User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about User:NuclearWarfare. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Next time you may want to block for a few months. ;) Enigma^msg 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello NuclearWarfare,

You recently deleted the "Multi-Crew Pilot License page" and banned 2 accounts that were involved editing the article. Due to reasons that the IP addresses of both accounts are identical. The reason why both IP's were identical is that both accounts were accessed using a "School's" internet server. Im appealing that both accounts are to be unbanned and that the page (MPL) continued to be modified.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by SxyKing (talk • contribs) 07:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please give me a link to the page I deleted and the accounts I blocked? Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page for Canadian Forces Halifax Rock Fest?--24.222.189.203 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I should explain that I answered every nomination for deletion: one guy said it would be alright if it were annual, and it is, another guy said it didn't have enough references so I got some more. I even wrote it so that it only reflected the facts, so that it didn't appear promotional, like my first version did. --24.222.189.203 (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it per my understanding of consensus, after reading the discussion. If you wish to contest my oppose, you can go to WP:DRV. Regards, NW (Talk) 04:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it deserves deletion, even after the conditions put forth by those who voted for deletion were met? Or do you think it deserves deletion at all? --24.222.189.203 (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I looked at the consensus link, and feel that the editing process wasn't fulfilled -- [Consensus as a result of the editing process]. After the article was edited further, there were no agreements or disagreements with the changes. --24.222.189.203 (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The part about the consensus that I meant was Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Community_discussions_and_polls. As for the five links that you added to the article, two were unreliable (as blogs), and the other three were either self-published sources in local sources or simple event descriptions that do not go to establishing notability, which means the points of those moving to delete the article were not properly addressed. NW (Talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the blogs were from reliable sources (Much Music and Sabian)? Also, I don't understand why news articles describing the event don't establish notability; the entire purpose of news is to promote notable events of the day. Should it instead be in a different category? I mean, I understand how a single concert with those musicians is not considered notable, but the fact that this is Canada's military hosting a concert I do find notable. I noticed it was reposted in a Music category for a consensus, so this is why I mention this--I don't think it's musically notable. For next year's concert, do you recommend adding references early, to assure a good number of reliable sources? How many is enough? I mean, there were four newspapers referenced for this article. I'm sorry for continuing to question this, I'm just at a complete loss as to how to create a Wikipedia page.--24.222.189.203 (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want, you can ask Jake Wartenberg to comment and maybe he'll reconsider the deletion. He's usually open to discussion and I'm sure he'll be happy to go over it with you. Nathan ^T 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrator

I am the producer and director of The Girls of Phnom Penh. I am trying to place this film's synopsis on Wikipedia but it appears it has been deleted, and I've been asked to email you with regards to this. Could you please advise me how to proceed.

kind regards

Matt Watson

matt@zealotfilms.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealotfilms (talk • contribs) 08:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason your article was deleted was because the way it was written failed the anti-advertising policy. Per WP:NPOV, all articles must be written neutrally and without bias, and per WP:V, must also include sources to reliable, third party reviews. The article must also satisfy the notability criteria for films. If you believe that you can recreate the article so that it fits all those criteria, then it can be recreated. Regards, NW (Talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When I go here this is the response I get I'm sorry, you are too new to request an account at the moment. How old do I have to be before I can join the account creation team? Dr. Szląchski (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, about three months of editing experience and a solid understanding of the username policy is required to join the ACC team. NW (Talk) 20:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you are up and about. Think you could get 159.91.20.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked quickly for me. He's refusing to give up tonight, and it's obviously Dewan357 back again.—Kww(talk) 02:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for alerting me. NW (Talk) 02:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bounced immediately to 159.91.22.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—Kww(talk) 02:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IP range blocked. NW (Talk) 02:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

150.101.28.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 31 hours just 2 days ago. Any chance the length of the block can be extended? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for one week; should that be sufficient? NW (Talk) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That looks good, thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to remove uncited information, then at least distribute the omission fairly. None of his career or personal life information is cited. Thus, it should be completely removed and not partially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.230.55 (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you have already done so. Please check out WP:BLP if you wish to know why we remove uncited negative information on biographies on living people. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I will read it and consider it in the future. Do take note though that none of the information was cited. At least be fair when distributing your removal of contributions. Thank you. 66.159.230.55 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No biggie, but I could swear that those 2 pix from The Shells were in use as recently as a day or two ago, not "unused for 7 days".--VMAsNYC (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see from the image captions that they were not to be deleted until the 15th (if at all). Can you double-check that, and if so restore them for the moment, as discussion is still ongoing? Tx.--VMAsNYC (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe they were in the category for deletion on the 10th, but I could have been mistaken. I have restored the images. NW (Talk) 20:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They were in the category for deletion on the 10th. Your mistake was deleting them under WP:CSD#F5; they should have been deleted under WP:CSD#F7. —teb728 t c 00:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please reblock Fenian Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Papist Hunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so they cannot create accounts, as he is using the first account to create more sockpuppets (such as Maid in China (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which needs blocking) and will no doubt move on to creating sockpuppets with the second account as well. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like someone else got them while I was offline. In the future, it might be faster to drop this both on my talk page and on ANI. Regards, NW (Talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Nuclear Warfare: I am a new comer in Wikipedia. The article "NGO 2.0 China Project" was deleted by you just now. I would like to know why you think it is "promotional"? It is an article introducing a new territory where Chinese grassroots NGOs meet Web 2.0 culture and tools. It helps wiki readers to gain knowledge about the scene of Chinese grassroots NGOs. What did we do wrong to be deleted? Would appreciate your advice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitjingwang (talk • contribs)

