User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 17

*Cough*

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]- CosmicLegg? Here's hoping for a torrent of freebies from CU. --King Öomie 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case filed. NW (Talk) 22:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

You page protected Amanda Knox. The previous editor was redirecting it because they said the article was a copy of the murder article. But the article has been up only 2 hours and already it has changes. The previous editor before that was John Carter, who is an administrator.

What you should do is not to listen to the pro-redirect editor and let many editors improve the article so that it is not a copy of the murder article. Then it can be judged on its own. If people add biographical details to the murder article, those will probably be removed because they are unrelated to the murder. So we are stunning the growth due to inflexible rules.

There is already a consensus, about 5 editors have edited the article and 1 changed it to a redirect and demanded page protection. 5:1 is consensus. You should unprotect it and ask for opinions on the Amanda Knox talk page. Then see what the real consensus is.

I came here to Wikipedia and typed Amanda Knox. This is because she is the key article. I did not type in Murder of Kirscher. John Obamo (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Amanda Knox article fails WP:BLP1E and the information would therefore be better presented in the context of the larger event which she is associated with. Because the Amanda Knox article was essentially a copy of the other article, I protected the title so that it would not lead to a BLP1E violation. If you can gather a consensus on Talk:Amanda Knox, I will be happy to unprotect the article. Regards, NW (Talk) 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Could you unprotect it? I'd like to start a separate article. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done so, as multiple people have now requested I do so. Could you please alert people at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher of your decision to split off part of the article? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I supported leaving it full-protected at Talk:Amanda Knox and WP:RFPP, so it'd be nice to have you (NuclearWarfare) weigh in there before the article gets created. tedder (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have too much time to look it over at the moment, so feel free to take any administrative action you wish on the article without considering WP:WHEEL. NW (Talk) 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, NW. I'll babysit it and all of that. Cheers, tedder (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

false sock accusation

Hi, there.

Thanks for acting on my SPI complaint a few days ago, but it seems the sockmaster, Update101, is fighting back by requesting his own SPI probe of me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Eaglestorm

Can you delete this SPI? Because I think this is nothing but a witch hunt for something I did right. Thanks.--Eaglestorm (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. NW (Talk) 16:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Keep the good work. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

67.246.40.144 vs 68.236.155.30

I discussed this with JD on IRC yesterday afternoon but it seems to be getting worse so i thought to bring it to your talk page. You blocked User:67.246.40.144 for making legal threats. You also blocked the user's IP address, 68.236.155.30 but reversed your decision here. 68.236.155.30 has clearly stated that 67.246.40.144 is their sister & brother-in-law's IP. However their sister's IP has continued to be blocked and the user has been getting increasingly agitated over what i believe is the contradiction of the two blocks / one unblock. It appears that noöne noticed the users' IP block/unblock at the time they declined the unblock of their sister's IP and it has excessively escalated in the ensuing 2 days. Due to the number of unblock requests 68.236.155.30 has filed for his sister's IP many admins have gotten involved and all have declined because he is now kinda bringing up legal threats over this ongoing block. (Quite ironic i think.) JD supplied me the diff that prompted the initial blocking [6]. The user was quite civil in dealing with you over their block (68.236.155.30). Every request for unblocking of their sister's IP was made after you unblocked their IP. Their first unblock request of their sister's IP was very civil but it was declined, possibly because no notice of your block/unblock of 68.236.155.30 was taken at that time. To this humble editor this looks very bad and an oversight that has perpetuated to taunting of legal threats and anger from both sides. I feel that as the initial blocking admin it would really be in need of your attention. Maybe at least an explanation of why you left 67.246.40.144 blocked while unblocking 68.236.155.30 for the same issue/offence. I would have put my concerns on User talk:67.246.40.144 so that any other admins could be easily made aware of the bigger picture but the page is now fully protected this morning. I'm a reader; a link to the multiple unblock requests was in an IRC channel. My apologies for not finding you on IRC; maybe you were there while i was sleeping. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 13:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, 68.x.x.x specifically clarified that they did not intend to make a legal threat. However, 67.x.x.x has not withdrawn his explict legal threat. Until he does, he cannot be unblocked, as he has repeatedly stated that he wishes to sue editors/the WMF. NW (Talk) 16:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Response sent via IRC to NW as we are both online at this time delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For readers of this discussion, delirious alerted me that 68.x.x.x had been the one making the unblock requests, not 67.x.x.x. I have blocked 68.x.x.x for an extended period of time as a result of this. NW (Talk) 19:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

revert

[7] That's not vandalism. 86.44.57.162 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What is it then? Because to me, it is indistinguishable from vandalism. NW (Talk) 23:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just an uninformative !vote. There is no reason to remove it. Don't fuck with other people's comments unless you have to. It's pretty basic. If the guy comes back though and his comment is gone, it's a safe bet his next edit will be vandalism. 86.44.57.162 (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page trying to indicate what is or isn't vandalism is actually really sensible. I mean if you or I went through AFDs removing weightless votes from registered users, there'd be chaos. I'd be banned and you'd be de-adminned. And that's even more justifiable than doing it to newbies! 86.44.57.162 (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO from Portugal here,

...and counting!!! This vandal does not stop, i believe he has more than 20 socks now, the new one is called User:Asdcxz890 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Asdcxz890). Please note the name similarity, the editing field (still Portuguese soccer), it's him, i bet my life on it, no checkuser needed in my opinion.

The vandal shows no sign of stopping. Well guess what, neither do i!! As long i am here at WP, he will not have one moment's rest, guaranteed (although he does not seem to mind one bit, continuing to say "talk to the hand").

Attentively, ty very much in advance,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked. Tell me if you want me to rollback any or all of his edits. NW (Talk) 02:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks mate! About your two questions: 1 - yes, i humbly accept the granted honour of rollbacks, will try to live up to the status :) 2 - no need to revert the edits, i will take care of some of them, by improving piece myself (links, storyline).

