User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

ArbComOpenTasks

I've sorted out the problem you had in the template. Basically you had "interim" in one parameter and were missing the section = parameter. Whilst I was at it, I made the heading a bit more neutral. I'm no template coder myself and the only way I ever figure out how to add a case in is to look at an old diff and copy that. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. I'll be sure to remember that for the future. NW (Talk) 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

user:Uhhmazinq

FYI: Five days after you deleted this image [1] user user:Uhhmazinq turned around and re-uploaded it on commons here. I have tagged it to be deleted there. This user has 11 other images on commons and 15 on Wikipedia that have been tagged for having bad copyright claims. I am no administrator but if I were I think he need to have some kind of block.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please bring this up on commons:Commons:Administrators' Noticeboard? I no longer have admin tools here, so you'll need to ask another admin here as well (possibly Moonriddengirl). Sorry! NW (Talk) 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I brought it up there. Do I need to do the same on the Wikipida Administrators' Noticeboard or will they take care of both pages?--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't read your reply very well. I will talked to Moonriddengirl also.--ARTEST4ECHO ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi, would you please protect my talk page? If you take notice I'm being harrassed by a sockpuppet called SkagitRiverQueen. I don't know what if anything can be done to stop her from her harrassments and stalking but she has been stalking my edits now for awhile. This was admitted to on Wikipedia Review. Well I should say she was asked why she was following my contributions and she said she didn't know how she came to be following me and made like she didn't know me but of course she does. I would appreciate it if you would protect my talk page. Thank you. If you have any suggestions on how to stop her I'm all ears. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could help Crohnie, but unfortunately, I resigned my admin tools a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps you could ask SarekOfVulcan if he could give you a hand? I believe he has dealt with SRQ before. NW (Talk) 01:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Archiving

You said that you didn't think this archiving was "proper", however, that discussion was never conducted on the article talk page; it was moved there by Davidpatrick from his talk page against my wishes.[2] Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. That's something I missed. Thank you for pointing that out to me. It changes some things, but not all. Significantly, I was not really impressed with your conduct wherever the discussion was held (something admittedly out of the ordinary). Something that 23skidoo mentioned for example: ""I've set you right. Don't do it again". And "Anyone who continues to use Wikipedia to fight these battles will be taken to task". He wrote to Davidpatrick: "You either go with the sources or you don't edit." And "You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple." Those types of comments are not conducive to healthy discourse." I agree. It's not in your usual nature to make these kinds of comments, but however justified your comments in general might be, your tone wasn't. There is a line between harsh and firm, and I think you started straying over that line a little too much. Anyway, that's just my two cents. Feel free to reply back to set me straight if you feel I misunderstood or misanalyzed anything. Best, NW (Talk) 04:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think 23skidoo presented these comments in their full context with diffs, or did he take words out of sentences, which in turn, were taken out of paragraphs of discussion in relation to edits which were being criticized? Selective quoting saves space but misleads people. The fact is Davidpatrick is an activist pushing a singular POV on Juan Williams and lending undue weight to a confidential incident that occurred two decades ago and was reported on by a small number of sources at the time. It's totally unprecedented to give this much weight to a single incident that nobody really knows anything about, other than the fact that there was a protest at his place of employment and that he was disciplined. Juan Williams was never involved in a "sex scandal", yet 23skidoo and Davidpatrick have restored this thread on the talk page, a false accusation about a BLP made a year ago. As I've said in other places, I'm not a fan of Juan Williams, but we're seeing people putting their politics ahead and above Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and we're seeing an administrator helping them do it. As for the "don't do it again", that involved another editor, Veriss1, adding this obvious coatrack to the lead section. The recentism, undue weight, coat racking, and POV pushing is still going on in the article. And what was the result of trying to fix it? My block. The priorities here are fucked up beyond belief. Anyone can spend 60 seconds doing research on Davidpatrick to find out who he is and why he shouldn't be anywhere near political articles on Wikipedia. And, anyone can spend another 60 seconds to discover that 23skidoo and Davidpatrick have been working together for years to edit against consensus and to violate our COI best practices. The fact that not a single person put 1+1 together is troubling. I'm going away now. Bye. Viriditas (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Look, I think you are taking this a bit too far. Yes, Davidpatrick was pushing undue weight. But you were harsh in your words in a way that was not necessary nor helpful for getting your point across. Getting another experienced editor or two via BLPN or simple talk page request would have been relatively simple, and that would have solved the problem quickly enough. I have tried to cut down on the section that you mention (it probably doesn't even deserve the small amount of prominence I left after my edit). I'll watchlist the page and keep an eye on it. Looking back, I agree that the block was not fair at all. While your edits were battlegroundy, the fact that 23skidoo only chose to enforce a block on yourself and not on DP or even Veriss1 was wrong. I had not looked into the situation enough, I don't believe, and I didn't really put into perspective what you were dealing with. Violations of BLP/UNDUE takes a much greater precedence than CIVIL.

And you will have to forgive me, I have no idea if DP or 23skidoo are related at all. It would surprise me if that were the case, but if you suspect something, then the proper thing to do is to go through proper channels. NW (Talk) 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't "suspect" anything and I never said they were related. I know that 23skidoo and Davidpatrick have a very close working relationship on Wikipedia, just like anyone else would by looking at their contribs. I also know that 23skidoo misled the community when he failed to disclose this relationship and he claimed that he just so happened to drop by on a random talk page and block me as an uninvolved admin. Surely, other admins know this as well, yet chose to remain silent. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to take this further, Viriditas (e.g. to ArbCom), I think quite a few people would support you. I was surprised that anyone spoke in 23skidoo's defence at AN/I (though just about everyone opposed the block), but I think that was because of a failure to look through the contribs carefully.

If 23skidoo had been an active admin who made a bad block, we could argue that everyone makes mistakes. But not to have edited for four months; then to pick a fight out of the blue in support of an editor he had worked closely with in the past; and then to block the editor he picked a fight with—that tells me he should not be an admin. Had he apologized it would be different, but his replies suggest he doesn't really see what he did wrong. Also, looking at his tool use it's sporadic, [3] and he has used it before in furtherance of content disputes (e.g. the deletion and moving of the Martin Lewis pages). Again, maybe not a huge issue for an active admin, but where there's little admin activity it means that a significant percentage of recent tool use is to his benefit in content disputes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Based on community input at the recent ANI and the case precedent established at WP:DES, I would guess that the likelihood of a desysop based on current evidence is low. However, there is additional evidence that looks like an attempt to game the system that could change that outcome. By nature, I'm more of a firefighter who is interested in fixing things rather than an attorney who enjoys bringing a case against someone, so I probably won't be requesting a desysop. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, I really don't think I looked into this situation fully. Viriditas, I'm a bit busy now, but would you want to write up the relationship between DP and 23s (feel free to email it to me if you want to keep it offwiki)? If indeed there is a friendship of sorts, his actions become inappropriate instead of just off-the-mark. NW (Talk) 01:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent outline development

Nuke,

Hey, it's been awhile. How's it going?

