User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

IRC ping

You rang? GlassCobra 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

He's extremely sick and seems to have logged off for the day. DARTH PANDA^duel 21:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I had pinged you, but the matter resolved itself last night. Everything is fine :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, NuclearWarfare! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Galib is wishing you a Happy New Year. This card promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day much better. Best Wishes and Happy Editing!

Best To Reply At My Talk Page. Thanks.

Just Stopping by. Yours Truly, M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 15:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC) .

{{tb}}

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Dylan620 (Contribs · Sign!) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

Ok, it's taken me a while to get to you and I'm not going to finish you tonight, but will probably only look at your CSD work... but here ya go:

1) The other day you nominated an article for CSD per A7. A7 is ok, but it should have been nomed G10. The article had "who had a child at 16 and since then spent all her money on trying to make it into playboy industry instead of taking care of her child. she the father is unknown but rumers she doesnt know who it is." This clearly makes it an attack page on the subject, and G10 is treated by some differently than other criteria. A7 is a little more ambiguous and G10 says, "delete me first" and "don't undelete me!"

2) You nom'ed another article for A7 which made the following statement: Currently the lead singer and keyboardist for "Ernie And the Automatics" which features original and former members of the band "Boston" Barry Goudreau on guitar and Sib Hashian on Drums. A7 explicitly sets a lower threshold than WP:N. This article clearly failed WP:N and WP:MUSIC, but it did meet the threshold to avoid A7. A7 only asks for a claim to significance or importance. Being the lead singer and keyboardist for a band that includes two former members of the group Boston is a claim to significance. Goudreau and Hashian's membership in a group might give the group "Ernie and the Automatics" enough clout to be notable, and being the lead singer of such a group might in turn be enough. I'm not saying that it is, but it is clearly enough to avoid A7. (which it didn't, but the fact that it was deleted does not mean that the admin's actions were correct.)

3) You nomed the following as A1, pug chiwawas arer so damn cute! i have 1 and her name i lucy loo lucy for short i love her she sucks my brains uy with her tongue<!she has a myspace lucy is her name lucy labbelle look her up!!!!-- <small>Comment</small><sub>^{Subscript text}<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><s>#REDIRECT [[Strike-through text]] It was deleted as G2---the breaks and subscript texts et al are enough for me to say this was a test page. It could have also be deleted as G3, vandalism per the "sucks my brains uy with her tongue". A1 isn't really a good deletion, as the subject is clear---Pug Chiwawas.

4) Another A7, His actions as an Combat MP and Squad Leader proved his combat experience was very Valuable to the U.S. Army. Again, the threshold for A7 is lower standard than notability. One only has to make a claim as to why the subject is important or significant. PROD/AFD---it might get SNOW'd, but suppose this person was awarded medals for his leadership? Or was written up in a magazine for his heroism? There isn't enough in the article right now to keep, it but you never know. (EDIT: Also think of the psychological affect on the person who wrote the article... while that is not a valid reason not to delete an article, we are human and it might be a reason not to speedy delete an article. Give the writer a chance to feel like due process was served.)

5) Another A7, This led to performances at the White House and the Kennedy Center, as well as a European concert series. Performances at the White House, Kennedy Center, European concert series, are claims at importance/significance. As well as claiming to have an album mastered by Grammy Award-winning recording legend Phil "Butcher Bros." Again, it doesn't have to meet the guidelines for MUSIC/N to avoid an A7.

These 5 cases are in your last 50 deleted edits---2 should have been deleted under a different criteria, and 3 should not have been CSD'd. The fact that others deleted them does not mean that their tagging was correct or that those who deleted them did so correctly, in fact, the survey that I've done (which can be accessed via my signature) shows how often some of these tags are misapplied. But 5 of your last 50 deleted edits (about 1/4 of which were not CSD's on your part) would be more than enough for me to write a strong oppose at an RfA. You might want to review my essay Why I hate Speedy Deleters and BadlyDrawnJeff's essay Field guide to proper speedy deletion. The later is a little dated, but still valid. I'll look at your other edits later, but now it is bed time.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your mini-review Balloonman. I have read both of those essays, but it is probably time for me to look over my speedy deletion practices again if I've been making these types of mistakes. I'll read both of those essays over and take greater care in evaluating any actions I take. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote more, but I guess I didn't save it... I can't find it here, you history, my edit contributions or any of my windows. Over all, most of your edits are ok... the criticisms from your past RfA are mostly the types that can be fixed/rectified easily. I saw that you removed the IRC channels, this is good as IRC can be seen negatively. Also pay attention to your reasoning in AFD debates.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, it happens. Also, for the AfD issue that you mentioned, have I been doing anything wrong? Do you think you could show me an example of where I messed up, please?