Take care, keep it up, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Perm_Lame_Horse_club_fire

Hello. I'm not going to start a DRV, but I think that AfD should have stayed open. Although now with the socking accusations against the nominator and the main page visibility I see your rationale. With the 8/4 !vote in favor of keeping, I don't think it was a speedy candidate. It only had 66% support for keeping. I think given time, the editors working on the article would have run out and other not involved contributors would have had a chance to !vote their opinion and discuss. In any case, I'll wait a few weeks before looking back at it. Balloon boy was heavily disputed and ended up being a very encyclopedic article once the story developed so I'll just watch it for awhile. I am not asking for you to reverse your opinion, but I did want to let you know mine. Thanks and happy editting.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi :)

I'm busily scrubbing up after Wikipedia's multiple point copyright infringers, so when I saw the word "copyright" on ANI in a watchlist check popped in. I've done next to nothing with socks, so I wanted to ask you if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fynire violating copyright again. My take on this is that, if this individual has previously been blocked multiple times as alleged, a block is in order. But while it may be obvious to somebody more used to dealing with this stuff, I lack experience to assess it quickly and time to assess it slowly. I'd be ever so grateful if you could help out, or, if you can't, suggest somebody who handles the sock drawer who might. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, and I was about to write out a long post explaining what I did too. What a shame that we have these fancy things called "watchlists" and "logs" so that anybody can figure out what happened ;) Cheers, NW (Talk) 00:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Makes life easier. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Bob3579/User:Jeanratelle

Hi, I noticed you were involed in a Checkuser on User:Jeanratelle. I wasn't sure if User:Bob3579 might be the same user or not. Is there some official protocol for this you could direct me to? Thanks,--71.156.89.167 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please post your evidence here? Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

He was apparently blocked by another user since my initial inquiry with you. Thanks for the help though.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt Bixel

As per the first response to the AfD, he fits criteria 1 of WP:PORNBIO. As I can't really establish whether he has nominations or other awards, for now I'm going to create redirects to List of Grabby recipients#2003. - BalthCat (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean. Consensus established that the article failed the notability criteria. I suppose the redirects are appropriate. NW (Talk) 17:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess consensus appeared to ignore the first criteria at WP:PORNBIO. - BalthCat (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really too into this topic to know what is a major award and what isn't; I merely read the consensus. You are free to take this to WP:DRV if you wish. NW (Talk) 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to do such properly, which is exactly the problem with deleting articles with asserted notability... - BalthCat (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Valerius Tygart

• Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3RR case in which a Tygart IP sock is blocked by Abecedare for edit-warring at Bill Maher (7 November)
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Valerius Tygart (last comment by you on 19 November. Main account blocked 31 hours)
• Block log showing the editor using an IP to tamper with his own SPI report (29 November)
• Bill Maher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Tygart reinserts his favored material yet again on 6 December. He has no other interests on Wikipedia since 12 November).

Xenophrenic has just restored the recently archived ANI thread at [8]. This concerns socking and edit-warring at a BLP article, Bill Maher. While it had appeared that Tygart promised to refrain from socking, and I had supposed he was promising to stop restoring the disputed material at Bill Maher, he has continued to do that. Almost his entire activity on Wikipedia since November 12 is trying to restore this stuff, or trying to persuade others that it needs to be there. While Xenophrenic is the person who reverts him most frequently, I'm unconvinced that Tygart has any interest in respecting consensus. (Seems to be generally Tygart against Xenophrenic and Henrymrx on the article's talk page). I do not see any WP:BLP/N report about this, which might be a good idea. Tygart has engaged in disruptive sockpuppetry via an IP within the last ten days. (i.e. since the SPI case originally closed). The complexity of this case should hopefully not prevent firm action being taken, if it is needed. I'm writing to you because you are the one who advised caution most recently in the ANI thread.

I do agree with the 'relatively mild' observation about the Maher BLP issues in the above-cited block log by Abecedare, but somebody who socks up the wazoo and appears to have no interest in consensus surely deserves some extra attention from admins. If I were to block, I would probably do so for 31 hours and put 'Disruptive editing' in the log. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if a block is really appropriate at this venture, but I am getting frustrated with the user. Everything they are doing seems calculated to stop right before they are blocked. Perhaps a final warning that the next bit of disruption will lead to a block? (Talk page watchers, this would be a great time to step in). NW (Talk) 20:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"This Wikistalk report might be of interest. However, I'm currently leaning against a block and towards a firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties). I'll watchlist Bill Maher and will block if I see contested content being added/deleted without consensus. Uninvolved editors: Does that seem appropriate? NW (Talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)"[9]

Hi, NW. I'm not an "uninvolved editor", so I haven't commented. If I were to comment, however, I would take issue with your "(for both parties)" wording. I'd rather not have my editing lumped in with that of Tygart. The implication that I, too, am edit warring is inaccurate. WP:BLP clearly lays out requirements for BLP content, several of which Tygart's edits do not meet - so I have been undoing those edits, as directed by BLP policy. If you feel my objections (or the objections of User:Henrymrx) to Tygart's edits are not supported by the BLP policy, I'd appreciate a further explanation. I can understand the desire to convey a sense of even-handedness in unclear situations; hence the frequent use of "warnings all around" verbiage - but sometimes there is just one party at fault.

As for the actual meat of your proposal: I, too, am leaning aginst blocks - I'm not out for blood, I'm looking for a solution. Tygart appears determined to deny abusive sockpuppetry even in the face of irrefutable checkuser evidence (although his excuses have morphed from "that's not abuse" to "it's abuse, but that's not my account" to "it's my account but many others use it, too - so don't blame me"); but who cares. He's already been blocked and unblocked, and he pledges to use only the Tygart account now, so pressing him to also "fess up" seems rather pointless. As for the edit warring situation, however, he appears to be applying the same denialism - and that is a problem. Just a few hours ago he reinserted the contested content, and noted on the talk page that he "disagrees" with Henrymrx's and my objections, and apparently won't be persuaded to cease his edit warring until a half-dozen other editors also disagree with him, "Then I will clearly be outvoted & will have to relent, regardless of what I think are the merits of my arguments." IMO, this is now a game to him; it's a competition, and his circular reasoning and ignoring arguments to the contrary are becoming annoying. That brings us back to my original question at ANI: Where do I turn? Is the tendentious editing clear enough for admin action, or should I pursue this at WP:BLPN first? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that BLPN would be the appropriate place. I'll still be watching the article though to watch for signs of further disruptive editing. NW (Talk) 17:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Kils socking

I saw you blocked the socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils. Are you going to block Kils (talk · contribs) as well? This seems to be a clear violation of site policy, and I agree with this comment by Jehochman about the nature in which the accounts have been used. Cirt (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a clear violation, and I left a note on Jehochman's talk page inviting him to do the block. As I had not reviewed the case, I was unsure if the block should be for a fixed duration or if it should be of indefinite length. NW (Talk) 17:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I commented at the case page. Would welcome your input there. :) Cirt (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely a clear violation, but I'm heading off now, actually. I'll mark this section as unresolved, but feel free to poke me if I forget to respond at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils. NW (Talk) 17:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks, no worries. Cirt (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have responded there. NW (Talk) 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: What...

