone is capable of precognition is extremely low. Then you apply a statistic/test, which leads you to your post-test probability. The post-test probability isn't just a function of how good your test is - it's a function of how high the pre-test probability was. That's the key. If the pre-test probability was extremely low, or extremely high, then it doesn't really matter how good the test is - it's likely to mislead you.
To take a familiar example, look at checkuser - which is actually a classic case for a Bayesian approach. Let's say that behaviorally, you are 90% convinced that someone is a sock, but checkuser comes back "unrelated". A Bayesian approach would tell you that the checkuser result is almost certainly a false-negative. Likewise, if we run random checkusers (or checkuser every RfA candidate, as is sometimes suggested), then it's likely that most, if not all, "positive" checkuser results will be false-positives, because the pre-test likelihood that a random RfA candidate is socking is hopefully fairly low. The logical follow-up is that we should not perform checkusers in cases with extremely high pre-test probability, because even if the result is negative, it should be dismissed as a false-negative.
Anyhow, I realize that's not an especially clear explanation. I don't actually do any formal teaching anymore (the bean counters have found more remunerative uses for my time), but based on this comment, it sounds like Joshua might be more au courant with good educational resources on Bayesian probability. You might want to ask him; or you could leave a note for User:Woonpton, who I believe has an extensive background in statistics and would probably be happy to discuss the subject. MastCellTalk19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clear introduction to the topic, as well as the article link. Wiley is being a pain and isn't letting me download the PDF to my desktop for later reading; any chance you could send me it? NW(Talk)03:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The Times is still going at this: [3]. I like the editor of this the Science section :) I hope he sticks around! NW(Talk)19:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia talk:Activist
Is it normal policy for a single involved administrator to shut down an essay talk page without asking for comment elsewhere? Can I ask where one is supposed to discuss the future of an article if the only apparent forum is the talk page of the said administrator? This seems skirting the limits of censorship, not to mention an attempt to prevent an essay reaching a broader consensus than the narrow and arguably policy-contravening (e.g. WP:AGF) POV of its creators. Yes, several of those involved have seen fit to inject humour and satire into both the essay and it's talk page, but on the basis that such satire is necessary for a fuller understanding of the subject. The ridiculous assumption that one claim to have a 'neutral' POV, and are thus justified in dismissing those who have different perspectives as 'activists' deserves to be seen as the joke that it is. To argue otherwise is an insult to the intellegence of Wikipedia contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen an essay get attacked like this essay was this past week. In the past, when editors disagreed with an essay, they wrote their own, separate essay as a rebuttal and then linked them together so that interested editors could read both and reach their own conclusions. Cla68 (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
they wrote their own - not very helpful. Everything had indeed got a bit silly on that essay, and on its talk page. But that was exactly what it deserved. A bit of peace and quiet there won't go amiss William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If one were to look at the edits to the essay over the last week, which editor(s) appears to be making the hardest effort to own it? Cla68 (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Alternatively, WMC, which of us two have displayed more ownership over the essay, me or you? I haven't reverted anyone's edits to the essay. Can you say the same thing? Cla68 (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Glasshopper, you have indeed strayed a long way from the path of truth if you are now equating single or occasional reverts to ownership. I think you're just point-scoring here, not trying to help. But, I looked at the last 100 edits and the only revert I can see by me is [4]. As I said at the time "activist -> zealot just inflames things" and I still think that is true (but only if we're taking the article seriously. If you were intending to deliberately over-inflate the language as a joke, then your edit does make sense). Note also that Cla is proposing a mega-revert that also removes your "zealot"; so presumably you'll be accusing Cla of ownership, too? William M. Connolley (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I trust "everyonething" does not include a person whose edits were solely intended at getting a neutral, non-polemic essay written? Thanks. Collect (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Collect (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, I had thought you used the word. Forgive me if I misquoted. I have corrected it. Meanwhile, I propse a return to last clean version of the essay at [5]. Collect (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