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry I didn't tell you that I'd be gone for the holidays. I just saw the note you left for me at the Season 3 FLC. Glad you fixed it by yourself though, but I'll see what I can do about it. I've already done an extensive search of Firefox.org, but I haven't found anything that suggests that firefox.org could be unreliable.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia operates more on a guilty until proven innocent system. --haha169 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to tell me what quote it was that you replaced? I'll see if I can come up with a convincing argument to keep it there. --haha169 (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. It was the one I removed in this edit. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting quote, all right, but wouldn't it be more appropriate in the Iroh article? If it was something more opinionated on how great/bad the show was...but I don't think I can think of something here. You can maybe try citing the episode itself...--haha169 (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. I've moved it to the Iroh article. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Cassinga

Good day. The last edit you made to Battle of Cassinga removed a bunch of references. Please could you check how this happened - I suspect it may be a problem with the bot you used. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I undid your undo :) My edit summary here explains why, but basically I was converting duplicate references into the same ref tag with a ref name so that it could be used more easily. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, no problem. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Climie.ca's RfA

You did the right thing. To be candid, I was focused on his acceptance rather than the questions. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But he messed up as far as I can tell, he didn't tell the candidate what he did! ALWAYS notify the candidate! ;-) ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I can't believe I didn't do that. Thanks for doing that for me Balloonman :) NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whack!

That's excellent! Can I have one too please? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, questions answered. Feel free to restart the process. Cam ^(Chat) 23:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Brian Maes

 Done article restored. My apologies for the trouble. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

Per this. I am genuinely sorry! It was not my intention at all to cause offence. I will certainly refrain from using that sentence again in the future. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 03:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tis OK. I take no lasting offense. I just didn't like seeing my name popping up so often at RfA; I don't like broadcasting it everywhere :) I have issue with you though; be sure of that :) You're a great editor :D NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 03:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Hi. Good site" vandalism - was Topic-comment

Hi. I see you just reverted a "Hi. Good site" comment at this article. Have a look at its recent history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Topic-comment&action=history ... does this make any sense to you? I am baffled. Is it a meme or game or something, do you think?? Cheers DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's really weird. I would have said a bunch of friends, but the IPs indicate that they are all from separate places. My guess is that its some sort of random game from a forum. Reverting and moving on is probably the best option. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe something like that. Yes, weird! Oh well - as you say, revert and move on! Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly (well a bit interestingly, if you're me ...), it has also been discussed here. They seem to think it is a bot. To be honest, as I see it (which, OK, has no authority but whatthehell) it's (at present) not causing that much disruption and seems to usually get reverted quickly, and if not I suppose there is always Google. Silly, but hey: Thames not yet on fire. Cheers! DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Chubz

He attends Creekside middle School.He already has 2 singles and an album.His rapper name is Chubz. He has performed twice. That doesn't qualify for speedy deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.215.181 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He already has 2 singles and an album that is the part that at least says there might be some notability here. CSD should be ignored in this case and Prod should be used instead. I still believe my action was correct, based on what I've learned from User:Balloonman. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 16:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Do lies qualify as claims of notability? Thanks for your insight, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.215.181 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD does not check if they are falsehoods or not. Unless they are completely blatant lies, all claims should be treated as true. What if this guy was indeed a child rap prodigy? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Xeno question

Thanks for your response. Can you point me to a few responses to the Xeno question and let me know which ones you considered better or poorer? I'm genuinely interested, since it is an interesting scenario. Geometry guy 23:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me just explain my reasoning of what I think is the "proper" answer for this question. There are four possible actions to do in this case:

1. Deny the unblock request
2. Drop a {{2nd chance}} template
3. Unblock the user
4. Leave the review for another admin

In my mind, 1 is unacceptable. As the blocking admin, it is far too much of a conflict of interest to deny an unblock request. 2 is a little iffy in my mind as well, as you are still technically denying an unblock request. 3 or 4 are probably the best solutions.

I went back through the successful promotions of the last 5 months and searched for this question. I'd estimate that 40% chose options 1 or 2, something that is unacceptable to me. The others, which I'm about to link, chose either the 3rd or 4th option.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10].

Hope this helps! Feel free to come back to my talk page at any time! NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 00:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. In answers to questions like this, I attach more weight to the reasoning used by the editor than the conclusion. I agree that 3 and 4 are better answers, but there's a lot of variation on how such an answer was reached. Geometry guy 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)