Well, I understand that the MFD was nonsense, however it was not done by me but by somebody else using my account. As Me being the original owner of this account, I would never do that nonessential stuff because it wouldn't make alot of sense.--Pookeo9 ^{Talk If you need anything} 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One edit to Policy Report

Late edit: I'm thinking more readers will understand "useful contributions" than "valid points" here, but if I've misunderstood your point, feel free to correct it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That encapsulates what I meant much more clearly. Thanks for the grammatical tweak. NW (Talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, that got us over the hump. From now on, I'm asking for feedback a week ahead of time, and letting people know I'll start soliciting recent editors of the talk page after a few days if no one is stepping forward. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

user:Misconceptions2

Please see this edit in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Misconceptions2 edit by user:Doc Tropics I think a new sock Muhammadproject (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has emerged just after the block I think that a user whose first edit is to revert edits back to the version preffered by the sock master is a sock puppet --NotedGrant Talk 20:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No issues. I should have caught that when reviewing the case. I have blocked the sockpuppet, and will consider if there is any action to take against Misconceptions2. NW (Talk) 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Admin--NotedGrant Talk 20:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking care of that NW. However, immediately after you blocked MuhammadProject, an IP took up exactly where he left off. I'm not sure how much more you can do, but thanks again for your efforts. Doc Tropics 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a week and semi-protected the page for the same length of time. I hope that helps. NW (Talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure it will; your responsiveness is gratifying : ) Doc Tropics 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh Football Federation

I found User:Bangladesh Football Federation editing the article of the same name. There doesn't seem to me to necessarily be any problem with the edit (they even put up an unreferenced tag). Regardless, I gave them a uw-coi message. But is the username still inappropriate? I'm not confident enough to take this to UAA. -WarthogDemon 21:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The username is actually probably not appropriate. Try getting them to change their username. {{uw-username}} might be a useful template to try if you don't know what example to say. Cheers, NW (Talk) 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! -WarthogDemon 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

HA!

You got me. [10] –xeno^talk 23:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Dean Stewart Rumsey block

Hi, NW. Do you have admin rights at Simple? I just checked their new user's log and sho' nuff, there he was. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but I believe that Juliancolton does. I'll see if I can get his attention. NW (Talk) 00:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Secret/BLP

User:Secret/BLP you may want to participate and expand this RFC before it goes live, the best solution to this BLP problem is probably an consensus based RFC. Secret ^account 00:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Scibaby SPI

Re. [11]: Sorry, I've directly reverted you to stop the bot from doing its thing prematurely. I think you overlooked that the 6 socks were found based just on the original two suggestions. There have, since then several new suggetions been added (check the time stamps) that still need some sort of processing. If I'm wrong, feel free to reclose. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wejer

Wejer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is unrelated. Please use caution, not every editor who is skeptical on AGW is Scibaby, and Wejer's editing did not fit the pattern in several significant ways. Thatcher 15:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was my mistake. I had misread the time stamp of your post as 9 December 2009 instead of 8 December. Since you said all confirmed, and your time stamp (14:49) was the latest in time (but not in date) of the posts, I figured that every account listed could be blocked. I shall extend my apologies to Wejer; that mistake was definitely something that I should have been able to avoid. NW (Talk) 19:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To NuclearWarfare: I accept your apologies, and do not hold any grudge against you as part of this incident. Yours, Wejer (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I'm working with a user you blocked earlier today, could you hop on the en-help channel? thanks, ceranthor 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:67.246.40.144

The block on this IP address expired yesterday yet he is still making unblock requests. I'm not sure what should be done here. Momo san ^Gespräch 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Last Res0rt speedy declined

I was about to ask why you declined speedy, but then realized that one of the references on the page had more than a cursory description and link to the site. I'd checked a few Google search results and found nothing but trivial webcomic review site entries for the comic, but I missed that one. Now I do think our criteria for web notability is too lenient, but that doesn't change the fact that you were right to decline speedy. Sorry for the hassle. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to send this article through AfD (though I would recommend giving it a few minutes first). NW (Talk) 21:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

206.78.172.226

Any hint on why did you report them to AIV rather than blocked them yourself? Regards Materialscientist (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I was using Huggle, which automatically reports if the warnings have been met. Usually I block myself after a few warnings, but I guess I missed this one. NW (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Never mind - by no means I was telling you should block yourself - just my curiosity (I never used Huggle). Materialscientist (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Google Watch

Hello, concerning the recent Google Watch AFD, I ask that you reconsider the statement that you made when you closed the debate. You stated that "there is sufficient consensus in this AFD that the article should not exist as a standalone article." However, there is no such consensus. There are 18 !votes for delete and 9 for keep, with a few other users supporting a merge. This is a majority, sure, but it is not consensus. One way to break this deadlock is to look at the arguments supporting each side of the issue. Some of arguments made by those supporting deletion, however, do not hold water. One user, MzMcBride, did not even provide an argument, and then two other users cited him (among others) as the basis for their decisions! Most of the deletion votes said that this article had no assertion of notability or that it did not meet WP:WEB and had a lack of reliable sources, but that was before User:Cyclopia provided links to multiple books covering the website in detail. In light of these and other sources provided by various users, I find it difficult to believe that this article does not satisfy the notability guidelines. Other users stated that the subject was no longer notable, even though WP:NTEMP clearly states that notability is not temporary. For these reasons, I would ask that you reconsider your decision on this issue. A deletion review might also be helpful, to allow the article to be reevaluated in light of all of the evidence. Thank you for your time and for your service to this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebellum (talk • contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I participated in the AfD) I think the closure accurately reflected the consensus at that AfD, FWIW. More importantly, though, I really don't want to see this at DRV. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

