User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 33

Brian fan now also a fan of Tony

I wonder could you keep an eye on this again, particularly this? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I could semi-protect the page if you wish? NW (Talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

An idea. Might put him off. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see a reasonable non-autoconfirmed post in the last few days, so I don't think I'll semi-protect. Hopefully he'll just get bored and go away. NW (Talk) 23:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. What a strange mix of apparently sensible edits and deranged ranting. Oh well, let someone else have a go. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Latest developments in this front, but Satori Son is on one of his wiki-absence sprees now...Tell me what you think of this please (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Appealing_a_block#User:Pararubbas), as you see, both the proper field and the sockuser, now "called" User:Alexgreene87, have been notified.

Keep it up, regards from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Not really sure. If you think we should unblock, I'd be happy to unblock the Alexgreene87 account. Or do you think we should ask him for more details on his assurances? NW (Talk) 14:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Good idea! Drop a line in the pertinent discussion please. Depending on his answer, then it's up to you to unblock. As i mentioned to both you and Satori, i find it quite odd that he removed links and refs for almost THREE YEARS, without engaging in conversation, then all of a sudden responds - and in the first message he DENIED being Pararubbas! - saying "i did it because i did not know how to edit well". Yes, i know, one must assume good faith, maybe the past between me and this user is not letting me be fair...

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Commented on Alex's talk page. Think it's OK? NW (Talk) 14:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked. We shall see how it goes. NW (Talk) 23:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks a million, i'll be watching this... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

By analogy

I take it from your clerk note in reply to Boris's comment on the Arbitration Amendment page (Gilabrand is to be encouraged to post on her talk page and someone can then copy and post her comment there) that, by implication, I seem, in adding some comment to the section dealing with my case, to have violated some formal protocol there. If so, what should I do? Should I remove my contribution to my talk page?

Sorry for messing things up. I am afraid I have only the slightest familiarity with how things are organised on such forums, and the regulations regarding due form. But as the law says generally, ignorance is no excuse. Regards Nishidani (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, not at all. If she were unblocked, Gilabrand would be free to post to WP:A/R/A. She isn't, so the whole "copying from her user talk page" routine would have to be done. But being topic banned does not prevent you from appealing to the Arbitration Committee, so long as your post doesn't violate WP:NPA.

So in sum (and I may have misunderstood what you said), you are free to post about your topic ban and appeal thereof on WP:A/R/A or your user talk page. NW (Talk) 22:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Phew, thanks for the clarification. I'll to bed, relieved that at least here, I can sleep easy. Best Nishidani (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abortion_lead_sentence_-_straw_poll_consensus

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - RoyBoy 22:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

NW, you are edit warring this page. You are warned that such violations can result in being topic banned. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? NW (Talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been edit warring on the main abortion page. You are kindly reminded to knock it off. 67.233.18.28 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

While we're warning each other about potential policy violations, do you think it's appropriate to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism to solicit backup for your agenda at abortion? ([1]) I know you're aware of WP:CANVASS, having been warned before. MastCell ^Talk 15:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And speaking of inappropriate editing, I have reverted your post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Collab. You have already been warned about this once before; keep it up and it is likely you who will be looking at a topic ban.

Please state specifically which reverts of mine that you object to. NW (Talk) 16:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This of course should be expected. While I don't condone it, I'd rather have it in the open. Clamping down will force it behind the scenes. (my 2 cents) - RoyBoy 22:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The link

"People can find it if they want" is not a good reason. I'm putting my foot down here: Mal said he's fine with it, and if the principal victim is fine with it, then linking it is fine. "People can find it" is a horse radishes. ResMar 04:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No. Get permission from Arbitrators and I might change my mind, but it's fundamentally a violation of WP:LINKVIO right now. NW (Talk) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyrights? Explain please. ResMar 04:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That is...really niche. I demand then that you remove all instance of it from Wikipedia. Or keep all of them. ResMar 04:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

All what, links to Wikipedia Review posts where private emails have been posted? Give me the links to the Wikipedia where they are at, and I shall. NW (Talk) 10:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

120.22.253.193 (talk · contribs) and 120.18.224.12 (talk · contribs)

I believe these are socks. You warned .12, but .193 is doing the same thing to my page and to Precognition. Can you range block? The edits to Precognition were OR and POV in an attempt to state that Precognition wasn't disproved. Silly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't think a rangeblock is going to be possible; WHOIS suggests that this is a /13 mobile phone range from Australia (Hi Cas!), which is far too large to block unfortunately. I semi'd your talk page; looks like Vsmith4 semi'd precognition. Speaking of precognition, wasn't there some movie with Tom Cruise that involved "precogs" of some sort? NW (Talk) 18:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Minority Report (film) I believe. Stephen Spielberg and Cruise, once again. And I hope that you're not afflicted with cerebral shortcomings. It's the next Wikipedia meme. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the protection.....erm.....not THAT kind of protection you pervs

If you don't mind, can you upgrade the protection level to no IP users? For say a couple of weeks? Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, semi'd for two weeks. NW (Talk) 20:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Give that fetus a pen.

Following one POV, wouldn't we need a release from the fetus? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the mother's consent would be entirely acceptable by any standard. NW (Talk) 13:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahh...Yes, of course, parental consent works. Silly me. Note to self: Avoid attempts at humor before noon(ish) and rethink fetus with pen joke. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Alexgreene87

Hi there NUKE, thanks for your help in this matter,

Don't know why, but Alex insists in adding STUB templates to articles which are not, i told him again not to, let's see if he heeds. Also, asked him some more "tough" questions in his talk page, got a lot of "catching up" to do. I was polite but cut him no slack! Let's see his response.

If you find any wrongdoings in my last talkpage inputs, please let me know. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• He seems to continue engaging in some of the past errors, now he seems to be denying he was User:Pep10. Again, if i am bothering you (just a hunch), please say so, i'll take my queries elsewhere, don't want to impose - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's no problem at all. Been getting into my own content disputes recently, so that's why I have been putting the admin work on the backburner. In any case, I don't think it's a big deal that he doesn't own up to his past accounts. It's somewhat disappointing, but might be best to let bygones be bygones.

Have you tried suggesting that that he edit the Portuguese Wikipedia? I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of his problems stemmed from language difficulties. He might have a better time editing there. NW (Talk) 18:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Has declined the suggestion, and i don't trust him a bit, have not forgotten the last three years. I told him i will be watching him closely, it he strikes back with ill manners, i'll let you know. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Some help please!

