User talk:NuclearWarfare

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

IPCC

I see you've edited it. In that case, maybe you'd like to join the discussion at requests for prot as to whether it should be unprotected or not? Oh, I've just looked, everyone is too scared of arbcomm to touch it or even dare comment :-( What a happy place wikipedia is nowadays William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel the article probably ought to be unprotected (quote me on this if you wish), but everyone is too scared of arbcomm to touch it or even dare comment :-( is probably pretty accurate, with the additional caveat that I really don't have time to take that detailed of a look; I have been able to come online for just very small time intervals recently. However, John Vandenberg is right in that an extra few days (even two weeks, really) or so probably won't hurt all that much. I'll check on the talk page discussion tomorrow, as it seems well on the way to resolving itself. If everything seems OK, I'll check with Jayvdb about unprotecting the article. NW (Talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Woo careful, you can get into trouble for saying that kind of thing [1] :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A clearly labeled sarcastic comment obviously designed juxtapose both situations in hope that John Vandenberg would see things from your perspective is certainly not the same as you being "uncivil and antagonistic to...toward administrators..." I'm disappointed with that diff, but then again, I am rather disappointed a great deal by this proposed decision. NW (Talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Rlevese is running away from it :-). Meanwhile, did you get anywhere with Jayvdb? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That was rather interesting about Rlevse. I am just as much in the dark as you about why; the clerks-l email thread didn't explain anything really.

I haven't spoken to Jayvdb yet. I did however post on the talk page of IPCC with something to refocus the discussion. NW (Talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting conversation. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Witch of Pungo

I finally found a site with a great synopsis of the details of the legal proceedings, plus one with the original court transcript plus one with the transcript in modern English. This gave me plenty for Grace Sherwood and enough for the summary in Pungo, Virginia. It's now at T:TDYK under "The Witch of Pungo". I thought you'd like to look at it and maybe review for DYK. Thanks for the prior and future help. My first double DYK hook too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Pungo. When I was a kid (in Virginia) I thought that was the coolest name for a town... Pungo, Pungo, Pungo. Right up there with Bumpass. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I actually knew someone whose last name was Bumpass or Bumpas. SBHB-feel free to help on the articles too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've put up an alt hook that'd be good for Halloween. Give it a look. Check mail too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Took a look at the page. Looks good. Emailed you back. NW (Talk) 03:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Attention please

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here, longtime "no see",

I would like for you to have a look at this situation: at László Sepsi, a Romanian user "dedicated" this summary to me (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Sepsi&diff=383274942&oldid=383161917). If you check the previous 10, 20 summaries, what did i say to make him go all "Don't edit here again, this article is MINE" (keep in mind it's about a Romanian footballer, and the user also hails from that country)? I think nothing!

Also, after he re-verted my work, he wrote the sentence, in CLUB CAREER: "He impressed at Gloria for offensive game , and has attracted the eye from Europe teams. He making 45 apparences for Gloria .", which means, of course, NOTHING in English (horrible language, mixing past and present tense, having a go at POV/WEASEL, etc). Also, not the first time he shouts at me, although this was the first time in all-caps (see previous "politeness" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmin_Contra&diff=375443917&oldid=375274919). In same section called CLUB CAREER, he divided it into sub-sections which consisted of storylines with sometimes one, yes ONE (!) line. And i have to "get out!"?!?

(Some of) the stuff in previous paragraph leads me to this: he has ZERO knowledge of English, writes almost no summaries, and does not answer to talkpage messages, sometimes not even to his countrymen (one would think he would not reply due to not knowing English, but that theory falls to the dirt when it comes to his fellow Romanian users - i know what i am talking about, i checked the latest "stuff" in his talkpage).

All in all, i told him i would watch Sepsi's article closely (please see full message from me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zupfk#Pay_attention), politely but to-the-point. I would greatly appreciate it if you could monitor this stuff (especially the Zupfk user, i will eye Sepsi's article from time to time) for a while, if it's not too much trouble.

