User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 14

Hi there NUCLEAR, VASCO here,

Regarding this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas) - and by the way, ty very much for initiating the process - i have the same doubt i once exposed to you: this usually does not take that much time in its entirety (checkuser, block, etc), sometimes only one hour, and now it still has not reached any conclusions...Are there any problems?

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

SPI is very strange; sometimes it will just take a few minutes, and other times it might take over a day. I will look around to see if I can find any checkusers to do this case. Thanks for the update, NW (Talk) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You left a message on mah talk page. But then you didn't leave a message on mah talk page. Is there a problem? Something Crafty needs to know about? Crafty (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I accidentally left that message on your talk page; I didn't mean to post it there. So I removed it. Sorry about that. NW (Talk) 02:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good. I had a look at the history and noticed it was about that Roman Polanksi stuff. I was trying to calm some of the lesser crested boneheads who've gathered on the talk-page, but it's a fools errand and I've left 'em to it. Crafty (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks NW. It is my first sock report and I was in the wrong place, I see it now, I was on the sockmaster report page. It is something that I am interested to learn about, SPI's so please feel free to advise me. Best regards and Ta. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you have a lot of experience in SPI, if you have the time or the inclination, I am looking for a teacher to help me learn what tools to use and the processs of primary methods of investigation into Sockpuppet accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

At SPI, we don't go looking for sockpuppets. Rather, SPI is a centralized location for people to report socks that they come across in their editing. It is usually pretty easy to identify sockpuppets if you run into them; just look for similarities in word phrasings, article editing overlap, etc. NW (Talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks NW. Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Account popped up right after User:Baba says, be accurate was blocked and tagged himself as a sock of Lucy. Letting you know here since this one's so blatant and so we don't have to go through the whole SPI report/check/archive cycle again.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. Blocked. If it comes up again, please file an SPI report; it might be worth having a checkuser look at it to block the range. NW (Talk) 18:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Will request CU next time as suggested. Bksimonb (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good morning NuclearWarfare - with regards your recent change at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons which has been commented about here - I am just writing briefly to detail a diff of my response to Dank's comment for your information and in case you want to add further comment.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Pleasure - cheers!--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering why you deleted Mueller's page. I know he died the other day, but I think he needs to be memorialized in some respect on Wikipedia. Why is it gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.98.17 (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you typed in the name of the article correctly? I cannot find anything ever having existed for "Gottfried Mueller". NW (Talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow [1], thanks. I had commented to the unblocking admin that lifting the previous block didn't bode well, especially since it had only been about 9 days. I also posted the diffs of the first 2 edits to his talk page, which were vandalism edits to Jamie Lynn Spears. I've dealt with this IP quite a bit the last couple of months and I didn't think there was going to be a difference. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to contact me if you ever need any assistance :) Regards, NW (Talk) 03:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you extend similar protections to Zords in Power Rangers: Jungle Fury and Zords in Power Rangers: Wild Force, as these are the other two articles hit by the same vandal. He has just been really hitting the RPM page lately.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

  Semi-protected for six months. NW (Talk) 03:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few other articles in the category he infrequently hit:

• Zords in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers
• Zords in Power Rangers: Dino Thunder
• Zords in Power Rangers: Lost Galaxy (only twice)

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Might as well semi-protect those, I guess. Done for 3 months each. NW (Talk) 03:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple others but they're the main articles and probably shouldn't be semiprotected (Wild Force & RPM). I'll stick them on my watchlist.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

166.203.229.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the second IP used by this individual tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

After a quick reading and correcting some typos I find the article got better than before my wikibreak and is worth submitting to FAC. Just a note:

• "and taught him religion and history" - might need rephrasing or deletion - the article clearly shows that he taught more than that. Materialscientist (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

One editor ("Cirt") has repeatedly taken down information that I had added to the site without any recourse, but when I started to edit his long list of selectively negative reviews, he knew how to immediately get an Administrator to block any edits from the site for several days. Another editor tried to add one of the many positive reviews about the show, but the site was blocked. If any of us are able to add positive reviews, and in the event Cirt takes them down, I would be grateful if I could ask for your help with that section of the page. As for the two sentences of cast, plot, and production descriptions I added to the site, I do not believe they were copyright violations. If I may cite the Wikipedia Copyright page, under "acceptable uses," it mentions that "brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes" (wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content.) I did only use brief quotations, cited from the official site, because they had the best, most complete descriptions about the show, just as many other editors also reference official sites. This one editor has also been able to take down the day of the week, and the time the show airs, even though it might be of interest to viewers looking for that information. He added ratings from a competing show, which may raise questions about whether he is manipulating the page. Wikipedia is such a great resource for information, but this page reads like one person's diatribe. I am asking if you could please restore the revisions of September 1 regarding the cast, plot, and production team. Thank you for having gotten back to me. Cotto 10:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nuke,

• could you have a little closer look at this Brahma Kumaris (BK) business?

What you have here is nothing more than a deeply involved adherent of the sect, (BK Simon b), attempting to control the topic on their religion. This has been going on for years and is a repeat of the Jossi/Scientology episodes.

The defense of the huge and unnecessary box that BKSimonb recently placed on the topic, is simply yet an attempt by the Brahma Kumaris to discrediting the topic. it is entirely disproportionate.

Historically, one of the reasons the topic is so well referenced is because the Brahma Kumari tag team attempted to question or discredit almost each and every sentence turning the topic into an advert for their religion.

Through all this, Simon has become well skill in playing the Wikipedia and I am afraid that you are just yet another admin that he is being suckered in.

I appreciate that as a volunteer, you have little incentive to invest your time in doing so and that it is so much easier just to kneejerk over what is being presented to you, and so I apologize.

Under the circumstances, I do not think removing the box is "vandalism".