Hi

I am looking for someone to help me update the Olswang wikipedia page since we have experience some conflict with another user changing/deleting additions we make to our page. As you seem to be a frequent editor for the ‘law’ page I thought it would be appropriate to ask for your guidance.

Could you perhaps take a look at the Olswang page and give me your thoughts? I have been trying to add in office locations, awards received and other general information in the history section, everything with its relevant source, however, the updates are removed by a used called 'mtking'. After a lot of conflicting thoughts on the page with this user I was blocked and do not want this to happen again which is why I am asking for your help

Kind regardsNewsrooms (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you read this account's talk page, you'll see that they have a COI combined with an attitude problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Newsrooms, I'm afraid I don't have time at present to handle this kind of situation. NW (Talk) 03:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Another outline nominated for deletion

The Outline of relationships was nominated for deletion.

It was then overhauled and the nomination was withdrawn.

Before → After.

Only a couple members from the Outlines WikiProject showed up at the AfD.

Do you have Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Article alerts watchlisted?

If not, please watchlist it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 08:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DRN

Hello, just letting you know I've replied to your post on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

T:ITN

Don't forget to bold Hotel InterContinental. Thank you. Marcus Qwertyus 03:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the catch. NW (Talk) 03:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Also do we usually included the attackers deaths? A contributor revised my preliminary fatality count without citing a source. The latest count is 19 including the 6 attackers.[2] (I will add this source shortly). Marcus Qwertyus 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have time to read much, so I just scanned the first paragraph of the NYT article and went with that. I'll update it, but what do you think: "13 civilians are killed", "13 civilians and 6 attackers", "19 people, including 6 attackers", or just leave it as "at least 19 are killed"? NW (Talk) 03:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The third is best because I don't think a security guard counts as a civilian. Marcus Qwertyus 03:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision

Hello. Yesterday you made an edit to Circumcision. I was hoping too get a new set of eyes from an experienced admin and possibly comment on the current situation. The page has been protected for over a month after the intro was rewritten and good faith edits and logical debates are not very forthcoming. If you don't feel like getting involved I completley understand. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I might look over it later, though don't hold your breath. I already made a similar mistake when I waded into Abortion, provided about 25 sources, and was told by another administrator that they would drink until they could ignore my drivel. Logic has very little to do with our articles when religion is involved in any significant way. NW (Talk) 19:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kiwi Bomb

You have blocked this new editor for sockpuppetry. Without in any way suggesting that you are wrong, I would be grateful for information as to which alternate accounts are run by this editor. The SPI does not indicate. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't block the user; I merely declined their first unblock request. It's quite obvious that this is not a new editor, although I have no idea who what other accounts they may use or have used. NW (Talk) 19:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Realizing you likely aren't heading back to the FARC DRV I wanted to thank you for adding the image information. As I said there:

"I would have (added the links), but I don't really understand image stuff very well (were those links enough, what if the exact image was slightly different resolution etc.) and I was loath to touch a BLP-related issue without being darn sure I was getting it right. Thanks for doing so!"

Hobit (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm afraid that my tone was somewhat snippy on the DRV page, so allow me to apologize for that. Best, NW (Talk) 03:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries! I just felt I should explain. Hobit (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncontroversial medical articles

I don't think you can find anything non-technical. Like I answered there, I began editing Alzheimer's disease because it had some alt-med stuff like eating gingko or something. I remember looking it up and it was completely unsupported by evidence. Then I started to clean up this part and another part. Then another user joined in. His English was terrible, but he had all of the right citations. At first, I was annoyed (surprised?). Then he dropped my page to say his English was week. So we collaborated, he would dig up stuff, I would rewrite, he would get the right citations. It was fun, and I learned a ton about the disease that I had never known. I don't claim to be a neurology expert (my background is in other areas, that I just don't edit, because I know I'd end up owning the article). I also love my geology articles as a complete break. They're hardly ever controversial, except for the occasional creationist who drops by to fix anything that mentions an age older than a few thousand years.  :) I think you'll notice when I get especially cranky, I go work on some other article or start a new one. It's truly relaxing. And of course, I ignore ANI, WQA, or any of those dramafests. Anyways, that's me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee Arbitration

You've collapsed ChesterMerkel's evidence. Why is this and what is the consequence? It doesn't seem to make any sense, particularly as the hatting is headed "The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it." It's not a discussion, it's evidence and no one could modify it anyway. There was much discusssion on this when CM's socking was discovered, and the Arbs said the evidence should stand. DeCausa (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The case clerks said that the case would remain open, but I see no reason for a user in violation of WP:BAN to be allowed to post evidence. I skimmed through the clerks-l archives; no one said anything about leaving the evidence up, so I'm assuming that it was a simple oversight. NW (Talk) 16:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't an oversight because it was the subject of a lot of discussion. AGK said that the socking was irrelevant. I'll take it up with AGK if you decide not to revert. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Take it up with him if you wish. NW (Talk) 19:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a specific and deliberate instruction made on the Workshop talkpage that workshop material should be removed but could be proposed by another editor. The identity of Chester Merkel was deemed to have no incidence on the Arbitration Committee's acceptance of the case. No instructions were explicitly given about the evidence, and so I myself let it stand (whilst noting the rather unfruitful discussion on the evidence page, collapsed by AGK). Now NW decided to collapse (and I think it important to note collapse, not delete) the evidence which has been up for some considerable time, so I really rather think that the entire issue is a tad moot now. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fancy a bit of hard work?

Someone with half a brain needs to sort out Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cirt and whether it is closed or not. Could that be you? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid drama, and this is what you throw at me :)

It would be nice to have an excuse not to clerk the upcoming case, but I think I'll pass on this one. Sorry to disappoint. Best, NW (Talk) 23:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it was just on the off chance William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Outline of green politics (eom)

Undergoing expansion/restructuring. Please take a look to see if you can spot anything it needs. Thank you. The Transhumanist 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sharron Angle

NW, for your reference, I have referred to an action you took with regard to the Sharron Angle article here and here (diffed). Cheers, --JN466 20:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I had forgotten all about that. Let me know if you (or anyone) think it warrants recusal in the (eventually) upcoming Arbitration case. NW (Talk) 23:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You did a good thing in that instance, NW. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

[3] --JN466 03:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why you blanked an entire article?