Hope all's fine with you, keep up the great work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, that isn't so great. I haven't really the time to monitor his work, but I have left him a note on his talk page. Could you alert me if any other problems come up? NW (Talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Passed

Well, my RfA passed (just!) so I've come to leave a message here to say that I will be happy to take a look at the OTRS queue. I would like to gain a better understanding of the BLP policy and make a real attempt to show the opposers that I can be trusted. Cheers, BigDom 11:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I am quite busy now, unfortunately, but perhaps you could drop me a note about this in a week or two? NW (Talk) 18:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Is there another edit war brewing at Mass killings under Communist regimes? Is the 1RR restriction still in place? Bobanni (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for initiating the thread. A user Mark Nutley who threw absolutely artificial accusation on 1RR violation against me (part of the discussion is there [2]) now attacked another user there [3]. Since you NW are the administrator who imposed 1RR on this article, I invite you to comment on that there [4].--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you examine the "edits" closely - the current version now affirms that this is all anti-semitism <g>. Suggest reversion to the stable (that is, not cut by more than half) article with full protection at this point. Collect (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The user TFD, who is you old opponent on the article's talk page, is also a zealous opponent of any anti-Semitism. I believe, you should discuss the issue with him first: probably you both will come to some common terms at least about that. In any event, since your opposition to TFD's edits and vise versa is one of the major article's issue, it would be good if you both tried to fix anti-Semite issues together (as soon as you realised that the problem exists).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry I couldn't take a look at this for so long. It looks like the issue has moved on since then; is there anything more for me to do? NW (Talk) 18:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ramachandra Naidu Galla

Hi NW. This is a bit of an odd note, but, hey, process :-)

A few months back you closed a rather desultory deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galla Ramachandra Naidu, a scrappy article on an Indian industrialist. I came across a recreation of this on IRC today - someone repeatedly trying to delete it as no claim of notability, which didn't seem right - and I went in to clean it up and so on. Notability seemed fairly well established, but I noticed after I'd done the legwork that there'd been the early AFD, so I suppose it means I've de facto overturned your decision to close it.

Do you mind? I'm happy to run it past DRV or the like - I really don't know what the due process ought to be here - but the old discussion was pretty vague and the old article was pretty atrocious, so a recreation with sourced and significant content seems not unreasonable. But I don't want it to seem like I'm sneaking off and overturning your decisions willy-nilly, so I thought I'd run it past you! Shimgray | talk | 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I trust your judgment entirely in these matters. Feel free to take any action you wish, irregardless of any previous decision I may have made. NW (Talk) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at GregJackP's talk page.
Message added 13:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What's good for the goose...

I see that you have article-banned, GregJackP.[5] In the interest of fairness and consistency, can you please issue the same article-ban against WMC, too? He's clearly edit-warring.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

@AQFK: I think you need to read what NW wrote: viz, When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently. You are being far too simplistic by simply counting edits and disregarding content, a mistake that NW didn't make. Read the terms of the ban: it is not based on revert-count, it is based on understanding what is going on. This is in fact very similar too, if not the inverse of, the wording on the edit warring page: just as you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't hit for 4R, conversely you can be edit warring even with one revert William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I didn't think admins are allowed to rule on content issues. But even if admins are allowed to rule on content issues, that doesn't negate the fact that you are edit-warring. Two wrongs don't make a right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrong both times. Once again, read what NW wrote. It wasn't a content ruling (not that there is anything to stop admins making content rulings; it is only arbcomm that arbitrarily imposes that limit on itself, and it doesn't keep to it). And sorry I got my "converse" text a bit confused: I meant to say, really, that even lots of reverts doesn't necessarily make for edit warring. You can't do these things by edit count, much as you'd like to: it takes thought too William M. Connolley (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation regarding content issues. I wasn't aware of that. But still, it looks like you were edit-warring. Can you please explain which of those diffs shouldn't count as a revert and why? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That was covered already: you're conflating edit warring and reverting. I've tried to explain why they aren't the same thing William M. Connolley (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed that post. Where can I find the diff by diff explanation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You're down to wikilawyering / tendentiousness now William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Making unsubstantiated accusations isn't helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but *you've* just made an unsubstantiated allegation of making unsubstantiated allegations. Which was yet more pointless wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This matter was addressed at WP:AN3 by Spike Wilbury at 17:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC). His decision seems appropriate to me. NW (Talk) 01:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 17:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More suspect decisions from you