Thank you. --The Murli says, be accurate (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there nuclear warfare, nice to see you again. You recently blocked an IP for vandalism. I'm not sure if you're aware, but I accused the IP of being a sock puppeteer here, so it's probably only fair that you unblock the user. ceranthor 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, saw the closure. Disregard, plz. ceranthor 01:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please take a look here. -- Seelefant (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How can a simple user request lead to the deletion of "about a thousand articles"? Were these all stubs on politicians? Is there a list of these articles? Please clarify. -- Seelefant (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This should explain most of it. NW (Talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, if I piece this together correctly, you, user:Jennavecia and user:Ironholds have deleted ~1000 articles (ok, "sub-stubs") on conservative german politicians, simply because user:Blofeld who originally created them, asked for it??? And you didn't check whether any of these were MPs, what would make them encyclopedically relevant and not an unambiguous subject for speedy deletion? -- Seelefant (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

They were bot-created one-line biographies of living people and no sources were included, and the author had asked for the deletion. To me, that is most certainly enough reason to delete, no matter how notable they are. They may be recreated at any time by anyone if sources are provided, but not via bot creation. NW (Talk) 20:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I didn't even know there was such a thing as bots creating articles. -- Seelefant (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What Blofeld essentially did was gather a list of all German politicans of this party and have a script create an article like the title "PERSON is a politician in XXX Party". Previously, we had no rules against this sort of thing; a recent Village Pump discussion now does prohibit this sort of thing. Regards, NW (Talk) 20:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Was thinking about closing the AfD, did so, and then decided that I had screwed up while closing it. I reverted my edits, undid my deletions, and will leave it for an other administrator to close. NW (Talk) 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. The lack of comment was confusing. I'm heavily involved, so I can't close it myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

i am writing to you regarding the above article that i wrote on 21 sep. it was due for deleting on 29/09/09. I wrote on the discussion that i have the news paper in which Mr. Hamed story has been covered to proof my claims about him. i also have received a copy of documents from afghanistan investment agency ( Government body) confirming the company's investment and services in Afghanistan.i also have the news paper in which they have covered about hamed baba foundation. i have spend a lot of time in doing research and i am sure that noone will go that far in their searching as i have. Please kindly advice me how to load those news papers. in one of them he his picture has been printed in the full front page. please advice me how to load them to you guys for your reference. and kindly restore the article as i have and will spend time to get it right. i am a kind of person when i start a research then i will finished with facts and proofs. i will like to write more articles in future about notable people from Afghanistan. Kindly help me and do not throw my hard work in the bin. please restore the article and i am ready and willing to make it right. waiting for your kind advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the article, but keep in mind that it needs to be cleaned up and demostrate some sort of notability, else it may still be deleted. NW (Talk) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please kindly advice how do you want me to add the newspapers and documents i have received. they are hard copies. please kindly guide me.

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike6565 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

For newspaper, please use the {{cite news}} template. If you need help with using that, please ask. NW (Talk) 20:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was hoping that you could give me a little education. I see that you just relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaxy Girls. Looking at the comments from the first go around I would think that it is a Keep, what criteria do you use to determine which way to go? I've only recenly become active at AFD, so I'm not questioning your decision I just want to learn. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I noted that the first keep voter, User:Judo112, has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. He had also been trolling AfD for the past few weeks, so I mostly ignored his vote. Besides that, there was the nominator, you, and Kieran. I usually prefer a little more discussion, so I decided to relist it in hopes of getting one or two more people to comment. I hope that helps, NW (Talk) 20:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So you actually research the validity of the editors, that's very impressive. Thanks. J04n(talk page) 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW, you have just deleted GL-117... could you please temporarily restore it (along with its talk page) to preserve the revision history, and userfy both to User:Mokhov/GL-117? Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sure thing. Done. NW (Talk) 02:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That was fast! You even included the question mark "?" ;-) I will work on it in peace when get time to fully research sources. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Want me to fix that ;) NW (Talk) 02:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I just fixed it, thanks :) --Mokhov (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[2] Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for all your tireless work :) NW (Talk) 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The SPCUClerkbot overwrote your endorsement, so I added it back in, and manually inserted the case into the proper subpage. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. NW (Talk) 03:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It took me awhile to figure out what the bot was doing, but it looks like I got everything right. The case in the right spot so I suspect I did the correct manual edits. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A few of the AFDs that you have relisted lately weren't removed from the old AFD log. Please make sure you do remove them, or if you are using a script, check that it isn't broken. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for undertaking the difficult task of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). I believe that the debate should have been closed as "delete" instead of "no consensus". The "keep" arguments were mostly per WP:IAR. None provided compelling reasons to keep the article, whereas the "delete" arguments were well-grounded in policy.

Throughout the course of this discussion, no reliable sources were found to establish the notability of this website. Would you please re-read the debate and re-examine your closure? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good close. There were differences of opinion on whether there was enough substantial independent coverage in reliable sources, which is the very essence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Save for ChildofMidnight, none of the other editors (even the "keep" votes) believed that there was "substantial independent coverage in reliable sources". The reliable source that CoM believed to be substantial was quoted here. I refuted the depth of coverage as being a passing mention here and here. kelapstick (talk · contribs) also believed that the sources were not significant coverage, as did DoriSmith (talk · contribs) (see here). The "keep" votes did not agree or disagree with CoM's analysis of the sources and instead mainly concentrated on WP:IAR (see the links I provided in my initial message: 1 2 3). Cunard (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One source had multiple paragraphs. I'm not sure why Cunard is so adamant on this particular AfD, but it has a whiff of COI. The website has been discussed in reliable independent sources. Some editors think the coverage is enough to establish notability, others do not. That is the very definition of no consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

True, the source had multiple paragraphs, but in the AfD, I already explained why this source is insufficient because it is a passing mention. As I said above, kelapstick and DoriSmith also believe that the sources are insufficient. In this AfD discussion, only ChildofMidnight believes that the sources are not passing mentions. The "keep" votes did not mention the sources, but instead believed that the article should be kept per WP:IAR.

