Jump to content

User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36→Archive 40

Am I making any sense or do I need a nap?

I've been slowly familiarizing myself our SCOTUS case coverage and I've noticed inconsistencies on the voice used in the coverage the Court's decisions and the weight given non-notable dissenting opinions. You've touched Romer v. Evans recently so I'll use it as an example... The ruling section is entirely voiced as being Justice Kennedy's take on the issue i.e. "Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a "special right" because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens." ultimately leaving out the actual ruling "We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed." Now I know there is some controversy on the topic but (last I checked) SCOTUS is the final arbiter on the law and interpretation of the Constitution and the Opinion of the Court should be probably be described as such. I would think a lot of users that come here asking "On what grounds did the court make that great/crappy/cool/awful decision?" and I'm not sure that information is always forth coming. (mini-rant off) Is there a good discussion concerning proper weight of dissenting opinions and the like floating around that might enlighten me on the community's take on this? ...Am I making any sense or do I need a nap? Thanks. Look, if you don't like my parties, you can leave in a huff. If that's too soon, leave in a minute and a huff. If you can't find that, you can leave in a taxi. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It can go either way, I think. I don't know anything about how WikiProject SCOTUS does things, but I imagine they have a page or discussion somewhere that describes it. I think the proper thing would be to write "Justice Kennedy" when talking about his thought process and write "The Court" when talking about the decisions he is issuing on behalf of the Court. Not sure about the rest of it though, or even what I just said. I think I should probably go to bed. NW (Talk) 06:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is it true, King Richard the Lionheart help in any way pave the road to the Age of Exploration, and if so I might edit something about it ? --Corusant (yadyadyada) 22:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Well...not really. The Portuguese, not the English, really started off the Age of Discovery, and they wanted to go to Africa and India, not the Middle East. Also, how did you get to my user talk page? NW (Talk) 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Bayes

I seem to remember that you were interested in Bayesian probability. There's a new book on the subject, reviewed here, which looks like it might be interesting. I haven't read it myself, but thought I'd pass it on in case you're looking for summer reading. Cheers. MastCell Talk 18:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing that in Nature last month. It certainly sounds very interesting. I'll check it out once I finish Dr. Mukherjee's excellent book. NW (Talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read that one yet, but several of my colleagues enjoyed it. There's so much bad writing about medicine out there, so it's worth looking for good stuff. Atul Gawande is my favorite - or rather, I hate him because I'm jealous of how well he writes. :) MastCell Talk 00:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Both Gawande and Mukherjee are quite excellent. I only managed to get through about 70% of the book before I had to give it back to the library, but I think I should get another copy and finish it. It was very interesting to read for me, as all I know about cancer is the little I learned when friends and relatives were diagnosed, but I think even you who must know so much about the subject will enjoy (re)learning the history of cancer treatment.

I've read Better and Complications by Gawande, both of which were excellent, but I haven't picked up The Checklist Manifesto yet. Have you read it? NW (Talk) 01:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Mostly, I've read his pieces in the New Yorker. The ones about national health care and overutilization were particularly good. MastCell Talk 02:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Those are pretty good, but I remember reading about some issues with his overutilization piece in particular. I'm going back and rereading it now. The Mayo Clinic definitely has extremely good health care and low costs, but they stopped accepting Medicare and Medicaid in 2009. I imagine they didn't just go from a large number of Medicare patients to none in just three years; perhaps they had previous been accepting Medicare patients in a partially pro bono fashion? The rest of that article does seem very convincing though. I'll have to read that paper by Elliott Fisher that Dr. Gawande mentions. NW (Talk) 15:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Remarkably prescient. I wonder if he is right about this. I hope so, but growing up in a post-Reagan era has undoubtedly made me cynical of government, even for the Crazy Liberal that I mostly am. I'll have to go back to these pieces if and when I'm disappointed in 2012 and 2013 by all three branches of the federal government. NW (Talk) 16:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the overutilization piece. His presentation of the Mayo folks as the shining example of altruistic medicine actually kind of pissed me off, because he didn't acknowledge the realities you allude to. The Mayo Clinic has more money than God. They can sit back and pontificate about the way things should be done, because they aren't subject to the same financial pressures as everyone else. It's like listening to one of the Rockefellers lecture you about how you shouldn't stress out over money. MastCell Talk 20:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AE#Cerejota mentions you slightly

Hello NW. In the fine print of this AE complaint, it links to an edit you made as an admin at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Do you want to add a comment in this AE? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure one is really necessary at this time; I think the reasoning for my edit is self-evident. I also don't think that it involved me in the article or the topic area, but I'll defer to the rest of the AE corps on that. Thanks for the heads up though. NW (Talk) 15:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Me & Mathsci

I can tell that the ongoing dispute between me and Mathsci is getting on people’s nerves, so I’m making an effort to resolve it in his user talk here. If you’re thinking of commenting on this issue at AE, you might want pay attention to the discussion on Mathsci’s talk page, even if you don’t actually get involved in it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. He removed my offer of reconciliation from his page three minutes after I'd posted it. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a request. If you decide in the AE thread that you need to do something about my conflict with Mathsci, could you please give me and him a mutual interaction ban? My “side” of the ban should also cover Ferahgo, so that she can interact with me but not with Mathsci, and Mathsci can’t interact with her. Now that Mathsci has rejected my offer of an amicable resolution to this conflict, I’m probably going to need to request an interaction ban from ArbCom at some point, but it would save everyone a lot of time and drama if this could be done at AE.

