User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Razhel Gee Mengullo

Hi NW. I was just looking at contributions for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jmcw37 and came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razhel Gee Mengullo which ended "no consensus". I was then surprised to find that Razhel Gee Mengullo had been later been deleted by you for an expired PROD. Polargeo (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that was my mistake.  Undeleted NW (Talk) 11:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you restore the talk page too? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Room for one more?

Hi NW. I saw on the SPI Clerk page that you wrote new clerks are needed and I was wondering if I could help out too. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd be a great fit. Could you pop a note on the Clerks' noticeboard to make sure no one else has any objections? Thanks. NW (Talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm

This edit- User is blocked for socking around a 3RR block. This seems like openly stating his intention to flex WP:VANISH despite his active block. --King Öomie 18:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not good. Looks like Spitfire handled the SPI case. NW (Talk) 22:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexcas11: International Man of Mystery

The last checkuser did uncover a link to other socks. I was a bit surprised about the IPs connected, as any of the IPs that I ever found that were Alexcas-ish (same style and linking to deleted Alexcas articles) were Mexican ISPs, but the related IPs in the sock reports that are now in the Alexcas fold are US based ones. Darn, not only is he a pest, but it looks like he gets to travel :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh, not fun. Dealt with the most recent batch of articles, but I dislike this new development :( NW (Talk) 22:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it doesn't really change things, although I was hoping that a rangeblock was a possibilty. (I think that might have been showing through on SPI :)) But at the end of the day, he is always going to have to create a new account if he wants to make a movie article and although I will be clearing most of my watchlist out in the next few days because its getting way too big and I want to do other things, I'll keep the usual suspect articles on it. Actually I was bored enough one day to count the pages I have watched on account of Alex and it was about 120 or so; I might, without getting spammy about it, drop a note on a few talkpages of anyone who is running into him on a regular basis pointing them in the right direction. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN#Proposed article ban and interaction ban of Tbsdy

• Thread archived. NW (Talk) 22:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd like some advice. I've tried to apply some subheaders to the thread in order to make it more manageable and readable, but Tbsdy has reverted them. I feel he is possibly deliberately trying to keep the thread confusing to look at, because that would benefit him. I know WP:AGF and all, but still, the thread could use some organization. What should I do? Equazcion (talk) 20:44, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) I'd also like to basically hide the mess of irrelevant exchanges Tbsdy facilitated, as I feel they muddy the thread and further confuse potential outside commenters. I'm hesitant to do this myself. Do you think you could, using your own discretion, clean up the thread of any irrelevance, however you see fit? Equazcion (talk) 20:55, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) Sigh, that's not the case here, seriously. Anyway, I'm off to bed. Sorry NW, I tried a compromise to try to implement your suggestion, which is to leave the article alone but do some copyediting and fact checking later on when Giano was finished, but even that wasn't working. Honestly, I did try! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) What happened there is what I knew would happen there, if we moved the discussion: Tbsdy pitched a fit, muddied the waters, and someone closed it with no result. He wins, and lives to harass Giano, and cause chaos at Talk:Blenheim Palace another day. He has made it clear that he's not stopping, as he thinks he's done nothing wrong, NW. How does archiving the entire proposal with no action (as opposed to collapsing his off-topic rants) help the current situation? It just puts it off on another day, instead of dealing with it today. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I actually was willing to make a compromise, I was willing to discuss if further, but then you started your ban proceedings and well, that conversation was somewhat derailed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Tell us now, then, what exact concessions you're willing to make in compromise. Equazcion (talk) 21:20, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) Helps to read the thread on the talk page, Equazcion. The thread title is confusingly entitled "A compromise". You did read this before you supported my ban, right? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The thread was "confusingly titled", since you didn't do anything remotely resembling a "compromise", but rather made a list of ultimatums. No editors who have commented there have supported your distorted view of the situation. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Already done a long time ago, didn't see any compromise. The problem, again, Tb, is that you're promising to edit the page once Giano enacts his draft. Most editors feel you shouldn't do that. What is your proposed compromise to satisfy us and you? Equazcion (talk) 21:25, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) No one is in the proper mood to deal with it today. In 24 hours (or so), this particular dispute will be behind us, and we can try from scratch to build a proper consensus as to what should happen at that article. We can afford to let things lie for 24 hours; the wiki won't explode if we do. But if we are going to let sleeping dogs lie, then we actually have to try. Could you all please disengage from this entire topic for the next little while?? Thanks. NW (Talk) 21:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC) As long as Tbsdy leaves Giano alone, and leaves that article talkpage in peace, I have no problem doing so. Scottaka UnitAnode 21:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I never caused the consternation on that talk page. Seriously, the only one making personal attacks and being incivil was Giano! I even managed to have a very civil discussion with others about the infobox, and though I'm not entirely convinced I agreed with the editors that an infobox is not required. I didn't take a ban proposal, I didn't make rude comments about other's ability, I didn't intimidate other editors like I saw Giano do (the guy literally told Giano that he was stepping down, but Giano hounded him at his user talk page with insults!) and I certainly didn't try to ban anyone from making constructive comments or say that I would refuse to work with another editor on the article. I have asked a few people now to show me precisely where I was causing trouble, and so far nobody has been able to provide any evidence that I have been. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Given that they just tried to ban me, this is a bit of an ask. However, I'm really about to drop so sure :-) Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I'm up for waiting 24 hours, if that's the consensus... I'm honestly not sure a break period will help matters, but I'm willing to do it, if everyone else thinks it's the way to go. Equazcion (talk) 21:33, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC) If at first you don't succeed, try, try again, huh? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 21:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC) The only reason you're not article banned right now is because you muddied the waters so much at AN (which I knew you'd do, and which is why I thought it best to keep it at the article page) that NW archived it. It's not that the ban "didn't succeed", it's that you successfully evaded it using muddying tactics. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You wouldn't possibly be assuming a foregone conclusion there, would you? You may want me banned, but the way you all went about it was really pretty shoddy. You caused your own confusion! And I believe that NW archived it for the same reason that other threads have been archived - nothing to see here, move right along. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused, NW. You closed the AN topic, and said to ask any questions here. Now you've closed this topic. All these closes are doing is fueling Tbsdy's mistaken impression that the discussion of article and interaction banning him is over, when it's not. I'd appreciate a response from you on this, as I may well reopen it at the article talkpage. There was pretty strong consensus in the unofficial discussion that Tbsdy should leave Giano and the article alone. Yet now he somehow thinks that how he has behaved these last few days is just fine. This must end. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's over for the next 24 hours (ish). For that time, I expect that Tbsdy will refrain from posting on the article's talk page. After that, a well-structured, moderated AN discussion can take place. NW (Talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That sounds fine. Scottaka UnitAnode 23:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ACC Account

Hello; I am the account holder for "ESan013" on ACC. I wanted to know if you could re-enable my access. I have been busy these past few months and know that the account is suspended after 45 days of inactivity. Thanks for your consideration. —Duncan^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Account unsuspended. Cheers, NW (Talk) 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Brian Leiter

Hello! I see that you locked the Brian Leiter entry. Do you believe that my edits were false or poorly sourced, or did you simply lock it to slow down the edit warring? If the former, then I'd like to discuss that with you. If the latter, then I would appreciate your okay for me to change it back. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which IP you were using, but if you were the one adding this information, I am afraid adding controversial information to an biography of a living person, attributed solely to blogs and Urban Dictionary, is a violation of our biographies of living persons policy.