I do not have a WP:COI with this topic. Where did I hear about this topic? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination).

Why do I believe this article should be deleted? At the AfD, I wrote "In a nutshell: the lack of verifiability means that the original research in Bullshido.net may or may not be true. Since there is no way to verify this information, false information may start seeping in. This will damage the reputation of Wikipedia." Cunard (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. NW (Talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for reply. I have listed the debate at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2. Best, Cunard (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 

Mmmm, delicious. Thanks Awadewit! NW (Talk) 20:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But would it be correct to change Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008 TV series) to Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008-09 TV series) or something like that, as they are premiering a new season? Just wondering. Abce2|This isnot a test 21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would guess so, but I think you should ask someone on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, as I am not sure. NW (Talk) 21:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Abce2|This isnot a test 21:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 3. It's a PROD contested after deletion. Can you restore the article and close the discussion? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been restored already. Tim Song (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello - I'm not sure how to add to an archived sockpuppet report, so I've contact you as the closing admin on the last part of Rayesworied's adventures in wikipedia.

There's this user: Leeheaven (talk · contribs) going over similar pages, and changing things, as well as similar pages about Japan to some of the other socks.

In future, how should I submit an addendum to an archived sockpuppet report? Thanks VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Just use the button on WP:SPI page to create a case like you normally would. I'll go ahead and file this one for you. Regards, NW (Talk) 20:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rayesworied. NW (Talk) 20:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'll do that next time. Thanks for your help. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You deleted Anton Caragea after a discussion. User:Radualexandru99 recreated the page hours later, and keeps removing the {{db-repost}} tag I placed there. Perhaps deletion and protection is the answer? I'd also like to direct your attention to European Council on International Relations: no consensus for keeping has emerged at the deletion discussion for that article (which has been going on forever now), and the same user or his IP has now removed the AfD tag from the article three times. I think the game has gone on long enough. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in here with some added info. I've deleted a couple of recreations of Anton Caragea and protected the page. I've also left Radualexandru99 (talk · contribs) a warning and some advice. Proceed as you think fit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking my FA nomination. I looked into this again and found that the video from Iran is free by virtue of the country not having signed the URAA in the first place so the content is PD because it's PD in Iran. I left a comment on the two images, please respond. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have missed my response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)/archive2 if you are not watching it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there! Just wondering why you blocked this user. They've only had one edit in the last week, for which they received a level one warning; does that really warrant a day's block? You don't have to change it, but it just seems harsh to me. Cheers, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed with the quite recent vandalism that they were the same person as the one who had vandalized on 26 September. No need to keep sending warnings; this will prevent vandalism from that user in the next days, as well as possibly deter him from vandalizing in the future. NW (Talk) 23:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me where I went wrong. I thought I had recieved proper permission for File:Completion Photo Resized.jpg. Thanks ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 05:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Disregard. I see where I had went wrong by not wording my request in such a way to Wikipedia could use the image. Thanks ♠ B.s.n. ♥R.N.contribs 07:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NuclearWarfare! I noticed that when you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop Princesses 2 as delete, you may have forgotten to delete Pop Princesses 3. It's my fault since I bundled Pop Princesses 3 above my deletion reasoning (rather than where it should be, below). Cheers! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

G6'd. — neuro 13:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind NuclearWarfare - thanks for the update Neuro :) Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NuclearWarfare,

Thanks for processing the latest Lucy case. The CU just reports "confirmed" for the latest sock and the latest sock is blocked and tagged. Have his IP addresses also now been blocked as a result of the CU instead of just the account? Bksimonb (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you can usually assume that Brandon made the appropriate blocks, but you might want to double check with him to be sure. NW (Talk) 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please allay Otterathome's concerns at User talk:Cunard#Bad DRV comment. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Time for some catching up...

Special award and thanks to Buaidh

Congratulations and kudos to Buaidh, the first recipient of the Wikipedia World Developer Award, and the first inductee into the Outline of Knowledge WikiProject's Hall of Fame.

The award was announced about 2 months agos on the WikiProject's talk page, and on Wikipedia's Community Bulletin Board.

Buaidh created the historical outlines for all of the U.S. States, the U.S. capital, and most of the U.S. insular areas. He has also worked indefatigably day after day, improving all of the outlines of the U.S. States, and the outlines of all of the countries of the world!

Who's been up to what?

• Buaidh, working hard on the country outlines.
• Highfields, MacMed, and I worked on the see also sections of the subject articles corresponding to the outlines (adding or updating the links to the relevant outlines and indexes).

Wiki-Zombies

Discussions can sure be frustrating - try getting a proposal through on a guideline's talk page sometime. Most of the time, it seems like the opposition is mindlessly following each other, like...

Zombies. (You've got to see this).

Outline of Knowledge

Yes, it's a proper noun. It's only proper, since we also have an article called Outline of knowledge which is about knowledge generically.

OOK expansion!

After a couple month vacation, I'm ready to slam the gas pedal to the floor. Are you?

Things are speeding up!

Take a look...

New to the OOK

The following outlines have been added to the OOK within the past couple of months or so. Some of them were renames, some of them brand new, and some of them recently discovered after sitting in article space for awhile as orphans.

