| Revision as of 19:02, 5 February 2010 editA Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,193 edits →Can you please?: Cmt← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:56, 5 February 2010 edit undoNuclearWarfare (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators83,665 edits →Can you please?: apologiesNext edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| :I have to agree wtih AQFK. There was nothing constructive about your assumption of bad faith Nuke. The report on edit warring looks legitimate to me and should be treated as such. The fact that there are numerous reports on William's behavior is a direct reflection of his highly abusive conduct. ] (]) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | :I have to agree wtih AQFK. There was nothing constructive about your assumption of bad faith Nuke. The report on edit warring looks legitimate to me and should be treated as such. The fact that there are numerous reports on William's behavior is a direct reflection of his highly abusive conduct. ] (]) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::ChildofMidnight: I don't think your accusation of bad faith is helpful. I would rather think that NW simply made an honest mistake and confused me with some other editor. ] (]) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ::ChildofMidnight: I don't think your accusation of bad faith is helpful. I would rather think that NW simply made an honest mistake and confused me with some other editor. ] (]) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :I do apologize for that remark AQFK. I had been getting quite frustrated at the battleground nature that climate change articles seem to have become. ChildofMidnight is right; I did assume that this was a bad faith report filed in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Looking back at the evidence after some sleep and with an undistracted brain, I can see that my statement wasn't really called for and wasn't really accurate either. My apologies. <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:56, 5 February 2010
I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Eastern Front image
You removed the image under a wrong pretext. The policy says "no free equivalent", not "no free substitute". The image you removed has no free equivalent, so the fact that it can be substituted with something else has no relation to what the policy says. I believe it would be correct if you to reverted your edit and restored a stable version until consensus is achieved.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have reverted back to an older revision for now. As for if the image should belong in the infobox, I believe that is a matter better suited for the article talk page. NW (Talk) 01:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You continued to revert after the page was protected. You should not have done this. Even if we ignore the fact that the image does not meet the NFCC, it should not be there. This is really not on. You have really, really crossed the line here. I advise you fix this. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, not only did I self-revert, but I reverted to the version before the edit war, which is clearly allowed per WP:PREFER. Further discussion of this can take place on the talk page. NW (Talk) 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It became an edit war when the image was added back for no good reason. This is semantics. I stand by what I said, I feel your continued reversion was wholly inappropriate. You know as well as I do that that image should not be there; being polite and giving everyone a chance to be right for ten minutes can go to hell... J Milburn (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I need an admin to take a look at this, if you have a minute.
Hi, could you please take a look at Talk:David Lewis Anderson and User talk:Nothughthomas and tell me if I'm way off base here? This is the first time I get this sort of reaction from a fellow editor and I don't really know what to say/do. I feel bad since it seems they've given up on WP, but I don't feel like I was wrong regarding the CSD discussion. Please do let me know. XXX antiuser 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I really don't have time to take a detailed look at this. Could you ask on WP:ANI please? Thanks. NW (Talk) 03:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I went ahead and did that. XXX antiuser 07:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov
Hi, I notice that you have closed the debate as "No consensus, default to delete per subject request." Is there actually an WP policy which takes the views of a BLP subject into account? Varsovian (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yep; you can see it at Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Biographies of living people. NW (Talk) 15:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply.Varsovian (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I came here to tell you that I considered submitting for a DRV, because I think it is inappropriate that the same admin that receives the request closes the AfD, and also that no consensus defaults to keep. I wasn't aware of the policy mentioned above, so I guess another admin could still close it as delete. Still, as a matter of principle, I wonder how do you prevent people from just claiming the subject requested deletion? If I was to demand proof that he indeed has requested so, how would you confirm it? Thank you for satisfying my curiosity. victor falk 11:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you demanded proof, I would forward the email conversation to an oversighter that I trust. Since they are cleared by the WMF to handle non-public information, I hope their word would be good enough for you as well. NW (Talk) 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick reply; may I ask what reasons he provided if any for not having an article? victor falk 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I would really prefer not to share that, unless you have a reason beyond pure curiosity. If you do have a legitimate reason to know, please tell me, and I will ask him if it is appropriate to tell you. NW (Talk) 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, it's only pure curiosity; I haven't been involved in an AfD before where the subject requested deletion. I like to know how things work, that's why I edit wikipedia... This OTRS thing that Spartaz speaks about sounds like the right thing to do.¨ victor falk 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I would really prefer not to share that, unless you have a reason beyond pure curiosity. If you do have a legitimate reason to know, please tell me, and I will ask him if it is appropriate to tell you. NW (Talk) 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the quick reply; may I ask what reasons he provided if any for not having an article? victor falk 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the most obvious thing would be to forward the email to OTRS and were this an OTRS email it would breach the foundation privacy policy to reveal the contents to a third party. Spartaz 15:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Help needed
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,
No, no vandal(s) now, but i think your valuable assistance is needed. Some user (DEFINITELY a fan of the club due to his username) moved a page, needlessly enlarging Gimnàstic de Tarragona (Spanish soccer club)'s name. It now stands Club Gimnàstic de Tarragona S.A.D. and i would like to have it reinstated in its previous denomination, if you please.