That looks to be a typo for least clean version. The problem you have, now, is that people aren't really taking that essay seriously. I think you should have taken the advice in the MFD, and moved it into your user space. You can still do this, if you like: no-one would object. Then it would have been (would be) unambiguously your opinion, and that of those people you allowed to work on it. But since it is in public space, then anyone is free to have their own opinion as to what the essay is about, and how serious it should be. There is, after all, nothing wrong with some light-hearted humour. I'm not sure that NW intended his talk page to become a substitute for the article talk page while locked. Formally, I oppose your proposed revert, and the implicit reasoning behind it William M. Connolley (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I note you !vote to delete anything you disagree with, alas. I would also surmise that [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] are all, on their face, unhelpful edits in the most kindly light possible to grant them. Nor are talk page edits sauch as [12], [13], [14], [15] all appear not to intend to "improve" the essay in any sense at all. I suspect the admin here has noted such helpfulness on one editor's part in conducting civil discourse. Collect (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You note wrongly. And those edits are only unhelpful to the "zealot" version of the article that you like. Your defn of "unhelpful" appears to be any edit that moves it away from your preferred version, which is itself unhelpful. The discussion we're having here - and the tone - is obviously not going to get the page unprotected early, nor is it going to help the article. The issue we seem to be having at the moment is: should the article be po-faced and nice-n-serious; or is it allowed to be humorous, too? Cla's proposed method of solution to this question appears to be that he, Cla, gets to determine the content. That isn't going to fly, so have you got another proposal? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an example of the polemics that ArbCom wanted to deal with in the CC case, so the essay should be closed permanently. Count Iblis (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The whole basis of the essay being turned into a circus was edits by those who sought to delete the essay. Are you suggesting that if you do not like an article, simply edit strongly enough and the article will then be deleted - thus accomplishing the goal? I fear that would end Wikipedia entirely if it were accepted as a legitimate mode of operation. Collect (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I assume that is your answer to my have you got another proposal? and condensed, your answer is "no". Different people of good faith have different views of how the article direction should go. Why do you assume that your and Cla's view is the only correct one, and that anyone who disagrees with you is guilty of "circus"s? Do you think that you / Cla own the article? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that we're seeing the same kind of unproductive editing/discussions that we've seen on CC pages and largely involving the editors who are/were involved in the CC case. Count Iblis (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
As long as policy-contravening 'essays' (read polemics per Count Iblis above) appear in Wikipedia main space, I reserve my right to participate in the editing process in order to contribute in any way I see fit to bring them within policy. If contributors wish WP:AGF to no longer be considered Wikipedia policy, they should argue it openly in a more public place.
I note that NuclearWarfare has not as yet answered my question as whether it is normal for an involved administrator to to shut down an essay talk page without asking for comment. I am still anticipating an answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)WMC.,
I don' think NW is involved - he has never edited the article (no?) or tried to influence its direction on the talk page (no?), only tried to bring some calm / order to the discussions William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Endorse NW's protection. Personally, I think this was a case of concerted vandalism that should go to arbcom. --JN46617:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with keeping the essay shut down for a couple of days, so that people can shovel snow or engage in other pursuits and return at some future time. The essay did become a bit of a battleground because some editors felt that it was not a typical essay, that it was positively harmful, that writing a "counter-essay" was therefore not the solution. The root cause, I think, is that this essay is not in, and should be in, user space. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not the answer. This is an essay that said, without much hedging at one point, that bad writing is a sign of activism. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow...that was a lot of edits on my talk page. I saw a couple when I checked Wikipedia in the middle of the night and commented at WP:AE, but I hoped it could wait until morning. So let's see. Of everyone who has commented on this page thus far, the only person that I do not recognize from Climate change is AndyTheGrump. Whether intentionally or not, many of you are using this essay to re-fight old battles, and you are doing it in a manner that has no hope of helping the mainspace in the next...forever. Please just edit something productive and more interesting to you than this for the next few days. (Note: something more productive than editing Wikipedia:Activist would be editing this page, for example). NW(Talk)18:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Noting that my "involvement" with Climate Change was de minimis - the only connection I had was via the RFC/U on Lar. Collect (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The essay can't be about the opposite of itself. So those who disagree with the basic premise of the essay should refrain from any heavy-handed involvement in the Talk page and especially in the essay itself. Also, I think a point that is being overlooked is that it is not "group" activism that really defines activist editing of articles—activism is activism whether practiced individually or as part of a group. Obviously the "group" practice of activism poses a greater problem. But we seem to be debating the existence of, and the definition of activism, and I think the number of participant in it would not necessarily be of relevance to those questions. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
NW, speak for yourself. I have no intention for fighting a battle. Why did you escalate this like so? ... The essay was if anything conciliatory admission. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
NW's observation is accurate: what it implies is another matter. How about a voluntary proposal: without anyone admitting liability (or some other such lawyerly form of words) everyone associated with ARBCC (even weakly) agrees to leave the article, and its talk page, and all other discussions related to the essay (including other users talk pages, including this one) entirely alone for a week. I bind myself to this, irrespective of what anyone else may do William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure .. considering the JPS issues at Arbcom, might be the best thing for now. All is fun and games until someone get's hurt. I made my intended wp:activist contribution elsewhere. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
HeyMid (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Perseus, Sonof Zeus has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it requires the admin bit to rename files (here or on Commons), so you would have to pass WP:RFA to help out with that. I'm not sure who goes through that category regularly. Is there a specific file you want renamed? NW(Talk)04:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
That was quite wrong. You must have realised that it was a controversial move and that a number of people would have taken a diametrically opposed view to you. And you have set a dangerous precedent. Deb (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems pretty straightforward to me. "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles; and a system constraint: we cannot use the same title for two different articles, and therefore tend to avoid ambiguous titles." There is no other Peter I that is commonly referred to as such, and indeed Peter I is eschewed in the literature in favor of Peter the Great. NW(Talk)18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't doubt you thought you had good reason to move it. I find it hard to believe you genuinely thought it was uncontroversial. Deb (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, it has been 3 months and no one has showed up to complain about it but yourself, and even you seem to be focusing on the process rather than the outcome... NW(Talk)20:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I agree with the move, I also agree with Deb that it was obviously potentially controversial and should have gone through WP:RM. If it was up to me, it would be reverted, even now three months later, and if someone cared they would submit a proposal at WP:RM. I think it's important to discourage unwanted behavior by created consequences for it. By not reverting it, we're essentially saying, "Sure it might be controversial, but go ahead and give it a shot =- maybe nobody will notice." However, every time this topic is discussed at WT:RM, where my position has been clear and consistent (Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_13#Unilateral.2Fbold_moves, Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_13#Speedy_bold_move_revert_section.2Fproposal, Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_15#Undoing_moves_for_purely_procedural_reasons...) consensus seems to be much more reluctant to revert these kinds of moves than I am. It's disappointing how often ambiguity is preferred over clarity in the rules of behavior at WP. For example, my proposal to make the primary topic guideline more clear is not gaining consensus support at WT:D, but I digress.
At any rate, I think we also have to admit that the harm of such moves is usually minimal. Any convention for which consensus support is so tenuous that a few page moves put that consensus support at risk raises the issue of whether that was real consensus support in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
A scroll through the edit history shows you're pretty active there. Could you possibly take a stroll by its talk page for me? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you should take note that JJBulten "concluding" his own material on the LongevityArbCom is just another example of his self-delusional manipulation of the system. If you could please remove those "conclusion" comments or add a disclaimer, it would be appreciated.