Since I've had some free time to burn on Wikipedia lately, I thought I'd ping you with the latest on the outline front...

We're trying to get some sports-related outlines started/completed, to provide an example/inspiration to the various sports WikiProjects to create outlines for their sports.

Currently under construction are:

• Outline of basketball
• Outline of cricket
• Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling
• Outline of tennis

These need help.

Other outlines that have undergone substantial development recently include:

• Outline of British Columbia
• Outline of Saskatchewan
• Outline of forensics
• Outline of epistemology

It would be nice if all the subdivisions of the 3 biggest countries in the North American continent had outlines. All the states of the US have outlines, and 2 of the provinces of Canada now have outlines. That leaves 8 provinces in Canada (and 3 territories), and Mexico's states.

Though the focus at the moment is to generate interest in creating sports outlines. Anything you could do to boost this effort would be most appreciated.

The Transhumanist 00:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Neat. Always nice to see good work being done. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but thanks for giving me this heads up on the state of affairs of the outlines project. NW (Talk) 01:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm?

Question...why would Rodhullandemu receive a lengthy block for adding "Cue Malleus" to a post? This is new to me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, Rodhullandemu hasn't been blocked. Shubinator (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just refreshed ANI. Ignore me. Shubinator (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

@NW: My question was answered on ANI. @Shubinator: No worries. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack?

If you have a moment, I want to bring a matter to your attention. This comment seems to me to be a personal attack, so I removed it earlier tonight, and left a warning on Athene cunicularia's talk page. The warning was removed with a snarky edit summary. Rather than remove the comment again, or reinstate the warning, I want an administrator not involved in the larger debate to take a look. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You would probably be best off asking an administrator who still has the bit, in case enforcing the matter with a block is necessary. Sorry I can't be more helpful. NW (Talk) 03:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I also brought the matter to Rich Farmbrough's attention. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Shimon Stein and "cozy evenings"

Hello NuclearWarfare. I disagree with your interpretation but I've made comments on the talk page. Would also have been glad if you notified me about this. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about not notifying you; for some reason I didn't even think to. I have commented on the talk page. NW (Talk) 00:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Glass transition shredding

You might want to check this out. I no longer have your current email addy. Please contact me @wavesignal.com. Thanks, logger9 (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The @wavesignal.com address seemed to bounce. I emailed you through the Special:EmailUser interface; if you don't get that, feel free to contact me through Special:EmailUser/NuclearWarfare. NW (Talk) 15:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mark

Thanks for reverting that addition to Mark's userpage ... I was about to do it, and got caught up with something. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto someone did it to me once I noticed in the Balkans area of wikipedia it is common practice, rather like gleefully pissing on you enemy's grave.Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi NuclearWarfare, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle

When are you going to use Huggle again? WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

i have found out you are sadly no longer an administrator at the site. However, could you please redirect towards someone that can help me with the following two queries (without having to go through the sometimes strenuous investigations, checkusers and so on)?

1 - User:Pararubbas continues, one account after the other, until he reaches 1,000 i believe, new account User:Lkjuiop890 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lkjuiop890 "contributions" here). He continues creating articles that have been deleted by administrators;

2 - after some vandalism in Mágico González's page, i left a summary warning that if it continued, i would ask for page protection. What do you think happened less than one day before? More vandalism! I need someone to protect the page please.

Attentively, thank you very much in advance, all the best - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask MuZemike or Ron Ritzman? I think that both of them are terrific administrators, and while Ron might not be willing to use the block button, MuZemike certainly will if necessary. NW (Talk) 19:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This just survived AfD

Outline of Canada

See the discussion at:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Canada

The Transhumanist 23:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Wasn't there some sort of agreement that no further articles would be AFD'd unless an RFC was held first? NW (Talk) 14:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not enough

Even if I receive a waiver from Sphilbrick, I have no intention of violating my topic ban. Unlike those who had no interest in Wikipedia aside from Climate Change, or those so offended by the topic banning regime as to have whatevered in protest, I acknowledged my mistakes (early in the case, I might add), endeavored to do better, and will seek to have my scarlet letter removed at the earliest possible juncture. Explaining how other editors were also at fault is unhelpful to this goal - it will merely make ArbCom think that I haven't left the topic area alone. As such, unless I am granted an explicit and personalized waiver from ArbCom, I will not comment further on that, or any other relevant process page. Thank you for your concern, however - it is appreciated. Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem ?!

Hi! You have just written: "Do you think that this kind of thing would be a problem for any of your other articles?" From the one hand it is not a problem for me, but from the other hand it is. I wrote hundreds of articles, some without references, but I do not remember which ones (the earliest ?!) they are at the moment. -- Warm regards, dr Mibelz 18:18, 13 Nov 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I was awarded The Tireless Contributor Barnstar -

For constantly creating well referenced chess biographies - SunCreator 16:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for setting up the talk page link while I was off tidying the mailing lists and so on.  :-) Risker (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I saw that you had left it out and I didn't really check the timestamps, so I wasn't sure if you were going to come back to it or not. Looks like everything turned out fine :) NW (Talk) 22:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Three men and a boat.

A barnstar for the most humourous title after Three men and a boat, or is it Snowwhite and the seven dwarfs, or Alibaba and forty thieves.[4]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) NW (Talk) 22:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

!

Hello NuclearWarfare, Sven Manguard has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sven Manguard _Talk 22:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Surprised

I'm surprised you are not running for ArbCom you make a better candidate than most of these people, with or without your tools. Secret ^account 14:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of encouragement. I think I shall be too busy this year and the upcoming years to do anything substantial on ArbCom even if I am elected. So unfortunately, so I shall join the chorus of "people who yell at ArbCom for dropping the ball but are not willing to do anything to fix it." :) NW (Talk) 14:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Btw I'm looking for the answers of Lar BLP questions and I can't find them on the regular answers page, where they at? It decides my last three spots. I'm tactical voting this year. Secret ^account 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Their on the questions talk page, because of a silly rule that says each person can only ask one question on the official page and it can't be mass-spammed. NW (Talk) 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Election Guide

Hi all. I'm making an election guide for the December 2010 ArbCom elections. It is located here. Feel free to leave comments on its talk page, whether you are a candidate or just a community member—I welcome any and all comments. Feel free to tell me how I was far too harsh on someone, overlooked something major, or did not analyze something properly. Such comments would be much appreciated.