Feel free to discuss anything you wish with me though. NW (Talk) 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is the information I wanted added. I would first like to differentiate between using a blog as a source of factual information, and using a blog to cite the opinions of the bloggers.

Example: if the entry reads, "Miss Piggy loves Kermit", and the source is some fansite or fan's blog, then I would agree that this is not acceptable as a reference.

On the other hand, if the entry reads, "Miss Piggy loves Kermit", and the source is Miss Piggy's own blog, then wouldn't you agree that this is permissible? That is, blogs may be taken as evidence of the opinions of their writers.

In this particular case, Brian Leiter has been involved in some very high profile spats with other public intellectuals, and the record of that is contained mostly in his own blog. Furthermore, I also included an article in the National Review as a source, which whatever you think about it politically, is not a "blog". Thanks for your time and consideration.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The NR link is this: [1] Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The way that the material was added was inappropriate. I'm not sure if you are part of this dispute with Mr. Leiter or not, but this situation is in no way, shape, or form unique or even uncommon among professors. Any such sources on this dispute need to indicate that this is a significant and notable controversy; this will be indicated through the presence of multiple, reliable secondary sources, not just one and a couple of blogs. NW (Talk) 21:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never met nor corresponded with nor had any personal contact whatsoever with Leiter at any time ever. Nor have I met, corresponded with, or had any personal contact whatsoever with his disputants. His very public nastiness however is undeniably the most salient part of his public persona, to the extent that he has one. I have no doubt that there is sufficient evidence to support my claim that these are significant disputes. What would you consider a sufficient threshold for "multiple, reliable" secondary sources? If I include such citation, would you be willing to reverse your decision to blank out the section? And you will note again that one of my sources was a nationally distributed print newspaper. Do you consider that a reliable secondary source? Should I just find more like that?Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A single freelance publication from the National Review is certainly not significant enough. It can be used as an example of a dispute, but more is required first. Multiple major publications, from something major such as the Chicago Tribune or the Chicago Sun-Times (for examples of Chicago-based papers), would definitely be preferred to show that this is a significant dispute, worth of mention in an encyclopedia article about the man's life. NW (Talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if your threshold for what counts as a "major publication" is the Chicago Sun-Times, then 80% of wiki articles probably ought to be candidates for deletion. Nothing else in Leiter's biography seems to meet that standard. This is clearly inconsistent policy, since Leiter's blog is cited in other wiki articles, often in support of positions attacking the people mentioned in my edit. Read and . The former (under References) describes "Leiter's line-by-line examination of Romano's Rorty essay, a demonstration of the subject's attributed incompetence in the history and practice of philosophy". That description, it should be mentioned, was likely added by Leiter himself, who ghost edits about his disputes on wikipedia. The latter provides two links to Leiter's blog as "evidence" that there was controversy in the philosophical community regarding a book review. Indeed, if you search for "leiterreports.typepad.com", you will find it listed in the references of numerous wikipedia articles. It seems absurd to me that you wouldn't allow that same reference in the article about the man himself. And if you think it is insufficient to demonstrate that a controversy exists (taking no position on who's "right"), then ALL of those many citations in other articles should likewise be deleted.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Introducing controversy sections (no matter what it is titled) is a fairly big deal. While other sources can certainly supplement the section, at least one solid source (of which I don't believe the National Review article is) is required to provide a basis for the section to make sure it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. And as for the blog that you mentioned, there is actual a provision for allowing blogs to be used as sources as long as they meet certain criteria. However, I agree with you that a good number of them ought to be removed. NW (Talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, what say you about the following Boston Globe article: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/04/20/the_philosopher_kingmaker/?page=3. Read page (3) in particular.

"There's a whole category of posts called 'The Less They Know, The Less They Know It,' under which one finds headlines like, 'Carlin Romano: Total Ignorance of Philosophy Is No Obstacle to Opining About Richard Rorty.' [...] Those whom Leiter finds wanting are deemed "morons" or "zombies" or "demonstrably incompetent." Peers then treat him in kind: University of Wisconsin legal blogger Ann Althouse called Brian Leiter a 'jackass,' to take a famous example. (She also called him a 'nerd.') [...] But in another sense, the various Leiters seem to be at war. If the stakes are really this high - and they are, because, to take one example from Leiter's blog, philosophy must help us defeat intelligent design - then it's surprising that Leiter would act so low, being the man of higher thinking in the classroom, and a shepherd who helps grad students around the world find the best possible home, but then the troglodyte in cyberspace. Looked at that way, Leiter's rankings may be more worrisome than he would admit. By increasing competition in the profession, by promoting envy or Schadenfreude, by writing a blog that alternates philosophy with verbal soccer hooliganism, Leiter runs a great risk: He may be demeaning the very profession he rightly wants to democratize."

Mind you, this is an article that is mostly complimentary toward Leiter, and the writer still sees fit to describe his personal combativeness. At any rate, would you say that this is sufficient warrant to include the other material?Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A report in both the Boston Globe and the National Review is enough to make me reconsider. However, I feel that any such section ought to follow the BLP and NPOV policies strictly. Could you please post a draft of what you were thinking of adding to the article on Talk:Brian Leiter? Please be sure to draw most of your information from the Boston Globe and other such reliable sources. NW (Talk) 23:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching the events on this page, and wanted to chime in with $0.02. The original section that was so problematic was sourced to numerous highly unreliable sites (urban dictionary, an anonymous messageboard, a variety of strange blogs), and defended on the discussion page on the grounds that those citations were not for the purpose of demonstrating the truth of what was said, but for the fact of the criticism. But that makes no difference.

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

It is quite clear from that text that the reliable sources requirement applies to the reporting of "criticism" as criticism just as well as to the reporting of criticism as truth.

There's a big difference between a short note saying "the subject's blog has caused some controversy" with links to reliable sources like the Boston Globe (and, I suppose, the National Review), and a lengthy "controversy" section which gives an unnecessary list of individual disputes that seems almost cherry-picked to provide a vessel for the most inflammatory citations to the most unreliable sources.

Also, I think that part of the problem may be that the person making the edits is just not familiar with academic culture. Academics sometimes say strong things about one anothers' positions -- particularly in philosophy -- and academics often get criticized for what they say by the media, bloggers, political activists, etc. If every academic with a wikipedia page had a list of the public arguments in which (s)he had participated, the notability standard would become a joke. --Paultopia (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Paultopia - I don't think you entirely understand the claim here. 1) it is not an issue of reporting "criticism" per se. The links demonstrate that there have been ugly personal disputes. The issue is not criticism of Leiter, but rather a history of disputes for which he has earned considerable notoriety. Evidence of those disputes is easily demonstrated by linking to those disputes. Indeed, it seems to me that this is more solid evidence of disputes than if CNN or the NY Times reported that those disputes occurred. It is not an endorsement of either disputant, or anything remotely like it. In some cases, the people that Leiter attacks do not even respond. The point is not that he has been criticized, nor is it my opinion that it is the role of an encyclopedia entry to give voice to such criticisms. However, it is well known that Leiter has a history of personal attacks against other academics. The National Review article and Boston Globe article seem to me sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he is well-known for that peculiar form of rhetoric, and the blogs where they occurred are good evidence that those particular academic celebrities were his foils at various times.