Interesting. I don't believe I have ever run into this situation before. Please hold on for a while; I am conferring with my fellow clerks. NW(Talk)01:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The Clerks/Arbitrators who responded to my email are of the opinion that the Arbitrators will be able to realize that it is merely John's own opinion. Don't worry about it. Only what is voted on by the Arbs and passed in the Proposed Decision will have any impact in the end. NW(Talk)07:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, NW, from my perspective I disagree with your statement above that the conduct surrounding this essay is fighting the CC wars all over again. The opinions I provided to that essay were based on my experiences observing a number of controversial topic areas over five years. After five years, several behavioral characteristics were consistently displayed in groups of editors who seemed to be unable or unwilling to comply with Wikipedia's policies because, it seemed, they firmly believed that "the truth" was on their side. Editors fighting for truth as they see it might stray into activism and thereby disrupt WP's editorial process, it doesn't matter what the topic area might be. If you check out my recent conversation with Binksternet, you'll see another area where this has been evident. Cla68 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that your motives were like as you state they were, and I apologize for asserting that without looking into the matter fully. However, I still believe that no matter what your motivations were, the arrival of ZP5, WMC, SBHB, JPS, Collect, SB, Lar, etc. stirred feelings that were only suppressed by the ArbCom sanctions. Well, that's the kind explanation for it...
Would you be willing to host this essay in your userspace by any chance? I think that might solve of the problems that arose in the last few weeks. NW(Talk)20:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
NW, it's not my essay. If you'll look at the edit history, you'll see that a number of editors were involved in adding its original content. So, to say it should be hosted in user space, it would have to be decided somehow whose userspace should host it. Then, you or someone would need to decide in whose userspace to place all the other essays in this category. Cla68 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The early history of the page would disagree with that statement—you wrote almost all of the initial content. I'm not saying that all essays or even this essay must be put in the userspace. I'm just saying that it might help. It is merely advice; follow it or don't at your own discretion. NW(Talk)04:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I was unaware of that. I thought you drafted it offline and posted it all at once. Well, perhaps we can agree that you were the primary author of the essay? NW(Talk)07:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi NW, as you've been dealing with this essay, this is just to let you know that I've reverted to the version that was presented at AfD, as that seemed to persuade people that the essay was worth keeping, so we know it has a degree of consensus. I've also asked on talk that people propose each change in advance (except for spelling and grammar fixes), and gain consensus on the talk page before applying it. Cheers, SlimVirgintalk|contribs14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I have serious concern about this action that undoes 8 weeks of (work|bickering) in one fell swoop. I notice that you, for some reason, did not obtain consensus before your action. Goose and gander or Jupiter and the ox? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Several editors turned up to reduce the page to gibberish, with insults on talk; exactly the activism we saw during the CC debate. Not helpful. The AfD version is the only one that uninvolved editors have looked at, and it gained some form of consensus. So let's start from there. SlimVirgintalk|contribs15:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
One of your first edits was this one[16], which truncated a section that no one had objected to. You did so without discussion on the talk page, and I'd suggest that your edit summary was not accurate. I also would suggest that this and similar edits is what kicked off the problems on the page. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
SV, I don't think it's worth the headache for me to look into the behavior on the article talk page any further. Sorry, NW(Talk)20:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Outline update 2011-01-18, and an invitation...
Dear Nuke,
Here's the latest goings on with outlines...
We've undergone a name change: the "Outline of Knowledge" WikiProject has been simplified to "WikiProject Outlines".
The current main focus is on increasing the availability of outlines. If readers can't find the outlines, the outlines can't help them.
While studying the link structure to outlines, I came across a navigation aid I forgot we had that you might find useful:
Due to the occasional sniping attempt on outlines and their support pages, outlines now have an alert page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts. Please go there now and add it to your watchlist.
Tarheel95 and Robert Skyhawk are working on a project to track traffic to outline pages. Speaking of traffic...
A discussion on outline traffic analysis has been started on the Outlines WikiProject talk page. You are cordially invited to participate. Your input is greatly needed on possible ways to increase the availability of the outlines. All ideas and feedback are welcome. I look forward to seeing you there.
P.S.: don't forget to watchlist the alert page mentioned above. Cheers. -TT
Lincoln Park
I'm surprised by your decision at Talk:Lincoln Park (disambiguation). While "no consensus" definitely means "no delete" in AfD discussions, in RM discussions "no consensus" does not always mean "no move".