Hello there! I deleted the article because it was not in compliance with our advertising and neutral point of view guidelines. If you wish, you can recreate a page on the subject, if and only if your project meets the notability criteria for organizations, if the article is written neutrally and if any conflict of interest does not impede you. I also advise you to read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest and Wikipedia:Your first article before you begin. I hope this helps; feel free to reply if you need further assistance. Regards, NW (Talk) 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I note you've speedied the above under A7. I know the page wasn't great, but it did clearly state that he was the Head of Production at a major games studio, which I think is a clear indication of notability. See eg Google for a whole bunch of secondary sources. Note I have no particular interest in this page, but the unfortunate name clash was causing lots of incorrect information to be added to Jonathan Smith (games programmer). Would you consider undeleting this? Cheers --Pak21 (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't think that being the head of production anywhere was enough to even pass A7 standards, but I have undeleted the article for you. NW (Talk) 14:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Dewnans sock is back again after his indefinate block hes back on the same articles pushing his pov:[1] same old articles same pov I suggest you semiprotect the target pages to deal with his sock accounts thankyou 86.158.232.138 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And you're a banned user yourself (Nangparbat), so you also are socking and evading your ban which is much worse. How bout this sock of yours Mupper3445 (talk · contribs)? This clearly looks like you. Also, NuclearWarfare, would you mind explaining to me more about this aspect of socking so I know for future reference and it seems you have plenty of experience dealing with this matter. If a user is blocked indefinitely for socking but they create a new account that is not abusing WP policies, is that grounds for blocking or sock puppetry? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Elockid, you seem to have experience in this area :) That should be helpful; we can work this out together. There is the CLEANSTART proviso of WP:SOCK, which allows editors to create a new account and edit unmolested if they do not repeat their disruptive behavior (and ideally, walk away from the areas where they got in trouble in the first place). However, in most cases, especially is the user has been formally banned, they may not return under any account without consensus to unblock. As for this particular case, I am not sure enough of the details of either party, so could you please file an SPI case please Elokid? I'll take a look at this IP that the probably banned user brought up, but I think I need some background for the other user. NW (Talk) 16:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dewan357 has created more than 5 accounts lol so your going to give him another chance? 86.158.232.138 (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll fill out an SPI investigation per your request. But the SPI case for user stopped a couple of months ago since they come back with many multiple IP's (very elusive editor) and the usual remedy now is just report it and have the page being edited semi-protected. I don't know if this helps but I already sent a memo to Nishkid64 about it since he has been involved with Nangparbat plenty of times. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to Elockid your freind Dewan357 has created several accounts to push the same pov on the Mughal empire page so no she shouldnt be allowed to create a fifth account he will just attack the same pages again stop taking sides please 86.158.232.138 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I do believe in second chances. Dewan's accounts were explained to be legitimate alternate accounts from what I saw. So if this in fact is Dewan, then I think he should be given another chance. You only listed 1 account so I don't know where the other 5 came from. But boy, I think Hersfold, Yellowmonkey, and Nishkid can vouch that you have abused your "second chance". Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

lol seems to me ure either Indian or dewans your good mate he actually created several accounts and you still bang on about giving him chances and now hes using ips and his newest creation on the Mughal Empire I will make sure his pov doesnt infect wikipedia again you can support his as much as you want 86.158.232.138 (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have the IP speaking here to Nishkid; that should probably suffice. An SPI report is usually for the cases where a CU isn't watching over the area. Also, both of you, check to see if you can add anything to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked that Elockid wants a known sock master (who has socks of ips and accounts) to be re added to WP he had received many chances in the past but did not learn giving him another chance will only end in the same situation him being blocked for pov pushing 86.158.232.138 (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the suspected sock account to Nishkid's talk page. AdjustShift already added the IP so that's probably good then. I think I know an article or two based where Dewan was editing based on the sock puppetry case. Will file this under Dewan's case. To other comment directed at me, how bout you? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So I did a little digging and just found some IPs that I think are Dewan's. They're all on the 159.91.xxx. range (I see that you've revretd them already). Do you think that I should add them all? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me some examples of IPs in that range continuing to edit on the 11th and later? If so, I'll extend the range block. NW (Talk) 17:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing yet from the 11th or later. The articles I was talking about somewhere in the long conversation topic were in late August and first few days of September. But I keep an eye on a lot of Indian topic articles (this seems to be an edit subject of Dewan), so I'll be sure to add them on the SPI case or inform you about it. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. NW (Talk) 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor was correct. The info stated is supported by the references given. I'm not going to defend the edit summary, for which the IP has been warned but the statement stands up to scrutiny. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I know little of the subject, but an edit summary like that suggested that the IP wasn't here to contribute constructively, and also that the edit was probably awful. But feel free to undo my edit; I have no objection at all. NW (Talk) 18:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone else already did. I just checked both refs to ensure that it was correct. Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello NW, I've added some names to your new username suggestion list. Happy editing, Airplaneman ^talk 21:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? I don't understand all of this image crap and would like to know. Saying "WP:DHSSD" or some shit doesn't help. walkingonthesun (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Speedealer.png needs to be licensed under copyleft license that allows for commercial reuse and derivative works. If you wish, I can undelete the image so that you can add such a tag to the article. Regards, NW (Talk) 21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite follow this. He had already been blocked for the image violation about 90 minutes before you indefed him. You listed "abusing multiple accounts" as well as the IUP problems, but I can't find a trace anywhere of an SPI or checkuser against him.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Rationale fixed. NW (Talk) 04:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You just blocked 71.51.105.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and TonyTexas254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped right up to repeat the vandalism on the same set of articles.—Kww(talk) 04:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Dmacks got him before I was done typing this.—Kww(talk) 04:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be dense, but I'm really not sure what you are talking about. How is the copyright status unclear? And is this not a Commons issue? I'm sorry, I just find your note perplexing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I had misread your image page and tagged it as "no source", but I then quickly realized my mistake and deleted it, as it was redundant to the copy on commons. Unfortunately, I forgot to remove my notice on your talk page, which probably confused you. Please accept my apologies. NW (Talk) 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for apologies. No worries. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, i noticed you deleted some files i moved to wiki commons and was wondering if you could help? I recently tried to update File:Southarm hwy.png but the only way to see the updated file is to click on it full screen, the thumbnail version is the old version stretched, I've since put the new file on commons under File:Southarm hwy.png. I was wondering if you could delete the old copy as its mucked up the picture on the article South Arm Highway. Cheers Wiki ian 05:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:Athaenara got to it before I did. Cheers, NW (Talk) 15:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Since hes a banned user shouldnt his edits be reverted and the article restored to its neutral version before it was attacked by the sock? I tried to remove his POV but he sadly has some sympathy from Adjustshift and Elockid (who wants to give him another chance) so please could you be neutral and not take sides and remove his garbage edits from the article? 86.153.129.29 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not going to get involved. The only reason I blocked him is because he was abusing multiple accounts per a sockpuppetry investigations case. You are welcome to find consensus on a talk page to revert edits back to a specific version. NW (Talk) 15:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