My conflict with Mathsci over the past year has happened in far more places than just AE, so banning me from AE is not going to solve this problem. What I really care about is Mathsci not being able to pursue me anymore, but a mutual ban is probably what most people would see as fairest, and I don’t mind giving up my ability to interact with him as long as I can know he’ll be leaving me alone. (For us to both leave each other alone is also what I tried to suggest in his user talk.) --Captain Occam (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m sorry if I seem to be badgering you, but could you please get back to me about whether a mutual interaction ban between me and Mathsci is something you’d be willing to provide in the AE thread? If not, I might decide to request this from ArbCom before the AE thread is closed. I’m getting a stronger and stronger impression that allowing the conflict between him and me to continue festering is a detriment both to the community and to me, and something needs to be done to end it. But I don’t want to start an amendment thread about this issue if it’s going to be resolved at AE. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had time to look at the case. But no, I don't think so. One of the other commenting admins might though? NW (Talk) 17:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I’ll probably just request it from ArbCom. Thanks anyway, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk review of proposed amendment needed

Please look at User talk:EdJohnston#Final draft prior to submission and see if it has all the needed information. Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate your review. In Template:ArbComOpenTasks the date of the amendment is now shown as 16 August. I think it should be 1 Sept. Thanx, EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, thank you. I replaced the parameters of a previous template but neglected to fix that. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 20:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the DYK for Frankie Edgar vs. Gray Maynard. -- James26 (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal questions

We're done here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[1] NW, do you understand why it isn't appropriate to ask editors personal questions like this about their religious, philosophical, or lifestyle beliefs? For one reason among several, because we address the edits, not the editor. Also, it's the kind of atmosphere this creates in what is supposed to be a collaborative project. If you edit the Catholic Church article in a way that someone disagrees with, do you think it's appropriate for them or an admin to come to your talk page and ask you if you are a follower of the Catholic religion? Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That analogy is a bit off, Cla68. Olive has explicitly stated before that he or she is on the faculty of the primary TM university in America; I would just like olive to clarify what exactly that entails. NW (Talk) 00:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If she has said that, then why are you asking her questions for which you claim to already know the answer? More importantly, what does it matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned? How about the Intelligent Design article? Should I be asking the participants there if they belong to atheist or agnostic organizations, if they believe in God, if they are Christian Sunday School teachers, if they have ever been "card-carrying" members of the Discovery Institute, etc? It's inappropriate. Address the edits. Does Olive revert war? Does she misrepresent sources? Does she insult or belittle other editors on the article talk pages? Does she abuse BLP articles? Does she remove sourced information without discussion? Those are the issues to address if they exist. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, Cla68, that editor does engage in many of those behaviors. Those are bad enough, but they're worse when compounded with conflicts of interest. See Wikipedia:Activist.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If an editor is not engaging in any of those behaviors, i.e. not violating any polices, then would it matter if they have a COI, which is a behavioral guideline by the way, not a policy? If not, then why would it matter either way? Either an editor is following the rules (policies) or they aren't. The ACTIVIST essay's entire premise is that activist editors don't follow the rules. Will, didn't you help edit that essay? Cla68 (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Because all (I think) I know right now is that Olive is or was a faculty member of Maharishi University of Management. I have no idea if that means Olive did real analysis research, taught Advanced Transcendental Meditation theory courses, or worked in the PR department. Of those, only the last one would concern me, but only as a compounding factor. Your position that only the edits matter is interesting, but not something that I think is widely accepted. If an editor ran a website attacking a subject of a BLP, for example, and then edited inappropriately on that article but not to an extent that would normally get them sanctioned, do you not think we should take that into account?