In particular, when the issue is about whether there is a primary topic, a lack of consensus is evidence that there is no primary topic for the term in question, and so "no consensus" means "move" or "don't move", depending on which results in the dab page being at the term. In this case it would mean moving the dab page to the plain name, Lincoln Park, as proposed.
Not really. That practice at WP:RM, if that is the case, seems inconsistent to me with the rest of Wikipedia, where there must be consensus to change the status quo. Even block discussions that do not achieve consensus, the best analogy I can think of about what you said, revert to the long existing status quo, that the user remains unblocked. NW(Talk)17:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Such a thing wasn't really reflected in the debate. You are free to take it to DRV, but I think a better option might be to relist the AFD, which I could do for you if you wish. NW(Talk)17:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at User talk:Looie496/Recall. Message added 20:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I saw the quality of your contributions at DYK and clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador,Sadads (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Sadads, but my content isn't that good. Most people could definitely do as well or much better than I (or me?). :)
I have checked out the Ambassadors project, and while I definitely appreciate the work that it is doing, I am afraid I simply don't have the time to do it now. Thanks for the invitation though. NW(Talk)03:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I got the same post to my talk page; Sadads was similarly "impressed" with my work (I haven't done a DYK in months, but just submitted one). I'm human and don't mind being praised, I object to praise by boilerplate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Acdixon's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I think you are right, some of the comments at the very least were highly nonconstructive. Whether we should collapse only some... better all than none, probably. If you'd like to collapse the second part of my statement (the ones replying to some other comments), you have my permission to do so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Unused template removal
My template Template:Vermont High Schools Division IV was rm because it was unused, which is fine except I didn't get a chance to store it anyplace prior to rm. It takes awhile to recreate these things. IV was on tiny schools that haven't yet had articles created. I will just tuck it away on my computer until the school articles are created and they can use this template. But I need it back for a few minutes to do that. Having said that, there may be schools that have since been created where we forgot to bring in the template. In that case, we might want to keep it. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. For the record, I have (gulp) redefined it, this time with appropriate links, which it lacked before. I have retained the User:Student/ text template def. If this is wrong. I will move it to a sandbox. Not sure about the difference between a definition with my name and explicit "sandbox" with my name. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
[Darwinbish speaks with deceptive mildness, but has filed her sharp little teeth to needle points ] Yees? And what can I do for you, mr warfare? darwinbishBITE21:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey NW, maybe you can help me with another query. I got carried away after reading the newspaper this morning, and added what is probably a POV term to Zimbabwean Fifth Brigade. See if you can spot it without going through the history. ;) Perhaps you care to tweak the writing--after reading the reference. Certainly some of it is encyclopedic. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to refer to the following quote as anything but an atrocity?
She was 12 years old. She said soldiers from the Fifth Brigade, wearing jaunty red berets, came to her village and lined up her family. One soldier slit open her pregnant aunt’s belly with a bayonet and yanked out the baby. She said her grandmother was forced to pound the fetus to a pulp in a mortar and pestle. Her father was made to rape his mother. Her uncles were shot point blank.
I hate to see a typo in an RfA nom of someone I would like to see get the mop, so I thought I'd mention one I noticed in Acdixon's RfA. You have "regularly clearly" when I think you mean "regularly clearing". Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
On 28 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mayo v. United States, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Mayo Clinic argued in Mayo v. United States that medical residents, who work up to 80 hours a week and are paid approximately $50,000 a year, should be considered students instead of employees? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You wrote:
I just wanted to thank you for your edits to Mayo v. US while it was on the main page. Also, your username is great. Any relation to Jorge Cham?
We do what we can. Thanks; I've no connection with him, but his strip is great.