But socks arent allowed to edit are they? shouldnt his pov be removed hes banned after all 86.153.129.29 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruben31 (talk · contribs) asked 3 admins for confirmation - he asked me 3 times, the last time writing "It is urgent pages I need to edit today please". Once he was given it, he edited two semi-protected pages, calling DBachmann a vandal in the process. Dab had reverted edits by Vazgen4 (talk · contribs) who is now blocked (by Dab as a sock of Zvartnot2) but had made a similar requests [2]. I am wondering if this is yet another sock. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the request in passing while scanning JameS93's talk page, and looked through his contributions. Since I saw plenty of unreverted edits along with a couple good faith attempts at adding content, I granted him 'manually confirmed'. Sockpuppet seems quite likely though, so an indef seems appropriate at this point. NW (Talk) 20:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Granting throwaway accounts the "silver padlock" for the asking kind of defeats the point of semiprotection, I would say. --dab (𒁳) 20:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, confirmed is supposed to be "[handed] out like candy". I see no problem with giving apparent good faith accounts confirmed. It might get us a good user, and if not, well, then that's not too bad. NW (Talk) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I see that you fully protected the article. However, it is hurting the accuracy of the article, WP:WPTC I believe has only 1 administrator which means that the article cannot be updated regurlarly. Could you please change it to semi-protection.

Thank you for your time --Anhamirak 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there was an edit war, going on the time, which means that semi protection would be useless. If all parties agree to stop edit warring, I or any other administrator may lift the protection, but not until then. If you wish, you can ask User:Juliancolton for a review of my action or to mediate the dispute. I know he is active in Atlantic Tropical Cyclones, and I trust his judgment, so he would probably be a good fit for this. If he agrees to help, then he can go ahead and remove the full protection. NW (Talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know what stage this is in [3] --stmrlbs|talk 03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi!!I noticed that you fully protected the 2009 Pacific typhoon season. In my observations, we users can't update the happenings in the page. You must semi - protected it not fully protected. we know that there are users that putting a wrong update or editing war. But we can settle this by just blocking them. Because we users that do right things in that article can't edit the latest happenings. I know you understand.Thanks User:Jpuligan_12 September 14, 2009 1137 (UTC).

[4] I have unprotected the article, but I ask that in case this happens again, you do not edit war, but instead gather a quick consensus on the talk page. This will allow uninvolved administrators to know which side is trying to add false information to the article, and deal with the source of the problem. Thanks, NW (Talk) 11:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much.have a nice day...=)...User:Jpuligan_12 September 14, 2009 1155 (UTC)

Thanks for the autoreview thingy. Richard75 (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there NUCLEAR, VASCO from Portugal here,

Thank you very much for helping out with this investigation, was having "a bit" of a problem there! These guy Pararubbas sure is relentless, 14 socks and endless anonymous IP. Oh well...

Cheers, take care,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have fixed up the case somewhat. I hope that helps. NW (Talk) 19:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hi again there man! Thanks a million for your invaluable help. That sock has been banned. However i, browsing around some stuff now, found this other sock, still not banned User:Zxcv08 (contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zxcv08). Please keep in mind this user had the custom, a few months ago, of opening TWO accounts simultaneously, just to make all the more troublesome for the rest of us...Pityful. Think something can be done?

Ty very much (again) in advance,

VASCO AMARAL, Portugal - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I have asked a checkuser to take a look. Thanks for the report, NW (Talk) 22:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• No criticism man, i truly and sincerely appreciate your help, but we have received no feedback whatsoever yet (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Pararubbas); could something be missing? It's just these replies tend to be very quick, so i'm puzzled.

Cheers, VASCO - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be taken care of now :) NW (Talk) 19:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: [5]. I don't think there is consensus to block him, and you should add a block note with rationale to his page when blocking. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppets are routinely blocked indefinitely without warning. Note that I didn't actually block the sockmaster, but only the sockpuppet. I don't see any reason why the sockpuppet, as opposed to the master, should be left unblocked. NW (Talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. How exactly do I do that?—Kww(talk) 03:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Information on the mailing list can be found here. Regards, NW (Talk) 03:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you moved Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bobbyjoe99 to /Fastwaylie because that account name was more descriptive of the problem. Is that correct?

In general how does one decide which account is the "master"? Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually, if there is already an SPI case on one of the suspected sockpuppets, a new case should be created under that same name. If not, the oldest account should be marked as the sockpuppet. In this case, the /Fastwaylie case already existed and he was already marked as the sockmaster, so I just merged the two cases to make keeping track of it easier. I hope that helps, NW (Talk) 00:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I had no idea there was an existed case. Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

re: "Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to List of works by Agatha Christie. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing."