I used rollback but I see now that you flagged if for speedy deletion. Why did you blank it first? Gorlack36 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The template I replaced the article content with explains it. NW (Talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I could be missing something but the templete you gave was "Tempundeleted" which isn't a proper templete from how you entered it. Gorlack36 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It was a simple typo. The correct template (fixed before you reverted) is {{tempundelete}}. NW (Talk) 00:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. I'm not long on Wikipedia and didn't know about that templete. Sorry for using rollback (I had no idea you actually intended to delete it as an admin). Thanks for explaing it, though. Gorlack36 (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's no problem, don't worry. I was actually undeleting the article using my admin access pursuant to a deletion review. NW (Talk) 01:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Need some advice

Unresolved

Hello NW, I need some advice. I am trying to have a discussion on the William Lane Craig talk page with an editor named User:Hrafn. He failed to AGF, personally attacking me, roughly halfway into the section. I tried to assure him that I'm "not his enemy" and encouraged him to discuss our differences politely.

However, his response was "Oh, and I'm not failing to assume good faith on your part -- I'm simply refusing to assume WP:COMPETENCE (and an ability to competently apply relevant policy)." I really don't have that much time to edit on WP so a lengthy appeal on the Admin's noticeboard is not an option for me. Therefore, any suggestions you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (Btw, go ahead and respond here - I'm watching the page.) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have decided that I should probably avoid religion-related articles for at least the near future, so I won't weighing in on the article's talk page. But let me give you my advice here: I think that your edit, while probably correct, wasn't exactly a vitally important piece of information for the article. Probably best to just forgive, forget and move on to another article. It's not worth the headache. If you would like, I could speak to Hfran about his WP:AGF/WP:NPA issues. Best, NW (Talk) 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with you avoiding these types of articles. And I have no problem with forgiving/forgetting. However, the person involved doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong, so forgiving/forgetting is not applicable. I'm going to get out of that article as soon as possible, but as I write this, it appears that he's trying to misrepresent WLC's positions. Thank you for your input. It was greatly appreciated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I would like you to speak to him about AGF. I don't think it will do much good, but should he continue, then at least there will be evidence should that be necessary in the future. Once again, thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, NW, I'm pulling out of the discussion as gracefully as possible, and it should be done probably no later than tomorrow. I still would like you to give him a friendly warning about his unprovoked attacks and generally condescending attitude to other editors. I mean, it really left a bad taste in my mouth. So much so that I'm most likely going to stay away from the article for a while. It's just not worth it to me, a WikiGnome at heart. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm out and article is now unwatched. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Edit

Your addition to the Spontaneous Abortion Section on the Abortion page looks fine to me. Now I have better sources for my claim that the term "abortion" in its general sense means "spontaneous abortion"; because, live birth is the exception rather than the rule. :) Of course, I do understand that these are just estimates and probably don't qualify, yet, as established science. Ermadog (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ermadog, they are WP:OR pure and simple. DMSBel (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither the sourced estimates included by NW nor the sourced estimates included by myself are WP:OR/ My conclusion based on these estimates is WP:OR; but, I have not proposed editing them into any Wikipedia article.Ermadog (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts on what I think would be an uncontroversial edit

NW, I value your thoughts on the following. I had suggested an opening sentence for the introduction (lede), which clarified the scope of the abortion topic as ranging across several fields or disciplines: I'd like to add it, it seems to me an non-controversial addition, and might solve one or two of the problems of launching right into a controversial definition, or description.

The [subject] of abortion is one that ranges across many disciplines, as such it is not limited to solely legal, medical, philosophical, bio-ethical, or theological considerations.

I'll go ahead and add if you have no objections. Can always be tweaked, if there is a good reason. DMSBel (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I had suggested something similar a while back I think. Personally, I would put it as the second sentence, making the first paragraph start with something along the following:

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus often before it can survive outside the womb.[note 1] It is a topic that is important not only to medicine, but also to law, philosophy, religion and ethics, among other fields.

What would you think of that? NW (Talk) 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your change to religion and ethics is an improvement from bio-ethics and theology, as the latter tend to be more specific. But what I was thinking was how do we break readers into this slightly less suddenly. We currently are going straight into a definition. DMSBel (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We could go on and on in the opening paragraph about caveats—there are just so many with a highly contested topic like abortion. I don't really mind either way, as long as the "caveat sentence" remains fairly short, but my preference is to have the "caveat sentence" second. I don't think it makes sense to say "abortion is important in medicine" without having even said that it is a medical procedure. NW (Talk) 14:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, thats the thing its a procedure second. I agree we need to avoid a whole list of caveats before we start. I think though it helps to delineate the scope of the article.DMSBel (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly most of the terms related to abortion refer to it in the context of spontaneous abortion. Incomplete, missed, habitual (several miscarriages) etc. They have nothing to do with induced abortion.DMSBel (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

← Personally (not that anyone asked me), I think this is firmly under the category of "things we don't need to spoon-feed the reader". If the article is well-written, it will be obvious that abortion has multiple dimensions. There will be sections on the health risks and public-health aspects where medical sources will predominate; sections on abortion law where legal sources will come into play; and sections on religious and ethical considerations where... well, I shudder to think what sort of sources will be proposed, but there is at least hope for reasonably encyclopedic coverage there as well. Speaking for myself, if I put on my reader hat, I don't want to be told that a topic is important, or multidimensional, or whatever - I want to be shown that it is. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Passing comment: statements like "ranges across many disciplines" and "among other fields" are both fluff. Neither tells the reader anything except "I couldn't be bothered to list everything". Your version (NW) is better, but still, as MastCell says, show, don't tell. Guettarda (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Upon reflection, both of you are quite right. The sentence has been removed for now.