• Outline of knowledge - yes, your eyes do not deceive you!
• Outline of birds
• Outline of regression analysis
• Outline of water - Highfields
• Outline of string theory
• Outline of quantum theory
• Outline of evidence law in the United States
• Outline of libertarianism
• Outline of radio
• Outline of painting history
• Outline of hydrology
• Outline of rights
• Outline of tort law
• Outline of parapsychology

Here's some more pages that have been renamed to outlines even more recently, but that need to be converted to OOK format:

• Outline of project management
• Outline of production
• Outline of counseling
• Outline of sustainable agriculture
• Outline of pseudoscience
• Outline of human-computer interaction
• Outline of video gaming
• Outline of neuroscience
• Outline of Boolean algebra
• Outline of Green politics
• Outline of vaccines
• Outline of noise
• Outline of mathematical logic
• Outline of circles
• Outline of linear algebra
• Outline of number theory
• Outline of organic gardening and farming
• Outline of futurology
• Outline of group theory
• Outline of clinical research
• Outline of electrical engineering
• Outline of rail transport
• Outline of curves
• Outline of genetic genealogy
• Outline of environmental studies
• Outline of geometric topology
• Outline of U.S. chemical weapons
• Outline of puzzles
• Outline of industrial archaeology
• Outline of graph theory
• Outline of numeral systems
• Outline of set theory
• Outline of partitions
• Outline of U.S. biological weapons
• Outline of real analysis
• Outline of fishing
• Outline of abstract algebra
• Outline of eggs
• Outline of dynamical systems and differential equations
• Outline of ancient Egypt
• Outline of computer vision
• Outline of network theory
• Outline of differential geometry
• Outline of obstetrics
• Outline of complex analysis
• Outline of triangles
• Outline of Lie groups
• Outline of numerical computational geometry
• Outline of functional analysis
• Outline of general topology
• Outline of computability and complexity
• Outline of order theory
• Outline of commutative algebra
• Outline of algebraic topology
• Outline of topology
• Outline of polynomials
• Outline of combinatorial computational geometry
• Outline of recreational number theory

Lists to merge into outlines

The following pairs of pages are content forks and need to be merged:

• List of probability topics --> Outline of probability
• List of software engineering topics --> Outline of software engineering
• List of nanotechnology topics --> Outline of nanotechnology
• List of calculus topics --> Outline of calculus
• List of geometry topics --> Outline of geometry
• List of community topics --> Outline of community
• List of futurology topics --> Outline of futurology
• List of American Civil War topics --> Outline of the American Civil War
• List of computer programming topics --> Outline of computer programming
• List of entertainment industry topics --> Outline of entertainment
• List of health sciences topics --> Outline of health science

Not sure what to rename these to

• List of noncommutative topics in mathematics
• List of MCAT topics (another ook!)

Rough outlines, renamed/moved to draft space

• List of information technology management topics --> Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of information technology management
• List of human resource management topics --> Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of human resource management
• List of suggested topics for computer networking research --> Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge/Drafts/Outline of computer networking

Lists that can be structured into decent outlines

• List of exponential topics
• List of computer graphics and descriptive geometry topics
• List of multivariable calculus topics
• List of factorial and binomial topics
• List of permutation topics
• List of algorithm general topics
• List of stochastic processes topics

Only a few hundred more to go.  :)

The Transhumanist 04:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW,

I had just noticed the PRODs on the articles concerning Egyptian football players with the national U-20 team, and had written a statement on these articles' talk pages objecting to the PROD. Yet you deleted the articles anyhow. Awaiting your response. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually, prods are contested by removing the prod tag entirely. If you wish, just list the articles here and I will restore them. NW (Talk) 20:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't know that. Anyways, these are the articles that were deleted:

Mostafa Mahmoud Selim

Hossam Arafat

Ahmed Fathi Mohamed. Thanks. --Sherif9282 (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done NW (Talk) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still around and will respond to inquiries. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message [3]. I am afraid that I have to admit that I have found SPI to be pretty intimidating, and as such I have only helped peripherally on a couple of investigations and the blocking of obvious socks that did not need a CU. I would have liked to participate more as a cleric, but MBisanz and I never quite managed to connect via YM for the more in-depth training and Q&A that I suspect I need. I probably would have had better luck if I knew how to use IRC to ask questions of others, but as I tell my wife, I am too old to figure out IRC (similar to how I am also too old to understand MyFace, Space Book, and any other social networking web site). — Kralizec! (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nuclearwarfare

Can you please provide me with a copy of the World Water Org's deleted page so I can edit and improve sources on my own workspace and republish when it is ready?? Having the original would assist me tremendously and prevent me having to start from scratch.

Cheers Shannon.barnes (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; just see User:Shannon.barnes/The World Water Organization. NW (Talk) 15:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[4] AdjustShift (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Just so you know, reported the 16th (!!!) sock of this vandal (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pararubbas), it would be cool if you could drop a word that would lead to a block. Why doesn't this guy give up blows my mind - and while he has stopped being the vandal he was in the past, removing links and refs just because, he is still disruptive and refuses to engage in any conversation (all accounts combined, no messages responded, no summaries in edits!).

Thank you very much in advance, take care,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  blocked NW (Talk) 19:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you commented, the above article has undergone a number changes. I would ask you please to review the changes. Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you recently deleted 3 pages around this one, but not the target for the move itself (above). It needs a delete due to a double redirect fixing bot making an edit. Thanks, Verbal chat 22:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! (Don't delete it now anyone!) Verbal chat 22:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had asked on your talkpage for feeback on the image review but in the week since then no reply came and the message was archived. I know you're busy but please respond, thank you. Hekerui (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I must have missed that. I'll get to it as soon as possible, and place a false timestamp in the meantime so this section doesn't get archived. NW (Talk) 23:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Commented. NW (Talk) 05:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

You recently deleted an article I had created about Apache Pivot. The reason for deletion appears to have been lack of significant coverage. I had cited several references to Pivot from a variety of sources, so I am confused as to why the article was deleted:

[[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]]

A follow-up comment on the article mentioned that, since Pivot is still in incubation, it may not be considered notable. However, the Apache Incubator page links to a number of projects that are in incubation and do have Wikipedia entries:

[[9]]

I would like to re-create the Apache Pivot page. What do I need to do differently to ensure that it does not get deleted this time?