What makes you say that I tried to vandalize that page? I gave a valid reason in the edit comment (The British edition came first, so it makes sense to list that first rather than third), in response to an earlier message from Netalarm that I should do so when changing an article. His comment was that it 'appeared to be unconstructive". I think it *is* constructive, as I mentioned. The name of the British edition, Ten Little Niggers, may be non-PC, especially to American ears, but that is something that is discussed in the article on the book itself. It doesn't alter the historical fact that the book *was* originally named Ten Little Niggers. I am not trying in any way to vandalize the article by using the word 'nigger'; but denying the fact that those kind of words *were* used in the past (either on purpose, with the intent to put down people of colour, or non intentionally, without realizing the effects it may have) is just as stupid as it would be to actually use them today. If you want to deny thye existence of a version of the book with that name, you should leave it out completely, (which I would strongly disagree with, we need to learn from the past) but if you leave it in, give it its proper place.87.210.219.0 (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the edit; that sort of addition usually indicates vandalism, but there is the odd exception to that rule. If you readded your information with a reliable secondary published source, then I'm sure it will stay in the article. My regards, NW (Talk) 01:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, but all I did was change a list that in effect looked like "1-2-3" into "3-1-2" so that the list made sense again (it's even listed under the year 1939, And Then There Were None wasn't published under that name until 1940). I wouldn't know how to find a reliable secondary source for that (except maybe the publishers site), and it wouldn't be more informative than the wiki article that the list referred to itself, where it is mentioned in the very first paragraph. Anyway, it must be possible to write something in an article without a reference, otherwise each article would become unreadable? And what happens if I do the same edit once more, without that secondary source, would it just be automatically undone again?87.210.219.0 (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I didn't even realize that all you did was reorganize it. I have reverted my edits; your version should be the one up now, and it should be fine. Regards, NW (Talk) 02:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What's happened at Bretton, Cambridgeshire? We've ended up with a self-redirect and no article content, either there or at Bretton, Peterborough! Can you fix this? I'll have a go if not, but I don't want to edit-conflict with you... Bencherlite^Talk 01:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I had opened the page to move it like 15 minutes ago, and then performed the move just now, without realizing that you had already done it. I think I managed to fix it; do you want to take a look to see if I managed to fix to properly? NW (Talk) 01:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

At least there's an article there now... Juliancolton has done something too. I'm surprised that there isn't a "move conflict" alert generated when, as here, you were moving a recently-created redirect onto an article to create a self-redirect, but there we go; another thing for bugzilla's shopping list. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 02:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted a vandal, the same one which "edited from my IP". After he was blocked, I was blocked too. I think this may have something with either rollback or blocks. Might not be either. Abce2|This isnot a test 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Werdna thinks he figured it out. Huggle loads the contribution pages of the users when it scans the diff, and apparently, seeing the blocked notice hit you with the autoblock. Or so it seems; I'm not sure I understood all the technical details. I think it should be fixed soon. NW (Talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

here's one. –xeno^talk 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. This should help some. NW (Talk) 00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm heading off, can you unblock him when you're done poking and prodding him? ;> –xeno^talk 01:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heehee. Looks like Werdna fixed the situation pretty quick. I think we can clear all the unblocks now. NW (Talk) 01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Yes, the poking and prodding appears to have been effective, at least from my vantage-point.

~tips hat~ Thanks to you both. Regards, • CinchBug • 02:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Lenz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I only nominated it! :) NW (Talk) 01:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, here's the correct one :)

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maurice Lenz, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sure that Nathan will be happier with the former one though. :) NW (Talk) 01:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

He's got it. You were the only nom in that batch, so only had to change yours :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the template is here to stay. Many users still have use for it so it hasn't live out it's usefulness after all. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my reply is here. --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot didn't finish its run at 13:14, and didn't increment the queue count or clear the queue. The next run at 19:16 also didn't finish. So could you increment User:DYKadminBot/count to 3 and clear queue 2? Shubinator (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, there's nothing in queue 3 right now; it needs to be filled very soon. I've got to dash, otherwise I'd help. Shubinator (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Incremented by someone else; Queue 2 cleared by me. NW (Talk) 00:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I see in August that you often worked on sock puppet investigations so I was hoping you could help me. I am a little confused about Wikipedia’s policy regarding sock puppets and was hoping that you can clarify something for me. Suppose the following to be true:

• Registered user is heavily involved in a debate on a talk page;
• He posts frequently under his registered account’s name;
• He also posts anonymously using his static IP address, often in support of statements made by his registered account;
• BUT, at the top of his registered account’s talk page, he states that he sometimes post under a particular IP address.

Question: Is this sock puppetry? It seems to me that, although he declares the IP address at the top of his registered account’s talk page, most readers of the debates in which he is involved on article talk pages will think that they are reading the opinions of two different people. Thus, while it may not violate the letter of the sock puppetry “law,” it violates its spirit. I look forward to your clarification. Thanks! (P.S. Please respond here as I will have your talk page on my watch list. Thanks!) — Spike (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey there Spike. Thanks for getting in touch with me. As for this case, I agree with your conclusion. While it may not be a direct violation of WP:SOCK, it definitely violates the spirit of the policy. It isn't so much a blockable offense, but if he is unwilling to constantly stay logged in, perhaps you could get him to sign his posts with his account name even while he is on his IP? That would solve a lot of issues without too much difficulty for him. Regards, NW (Talk) 12:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NW for the response and clarification. Unfortunately, that suggestion will not work. His whole purpose of editing anonymously is to add support to, and lend weight to, his arguments made from his logged-in account. Often the anon edit follows immediately upon the logged-in edit. Moreover, from your explanation, given that he has made a full-disclosure declaration, if you will, on his talk page, it would seem that he has covered his a** and may keep on doing so. And, since almost no one in the debate on the various talk pages in which he is doing this — he edits on many wikiarticles that deal with this particular civil rights matter; I’ve counted four (4) so far — will go and look at his personal talk page, the declaration is more about form than anything else. I take from what you’re telling me, therefore, that he is smarter than us all and can continue to edit in this manner, with impunity. <sigh> Sadly, he has bogged down several articles in much the same manner as a legislator might keep proposed legislation from leaving a parliamentary or congressional committee with this tactic. I was hoping that he could be sidelined for a time so that other editors — not me, I am merely an observer in this debate and not an editor of the article(s) in question — who are acutally committed to writing a well-balanced, NPOV article could reach a consensus and then get the job done. Alas, this loophole means he can continue to keep the article(s) held up in committee, as it were, indefinitely. Sadly, he is so polite and seemingly cooperative, that many of the editors have failed to notice that he edits under multiple indenties, in the same manner, on any wikiarticles dealing with this topic: “A wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Thanks again for the explanation! While it may not please me, at least I understand that this loophole exists and that nothing can be done about it. — Spike (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

