User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 36
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Given this I have taken an interest in User:TouchPoints. I see that you have blocked them for abusing multiple accounts. Would you be so kind as to inform the community just what other accounts were involved and what evidence you relied upon to determine that they were the same user? We would like to also be on the look out for similar abuses, and I also wouldn't want anyone to believe that you might simply be blocking accounts which hold views with which you and some of your close associates disagree. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll answer your question if you answer my two questions: What other accounts or IP addresses have you used to edit Wikipedia? Why did you create User:William M. Connolley/Arbitration committee sanctions? NW (Talk) 06:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- "What other accounts or IP addresses have you used to edit Wikipedia?" Please don't ask for personally identifying information. "Why did you create User:William M. Connolley/Arbitration committee sanctions?" I assume I used an edit summary, although I don't remember exactly, check there for your answer. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to get back to me when you're ready to answer. Your edit summary, if you are curious, was "Add page to track sanctions". NW (Talk) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't wish to reveal my IP address(es). Why don't you ask a checkuser to give them to you? Regarding the edit summary it answers your question, no? So are you going to back up your block with evidence or were you just leading me on? --Good Sumaritan (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to get back to me when you're ready to answer. Your edit summary, if you are curious, was "Add page to track sanctions". NW (Talk) 06:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- "What other accounts or IP addresses have you used to edit Wikipedia?" Please don't ask for personally identifying information. "Why did you create User:William M. Connolley/Arbitration committee sanctions?" I assume I used an edit summary, although I don't remember exactly, check there for your answer. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Might be GR, perhaps. Though I might have expected more subtlety William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not to ruin your guys' fun or anything, but I blocked Good Sumaritan for [majestic titan]09:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Senkaku
Are you interested in closing the SI RfC alone? I'm not sure if Future Perfect is around at the moment. Alternatively, I could add a request to the "closure requested" section of
) 01:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)- Good work with the close of that RFC. Nice to see someone is willing to make the tough calls. Join the DR army!03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear admin NW: Thank you for your closing that RfC. I believe your closing is leaving the title issue as status quo including "forbidding the initiation of further move requests until 2013”, and the title-tag there should also not be moved. Regard. --Lvhis (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Any tags similar to {{POV-title}} should be removed from all articles in the topic area. NW (Talk) 00:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
AE
I saw you blocked in that one TBAN violation case on AE. Did you want to keep that one open to see if that will work or did you just forget to close it? --
- I wanted to leave it open for a second opinion because I blocked so quickly after the filing, but I support it can be closed now. NW (Talk) 16:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
can you rein in Mathsci please
He just diffed the section you collapsed as evidence against me - the guy is out of control. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- <sigh…>Addendum: Look, I'm strongly resisting the urge to pull out hundreds of diffs of Mathsci's petulant behavior and slime him the way he's been consistently trying to slime me. I really don't want to go there; I'm reasonable convinced that there are 'circumstances' which make Mathsci incapable of restraining himself on these issues, and I'm trying to be graceful about it. But it's very frustrating to have this guy digging like badger after every crumb that he can twist into a personal attack against me. If you can't get him to focus on the topic, at least convince him to stop trolling me so that we can get through to the end of this debate in some semblance of dignity. Can you do that please? --Ludwigs2 19:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have three times now sent private email messages about the problematic nature of Ludwigs2's edits on the case pages to the clerk and senior arbitrators. If Ludwigs2 wishes to make any commentary on my editing relevant to the case, he should add carefully documented diffs, drawn from article pages, talk pages or project pages, instead of making wild and unsubstantiated claims on the case pages or anywhere else. It might also not be a bad idea for him to think twice about editing wikipedia after having "slugged down" glasses of port, The result is editing which shows no evidence of circumspection. [1] Possibly the exaggerated nature of his comments in the diff (or even above) is related to his port consumption: it's hard to say, but I have rarely seen such exaggerated conduct in an ArbCom case. I am a very minor party. Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Mathsci, you are a very minor party: your only purpose in this case is apparently to slander me. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the few times you've made useful contributions to the discussion, but those represent only a small percentage of your activity here. All the rest - all the rest - is you talking shit about me. It is absolutely appalling the amount of effort you put into character assassination. You've been doing this to me for a year, on and off, and I've watched you do it to others - do you really want me to diff out all of the endless ad hominem attacks you spin out against anyone who opposes you?