Thanks, GKBrown (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have undeleted the article as a contested prod. If someone takes it to AfD, please try to find a variety of reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the Pivot. That should ensure that the article isn't deleted. Regards, NW (Talk) 18:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick, drop-in note from someone completely not related to the deletion; those sources you listed are all written by Greg Brown, presumably you. To clarify, WP:RS stipulates that references should be "reliable, third-party, published." Your sources are none of these; they have not been fact-checked, they are not third-party, and they are from what appear to be blogs. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Only one of the references was a blog; however, you are correct that they were not significantly diverse (though they were all published by different sites, I was the primary author). I have updated the references in the article itself to reflect a more diverse authorship. None of the current references are blogs. GKBrown (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NWarfare, you made an edit to the Frédéric Mitterrand article and I notice you are active, so I wanted to ask you to have a look at the edit request that is on the talkpage, I think there is a general consensus to insert it, if there is, then could you insert it and then we are looking to unlock the article as the dispute would be over. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected the article; see Talk:Frédéric_Mitterrand#Article_unprotected. NW (Talk) 00:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ta for looking at that, Off2riorob (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NWarfare. You made a deletion to the Oromocto High School article (I don't know how or why you stumbled across it in the first place), and I was wondering why this was. Since it's seemingly impossible to access the discussion page, I can't tell if there was any sort of discussion on this or not (though I remember checking in early September, and my comment was the only one there). The site was not, in fact, copy and pasted directly into Wikipedia. It had been previously (I think I know the faculty member who did it, too, but that's digressing), but I had edited as of late 2008, so that it was instead an article detailing the information, using the site as a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.105.145 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was indeed essentially copy/pasted directly from here; edits other than that had not changed the text enough so that it was not a copyright violation. You are free to recreate the article using your own words, so that our policies on plagiarism and copyrights are not violated. NW (Talk) 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow 3+ years and the first time I've been accused of a Sock Puppet occurs after I've all but stopped working here. ROFLMFAO!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NW, I brought my proposed changes to the SPI blank report to WT:SPI and no one seems to have a problem with it. However, I cannot copy over my version to the real one. An administrator has to do that. Can you do this for me tomorrow, when I have a chance to keep an eye on it tomorrow night? You will need to:

1. revert the changes Muzemike made to the page [10]. I can do this if you don't wish to, but I should do it just before the move.
2. copy the new blank form from my sandbox to SPI blank report - with CU.