Do you know what else would be appreciated? You creating your own election guide. Please do! It doesn't have to take very long, and is important that as many people do so as possible, as public discussion has dropped tremendously over the past few election cycles. NW (Talk) 15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page

In case you missed it, I did mention many times on the Palin article discussion page the fact that Palin's death panel remarks were relevant to Palin (they reflect multiple statements she made at length over a period of months), that they were notable in that many people (about 80 percent) noted them according to opinion polls, and that they were well-documented by many media sources deemed to be reliable according to Wikipedia, and are WP:WELLKNOWN.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In your five reverts between October 19 and November 7, you did not make one talk page post. Rather than continuing to revert, you should have gone back to the talk page and requested administrative attention if it was necessary. NW (Talk) 22:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed WP:RESTRICT

Hello NW. Please see my correction of the expiry of Biophy's topic ban. I was just reading WP:ARBRB and noticed it was wrong. You seem to know how to update this kind of thing. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. Not sure if there is anything to update really...you got it all. NW (Talk) 00:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As I was idly browsing through old decisions, I noticed there were 17 editors who were topic-banned under WP:ARBCC. Their names are not yet in WP:RESTRICT. Is it reasonable to add them? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT is always incomplete for one reason or another. Never really sure why that is. Perhaps ArbCom clerks are just lazy and don't want to update the page after the case ;) But yes, if you would like to update the page to include the climate change bans, that would be perfectly reasonable and very much appreciated. NW (Talk) 22:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Grew

Thank you for the information posted on Talk:Aftermath of World War II. Thank you especially for providing a large enough quote to determine context. Edward321 (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at FT2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And followup. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Collage at Talk:Man

The conversation regarding more diversified images at this page has restarted if you'd care to be involved. I've been going by the lists of possible alternatives generated last month at the talkpage there. I dug up a few today and am waiting for input from other users before I go any further. My general plan has been to get consensus on a set of 10 to 12 images, and then get consensus on placement of those images into the collage format. Pop in any time and see what you think. Regards, Heiro 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC).

"Doesn't rate" Doesn't Mean what you think it means

That's a British colloquialism, meaning you didn't think much of him. :) (for example, see [5] SirFozzie (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, those silly Brits. Just because they invented English doesn't mean they can come up with nonsense like this ;)

Thanks Fozzie. NW (Talk) 00:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) News travels fast. I came here to say the same thing. At last, a small portion of your anonymity is stripped away: you aren't one of us. Someone should discover the etymology. I'd like it to be related to the Rating system of the Royal Navy William M. Connolley (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not English myself (american born and raised), but you can't follow English soccer (waiting for the first "CALL IT FOOTBALL" comment), without picking up some of the lingo. :D SirFozzie (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

CALL IT FOOTBALL Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

THIBBBBITTT! (:P) laughs SirFozzie (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(boring) I think it comes from the Latin. Oh, and CALL IT FOOTBALL :) Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful

I respect you, but as a guide writer you have an inherent conflict of interest in editing the election template to include your guide. Please put the template back as the election coordinator (me) revised it. Thank you. Discussion is ongoing. Talk, don't revert. Jehochman ^Talk 04:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't give me any of this nonsense about "election coordinator". It's an entirely self-appointed position. If you have any actual argument to make, make it, but don't try to bully others into acting how you want them to act to get your way.

And as far as "Talk, don't revert" goes...you're the one who failed to follow bold, revert, discuss, not I. NW (Talk) 04:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

NW, there was a discussion ongoing for several hours. With fewer than 24 hours to go, it somewhat frustrates the purpose to delay much longer. This is not an application of WP:BRD because there already was a discussion. There was an emerging consensus, and there is a strong need to give the limelight back to the candidates. The number of guides has slowly overwhelmed the template. Can't you see that? Jehochman ^Talk 04:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there was what you perceived to be a strong need. Have you thought that other people might disagree? If there is only twenty four hours to go, what is the need to do anything at all. Just leave things be and change it next year. NW (Talk) 04:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Time is on your side. How about making a change for the good of Wikipedia, without regard for your personal interest to increase the visibility of your own guide? It will be good for Wikipedia to place focus on the candidates, rather than the guide writers. This is a very important election, and it is improper that more than 50% of the template real estate is occupied by the opinions of a small number of Wikipedians. Do you think Carcharoth was wrong? Jehochman ^Talk 04:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

{{ArbComOpenTasks}}

Two open requests for cases, and two requests for clarification, not shown in the template :-). Isn't there a helpful bot to do this? EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wish. Updated.

Also, would you be interested in being an ArbCom clerk by any chance? NW (Talk) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't believe I'm at that level yet. It seems to me the current top line in Template:ArbComOpenTasks for the new YM request is malformed. It looks like a real case with a bunch of red links, and it has no actual link to the current case request. My fixed version is at User:EdJohnston/Sandbox. By disobeying the template instructions (Using ArbComOpenTasks/line instead of /line/interim) I got it to look better. What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks much better, thank you. (Looks like Carcharoth already got that). I hate that template and all its subtemplates, so good thing you got it working :)

Also, are you sure about that? You really don't need anything to clerk besides clue, which you have in spades. NW (Talk) 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Something's missing...

Looks like you forgot something... ;-) Regards SoWhy 07:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Silly templates. Thanks SoWhy. NW (Talk) 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful

I've encountered two articles you've acted rashly over today by placing speedy deletion tags on them, even though a google search would illustrate some form of notability. Both Sulev Oll and Laimutis Ločeris which you speedy deleted have articles in their national dictionary of biographies which indicate notability. Granted that they were awfully short stubs and in creating them we should equally be responsible for sourcing and adding some content but not everybody speaks Latvian or Estonian and feels confident translating it. If you come across similar stubs, which undoubtedly you will at some point, please consider asking me to expand them, even if they are Ser Amantios. Unless you actually bother to do the research to decide notability, potentially we could be missing out on a lot of content by completely nuking an article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think "Laimutis Ločeris (born 1929) is a Lithuanian painter" satisfies as a valid article. Perhaps next time you could create the page with enough information to indicate notability so we can avoid this problem? NW (Talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the harm in deleting a stub that says "X is a Lithuanian painter"? If someone comes along later on and wants to do the work of writing an actual article with native-language sources, the stub won't really help them anyway - they can just as easily write the article from scratch as they can expand a one-sentence stub. I don't see that deleting such articles means we're missing out on content. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I would consider your speedy deletion of Ron Schnitzius vandalism. It was further obnoxious by alerting me that it was under consideration for deletion but left it already deleted. It was a stub article, but it certainly asserted the subject's notability. I would vote for your admin status to be revoked. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare did not delete this article; another administrator did. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was actually deleted by another admin, JzG (talk · contribs), although NW did nominate it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Schnitzius. It's not worth getting upset over. The article didn't contain any sources or substance, despite being in existence for ~3 years. If you care about the subject, your time is probably best spent finding some sources that satisfy this site's notability criteria and writing a better article which will stick, rather than headhunting for the admins who deleted the existing text in accordance with policy. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NW isn't an admin today. Though he is one of the "Wikipedia administrators open to recall" according to his user page William M. Connolley (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Scott, I think MastCell covered what I would have said otherwise. NW (Talk) 19:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Could someone use the <!-- --> tags to comment out the recall category on my userpage please? NW (Talk) 19:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do this, but I had some problems with items appearing that wern't previously visible, and an extra closing bracket that I couldn't trace. Can you draft up what wikitext you want in another page, like your sandbox, and I'll make the replacement? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've commented out the cat. Let me know if it causes problems. Btw, NW, do you want the protection downgraded to semi? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That looks great. Protection is fine where it is, but thanks. NW (Talk) 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a rule for when to archive amendments and clarifications?