2) My academic bona fides are none of your concern, although I happen to teach at a "top-ranked" institution myself. I have no personal beef with Leiter. I've never even met the man at a conference. I haven't even read any of his papers (our research interests differ). I do have an issue with bullies, though. The issue with Leiter is not that he puts things in strong terms, nor that he attacks the positions of others, but that he resorts to name-calling and personally maligning his opponents. You can find any number of other top legal scholars and philosophers who have quipped on Leiter's propensity for personal attack, and his inability to focus on the topic of discussion rather than the character of his opposition. I'd direct you to his slew of insults famously directed toward Carlin Romano for a perfect example of this. No matter how mistaken Mr. Romano might have been, trashing the man personally was not justified, and it is absolutely not common practice in academic culture to tolerate this sort of boorish behavior. He does not attack the argument, he attacks the arguer, and he has a well-known history of doing this. Why else would the Boston Globe article close on pondering whether he is not a blemish upon the profession?Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Please view my proposed amendment to the article on the discussion page as requested.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"No matter how mistaken Mr. Romano might have been, trashing the man personally was not justified, and it is absolutely not common practice in academic culture to tolerate this sort of boorish behavior."

I don't think this is quite right. Leiter's remarks about Romano were stronger than normal, it's true, but were nothing unprecedented. See, for example, Colin McGinn's review of Ted Honderich's book on consciousness, and Honderich's reply, among many other examples. (Or some of the exchanges between Ronald Dworkin and Richard Posner in the NYRB, among other places.) I don't love the style myself, as I am, or try to be, a "more flies with honey than vineger" sort of guy, but it's false that Leiter's remarks about Romano were clearly outside the bounds of academic discourse. If someone wants to note that Leiter is often a harsh critic, and link to some of his own criticisms, that seems fine to me. But the links that were actually made weren't substantive or reliable and don't show anything worth while. It was good to remove them and I hope they'll stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.215.154 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

NW: I hope you will notice that these IP's from the University of Chicago neighborhood (where Leiter resides) are very suspicious in their writing style, the posters' knowledge of specialized literature in Leiter's field of expertise, and heartfelt defense of Leiter. Also, the insistence that Leiter's responses must be included, if any mention of disputes is mentioned (the content of which I have been careful NOT to delve into, in my proposed article amendment) is difficult to reconcile without concluding that these are all sock puppets of Leiter himself. In fact, the autoadmit.com article on wiki notes that the admins of that website have accused him of such very same sock puppetry. I won't respond to these anonymous Chicago/Austin IP's on your talk page anymore, but would urge you, in light of these facts, to weigh them with a grain of salt.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So I actually live in Chicago, though do not have a U of Chicago IP address, and I alerted Leiter to this campaign against him. I do not know who jeanbatpistemuiron is, but he seems to have a vendetta. I will note that the last IP address is from Philadelphia. The user before that is a registered user, so NW can verify who it is. 98.206.162.185 (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I found your revision entirely acceptable.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see you reorganized a bit. Well, a minor note (not regarding content): his ranking list is only available online, so that would really count as part of his "online activities", too. I'd suggest (purely as a matter of good housekeeping) that you merge the two sections, and I am indifferent on whether you used the section heading "Other projects" or "Online activities", since his blogging and ranking lists both fall neatly in those categories. Otherwise, thanks for your assistance in this matter. I appreciate your willingness to hear my side of the argument, and the opportunity to revise. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Went ahead and merged the two sections. If you have any ideas for the article, please feel free to implement them. NW (Talk) 03:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like the dispute is not yet over, unfortunately. The remaining pickle seems to be the wording of "On his blog, he has famously attacked Keith Burgess-Jackson...". I would be amenable to rewording that, but "criticized" and "has had disputes with" (the latter being grammatically quite ugly) seem to miss the point altogether. The salient fact is not that Leiter has disagreed with colleagues, nor that he has criticized their positions. By now, you probably have read more about Dr. Leiter than you might possibly care to, but you must surely recognize from your brief perusal of links that the reason his behavior is worth mentioning is because he resorts to personal attacks and insults. Calling colleagues "mentally ill", "incompetent" and "stupid" can hardly be characterized as "disputation" or "criticism". The term "dispute" is also a particularly poor descriptor (unless contextualized in ways that Leiter would likely find even more objectionable), since a couple of the disputants listed never responded to his attacks. I personally found "famously attacks" form your original proposed revision entirely appropriate. If this strikes you as NPOV on reconsideration, I think it's entirely reasonable to reword it, provided the rewording points to the salient fact that he targets the arguer rather than their arguments. That's what he's gotten in trouble for, and that's the whole point of the criticism that the Globe article was raising. Thanks again for your patience. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the truly deranged blog that Keith Burgess-Jackson set up about Leiter some time ago (I'm not sure if it's still up- I haven't looked in ages- you'll see that calling him crazy is far from unsupported. It's truly nuts. It's not nice, maybe, but Burgess-Jackson is so nutty that it's hard to say anything nice about him. I'll further add that "Jeanbaptistemuiron's" strange idea that anyone defending Leiter must _be_ Leiter makes me suspect that he's not a reliable source nor one that you'd do well to have making edits on this entry. It's a paranoid delusion and shows he's not reasonable. I'd give any edits he makes a very serious review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.215.154 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether Burgess-Jackson is crazy. I've heard people (other than Leiter) say that he's crazy, but in the same breath they same the same about Leiter. I don't really think it's my business to judge that, and it's certainly not the role of an encyclopedia to endorse any such judgment. I don't think anyone defending Leiter must be Leiter himself, but I do find the impassioned defense of him and the desire to whitewash his frequent unpleasantness curious. Particularly when considering his history of using sock puppets. You may or may not be Leiter. I don't know. But in any case, I think this matter has been (and is being) resolved equitably, so I hardly see the sense in singling me out for trying to get some accurate reporting on a notoriously unpleasant fellow. As to my sobriquet, Leiter has a history of exacting "revenge" on colleagues he deems "enemies", so I am not particularly interested in divulging my identity and professional info, but suffice it to say that I have no personal grudge (or contact of any sort) with Leiter, although I am in a good position to know about him. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My talk page isn't really the right place for this. Do you think you guys could continue this at Talk:Brian Leiter (which I have watchlisted, and will continue to discuss at)? Thanks. NW (Talk) 18:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. Honestly, I hope you'll be rid of both of us shortly. I'm more than eager to get past this episode. And we're down to one point of contention, anyway. Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded to your message.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant on my talk page.Jeanbaptistemuiron (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A question

I'd like to ask a question if I may, but I'll understand if you'd prefer not to answer, or would rather answer via e-mail.

If an editor's account is blocked here, so that they cannot create new accounts, what happens if they go to another wiki, say Commons, and create a new account there, where they are not blocked? Would the global login system automatically create the account here, despite the block?

This has nothing to do with my account, by the way, I'm curious about a brand-new editor's account. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure at all. User:Krimpet and User:MZMcBride are both pretty good with the technical parts of the site; perhaps you could try asking them? NW (Talk) 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give one of them a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Archive boxes?