Please let me know if you can do this tomorrow or not. Thanks. stmrlbs|talk 01:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can do so tomorrow night. (Just post again, as I probably will forget by then.) Are you sure you would not like me to do so now? NW (Talk) 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think now would be fine. I could watch it for a couple of hours. Do you want me to do the reverts first (of Muzemike's changes to prevent interference with the actual spi's)? stmrlbs|talk 01:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, sorry about this. One question before I make the change: You are sure this will not affect the SPI archives? For example, future reports of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive will still work fine, correct? NW (Talk) 01:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I tested mixed SPIs (old and new together) because I, like you, wondered if this would be a problem. But my little test looked ok with the levels of the section headers (which match the old ones on the highest level). Here is what it should look like: [11] In this example, EGGLI ANDREOU is the old format, and BullRangifer2 is the new format. You can see that are ok together. But would you like me to set up a test with Brexx's case, where there are so many SPIs for one user, to make sure before you copy it over? stmrlbs|talk 01:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would be useful; just to make sure. NW (Talk) 02:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ok, I created a sandbox Brexx/archive [12]. This is how it would look with no TOC limit. If you don't want to see the subsections under the report date, you can add a {{toclimit|3}} and it would look like this [13]. I would think that for most archives, Users might want the complete TOC (hopefully, Brexx is not the typical case, and there are much fewer sections for most}}. However, I am getting tired, and have a big meeting at work tomorrow morning, so.. if you think it is ok, how about we wait until tomorrow night to actually copy it over? stmrlbs|talk 02:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The limit 3 is probably best for this case. Looks good; I'll make the edit tomorrow. Just give me a ping when. NW (Talk) 02:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ok. I went ahead and reverted Muzemike's temporary change. You can now just copy the new blank form from my sandbox to SPI blank report - with CU. Let me know when you do the copy, ok? I'm in for the evening. stmrlbs|talk 01:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done NW (Talk) 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I had to undo my edit. For some reason, it was breaking the archiving bot. Check with Nixeagle (talk · contribs) to see why that might be. NW (Talk) 16:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I emailed him (as he doesn't use his talk page), but did he say anything specific about what happened? thanks. stmrlbs|talk 19:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that the ones with the new format weren't archiving properly for a while, though they did eventually archive properly. I will try it again; here is to hoping that this works properly. NW (Talk) 19:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there some documentation I can read as to what is archived to where, and under what conditions (age?) stmrlbs|talk 22:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cases are archived by the SPI bot. After one SPI clerk or administrator adds {{SPIclose}} to the page and a checkuser or clerk replaces {{SPIclose}} with {{SPIclose|archive}}, the content of the page gets moved from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Example to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Example/Archive. The case also gets archived to a central listing of SPI archives; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed for more on that. NW (Talk) 22:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NW, I looked at the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Example/Archive when I was setting this up - it didn't seem to cause any problems that I could see. However, I did not look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed. Are you saying that the new format caused a problem with the display on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Closed? or are you saying the newly formatted SPIs were not being picked up by the archive bot and moved? stmrlbs|talk 22:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It actually seems unrelated; I think the bot merely had a hiccup (happens occasionally) and it happened around the time I made the change, so I got a bit scared and reverted. But I think it is fine. NW (Talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will be around - in for the night. stmrlbs|talk 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello! You recently deleted an article about the book I wrote, "The Obsidian Key", since it wasn't notable. I completely understand this - and the importance of keeping wikipedia "proper"!! However, I wonder if you could tell me any way that I could see what it looked like before it was deleted? Or even who wrote the original article? As I'm sure you can imagine, as a lowly self-published author, this sort of thing doesn't happen to me often, and I would like to see it! Thanks very much for your time :) Đɨℓʊŋα^χχν 14:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. This was the text of the article, written primarily by Sam bixby: "The Obsidian Key by Eleanor J. Cramphorn is the first novel in a projected 2 part series. It is a fantasy novel aimed at children (10 year olds). The story follows the travels of a young boy Takeshi, who has reacently been orphaned. He sets out for revenge against the prince ordered the attack. Some younger children may find the hunting down and killing of villagers at the begining of the story a little scary." If you believe that your book can pass the notability standard for books, you are free to recreate the article with reliable sources. I hope that helps, NW (Talk) 15:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I appreciate it :) Đɨℓʊŋα^χχν 13:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very confused with what is happening with the SPI I just filed and have asked on WP:AN for someone to explain it, but I will bring you attention to one problem you caused - you moved the SPI without redirect which broke my notification to the user in question (and a link on the Ref Desk talk page that I put to it). That is why the redirects exist - if you are going to move something without a redirect it is vital you go through the "What Links Here" list and fix them all. If also helps to inform the person that made the page so they don't give more incorrect links. --Tango (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. It was an accident that I suppressed the redirect; I did so rather quickly and did not notice . As for why I did so: cases are named so that the "User:" in front of the name is dropped, even for IPs. And the reason I removed the template of the suspected sockpuppet was because it was redundant with the header produced by {{SPIarchive notice}}. Feel free to reply here if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 22:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! It's all clear now - we've mis-clicked a check box before! --Tango (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Perhaps the sub-header should be "Other suspected sockpuppets"? --Tango (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, the account is filed under the sockmaster's name, not the sockpuppet's, so that wouldn't really work. But I agree that the wording needs to be improved; can you think of anything else? NW (Talk) 22:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is only possible is the master is known, in this case it wasn't. Perhaps a different form is needed for this kind of request? (None of the letter codes seemed appropriate - perhaps a new letter code is needed as well.) --Tango (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you raise that on WT:SPI please? Some of the other clerks might want to comment on that. NW (Talk) 23:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW - How do you feel about the new sections in the extracurricular part of the Amador Valley High School wikipedia article? Awaiting a response on your comments here. Thank you - Deltawk (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The official website seems to have some additional information on the clubs; perhaps a list of the clubs that had not been mentioned before in the article would be useful? NW (Talk) 21:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel wary of adding a list of clubs in a section though because I'm not sure if it meets the guidelines here Wikipedia:Lists_(embedded_lists). How do you feel would be the best way to implement the list of clubs? - Deltawk (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that perhaps a single sentence, saying "Other clubs include Chess Club, Bhangra, Science Team..." would be enough for this. What do you think? NW (Talk) 03:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It works! My worry is that the sentence is too long, but it still looks natural on the page. Do you think the article passes image review now? I have commented out the image from NVC and will re-add it if and only if the image gains OSTR verification. -Deltawk (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure; let me go comment at the FAC. NW (Talk) 00:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a bunch of images to the above, and would appreciate it if you could confirm that their fair-use licences are valid. Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; I have commented at the FAC. NW (Talk) 04:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ohconfucius (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You should have allowed me a chance to amend or rewrite the article Joseph Flores. There was no need to delete immediately without chance for redress. You've been far too heavy-handed. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a direct copyright violation, and had been tagged as such for some time. Per Wikipedia's policy on such matters, if there is no clean revision to revert back to, the article should be deleted. I am glad that you have rewritten the page so that it does not breach copyright though. For the future, what would you have like me to done different. NW (Talk) 15:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

NW, thanks for the help, but moving Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virginia Tech massacre to archive isn't necessary; all of the older FACs were handled that way. The move wasn't incorrect, but also isn't necessary. By moving it, you left a red link on the article talk page, and now I've also got to go find it and update the FAC promotion archives. Because the page was deleted, I can't easily find any other backlinks that need adjusting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Sandy. I had thought I had seen Dabomb87 do these for other FACs and FLCs, so I figured I would update it (and did so badly!). I can undo the move if you wish or fix the backlinks for you; I didn't mean to cause any extra work for you! My apologies, NW (Talk) 16:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has done some (and so do I), but when the previous nom failed (as opposed to being promoted), the non-archived FAC is truly just a redirect. When the article was promoted, in the past the original FAC was left without archiving, so there are gobs of those. If they are moved, all backlinks have to be checked and corrected, so it's really not worth it. See for example this and this. I do appreciate that you were trying to help! Probably no need to worry further, but only delete FAC redirect pages when they are truly only a redirect and nothing important links to them-- much less work that way :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the backlinks that weren't in the FA log[14]. Thanks for informing me. Cheers, NW (Talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, NW; I pointed the Bomb to this page just to make sure he is getting it right :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's usually how I operate with FACs. With FLCs, I'll usually go through and fix the important backlinks, though. Thanks for the heads-up. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello NW,