Hi NW. Is there a 'timeout' on old requests? Or a required no of arbs to opine? I was looking at this archived request for amendment from the R&I case which I assume was archived due to timeout. (I don't see any remark that a decision was made, and no closure box was added). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a technical rule about it (WP:AC/C/P would have it if so) but things on the clarifications and amendment pages generally work too slowly for that. It's generally a "determine if it's likely that more than half the arbs are willing to do something based on the comments given so far and go from there." In this case, no arb indicated (after an extensive amount of time) that any motion was being voted upon, so the archiving means "no action taken" by default/due to timeout. NW (Talk) 19:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mohammad Mutaz al Saifi

Hi NuclearWarfare, Just a quick note to say that I removed the A7 speedy deletion tag from this article. I think the claim that he has successfully exhibited, and the claim that he introduced a new technique into mainstream art, both constitute credible claims of significance. For what it's worth, I would probably !vote to delete it at AfD, but I do not believe that it meets the criteria for deletion under A7.

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that the article sat in the CSD category for about 36 hours before someone finally actioned it. I wonder what that was all about :)

But sounds fine. It's a judgment call, and I certainly respect your judgment. I'll nominate it at AFD. NW (Talk) 02:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I noticed it. I think this happens a lot, to articles like this where deletion is pretty much guaranteed at AfD but it really doesn't fit the speedy deletion criteria, and it's not so blatantly harmful that an admin is prepared to bend the rules quite that far. Thparkth (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh jeeze

I'd ask you to warn me the next time you quoted me speaking ill about another editor, but it certainly wouldn't have helped with me being away and all. Let that be a teachable moment for all of you, what you say on Wiki will potentially last longer than you think!--Tznkai (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, my bad! Most of the other quotes I used were very positive ones, so I didn't think twice about using yours, although I should have. I'll be happy to remove it if you so desire. NW (Talk) 05:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No no, its not a problem (and lets not mess with an influential voter guide at the last minute) , it was just startling to see when I was looking for advice on how to vote to see my own words staring at me!--Tznkai (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Do Some Work

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

Click this button.

Reference this BLP.

I have done a little today. But do you think referencing one sentence and then adding a refimprove tag is worthwhile? e.g. Julian Hee and Chen Pingyuan. In balance I also AfD'd Bruce Schwack and ref'd Antonio Palafox without the tag. Polargeo (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I actually don't think that spending time to reference just a little bit is that worthwhile, unless I actually care about the person or their position. I mean, if you want to do that, that would be great, but hopefully people will check that the article they are doing that to seems fairly neutral and doesn't have any contentious unsourced statements. The way I have been going at it is opening up a couple dozen tabs at once and then scanning them very rapidly. I'm going to miss a few that way, but every now and again I'll find articles that definitely need to be deleted. NW (Talk) 16:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly my position. I would reference a sentence if the individual is obviously worth a place on wikipedia and I care and they don't have any contentious unsorced statements but I suppose I am doing this in the light of editors blanking BLPs without a similar level of thought. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Resistance is futile

I found the big red knob at the gossip column. Surely you meant "delete", not "reference"? The first six random picks were half prod stuff, half csd. The seventh was ... The Bishop! One out of seven worth is worth some effort. Others will just lay in waste. I'd say, let them go. If no one wants to salvage the unsalvageable, delete. East of Borschov 16:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found quite the reverse of this. An extremely notable but difficult to reference singapore actor (difficult because of language), a major Chinese academic (again a little difficult because of the language). Then a winner of two international tennis doubles titles (but in the 1960's so not an immediate easy reference) then an article on an international business man who will probably get through the AfD I have started on him even though I think he probably should not. Polargeo (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

After another ten rounds I finally found someone whom I already know and like, but woops, no RS on bio. Lots of reviews in Greek and Danish, but nothing that can help building a proper referenced bio. East of Borschov 17:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if you are just looking for eye candy then maybe wikipedia is not the right place for you. Polargeo (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

You've nailed it! I'm gone. East of Borschov 17:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

... totally unnecessary comment, Polargeo. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the article EoB was highlighting. The bloody reference was already in the article!!!!!!!! To the BBC no less and a full biography (with the title biography) of her at that. Anyway I put the ref in properly and may come back to the article and fix it all at a later stage. Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

... sigh ....

I love the results of AGF.—Kww(talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's wonderful, isn't it? Well, there was a pretty solid consensus that his actions were inappropriate, so despite what he has said, hopefully he won't repeat his actions in the future. NW (Talk) 13:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Climates and moving gates

It has been up for 10 days. Did you intend to be the one to close it, or since you initiated is that generally not advisable? Tarc (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I could close it, but I would prefer if someone else did it. It's listed on WP:RM, which has an enormous backlog; maybe it would be a good idea to post on AN about that? NW (Talk) 17:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, wasn't 100% up on how move discussions were wrapped up. Rambo's Revenge wrapped it up as a no consensus...and cited/endorsed your 6 month moratorium proposal to boot...so it looks like we're all good. Tarc (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

timing

Hi NW, I just wondered aloud at the feedback page whether you and Lar have misunderstood the role of arbs; I know you don't misunderstand it, actually, and I think our different slant on this revolves around our take on the relevance, to the decision-making of voters, of wider topics in candidate responses. On a more immediate, practical matter, you said, "This is a poor time of year for a lot of people—first you have Thanksgiving weekend in the United States, and then you have a massive uptake in work around December". Can you assist by suggesting when is good and when is bad? Is Nov/Dec out? I can't imagine anything but towards the end of the year would work, and changing the dates of tenure of arbs would be a major shift. Tony (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's why I suggested the increased time for voting. I would think that Oct/Nov would probably be the best time otherwise, but if we wanted to keep it the same, keeping the current schedule, but extending discussion time by a week and voting time by a week would still have us finish by December 20. NW (Talk) 15:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP redirects

I don't know, it's a matter of what sticks in your brain. Which may not be what sticks for someone else. I'm not going to revert you, just something to think about. <( User:Couch on his Head and Smiling (talk) )> 04:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think NW is right here. However, any discussion and reasoning on this should be on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons so I will not elaborate here. Polargeo (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind words and support in your voter guide, as well as for your other thoughtful observations. I'll be taking all of your comments, positive and negative, into account as I continue my service during the next two years. And I especially appreciated your comment about my writing on BLP and similar subjects; I'll do my best to put my observations on such topics into fewer words (but no promises!). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Dancing men.png

Re File:Dancing men.png - this seems eerily reminiscent of Swallows and Amazons (semaphore alphabet). Is there a connection, do you know? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've read Sherlock Holmes, but I believe that sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote mostly in the late 1800s. Perhaps Swallows and Amazons was based off of that story, which itself is fantastic. I also highly recommend The Blind Banker, an adaptation of The Dancing Men. NW (Talk) 17:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I know you appreciate this sort of thing...