Example: it's like having an article as such: instead of BARACK OBAMA, then BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (and to add insult to injury, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA Phd, that's superfluous). In the case of the football club i mentioned, S.A.D. stands for Sociedad Anónima Deportiva (Spanish for Anonymous Sporting Society), that is highly uneeded in an article's name and, besides, the full name is mentioned (as in 99,99999999% of other clubs, not 100% because this user "ruined" the average) in INTRO, so, in this club, Gimnàstic de Tarragona would suffice, methinks. Also, it has created a number of needless redirects now, and, in the future, when creating more players for this club, it will take a lot longer because of the enlarged name of the club.
Attentively, from Portugal,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Vasco. I have moved the page back per your request. Hope everything looks good now. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Problem with Block Shopping
I'm really having a very serious issue with User:antiuser. Despite my best efforts he is engaged in lobbying many multiple users against me, as a result of the speedy deletion of a UFO conspiracy article he was engaged in. He's working overtime to flood admin Talk pages with every conceivable complaint and I simply don't have the bandwidth to keep up and jump from page to page to page, 24/7, defending myself. I have no doubt that, if you shop around to enough admins eventually you can get anyone banned on wikipedia. I think my days here are likely numbered and I'm at a loss of what to do. I think an ANI complaint would simply make matters worse as it would lead to more lobbying and "block shopping" and I don't want to reply in kind by "block shopping" because I don't think it's contributive to a positive environment. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- I really don't have the time to look into this. Might I suggest a few administrators if you need some assistance? User:Juliancolton, User:Tiptoety, User:Tanthalas39 all might be able to help. NW (Talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Speedy Keep of some AfD's
Hi there, I noticed you had dedcided to speedily close a couple of AfDs as keeps. I was wondering what the rationale was behind the decision to speedy keep? The debates were Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/GermaniumWeb and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spectrum Health. Cheers. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- They were nominated by a sockpuppet of a banned user. I really ought to have put that in the closing summary. My mistake. NW (Talk) 00:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, makes sense now :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to ask the same question, then looked around and found the sockpuppet indication. But still I would suggest the nominations were arguably right, the 2 articles not notable, and the AfDs could have been kept open to see if consensus was found. Sussexonian (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to renominate those articles for deletion if you wish. This speedy closure was done completely without prejudice to a future nomination. NW (Talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Now, for something completely different...
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,
Now, we DO have a vandal - the same!!! - new account User:Ghf098 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ghf098), please block and revert all, except Kabwe Kasongo, which i will myself improve/arrange.
Funny how this "person" still has not attacked me in any wiki-way. I know his level of English is appalling, even though he edits from the country, but it's really odd (although i don't complain the least :) ).
Cheers, and thanks a million for the recent page move, keep it up,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Done NW (Talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you please?
Can you please remove, strike-through or revise your following statement here. I believe that this is the first time I've filed a request for enforcement on this editor. To say that I am "filing report after report" is simply not accurate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have to agree wtih AQFK. There was nothing constructive about your assumption of bad faith Nuke. The report on edit warring looks legitimate to me and should be treated as such. The fact that there are numerous reports on William's behavior is a direct reflection of his highly abusive conduct. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- ChildofMidnight: I don't think your accusation of bad faith is helpful. I would rather think that NW simply made an honest mistake and confused me with some other editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do apologize for that remark AQFK. I had been getting quite frustrated at the battleground nature that climate change articles seem to have become. ChildofMidnight is right; I did assume that this was a bad faith report filed in an attempt to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. Looking back at the evidence after some sleep and with an undistracted brain, I can see that my statement wasn't really called for and wasn't really accurate either. My apologies. NW (Talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)