- I have three times now sent private email messages about the problematic nature of Ludwigs2's edits on the case pages to the clerk and senior arbitrators. If Ludwigs2 wishes to make any commentary on my editing relevant to the case, he should add carefully documented diffs, drawn from article pages, talk pages or project pages, instead of making wild and unsubstantiated claims on the case pages or anywhere else. It might also not be a bad idea for him to think twice about editing wikipedia after having "slugged down" glasses of port, The result is editing which shows no evidence of circumspection. [1] Possibly the exaggerated nature of his comments in the diff (or even above) is related to his port consumption: it's hard to say, but I have rarely seen such exaggerated conduct in an ArbCom case. I am a very minor party. Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to be like you, so I don't really want to get into that. I just want you to stop trolling me so that I can get on with the happy task of forgetting that I ever met you. Stay off my back and out of my life and I will stay off and out of yours, and that will make everybody in the entirety of Wikipedia very, very, very happy. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- ??? Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry: what part of "Stop trolling me" do find confusing? I'm happy to explain if it's not clear to you. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- ??? Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Again: what part of "Stop trolling me" do find confusing? --Ludwigs2 22:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- This was quite funny to begin with, but has now become boring. If neither of you has anything new to say, why don't you not say it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Part of the answer lies here. 94.196.63.228 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)ipsock of banned user Echigo mole- Take it up with Mathsci, Will: he seems content to talk shit all day long so long as it's all about other people (or at least as long as it's about me), but he doesn't seem to have what it takes to face criticism of his own behavior. Not really my problem, except that he won't stop yammering about me. If he won't get off my back, and none of the people who are supposed to administrating this thing will intercede, then he's just going to keep on needling me until sooner or later I get pissed off and start shooting back. Won't that be fun! Wikipedia is such a godawful stupid place sometimes. --Ludwigs2 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- This was quite funny to begin with, but has now become boring. If neither of you has anything new to say, why don't you not say it? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- Again: what part of "Stop trolling me" do find confusing? --Ludwigs2 22:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- ??? Mathsci (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry: what part of "Stop trolling me" do find confusing? I'm happy to explain if it's not clear to you. --Ludwigs2 21:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- ??? Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want to be like you, so I don't really want to get into that. I just want you to stop trolling me so that I can get on with the happy task of forgetting that I ever met you. Stay off my back and out of my life and I will stay off and out of yours, and that will make everybody in the entirety of Wikipedia very, very, very happy. --Ludwigs2 20:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Both of you, take a break. The workshop is closed for 24 hours now anyway.
Mathsci, my advice to you would be to just leave the discussion. I think you have made your points about Ludwigs effectively enough, and, if you don't intend to get involved with the topic area further, there is nothing left for you to do. NW (Talk) 05:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- gladly. --Ludwigs2 05:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Per your comment
You may be interested in this discussion on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Refereeing
Thanks for the steps you've been taking at the Muhammad images workshop. I think you've been using your discretion in entirely appropriate ways, and doing a good job of it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Article
I started January 2012 al-Midan bombing per your suggestion at ITN.. Is it fine enough to be posted? WikifanBe nice 06:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that is decent enough. Want to go mark the ITN/C discussion as "Ready"? NW (Talk) 06:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Cquote
I see you have converted all cquotes to quotes in the Text sections. That's fine by me. I don't care which is used. However, eventually someone will come along and change at least some of them back. What I want is stability. Either we should be using cquote or quote. I know the arguments for each. I suggest that wiki-policy be clarified so that the back and forth regarding this issue will end. Thank you. SMP0328. (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The policy is clear; see the documentation at Template:cquote. NW (Talk) 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is clear to you. As in any dispute, each side sees itself as representing the clearly correct point of view. I suggest expressly referring to legal text in the policy. There is clearly a dispute regarding whether using cquote is correct. I'm not disagreeing with your view on this matter, but many do and so I feel that Template:cquote (or some other wiki-policy) be amended to expressly cover this dispute. SMP0328. (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Evidence deadline