And yes, I would ask similar questions if someone who was editing Discovery Institute in a similar fashion that stated that they were affiliated with the National Center for Science Education but didn't say anything further. NW (Talk) 01:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an experienced admin who supported an arbitration warning against me for making one strongly worded (not uncivil) statement, who uses every chance he can get to muddy my reputation, who as I see on Kbob's page will even stoop to off-line and online intimidation and bullying creating as much noise as he can on the sidelines of his RfC, should once again create more myth and narrative in his ongoing efforts to remove me.
  • Nuclear Warfare. Any information you have about my past personal life was removed with an admin action. For you to know that information was there is to know that it was removed, and to then repeat it is deliberately outing me. For you not to know it is there means someone gave you the information. I was harassed off Wikipedia and the information was removed. The arbitrators were made privately aware of the information. Now it is left to me to decide what to do about being outed.(olive (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
Whether or not disclosures are made, WP:COI should be followed. WP:NOTADVOCATE is a policy. Some editors have consistently added positive material on TM-related topics and removed negative material, which in some cases amounts to promotion of expensive therapies and techniques. That's a problem.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
We are here because you, Will Beback have a propensity for creating narratives that reinforce your position. If you want to discuss my editing please take it to arbitration. (olive (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
To you Nuclear Warfare ... I have no idea what to say to an admin and clerk who trots out personal hidden information in this kind of situation and defends that action. (olive (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC))
You personally have made non-deleted statements on other users' talk pages that you have a terminal degree and I understand from posts that have been made to WP:COIN that you are affiliated with MUM. From that I thought it was reasonable to conclude that you were employed by the university, perhaps as a faculty member and perhaps in another position. No non-deleted information was used at all. If you don't wish to answer the questions I posed, fine. You could have just gone and said that. NW (Talk) 03:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
NW, from what I've observed, editors involved in the TM topic area have been oft-subjected to this kind of inquiry, and they're understandably sensitive about it. They perhaps reasonably perceive it as attempted intimidation, because the source of much of it is an editor and admin who often disagrees with them in content debates. Then, when another admin suddenly comes along and starts asking them personal questions about it on their user talk pages, how are they supposed to feel? Again, address the edits, not the editor, and these kind of situations can be avoided. Cla68 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Outing: NW you have attempted to out me: You took a comment about a degree, and a statement someone made on the COIN then guessed at personal information, and posted it here? In the meantime you employed Inquisition type questions on my user page in further attempts to get information? Its hard to know what to say.(olive (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC))

ITN

Can you check this blurb out please? It's been ready to post for more than a day, though one editor appears to have a disagreement over a tag. But there is a strong consensus. WikifanBe nice 03:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Checked out and posted. NW (Talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. WikifanBe nice 20:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Re Direct Causal -"not used in the literature"

Are you as familiar with the literature in this regard as you were with it in regard to fetal viability? If you recall you stated that William's Obstetrics did not go into that, without actually having checked beyond chapter summaries of the book available online. Perhaps you could have said "to the best of your knowledge you don't recall having seen it in the literature you have access to." I am going to rework it to avoid the term in that way, but refer to no "direct evidence of causal relationship" which is used in the literature. DMSBel (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have thought again about it and summed the most common finding that more research is needed to establish a definitive causal relationship.DMSBel (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely that should be "more research is needed to determine whether there is a definitive causal relationship." One can't presume what the results will be.LeadSongDog come howl! 12:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes my poor phrasing, sorry. "whether there is" would be much better. Its not always easy to hit on the best wording. However Roscelese has reverted it for now. How about "discover with less uncertainty whether there is a definitive causal relationship"? Or if that is ok is there a better way of saying it? DMSBel (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There is, of course, more research being done to determine whether there is a causal relationship. Most recently, the New England Journal of Medicine carried a large study in January of this year (PMID 21268725). This study involved 84,620 first-trimester abortions. Coleman did not include this study in her "quantitative analysis" (which, incidentally, included data on 163,831 abortions). It seems obvious that if she had included the 84,000+ data points from the NEJM study in her analysis, her results would have been rather different. But I digress... I suppose the point is that more research is being done. MastCell Talk 18:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Every paper that I have ever read ends with "more research needs to be done". They'll continue saying that about the uncertainty over the last few digits in the mass of the proton even after they nail it down to the 50th decimal place. It's hard for me to read that as anything more but "please give us money" :) Of course, I don't do real research, so I might be completely wrong about that. NW (Talk) 19:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Well maybe you should not comment on it then, in that manner at least.DMSBel (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Specifying that no direct causal relationship has been found also obviously implies that an indirect one has been found, which is not the case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
More research is always needed. You'll never hear a researcher say: "Hell, we already know everything we need to know about my area of interest." Unfortunately, that stock phrase gets a lot of play on Wikipedia when people citing an article aren't satisfied with its conclusions. As in: "Over 1,000 published studies have found no evidence that multivitamins prevent cancer. However, more research is needed to definitively disprove any benefit." MastCell Talk 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: commons:File:Abortion_video.ogg

How was commons:File:Abortion_video.ogg "posted in violation of Commons licensing policy"? And who gave you the ability to delete it so quickly? —Geremia (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I passed a request for adminship on Wikimedia Commons. That is what gives me the ability and the authority to delete the image. I deleted it because it was posted under a CC-BY-NC-ND license. The only Creative Commons licenses that Wikimedia Commons accepts are CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA. All files posted to Wikimedia Commons must be available to use in commercial manner in any derivative form that someone might wish to use, per Commons' copyright policy (see Copyright tags for a list of acceptable licenses). NW (Talk) 23:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. So CC-BY-NC-ND is a completely separate license that does not fall under CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA? Thanks —Geremia (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Another thing: Would CC-BY-SA-ND be acceptable or not? Derivative works always have to be allowed? Thanks —Geremia (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yep. Our article on CC describes it pretty well, but here is a quick summary: There are four basic license components, which you can mix and match them how you wish: BY, NC, SA, and ND. CC-0 is essentially public domain, and has none of the four. BY is attribution, all CC licenses these days have it. NC is non-commercial; Wikimedia doesn't allow that. SA is Share-Alike; that means all derivative works of the video must be posted under a license compatible with the original license (usually it's the same license). ND is no derivatives, which means that no derivative works of the file you post can be created. We don't allow that either.