NW, since when do we allow editors to spin what they've said in reliable sources words? If, for example, Fred Singer or someone from that "side" of the debate came here and started removing stuff simply because they now assert it's not what they meant, do we allow them to do it? ATren (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would allow Fred Singer to remove content on things that he supposedly wrote, assuming it was easily verifiable that the person removing the content was actually Fred Singer. Now, should consensus on the talk page rule otherwise, the material could be included, but by no means should anyone edit war to keep the material in in the meantime. NW (Talk) 23:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that. You're biased, as proven by the lack of action against SA and the action against me. One reversion does not constitute an edit war, and you lied when you stated I "continued to edit war" the article. You sir, should be ashamed of yourself. It will be OK, I'll be topic banned (or blocked). GregJackP Boomer! 23:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, you recently started editing AGW topics. You are no longer an uninvolved editor. Even if you had banned both Greg and WMC, which would have been a more fair and logical course of action, I still wouldn't have supported it because you are involved. If you take any more admin actions related to the AGW topic, I will be reporting you to ArbCom or whichever other authority is appropriate. I'm really sorry that I had to say this to you. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that any of my admin actions is inappropriate on the basis of current involvement in the topic area, make your case now. I do not believe I have edited any CC page substantially enough to disqualify me as an involved administrator. NW (Talk) 01:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to make the case to you. You know better than me which articles you have edited and which opinions on content you have expressed on the article talk pages. If me or someone else has to make the case to a third party that you are involved, I will do so. The first time I saw you editing a CC BLP and giving an opinion on its content on the talk page, I assumed you were forfeiting your status as uninvolved, so I was surprised to see you take action today. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When you get a chance, can you please respond to my question?

Unless I missed it, I have not yet received an answer to the following post.[12] When you get a chance, can you please respond? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have responded. NW (Talk) 01:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm...The discussion there seems to be missing a few a diffs.[13] 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement and it seems that WMC's edit war goes behond a simplistic 24-hour timelimit. Also, the the explanation there is that "Discussion is ongoing in (multiple) places on the use of sources, and blocking anyone at this point is only going to hinder discussion." Certainly, blocking GregJackP will also hinder these discussions.

In any case, I don't see a comparison between GregJackP's edit-warring with WMC and WMC's edit-warring with GregJackP. Granted, some editors have accused you of bias. But, you can quickly put these accusations to rest by issuing a similar sanction against WMC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED

I reviewed your last 500 edits, takes things back to August 25. You have had little involvement in editing these articles I only found a dozen or so edits altogether on them (not counting the Arbcom case). Of these they were all prima facie admin action except for the last two I reviewed [14] [15]. I believe these two edits were meant to break impasses and suggest alternative courses of action and don't constitute involvement. --WGFinley (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the edits to the Monckton article. The talk page edit gave an opinion on controversial content. Cla68 (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Diffs or at least a wiki-link for those who are not immersed in CC articles? --WGFinley (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm busy at the moment, but I'll try to post them later today (Japan time). Like I said, I was surprised to see NuclearWarfare's actions today, not just because they were so one-sided, but because he took them in the first place. If he wanted to continue to be an admin related to CC, why did he start editing the CC articles? Anyway, I'll get some diffs up later. Cla68 (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

With the name now I had something to search in his diffs. IMO his involvement has been in identifying sources for a BLP article and the content of information in a BLP article. He hasn't edited the article that I've seen and only seems to be helping to bring the article into BLP compliance from what I see. That's administrative. For the record NW asked me to take a look at this for an outsider's view, I've never been involved in CC and he wanted an opinion. --WGFinley (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, once an admin starts collaborating with the parties in the CC troubles, they have become an involved editor. More importantly are NW's edits to the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article, such as this one. Wgfinley, are you aware of the controversial history of this article? This is the article that basically resulted in ChrisO's de facto ban for BLP violations. This article has been locked-down twice, once by an arbitrator, for edit warring by the different CC factions, now embroiled in a drama-laden, huge arbcom case. And NW is going to make content recommendations to this article and feel that doesn't conflict with being an uninvolved admin? Come on!

Here's another one. Note that I agreed with his recommendation (If you're talking to me NocturneNoir below, notice that I don't take sides when it comes to NPOV content). When we had that exchange, I assumed at the time that NW was giving up on staying uninvolved, because to get involved with controversial content in an article so central to the CC dispute basically dictates it. So, I was very surprised today to see him acting as an uninvolved admin. In that edit above, NW was disputing an edit by Minor4th. Minor4th and GregP, from what I understand, are off-wiki friends. NW, once you started to influence the content of a controversial CC article as an editor, which you did with Monckton, you were involved. You should know this and I shouldn't have to tell you. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I find a great deal of humour in the notion that blatantly biased parties are calling NW out for being 'involved' and biased. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 03:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem....to those posting about CC issues

Folks, please let's stop spreading these discussions all over the encyclopedia; there are too many places in which these conversations are happening. If it is related to a sanction put forward by NW, please discuss it on the appropriate sanction board. Believe it or not, we arbitrators are trying to follow all of this, and the more this is spread out, the more likely that we're missing a key component. Thanks, all. Risker (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)