| Revision as of 13:31, 9 September 2010 editA Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,187 edits →New section: What's good for the goose...← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:43, 9 September 2010 edit undoWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,015 edits →What's good for the goose...: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
| ==What's good for the goose...== | ==What's good for the goose...== | ||
| I see that you have article-banned, GregJackP. In the interest of fairness and consistency, can you please issue the same article-ban against WMC, too? He's clearly edit-warring. Thanks. ] (]) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | I see that you have article-banned, GregJackP. In the interest of fairness and consistency, can you please issue the same article-ban against WMC, too? He's clearly edit-warring. Thanks. ] (]) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| : @AQFK: I think you need to read what NW wrote: viz, ''When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently''. You are being far too simplistic by simply counting edits and disregarding content, a mistake that NW didn't make. Read the terms of the ban: it is not based on revert-count, it is based on ''understanding what is going on''. This is in fact very similar too, if not the inverse of, the wording on the edit warring page: just as you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't hit for 4R, conversely you can be edit warring even with one revert ] (]) 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:43, 9 September 2010
I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
IPCC
I see you've edited it. In that case, maybe you'd like to join the discussion at requests for prot as to whether it should be unprotected or not? Oh, I've just looked, everyone is too scared of arbcomm to touch it or even dare comment :-( What a happy place wikipedia is nowadays William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I feel the article probably ought to be unprotected (quote me on this if you wish), but everyone is too scared of arbcomm to touch it or even dare comment :-( is probably pretty accurate, with the additional caveat that I really don't have time to take that detailed of a look; I have been able to come online for just very small time intervals recently. However, John Vandenberg is right in that an extra few days (even two weeks, really) or so probably won't hurt all that much. I'll check on the talk page discussion tomorrow, as it seems well on the way to resolving itself. If everything seems OK, I'll check with Jayvdb about unprotecting the article. NW (Talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Woo careful, you can get into trouble for saying that kind of thing :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- A clearly labeled sarcastic comment obviously designed juxtapose both situations in hope that John Vandenberg would see things from your perspective is certainly not the same as you being "uncivil and antagonistic to...toward administrators..." I'm disappointed with that diff, but then again, I am rather disappointed a great deal by this proposed decision. NW (Talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like Rlevese is running away from it :-). Meanwhile, did you get anywhere with Jayvdb? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- That was rather interesting about Rlevse. I am just as much in the dark as you about why; the clerks-l email thread didn't explain anything really.
I haven't spoken to Jayvdb yet. I did however post on the talk page of IPCC with something to refocus the discussion. NW (Talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- That was rather interesting about Rlevse. I am just as much in the dark as you about why; the clerks-l email thread didn't explain anything really.
- Looks like Rlevese is running away from it :-). Meanwhile, did you get anywhere with Jayvdb? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- A clearly labeled sarcastic comment obviously designed juxtapose both situations in hope that John Vandenberg would see things from your perspective is certainly not the same as you being "uncivil and antagonistic to...toward administrators..." I'm disappointed with that diff, but then again, I am rather disappointed a great deal by this proposed decision. NW (Talk) 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Woo careful, you can get into trouble for saying that kind of thing :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting conversation. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
The Witch of Pungo
I finally found a site with a great synopsis of the details of the legal proceedings, plus one with the original court transcript plus one with the transcript in modern English. This gave me plenty for Grace Sherwood and enough for the summary in Pungo, Virginia. It's now at T:TDYK under "The Witch of Pungo". I thought you'd like to look at it and maybe review for DYK. Thanks for the prior and future help. My first double DYK hook too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, Pungo. When I was a kid (in Virginia) I thought that was the coolest name for a town... Pungo, Pungo, Pungo. Right up there with Bumpass. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- I actually knew someone whose last name was Bumpass or Bumpas. SBHB-feel free to help on the articles too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I've put up an alt hook that'd be good for Halloween. Give it a look. Check mail too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Took a look at the page. Looks good. Emailed you back. NW (Talk) 03:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Attention please
Unresolved
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here, longtime "no see",
I would like for you to have a look at this situation: at László Sepsi, a Romanian user "dedicated" this summary to me (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Sepsi&diff=383274942&oldid=383161917). If you check the previous 10, 20 summaries, what did i say to make him go all "Don't edit here again, this article is MINE" (keep in mind it's about a Romanian footballer, and the user also hails from that country)? I think nothing!