This ^. @Kate (parlez) 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When closing this AfD, because of the subject matter, I took special care to weigh the arguments presented. I'm not really sure that I can say more than that I disagree with the conclusion you drew. My apologies for not being able to be able to respond more constructively. NW (Talk) 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While I would have pretty obviously preferred a "keep" outcome, I'd say that your closure was anyway well-thought and it is a reasonable debate outcome. I was coming here to express my appreciation. I do not think a DRV is needed. --Cyclopia^talk 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your concern. NuclearWarfare, I'm sure you took all due care to weigh the arguments, but I disagree with your conclusions so I have gone ahead and listed the page at DRV. See note below. Cerebellum (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• More importantly, did you even read the Wikipedia Review thread which was bizarrly kept in the nomination for the duration, which contained threats from the person who nominated the article for deletion toward anybody who considered voting keep. If you didn't, which as you didn't even comment on it [12] suggests you didn't, then I can't see how anybody can properly weigh the arguments in that Afd, which had numerous other problems of procedure and fact which were also pointed out many times but which you also never commented on, as a fair or neutral consensus for mergeing. MickMacNee (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I did the WR thread. If you notice, I actually posted to it (after I closed the AfD; I had not read it before I went to close the AfD). And I have no real answer for your question other than that I simply disagree with your reading of the consensus. NW (Talk) 14:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • "I had not read it before I went to close the AfD" - please clarify, did you read the thread before you closed the Afd, or not? If you did read the thread before closure, then I want a direct statement from you regarding your opinion of the specific issues raised about its content and how you read the Afd consensus with regard to those issues. If you hadn't read it before closing, then I suggest you set-aside your closure as you clearly were not in full possession of the facts to be able to do so, and let someone who has read it and has properly assessed those claims to close it, with all due consideration to all the issues. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I read the thread for the first time approximately five minutes before I closed the AfD. As for what you want me to say, I'm not really sure. Sure, the discussion should not have happened in an ideal world. But we can't control what happens in an offsite discussion. As the all participants in the AfD were experienced users and presumably knew to give their opinion based on the merits of the article rather than how their attention was brought to it, I decided to discount any canvassing angle when reading the discussion. Did you mean for me to talk about something else? I'll be happy to explain further if you request it. NW (Talk) 15:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
        • No, I was not referring to canvassing, and I never even mentioned the word if you look again above. I was referring more importantly to the implicit threat in that thread to anyone who would vote keep, and the implications of that on the Afd.
        • Your five minute claim is worrying though, because in addition to that threat aspect, a lot of that Afd debate referred to general issues arising from the involvement of WR and Brandt, and if you either missed the relevant parts of it in the debate and the thread, or gave scant regard to those points, that is extremely worrying. Brandt's statements regarding the article and what he would be doing once he managed to persuade editors to agree to his own nomination to delete it, for example. And as you mentioned it, I do find it odd you discounted the issue of canvassing based merely on the experience of the participants. You would not do the same for example if a content POV focussed organisation in an external forum proposed deletion of a particular article in a basic COI manner, based on apparent NPOV concerns by claiming without proof that there had been certain changes in the relevant policies in the last year. The issue here is the same. If editors with a particular fringe view of the BLP policy well outside the normal view, are recruited into voting in an Afd, where they then claim there exists an apparent yet unproven change in website notability, that is still undue vote stacking, and it is certainly not a way to gather a neutral expression of site wide consensus on the issue. I do not doubt there were some good faith delete votes, and it is a separate issue as to whether the debate should have even been occuring thanks to GAME and BATTLE issues, but there is compelling evidence that this Afd has been manipulated towards an agenda POV interpretation of policy, seeing as the 'consensus' was markedly different to just a year ago, when everything was pretty much the same apart from the way the nomination occurred and was advertised. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
          • *shrugs* The "consensus" was pretty clear here. Probably actually favoring outright deletion to merging, if you really wanted to nitpick. If someone had ignored the consensus on the page and kept the article, it would've caused a (much larger) uproar. NuclearWarfare is getting flack here for closing the debate correctly. Most of the comments here (that are presumably directed at him) don't seem particularly fair or warranted. He's not the reason for the abnormality of the deletion discussion. If anyone's to blame for the "unfair" result, it's those who voted, not the person who closed the door behind them. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)Regarding the "only five minutes" claim: I have read into the discussions that have happened both during my time on Wikipedia and before. I know the backstory behind Daniel Brandt, and so I was not unfamiliar with the issues at hand. I dislike greatly the tactics Daniel Brandt has used, but he has been sitebanned for that reason and there is nothing more that Wikipedians can do about them. As for your other point, if you wish to dismiss the posts of many of the delete voters as those of "editors with a particular fringe view of the BLP policy", that is your prerogative. I'm not interested in all these games of diving true intentions, and trying to read minds here. NW (Talk) 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I was going to close it as a deletion, I closed it earlier but it was a few hours early, by the time I was going to close it again, you closed it. I think the redirect should be deleted though, but go to WP:RFD with OMG DRAMA!!!. At least it wasn't a keep. Secret ^account 19:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why the redirect has been deleted? The history in the redirect was essential to fully merge the content into Criticism of Google -something that I hoped to do soon enough. Would you mind restoring it? Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 20:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I moved the page history to at Talk:Criticism of Google#Google Watch history. I can email you a copy of the page or you can use the Google Cache version to fully merge the page. NW (Talk) 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Google Cache would be fine but doesn't contain the wikicode (makes much easier adding references, mostly), so I'd enormously appreciate if you can take the time email me that. On a sidenote, please sorry if I perhaps fall guilty of not following WP:AGF for one minute, but should I worry about the fact the deletion of the redirect happened just after D.B. asked for it? While you are of course entitled to agree with him on the matter, I must say this doesn't look, ehm, completely transparent... Sorry and thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
      • You don't seem to have email enabled. Do you have an email address I can send it to? As for your other point, I shall address it in a moment. NW (Talk) 20:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Ops, should be enabled now. Thanks for all. --Cyclopia^talk 20:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Google Watch