NW - I'm adding my evidence soon, but I'd like to know the actual deadline. Do I need to do it this evening or do I have through tomorrow? The message (saying that it closes on the 11th) is ambiguous, and while I don't imagine anyone's going to be uber-rigid about it, it would be nice to know the expectation. --Ludwigs2 03:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's probably best to clarify with AGK, but evidence deadlines in my mind have always been 23:59 on the date in question. NW (Talk) 03:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think there's any need to bother AGK. I'll put it up tomorrow morning, and if there's a problem we'll work it out. --Ludwigs2 05:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hans Adler's evidence
Because he's probably the decider, I asked AGK on this talk page about the extent of Hans Adler's evidence. But since you're the clerk, I'm letting you know too. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I am seriously confused now. What is the regular purpose of the Workshop section "Analysis of evidence" with the instruction "Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis"? When I became aware that it exists and has a more appropriate format for responses by others, I moved my detailed analysis there, but now you have moved it back. The complaints by Tarc and Mathsci do not make sense to me other than as part of an attempt to exclude evidence they don't want to be considered in the case. (This may be related, by the way. I have asked Mathsci for clarification.) Hans Adler 00:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to do some reworking of the sections to make it flow better, but thanks for asking me to to take a second look at this. You are definitely right, and it was my error. NW (Talk) 00:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just figure I'd drop a clerk a line, I'm unwatching the entire Arb case page and walking away for a bit. One can only take being called a racist...and then done so again when you call them on it...so many times before one just decides to pull a Malleus and fucking unload. I don't fault the way you handled Adler's evidence thing, btw, this ain't over that. I wish they'd just wrap it up and vote tonight, honestly. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now here's something we can agree about. I am quite shocked to find that the external pacing of an Arbcom case (the first one in which I am listed as a participant) has turned editing Wikipedia into a very unwelcome chore. Suddenly the world is full of so many other, more attractive things to do... Hans Adler 07:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of A Scandal in Belgravia
RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?
Clerk Training Request
Sir, I've been with Wikipedia for some time and would like to try my hand at helping be a clerk for ArbCom. Would you be some kind as to take me under your wing to become a clerk? Buffs (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I shall start a discussion about this on the Arbitration Clerks' mailing list. NW (Talk) 19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Buffs (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
The so-called Moonlight Sonata
You asked for an experienced editor to properly close the Requested move (back). I doubt that you will find one, because everybody experienced I know of was involved. You are probably aware that a former move discussion (now archived) in September (which brought us to the current situation that Beethoven's Classical era music travels under the bias of a Romantic era perception name which doesn't do justice to it and which can't be used for the years between creation in 1801 and nicknaming in the 1830s) was closed on a 2:1 so-called consensus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Experienced and uninvolved doesn't necessarily mean knowledgeable in music history (though I can think of at least two editors who fit that description—User:Tony1 and User:Wadewitz), but merely knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy. The principles of policy are generally strong enough for even someone who doesn't know much beyond what the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods were to close the discussion properly. If no one stops by to close it in the next few days, tell me and I can close the discussion. NW (Talk) 17:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I just realized that I don't find the former discussion in the archives, but it's in the history, needless to say that I am the one who spoke up against the move then and who wrote about facts and myths, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I came to say: relief, but see you know that already. Back to content, and playing the piano, finally, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've made a strong objection to your reversion, see [[2]]. We've had many of these technical issues in the past and it's always been very difficult to find an uninvolved editor willing to take the time to read and study this kind of discussion. However what I particularly object to is your demand that the eventual closer gives "a detailed summary of why WP:COMMONNAME is not strong enough to retain the title where it is". That's an attempt to influence the closure according to your own personal viewpoint. Regarding User:Tony1 and User:Wadewitz, the former is indeed a sometime music editor. Wadewitz is a literature editor who has no music experience AFAIK. --Kleinzach00:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I just realized that I don't find the former discussion in the archives, but it's in the history, needless to say that I am the one who spoke up against the move then and who wrote about
Is this section accurate? Is it complete? Please take a quick look. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Possible protection mishap
It appears as if the page was protected too soon. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Since the WMF has asked that any decision be communicated to them by 23:59, and we closing administrators need time to analyze and summarize the discussion, we decided to close it slightly early. Sorry for any inconvenience it may have caused everyone. NW (Talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks for letting me know. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As a closer of Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action, should Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Coordinated SOPA reaction in early 2012 RfC also be closed? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For the nicely written SOPA RfC summary. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