CC-BY-SA-ND is self-contradictory; a license can't have both SA and ND. But if you removed just the SA, it wouldn't be allowed; derivative works must be allowed for our purposes. NW (Talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to swap the placement of two sections in WP:ARBMAC

In the WP:ARBMAC case, can I put the 'Log of warnings' section ahead of the 'Blocks and bans' section? In other cases such as DIGWUREN and ARBCC the warnings come first and it seems more logical (lightweight first, heavyweight later). I also fixed a bug in ARBMAC that was preventing the year-sections of the warnings, like 2010 and 2011, from having their own edit links. (Saves precious time for the logging admins, of course :-). EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free. Sorry I missed this earlier. NW (Talk) 01:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, Re edits earlier today (on abortion article), Just to say if you could give some brief edit summaries, even to say "formatting - minor change" "wording - minor change" rather than make a lot of edits without summary it helps other editors follow what is going on without having to actually click the edits.DMSBel (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

May be of interest to you

Just FYI - I noticing you editing 911 - you may find the talk over at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 interesting.Moxy (talk) 01:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. I have my opinions, but I have better things to do with my time than involve myself in that...dispute. NW (Talk) 01:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian vandal

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

unfortunately, the subject is the same, highly disruptive editing: this guy from Brazil, User:Bruno corinthiano, he has also used a vast array of anon IPs, namely this one (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/177.0.204.119, block expires after tomorrow).

Being the wiki-sleuth that i (think i) am, i begun seeing the connection between the IPs and the account Bruno C., and the account was also blocked, for 48 hours, it has now resumed with the habitual stuff, which is unexplained BOX or introduction removals (here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%81lvaro_V%C3%A1zquez&diff=449887893&oldid=449208240 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergio_Garc%C3%ADa_de_la_Fuente&diff=449887867&oldid=447054390). From the anon IP mentioned above, please see this one, not even with the ref was the vandal taken aback (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_%C3%81ngel_Vald%C3%A9s&diff=446577612&oldid=444027049)!

Attentively, keep it up and happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you asked HJ Mitchell about this? I only ask because I have been somewhat busy recently, and I notice that he might be familiar with the situation because he blocked 177.0.204.119. NW (Talk) 23:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes i have. In a pattern which makes me feel a bit uncomfortable (i have seen several folks do that after my query/message, although maybe it's just me being a bit picky), he is active but has not replied, almost a day has gone by

Also, i thought the diffs provided, amongst other info (i.e. his block history), would suffice to grant a larger block, i guess not :( --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that I'm just not 100% sure that the IP and the account are the same people; I just don't know the topic area well enough. Do you have any evidence besides what you mentioned above that makes it obvious to someone like me that they are the same (e.g. habitually removing information about one team or one country, making the same edit with a different account)? 14:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Nope, no further evidence. You could trust me though, and block at least the BRUNO C account (it continues to receive warnings, and continues to say "talk to the hand"). Of course it would be a big move to block the IPs, coming from Brazil and all, a large area, but to block the account could (or not!) send a message.

As i had hoped, HJ MITCHELL did not reply whatsoever, not very cool but ok, people have other things to do around here... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked Bruno for a day; hope that gets his attention. NW (Talk) 03:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bleck...

Got caught up in the RW over the weekend...friends, family, typical...so I'm running a bit late with this. I have a script that pulls history from a local xml dump and generates the table. The current version selects based on the line number edited...anything < 18 is included...but changing the criteria is fast and easy (same for colors, etc). Two questions 1) Does that cover the missing data from last week? 2) Preferred sort order, newest or oldest on top? See that girl, barefootin' along, Whistlin' and singin', she's a carryin' on. There's laughing in her eyes, dancing in her feet, She's a neon-light diamond and she can live on the street. Thanks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

1) Yep, though cleanup so that a lot of the material extraneous to the edit war is excised would be useful. 2) Oldest on top. NW (Talk) 03:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Intentionally blank-section

Template:Intentionally blank-section has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin

Hi NW, could you e-mail me a copy of the Brett Kimberlin article for review at DrV? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sent. NW (Talk) 04:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Hobit (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Me too please. Special:EmailUser/SmokeyJoe. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sent. NW (Talk) 15:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Abortion

I had removed the {{pp-semi}} template, because, as I said, the edit protection had expired. I won't undo your re-adding of it, since you have reprotected it. Also, were you refering to me in the edit summary? I am asking since the protection is for persistant sock puppetry. Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stealing this header. I saw your message on RFPP - hit me with the background. m.o.p 21:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Banned IP editor who has vowed that he "will never stop trying to edit that page (abortion) or influence its content." MastCell Talk 21:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
@Lakers: Not at all. I was referring to the IP editor.