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to this thread. NW (Talk) 15:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequent comments should be made in a new section." OK, I should have created a section header. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Constitutional1787

Hi, you blocked User:Constitutional1787 for sockpuppeting. But a checkuser has confirmed that he was not involved. See here:[2] 187.47.23.230 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser can *not* confirm that he wasn't "involved" (checkuser can't rule out meatpuppetry, which was clearly the case there). It's quite possible that this is an "editing from home" vs "editing from work" scenario. NW, the shenanigans are occurring across three articles, and need uninvolved admin attention (an admin who has not been neutral is now getting involved). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, IP 187 is removing the COI tag from Talk:Mark Weisbrot, although we now have CU confirmation that an editor using the name Mark Weisbrot has been socking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have no involvement other than seeing that a mistake happened, which I informed here. Claiming that it "might be" is ridiculous. You have absolutely no evidence that it was meatpupetry. You don't know the results of the check user. They might be from different continets form all we know. Better ask the person who performed it. Im quite worried that people are being hanged based on no evidence whatsover other than Sandys "opinions". 187.47.23.230 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

When one account resumes exactly where another left off, that is evidence of meatpuppetry. And we both know a Brazilian IP has been very involved in defending VenAnalysis, whose writers are linked to CEPR.net. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That was me. Again all you had to do was ask. And no I wasnt very involved in defending VenAnalys, infact I didn't defend venAnalysis at all. I defended User:Rd232 against a whole bunch of random accusations that you were throwing against him. But its nice to notice how you twist things. 187.46.135.78 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NW, the Brazilian IP is dynamic, and has been active in related discussions. I now need to gather those other IPs, as well as file a report that he just hit four reverts at Talk: Mark Weisbrot. Both of those will be time consuming. Are you able to deal with the 3RR block, so I don't have to spend all morning filing reports? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm heading off, actually. I asked another sysop to look into it though, so it should be handled soon. NW (Talk) 17:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, NW; I'm actually on vacation, not enjoying spending the morning chasing socks, but will gather the other IPs used by that dynamic IP in a moment. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a a look at this?

Unresolved

[3]

It was closed and I got the message that I should take it to ANI, but I thought it would be better if you could take a look at this since you have some prior knowledge about this.

You did not do anything the last time Nefer Tweety violated the principles, this is the second time now, he has not even gotten an official warning. If he isn't going to be blocked, and considering that his only contribution to that article is removal of background info while claiming there is no sources, although there are 15-20 sources posted at the talkpage and in the article, and also another user cleo22 who is also an account which is exclusively used to remove sourced background information from biography articles has also removed information from that article, then I suggest that at least Nefer Tweety gets a warning notice as is written in remedy 7 and that the Omar Sharif article is put in probation as is written in remedy 6. (The Omar Sharif article is part of the Asmahan arbitration case) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleted content

Hi NW. I felt that List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors was deleted per I don't like it arguments rather than normal wikipedia arguments. Could you please userfy me a copy. I would like to see if this can make an article or not. If I decide it won't make an article then I will get it deleted as soon as possible. Polargeo (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing; see User:Polargeo/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. Could you please run this through DRV before putting this back into the mainspace? Thanks. NW (Talk) 15:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I think I am unlikely to put it back into the mainspace but if I did it would be vastly changed. By this I mean a better lede section, a different article name and possibly different list entries, so essentially I would only be using this deleted content as a starting point. Although I think a no consensus would have been a better outcome I understand your decision to delete the article as it stood and would not question it at DRV or try to reintroduce in its current format. Polargeo (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the quick unblock. I appreciate it. Nicola.tesla.rowe (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. :) NW (Talk) 16:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Evanofthecosmos/Datacap message

I got a message saying that you responded to me on your talk page, but I don't see anything here. I want to know what the next step I need to take is to make the Evanofthecosmos/Datacap page into the Datacap page. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanofthecosmos (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Splarka's script

Hello NW. I saw your advice to Sandy to try out User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js. That seems very useful. Do you know how to enable the options? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be something like this, though I am not a tech expert so I can't say for sure:

importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js')
var showUserGroupSettings = {
  'IP':false,
  'unregistered':false,
  'registered':false,
  'groups': false,
  'groupless': false,
  'editcount': false,
  'regdate': false,
  'blocked': false;

That should work, but I can't be 100% positive. NW (Talk) 18:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

VIO

In fact there was a previous talkpage discussion in March 2009 Talk:Venezuela_Information_Office#VIO_employees_discussion which trailed off when attempts to reinsert the disputed material ceased. Sandy was involved in that discussion, but recently came along as part of her campaign against CEPR/Weisbrot and reinserted the content without discussion.

As to whether there are BLP issues - you should look again. Organisation articles do not generally list employees - with a few obvious exceptions like directors, especially if it's an important or historical organisation etc - and the sole reason to list them here is to link VIO with CEPR via the personnel crossover. Policywise you can call this WP:POV or WP:UNDUE or whatever - but it is clearly BLP-related and it clearly merits further discussion. And as ever, edit warring to remove disputed BLP material implies edit warring to reinsert it; yet I do not see user talk messages from you to anyone else. Rd232 ^talk 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I also recall now Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive60#Venezuela_Information_Office. Rd232 ^talk 19:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Letha Weapons

On what grounds did you blank this, mark it as a speedy, and then delete it? I see nothing in the version before you blanked that can be considered at all disparaging. --Golbez (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I considered an unsourced BLP of a pornographic actress, which would certainly be a bad thing if it was wrong, to fit WP:CSD#G10. I did that for a couple of them, but then I switched to prodding the articles as such: [4] What do you think about undeleting that and prodding it instead? NW (Talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be deleted and put up for prod; I suspect sources would come quickly. --Golbez (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Undeleted and prodded. NW (Talk) 22:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted speedy deletion of Eldrin Bell

I strongly object to the deletion of the article on Eldrin Bell, and I absolutely object to it being done as a speedy deletion. Please restore this article. If someone has changed what was previously an acceptable article into something unacceptable and this is what caused your deletion, then please check previous versions and restore to an acceptable prior one. If you still want it deleted anyhow, then post it for public comment as an appropriate AfD listing. Thanks.  –radiojon (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I took another look at the article and also asked another sysop for a second opinion after you asked. I am standing by that deletion. In addition to being an unsourced biography of a living person, the two major assertions in that article were that Mr. Bell held local office and was the father of an American Idol contestant. Neither of those assert notability. Take it to Deletion Review if you wish. NW (Talk) 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Kriswarner

Based on the ANI (including a possible OTRS), and an admission that a number of users are in the same office, AND a whack of COI warnings, I have AGF'd and unblocked the editor and the IP. Of course, I didn't know that they had received the second block for socking, as I only saw the original edit-warring block notice on their talkpage ... d'oh. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking is perfectly fine with me. NW (Talk) 21:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Caution: administrative misconduct by you? Please advise

Hello Nuclear. I come to you with no dispute. I merely seek to show you a diff so that you can analyze it and, if it comes close to administrative misconduct, that you will not repeat it. Please do not consider it an accusation.

Facts
1. There was an AFD for Conrad Murray. Your opinion on not keeping the article was the most forceful (measured by length of response). The AFD decision was Keep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conrad_Murray

2. About 1 week later, you started a discussion on the talk page to merge/redirect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conrad_Murray

3. You closed the discussion as merge/redirect even though merge/redirect is a possible outcome of the AFD and was rejected in favor of keep. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AConrad_Murray&action=historysubmit&diff=306901975&oldid=306898562

4. You redirected the article but did no merge whatsoever. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Michael_Jackson&offset=20090811064645&limit=100&action=history

5. Despite having the article created only twice in 2 months, instead of discussion or reopening the merge decision, you page protected it. You were the same admin who disputed the decision, who decided on the dispute (merge/redirect), and page protected it to enforce your opinion.

6. Another admin was threatened with desysop by Arb Com for "1) On Template:PD-Australia, Physchim62 twice protected the page after reverting to his preferred version. The first instance occurred on July 23 and the second on July 26. The second instance came after he was notified that protection of a page by a party engaging in a dispute is forbidden by policy.