- Agreed. Beautifully written.[3] Lara01:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! I certainly can't take all the credit though; the other two co-drafters were just as integral as I. NW (Talk) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I want to add my thanks and congratulations. This is an important moment in reasserting the right to free access to information and knowledge worldwide, and its significance is profound. Thank you for playing your appropriate and historic role. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you! I certainly can't take all the credit though; the other two co-drafters were just as integral as I. NW (Talk) 03:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Urgent: error in the count of users - see SOPA initiative talk page
Wikipedia_talk:SOPA_initiative#Please_correct_the_wrong_numbers_-_this_is_embarrassing.21 Please respond over at the SOPA initiative talk page. Boud (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As the blackout has ended, can you unprotect this page, please? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
Arbcom subpages
Hi NW. This is just a formal notification that, since the Muhammad images case is drawing to a close, I had the three subpages deleted in my userspace that I had used for preparing evidence. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
proposed decision - Muhammad
I took the step of hatting two sets of comments on the talk page: one an opinion from Eraserhead when I was asking for the opinion of the arbs, and another multi-post bit because ASCII decided to troll Anthony. you can revert it if you like, but I'd prefer if you didn't. --Ludwigs2 11:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Quim (footballer born 1959)
Hi there NUCLEAR, VASCO here,
as always, request the same (pretty much): could you please protect this page for a couple of weeks (article being toyed with, has to be the same "user", but his IP is dynamic as can be - hence, no way i'd get in touch with the person to ask them to stop)?
Attentively, happy 2012 (a bit tardy :() --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I really see the problem. Can you explain what's wrong with this series of edits for example? (And happy 2012 to you as well!) NW (Talk) 02:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks here and below. As far as QUIM's article goes, removal of correct playing position in intro, and this addition in the end of story: "In January 2011, Quim was considered the best Rio Ave FC football player ever." Where's the source for that? And the person can talk to me if they want, i have an account and a standard IP, they haven't, assuming they know (but the most important stuff is removing correct info over and over again, and adding unsourced stuff). --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism
Ah man, another request (just saw it now): could you please deal with this Indonesian vandal accordingly - i tried to talk to him on several occasions, don't know if he does not speak English or is just mocking me...
I'll elaborate: he's been removing (without NO summaries whatsoever, in the vandalic actions or ANY of his edits! please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.68.125.18 - also lots of "blanked the page" or "section blanking" by the chap) the runner-up classifications in footballers' articles. What is a runner-up position? Finishing second in some competitions grants you a medal, therefore it's an honour; in competitions between national teams, the THIRD place is also an honour (see him "contribute" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Esteban_Granero&diff=450920044&oldid=449891871 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sergio_Ramos&diff=472897457&oldid=472670367 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Mar%C3%ADa_Callej%C3%B3n&diff=471431213&oldid=471384330).
Appreciate whatever can be done in advance - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"Interesting"
I guess my reputation (sometimes i have bouts of uncivility towards vandals and the sorts, have already served a block for that, fair it was) precedes me, and even the newcomers now that i'm up to no good, out to disrupt the good spirit at WP...
For this message (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:60.224.188.76#Names_in_squad_templates - see first part), got this reply (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VascoAmaral), enough said. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Crat?
It'll be a privilege to nominate you for being a bureaucrat, in case you are open to it. Kind regards. Wifione Message 08:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- For better or for worse, I am unsure I would pass a reconfirmation RfA, let alone a RfB. In addition, I have spent a lot less time in recent months watching RfA as I used to, so I'm not sure how in touch I am with things anymore. Thank you for the offer though; I greatly appreciate the thought. NW (Talk) 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! Not sure how that happened.
- Actually, amusingly enough, I think I had had the page open and noticed the typo before Courcelles fixed it the first time around. I went and did some other things for a while and then fixed it without even noticing that the two of you had a brief edit war ;) NW (Talk) 17:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, I thought your edit summary was a little odd for a revert of a revert...anyway, your quick typo fixing is appreciated. Talk·Contribs18:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, I thought your edit summary was a little odd for a revert of a revert...anyway, your quick typo fixing is appreciated.