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Google Watch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerebellum (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report

The weekly Policy Report in the Signpost features community feedback on policy pages; see for instance here, here and here. We're putting together another one for the Signpost 9 days from now at WT:Consensus#Signpost Policy Report. I'm asking for your participation because you made an edit within the last two months at that talk page, but all responses are welcome. I'm not watchlisting, so if you have questions or comments, please drop a note at the policy talk page or my user page. Thanks for your time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Decahill

I think this account is an illicit sockpuppet of user:Platia, which was banned as a clone of user:Lima and user:Soidi. Since the maximum allowed limit is currently only one sockpuppet, this account should probably be banned. See for instance [13] about Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, where the same warning message is left in the editbox by two different accounts ADM (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is an alternate account. I have said so above. Is it illicit? I have also stated that, if this account proves to be illicit, I will immediately close it. Please point me to the rule that states I can have only one alternate account, and which will of course oblige me to close this account and to apologize for my inadvertent transgression of the rule. Decahill (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing the same article with two accounts, no matter if you have disclosed the connection between the two or not, is highly discouraged. Decahill/Lima/Soidi, could you please agree to stop doing so? In addition, can you make it clear that the account Decahill is yours, through the use of {{User Alternate Acct}} or {{User Alternate Acct Name}}? NW (Talk) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Google Watch

By now I'm as sick of this as everybody else, but I'm just curious, why did you delete the Google Watch redirect? If the consensus was for a merge, I can't see any justification for deleting the redirect, and your edit summary of "No reason to keep this redirect around" is a little strange; since we decided to preserve the information formerly found at that page at Criticism of Google, wouldn't we want to leave a redirect there to serve as pointer to that information? It also seems a big out of process to do this without a discussion at Redirects for Deletion. Thanks! Cerebellum (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

D.B. requested it. I happened to agree with him. I took care to preserve the page history (see recent edits to Criticism of Google and Talk:Criticism of Google). Feel free to take my action to DRV if you wish, but I will not undelete the redirect to have it go through even more bureaucracy. NW (Talk) 20:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Google Watch

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Google Watch. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cerebellum (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup archives

I'm a new admin, and I have a quick question. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to merge the histories of the pages that the user cut and pasted from? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I really have no idea. I saw that iMatthew, one of the WikiCup judges, had tagged the page to be deleted. I'd suggest asking him. Cheers, NW (Talk) 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I already did, but he's not on right now. I can see that he moved "Round 1" to the new page, and then cut and pasted Rounds 2-4 into it. So shouldn't the histories of those rounds be merged? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, I believe a history merge probably would have been the way to go (though it would take a lot of work). You are free to undelete the pages and do it if you wish, though it is not a critical matter. NW (Talk) 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I just wanted to make sure that I was thinking along the correct lines. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I have added some more comments but this is telling...

Acousmatic sound June 25th 2008. Semitrangenic who has 35 edits to the article removes the content of the section, fIlm sound,[14] with an edit summary of.."Undid revision 221639587 by 78.105.3.37 (talk) verbatim C&P from Filmsound website".. leaving the section empty with only a expand template.

September 9th, 2009, same article. Measles first and only edit to the article..[15] a new editor had changed the expand template from the same film sound section to a Under construction tag but not added the brackets, Measles adds the brackets with the edit summary of.."correct tag attempt. Please ensure you cite accurately when expanding this section".

That is Measles first and only edit to the article why would he say that if it was not related to the edit over a year previous when Semitrangenic removed the copy and paste addition. Off2riorob (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please add this to the SPI case? I really don't have too much time to look it over at the moment, but I shall try to remember to look it over shortly. NW (Talk) 03:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool, anyway there is no hurry. Off2riorob (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

About this report. The IP address deosn't seem to have been blocked. If it has then what have I missed? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has. If you want, you can install User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js to easily see if an account is blocked or not. NW (Talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

How do I install the code? I created a page and copied the text into but nothing changed. Please see here. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you installed it in October. What skin are you using? Modern? The new beta skin (Vector)? NW (Talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm using beta and it appears that my skin is vector... ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See User:Dr Dec/vector.js. It should work now. NW (Talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It works! Excellent. Thanks a lot for your patience and your help. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please see Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/NuclearWarfare, if you decide to accept, please transclude to WT:BAG and notify the places specified in policy. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination MBisanz. At this time, I don't think that I would like to join BAG, but I shall certainly keep your kind offer in mind. Regards, NW (Talk) 02:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you be able to check my DYK?

It's been a couple of days since someone else checked over my DYK, and I noticed you stepped in on another one. Would you be able to take a look at mine briefly and check to see that it meets DYK criteria? Thanks, ConCompS (Talk to me) 03:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I am a bit busy at the moment to do a proper review of such detailed an article. But be patient, someone will surely come by to review it soon. NW (Talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. ConCompS (Talk to me) 03:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That sock

Hello! I noticed you removed his comments from a couple discussions already. Please also note [16] and [17], which should probably also be struck/removed. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

 Removed NW (Talk) 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank yoU! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVI Sound International

Thank you for relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVI Sound International. However, this has been dragging on since last month with clearly no consensus to delete. So as nominator, I asked a couple of days ago to withdraw it. Do you think you might have time to take this out of its misery? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I have closed it as a generic no consensus, as there really was none either way. I hope that's fine with you. Cheers, NW (Talk) 04:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Even better. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CosmicLegg

Can you reopen the SPI case? I had this edit on my talk, and it does appear to me that CL is using socks again. Enigma^msg 17:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If you go to here, there is a button you can click to easily reopen the case. Just replace "SOCKMASTER" with CosmicLegg. Cheers, NW (Talk) 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

This user 98.113.216.32 (talk) is probably associated with CosmicLegg, as far as his edits go. In addition to adding excessive POV on The Who-related articles and vandalizing Led Zeppelin-related articles, he's also using excessive profanities, including my talk page. I've posted warning to his talk page thrice, but he does not seem to listen. Would you please block this IP. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI case reopened. I'm really not familiar enough with the case to say for sure, so I'll try to look into it in a bit, unless someone gets to it before I do. NW (Talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI

98.X is probably not CosmicLegg. CosmicLegg edits from an Australian based ISP ([[User:Avraham blocked Range 58.179.192.0/20 on November 30 for 1 month as part of the CosmicLegg SPI). 98.X is more likely associated with either User:Clashwho (who also edits as IP 74.73.110.46) or more likely User:Rockgenre (who also edits as IP 68.194.205.218) Both Clashwho and Rockgenre are based out of the same region as 98.X and both are known to frequent the pages that 98.X edits. Just thought you'd like to know. Hope it helps. 142.167.160.197 (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated. --Scieberking (talk) 06:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit on you page

Hi, I was going to vandalize your page, but couldn't find an Edit button. How is that done? If you don't put an Edit button I not only can not vandalize it but also I can not see what is the code for things that collapse the content of it.  franklin  13:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are declaring your intent to vandalize, could you please explain why an administrator should not block you indefinitely? As for the code for the collapse boxes, see {{collapse top}}. NW (Talk) 16:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, its is easy. Because the administrator can easily see the absurd of the claim. Thanks for the collapse thing. How is the missing Edit then?  franklin  17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The page is full-protected. NW (Talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Image comment

Hey, I didn't understand what you meant by your comment about this image (i.e. needs an image of the underlying source for the map.). Can you clarify? :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that Deacon. I have responded on the FAC page. Everything should be good now. NW (Talk) 12:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Scene music

Regarding this AfD which you recently closed, I had added List of scene artists and Category:Scene to the nomination early on as they are both wholly dependent on the existence of a "scene" article. Shouldn't they be deleted as well, or do I need to go through another process for that? It seems that it should be pretty straightforward, even a speedy, as without a parent article on "scene music" neither the list nor the category can possibly have any context. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have deleted the category, and the list was deleted by another admin. Cheers, NW (Talk) 12:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

Ret.Prof (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions petition

Talk page watchers, please take a look. NW (Talk) 16:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Chris Henry

So...when can the image be added back? Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It can be added back if and only if a reasonably extensive search of Flickr and other likely hosts of free content is done. NW (Talk) 04:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, I'll thoroughly check Flickr tomorrow. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out

As per here, Croydongrimeking is claiming to be Sharpshooter118118 who got banned for "arguing with an admin" - you blocked him indef for vandalism; would you mind having a less boilerplate-ish talk with him? Maybe it's just misunderstanding, not malice? DS (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Commented on his talk page. Thanks for the heads up Dragonfly. NW (Talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Update

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins as another one seems to have sprung up, i.e. a new account's first edits is to renominate an article Dalejenkins had previously nominated and then to canvass (see warning on talke page of new account) in same manner as Dalejenkins which was discussed on ANI prior to block. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have commented on the SPI page. Cheers, NW (Talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt for you to explain the speedy keep with more than a note that says "the result was speedy keep". Yeah, I get it, the nominator was a sockpuppet, but that's not reflected in the discussion. My first thought was that you were a Star Wars fanatic who was, in effect, telling everyone to shut up. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rationale given. Cheers, NW (Talk) 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Has been sent to AfD very recently" does not seem to be the case, unless you consider 8 months ago to be "very recently". Am I missing something? Deor (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, I had misremembered things; I thought it had been nominated for AfD just last week. I have altered my rationale to account for this misreading of events. NW (Talk) 22:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. It is indeed recent enough for a renomination to have been disruptive. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Purely as a procedural matter, I think that your closure of speedy keep was a mistake, though I have no opinion on the article. WP:SK says that "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)". There are a valid delete opinion and a valid merge opinion in the AfD, and closing the discussion after half an hour appears to be in disregard of the SK criteria. Perhaps you should consider reopening it. Deor (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It was a good close. As for the merge opinion, no actual opinion was expressed, i.e. no argument or reason why, just, "Merge into Star Wars." The lone bold typed delete said, "or...merge into Star Wars" and used as WP:JNN basis, i.e. aside from the sockpuppet nominator, no one else was really advocating outright redlinking and the reasons for merging were either not presented in the case of the former or were "arguments to avoid" in the case of the latter. Thus, the consensus was clearly to keep and as for merging, that is something for an article talk page anyway. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, A Nobody thinks that it's horrible to disregard the opinions of article creators in all cases (because, after all, they went to the trouble of creating the articles), but it's completely OK to disregard the opinions of commenters in AfDs. Unless you reconsider your closure, I'll probably be taking this to ANI. Deor (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't believe that the sole delete vote was strong enough by itself for an AfD to stay open without the nominator's vote. You are free to renominate the article for deletion with your own rationale, if you so wish. NW (Talk) 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, you did good here and I am appalled that someone would try to bully you over closing a discussion in which the nominator was a sock of a banned user and no one else was really advocating outright redlinking. Aside from the overwhelming majority of keep arguments, we had only two users suggested merging, which is something for a talk page. Even if it was not nominated by a sock puppet, a good case could have made for a WP:SNOW close anyway as it was clear that at worst there would be no consensus over whether keeping or merging, but clearly no support of any kind existed for deletion. Bringing such correct and commendable action to ANI would reflect poorly on anyone starting such a thread and waste valuable community time. Starting a frivolous discussion to prove a WP:POINT would be astonishingly unproductive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ardwick Association Football Club

I see you've deleted the pages I enquired about at AN but note that this one had been moved, I think you've just deleted the redirect which was at Ardwick Athletic F.C. The guy moved the page during the AfD.   pablo_hablo. 01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, but feel free to correct me if I made a mistake. NW (Talk) 01:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I'll have a look. Always a nightmare cleaning up after this guy.   pablo_hablo. 01:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice

See here. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice; I have responded there. NW (Talk) 14:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Nevilleplaque.jpg

I've given it a pd ineligible tag now as it contains no copyrightable information, just the name of the society and the fact that Chamberlain (offices stated) lived near there. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that really applies, considering that you have the brick background. Then again, I'm not really sure on these matters. Perhaps this would be something to bring up at WP:MCQ? NW (Talk) 21:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to comment it out of the article, pending the discussion at MCQ. The other things you have asked for are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Lloyd George image is now a different one. Are you saying it has the same problem?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, didn't realize that. Will fix. NW (Talk) 22:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

relisting AFDs multiple times

Hi NW, I saw your relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The American Outlaws. Note WP:RELIST says, in bold, "no debate may be relisted more than twice". I didn't konw if you were aware of this upper limit on relisting, so I wanted to drop you a line. There is also a conversation about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#the curse of AFD relisting. tedder (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me why CHMusicAwards is deleted ?