Guettarda, any chance you could be persuaded to help resolve the dispute with the lead paragraph of abortion? NW (Talk) 23:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be a good choice. I have too much history working with KC and OM and I have fairly strong opinions on the politics of the issue. I may be technically uninvolved, but I'd be doing exactly the sort of thing I complained about others doing in the climate change articles. Guettarda (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair does. I was more asking for the "experienced editor" angle rather than the "uninvolved admin/editor" one, but it's completely understandable if you don't want to get involved. NW (Talk) 01:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested a disambiguation page which would include categories such as: abortion - computer (abort, retry, fail), abortion - military and space missions (abort the mission), abortion - biology, abortion - spontaneous which would redirect to miscarriage, and abortion in medicine which would redirect to the current page. That would make the current page a medical article and the consensus medical definition would be used. If "only 30-50% of conceptions progress past the third trimester", then the general sense of abortion in humans is that of a natural process. Ermadog (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The two problems that I see with that proposal are (1) spontaneous abortion is definitely a part of medicine and (2) it doesn't seem to jibe with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. NW (Talk) 03:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(1) While spontaneous abortion is of medical interest, it would appear that the majority happen outside medical perview. (2) I see what you mean about primary topic. "Abort" is the actual primary topic.Ermadog (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Request and donkeyshins

Do you access to these [4] [5] [6]? Thanks for cleaning up Abortion:History and History of abortion. If you every need ancient Greek sources let me know. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the institutions I have access to, and even they say they supposedly have a subscription to those journals, Oxford is still telling me to pay them. The first one is free to access for anyone though; just click on the link in the top right. The articles are all pretty old though; WP:MEDRS generally discourages using anything older than 5-10 years unless you have a good reason. NW (Talk) 03:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

They get used all the time for propaganda [7]. I just want to read up on them for defensive purposes. Looks like a library run :)..Thanks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom motion

Hello! As new motions have been proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, should they be added to the template? HeyMid (contribs) 12:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep; updated. NW (Talk) 13:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In The News for 2011 Egyptian revolution

I think it's ready to be posted. What do you think? -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it has sufficient consensus to post yet. You might be better off arguing for the readdition of the MENA sticky. NW (Talk) 15:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See if you can post the MENA sticky cuz I dont think I can present a better argument that the one I did before -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference help please

Hi NW, You seem to have a good understanding of Wikipedia policy and I hope you can help me. I have worked on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and a question has come up regarding the use of information supplied by the Natural Resources Defense Council. They have presented up-to-date facts and figures that appear to show that the spill is not yet ready to be seen as a past event. From their report: While most of the advisories, closures, and notices that were issued last year due to the oil spill were lifted by the end of the year, cleanup crews are still at work. And the spill is still interfering with trips to the beach as oil continues to wash ashore at Gulf Coast beaches in Alabama, Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi. As of June 15, 2011, four beach segments in Louisiana that have been closed since the spill have yet to open, and three beaches in Florida have remained under oil spill notice.

They say: The information presented in this supplement was acquired from official government websites, supplemented with phone calls and e-mails with government officials in charge of beach management. For the full list of sources, see Table 1-5: Sources of Information About BP Oil Spill Beach Notices, Advisories, and Closings. http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/gulf.pdf

This is important because we have not yet decided to change the wording from "is an oil spill" to "was an oil spill". Acceptable sources can sometimes seem to defy common sense - at one point in the history of the spill I could not use BP's own damning drill plan figures because it was...a primary source, if I remember correctly. But I do believe that the Wikipedia policies are good and fair - just hard for me to understand sometimes. Anyway, what do you think? Can the NRDC report be used as a reference? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the NRDC is an advocacy group, so that's one point not in its favor. However, I wouldn't really discount it because of that. The part that you quoted to me indicates that the intro sentence might be best written as something like The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a <expand>. The leak was stopped by BP on <expand>, but the disaster continues to affect much of the American coastline. NW (Talk) 15:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we will move to that, however it is not quite so simple as it seems... We went through a great deal of resistance, especially early on before the evidence of blame became so obvious that it could not be denied, to include information regarding the enormity and severity of the spill. And it was not just BP, every government agency attempted to minimize not only the event, but consequences as well. Add to that, the tourist industry wanted it to disappear quickly as thousands of people count on that sector for their livelihood. There has been a push almost from the start to call it over. It's not quite so bad as that other article that we have come to know so well (that I'll swear should post some sort of warning at the top of the article such as Abandon all hope ye who enter here), however this one word has a much deeper meaning in the case of this article. Another example: BP's lawyers want to pay damages and call it over while plenty of people and a large number of scientists say it is far from over.

Incidentally, of course one can not point out bias by others with their edits, but several other editors and I felt certain that several other editors either worked for the industry or had large stock holdings.

Well, all that aside, would the NRDF in the instance I mentioned be an acceptable source? If not, could we include it in our discussion on the talk page to substantiate our POV? Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I would think of it as somewhere slightly below NARAL—reliable enough for WP purposes in very limited circumstances but use a better source if you can. It's definitely good enough to use in talk page discussions though. NW (Talk) 16:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK I'm starting to get it... But you say "in very limited circumstances" and I have no idea what a very limited circumstance might be. My next question may be related, or perhaps a very different one: Could I say, for instance, "According to the NRDC, three beaches in Florida have remained under oil spill notice."? I get your point about trying to find a better ref, however in some cases it can be very difficult. In the case of the spill, it's no longer newsworthy. I'm working on several other articles in which the incident was not especially newsworthy in the first place. I am working on a pesticide article in which the NRDC sued the EPA, and I'm guessing that both comments from the EPA and the NRDC published at their website would be acceptable (perhaps the "limited circumstance" that you speak of?)? (I sincerely hope I'm not being a pest!) Gandydancer (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, missed up that somehow. And yes, I would say that such a thing would be acceptable. In absence of contradicting more reliable sources only, of course. Might be easier if you just point me to a talk page discussion :) NW (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Headsup on DRV

Just letting you know that someone has started a DRV on an article you deleted. Reyk _YO! 06:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Undid your remarks on my talk page

Unless you can be fair with both parties, I do not acknowledge your note. Otherwise it may be construed as biasness on your part. All this drama just to improve an article around here....Sheesh. QuAzGaA 00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss, the burden is upon the person who wishes to add material to gain consensus for the material they wish to be added. In this case, that would be you. The other editor wasn't editing well either, but that's no excuse for edit warring your material in instead of discussing it. NW (Talk) 01:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia does not work like that. There is no Burden on any editor who is trying to make improvements in good faith to any wikipedia article. You have a gross conceptual error with your statement my friend. My added materiel was properly sourced. The Burden is placed on the editor who has issue with my sourced edits. If you look at the End result of my actions, the Bill Clinton article is sufficiently improved and an editor learned a valuable lesson. Your lesson should be to be fair to both warring parties. It takes two to tango. QuAzGaA 19:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edits at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Hi, just wanted to let you know you broke a link with this edit (line 133). Regards, --TimL (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Thanks for the fix. NW (Talk) 15:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Aafia Siddiqui‎