Also, after he re-verted my work, he wrote the sentence, in CLUB CAREER: "He impressed at Gloria for offensive game , and has attracted the eye from Europe teams. He making 45 apparences for Gloria .", which means, of course, NOTHING in English (horrible language, mixing past and present tense, having a go at POV/WEASEL, etc). Also, not the first time he shouts at me, although this was the first time in all-caps (see previous "politeness" here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cosmin_Contra&diff=375443917&oldid=375274919). In same section called CLUB CAREER, he divided it into sub-sections which consisted of storylines with sometimes one, yes ONE (!) line. And i have to "get out!"?!?
(Some of) the stuff in previous paragraph leads me to this: he has ZERO knowledge of English, writes almost no summaries, and does not answer to talkpage messages, sometimes not even to his countrymen (one would think he would not reply due to not knowing English, but that theory falls to the dirt when it comes to his fellow Romanian users - i know what i am talking about, i checked the latest "stuff" in his talkpage).
All in all, i told him i would watch Sepsi's article closely (please see full message from me here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Zupfk#Pay_attention), politely but to-the-point. I would greatly appreciate it if you could monitor this stuff (especially the Zupfk user, i will eye Sepsi's article from time to time) for a while, if it's not too much trouble.
Hope all's fine with you, keep up the great work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Passed
Unresolved
Well, my RfA passed (just!) so I've come to leave a message here to say that I will be happy to take a look at the OTRS queue. I would like to gain a better understanding of the BLP policy and make a real attempt to show the opposers that I can be trusted. Cheers, BigDom 11:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Mass killings under Communist regimes
Unresolved
Is there another edit war brewing at Mass killings under Communist regimes? Is the 1RR restriction still in place? Bobanni (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for initiating the thread. A user Mark Nutley who threw absolutely artificial accusation on 1RR violation against me (part of the discussion is there ) now attacked another user there . Since you NW are the administrator who imposed 1RR on this article, I invite you to comment on that there .--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you examine the "edits" closely - the current version now affirms that this is all anti-semitism <g>. Suggest reversion to the stable (that is, not cut by more than half) article with full protection at this point. Collect (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- The user TFD, who is you old opponent on the article's talk page, is also a zealous opponent of any anti-Semitism. I believe, you should discuss the issue with him first: probably you both will come to some common terms at least about that. In any event, since your opposition to TFD's edits and vise versa is one of the major article's issue, it would be good if you both tried to fix anti-Semite issues together (as soon as you realised that the problem exists).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Ramachandra Naidu Galla
Hi NW. This is a bit of an odd note, but, hey, process :-)
A few months back you closed a rather desultory deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Galla Ramachandra Naidu, a scrappy article on an Indian industrialist. I came across a recreation of this on IRC today - someone repeatedly trying to delete it as no claim of notability, which didn't seem right - and I went in to clean it up and so on. Notability seemed fairly well established, but I noticed after I'd done the legwork that there'd been the early AFD, so I suppose it means I've de facto overturned your decision to close it.
Do you mind? I'm happy to run it past DRV or the like - I really don't know what the due process ought to be here - but the old discussion was pretty vague and the old article was pretty atrocious, so a recreation with sourced and significant content seems not unreasonable. But I don't want it to seem like I'm sneaking off and overturning your decisions willy-nilly, so I thought I'd run it past you! Shimgray | talk | 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I trust your judgment entirely in these matters. Feel free to take any action you wish, irregardless of any previous decision I may have made. NW (Talk) 01:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
What's good for the goose...
I see that you have article-banned, GregJackP. In the interest of fairness and consistency, can you please issue the same article-ban against WMC, too? He's clearly edit-warring. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- @AQFK: I think you need to read what NW wrote: viz, When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently. You are being far too simplistic by simply counting edits and disregarding content, a mistake that NW didn't make. Read the terms of the ban: it is not based on revert-count, it is based on understanding what is going on. This is in fact very similar too, if not the inverse of, the wording on the edit warring page: just as you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't hit for 4R, conversely you can be edit warring even with one revert William M. Connolley (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)