Please provide me with reasons why CHMusicAwards is deleted. Yes, it is a High School talent event, but we are having this every year. This is also being publicized on networks and media.

Why TV Shows and some useless stuffs can be on Wiki, and my school's music awards can't ? Provide me with the reason soon. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yienshawn (talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have undeleted Catholic High Music Awards as a contested prod. Please note that the page may be nominated for deletion if someone feels that it does not meet the general notability guideline. NW (Talk) 06:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer

Hi - I've been asked before, and have thought about it, but honestly the RFA approval process is unacceptable to me, so I'll have to pass. I do appreciate your nice words and vote of confidence, but I'll keep working as a civilian until admins can be named by alternate means. But when flagged revisions are finally enabled, I hope to get the highest privs possible to help implement this absolutely necessary function. Thanks again - maybe we'll work together on something some time. Cheers Tvoz/talk 07:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah well then. Such a shame. As for when Flagged Revisions, of course you can have the highest ops possible. If I don't remember to give them out to you, feel free to just ask me on my talk page. And you if you ever reconsider, you'll know where to find me. Cheers, NW (Talk) 14:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Steve Burns

NW, you semi-protected this article. I've always thought that would be a good idea, but it seems like it's only vandalized at certain times of the year, like this one. It's amazing to me how persistent it is, and Blue's Clues has only been off the air for a relatively short time. It shows you the power of the show and how insistent many of its viewers are about what I've come to call "Steve Burns vandalism". Kinda like the "Paul is dead" hoax, but more insidious. ;)

Anyway, thanks. Would you mind watching Blue's Clues as well? That article doesn't seem to suffer from the same kind of seasonal vandalism, but there is an issue that has popped up in the last few days. Look at these two edits [18] [19]; I'm wondering if they may be made by sockpuppets. I don't think that the BC article needs to be protected as well, but I thought I'd bring it up someone's attention. --Christine (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; I'll keep any eye on both. Cheers, NW (Talk) 14:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bisexual claims

This IP is the sock or looks clearly like him to me of the account that I will have to go and look for, accusations of bisexuality..Chillum did know the name, would you like me to look through my edit history to find the name? Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, please see if you can connect the account and the IP. NW (Talk) 01:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This was the previous IP Chillum identified his name..but I am close to finding it in my archive [[20]] . Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this him.. User:HarveyCarter . Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

list of 92...socks . Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I tagged him here . Off2riorob (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make clear that I've helped block User:CosmicLegg and two of his socks User:Occultaphenia and User:Rickens. I very much hate unverifiable WP:POV and WP:SOC on Wikipedia. --Scieberking (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtual Filing Cabinet page

Hello,

In October, you deleted my Virtual Filing Cabinet page and I don't understand why. The reason I created this page was because as a customer of the software, I found it by searching for a software which essentially can be my "Virtual Filing Cabinet", by virtually managing all of my information. I want anyone else who is searching for such a keyword to be able to find such a definition in Wikipedia. Now, I agree that although the page included a definition, it also included some marketing material, but this was only to explain the features of the product and was purposely written to only educate the reader of the definition and software. I don't see how this is different that the "Microsoft Sharepoint", "Microsoft Word", or "Laserfiche" pages which essentially do the same thing and in fact market their products more define than I did. Surely you must also be removing these pages? If not, I ask that you please return my page which I spent many hours writing and researching. You'll notice that I even included links to competitors as I wanted the reader to understand that they have more choice in similar products, just like the "Microsoft Sharepoint" page does, so as to make things as fair as possible for the consumer. The "Laserfiche" page fails to do this.

I appreciate your feedback and Merry Christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.55.106 (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I was the one to delete Virtual Filing Cabinet. Do you have a link to where the page used to be? NW (Talk) 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding so quick. The link used to be [[21]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_filing_cabinet . Please confirm that the page has been put back. Thanks again and merry Christmas.

I undeleted the page. Please bear in mind that it might be renominated for deletion if someone feels that it does not meet the general notability guideline. NW (Talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How can I write it so that "this article is written like an advertisement" is removed? I still don't see how my page is any different that Microsoft Sharepoint, Microsoft Word or Laserfiche. Shouldn't all of these sites have the "this article is written like an advertisement" warning? Thanks again.

I cleaned up the page a bit, and removed the tag. You may be interested in reading articles like PokerTracker or Blender (software) for how to model your article. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 00:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedantic, probably

This is a curious rationale for protecting the page, given that the subject is deceased. Protonk (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

While this disagrees, recently deceased individuals are still generally subject to WP:BLP. tedder (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

While the BLP policy says that BLP doesn't apply to the deceased, BLP policy applies to the deceased. Hmmm. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The recently deceased usually have plenty of living relatives who are likely to be hurt and sensitive - that's a good time for us to be careful to do no needless harm. My apologies to Scott MacDonald for stealing his wording If WP:BLP doesn't actually say that, it probably should. NW (Talk) 22:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to push the point to the wall, but if that is your reason for protecting it, say so. BLP is a powerful policy designed to prevent defamation and harm to living people who are the subjects of our articles. Expanding it to include sensitive relatives is not helpful. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of Visaliaguy