May I have this user's username please? While it isn't really a technical violation of WP:SOCK, as we have agreed upon, this is something that I really would like to talk to the user about. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, since you're an expert on images, I've got a question for you: does this image qualify for fair use? There's a discussion going on at the image's talk page. Gary King (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; I have replied there. And an expert! Not really :) David Fuchs or Stifle are probably much better for this; I usually only work with establishing if an image is truly in public domain. NW (Talk) 18:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No one blocked IJUSTWANNABEHAPPY, despite the confirmation at [6].—Kww(talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked. Thanks for the note. NW (Talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A week ago, you locked conversion therapy[7]. During the past week there has been no progress in resolving the issues. Can you extend the protection? I just barely suggested mediation. Do you have any suggestions of what we should do? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you try to ask someone with more experience with mediation; User:Seddon might be a good choice. NW (Talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I had to reset prep 1. The double nom was in Q6. My fault as I forgot to delete it. Victuallers (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries :) NW (Talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing the image review now. Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me Awadewit. By the way, it's great to see you around again. Any chance you'll pop over to WikiVoices any time soon, or has school and your personal life still have you swamped? NW (Talk) 01:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll pop over once in a while...:) Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your contribution. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for all your great work! NW (Talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Keep up the good work with keeping the DYK queues going, but can I ask you to try and remember to protect any images that you move to the queues from prep because one just ended up on the main page unprotected. It should all be fine now though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually protecting them on Commons, as I am an administrator there. I'll be sure to tag them with Commons:Template:Enwiki main page to make that clear. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that which means I have a question. I'm pretty inexperienced in this kind of thing, but I think they should be uploaded locally (en.wiki) and not protected on Commons, because if it was just protected on Commons, a vandal could upload a undesirable image under the same name on en.wiki and that would then transclude directly onto the main page. I think that is right, but correct me if I'm wrong. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only local administrators can upload a local copy if an image with the same name is already on Commons, so if it is protected on Commons, it will be fine. NW (Talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah I didn't know that. That makes sense then. Sorry to bother you, and as an administrator on both I'm not really sure why I questioned you in the first place. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's no problem at all. I'm definitely not infallible, and it's more likely than not that if you see something I did and you have a question about it, I did it wrong :) Please do tell me if you see anything that I did and you are unsure why I did so. NW (Talk) 16:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind note on my talk page. Tim riley (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem :) Thanks for all your good work. NW (Talk) 20:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I just saw your signature, NW. Very nice. Your username is a bit different. I wonder if anyone has the name "SevereTorture" or "HugeExplosion". Based on your name, do you have access to the bomb and could start WW3? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer: there is now a user:HugeExplosion. It redirects. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How could you close the Afd dabate on Kelly Park Compton Crips with the reasoning "Clear consensus that all mentions are of the trivial or unreliable sort." when there where NO consensus for that..?--Judo112 (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you are partial towards Delete in Afd debates but im not amused by this decision at all.--Judo112 (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with my closure, please see Deletion Review. I stand by my closure in this AfD. NW (Talk) 22:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Im only questioning how you reached that consensus as that would be impossible considering the Afd comments..? strange world.--Judo112 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. While the technical vote count was 1/2/0 k/d/n, your vote wasn't explained with rational following in WP:AFD procedure (also see WP:AADD, specifically WP:VAGUEWAVE) and can be discounted. Including the nominator and disregarding your vote, it's a 0/3/0 majority in favor of deletion. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No that doesnt add up anyway. I still consider this a sneaky deletion. But thats my opinion.--Judo112 (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this SPI, should I (or someone less involved) go to the AfDs and strike the sockpuppet's votes, or do you think the message left at the top of the AfD will be enough for the closing admin? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Either is probably fine, I would think. NW (Talk) 15:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, There is no need to do what you are doing. They are all notable subjects and missing articles all the same. When they are restarted later they are then in a position to just be restarted. I don't think there is any need to block off links, it is not as if somebody else is going to restub them in the same way.... By delinking them it is as if to say "we shouldn't have articles about these people". Well we should, scout around for sources and you'll be surprised. But they should be restarted with adequate info and as nobody was bothering to help fill out the articles I requested their deletion. Himalayan 21:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This is being handled on my talk page. No need to bring it here too. He's following the instructions I gave. Lara 21:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment there. Cenarium (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Damn, you're quick! I was just starting to leave a message for PMDrive1061 about that user. I have a feeling, judging by his edits, that he is a new sockpuppet of Thisisthebestusername!. But, now, I do not need to bother. Good riddance to bad rubbish. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford/archive1 and do an image review for me, please? I hope it'll be straightforward - there are no fair use images, and most are contributor-as-uploader or Flickr images. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 16:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Phew, you certainly had a lot of them :) I have posted the image on the FAC page, and look forward to supporting soon. NW (Talk) 19:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. Bencherlite^Talk 21:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) That little event also serves as a useful reminder as to why I left this place in March. Oh well .... - Alison ^❤ 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I'm glad to help out. Just ask if you need anything at all in the future. Regards, NW (Talk) 00:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW - just to clarify, those IP edits are largely coming from certain /b/tards, so they won't be open proxies, but just random home IPs, etc. A certain person thinks /B/ is somehow his personal, army and tries to recruit them to do his bidding. All you can do is block them short-term, if even that. Thanks again - Alison ^❤ 00:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I get at least 1/2 the credit, since I noticed it and asked him to protect it :-P Nathan ^T 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you too ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 00:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Working at SPI, with Global account attack names, and with User:J.delanoy have taught me quite a lot more than I ever wanted to know about 4chan and Jeremy. Actually, I had a small question on IPs; is there any easy way to tell if they are static or not? NW (Talk) 00:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