As per WP:BRD may i ask you to revert yourself [as you edited through full protection] and a revert of your edits is not possible for most of us. I have especially concerns about the removal or the "Dr." title from the lead sentence as well i am concerned about the removal of information form the lead paragraph that clarified who convicted her. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll revert myself. The Dr. part is specifically disallowed by WP:CREDENTIAL though. NW (Talk) 22:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, i appreciate. Now after i know the reason i agree with you to remove "Dr." from the lead sentence but i suggest at the same time we should also explain her title in the text instead. Can we do that? The second point i am concerned about, is the removal of information form the lead paragraph that clarified who convicted her. I think this clarification is necessary and should stay as it is. What do you think? What was the reason for the change? It was not explained in the edit summary. Cheers IQinn (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of these two proposed changes, which I think address your concerns: [8], [9]. NW (Talk) 23:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Very good work. If you do not object than we might add a few more details. ...PhD "in neuroscience from Brandeis University." But i leave it up to you. I think the concerns i have raised have all been addressed so i have no objection that you go ahead and edit the article accordingly. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fine.  Article edited. NW (Talk) 00:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Spurious reflist in Aafia Siddiqui

Nuke: Somewhere along the lines, an extra {reflist} got inserted under an early section of the Aafia Siddiqui. Now there are two reflists, and the first has a bunch of broken red links. Greg L (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, my bad.  Fixed. I'm surprised that I didn't see it earlier/no one altered me earlier. Thanks! NW (Talk) 15:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons

Hi, Your edits as per the discussion on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents on the article The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons have been superseded by one of the disputants to their version of the article, not the way it appeared to have been resolved (or temporarily so) on the incident log. JesseRafe (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Q

See http://www.loc.gov/law/help/sex-selection/india.php re your qLeadSongDog come howl! 21:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! NW (Talk) 01:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Apolgies. Remote mouse trouble and old laptop combined. No idea what just happened. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. NW (Talk) 18:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Background on abortion and mental health

Just to give you a bit of background about the abortion and mental health article... in 2008 or so, I got involved in a fairly protracted series of disputes surrounding the article, which culminated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12. The case permanently soured me on Wikipedia's "dispute resolution" and convinced me that we're hopeless at dealing effectively with even the most obvious agenda-driven disruption. (Actually, the case itself was concluded on terms I thought were very fair and favorable to me, but the idea that one has to spend 6 months up to and including an ArbCom case to deal with a single, obviously disruptive agenda account convinced me that Wikipedia was ultimately doomed.)

Anyhow, after the case concluded, I didn't want to immediately jump back into the article. I felt like that would suggest (incorrectly) that I'd simply wanted to clear the field for my own preferred edits. Instead I thought I'd let it lie for a few months, or even a year, and let others take a crack at it. As you can see, though, not much has happened since the ArbCom case concluded. It's definitely ripe for a rewrite. I'd be happy to help out, assuming that it doesn't turn into a rehash of familiar faces and arguments from Talk:Abortion. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a bad idea. Tomorrow is a pretty low-key day for me; I'm going to spend at least some of it reading through interesting topics I found in the Annual Review of Public Health. If I don't see anything more interesting that is also non-controversial (at first glance, the only thing that appears to fit the first criteria—Oregon—utterly fails the second one), I would be happy to start looking into the sources for abortion and mental health. Just give me a day or two :) NW (Talk) 20:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No hurry... I'll be pretty busy with real-life stuff for the rest of the summer anyhow. But I'll keep an eye out. MastCell ^Talk 00:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. NW (Talk) 01:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oregon is controversial? Actually I came to thank you for your signature fix-up, but was shocked to discover that there is controversy about the Pacific Northwest... Risker (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

But you see, I left a key word out. There are links here, but perhaps you will understand better if I mention the missing word directly: Medicaid. And for the future, {{subst:hes}} makes placing hidden signatures a lot easier NW (Talk) 04:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oregon is extremely controversial. The state has a well-known liberal bias. It's like Soviet Russia with better coffee and microbrews. Or as Stephen Colbert once observed, Oregon is California's Canada. :P MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So I was thinking of how one could restructure the article (draft page, sources) for a rewrite, and I wasn't really able to come up with anything that didn't involve scrapping what we had entirely. Would you have any suggestions for article layout? NW (Talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that scrapping it (or at least cannibalizing it) and starting fresh makes sense. Personally, I would include a section on current medical/scientific thought (e.g. major expert body opinions like the APA, RCOG, etc), a section on the history of the issue, and a section on its political dimensions. Your draft is probably a good starting point - do you mind if I edit it, or would you rather I copy it over and work in my own userspace so as not to step on your toes? MastCell ^Talk 16:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the draft in my userspace. NW (Talk) 16:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

On Template:In the News I reverted your recent change. Usually I'd talk first, but I'm 100% sure in this case, so I figured "better to ask forgiveness than permission" applied. If you disagree, I'll accept a troutslap and will discuss it wherever you'd like. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I wasn't entirely sure myself when I made the edit, so I'll defer to your judgment. NW (Talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh interesting. I thought you had reverted my News Int'l removal, not the part about the number of dead. As that's a pretty simple factual matter, it would have been best to open with a troutslap, not a polite message :) NW (Talk) 18:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note to self: in future, always better to open with a troutslap than a polite message... :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Userpage typo

Hi. Your page says you're an clerk. John Slocum (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch :) NW (Talk) 00:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Shannon.barnes/The World Water Organization

This can still be found on Google. Not touched since October 2009, and we've got an OTRS complaint saying it's bogus from someone involved in the Netherlands Committee for the IHP - International Hydrological Programme (UNESCO) and HWRP - Hydrology and Water Resources Programme (WMO). They say the official website is likewise bogus and the real organisation is at [10]. Can't recall if we can speedy this or not. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to the mainspace and speedied it. NW (Talk) 14:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Duck Patrol

Looks like ducks again. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ITN nomination