@M.O.P: Basically what MastCell said. The article and the article talk page have been protected numerous times before, and the IP editor blocked on many IPs before (he's actually been topic banned by JzG), and this is another one of those times. NW (Talk) 00:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, NuclearWarfare. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
My thanks for you assistance with this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
You are very welcome. NW (Talk) 14:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mayo Foundation v. United States passed for GA

well done-SCB '92 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I noticed you had an issue with the one paragraph sentence about Justice Kagan's recusal; could you think of a better way to incorporate that into the article? NW (Talk) 20:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really; just combine it with the previous paragraph, or just leave it as it is; not that much of an issue-SCB '92 (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Blanking during DRV

I wonder if the template should be fixed. This is the first time I put something under DRV (List of killings of Muhammad). I didn't blank it because the template explicitly says "do not blank or redirect this page" while the DRV is in progress. Is there a purpose to blanking? Blanking doesn't seem to facilitate review of the article during the discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the template, but I do know that common practice has been to blank articles while they are at DRV so that readers don't think that an article we deleted is still part of the visible encyclopedia. I think it has its purpose—if an article was deleted on grounds that included but was not limited to severe NPOV violations, it isn't a good idea to keep it up for a week+ after an decision was made to remove it. And as far as facilitating reviews: I'm sure no one will mind if you include a link to an old revision in the opening statement of the deletion review discussion. NW (Talk) 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar

The Minor Barnstar
Your recent edits to Abortion were deft and improved the article's content and stability; and saved time for MastCell and I. Thank you. - RoyBoy 02:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
This is very much appreciated, thank you. NW (Talk) 03:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

I just wanted to let you know how deeply disappointed I am in seeing your edits there, most especially this, which is highly insulting to someone who has made a good faith attempt to improve a difficult and toxic area of Wikipedia. You should really read more deeply into this and then consider whether an apology to Malleus is merited. Thanks for your attention. --John (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Difficult and toxic the topic area may be. And I understand that Malleus may feel that his edits were all justified. But look at this comment. Do you really think that doesn't fall under the following criteria: "fails to adhere to...any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process"? Do you feel that the edit was reflective of "an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles"? NW (Talk) 06:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. On the other hand you could look at the antecedents to the comment. Reading Tarage's talk page would be a good start. Tarage is virtually a SPA who specializes in edits like this one which do a lot of damage to the possibility of "an acceptable editing environment". While Malleus's comment was definitely uncivil in the moment, I think in the context of the arguments there in the last weeks, it is unremarkable. You really do need to look at the wider picture here, I think. In the crudest terms, it's good practice as an admin if you're going to warn one side in a dispute, to also warn the other. Patchy enforcement of a sanction is probably worse than no enforcement at all. --John (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
If that diff is unremarkable to you John, then you have lost perspective on what good editing behavior is. Bring me diffs from MONGO, AQFK, Tom Harrison, etc. that are equally poor, and I'll warn them too.

But on second thought, actually don't. This is reminding me too much of the Climate change disputes I had the stupidity to try to get involved with last year; no matter what you try, people will always get pissed off that you didn't do exactly what they wanted you to do. I have articles that I want to edit or write, a book that I need to finish before my interlibrary loan expires, and all sorts of other things that make my time on Wikipedia enjoyable. This conversation isn't one of them. NW (Talk) 06:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I would only ask that if you are going to get into enforcing this area that you do it in an even-handed way. I am sorry you don't find it enjoyable to be asked to explain your actions as an administrator when queried; of course, per WP:ADMIN this is something you are required by site policy to do. These areas are certainly a nightmare, I saw the climate change one from a distance and I am seeing this one from closer up. I accept that you acted from good intentions but I do still have a serious problem with the words you chose to use. They may have been construed as a personal attack in themselves, and then you would have someone warning you and so on and so on. Let's all resolve to be more civil even in the face of incivility and leave it at that and get on as you say with something more enjoyable. --John (talk) 07:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Shoot. I see what you mean now. I never actually clicked the diff you had linked to; I thought you were referring to my original pointer towards WP:ARB911. Yeah, that wasn't well-written at all. I meant to give obvious examples about why talk pages were covered in discretionary sanctions, but I don't think I did that very well. Let me go strike that out. NW (Talk) 07:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate your prompt action. I also want to thank you for this; I didn't appreciate being "warned" by someone I was in a dispute with previously, without even being given a hint of what I was supposedly being templated for. Such point-scoring is not, in my opinion, the correct use of admin enforcement. It may be that Arthur's AN/I report falls into the same category; as admins we have to be alert to spurious complaints being used to further content disputes which is what this whole thing looks like to me. If you have the appetite, there is much work to be done in this area for an uninvolved admin, but it would take truly heroic levels of commitment to read the whole thing, and I don't blame you if you have better things to do. --John (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I saw Karanacs' comments here. If everyone is willing, depending on who is participating, and if people are willing to give me and each other leeway, I might be willing to act in that role that she mentions. NW (Talk) 07:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a good offer. My willingness to take any kind of role in this is predicated on there being some kind of cease-fire on the attacks (Malleus and I have both been called "POV-pushers" and "CTers", as well as being "warned" and added to the Arbcom log for responding honestly to a call for community assessment, which kind of rankles) and on the reports to central boards for what seem like gamesmanship reasons. I trust you to be a fair arbiter if we get that far. At the moment, with the third AN/I report in two weeks and Malleus seemingly withdrawing from the area, this isn't looking hopeful but one remains as optimistic as possible, of course. Thank you for the offer. --John (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Xxxx693 - User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