There is notability as part of the larger storm, so merging would seem like (to me, at least) a common sense move so outright deletion was avoided. That's my interpretation at least. Ed[talk][majestic titan]19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I got busted on RfA for doing the same thing. There was no clear cut consensus for merge, in fact it was the least !voted option. I'm considering DRV. Should be a no consensus close. CTJF83chat21:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
In February 2010 you full-protected all these templates as "high-risk". I'm just wondering if these can now be unprotected, because they don't seem high-risk anymore. I'm seeing only 2 or 3 transclusions on most of them. Unless.. there's another reason they were full-protected? -- Ϫ11:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Kind of in like with the points of WP:PERFECT, except for the last point. The templates are essentially finished, and many of them are trancluded all over the place. But if you wish to unprotect them, you are free to do so. NW(Talk)14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't quite understand your reference to WP:PERFECT.. could you rephrase what you meant in that sentence? Also, which ones exactly are "transcluded all over the place"? Because I'm only seeing at most 2 or 3 transclusions.. most of them are actually orphaned. That's why I don't understand why they're full-protected as high-risk. -- Ϫ20:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I mean, it was so long ago that I can't really remember, but I do believe that it would be Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen that would be transcluded the most. Of course, I might be misremembering how widely they are transcluded.
As far as the reference to WP:PERFECT—while most article on Wikipedia are not and can never be "perfect", these are small enough in scope that they can be. NW(Talk)20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Even BEFORE any decisions are taken by ArbCom, I'm genuinely concerned at JJBulten being allowed the level of COI-editing he is currently getting away with. Right now, we have a fundamental divide between scientists (including me) and religionists (including JJBulten).
Any neutral, third-party judge would see that since JJBulten is one of the main parties concerned, he should NOT be the one constructing the architecture of the ArbCom. To do so is just a show-trial.
Where is the proposed remedy for JJB's bad behavior? I see he is also an edit-warrior for the abortion issue. I'm personally not for abortion but the issue here is that it is plain as day that JJB does not have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, but is rather a POV-pushing agenda-agent.
One cannot be their own judge and claim impartiality. This is NOT, and should not, be a witch-hunt blacklist attempt to intimidate and "cleanse" Wikipedia of editors interested in supercentenarians from a scientific point of view, which it is obvious that JJB, who has tried for 2+ years now to push his view that humans live the ages claimed in the Bible because the Bible says so, is attempting to rid Wikipedia of anyone who dared stand against his non-consensus POV-pushing, which was contrary to Wiki policy.
Again, if I am the identified main person on one side of the issue, JJBulten is the clear leader of the other side.
So, why is he being allowed to construct the architecture of the show-trial? Why is JJB naming who has COI and who doesn't? Why does JJB get away with "voting" for his own AFD proposals? Virtually every accusation he has made is just an opinion, not a fact.
Calling something an "attack," for example, when in fact it was his editing that was against outside sourcing.
There are no official proposed remedies yet. JJB is free to propose any remedies he wishes, as are you. That does not mean that Arbcom is required to even vote on those remedies, let alone pass them. The official proposed decision should be out within a few days. NW(Talk)22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
New request at ArbCom: [19]. Thank you. JJB 21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have asked Ryoung to refactor his statements and have temporarily hidden the offending sentence[20]. If necessary, I will look into taking further action tomorrow. NW(Talk)21:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
JJB did say this, as usual he wants to censor the truth and replace it with "I'm completely behaving and doing everything right!" And we see DavidinDC say much the same here:
whether GRG pages are simply not reliable, whether they are biased against non-western centenarians
If you really wanted to pore over JJBulten and David in Dc's edit histories (in November/December 2010), the facts show that JJBulten and David in DC engaged in aggressively negative editing that sounded more like trying to win a football game than assuming good faith.