Any reason why the Sticky for 2011 Horn of Africa famine is not posted? An overwhelming majority of users have expressed their support, and the ready tag has been there for an entire day (briefly removed by a user before being added by another non-involved user). Apologies for bothering you, but I'm concerned that the nomination might be archived soon, and you seem to be one of the more involved admins. JimSukwutput 14:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the discussion there is a bit messy and not that well attended. Stickies generally have a higher barrier to post, but this doesn't lend itself well for a blurb either. I have posted it as a sticky. NW (Talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. JimSukwutput 15:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft page

I made a few, mostly minor, edits to your draft page on abortion and mental health. I think your draft is actually a huge improvement on the currently existing article, in that it adheres much more closely to our content guidelines, WP:MEDRS, etc. It can still be improved further, of course, but I'd actually encourage you to be bold and go ahead and move it. The article does not appear to be in the midst of any active editing, and your draft retains the good sources while cutting down on the extensive rehashes of individual primary studies (per WP:MEDRS). Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. I'll move it now and try to build up the article over the next few weeks if I find the time. Who knew that learning how to program in Stata could be so time consuming? Ah well. Learning tools for research will pay off in the end :) Out of curiosity, do you have any familiarity with statistical analysis packages in medicine? Any in particular that you recommend (especially those that can handle large datasets)? Stata/IC and Stata/SE have their limitations, as I'm quickly discovering. NW (Talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My preferred "statistical analysis system" is a guy a few floors up from me with a doctorate in statistics. :) (I'm fortunate to work with some excellent professional biostatisticians who do most of the substantial heavy lifting). I think they use SAS for the most part, although I'm not totally sure. For quick back-of-the-envelope stuff, I've sometimes used Excel (although it's painful) or GraphPad Prism. Not sure I'd recommend either one for serious applications, though, and I wouldn't count on GraphPad being able to handle large datasets. There's some professional computational-biology infrastructure, including IT guys, programmers, Linux clusters, etc at my institution, and if you're interested I could ask around for software suggestions. MastCell ^Talk 03:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The main file I have been working with contains about 25,000,000 entries, so Excel completely fails to handle it unfortunately. Excel is clunky and a pain to work with, but after you manage to figure out how to write up a formula for your calculated variable, it is usually fairly simple to use that formula for other cells (unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Stata, as I discovered today). If you have the spare time to ask and don't have to go far out of your way to ask, that would be great. NW (Talk) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Cumbernauld

You protected Cumbernauld in April 2010. I saw the page and wanted to replace new town with new town. While I know I could have used {{Edit semi-protected}}, I decided to follow the WP:RFUP process and ask you to unprotect the article before I submit a request for unprotection. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.166 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected. Not sure why I semi-protected it indefinitely in the first place to be honest. NW (Talk) 10:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR (Notifying as a formality)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Note, I'm aware you know about this, notifying you only as a formality Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Still around?

Just wondering if you were still about, had some questions regarding the clerk bot. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Going to guess that's a no. I'll just email then. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

s -> z

Thanks for the title spelling fix... but that created about a dozen double-redirects... I fixed them. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot that handles that kind of thing? NW (Talk) 11:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

RetractionWatch

I thought you might be interested in this... I've thought for awhile now that RetractionWatch, a blog devoted to tracking "expressions of concern" and retractions of scientific papers, was notable enough for an article. I'll probably start working on one soon, if you're interested. The site itself is worth at least a weekly perusal (http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/) MastCell ^Talk 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a fascinating blog for sure. I think I first ran into around the time of this year's Wakefield news, though I haven't read it for some time. I shall have to add it to my Google Reader. If you would like assistance in writing the article, I would be happy to help. NW (Talk) 15:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. I've been otherwise occupied, but will let you know if I start an article on it. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article in the WSJ that mentions Retraction Watch: [11]. So far, I have refrained from reading the comments, but I'm debating going ahead and doing so. NW (Talk) 19:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Big mistake. Won't be doing that again. NW (Talk) 19:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Never read the "comments" section of any online news piece, unless you are conducting sociologic research on the depths to which human beings are capable of sinking. I don't subscribe to the Journal - I've had a longstanding personal policy of not financially subsidizing the Murdoch press, pre-dating the recent hacking scandal - so I can't read the article. They usually have decent news pieces, though. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I definitely do not have a subscription to the Journal. I saw this piece on another blog and googled the title; apparently, the WSJ allows you to read articles if you come in through Google News. NW (Talk) 22:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate Censorship

Banning me based upon a single edit and revision (correctly identifying President Obama being biracial/multiracial (versus "african american")) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John2510&diff=443125824&oldid=443124961), is blatant censorship and abusive administration. The issue is not the subject of any current consensus, and really isn't subject to rational debate. Further, my actions weren't appropriate for a "ban" from editing. It's bad faith actions like yours that lead to many considering WP a biased and unreliable source. John2510 (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior to requesting arbitration of your ban, I would request that you voluntarily remove it. John2510 (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Good call, NW. I've extended the ban to the article's talk page as well, and I hope that is all right with you. --John (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It has been this way since near the start of the article: Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 4#African-American, again, and has been discussed again and Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_41#Race and ethnicity and again and again (well more than thrice, actually). If you're not willing to even discuss before edit warring over it, on an article you have to know can be controversial, then you shouldn't be editing that page. NW (Talk) 10:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Metal Drift, Deleted, Wish to Remake It

Hello,

The page for the game Metal Drift was deleted almost 2 years ago now. Since then the game has become more popular and had had updates and upgrades. I have recently become and fan and would like to attempt to make a page for it again. I am wondering if this would be acceptable? Original deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metal_Drift — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey23art (talk • contribs)

Likely yes, but could you please provide a couple of independent, reliable sources about the game? Such sources would include video gaming magazines, sites like IGN, etc. NW (Talk) 04:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bibcode bot

Right above "Why we're at ANI" Tryptofish suggested that I don't take requests unless the request have been vetted. I've agreed to that, and that would seem to solve most of the current objections however legitimate. Surely that would be sufficient to unblock the bot? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Galaxy Tab ITN

Hi, NW. I just wanted to let you know I've moved the updated content of the Galaxy Tab ITN to Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1#Apple patent lawsuit because the second generation Tab 10.1 is the specific product target of the lawsuit. Hopefully the blurb can be modified reflect this. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I have updated the main page blurb. NW (Talk) 18:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This item needs an update, see [12]. --bender235 (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I pulled the hook. NW (Talk) 19:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken archive links.