← Use a DNS tool (there are plenty of on-line ones, as well as the command-line in *NIX) and check to see if the address came out of an ISP's DHCP pool. That's usually pretty obvious from the resolved name. Check the netblock to see what it's assigned as - ISPs usually have chunks of /20 or /24 or whatev, that they allocate to certain areas, and it usually appears in the reverse-lookup. Here's one from just now;

xxxxxxxxxx:~ acassidy$ dig -x 99.41.24.226
; <<>> DiG 9.6.0-P2 <<>> -x 99.41.24.226
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 65282
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;226.24.41.99.in-addr.arpa.	IN	PTR

;; ANSWER SECTION:
226.24.41.99.in-addr.arpa. 7200	IN	PTR	adsl-99-41-24-226.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
24.41.99.in-addr.arpa.	172800	IN	NS	ns3.sbcglobal.net.
24.41.99.in-addr.arpa.	172800	IN	NS	ns1.swbell.net.
24.41.99.in-addr.arpa.	172800	IN	NS	ns2.swbell.net.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
ns2.swbell.net.		84519	IN	A	151.164.11.218
ns1.swbell.net.		84519	IN	A	151.164.1.1
ns3.sbcglobal.net.	85105	IN	A	65.68.49.6

;; Query time: 51 msec
;; SERVER: 17.206.12.12#53(17.206.12.12)
;; WHEN: Mon Sep 21 17:27:41 2009
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 208

xxxxxxxxxxx:~ acassidy$

You can see that it came out of a DSL pool from South-western Bell in Houston, Texas and is someone's home DSL account. Depending on the ISP, some of these are ostensibly static whereas others can be reassigned simply by rebooting the modem - Alison ^❤ 00:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey NW, this IP adress has just finished a 1 week long block and has already started vandalising. Ive already given him more warnings, but I dont see this problem stoping. I noticed that you put him under his recent block, so please look into this. Thanks--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked and reverted. NW (Talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you for your work. But please be so kind and reinstall Birgit Schnieber-Jastram and Mario Mettbach, they were second mayors of Hamburg (an equivalent to an US vice-governor) and deserve an article, as shown in the edit history, I was beginning to work on them. But, like all of us, got no time and energy to do them properly now. I'm sure, I sourced them properly (for a stub). If you are one of the users thinking, Riga is only a small community, I'm sorry to bother you. But I really hope, this was a mass deletion, kind of boring, and these sourced blps just slipped through. Greetings and happy editing. Sebastian scha. (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC) (Ps: I'm watching you [your talk page], if you need a clarification ;-)

 Undeleted. Yeah, it was a large series of batch deletions (two of us tried to look at and then delete 1500 articles per author request). Those two just must have slipped through; I have restored them. Feel free to ask my to restore any others; I will be happy to do so. NW (Talk) 18:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have worked on them a bit, to change them into proper stubs. I'm working ATM only on the mayors, not the 'simple' members of parliament. Maybe later I will ask you to undelete some more. Sebastian scha. (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant to have it deleted becouse there are no pages linked to it and if i place it on the right page other users delete it from the page. Could you add that template to have it removed for that reason.--Mr. Unknown (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is still a fine image and is definitely eligible for inclusion. I see no reason to delete it; sorry. Free use images do not necessarily need to be used to be hosted on Wikimedia. NW (Talk) 21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got a reply. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 21:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And another. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the picture I'd uploaded. I just wanted to point out that I was never notified about deleting that, and if I was, I never noticed. Also, how do you go about uploading pictures that aren't under copyright? I figured I was doing it the correct way. I myself am in the picture and know for sure that it isn't copyrighted or anything. Just wondering. Kevinbrogers (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me a link to the image please? I have deleted many hundreds of images, so I don't exactly remember which of yours I deleted. If you yourself took the picture, I will undelete it and you can add {{pd-self}} or {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}, and it will be fine. NW (Talk) 23:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for closing this Afd.[8] Can I just clarify something with you though? I nominated Myra Hindley as well in the same AfD. Does the merge decision also apply to her article? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I should have tagged Myra Hindley with the merge template; my apologies if I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out to me. NW (Talk) 20:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Any reason I, as the creator of the article, was not notified of an AfD? I log in to find my article deleted...a bit odd. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure; usually it is the job of the nominator or an automated bot to notify the creator of the article. I'm not really sure why they didn't notify you; perhaps you could ask the nominator? NW (Talk) 22:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me to fix my mistake.--Karljoos (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. It's a simple mistake; I have done it before myself a couple of times. Feel free to contact me if you ever need assistance again. NW (Talk) 23:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly this article was nuked. Would you be so kind as to move it to my userspace pending the advent of a more enlightened age on Wikipedia when it may be deemed appropriate for recreation in some form? :) Perhaps post-apocalypse? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I just noticed that your closing argument includes the lines "I think we need to return to the basic principle that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a collection of fragments, and therefore we shouldn't write in a fragmentary manner. Therefore, we should be relatively limited here, including only those that are known very widely as separate events." Of course these aren't policy based arguments so we'll have to rake you over the coals at DRV for imposing your personal opinions. Tsk tsk tsk. Someone bring round the tar and feathers. This is going to be a doosie. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Userified. And as for those lines that you quoted, I lifted those from DGG's post, as I felt them to be indicative of the general atmosphere of the crowd of voters, and it is indeed derived somewhat from policy, I would believe. NW (Talk) 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir. It is gutsy to close those contentious AfDs. If you want to make sure you get it right just find my position and agree with it. ;) Are you enjoying being an Admin? I think you got the tools fairly recently, right? Good to see you digging right in! Feel free to block user:Drmies if you want to practice... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. Oh, you're a riot.