POV pushers
Thanks! That is a very kind and gnerous comment. I wouldn't want to discourage you from writing a Signpost essay on this topic - it is always important. Feel free to quote me however you wish. Have you thought about writing a WP: essay on the topic? If so feel free to incorporate whatever I wrote and let me know (as you know, anyone can contribute to an essay - once you get the ball rolling there may be other people who could contribute and turn it into something that many mor members of the community till turn to as a point of reference - you never know!) Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Creating a page name for Gulzar Group of Institutes
We have noticed that you have deleted the page of the same name (Gulzar Group of Institutes) because of some reasons. We have modified the details according to rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Can you please help us to create the page for Gulzar Group of Institutes.
Waiting for your quick and positive reply!
Thanks & Regards Gulzar Group of Institutes
- The article still needs a bit of work, but I have restored it to here. NW (Talk) 18:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
We have again submitted the page Gulzar Group of Institutes but can't know how to replace image logo. Please guide us how to change the logo?
- See [4] and scroll down to "Upload a new version of this file". NW (Talk) 18:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
DYK for A Scandal in Belgravia
nominate ) 08:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Muhammad caseI think you should do an update of passing remedies again. It looks like there has been a change in the votes for remedies and also in the votes for closing. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Wong Kim ArkHi. I'm a bit confused by this edit. I can't see what was changed. Was this just a matter of adding/deleting spaces? If so, was it really necessary? If it was just adding/deleting spaces, I'd rather revert it in order to reduce confusion by myself or others trying to do diffs between versions. Regarding this item, the numbers are Taishanese tone marks. — Richwales 04:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Talkback-- (ʞlɐʇ) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
closing glitchMlpearc closed the Muhammad case at 04:33 and John Vandenberg voted at 04:41-05:34. JV's vote would have changed the result of remedy 6.1, so it's probably important to unwind this.—Kww(talk) 11:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Ahlquist v. CranstonAt Talk:Ahlquist v. Cranston, there are now three editors recommending that the article be refocused on Jessica Ahlquist. For my own part, I think that there is no rush as the published retrospective views could begin late next week if the case is not appealed. Not that there is any such thing as a formal quorum, but enough editors have expressed opinions that it is time for another look.Novangelis (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Death of Chief Justice Harlan Fiske StoneI'm letting you in something I discovered yesterday and today about when Stone died. Your edit here[5] made me think you might be interested in this knowledge. Stone died at his home, and not while a Supreme Court decision was being read by William O. Douglas. The proof of it is here.[6] A 1946 news article published one day afterwards. The information about Stone dying on the bench was originally edited[7] into the article in 2006. Your edit put in a citation stating the information came from John Paul Stevens book 'Five Chiefs published in 2011. Stevens twice claimed in the book that Stone died while on the bench. Over the last day I proved it's blatantly untrue. Yes Stevens was a clerk back when Stone died, but the newspaper proves that his source on the CJ's death was wikipedia. Just letting you know.- William 17:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you have time for a FA review?I've nominated Birth control movement in the United States for Featured Article status. It has had one successful review so far, but needs two more. If you have time, perhaps you could look at the FAC page and do a review? Any comments you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks, --Noleander (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Frank Murphy See Also sectionI severely edited down the links which numbered over 30. Take a look at Earl Warren, John Marshall, and William Rehnquist's See Also sections and compare it. Another editor doesn't like what I did and reverted. I brought it up on the talk page before and after my edits. Could you take a look and put in your two bits? Thanks.- William 18:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Deso DoggHi Nuclear! Let's look at this edit. You removed the sentence "According to German officials, music like that from Deso Dogg influenced the perpetrators of the 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting." Now, this is supported by the following from this source: "German authorities say people like him inspired the shootings of two American airmen at the Frankfurt airport in March. The 21-year-old man accused of the killings, Arid Uka, whose trial began in Frankfurt on Wednesday, said he opened fire after seeing a video that claimed to show Muslim women being raped by men in US military uniforms. Uka said he was listening on his iPod to nasheeds calling for opposition against occupation forces and the West as he travelled to the airport just before the shootings. “It made me really angry,” Uka told the judge." So, considering that, what would you believe is the best option to express the information? WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