Cranberry Juice Fails to Prevent Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection: Results From a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial. To pick on NPR ("Study Questions Cranberry Juice's Power Against Infections"), they contextualize the study by claiming that "many previous studies in young, otherwise healthy sexually active women drinking cranberry juice have shown a big decline in persistent UTIs."

Not true: there have been 2 methodologically adequate previous trials of cranberry juice to prevent recurrent UTIs in young women (according to the Cochrane Library 2008, PMID 18253990, Comparison 1). According to the Cochrane review, both studies were individually negative, but by pooling them (for a total of 241 patients) they were able to suggest a benefit for cranberry juice. Obviously, the addition of the current study, with its 319 patients, will cause that apparent benefit to disappear.

The kicker is the final few paragraphs of the NPR story, in which they get context from a researcher at the Marucci Blueberry and Cranberry Research and Extension Center at Rutgers:

She says a 20 percent recurrence rate for those on cranberry juice is pretty good, so, in her view, "the juice actually worked well" in the study.

... thus demonstrating an apparent lack of understanding of the concept of placebo control. After all, the recurrence rate was 14% with placebo. She goes on to say:

There's a huge population of women using cranberry to manage UTIs effectively, and we want them to be able to have a higher level of confidence in what they're buying.

So you have a researcher who's convinced that cranberry juice is effective and that people are already using it to "manage UTIs effectively". Why research the question any further (aside from the fact that there's an apparently endless supply of grant money from NCCAM)? To provide them with "a higher level of confidence in what they're buying." I love the smell of equipoise in the morning. :P MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did you just say that a "Marucci Blueberry and Cranberry Research and Extension Center" exists? At a fairly decent state university, no less? Oh, the Universe. Why is it such a fail sometimes?

Do you know what the NCCAM's budget is? And why Republicans (or Democrats, really) don't seem to know this fact? There are times when fiscal conservatism is handy. NW (Talk) 20:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Such innocence. :) NCCAM is the one branch of the medical research infrastructure that both Republicans and Democrats will reliably go to bat for. NCCAM's priorities are shaped by political demands rather than science, to a much greater degree than any other NIH Center that I'm aware of. Tom Harkin famously called NCCAM a failure because none of the studies it funded had produced positive results favoring the use of alternative remedies. And one of the directors of the OAM (NCCAM's predecessor) resigned after Harkin held a press conference with cancer patients whom he accused the director of sentencing to death by failing to research antineoplastons.

As to budget, I'm sure the big picture is out there somewhere, but I find it most instructive to look at career-development funding, since that's the determinant of whether a field can expect to enjoy an ongoing supply of research talent. Let's look at the K23, which is a career-development grant in clinical research ([6]). In 2008, NCCAM reviewed 7 K23 applications, and funded 6, for an (enviable) applicant success rate of 85.7% and a total budget of $743,160. In contrast, the National Cancer Institute reviewed 35 K23 applications and funded 8 (22.9%), with a total budget of $1,111,836.

So in 2008, the NIH has committed to training 8 clinical researchers focused on cancer, as opposed to 6 clinical researchers focused on alternative medicine. And the budget for training cancer researchers is virtually the same as the budget for training alternative medicine researchers. Food for thought. MastCell ^Talk 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The phrase used by the Cochrane review of both studies, "by pooling them", creates an unfortunate image. Cranberry juice does seem to be rather ineffective. Perhaps homeopathic doses would make more of a splash? . . dave souza, talk 21:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but if you haven't seen http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2010/11/cult-of-theoi-sacrificing-to-god-of.html the chances are you'll like it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Ludrum

Sorry this is not "a minor point", the UK Foreign Secretary represents the four countries of the UK; England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales - not just "England". This is just one of several inaccuracies in the book.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David J Johnson (talk • contribs)

And unless you have a reliable source that indicates otherwise, there is no reason to think that this point is significant enough to mention in the article about the book, let alone in his biographical article. NW (Talk) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not listening.

There is no such position of "English Foreign Secretary". There is a UK Foreign Secretary, as previously mentioned, it is inaccurate to mention otherwise. I don't need a reliable source for a matter of fact. See UK Government listings here, there is no English Government.

Well then we musn't say how accurate his research is?

David J Johnson (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I never disputed the fact that what you said is true. I'm saying that you have nothing to indicate that it is relevant to his biography. For it to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, a reliable secondary source must have taken note of the fact that Ludlum's work is often incorrect. If they have not, then it is not upon us to perform original research and include it. NW (Talk) 17:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you are still not listening: what do you need as a "realiable secondary source". Just look at the Wikipedia articles on the UK government, I repeat (for God knows how many times) there is no such position as "English Foreign Secretary". What is relevent to his biography is that he is stated to research all his works. If this is the case, how come he make such a obvious error?? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that there is no such thing as the English Foreign Secretary. So, yes, Ludlum made a mistake. Happens all the time for authors. What we need is a reliable source indicating that this mistake is particularly notable enough to include in his biography. The only way to establish that is if reliable secondary sources indicate such a thing. NW (Talk) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Transparent metals

Is there anything that you can do for me here ? After a couple of weeks of hard work and doing everything that I have been asked to do by the interested editor, I seem to have reached an impasse. Please advise. Thanks ! logger9 (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)\

Nevermind...I think I have the situation under control now. logger9 (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. NW (Talk) 17:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

For complete transparency, I've asked for public feedback on an edit of yours

I had commented on an Administrators'_noticeboard thread w.r.t. a content issue, and I have asked for feedback on an edit.
brenneman 06:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. If consensus deems that I shouldn't have done that, please accept my apologies. NW (Talk) 18:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're much more likely to be current on behavioural standards than I. I am just being cautious. Thank you. - brenneman 22:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Re-elected arbs