And yes, my RfA was pretty recently, just about a month ago, though I have been actively editing since June 2008. And as for your suggestion, well, I'll think about it. ;)

This is going back a bit! The only thing I've been able to confirm on this front is that the image came from here, on the Daimler-Benz website. The image has clearly changed since then, and there is no sign of a license. Given the image was uploaded 3 and a half years ago there is a strong chance that DB have changed their image display system since then, and given releases to the public domain cannot be rescinded, it may be that the uploader was telling the truth. I would not be surprised if it is PD, as I have seen it in many different forms in many different places; it seems to be the most common picture of him. But, at the end of the day, it's your call. Cheers, Apterygial 00:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm still not really sure that that image can be included, because unfortunately that link does not give enough information. I'd recommend asking on WP:MCQ to see if someone else has another take on it. NW (Talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that. Apterygial 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi -- having deleted Ahmad reza taheri, do you want to delete the other version as well? They were essentially the same, according to Fabrictramp. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 Deleted NW (Talk) 10:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would have been best to have speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Golay as a redirect, but to have left Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Rutterschmidt open for a full discussion. It's the same page (just renamed) with the original edit history, after all, the AFD discussion was and is dealing in the relevant sources, and there were other people's opinions that had yet to turn around by renaming and refactoring. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• However, a large portion of the voters for Olga Rutterschmidt were working off the fact that when they voted, the article was a BLP1E violation, which is separate from the notability issue and which causes them to look at the sources a bit differently. I'll give a heads up to the ones who voted delete (if that's OK with you) and ask them if they feel that the article is worth renominating. NW (Talk) 15:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's no skin off my nose. I was, after all, quite happy for the AFD discussion to continue its course. People might still disagree, even after the renaming and refactoring. Please contact those who wanted deletion, to see whether keeping is alright with them. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
    • These should not have been closed and merged. Firstly, consensus developing at the AfDs (particularly this one was in no way close to merging; if anything, the strongest camp (although not a majority one) was to delete. WP:BOLDly merging articles when the suggestion is an uncontentious one, but when you have consensus developing that they shouldn't be merged it's just disruptive. Taking delete, keep and the nom into account you had four saying delete/keep and two saying merge. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think that it would be pointless to re-open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Golay. Just leave that as a redirect. It can stand and fall with what it redirects to. Perhaps you and NuclearWarfare could come to an agreement on undoing the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Rutterschmidt and letting it continue to run from where it was. It seems pointless to start a new discussion from scratch, and have to re-hash the discussion so far. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm completely open to reopening that discussion and notifying prior contributors; feel free to do that if you wish. NW (Talk) 16:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Doesn't seem much point now. We'd have to tear the articles apart again; far too much effort when they're (now) fine. Ironholds (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
            • There's no tearing apart to be done. You do know that no content had actually yet been merged from the one page to the other, don't you? Uncle G (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you noticed this (especially since there's still an unblocked Brexx sock as a result of the confusion).—Kww(talk) 00:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, just a heads up - when you're deleting images hosted here, make sure there isn't a different image with the same name at Commons - because otherwise that image will replace the ones here, until the bot cleans up (if indeed it will in these cases - I need to check that!). For example, when you deleted File:Ramsay.jpg here, it was replaced in three articles by a picture of someone else completely. In such cases, you'll need to remove the image from the article in which it appeared. Not a problem in this case, but might be in certain BLP cases. Black Kite 10:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'll be sure to pay attention to that in the future. NW (Talk) 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