How to display?How'd you do it? I can't find "one-revert-per-24-hours restriction (1RR)" anywhere on the Abortion talk page. -Attleboro (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry ...but I noticed you mentioned in an AN/I thread here, and thought you should know about it. cheers. —
Anthony BolognaHi, the redirect Anthony Bologna is to nothing. Can you do something about it, either delete it or redirect it to Timeline of Occupy Wall Street, or preferably unprotect it so when/if there is an article or paragraph it can be edited? Be——Critical 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Abortion article titles notificationHey NuclearWarfare. This is just a notification that a DR goes to Wikimania! 22:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:United States Academic DecathlonCategory:United States Academic Decathlon, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC) About my topic ban - SamofiHello, sorry that last days I have broken my topic ban and Iam disposed to hold out an aftermaths. Few months ago I was editing topics outside of my topic ban and I had no problems with other editors. But I was observing situation about these disputes and I had to react. I did not want to hurt anyone with my edits but I could not watch what is happening here. Its like a monopolizing of these topics by a group of editors with unific point of view from one geographical location. Its kind of hierarchy among them, they have topic circuits which they control and edit, some of them are specialized only to writing the reports on editors with different opinion. I told all I wanted to say and I will again edit geographical and economical articles (outside of my topic ban) if the complete ban will not applied on me. Wiki community is like living organism (like a town), people make a ideological clusters, but people also change and I hope that neutrality of Wikipedia will well-preserved in future. Thank you for reading. --Samofi (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here, continues to DESTROY my user page (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VascoAmaral&diff=478699977&oldid=471708136), one year and counting, just for telling the piece of garbage (that's what he is!), politely (!), Quique Flores was the most common name in EN.WIKI. Several other users have done just the same, he attacks only me! --Vasco Amaral (talk ) 03:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello NuclearWarfare. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated |
Roe v. Wade FAR
Hi NW! The Roe v. Wade FAR has been ongoing for a while and has been moved to the FARC section. It could use some comments on whether the article should be kept or delisted. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Question
Hello, I would like to ask you how can I delete my account. Thank you. --Samofi (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Pea bean
I understand the Pea bean was PRODed in February 2011 and that you were the deleting admin. I was 13000 miles from my computer at that time otherwise I would have raised concerns about the deletion. Even if there was an uncontested PROD I would have expected a redirect to Green bean to be left behind. Can you therefore restore the article so that I can work on it to improve its content and refs? I could easily create a re-direct myself but, were I to do that, I would loose all the previous history ,text and discussion. I have no problem if you wish to restore and immediately convert into a re-direct as that would also make the original text , history and talk page available again. Many thanks Velella Velella Talk 00:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have now raised this at Talk
Eldrin Bell
Why was the page on ELdrin Bell deleted? 216.23.60.82 (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Amendment timeout?
Do requests for amendment timeout? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
- What a bizarre co-incidence: [16]. Good job I'm not at all cynical William M. Connolley (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- In the next election, let's ask the arb candidates if they intend to deal promptly with amendment and clarification requests. It's understandable that hard questions could take a long time, but I'm puzzled that more straightforward requests also languish. For instance, why couldn't they chime in at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles. Jclemens made a perfectly sensible suggestion on April 3, and then, nobody else responds. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- In the next election, let's ask the arb candidates if they intend to deal promptly with amendment and clarification requests. It's understandable that hard questions could take a long time, but I'm puzzled that more straightforward requests also languish. For instance, why couldn't they chime in at
Request for your input
You commented a couple of months ago on SirFozzie's user talk page about an issue where I inadvertently violated a topic ban by commenting on another topic-banned editor's arbitration appeal (User talk:SirFozzie#Prioryman topic ban?). The same issue has come up again but kind of in reverse, where another topic-banned editor has commented on my own arbitration appeal, but apparently without any reaction from the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. I've asked them to clarify their position on the issue, given the apparent discrepancy. See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Request for clarification: Jayen466 involvement in my ARBSCI appeal. I'd like to invite you to the discussion - if you have any views they would be welcome. Prioryman (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Deletion request
Please delete the redirect page Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...? to make way for a page move.
Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: Long time no see!