I was wondering if you could restore the above article (which you deleted due to an expired PROD) for Jimsteele9999 to work on at User:Jimsteele9999/Pittsburgh Flash Fiction Gazette. This is the result of a conversation on my talk page. I'll be out for the rest of the week and so I referred him to you... I hope that's OK. :) Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 00:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, done. NW (Talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW, any more help you can give regarding these images would be most helpful. Even if you just comment on one or two, I can take your lead from there. The issue is whether images that are PD in Israel, but not in the U.S., are Commons-compliant. If not, is it enough for us to move them to Wikipedia, in order to get them through FAC? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry SlimVirgin. I had meant to finish up with the image review by the end of September, but all sorts of things came up and I completely forgot about it. I'll be sure to try to finish the review by the end of the week, if that is all right with you? NW (Talk) 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, NW, and as I said, if you could just to do one or two (or even just one) in that list, because I think what applies to one will apply to the others. It's just that, as things stand, I'm getting very conflicting advice, so an expert eye would be much appreciated. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

  Commented NW (Talk) 00:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why you deleted on 10/9 the picture of the book cover I posted to go along with the article about A.B. Guthrie's novel "Fair Land, Fair Land." I'm new to Wikipedia and there's a lot I don't understand about procedures and nomenclature, so perhaps I misunderstood how to post the jpg.

On my watchlist the explanation says: "File:ABGuthrie Fair Land.jpg" (Deleted because "Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files". using TW).

I don't understand the explanation -- the jpg is not an orphan, as it goes with the article on the novel, although I posted the jpg first and the article about the novel later.

Thanks for any explanation you can give on how I can post the book cover to go along with the article. JohnPeterAltgeld (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello there. I deleted the image because it was an orphaned–not used in any articles when I looked–fair use image. If you wish, I would be happy to restore the image for you to use in the Fair Land article. NW (Talk) 22:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I do agree with Karanacs. I do write "my" biographies focusing on the subject, and saw it was different in Nikita Zotov back from the first FAC. Now I feel guilty that I didn't raise this issue at any stage - I thought I shouldn't impose my writing style. Returning to reality: I see two ways: (i) leave it be and hope the FAC consensus will help. (ii) rewrite the prose. If you need any data on his personality, let me know and I'll do my best to dig them out. Materialscientist (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I will leave it for now; Ruslik Zero, Malleus, and Juliancolton seem to have no issues with how it is laid out currently. I simply do not think that there is enough information to rewrite it so that it focuses more on Zotov; I feel that would only make the gaps in the information that we have on Zotov even more apparent. Any additional information that you could dig up would be useful though; I personally am all tapped out with my sources in that regard. NW (Talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My two cents worth. I think that biographies of 17th-century hangers on at the court of Tsar Peter during a period of widespread illiteracy can't be held to the same standards as a biography of George Bush. Whether the article is promoted or not, I think you've done a great job with it NW. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

NW, it looks like there aren't any problems with the new format. When you have time, can you move over my other blank form with the section headers from my sandbox to the SPI blank form? That would be a move of:

• User:Stmrlbs/sandbox/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Inputbox_blank_report_for_ordinary_use

to

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Inputbox_blank_report_for_ordinary_use

thanks. stmrlbs|talk 00:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done NW (Talk) 00:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That was fast! thanks! stmrlbs|talk 01:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#whatever_happened_to_warning_vandals.3F as one of your blocks is being discussed there. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Todd. I'll be sure to follow the discussion. NW (Talk) 18:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding User:Nurbandma and this sockpuppet investigation: shouldn't User:Hazaraboys be banned indef. as well? Regards. Tajik (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have too much time to look through the case, so I decided to leave that decision to another sysop. NW (Talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not logged in (on ACC) and this is the response I get I'm sorry, but that username is in use. Please choose another. I am very confused Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC). I would appreciate it if you either made it so I could request an account or gave me account permissions Dr. Szląchski (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Access to ACC granted. NW (Talk) 00:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't login in into ACC even though you have just given the rights I don't know if I lost the password but when I use the forgot your password? I get a Missing or incorrect Username supplied. Dr. Szląchski (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If you forgot your password, you can use this to recover it. I shall email you via Special:Emailuser the name and the email that you used. NW (Talk) 13:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you have semi-protected the Denny Chin article. I was thinking along the same lines. I have also looked at the history and the editor appears to be switching between a limited number of IPs

• 24.189.94.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 2 sessions
• 173.3.176.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 4 sessions
• 98.113.180.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 4 sessions
• 74.72.51.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 2 sessions
• 24.228.215.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - 1 sessions

I would appreciate your opinion as to whether it would be advisable to apply a block to these IPs as an alternative. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Those IPs don't seem to fall into a particular range (if they did, the earlier numbers would be more similar; see CIDR), so it is likely that this vandalism is being coordinated offsite somewhere and that these are multiple people vandalizing the page. I figured that it would be better to semi-protect the article than to block the IPs one by one. NW (Talk) 00:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem; glad to help. I see from your talk page that you are one of our newer administrators, like myself. Congrats on your successful, nearly unanimous RfA. If you ever need anything in the future, feel free to contact me, and we can bumble through it together. :) Cheers, NW (Talk) 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That IP you just blocked (79.75.94.139 ) looks to have several socks, as you can see in [15]. I don't know if they're all blocked. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 18:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I have protected the page, as a range block of a /17 (which it would have to be at a minimum), would be undesireable. NW (Talk) 21:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, encyclopaedian! May it be the first of many. Mahalo,  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It feels good to have taken an article from nothing to FA. Perhaps I'll pick a more...noteworthy topic next time; rather not get into that discussion about not-enough-information again. Thanks for all of your help with copyediting and structuring the article. NW (Talk) 01:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Way to go man. Might I suggest a more noteworthy topic? :-))) <evil laugh> —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your nomination at WP:FOUR. In an effort to keep our queue manageable, we ask that each nominator review one of the nominations on the list. If you have a chance please review a nomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done. NW (Talk) 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When I try to use the forgot the password   this is the problem that I get  

even though I use the information you gave me on your email   this is very confusing. Regards, Dr. Szląchski (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why this would be. I would advise you to contact Stwalkerster, as he probably knows how to solve this. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty familiar with CSD criteria, having speedy-tagged somewhere around a thousand articles or so now, but I am curious what you think the better criteria was in this case. Sometimes articles can fall in between two or more criteria, making it tough to pick just the right one. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in this case, it was more of an advertisement for a non-notable youtube channel, which isn't really vandalism, though it does fit {{db-web}}. Thanks for all your hard work though, 00:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and if I had taken a little closer look at my watchlist, the reason would have been right there in the edit summary i plain view. Duh. But thanks for dumping the article again - it's the second speedy. Maybe this time they'll get the message. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW,