NW, I updated SPI blank report - with CU in my own sandbox, but I can't update the original - only administrators can do that. I asked Luna Santin to move it over a while ago [9], but Luna must be busy because I've gotten no response. In the meantime, MuZemike commented out the {{RFCU}} to the templates in my userspace to prevent them from interfering with normal process [10]. If you could move my spi blank report [11] over, take out the commenting out of the {{RFCU}} that MuZemike added, then we could let it run, and make sure there are no unforseen problems. I also added {{TOC_Limit|4}} to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Subpage_-_Awaiting_Clerk_approval to limit the TOC to only 3 levels. However, the individual SPIs will have the full table of contents. I decided to only make the changes to the blank SPI form requesting CU. If that goes with no problems, then I will do the blank form with NO CU. Does that sound ok to you? Please let me know when you move it so that I can watch it. Thanks. stmrlbs|talk 04:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you bring this up on the SPI talk page? I'd like a couple more clerks to look it over to make sure there are no issues. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Another couple of weeks that these cases will be sitting in my sandbox, though. Btw, the macro that I changed has been in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Subpage_-_Awaiting_Clerk_approval for a couple of weeks with no problem. That is why you are seeing the little color band between cases, to make the differentiation between SPIs easier to see. stmrlbs|talk 17:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with Hawthorne (TV Series). Could you also delete List of HawthoRNe episodes? It is a blatant cut-and-paste copyvio from the linked URLs, serves no value (as copyvio), and the individual episodes are not notable anyway. If anything after deletion it could be redirected back to the parent article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw you did [12], no worries. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmm. List of (Insert TV Show) episodes are generally considered notable and there are quite a few at FL-quality. I have removed the copyvio parts; that should be good then? NW (Talk) 17:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess so :) NW (Talk) 17:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting your help with TNT’s HawthoRNe Wikipedia page, because one editor of the site refuses to allow changes to the page. His personal hatred and bias towards this television program is obvious, and his control of the content on the page is unlike anything I have ever come across in all my searches on Wikipedia. I have added relevant information that would be of interest to viewers of the program, such as the day of the week and the time the program is airing, as well as the names of the production companies, only to see the information repeatedly taken down. Something as trivial as putting the show’s name in italics (as has been done with other television programs) has been deleted. One other person added a positive review, only to have it blocked. I am hoping that information I have added in the past regarding this television program could be restored, or that I and others be allowed to make changes to the site. One of two areas of contention is that this editor has selectively posted a long list of negative reviews without allowing any balance with positive reviews. Additionally, it would appear on many other television pages that there is no "Critical Reception" section at all, and editing or removing the section on this page is unfairly determined to be "vandalism." The second issue is that this editor has complained of copyright violations with the Plot Summary, even though countless pages for television programs, such as "The Mentalist" (CBS) and "Raising the Bar" (TNT,) and numerous movie pages have taken plot information and cited back to the official sites. Numerous shows with Wikipedia pages use the networks' plot descriptions for the Episode Descriptions, and cite back to them. If there is a standard, then it would apply to all the entertainment sites. If no information or sentences can be cited from official sites or press releases, then at least I and others should be permitted to make the necessary changes to make the page in compliance with Wikipedia rules. Thank you very much for any help with this. Cotto 16:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that Cirt (talk · contribs) is only adding negative reviews of the show, please add any positive reviews from secondary, reliable sources; do not simply blank the entire section. I very much doubt this, but if Cirt is edit warring over the inclusion of positive reviews, then please show me a diff where he was removing them. Sections are not blanked because other pages may or may not have those sections; ideally, all articles should have all the sections that a related featured article has. As for the copyright violations issue, Cirt is 100% correct. If other TV series' articles have that issue, they too should be removed. NW (Talk) 20:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Awarded to NuclearWarfare for his ongoing contributions without seeking recognition for them. Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much :) NW (Talk) 22:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like your MfD closure script somehow accidentally deleted this one instead of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal (2nd nomination), which was deleted by User:J.delanoy moments earlier. Tim Song (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I accidentally used my AfD closure script, which worked because of the craziness of that title. I have undeleted the AfD; it should be good now? NW (Talk) 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Tim Song (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fake timestamp: 15:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Before I forgot it. I am only glad helping with that article (those russian translations were a matter of minutes, though the language was really tough at times, we don't use such for centuries :-), but I will have uncertain internet access between 16 and 26 September (probably some, but little, on public PC). Materialscientist (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's no problem at all; I have likely hit my source limit in any case. I shall hold off on submitting the FAC before 26 September; I would prefer if you could take a look at it before it goes there. Thanks for the notice, NW (Talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Made a note on Talk:Nikita_Zotov#Information_incorporated; do you think you could take a look? Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I requested an account on the ACC account creation interface.Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Account created! In order to complete the process, please make a confirmation edit to your user talk page. In this edit, note that you requested an account on the ACC account creation interface, and use a descriptive edit summary so that we can easily find this edit. Failure to do this will result in your request being declined.I really don't know what that means Dr. Szląchski (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Roux has the message right; the edit on your talk page is just to ensure you were the one who requested the account and not something else. However, I had to decline your request to have an account on the ACC interface. At ACC, we generally prefer that users have spent a longer time on Wikipedia than you currently have. Please reapply in a month or so. Regards, NW (Talk) 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW, I was wondering if you could clear something up for me regarding images on the Commons. During my latest FAC, someone said something about Commons standards for PD being tighter. I wasn't exactly sure what was being said, but it was either that they had to be PD in their place of origin, or that they had to be PD everywhere. Do you know of a page anywhere on the Commons that explains what their PD standards are for images? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This page should have what you need. Short summary: The image should be in public domain both in the United States and in the country of origin to be on Commons. For Wikipedia, they only need to be public domain in the United States[13]. Hope that helps, NW (Talk) 17:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thank you. What I'm particularly wondering about are the images in 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla, which I'm thinking of submitting for FAC. A lot of the images were taken in Lydda or Ramla in 1948 and are PD in Israel. I uploaded some to Wikipedia, then another editor uploaded them to the Commons. Before it goes to FAC (if it does), I need to get sorted out which ones we can keep in the article and/or whether we need to claim fair use for them, rather than PD. If you have time, would you mind taking a quick look? Even if you were to look at just one or two of them, that would give me a pointer in the right direction -- this one, for example. Any input would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is only in the Public Domain in Israel and not the United States, then we cannot host the images on Commons, and on enwiki only as fair use. File:LyddaAirportCapture.png is a perfect example of such, actually. I don't believe that it acceptable to use here. Could you please make a list of all images used in the article as of now on the talk page? After I start thinking clearly again in the morning (it is past midnight here), I'll be sure to take another look at all of them. Regards, NW (Talk) 05:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be great, NW, thank you. I'll compile the list now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The list is here. Many thanks for this. By the way, as there are quite a few, if it would take too long to look through them all, if you could look at just a few, I'd probably be able to work out the status of the others from that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why was my picture deleted? I took the picture myself and I own copy write over it and with my permission I want ti to be shown in the article. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 15:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

These sorts of images are not copyrighted by you, actually, because they are a derivative work of something copyrighted by someone else, in this case, the company that made Fable. The image would need a fair use rationale to be used in a Wikipedia article, but I can tell you right now that no fair use rationale would satisfy the conditions of the non-free content criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Regards, NW (Talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You said you were going to send me an e-mail 5 days ago, but you never did. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 23:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I decided to not send it; I figured that the content of it would not be too helpful to you. Sorry about not informing you that fact. NW (Talk) 23:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading the thread at the Admin's noticeboard/incidents and being led to the sockpuppet investigation between Guitarherochristopher and Coldplay Expert, I believe that this was the previous accusation discussion that you were looking for. I have put a link to it at the case, but I'm not sure if I've entered it in the right section. Thanks – Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You did fine; thank you very much for that. NW (Talk) 23:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

NW, I have some evidence that supports my claim that I am not a WP:SOCK. It is located at the GHC sock puppet investigation if you wnat to look at it.--Coldplay Expert 01:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)