Passed 9 to 0 at 17:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

I only came across this because Conrad Murray surrendered to the police recently and I wanted to know his background. I have no interest in editing this article and don't know much about the man. I have no interest in seeking any action against you. I am merely telling you that some people may view your actions as not the best thing to do.

Should you have only done steps 1 and 2?

So please don't misunderstand! It's like if your friend has spinach in his teeth. I don't seek tooth extraction or ridicule. I am just saying "maybe there's something in your teeth, please check yourself."  :)

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably ought to have only done steps 1 and 2, and possibly 3 and 4. I gave fair warning for 3, so there was no issue with doing that, and there really wasn't anything to merge. If any administrator feels it would be appropriate, they are free to unprotect the article. NW (Talk) 22:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I just read about the ArbCom case and thought of this. I don't want anyone desysopped so that why I mentioned it. That's all.

I am more familiar with the notability (events) rules not people. However, if the man goes to trial and then jail, then I think there will be renewed interest in the man and maybe interest in writing an article. Good luck in Wikipedia! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Glass: 1/2 full or 1/2 empty?

Unresolved

Hi there NUCLEAR, VASCO here, hope you're fine,

A "funny" situation now: at José Antonio Reyes, a "user" has consistently changed, in INTRO, the word "successful career abroad" to "unsuccessful", with the addition of "relatively" before which i took the care of adding. It means the player had some success at Arsenal F.C. (thus abroad, he is Spanish), and it has to be so, because he won some trophies, played regularly, was part of the ONLY team in the history of the Premier League that did not lose one single game, i still took the time to write it carefully and without POV ("relatively" successful instead of "highly"), and this chap comes and reverts it, without explanation - some folk prefer to see the negative instead of the positive, or maybe just a bitter soccer fan?

Think you could do something about this? As always, thank you very much in advance, take care,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grays Harbor?

Hi, I've noticed that you've commented on a number of AFD discussions and I was wondering whether you could chime in here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grays Harbor ? The discussion is going around in circles with a new Wikipedian who doesn't appear to understand policies and I'm just getting frustrated. I'm happy to be found right or wrong but I think it would be extremely beneficial to get some input from independent Wikipedian's who have an understanding for the policies as I readily accept I'm rusty. Cheers, PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Denning

I will not oppose any PROD or AfD of Natalie Denning. I have tried to locate references to improve tis article but can't come up with anything apart from loads of photos, that proves notability. I notice you have put the required message on the creator's talk page although this will have little effect because he/she has been indefinitely blocked from editing the encyclopedia. Most of the other edits are spam reverts or bots.--Kudpung (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy speedy deletes

Hi, I have raised a comment at User talk:Kevin#Anja Juliette Laval speedy deletion that you may be able to advise on. I am uncomfortable with an apparent pattern of early deletions that may be confrontational and would like to (in a friendly way) encourage this sysop to apply the default process for these types of articles. Cheers Ash (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod removed from Wade R. Meisberger

I have removed the dated prod tag you placed on Wade R. Meisberger. Since there is at least one editor arguing to keep the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade R. Meisberger, deletion is not uncontroversial. Cnilep (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. NW (Talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Like a Rolling Stone FAC question

A question has come up in the Like a Rolling Stone FAC about whether this image is an appropriate fair use. Can you give an opinion? Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at the FAC, under Karanacs' comment. NW (Talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting my userpage, and so quickly too. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Any time :) NW (Talk) 00:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I spoke to him before: he didn't like my message [[5], I don't think that was grounds to remove my thread though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.25.33 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Bill Maze

I was asking for protection when I saw you had already taken care of it. Thanks, and thanks also for blocking a number of those vandals. Is this 4chan at work? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed 4chan. Sigh. When will those kids grow up. NW (Talk) 04:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For doing an incomprehensible amount of work protecting Wikipedia at lightning speed and never letting up, I hereby award you this long-overdue Working Man's Barnstar. Thanks for all your hard work, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Aww, thank you very much Shirik (for this and for your work with 294). Also, I'm accepting this barnstar at far too late of a time. Good night! NW (Talk) 06:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

LPTF

Perfectly encapsulates the concept, thanks for that. You are an invaluable asset to this project. Keegan (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

SP report

This report is worthless with no detail at all to link me to anything I object to being check usered on the back of this report , please let me know if this has been approved wih this evidence in my case. thanks. This is fishing gone mad. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Then surely you'll be glad to be exonerated by a checkuser; the times I've been checkusered, I've welcomed it. I see sufficient evidence of you involving yourself in a non-neutral way across these articles, with an uneven understanding of policy and guideline, and the Off to Rio is certainly suggestive of Brazil, to say the least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well rio, brazil, la la... sorry, you will need more than that to warrant a check user. I need no exoneration, your report on me is laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, then laugh, and be glad you intend to be exonorated-- no problem, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Get over yourself. I will not be checkusered on such a report. It is not a fishing tool. I can be exonerated but the view out of my window is still the same. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Totally personal opinion, I could be wrong - seems to me Off2riorob is strongly opinionated, as I am, and we might have clashed here and there; but I doubt that he would engage in socking. I guess we'll find out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• A check user will simply exonerate me from this baseless and hollow report, check user is not for fishing and my personal details should not be checked on a whim. If I am check user,d on the back of this report I will be very upset. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The details of checkuser results are confidential. If the one targeted for checkuser protests too loudly, it's often interpreted as fear of discovery, and often it turns out to be true. The user called ItsLassieTime is a good example. Complained loud and long about how checkuser wasn't needed. That one already had a red flag because it had forgotten which ID it was using at the time and answered a question for user A in the voice of user B. "Oops!" Turned out the user had a motherlode of socks. A time or two some ill-informed soul has accused me of being someone else's sock and has threatened an SPI. My response has been, "Go for it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Which is precisely why frivolous accusations of socking are harassment; because it virtually requires a checkuser stamp of approval to clear the air. Which isn't even always possible - checkuser is fallible and doesn't always produce clear results, especially for similar users who happen to live in the same large city. Rd232 ^talk 14:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I have seldom seen checkusers get it wrong. They tend to take a conservative approach - too conservative, sometimes, which can be frustrating. I don't fear checkusers because (1) I am no one's sock and (2) the last time I looked, I've had the same IP for over a year. I don't think being in the same city is sufficient evidence to convict. For example, Rio de Janeiro is not exactly a village. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
        • • I'm just reporting what I've heard checkusers say - go find one and ask if you don't believe me. In this instance, I don't think it'll be an issue; and I rather wish somebody would get on and do it. (Apologies to NW for conversation on his talk - let's end this here.) Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SandyGeorgia:_enough_is_enough, since it relates partly to people you blocked based on that SPI report. Rd232 ^talk 13:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, NW, and sorry you have to make such tough calls: I suppose your salary is as good as mine at FAC :) And thank you again for the monoscript; I goofed yet again on Ludwigs2 at ANI, thinking he was an admin, but the tool works great, and I hadn't been to his userpage since you installed the tool. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the life of a insane Wikipedian :) NW (Talk) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of 99.31.73.22

Why did you block 99.31.73.22 (talk · contribs)? There was one disruptive edit from that IP address calling the veracity of that article into question, and I wouldn't call that vandalism unless it were definitely proven to be so. It's plausible that it's a misguided attempt, perhaps by a young user, to be productive. I attempted to begin a dialog with the user to address any concerns they had, but you stepped out of turn and blocked them without a single warning. I don't usually contest other folks' blockings, but unless I'm missing something, this looks absolutely ridiculous. I want to AGF, so please explain your reasoning. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed the template you used specifies the block was "for persistent vandalism", which obviously is not the case. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right that I blocked him incorrectly. I was blocking quite a few vandals from 4chan yesterday, and I guess I was a bit too block-happy when watching the recent changes feed. I have unblocked; hopefully this user was indeed acting in good faith. NW (Talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Maybe my last message was not all that crucial, but this one is: the all-encompassing vandal has another account, called User:Ghjkl890 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ghjkl890 - see for instance how he, at Žarko Tomašević, again removes REF, i already reinstated it); please block, revert (except at this case and João Aurélio, i already took care of that) and, should it be possible, i think it is, delete all newly-created pages by this "editor".