I guess the plan was to treat only the new ones because we know the re-elected ones. This was an attempt to limit the work involved for us, and more importantly to limit the size of the page, which is already on the long side. Do you have time to write the extra blurbs? :-) Tony (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. I don't really think I have the time to research and write the blurbs, so I shall comment it out for now. NW (Talk) 02:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm tuckered out with Signpost and the election. So much work. Tony (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:ILLEGIT

I saw you clerking here.[7] Are editors allowed to log out in order to comment in ArbCom proceedings? WP:ILLEGIT would seem to say they are not.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I debated for a while whether to remove the comment or not. I eventually decided not to. The arbitrators know enough when to take anonymous views into account, and when not to, and it's probably less drama this way. If you want to remove it though, you are more than free to; I would back you on that. NW (Talk) 04:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's let it stand. It appears to be a respectable point of view being expressed, and we don't know for a fact that there's a registered user behind the IP. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The user claims to be without an account, so AGF indicates taking that at face value.   Will Beback  talk  10:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

May your family have
a joyous holiday season
and a new year blessed
with hope and happiness.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

• The Ceremonies for Christmas
  Day (Robert Herrick)
  
  Kindle the Christmas brand, and then
     Till sunset let it burn;
  Which quench'd, then lay it up again
     Till Christmas next return.
  
  Part must be kept wherewith to teend
     The Christmas log next year,
  And where 'tis safely kept, the fiend
     Can do no mischief there.

  

  ---

  If you don't celebrate Christmas ...

  Happy (belated) Hanukkah! Happy Eid al-Adha! Happy Kwanzaa! And of course, Happy Festivus!

  May this holiday season bring you the music of laughter, the warmth of friendship, and the steadying hand of love. ☃

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Date delinking

Hi NW. You archived this amendment request with no action being taken, I personally feel some action should be taken. Since Lightmouse has undeniably violated the terms of the ArbCom-imposed restrictions, would it be appropriate to file a request for enforcement? Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's at least three weeks stale, by now, isn't it? NW (Talk) 02:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it did overlap with the elections slightly, and Newyorkbrad suggested that it should be put on hold until the elections were over. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Lightmouse said he would be filing another request after New Year's Day anyway, so the ball will be in ArbCom's court after that. Best to just let it be for now, I would think. NW (Talk) 02:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well. If Lightmouse does make a request for the restrictions to be lifted, would it technically be possible for them to be enforced instead through the same request? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit too hypothetical for me. Could you explain further please? NW (Talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well basically what I think needs to happen is the amendment allowing Lightmouse to run one approved task from the Lightbot account should be reverted, restoring the previous situation baring Lightmouse from running any bots or semi-automated processes. What I want to know is, to achieve this, would I need to make a specific request to arbcom for this to happen? Or would it be possible for them to do this through the request Lightmouse plans? - MobileKingpin (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That could be done at the same time. What should happen is this: Lightmouse files his request. You make a statement saying that you think that ArbCom should not grant Lightmouse's request, and instead they should revoke his (semi-)automated editing privileges. ArbCom can then decide which way they want to go. NW (Talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks for your advice, I'll let this be for now as you suggest. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 lgbt rights

ive posted on the talk page there and will be glad to discuss matter with you there. DADT is certainyl a right, but the article is not a list for every process. the repeal has not passed law yet until obama signs it. The process of how a bill is passed (and if youre american then we all see this silly cartoon thereof in high school government) involves both houses (check) and the president signature (uncheck).

btw- there is no question about the DADT being related to the rights, but the article is not a "Timeline of LGBT events." anyway, its all in talk. and i created a new section at Talk:2010_in_LGBT_rights#Review_additions. ill be more than willing to discuss with you the issued you disagree, but atleast try to discuss? if you then want your version int he interim thats fine.(Lihaas (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)).

As you can see the discussion is appreciated in attempt (particularly as an admin, if the others are admins then its despairing the way they edit with absolure authority). Hope we can make progress on this issue finally.Lihaas (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving an FA

I answered an adminhelp request at User talk:SunCreator#Question for administrator for help in moving the article Hawksbill turtle. There seems to be a sensible reason, but you move-protected it in April with edit summary "Move-protecting all featured articles". Is there some reason not to move an FA, or some special procedure to do it? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and move it. That move protection run that I did (50 odd articles, maybe?) wasn't the smartest series of admin actions that I ever did. NW (Talk) 20:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!

Dear NuclearWarfare, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 14:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy heads up

Hi. I just thought you might like to know that a former adoptee of yours is under evaluation at CCI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9. Sorry. :( I'm not suggesting that you will or will not (or should or should not) have input there, but I just thought you'd like to know. If it was somebody I had coached, I would. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll probably not get involved too much. Just one thing I noticed: I thought wavesignal.com should be all clear to use.

Oh, but apparently not. Silly retroactivity. Still, I wouldn't anticipate a problem with getting the content dually-licensed. NW (Talk) 02:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, retroactivity is a pain. :P If the guy was good with GFDL, I'm sure he'll be fine with CC-By-SA. Or, well,I hope so, anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead picture at Abortion

Okay, I considered giving the boilerplate "Please discuss major changes to the lead on the article's talkpage before making them," but - really? You really thought that would be a compromise rather than something even more unsuitable? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If anything, the current image is against consensus. I figured that using another image that is already in the article might be a better idea. Clearly you disagree; fine. But can we do this calmly? NW (Talk) 06:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The current consensus appears to be either for the Angkor Wat image or for no image. Really, what made you think that an embryo image was such a good choice that you didn't even need to discuss it with other editors first? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi NW. Would it be possible to revdel a vandal's edit from my talkpage. It is the IP edit I just reverted. Thank you very much and Best of the Season to you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - just happened to be here ;) - Alison ^❤ 10:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 31 hours. --Bsadowski1 10:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Alison and Bsadowski. Have a wonderful Holiday Season. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 10:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the two of you for handling it! I don't have the admin tools at the moment, but it is nice that I have so helpful talk page watchers :) NW (Talk) 15:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much NW for the courtesy and the clarification. I hope I see you back in the admin corps and soon :). Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein accusations

Regarding the below message:

What part of telling the truth do you have a problem with, Sandstein? The article had more than zero sources, therefore the claim to have had "zero sources" is, at best, an incorrect falsehood. I was actually giving the editors some credit, that perhaps they were intelligent enough to be able to tell the difference between "zero" and "one" or "zero" and "two," etc. I therefore concluded that the falsehoods were deliberate, not mistakes.Ryoung122 01:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's check the verifiable facts:

A. Asa Takii's article had one source listed when it was nominated for deletion:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:l9DP1VmuH-wJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Takii+Asa%2BTakii&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

B. DavidinDC commented that there were "zero" sources, which was not true.

C. Sandstein closed the AFD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asa_Takii

I'm extremely disappointed so far in Wikipedia. When Wikipedia was founded in 2003, they asked "expert" to contribute their time and accumulated knowledge, FREE OF CHARGE, to get Wikipedia off the ground.