Morning. During all the hubbub looks like the Talk:Support for the legalization of abortion archives have gone the way of the red link. How does one correct this? Thanks. So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

✓ Fixed. Also: o.O about your signature. NW (Talk) 04:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This morning I shot an elephant in my underpants. How he got in there I'll never know. - 05:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Conflicted with you on the WP:ANI semi-protection

...though I did 8 hours instead of 6. I have also semi-protected WP:AN for the same duration, as he will have gone there anyways to disrupt. –MuZemike 21:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine. NW (Talk) 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence

I have a question for you or other case officials. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence#Evidence closing   Will Beback  talk  05:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Will comment. NW (Talk) 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Purge

The pages probably need a purge or a null edit after deleting the case data (if you want to confirm that only one ACA section is left). –xeno^talk 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm still fiddling around with everything for now (and of course, Internet decides to lag again today). I'll let you know on the mailing list if anything else pops up. NW (Talk) 16:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Concerns over unsourced allegations made on Manipulation of BLPs workshop page

Jehochman has posed some questions to Cla68 on the evidence page. One of those questions contains unsourced, serious allegations. I have asked them to refactor (here on the talk page), but they have refused to so. Can you please take a look and deal with the situation as appropriate? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this until just now. I take it that this issue has been resolved? NW (Talk) 14:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor Becritical

Hi NW. This editor is going around deleting material from some articles with comments such as "unsourced for nearly a year", etc in an article about a school, for instance. Can s/he be stopped? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bit silly of them. WP:VERIFY doesn't say everything has to be sourced, after all, it merely says "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." Have you tried speaking to them about it? NW (Talk) 23:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I explain myself on that here. In order for us to be properly called an encyclopedia "All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source." And the only way we can know this is so is if it's actually attributed. At some point (when? After a year? Three? Ten?), a fact tag or a template on an article is a justification for deletion.

If I have time I might get involved in the Abortion article. It looks to me like the version of the lead the way I edited it was very similar to the "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before birth" sentence which seems to have the most consensus. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 23:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're really insistent about cleaning up articles that you perceive to be flawed, might I suggest you begin with more potential dangerous ones, like those about businesses or biographies of living persons? School athletics is hardly a topic that deserves to be blanked without question.

With regards to abortion: Abandon all hope, ye who enter here. NW (Talk) 14:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should start a discussion of these things. I'm sure it's been discussed before, but maybe it's becoming more obvious that some text is never going to be sourced, and thus that keeping the text is essentially saying that WP will never be reliable. Maybe consensus will be more uniform to delete unsourced material, or at least that text which has been tagged and given lots of time should be removed.

Again, I don't blank anything that hasn't been tagged as in question for over a year. BLPs are policed pretty well I thought. Can you point me to some good articles to prune?

I think the Abandon hope articles present a very interesting challenge, and I'm one of the few who come to them without strong emotion and yet can stand the atmosphere. What's the state of things there now, if you can put it in a few words? What do the sides represent aside from murder versus women's rights or whatever? B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 21:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like this matter has been discussed many times before, but I'm not sure where to find the discussions off the top of my head. WT:V? And definitely with regards to BLPs. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons and Category:BLP articles lacking sources

With regards to abortion, I'm not sure what the personal motivations are. There are definitely some pro-lifers who want to influence terminology, but also people acting in good faith, I think. The most recent dispute has been about the lead sentence of abortion. Here is a quick (if biased to my POV) summary of the dispute. NW (Talk) 18:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Very convincing on the Abortion thing. I mean, it sounds exactly like the deadlock I've seen on other controversial articles. On deleting text, yeah I know it must have been discussed before. From the way policy is written, it seems like those discussions must have been deadlocked resulting in ambiguous policy. But the general context of fewer editors and text that sits around for more and more time keeps changing, so it will require repeated discussions over the years. At some point, someone is going to agree with me that letting unsourced text sit around forever compromises the general reliability of the encyclopedia... IMHO :P Reviewing some of those in the BLP articles lacking sources cat, are you saying that deleting that unsourced text is justifiable under BLP? I don't see that BLP justifies removal of not-blatantly-controversial, but unsourced text any better than V. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ITN

Hey, you updated ITN but didn't refresh the timer. Just a heads up. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I just reset it. Interestingly enough, it appears that the timer is only semi-protected. NW (Talk) 14:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It's cascade-full-protected via Template:In the news. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hatting time?

You're evidently getting irritated by the amount of off-topic discussion on the Manipulation of BLPs workshop talk page and I have to admit, so am I. Could you please start hatting off-topic sections? Clerical intervention on that page is badly needed. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am assuming that the section Prioryman wishes to have hidden is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop#Edits to Jamie Sorrentini by ChrisO/Prioryman in violation of ARBSCI sanctions. If that is really out scope, let me know and I'll take it elsewhere. (Note that is the very same BLP that Prioryman is claiming I "manipulated" in his evidence.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

NW, this really isn't good enough. You and AGK have been virtually missing in action throughout this case. The workshop talk page is bogging down in issues that have nothing to do with the scope of the case. If you're clerking this case, then could you please actually do something? Prioryman (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

NW, if you are going to take these types of actions then I request you remove the evidence and the workshop proposals of Prioryman which are also out of scope. His allegations of harassment by Delicious Carbuncle are not related to this case. Prioryman claims they are because as part of his interaction with Cirt DC made four edits to a BLP. If you two want to be "actually do[ing] something" as Prioryman asks, then please do something about his own out of scope materials.Griswaldo (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, Prioryman has made a number of unsupported allegations about me on the workshop page. I have asked them to provide diffs or links, but they have not. If this were not an ArbCom case, I would take this to ANI as a clear personal attack. In addition, Prioryman continues to change and add to statements that others have already commented on - this would be discouraged in common practice, but, again, this is an unusual forum. How should I address those two issues? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The root problem is that even at this late stage nobody seems to have any clear idea of what the scope of the case is supposed to be. People have repeatedly asked for the scope to be clarified but individual arbitrators and clerks are saying different things to different people. I don't think I've ever seen such a disorganised case before, frankly. Prioryman (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't presented any evidence in this case for that reason.Griswaldo (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Help please!