Ryoung12222:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Until Ryoung122 can source this, I have commented out his repetition of his statement here, following your example. I would, of course, certainly appreciate guidance about what censorship is: a very interesting question to me. David in DC's statement is quoted correctly, but interpreted interestingly, as it merely seems to repeat WP:RSN conclusions, while adding the generic, undisputed observation that 19th-century birth records are categorically better in "Western" countries. JJB 20:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Ryoung, I completely fail to see how that supports your statement. You're going to have to explain further or drop the issue. NW(Talk)20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Canvassing
Hi. I came across this, which seems to me to be canvassing. Also, that editor might need advice about how to contribute to the discussion in a way that doesn't undermine his own position. Can I leave this in your hands? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if this will suffice, and I don't watch all of the longevity-related pages. The ArbCom case is moving rather rapidly and I'm sure you will have plenty to do. Thanks for your help with this and with the case generally. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Powered exoskeletons in fiction
I'm implementing the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powered exoskeletons in fiction, which you closed, and since I don't do this often I am not clear what should be done with the talk page of the merged article. Should I leave it as it stands or should that talk page also become a redirect to the talk page of the merge target? If so, do the talk page contents also get moved to the merge target talk page? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just as a complete aside, I was overpowered with curiosity when I saw this section title on my watchlist in conjunction with NuclearWarfare's username. I am relieved to know that this was not a commentary about him. :-D Risker (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Inquisition
Hello NuclearWarfare
I believe that you are trying to be neutral, although I think impossible. I'm also asking you some help, because I've never discussed in a Proposed year ban on regular editors. I really think that it is a ultrageous attack to the spirit of wikipedia, and I want to partipate on this. However that discussion is a complete mess and it is growing long by propose to avoid a sane discussion. So, before I make some mistake, tell where, and how can I contribute to the survival of wikipedia as it is.Japf (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Too late, isn't it? The vandal has one your of suspension, the wrightfull gets banned for ever. Bad news for wikipedia...Japf (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike
Hello, we were actually making progress (albeit slowly) on the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike and there is now a notice on the original research noticeboard. The last reversion was a self-reversion (by me) pending the outcome there. There wasn't an edit war in progress. Any chance of getting you to unlock it? V7-sport (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The best way to do that is probably to hash out a few paragraphs on the talk page that all of you can agree on. If you can do that, I (or probably more quickly an admin at WP:RFPP) will happily unlock the page. I'm rather hesitant to unprotect it now when there is no agreed-upon version. NW(Talk)04:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
OK at the moment there is a [[21]] on the original research notice board which I will leave up. Hopefully it will determine which direction [22] the article goes and we can get some agreement or at least acquiescence. V7-sport (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
There were heavy edit warring going on and i strongly suggest to keep it looked for some time so things can cool down and people have time to keep up with the work. The topic currently discussed on the OR noticeboard is not the only topic here. IQinn (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
V7-sport is now WP:WIKIHOUNDING like on this page here and multiple multiple other pages. With the justification i am a supporter of jihad: ""This is made more disturbing by you exclusively intervening on behalf of anyone who has murdered the kuffar in the name of jihad." he said. What alone is already a reason to block him apart from shouting, disruptive editing, out of context quoting, ad hominem arguments and personal attacks. That is disruptive and leaves no time to keep up with the real issue. IQinn (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have endeavored to get consensus/a straight answer/a link to back his assertion that the attacks are 3 separate events from Iqinn since 13 February. This has taken place over what seems like endless hours onThe articles talk page, the original research noticeboard and the reliable sources noticeboard. His editing has been incredibly disruptive.
I am at 3 reversions, I wont revert again this evening, however I don't believe consensus is possible with this editor. Any suggestions would be welcome. V7-sport (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. It seems to be being handled just fine; do you think there anything I should say? NW(Talk)02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
At this point probably not, it seems to have died down... but since it referenced your close/affirmation of AQ's original close, I wanted to make sure both of you knew about it.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Complex hearts
Please restore the article Complex hearts which you deleted. This article had good content and now has deadlinks around the web.
I remember seeing this article about 5 years ago and the topic was notable enough to make me come back looking for it 5 years later. Perhaps it needed some work on its references, but surely this is not enough reason for deletion.
It was deleted as an uncontested proposed deletion. I have restored it.