One of my clients asked me to reach out to you about their page deletion. Looking at the deletion log, it looks like it falls under the "copyright infringement" category. I'd like to work with you to better understand the reason for deletion, and how we can improve it to prevent it from happening again.

Your help is appreciated...and bear with me, my Wikipedia user knowledge is pretty limited!

Thanks, RedConSF

RedConSF (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you please link me to the page of theirs that I deleted? Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autonomy_Interwoven&action=edit&redlink=1

RedConSF (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article was largely copied from this link, which is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. In addition, any such article on the topic must meet the notability guideline, be neutral, and be verifiable with reliable, secondary sources. If you believe you article can meet all four of those policies - no copyright violation, is neutral, notable, and verifiable, you are free to recreate the article. If you are unsure, feel free to respond; I'll see what I can do to help explain things better. Regards, NW (Talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of SBA 504 Loan. 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. Tim Song (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As I ran across this the first time, it was still open (later closed by Tim Song) but the logs showed that it was deleted by you as an "expired prod". My guess was that it was first prodded and then sent to AFD but the prod tag wasn't replaced with the AFD one. There were 3 delete !votes in the AFD but the deletion log needs to show the correct rationale. This may be an issue if someone tries to get it restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed. NW (Talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to point out Conservereno (talk · contribs). I think it is confusing to the user to use one template as the block reason and put a different message on their page. Triplestop x3 02:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that I didn't actually autoblock them, so I figured that the block message I gave would be more appropriate the {{spamusername}}. In retrospect, {{spamusername}} was probably the wrong one to put in the block log. NW (Talk) 02:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

hello NuclearWarfare - i hope it's okay to ask a "protocol question" that's arisen in connection with a block you issued recently. could i ask you to have a look at this diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Townshend&diff=prev&oldid=320912184 ? what's puzzling me is whether it's appropriate for an editor who launched an RfC and then an investigation that led to a block (for sockpuppetry) to eliminate all of the blocked editor's remarks from the RfC. part of the question is: is the blocked editor entitled to one comment, or none at all? and either way, is it appropriate for an involved editor to do the "clean-up"? thanks for any insights Sssoul (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's most assuredly NOT appropriate. In this context it's being used to make way for his point- he makes the "previously" contested edit to the page immediately after. --King Öomie 15:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's untrue. Wiki libs' sock puppets were objecting to a proposed 'Child Pornography Investigation' title. The actual change was proposed by an uninvolved third party (you know, the kind without any axes to grind), and didn't include any mention of "child pornography". Sumbuddi (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Are you sure that you want to close this as a delete and not a no-consensus? Besides the "Keep" voters outnumbering the "delete" voters, most "keep" voters addressed either WP:N and/or WP:BLP1E directly or indirectly and as far as your stipulation that the arguments of many in favor of keeping were "remarkably weak", at least a couple of the outnumbered "delete" votes were either just a vote or just a policy.[16][17]--Oakshade (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition the extra insult that the keep explanations were *remarkably* weak was pretty outrageous, and unsubstantiated. I think your rationale for deleting was remarkably weak. Whatever, I don't really care that much. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC))

At the risk of sounding like a suck up; I want to thank you for explaining your decision. All to often the only explanation is "the result was x". J04n(talk page) 23:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have clarified my rationale somewhat.[18] I had been referring to the keep votes that were more like [19] or [20]. As for the rationale itself, I stand by it; the delete votes that cited BLP1E had a stronger argument than any other I could see in the AfD. NW (Talk) 23:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That is hardly a clarification; it is a watered-down affront. I do not spend much time in AFD debates, so the procedures are alien to me here, but it is outrageous that an administrator can, by independent judgment of the "strength" of "argument", overturn a clear majority. Is this standard practice? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed the case. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus explains it fairly well - "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." NW (Talk) 01:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is standard practice. It is also standard practice for those who disagree with this judgment to bring it to WP:DRV if they continue to disagree with the closing admin after talking to them (which appears to the case). My personal guess that NW found arguments like "the sources clearly demonstrate notability", "Scope and quality of references sufficient as per WP:GNG.", and "non notable" (which I picked up at random; I mean no offense to those who wrote these comments) to be weak and unsubstantiated. Additionally, since WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP easily outweigh WP:GNG, he probably found those comments that pointed to the article meeting general notability to be flawed. Maybe NW can break this down further? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 01:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[EC, in response to NW] Eugh. That is despicable, but I suppose this is not the place to contest a guideline; as presented, your present rationale seems sound. Thank you for your time, NW. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

[Double EC, in response to Nocturne] Ah, well, I shouldn't like to bring it to DRV. As I recall, the low-traffic confines of that space are prejudiced towards "delete" as against "keep" (or, in the parlance, "endorse" as against "overturn", with perhaps more "overturn"s in the case of a "keep" decision). BLP "easily outweighs" GNG!? I was not aware of this. I suppose it is the general threat of lawsuits. Shame. I suppose I should wait until persons of interest pass on. No chance of libel then. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)