Since then, it has in many ways become a battleground, a chess match, which it should not be.

Facts are facts.

1. Asa Takii's article existed 7+ years.

2. Asa Takii was Japan's oldest person at the time of her death.

3. There was enough sourceable material to save the article.

4. The AFD was closed in a biased manner by someone who closed several of them.

5. Accusations of lying (i.e., the Asa Takii article had no sources) and cabalism are easy to document when people people make statements like this one:

JJB

 Posted: Dec 26 2010, 08:40 AM

Report Post Youngster Group: Members Posts: 1 Member No.: 1,052 Joined: 12-December 10

I'll tell you what shes doing, by taking away the flags, shes showing that there's no need for articles about supercentenarians in each nation. Shes making the way for me to delete articles on all the supercentenarians who arent the WOP.

John J. Bulten

"She" is referring to another editor on Wikipedia, Brown-Haired Girl:

DHanson317 Posted: Dec 25 2010, 11:18 PM Report Post

Group: Members Posts: 40 Member No.: 1,043 Joined: 31-October 10

User BrownHairedGirl has decided herself the necessity to remove all flags. Why she's doing this now, I do not know.

In fairness to Brown-Haired Girl, it is apparent that she had not contributed to the current debate for 3+ years when JJBulten, pushing his own agenda, decided to "recruit" her for his goals, which includes to "delete articles on all the supercentenarians who aren't the WOP".

So, we have a system that has failed to consider the facts impartially, instead flagging the response to the inappropriate behavior, rather than the original infractions.

I suppose this is why we need to have an ArbCom discussion on this.Ryoung122 01:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you have posted on this my talk page. NW (Talk) 04:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 in LGBT rights

Well, if there are more eyeballs looking at it, I'm happy, even if the attempt went through like a housefire. I think I'll stay away from it for as long as I can manage. I wouldn't want to antagonize Lihaas any further. Circéus (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

see Talk:2010_in_LGBT_rights#dubious_.22rights.22_insertion and the edit history with the other editor (before me)(Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)).

Activity on cases

I will be active on Longevity. I may move active on WWII if it spills over into the new year; you'll know if I move on that case because I'll vote on it. Cool Hand Luke 15:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll make the necessary updates. NW (Talk) 18:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks hatnote

Hi,

I've read over the discussion at Talk:WikiLeaks/Archive 3#Note about association with Wikipedia, and unfortunately I cannot possibly agree with your conclusion that the consensus is to make exception to WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Several editors made very good points in confirming that this is precisely what that guideline is intended to address, and there does not appear to be a firm counterargument. Indeed, even if one were to argue that weight of numbers were applicable (which it isn't), there wouldn't be a consensus tin favour of a disclaimer here. Accordingly, I've removed it; feel free to ping me if you disagree. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you letting me know about this. Unfortunately, I must agree with this edit. Consensus needed to be assessed by someone, and I went ahead and cut the Gordian Knot. The proper place to object to that would be at AN(I), I would think, not through use of reversion. NW (Talk) 22:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Has World War II ended?

HI NW, your recent edit at Template:ArbComOpenTasks removed the entry for World War II. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it did, in 1945 :)

I had copied and modified the WWII entry to add the new case request, and I guess I forgot to add it back. Thanks for the catch. NW (Talk) 21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 19:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Restrictions logged in WP:RESTRICT for WP:ARBAA people may not be correct

Hello NW. Please see my recent comment in an AE request. I believe that all the original editing restrictions from WP:ARBAA have expired, since they had a one-year limit. WP:RESTRICT seems to be wrong, since it shows them as being indefinite. See for example the entry for User:Atabek. Should I go and try to fix these? I think the expired entries are usually deleted. The ARBAA and ARBAA2 cases are from 2007 and I think that the standards for record-keeping may not have been as perfect then. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think (but haven't had the time to look into fully) that the remedies were extended in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Remedies. I could be wrong though. Would you like to investigate further? NW (Talk) 00:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is Penwhale's closing of ARBAA2 on 27 August, 2007. One of the remedies was:

1) Hajji Piruz and the other users placed on revert limitation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan#Remedies are subject to supervised editing. They may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should they fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in their interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.

I see that the next day Penwhale left a notice for Dacy69 indicating that he was placed under supervised editing as the result of AA2. He's writing as though that were an Arbcom decision. Dacy69 was not sanctioned by name in AA2; he is included in the decision merely as one of the sanctionees from AA1. Do you think this is saying that Dacy69 is under perpetual supervised editing? There is no mention of a desire by Arbcom to extend either supervised editing or the revert restriction beyond one year. It would be more natural to assume that Arbcom meant that supervised editing lasted as long as the revert restriction imposed under AA1, which was for one year. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would interpret ArbCom's intent differently, that anyone who had been sanctioned for one year in AA1 was to be placed on supervised editing indefinitely as a result of AA2. But I see where the confusion arises. Perhaps the best way to resolve it is via a request for clarification? NW (Talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It probably doesn't matter whether the duration of supervised editing is infinite. The discretionary sanctions are already enough for any admin to take action on if problems arise, and the discretionary sanctions are infinite. The more pressing question is whether the 1RR/week restrictions on individuals were extended by ARBAA2. Since there is no mention of any revert restriction in the decision, I suggest we should assume not, unless Arbcom tells us otherwise. Kirill might know about this, because he offered this motion in January 2008. (Note the section about 'sanctions already imposed under the old remedies'). EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Involuntary committal of Victor Győry

Hi, I noticed in your AfD nomination you cited several news sources related to Involuntary committal of Victor Győry, that is:

1. Delaware County Daily Times – Chester, Pennsylvania – Wednesday, July 23, 1969 – Page 9 - ~3/4 column
2. Delaware County Daily Times – Chester, Pennsylvania – Tuesday, January 06, 1970 – Page 13 - ~1 column
3. Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph – Colorado Springs, Colorado – Friday, July 05, 1974 – Page 17 - 1/3 column

I added them to the article assuming good faith on your part, but several editors are objecting. Therefore I wanted to know if you can provide on Talk:Involuntary committal of Victor Győry a copy of these sources or detailing what is their content. Thanks a lot. --Cyclopia^talk 16:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cyclopia. I commented at Talk:Involuntary_committal_of_Victor_Győry#removed. NW (Talk) 02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Ball

Thank you for being so helpful and assuming good faith. Would you mind looking this over and letting me know if I should post it on the DRV (ha!) page?

I had a hard time finding this page. Was I supposed to find it?

I'm not sure I understand what's OK to say on the review of the deletion. How's this?