NW, I feel bad to turn to you because it seems that you have plenty on your plate already, but I am feeling very pissed off and I know that I have found you to be level headed and fair in your posts and your suggestions/decisions. Editor Anythingyouwant has suggested on my talk page that I need to be reminded about Wikipedia's COI policy. Please see my talk page for his rationale and my reaction. I have been editing for some years now, and I didn't used to care what was on my talk page and often did not answer criticisms. But recently I have begun to believe that I'd like my talk page to show that actually I am a very intelligent, and even brilliant editor! With that in mind, how do I explain that I no longer beat my wife as the Anythingyouwant posts seem to force me to do? So, the question...I have some sort of Woody Allen dream that I will force him to admit that he is wrong and I am right. Should I just give up an that as unrealistic? :) Gandydancer (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I just saw a Woody Allen movie, Midnight in Paris, the other day. It was an excellent movie, but I have to say, the plot of the movie seemed far more realistic than your dream :) Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to change his mind. My advice would be just to remove and/or archive the section from your talk page and move on. NW (Talk) 22:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I always assumed you were named after the Gandy Dancer in Ann Arbor. If you've never eaten there, it's worth the trip, from wherever you live. As far as arguing with the individual accusing you of a COI, see #1 on this list. MastCell ^Talk 00:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Concur with MastCell and NW's advice. Remove the trolling and ignore. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great feedback! I really do appreciate it. I very seldom get angry and when I do it is always short-lived. But I did have visions of going before "The Board of Directors" and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was wonderful and Anythingyouwant is a complete asshole. But that only happens in fantasy - the Woody Allen movie I was thinking of is Annie Hall. Little jerky-looking Woody Allen is standing in line at a movie theater while some arrogant know-it-all asshole in front of him and Diane Keaton is explaining to his date what the film's director is meaning to show, blah, blah, blah. Finally Woody can't stand it any longer and disagrees (correctly) with the man, but he's so little and so on and clearly just does not have the "killer instinct" to win the argument. But suddenly the actual director appears and says, yes, Woody is completely right about everything he said. I've always loved that because it never happens in real life, but oh Jesus, wouldn't it be sweet if it did? Now, about my name. I am Gandy dancer. I chose that name when I joined in 2006 because it seemed to me to fit so well with the spirit of Wikipedia - a group working together doing something that took teamwork and doing hard work in the spirit of joyfulness. Now, about the Ann Arbor Gandy Dancer restaurant...that's interesting because if you read "my" article you will see it there. That was a compromise of some sort - I'd have to look through the talk page to remember it (I did not want to keep it so I am so happy that it is memorable!). But anyway, I hope you all do read the article and watch the documentary if you think you may like it. If you like trains, American history, old black men, and the blues, you will love it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

"Admin abuse"?

Re the recent dust-up on WP:ANI regarding Future Perfect at Sunrise. Are you talking about abuse by an admin, or abuse of an admin? (Yes, this is an attempt at humor. Keep calm and carry on.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles in userspace

Greetings. I have a general concern, and I wanted to bring it up with you first. User:ChildofMidnight created the article George W. Bush pretzel incident, which was deleted as non-notable after the AFD debate here. This was back in 2009. I understand ChildofMidnight has since been banned. According to the logs, you briefly restored the article to allow the user to place the article in his userspace, which is currently at User:ChildofMidnight/George W. Bush pretzel incident.

Here's my concern. When you perform a Google search on "Bush Pretzel", the second hit is this userfied article. I would bet that more people find Wikipedia articles via Google than Wikipedia's own searches and links, so this "article" is still very much available. To a casual Wikipedia reader, it looks like a real article... you and I might see the "User:" at the beginning as a clear indicator, but casual readers might simply see that "it's on Wikipedia".

Does it seem like a problem to you that a banned user can still keep an article around indefinitely, despite consensus for deletion, in an unofficial state that still will appear official to many casual readers? It seems like a problem to me. Has this sort of thing been dealt with before at AFD or MFD or something? Thanks for any help you can offer, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES, but at the very least, tagged with {{userspace draft}} to prevent it being indexed by search engines. –xeno^talk 14:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, things like that should definitely be {{NOINDEX}}-ed at the very least, though Xeno's comments strike me as the best way to go. MFD handles it in normal circumstances, but I think that because I was the one to originally userfy it and because this draft hasn't been touched in two years though, it should be alright for me to move it back to the mainspace and delete it. NW (Talk) 17:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your edits are being commented on

Wondering if you can clarify [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, commented. NW (Talk) 01:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/List of roller coaster rankings

Hi. Thanks for creating the above editnotice. I have since realised that the word "open" should be plural. I was wondering if you could please fix this up for me. My apologies for not getting it right in the first place. Kind regards, Themeparkgc  Talk  22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Fixed Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 22:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Logan. Themeparkgc  Talk  22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 23:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a booster shot is in order?

Hi. I've got a little thing going at Global climate model. Starting from my edit...

1. (cur | prev) 05:16, 27 August 2011 ArtifexMayhem (talk · contribs) (-291) (Accuracy of models that predict global warming: Removed "...Even the degree of uncertainty is uncertain..." statement. Inhofe does not satisfy WP:RS on the topic.)
2. (cur | prev) 05:56, 27 August 2011 Peterlewis (talk · contribs) (+291) (rv unexplained removal of text)

   I posted this response (diff) on the article's talk page after this revert.

3. (cur | prev) 05:58, 27 August 2011 Peterlewis (talk · contribs) (+4) (Accuracy of models that predict global warming)
4. (cur | prev) 15:24, 27 August 2011 Count Iblis (talk · contribs) (-291) (Undid revision 446933013 by Peterlewis (talk) The statement is wrong, it's not inevitable, and "full range of known climate system behavior" is not per se necessary)
5. (cur | prev) 22:09, 27 August 2011 Peterlewis (talk · contribs) (+291) (rv inevitable uncertainty about climate models from a trusted source)
6. (cur | prev) 00:15, 28 August 2011 99.119.128.88 (talk) (+34) (... do not necessarily span the full range of known climate system behavior. [14] Jim Inhofe Chairman)
7. (cur | prev) 02:15, 28 August 2011 Count Iblis (talk · contribs) (-325) (Forecasts of climate change are not *inevitably* uncertain)

So far there has been no response on the article talk page by Peterlewis (talk · contribs). I noticed he has a history of this type of thing and that you'd warned him about previously. Maybe a booster shot is in order? Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you think [15] will suffice? NW (Talk) 03:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunate but necessary. Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)