Richard Garfield, huh? I imagine it probably is notable enough, but the sources do need to be improved. NW(Talk)15:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work at the Longevity arbitration case. I imagine that being an ArbCom clerk isn't the most rewarding job, but it is very important; you definitely helped to keep things smooth when they were running. Thanks again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised too, actually. It probably says something about how many people actually read through all the answers, but I'd prefer not to focus on that given the amount of time I spent writing them. :) In any case, I hope you enjoyed the links now that you've fixed them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I hope to think that people simply fixed the URL in their web browser, went on to reading the RFC, and then became too engrossed to remember to go back and fix it :) NW(Talk)21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I hope so too. I'm well-known for being tl;dr sometimes (I believe you yourself have said such a thing), but those were two times I think I said something important. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems that arbcom doesn't have enough clerks
I'm interested in helping out. Let me know by replying to this, or by email at scwizard@gmail.com if you bunch could use an extra hand. --ScWizard (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)There was that call for new clerks in January, but I haven't heard anything more about it since. Although, I didn't really expect to hear anything back since I'm not very experienced :p demize(t · c)22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Demize, I emailed you (and received your reply).
ScWizard, indeed we are, but we really are looking for people with at minimum several months and thousands of edits of experience. I don't think you would qualify at this time unfortunately. I would encourage you to contact us again after a decent period of time though! NW(Talk)01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I've had this account for years, so time isn't he concern its edits, so I suppose you mean after a decent number of edits. --ScWizard (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes. My apologies. I was a little scatter-brained (as usual :P) yesterday when I wrote that answer. NW(Talk)17:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
date formatting using script
Where can I get this script? And by changing the access date in the book refs, does it change the publish date format automatically? I am referring to what you just did on Mother India. BollyJeff||talk20:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Alan+Sugar, prior to your two-year protection the longest period of protection required was three months, without clear evidence in its history that the vandalism had gotten worse. So the public log doesn't seem to rise to the "heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy" criterion from WP:SILVERLOCK. Since its been semi-protected for a year, it seems worth the risk to WP:AGF. I suggest you unprotect the article, then if heavy and persistent vandalism, re-protect it. Thanks. 67.100.127.36 (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you want to edit it? Because otherwise I'm going to keep it the way it is—it's pretty clear that within 2-8 weeks, there is going to be enough BLP vandalism to necessitate protecting it again. NW(Talk)04:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I was following the WP:RFUP suggestion to "please try to ask the protecting admin first before making a request here" and then tried to respond to your question ("Why should I unprotect it?") It's clear that you're expecting vandalism that would not be sufficiently handled by the automated and semi-automated tools in place currently so I'll try WP:RFUP which is the normal next step. Thanks 67.100.127.36 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Since I'm here again temporarily, thanks for your recent comments about ArbCom; you articulated the case for the right side a lot better than I would have been able to. You're quite a speaker. Heimstern Läufer(talk)15:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Heim. No need for the effusive praise; clearly what I said isn't going to change much. I would have thought that the 1.5 years since Orangemarlin would have helped matters; instead it seems to have made things worse. At least in that case one could blame miscommunication. Not so much in this one, with the unanimous vote and all. (Did you notice that NYB and DF didn't vote on the motion despite being active? I wonder what was up with that.) NW(Talk)15:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You know, what's annoying me most is not just the process followed here; it's the generally nanny-like approach the arbs are taking toward Rod and those who are arguing against what was done. "We're right; you're wrong" seems to be the general approach. And a certain outburst about people going "batshit insane" didn't exactly seem particularly appropriate. Meh. Not a lot to do about it. Guess we should write articles and stuff. Heimstern Läufer(talk)04:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Here's the latest addition to the religion section of Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia has rich coverage on this subject. Very interesting, especially from sociological and historical perspectives.
This is a call to all members of the Outline WikiProject and outline aficionados to help refine this outline. It needs annotations, missing topics added, and the entries in the general concepts section placed in more specific sections.
Come join in on the fun and get acquainted with members of the Outline WikiProject.
P.S.: I had no idea this religion was so extensive or that it had so many followers.
IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat08:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey NW, since you kindly closed the FS mainpage proposal, I was wondering how you felt about closing out the similar FL proposal (since it's part-and-parcel of the mainpage upheaval we seem to be heading towards)? It was due to close around 4 hours ago. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure. I could probably do it in about 6 hours, if no one had any objections to me closing both. NW(Talk)21:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