The decision seems to have been made on the strength of the argument that Ball is not a notable academic. It seemed to ignore or discount the argument that he's a notable denier, or as one editor put it, crank. There was one main argument for delete with 9-10 supporting points, and two for keep, one with five supporting points and one that stood alone, as follows:

Delete 1. No high impact scholarly work 2. No highly prestigious awards 3. Not a member of National Academy, etc. 4. No significant impact in higher ed 5. Not distinguished 6. Not uni administrator (7. Iffy no substantial impact outside academia (Disputed by —depends on how substantial. No celebrity, but people who followed climate change news certainly knew of him) 8. Not editor 9. Not in lit or fine arts 10. Few publications

En fin:--Not notable as an academic or scientist

Keep 1. Has barely made sufficient impact outside academia 2. Known as climate change contrarian 3. Covered by mainstream press as well as the blogosphere 4. Appeared as main speaker on TV 5. Appears in many venues to argue against AGW

En fin: Notable as an anti-AGW activist

Keep Article is a service to the public

Regards, Yopienso (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The debate can be accessed through the "XfD" link in the initial series of links—The X is used because oftimes things other that articles are brought to deletion review, such as templates (T), files (F), miscellany (userpages and Wikipedia-space pages, shortened to M).

My advice is that such a post would be rearguing the AFD again. A better approach I think might be to quote my decision and then add your own comments on how you believe I analysed specific points incorrectly.

An example might be:

"The closing statement said: "We need sources. As WP:SIGCOV puts it, "sources address the subject directly in detail...Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" (emphasis mine). Most of the news references brought up address Ball for a few sentences at most; I fail to see how that qualifies as "more than a trivial mention"." I disagree, because..." NW (Talk) 06:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't get the links&mddash bit, but clicking of XfD got me the page! Yopienso (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, formatting error. Fixed! NW (Talk) 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking these remarks don't really belong on the revdev page, but I must admit I itching to make them.

First, I think it's important to note members of the pro-AGW faction decided to get rid of as many bios of skeptics as possible, starting with Ball as a test case. I personally see this as collusion and censorship. I don't think any single editor or group of editors should be permitted to embark upon a campaign to get rid of stuff they don't like. I'm all for campaigns to clean up BLPs, to edit articles into GAs and FAs, anything aimed at improving individual articles and the encyclopedia as a whole. But as I say on my user page, This user believes Wikipedia should be neutral and unbiased. "Just the facts, Ma'am." And not just the facts, but all the facts pertinent to the issue at hand: "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." Verifiable, of course!  ;-) . . . This user believes Wikipedia should never resort to chucking anything down Orwell's memory hole. Ever! We shouldn't be trying to control the past, present, or future, but recording the facts as accurately and succinctly as humanly possible. My strong personal feeling, which, as I understand it, agrees with Jimbo's, is that WP is supposed to be as unbiased and informative as possible. I understand and agree that fringe stuff should not be accorded equal weight, but I do not think we should suppress the fact that it exists. If you'll reread my comments on the original AfD, you'll see I think we should reveal any and all faults and fallacies Ball has or promotes. I am not pro-Ball or pro-AGW, just pro-Get-the-facts-out-there.

Second, I doubt the editors wanting to delete this BLP are unaware there is a much less worthy one of William Connelley. He is far less notable than Ball, and almost all the footnotes go to his own writing. He was mentioned once in the New Yorker and once in Nature, not for his academic work, but as a WP editor. The articles were about Wikipedia, not about him. The reason I think we should keep that BLP is, frankly, because I like knowing that stuff. Dr. Connelley is notable among the ranks of WP editors; I personally would appreciate a whole cyber scrapbook of BLPs on as many WP editors who would care to be so scrutinized. They could be in a special category or marked with a certain colored checkmark or something in the upper right-hand corner to show they are blurbs on editors, not actual WP articles, even though otherwise they would be indistinguishable from "real" articles. Enough on that.

Third, how can the man who, By his activism, his constant and so-often ill-informed criticism of scientists who were actually working in the field of climate change, Ball had, by 2006, established himself as Canada's pre-eminent global warming denier, not be notable? Hoggan and Littlemore, for heaven's sakes, wrote in Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming,

"Ball-the-climate-expert seemed to be everywhere--on the radio, in the newspapers, on the lecture circuit, even testifying before a committee in the Canadian parliament."

I see no justification for the claim that Ball in not notable enough for a WP bio.

QUICK SUMMARY

Is it appropriate to note on the Revdev page that 1. The deletion of the Ball BLP was a planned maneuver. 2. We have a BLP of Dr. Connelley, who is less notable. 3. Ball's notability is disputed only by WP editors who do not care to have a BLP on him. Yopienso (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cabal arguments are generally not taken very well at AFD/DRV; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS covers the Connolley argument. But the third argument might be fine to make as an addendum, if you wish. NW (Talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you like the diff where the plot was hatched to delete the Ball BLP? This is not my imagination or a baseless allegation. There's no cabal that meets covertly, but there's a faction that openly controls such matters. There's another faction that openly resists that faction. You are certainly aware Arbcom has been hashing this out for months. I strive to avoid factionalism, going more for "fact-ism." :-) Find the verifiable facts and let the pieces fall where they may.

As much as it galls me, I know how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works against reason and against the fair and even application of criteria. It's not a pillar or a policy, but a stranglehold wielded by the aforementioned faction. Nonetheless, the summary says, "Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing."

Just as one rational, intelligent, informed human being to another, why would Richard Littlemore of the DesmogBlog spend so much time railing against Ball if he did not perceive him as a threat? April 19, 2010. List of references to Ball. 33 pages of it!! I don't know if any of it is redundant, but Littlemore clearly sees Ball as a major player.

Unless you ask me for the diff, I'm going to try to step back now, or at least pipe down a little. Sincere thanks for your civility. Yopienso (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I remember what you are talking (SBHB at the one of the Climate change talk pages?). If so, my recollection/interpretation is a bit different. As far as DeSmogBlog goes, well, I have my thoughts, but I would prefer to keep them to myself for now. Nice talking to you :) NW (Talk) 05:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Gay couple.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Gay couple.jpg. 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. Wi2g 20:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#O Fenian

okay, ive no idea why my name keeps coming. ive REFRAINED from warring. that said i gave my piece on the admin board. but still not warred.(Lihaas (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

btw- what baout our lgbt rights page? weve one issue left?(Lihaas (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

Can we just agree to disagree on that one and leave it in? NW (Talk) 05:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

which part? comment on that page though.(Lihaas (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)).

Lihaas, NW didn't add you, I did, because your edits were reverted by O Fenian as well. Please don't blame him for my actions. Unfortunately I accidentally put the notification on your User page, not your Talk page, he was kind enough to correct my error. Any fault here is strictly mine, and I humbly apologize for any confusion caused, it is also strictly my doing. (Re-thanking NW for his help of course) Trelane (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)