Another sock of Visaliaguy has popped up making very similar edits. Compare Visalia%26LA to the blocked VISALIAso559. Since the sockpuppet case was archived, I didn't really know how to proceed so I figured I'd contact you since you were one of the blocking admins. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reopened the case here. I or another admin will take a further look later today. Cheers, NW (Talk) 16:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, can i get you to check this - seems to have been archived (at least it is not on pending). Thanks --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Subpage - Awaiting Clerk approval which seems to be the correct place. With these cases coming in fast succession, it would be nice if you could point out if i made an error here, thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Manually archived the 2 cases that were closed. Again if this is wrong, please give notice :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is actually no need to manually archive cases; right now we are just holding on to them so that they can be archievd properly when the bot gets back. But it is really not a big deal. I'll take a more detailed look later today and make sure everything looks good. Cheers, NW (Talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason i did it was because i suspected that the bot had "bugged" on the case because 2 of the 3 are closed. So i archived manually to ensure that it didn't happen again. For the rest - great. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of obscure pages that the bot edits too when closing a case, in a manner that I'm not really sure anyone but Nixeagle or Tiptoety understands. Best to leave it until it comes back, unless that is a very extended period of time. Cheers, NW (Talk) 16:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Found sock N#20 or #21 of this vandal, still having a hard time making out if he's mentally challenged or a real vandal (overlinking like i never saw, appalling English editing from England, other than what we already know - removing LINKS/REFS, gluing sentences, etc).

The new name is Olp890 ("contributions" seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Olp890), would greatly appreciate it if you could block it.

Attentively as always, you and your family have a merry XMAS and a happy illustrious 2010, from Portugal,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Just tell me if you wish for me to revert any of the edits. Cheers, NW (Talk) 19:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you as always my friend. Will the vandal learn this time? I doubt it...No need to bother about reverting his stuff, appreciate it, but would indeed like to ask you another favour: could you please protect this page? I don't know what is it with people and this footballer (not even very famous or "controversial"), but his page keeps getting bashed with vandalism (please see "contribution" history here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Babb&action=history).

All for the moment, cheers,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

While it does seem to be getting a good deal of vandalism, I'm not sure the protection policy would allow for the protection of that page for that level of vandalism. Perhaps if it starts up again, it could be protected, but not right now, I would think. NW (Talk) 22:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Regarding this, I was unable to leave the template anywhere I tried in Meta (not as an IP and I was unable to log in, as well. Why do not you provide better information about where to apply for unblock?) so I am doing it here. I am not adding {{unblock}} because in en.wikipedia it is clearly different from Meta. My reasons for requiring unblock are these:

Your comment in the block is "Disruptive editing: Blanking closure processes without discussion." I am not sure what you call disruptive editing but if you check my editions, I was blanking nothing (only hiding and with plenty of clear notes) and, if you read my discussion with Wutsje and the reasons in my comments, clear cues for starting a discussion (a thing that has just quite conveniently been barred now) about the topic was there. Seven easily reversible edits are not a good reason for a 31-hour block. I cannot see how it can help. Thanks for your attention, though. Regards. --83.42.147.18 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not leaving a clearer method for how to request unblock. Simply add {{unblock|Rationale}} to the bottom of your user talk page there. I'm not really willing to unblock, but I would be fine if another administrator unblocked you. NW (Talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try it now. Regards. --83.42.147.18 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexcas11

That was quick. I should have had a stopwatch running. I was just about to do the unlinking myself before I hit the sack. (Pity tho'; I thought that the block on the IP might have worked for a bit longer with him) Anyway, as you might have saw there, thanks for the checkuser request on the last one. I'm a bit reluctant to ask for one each time, as it is 'sooo' obviously him and as often as not they get turned down (which I admit is probably fair enough). Anyway, thanks for the speedy response. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. And feel free to request a checkuser whenever you feel it is getting out of hand, if only to find IPs to block. In any case, have a good night :) NW (Talk) 02:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

VANDAL

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here (with probably the last intervention of 2009!),

One user, Picolotto, has asked me again this favour - there is a vandal who has been specializing in the following: in players related with FC Barcelona (not always but most of the time), he has been inflating stats in box and creating some false situations (for instance, saying players have played for their countries - or unofficial autonomic regions - when they have not! - example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Pinto&diff=317948577&oldid=317573451).

As far as we know, his original account was Marvingroves ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Marvingroves), it was warned by me and it stopped. His brilliant idea? Creating account after accout (with the subsequent warnings by several users) and continuing doing the same (in succession, he opened Racheedmani (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Racheedmani), Wikusvandermerwe (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikusvandermerwe) and Malcolmwaller (here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Malcolmwaller)

Can anything be done in your opinion? Thank you very much in advance,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I opened WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Marvingroves. Hopefully I should be able to clear out the issue shortly. Cheers, NW (Talk) 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

May this season bring you joy and cheer NW! --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

Why is Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations protected? Only admins and trusted users (accountcreators) can edit editnotices. Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 05:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To keep accountcreators from editing the page. Their ability to edit these pages is not intentional. High visibility editnotices are often protected as an extra measure. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 06:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear NuclearWarfare,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - ^Merry _Christmas! - 00:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your block of AML (talk · contribs)

Hi Nuclear Warfare This morning you reverted an edit of AML at 03.17 and then blocked them for edit warring only a minute of two after Bilby had left them a note encouraging them to discuss their dispute on the article talk page. This then promoted a series of angry emails to OTRS that I am dealing with. I have a couple of concerns about the block. Firstly you either blocked or reverted or reverted and then blocked and although you subsequently undid your revert this does, to my mind, infer some degree of judgement about AML's edits on your part. Secondly, they are a very inexperienced user and had less then 2 minutes to take on board Bilby's comment before they were blocked - Further they were not properly warned that a block would follow if they did not discuss. Thirdly, for BLP reasons we should be very cautious about blocking people connected to specific articles as it removes an opportunity for them to correct inaccuracies and this does not play well externally. Although AML was being disruptive, protection would have had the same result in stopping their edit warring and would have allowed Bilby a chance to talk them down from the Rich-stag. FYI, I am currently trying to get AML to agree to certain behavioural conditions to allow them to resume editing but would have found doing this much easier if they had not been wound up by your peremptory block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing my actions last night, I agree with you in saying that I did indeed make a mistake. Feel free to overturn the block, and let me know if there is anything I can do to ameliorate the situation. NW (Talk) 15:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and for being open minded about your block. Jake has already lifted the indefinite block and I am hoping the user will respond positively to the conditions for unblock that I have already set them. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)