another sock by this Colombian lowlife, has resumed his racist (and more) attacks against me, after the long run-in we had (have? will have?) in Quique Flores. Have a look at this "charmer" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=452131467&oldid=452050337 please see here), wish him nothing but the worst, don't care if he's 15-years old (as some say) or 55, a LOWLIFE!

Thank you very much in advance, enjoy that weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Very unpleasant. Looks like Hut 8.5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked him about half an hour ago, which is good. NW (Talk) 20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

update

A year ago we had a discussion on Talk:Kyndra Rotunda. You said you would ask another administrator to explain themselves.

I am frustrated that a year has passed, with no public explanation, so I left this note on the village pump. Geo Swan (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of this approach?

I've been working on Outline of chess to be a possible model for outline developers to follow. A key modification is the concise lead sentence followed by the subject as the outline's first listed item (with annotation rather than paragraph).

Note also the section development, and how they display annotated items.

I look forward to your comments. The Transhumanist 02:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

ACTRIAL

Hi NW. There are new postings at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-26/News and notes that will answer some of your questions; and yes, the trial did propose, in quite some detail, with the necessary GUI tweaks, how the Wizard and AfC should be integrated. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you. NW (Talk) 17:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anwar Awlaki

Great job summarizing the lead. KeptSouth (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I was concerned that people might see my edits as trying to whitewash the lead (obviously not the case), but I'm glad that you thought it was well-done. NW (Talk) 18:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Induction

I don't understand this edit [2] or your comment. The prior text makes perfect sense to me; removing Euclid doesn't make sense, to me. What was wrong? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, I think I confused Euclid and Euler. I was wondering how anyone who lived c. 1000 AD could be between Pascal and an 18th century mathematician. Sorry about that. Feel free to fix/revert as you see fit (I would probably make a fool of myself again). NW (Talk) 22:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem, I've restored it. Don#'t hesitate to jump in again William M. Connolley (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Adequacy.org_Logo.jpg

Can you please restore File:Adequacy.org Logo.jpg. I'll fill in information that was marked as missing at Talk:Adequacy.org#Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Adequacy.org_Logo.jpg. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Please try to get to filling in the information by next week. NW (Talk) 20:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your help. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Christianity

Not that I'm religious or anything, but I'm about to embark on a clean-up of this monstrous outline. It's a mess.

I was wondering if I could pick your brain...

Is there an easy way to strip the formatting out of the templates, tables, and navboxes on this page and convert them into bullet lists?

The format I'm aiming for is something like Outline of chess.

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 01:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Find+Replace in a word processor? Not really sure what one could do besides that. I'll be interested to see what you come up with though. Best, NW (Talk) 02:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Good lord that page is ugly.--Tznkai (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines.

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 22:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Annotations needed

The annotating of the entries on Portal:Contents/Outlines is nearing completion.

Annotated entries look like this:

  • Basketball – team sport in which two teams of five players try to score points by throwing or "shooting" a ball through the top of a basketball hoop while following a set of rules.
  • Canoeing and kayaking – two closely related forms of watercraft paddling, involving manually propelling and navigating specialized boats called canoes and kayaks using a blade that is joined to a shaft, known as a paddle, in the water.
  • Cricket – bat-and-ball team sport, the most popular form played on an oval-shaped outdoor arena known as a cricket field at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-yard (20.12 m) long pitch that is the focus of the game.
  • Martial arts – extensive systems of codified practices and traditions of combat, practiced for a variety of reasons, including self-defense, competition, physical health and fitness, as well as mental and spiritual development.

Entries needing annotations look like this:

Please go to Portal:Contents/Outlines' and fill in as many missing annotations as you can, even if it's only one or two. Every little bit helps!

Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology

Hi. There is some stuff at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Journal_of_Cosmology that isn't directly of any concern to you, but it raises the issue of whether I'm even allowed to contribute to the discussion there, as a couple of editors are doing their best to shift it into CC type territory (spuriously, in my view, and entirely to try to eliminate an opinion they don't want to hear). Could you offer your advice (as clerk)? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

While not as egregious as what Headbomb did, this is pretty close to canvassing as well, in that you are trying to get someone on your side. SilverserenC 20:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Your ABF is trying. As you are aware, I'm currently banned from commenting on CC. You're doing your best to convert the discussion at JoC into one about CC. So I need to be quite sure that I'm allowed to continue discussing the matter. That is all I'm asking NW to comment on - not to join the argument William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. And, no, i'm not trying to "convert the discussion". I've made the one comment about CC, just to point out that it is one of the subjects they cover. I don't know much about your ban and i'm not trying to remove you from the discussion. SilverserenC 20:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Please strike your comments above that you now realise are erroneous William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. SilverserenC 20:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; in turn, I've toned down mine. Now I'll wait for NW's comments William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, I don't think that article as a whole falls under the CC sanctions. As long as WMC stays away from the discussion about CC, he's fine. If anyone adds CC into the article, he should avoid that content. In fact, this seems similar to issue that came up with Cla68. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Just want to point out that I agree. And, unless there is some extensive amount of sources about JoC's climate change articles that I don't know about, the CC point will just be the words climate change added into the scope with the associated reference. SilverserenC 21:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
WMC, I'm of the opinion that the article does not fall under your topic ban. NW (Talk) 22:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1.18 and Mark-blocked-script.js

There is a report on WP:VPT about this script not working. Have a look at other comments there or look at the discussion of 1.18 bugs for hints. — ☠MarkAHershberger☢(talk)☣ 03:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerking request

I'm not sure amendments have named clerks, but I'd like you to consider clerking this one, and removing the sock comments, [3] etc. There seems to be agreement elsewhere [4] that the sock isn't allowed to contribute William M. Connolley (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I sincerely apologize for this comment. It just seems like I'm boxing the rain sometimes in my efforts to get editors to stop using Wikipedia to promote their pet causes (including me, of course). I shouldn't have, however, taken it out on you. Cla68 (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. I genuinely didn't know of any backstory and was merely curious whether you and WMC had gotten in to it again on a page unrelated to climate change, so I was hoping you would be able to fill me in. NW (Talk) 18:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Signpost

Solid work. Should I expect this to be a regular occurrence? JORGENEV 04:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I do have a conflict of interest, and I'm not sure if I have the time to do it every week. But we shall see. Ask me again in six days. NW (Talk) 05:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering. I have been the regular writer of the report for that past two months and if you want to come on as a co-writer I would like to know so I can plan around it, for efficiency's sake. That said, about the conflict of interest point, it would probably be good to have a reporter who is a bit closer to the proceedings than I am. JORGENEV 06:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, to be honest it was likely a one-time deal. I'll let you know several days in advance if I'm ever considering doing it again. NW (Talk) 17:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica

Thank you for spoiling the identities of the "Final Five" cylons for me BY STATING WHO THEY ARE IN THE LIST OF CAST MEMBERS. Shouldn't a list of the cast be reserved for basic information about the characters, instead of containing spoilers for the entire series? I know Wikipedia's policy is supposed to be "spoiler-neutral," but in my opinion this seems to cross a line. Any person making their way through the series for the first time (such as myself), who is simply interested in knowing the name of one of the series' actors, will have the entire series ruined for them. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, I kept your change intact and leave it up to you to decide whether or not to remove it. I'm not really all that mad... just a little annoyed :) Elchip (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean; I was pretty bummed when I was spoiled about four of the Final Five during my watching of the second season. I'll go and change it some; you're right that the article can be just fine without including that information in that particular section. NW (Talk) 18:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
All right, thank you for your quick response, and sorry if I came off a little harsh. Elchip (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It's no problem; I totally understand. Out of curiosity, how far are you in the series? NW (Talk) 18:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Season 2.0, disc 2. In the most recent episode I watched, Roslin & co. landed on Kobol, and Adama decided to take his faction of the fleet back to join the others on Kobol. Elchip (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The next couple seasons are pretty up and down, ranging anywhere from amazingly fantastic to "I know this is a filler episode, but come on now". But overall, they are pretty great. Do enjoy :)

I made some edits to the section in question. What do you think? There is still one spoiler for you with regards to Samuel T. Anders, but the worst of it is gone. If you are willing to take a look, could you tell me if you think I should try to trim that or not? NW (Talk) 18:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Elchip: Whatever you do, don't watch the last 45 minutes of the series finale. Whatever ending you come up in your head is better that what the script writers came up with. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only person in the world who didn't mind the series finale? Probably, is what I have gathered from talking to fellow nerds, but still, it wasn't bad as everyone would have you believe. NW (Talk) 18:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
There's no way it's as bad as the LOST series finale... is there? Elchip (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thanks again. Elchip (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna

Hi NuclearWarfare. Thank you for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna. Would you take a look at User:Phoenix B 1of3/Anthony Bologna, User:Phoenix B 1of3/Rally Squirrel, User:Phoenix B 1of3/Caiyad Phahad and the other GFDL-violating, WP:FAKEARTICLE-violating content in Phoenix B 1of3 (talk · contribs)'s userspace? I think they can be speedily deleted as copyright violations. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the first one you linked to, because I know the background, but I'm a little hesitant to do so for the others without looking into the matters. Have you spoken to the user about him getting the articles userfied if he is afraid that they will be deleted for WP:V/WP:N reasons? NW (Talk) 03:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I have notified him that his copy and pasting constitutes copyright violations. Cunard (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna redirect

First, I'd like to say thank you for your work in closing that debate - I know that couldn't have been a fun thing to do. But I noticed that you may have made a mistake in your redirect. You redirected it to Pepper spraying at the Occupy Wall Street demonstration which redirects to Occupy Wall Street#Pepper-spraying incidents, so it's a double redirect. I'd fix it myself, but I'm unsure exactly what you want to do with his page, so I figured I'd bring it to your attention and let you fix it--I'm not sure if you plan on deleting it or redirecting it, or what. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I figured I would just let the double redirect fixing bot take care of it. NW (Talk) 03:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
For taking the time to close the AfD on Anthony Bologna. No matter what the outcome of that AfD was, you deserve credit for closing one of the longest most complex AfDs I've ever seen. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. NW (Talk) 03:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js

Just a suggestion: 

importScriptURI('http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

should be 

importScriptURI('//ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-markblocked.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

(note the removal of http:) in order to prevent https from resulting with an unencrypted page message. —mc10 (t/c) 04:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm total code neophyte, so thank you for your suggestion. I have implemented it; let me know if I accidentally broke the wiki in doing so. Best, NW (Talk) 12:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie

Good call. I wish more admins had the balls to make blocks like that. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for continuing to edit the page after you placed the notice there. I didn't notice. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I re-reviewed all the comments, including your removed one, before I closed the AFD. Don't worry about it. NW (Talk) 12:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, NW. I share the sentiments others have expressed. Admittedly the discussion went as I wanted, but I think a long and thoughtful explanation satisfies most editors no matter how it went.
By the way, I see that it has been re-created. Do you think it might be a good idea to create-protect it? ScottyBerg (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and I agree.  Done

Also, am I misremembering something? I thought that you passed an RFA sometime last year (after WP:ARBCC). NW (Talk) 01:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitely no, and perish the thought! ScottyBerg (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Confused you with Sphilbrick, I suppose. No chance you would be willing to run in the future? NW (Talk) 01:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No. But much appreciate the compliment! I am happy with my rollbacker tool, a corporal in the great Wikipedia Army. I don't need no stinkin' badge. ScottyBerg (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
... or to put it less flippantly, maybe I'll be interested when RfA becomes less of a medieval trial by fire.... ScottyBerg (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your closing statement in the Anthony Bologna AfD debate

I really must commend you for the thorough and thoughtful closing statement you wrote. You were respectful of the "keeps" and it is clear that you gave careful consideration to their opinions (at least those that were also thoughtful). I knew that this would be a tough one to close, and I thank you for taking it on. The encyclopedia is a bit better because of your efforts. I am convinced that you made the right decision. If you are ever in a jam, and need a helping hand, don't hesitate to ask me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, NW (Talk) 12:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi - I just wanted to second Cullen's comment. After reading your statement, I would have been happy whichever side you came out for, as it was clear that it was very well considered either way. Thanks for tackling one of the more difficult closes. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I voted Keep, but you were right. Nice close. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit history merge possibly required

Hey, I noticed you moved the Iran assassination article to a more appropriate name (although depending on how allegations play out perhaps the investigation is broader and the media will provide a convenient shorthand)... but i just wanted to make sure that any history from the prior page would be appropriately merged into the history of the new page, to comply with licensing terms. In other words. Articles A and B were created and B was merged into A, and then A was renamed to B, which means that all of the contributions need to be registered in the edit history to comply with copyright requirements.

I've got no opinion right now on the name... I was surprised how long it took to create the first article actually, I almost did it myself... but I think that in some time there may be an obvious confluence of a few investigations so they can be comfortably grouped under one heading. In the meantime, it'd be good if we kept the contribution history all in one place, as best we can, to comply with the GPL, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was a complicated history merge/demerge/merge. I think I got everything though. NW (Talk) 14:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I saw it live as you fixed things up, but the history from the other page seems to be missing, as I was the creator and had titled the new page as "Adel Al-Jubeir assassination plot", and there are none of my edits present. Therefore, is it permanently lost by now? DarthBotto talk•cont 16:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
They are located here. I was thinking I would integrate them normally, but that would mess up the early history because the two articles were created simultaneously. NW (Talk) 17:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive_34&oldid=1143202417"