Attentively, have a nice weekend,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Do you think you could open the SPI case anyway though? I want to see if we could get a checkuser to block his underlying IP. NW (Talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Done my kind sir (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), hopefully i did it well. Cheers! VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Case endorsed and listed

• Once again, i may be a little "on the hasty side", but i have been looking every other hour in the report page, and nothing besides your last entry has showed. Does this mean no conclusion as yet been reached. That idea of yours (underlying IP) would surely be a GREAT development, man. Take care, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

sock edit history

Its three days now since you said you would look at the edit history and decide, this time delay has imo caused disruption and i would request you end the discussion and make a decision as to whether there is enough detail to warrant a check user on my account, thanks. yes or no, please close the speculation Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded there. NW (Talk) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

web archive

Hello again, i wanted to know that if a page no longer exists, and we then find the web archive version, is that still the same. as the original link. and also could those be used to do references? Gman124 ^talk 01:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. If the original citation would have been {{cite web|url=http://www.foo.com|title=Bar}}, the new citation would be {{cite web|url=http://www.foo.com|title=Bar|archiveurl=Link to Internet Archive page|archive date=Some date, which is actually necessary or the template breaks}}. NW (Talk) 01:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

why is the citation so long for that? also i was talking about from web.archive.org they keep archive of most of the web pages we see. Gman124 ^talk 01:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's just the way it is. You can use the web archive link in the archiveurl parameter, but the other three parameters are still critical. NW (Talk) 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. :) Gman124 ^talk 02:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh, so it was accepted? Didn't think it needed to be, but that is ArbCom's choice. Also, why I am I even responding? This a routine message that you no one going to read the reply to. Must be a sign that I'm going mad. :) NW (Talk) 03:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was a routine message to everyone who commented on the request, I did read the reply and no you are not going mad, as far as I can tell. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL. :) BOZ (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the welcome. How come you have such a scary username? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.81.249 (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I promise I don't bite :)

I, being the ultimate failure in creativity, chose for my username the article I happened to be reading at the time – Nuclear warfare. I really ought to change my username, but it is such a hassle to do across many wikis that I decided I would only do it when I decided to change my username to my real name. NW (Talk) 05:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please

Hi there NUKE, VASCO again,

A favour, man: could you please change the page Carlos Eduardo Ventura to Duda (Brazilian footballer)? There is only one more footballer named as such, his article being duly named Duda (Portuguese footballer). I tried, but the move was blocked.

Thanks a million (again) in advance, have a great weekend,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It has been  Done :) NW (Talk) 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of 70.90.111.61.

I think you were somewhat harsh here. You blocked it only after it had received a "level 1" warning. Also, the only edits to its talk page are mine and yours, so that's the only vandalism it's done. - Zhang He (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly the same person vandalizing since the 4th of February. I take a pretty hardline approach to vandalism. No need to let them continue vandalizing because we haven't warned them enough recently. NW (Talk) 23:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so who's the sockpuppet of 70.90.111.61? - Zhang He (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

article deletion benjamin cannon

Hi there, could you send me a copy of the article and criteria for deletion please? I would like to rewrite it such that it would be applicable for wikipedia.

I'm assuming you are talking about Benjamin cannon? Do you happen to have any sources that would allow it to meet WP:MUSIC? NW (Talk) 02:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Negative, I am speaking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benjamin_Cannon&action=edit - which you deleted and I lack a record of.

User issue

I tried to create User:Kfailssc, but I pressed the "similar" button. I tried to create it by overriding it, and it's supposedly already created, even when it doesn't show up on my log. Do you know what is going on here, because I would create the account, but it won't let me. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The user does indeed exist, and I'm pretty sure you created it.[6]

Hmmm, I think I've had this issue before now that I think about it. On my user log for the account creator page, it shows that I closed it as a non-created thing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Howdy. I am curious why User:Constitutional1787 is tagged with {{blockedsock|Scalabrineformvp}} when here it said the account was unrelated? I'm not trying to dispute anything, I'm just trying to learn.--Rockfang (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is not totally infallible. In this case, the account jumped into a middle of a contested dispute and began reverting. If that wasn't a sock (possible used from a home IP, or Starbucks, or something like that), then it certainly was a meatpuppet, which for our purposes can be treated the same as a sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 01:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thank you for the info.--Rockfang (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Scalabrineformvp is still blocked as sockmaster, but the alleged socks have been unblocked. Are there other socks that account is blocked for? I'm a little confused because trying to get facts rather than opinions out of the related discussions is difficult. -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Unblocked NW (Talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Warning about canvassing

My original post to Okip's talk page was here I refactored Okip's topic header. This was the original one: [7]

We both know the rules. We both know that contacting editors who are involved in an ongoing discussion is not canvassing, and is allowed.

To paraphrase what Fritzpoll posted on my talk page:

I believe your accusations against (me) are in violation of our policies on personal attacks. Specifically, the section which defines one form of personal attack as:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

If you would like, I would happily post the applicable guidelines.

Don't lecture editors about rules they didn't break. Since I did not break any rules, I would appreciate an apology from you.

Okip 17:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal about this but Okip and I have had enough conversations about this and many other topics and I would prefer that any posts he makes on my talk page not be used against him. He could have easily emailed me his concern. I appreciate your point of view but I really don't want to be used as evidence, thanks J04n(talk page) 17:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Okip, the issue with edits like this are that they are not neutral and ask people to focus on one specific section of the RfC. By contacting several editors who you know share a similar point of view as you, you overwhelm a smaller discussion within the larger RfC. If you had asked a few editors "I posted some of my thoughts here, would you care to take a look to make sure I didn't misrepresent anything?", that would be fine. But your post was targeted to more than a couple of editors and wasn't exactly neutral. But those are just my thoughts. NW (Talk) 20:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with verifying free images

Hi, I noticed you're an admin on Wikipedia Commons and I'm looking for some advice as I've never uploaded images before. I found somebody willing to release his pictures under CC-BY-SA, which he published on an internet forum post (URL: http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/23233-go-thunder-go-4.html#post407806). I asked him to add the following text under his pictures:

"I am releasing these images under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC-BY-SA)."

I've uploaded one of them to commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JF-17_background_Mirage_5_ROSE_foreground.jpg) as a test, adding the above URL as the original source and as proof of permission. Can you see any problems that would cause it to be deleted? Thanks for any help you can give. --Hj108 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That looks great! Thank you very much for uploading this. NW (Talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, thanks again for checking it out. I'll tell the owner you liked it, he's an ex-Air Force guy who was happy to help me illustrate the JF-17 jet fighter article I've been working on. He's got quite a few more good ones which I'll put up soon.--Hj108 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

jeremy irons

why did you delete it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.161.27.75 (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this mistake. I was trying to purge an revision from the history, but apparently my script stopped midway and the article stayed deleted. Should be fixed now. Cheers, NW (Talk) 21:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks it was shocking :D (78.161.27.75 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC))

Thanks

Hi NuclearWarfare, thanks for touching base with me. I always wondered if one of my welcomees would make it big. It looks like you've made a big difference here! Regards, Accurizer (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

American Enlightenment

Thanks for nominating my article. It's the first one I've done. --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick Wolven

Hi - sorry to bother you. Some time ago you userfied Nick Wolven for me, but it seems to have disappeared. I tried to find it under my contributions but I don't see it under there either - did all the material I added simply go away after a time period was passed? I put in a few more hours of work there and it seems to have just disappeared - is there any way to get it back? Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It still seems to be at User:Luminifer/Nick Wolven, though it was blanked by Tedder as you hadn't worked on it in some time. Do feel free to undo his edit, though please remove the AfD tag and any categories on the page. NW (Talk) 05:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually that was just a copy of it that I made when it got deleted. When you userfied it, I made a lot more changes - including his cover story in Asimov magazine in December, and a lot of reviews. I don't know what happened to the userfied version of the page you created - I forget the name, it was something / Nick Wolven. It's disappeared entirely from my contributions without a trace. Luminifer (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would be Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Nick Wolven. It's restored now. NW (Talk) 14:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's it, thanks for your help. I see what happened now - for some reason someone deleted that page, and I don't think they merged the changes back to the deleted version of the article. I just noticed they notified me about it, so no big deal. Sorry to bother you about it! Luminifer (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

On images

Hi NuclearWarfare, you were so kind to start an image review in October last year here, and Stifle weighed in, too. Would you please check the images of the present version here? The last time things stalled over some ambiguity but I believe it's all clear now and won't take up much of your time. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi NW, if you are too busy to check please tell me also, then I'll perhaps ask Stifle. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for not getting back to you. I am a bit busy at this time; could you please ask Stifle? Thanks. NW (Talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Alexandra Popp

With pleasure. bneidror (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp

Exactly why are you allowing the IP editor to effectively remove Baseball Bugs's contribution, as these edits make clear is the intention.? -Rrius (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you've now corrected the error. Thanks. -Rrius (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scalabrineformvp

You have protected it at the wrong version!! 68.28.104.227 (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

He did, but has now corrected it so as to revert you. Why do you think you have the right to remove other editor's posts? -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be a first; an SPI of an SPI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be worth looking into. It appears to be the harassing troll(s) I call the "Jersey Boys", as it/they emanate from a New Jersey ISP. It/they turn up now and then when they're bored, and try to hassle me. They had best be careful, or I might have to ask my cousin Vito in Joizy to pay them a visit and "explain" a few things. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first sock socking on someone else's sock report. Seriously, I think some people are in it for the sheer Malkovich of it all. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

too much alliteration for my tired brain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Filtered

I have enabled a filter on your page due to attacks while you were gone. Please feel free to disable it at any time. Have a nice day! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

And Ed17 has protected your talk page. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 04:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For six hours. I know that NW likes to keep protections short. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much guys. NW (Talk) 19:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Another SOCK bites the dust?

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

I guess that, during your absence, vandals really went head over heels on your talk page and akin...Pityful, thank god you also had good people helping with those lowlifes. Regarding this situation (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Marvingroves/Archive), where you efficiently intervened, i think (i do not want to sound pedantic or anything, but i don't think, i AM SURE) the vandal has come up with another account, now called User:Markvermeulen ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Markvermeulen).

Why do i say this? Because at Oleguer Presas, he inserted (falsely!!) this player has represented the Spain national football team internationally, a pattern in the vandal, inserting this kind of lie in footballers' articles. If you take 30 seconds to read this section in this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleguer_Presas#Personal.2Fpolitical_writings), you will see all the more that it has been a vandalic "addition" by this "editor", a player as nationalistic in views (not an insult, just stating the facts) as Oleguer will only play for Catalonia, not Spain. However, if i was to be wrong in this approach, the vandal would still be WRONG, because OLEGUER (and dozens the "editor" has "contributed" in) has not, as of 23-02-2010, played for Spain in any soccer match.

Do you think something can be done about it? So sick and tired of PARARUBBAS and his siblings...

Cheers, ty in advance as always, have a great week,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Vasco. I wasn't too sure on this one, so I asked a checkuser to take a look at it. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long.

And thank you very much for your comments :) NW (Talk) 02:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Block immunity

Thanks, NW, helps a lotOrdinary Person (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request at User_talk:Silverblaster

Hi, just thought I would notify you that a user you blocked has filed an unblock request at User_talk:Silverblaster. They were blocked as a sockpuppet after being identified as a potential sleeper account at SPI, but claim they may have been highlighted as this by editing from a company IP address. Thanks, hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any intersect in their editing patterns ... and a completely different style of personal interactions. Your call though NW. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not really going to be around till later, so feel free to use your judgment on this one, guys. Thanks, NW (Talk) 12:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and unblocked, as their editing pattern suggests they are unrelated, having made gnomish style edits over a long period of time. It seems plausible that as they suggested in their unblock request that they would have been linked in as a sleeper account due to a shared workplace IP. I will keep an eye anyway, I am sure that if there are any future problems they can be handled at the time, for now it seems best to assume good faith. Happy editing, --Taelus (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hipstamatic

Hello, I've just come across your name on the deleted page for the Hipstamatic camera. I'd like to see what Wikipedia has to say about this product but because of your selfishness and self-centered world view I can't. I don't care about your stupid rules and beaurocracy surrounding notability or any of that crap. All I know is that there *was* an article but I can't see it because you decided it wasn't worth my time. You make Wikipedia a poorer place. Josh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.179.233 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

like minds on 2010 Austin plane crash

We both protected the article in the same second. Well synchronized agreement, wouldn't you say? —EncMstr (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike? ;)

Incidentally, are you sure it was in the same second? I've heard people say that before, but I have never figured out how they could get the accuracy down to more than a minute without using some sort of IRC monitoring feed. NW (Talk) 05:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You actually did:

• 2010-02-19T00:20:07 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs | block) protected 2010 Austin plane crash [move=sysop] (indefinite) ‎ (Move warring) (hist | change)
• 2010-02-19T00:20:07 EncMstr (talk | contribs | block) protected 2010 Austin plane crash [move=sysop] (expires 05:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)) ‎ (current article name is descriptive and neutral) (hist | change)

(One of the options under "Preferences" -> "Date and time" enables you to see the seconds.)

But I came here to say thanks for fixing the mess I created by moving the redirect. There were lots of great minds there I think. :) Ucucha 05:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi

Hi NuclearWarfare (hmm, didn't you intend to rename your account?),
blocked user Sumbuddi asked that you be made aware of the discussion on his user talk page. Voilà.
Cheers, Amalthea 00:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will! I promise! One day :( I feel really bad about it actually; I really should get on that

And thanks for the notice. I'll be sure to post there. NW (Talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

:) Amalthea 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mind I butt in? Rename to what?—Preceding unsigned comment added by NativeForeigner (talk • contribs)

Probably my real name; can't think of anything better. NW (Talk) 13:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Living Persons task force

Conversation moved to strategy:Talk:Task force/Living People#Conversation moved from User talk:NuclearWarfare to allow more people to comment. Please do! NW (Talk) 14:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

89.195.18.43

That was funny. You, Nihonjoe and I tripped over each other trying to revert his vandalism. You wanna double check and make sure we didn't overwrite someone's commentary? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That was indeed amusing. I think everything got cleaned up properly; if not, I say we blame Nihonjoe ;) NW (Talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you relist these debates too

These need relisting Meteorbs,Jitsu (Masters of the Universe),Ninjor (Masters of the Universe),Scare Glow and for future reference how do relisting because I can't seem to do step 3 I can never find where to put it. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone will get to them eventually. As for relisting AfDs, there is no real reason for you to need to be able to do it. I use a script, but it is something that probably should be left up to the reviewing administrator. NW (Talk) 20:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BjörnBergman

Hey there.

I understand that you were concerned about how Björn seemed not to understand advice to provide sources for the BLPs he was creating and giving him a serious warning was probably appropriate. However, I'd recommend to go easy on the block threats in cases like this. It was pretty obvious that Björn was a newcomer acting in good faith and he was certainly not adding dangerously speculative, slanderous or damaging information.

Björn has had a really bad experience on Swedish Wikipedia which was to a large extent caused by his being rather young, inexperienced with these things and not terribly patient. But I'm trying to coach him as best I can. Hopefully he will learn from the advice provided to him and continue to make useful contributions.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Peter. I left a note on his talk page. Please let me know if there is anything further I can do to help. NW (Talk) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A request

Hello there, Nuclear, and thanks for blocking that user. If you could take a look over at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#SockPuppet/Vandalism, I would appreciate it - you can find the full story of the account there, which I believe is one of many sockpuppets. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Indef blocked them both, though you may want to get a checkuser to take a look at who that is. NW (Talk) 04:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. I'll let the matter stay for now - hopefully, whoever is doing this has learned his/her lesson. If it pops back up, should I refer to the list of checkusers? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep; that sounds like a plan. NW (Talk) 04:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Calvary Cemetery, Billings, Montana

FYI, you contested the PROD on this one and suggested I take it to AfD, and I've finally gotten around to it. Regards—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Иван_Богданов

Just to inform you, I have modified the block setting for User:Иван_Богданов to indefinate due to additional problems. My rationale can be found here: User_talk:Иван_Богданов#February_2010. As a summary, in addition to the impersonation/sock-puppetry you blocked them for, they have engaged in rather troubling personal attacks/attack pages, which has lead me to believe they are not here to help build an encyclopedia. There is a thread at ANI that is also relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_use_of_userpage_for_some_sort_of_attack_in_Serbian.

Hope this helps, just thought I would inform you of the circumstances, feel free to give me a poke if you think indef is too long. --Taelus (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jéské Couriano

See the top of the page, "NOTE: I do not wish for other administrators to protect this page. If you see a 4chan revision attack, then edit the abuse filter.. --Jac16888^Talk 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

never mind, you already reverted yourself, ignore this--Jac16888^Talk 00:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

68.237.83.18

68.237.83.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You might also want to block Justin4952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an apparent sock of the IP, before he actually edits anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He already has vandalized once (it's deleted) That's good enough for me. Indefblocked. NW (Talk) 03:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Block of 68.237.83.18

I was putting a warning on the captioned IP's talk page for vandalism to User talk:HalfShadow and had an edit conflict with you. Do I put my warning above or below your block, or just forget it? Oberonfitch (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If he's blocked, it's probably best to just forget it. NW (Talk) 03:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft/monobook.js

There was a just a typo in the file local to my userspace that it was calling. Corrected. Thanks :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments

I understand you did not like my use of the word "retarded" in my recent comment. I lament that this awesome word has succumbed to the vocabulary-shrinking veil of political correctness, as it is a word that I (and many others) use freely. I have replaced it with "stupid" so as not to offend the sensibilities of those more sensitive than I. In future, please ask me to refactor something that you find inappropriate, rather than simply doing it yourself. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would echo the last sentiment; even though I also think that retarded is not a word to be used in polite discussion - or CC related talk pages. If you were removing the word in your admin capacity, it would have been helpful to note that in any case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Retarded" is quite inappropriate to use as a derogatory word, and I didn't really want the CC discussions to deteriorate into a mess of namecalling and "he said this; she said this". I'd appreciate it if you didn't use it in the future. But if this situation comes up in the future though, I'll be sure to ask you to remove it yourself first. Thanks to both of you for the advice. Best, NW (Talk) 18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha!

Beat you to it! TNXMan 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! I'm so very sad now! NW (Talk) 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess we started at opposite ends of the issue, as I clicked back to the talk page to find it already deleted. Good work sir. TNXMan 00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Block of 72.152.37.124

Hi there. You blocked 72.152.37.124. Is this a mistake? He vandalized once, and I gave him a warning, but don't you usually give about 4 or 5 warnings before blocking? When you blocked him, he wasn't even warned until after he was blocked. Was this a mistake? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, if someone is editing in bad faith (not test edits, but something clearly showing that they aren't here to edit productively), then they need to be shown the door immediately. I'm not going to bother wasting the time of volunteers reverting someone over and over again just so we can be absolutely sure that they aren't going to be productive. If they wish to reform, there is always the unblock template. NW (Talk) 01:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But he wasn't even warned once, that was his first edit. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

G10 vs. PROD

NW, when you're dealing with unsourced, negative BLPs (like a few I'm in the process of deleting), please either delete the G10-able statements and PROD what's left, or blank the page and use {{csd-g10}} instead. There's no good reason for these correctly-identified BLP assertions to remain in the article for a week. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page if someone else declines a G10 like this and you don't think it's been appropriately handled. Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Jclemens. Normally I'd agree with you, but Beeblebrox declined one of the first G10 taggings that I did in this case. Perhaps we could continue the discussion on his talk page? NW (Talk) 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that works for me. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was close!

Hi there my friend NUKE, VASCO here,

This time i thought i was in for a period of detention, when i saw this message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=cur#Response); were it true, it could only be attributed to my (sometimes) uncivil summaries.

But then, i had the idea of checking my talkpage's history and...VOILÁ!! A vandal, using the appropriate template and signing as YOU, did the "funny deed". He has been, with a (seemingly) neverending supply of IP, been on my case, reverting stuff just because, sending me stuff to my user/talk page, vandalizing, ever since (1 year!) i did what? Report him for vandalizing WP!!

I do not wish (it's in your hands tough) for you to do anything (block, warn, etc), i just wanted to share this funny moment with you. Would not be (THE LEAST!!) surprised if he "visits" me today, especially if/when he sees i sent you this message (no one likes a smart ass, and VASCO AMARAL a smart ass being is...).

Take care, cheers,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Filter

I have reactivated 294 (again) due to attacks on you while you were gone. (I think you're not around, not sure.) Feel free to disable it when you get back. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Riley (film producer)

Thanks for the head up, but what notability is claimed? Woogee (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The production of the ten-part series as well as a 15 year CEO-ship indicates that there might be some notability. Do you want to follow up on it, or shall I? NW (Talk) 00:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

His production company and his latest film are listed for deletion. Do you think they're notable, too? Note that the articles are created by a person who works for his production company. Woogee (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I'm just saying there is a case to be made that they might be notable. Perhaps you could change the speedy deletion tags to prods? And who the article was created by has no merit to whether we should keep it or not in most circumstances. NW (Talk) 00:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The film is an afd, there's no speedy delete criterion for films, but I hate prod with the passion of a million flames, as far as I'm concerned it's totally worthless, so I really don't want to go that way. Woogee (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)