User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 6
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Thank you!
Thank you for the cleanup on Thomas Muthee. Sometimes the little things slip by unnoticed, but I've been keeping my eye on that article. I appreciate it. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 08:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The little things are always the easiest to miss. If you download AutoWikiBrowser, you can fix them yourself using the "genfixes script" (search it, it's the first one to come up). NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Semi-automated edits
Yo NuclearWarfare, looks like you removed a reference from the Jimmy Wales article and replaced it with a blank; while the ref was marked as a deadlink, removing it does no-one any favours. Just a reminder to double-check before you hit save. Someone might want to take the issue up with the script author as well (I am illiterate when it comes to coding :). Regards, Skomorokh
- Ugh, that's annoying. I thought I managed to fix that. I think that might have been more a problem with my browser rather than the Checklinks tool though; NoScript was acting pretty weird yesterday. I'll see if I can figure it out; thanks for alerting me :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, hope it works out and keep up the good work. Ciao, Skomorokh 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Date Linking RFC
At the Request for Arbitration you made the following comment. [1]
- Deprecating the current date autoformatting - Dates should not be delinked (very clear consensus)
I see a count of about 240 support votes for "Deprecating the current date autoformatting" Did you mean to say:
- Deprecating the current date autoformatting - Dates should not be linked (very clear consensus)
SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for noting that. It figures I would mess up the thesis of my original idea :) Fixed. Thanks again. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
All is well
There is no need to apologise, because I have not been offended by anything you have done or said. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Coming right up.
I'll undelete it right now. Without references (and that weird name), I thought it might have been made up. I'll Google it next time. Hang on...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I had thought it was a made up story too for a while, cause even through Google it was hard to find. Thanks for undeleting it though. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Date delinking rfa
I haven't decided yet whether I want to weigh in on the actual Rfa, but one of your recent comments twigged something for me. Just to let you know, I have noticed Lightbot taking more than one pass at articles, although it's possible that it's for different tasks. Also, it's not included in the list of bots that will obey {{Bots}}. Mlaffs (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- That's really interesting. I have no idea why Lightmouse would make Lightbot do double sweeps. But at the very least, Lightbot should obey {{bots|deny=AWB}} NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless adding the parameter forces the bot to obey? I suppose that's possible — I just saw the note in the template documentation indicating that not all bots are coded to obey it and then clicked through into the category of those that don't to see that Lightbot's not included. Lightbot's edits aren't always AWB-driven though, I think. Mlaffs (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- All bots are coded to obey by default, but there is a setting in AWB that can override that default. Perhaps asking Lightmouse if he will enable obeying {{bots}} would be the best idea. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless adding the parameter forces the bot to obey? I suppose that's possible — I just saw the note in the template documentation indicating that not all bots are coded to obey it and then clicked through into the category of those that don't to see that Lightbot's not included. Lightbot's edits aren't always AWB-driven though, I think. Mlaffs (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK image
Re. your notice on AN. I've just uploaded this image File:Dorothy Lavinia Brown.jpg you could use this one for the DYK update if it's better than the one currently selected. RMHED (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Great, nice catch. I moved it to commons, where Krimpet protected it. Krimpet also added it as the DYK image, so it should be going up on the Main Page soon. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
UFC 100 Edit
Yes it is a constructive edit. The source provided for the Evans vs. Jackson fight is not a reliable one, the site has been wrong on more than half of it's reports and there is no evidence to suggest the fight would take place in July. The most likely dates as of now are March 7 for UFC 96, and May 23 at UFC 98. Do not revert these things yourself if you are uninformed about it. provided the information on why I made the edit in the appropriate discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.160.28 (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- It looked to me like you were removing a source without proper explanation. As we are experiencing extremely high levels of vandalism at the moment, I got suspicious and reverted. As you have given a proper explanation now, I will offer my fullest apologies. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Colbalt Report
i have never edited a wikipedia page before, but i tried to edit a false value that was listed for cobalt 60 and it said you reverted it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.109.180 (talk)
- The numbers you changed to seemed highly unlikely. Do you think you can point to a website that would corroborate your change? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sandbox CSD request
About your CSD U1 request on your sandbox, while I understand that you made your request using your public terminal account and that it is 99% likely that is you, I think it would be best if you made the CSD request under your normal account. I would be happy to delete it for you, but the paranoid in me needs to have you verify the request under your normal account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry about that. Verfies that it was me. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 11:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Smoke Radio
I am using File:Smoke_Radio_Logo.jpg with permission from Smoke Radio and UWSU. I am new to Wikipedia, and am not sure precisely how to clarify this. Thanks. Stoobie Land (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Allow me to welcome you to Wikipedia! I hope you have fun here. Unfortunately, we need to find some way of verifying that you do indeed have permission. Can you get SR and UWSU to fill out this form letter and email it to you? Then, you can reupload the photos via this. Hopefully, this should be what you need. Any questions? Feel free to ask. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks in order
Not quite sure what weirdness hit the articles cowboy and donkey over the last day or so, but I, and I believe everyone else at WikiProject Equine WP:EQUINE thanks you and other editors for fixing whatever weird move thing was happening and for protecting the articles. Looked like a real mess. Thanks for all you do! Montanabw(talk) 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, no problem. Page vandalism is occasionally a daunting task to fix, but in this case, it was problem. I hope everything is fixed now :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism
User:Diez who's and administrator previously did the same edit with the edit 'rm copyvio'. So it's not really vandalism is it? I was just going to make some further edits and thought I'd revert the copyvio first. You should have a look at Conservapedia - they'd love you there ;) Matt lobster (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sorry. I saw you removing content without an edit summary, and I just assumed the worst, because it seemed like there was no valid reason to remove that comment at first glance. I have reversed my earlier move.
- And as for the invitation to join Conservapedia, Thanks, but I don't think they would like me there. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I need to improve my edit summaries and my hair-cut but I suppose not both of these are relevent. Cheers Matt lobster (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Juliancolton (talk) is wishing you happy holidays! This greeting promotes WikiLove and holiday wishes. Hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a season's greetings, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Juliancolton/Holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
MoeLarryCurly
Hello, We had a bit of correspondence a few weeks ago and you helped to get my article undeleted. I wanted to get back to work on my article but cannot seem to find it. I don't see any tags for another deletion on my talk page. Am I doing something wrong that you could help me with? Thank you for your time and help in advance. ¡£. (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can help you out. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Muchísimas gracias
Español: Muchas gracias por la aclaración, fue muy útil, ahora toca un debate sobre el tema, pero eso le corresponde a mi comunidad, cualquier cosa que necesites a la español, me pasas la voz 
. Saludos. Fidelmoquegua (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- No problema y gracias por la noticia. Me encanta ayudarte en su conversacion si quieres. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
C'mon: there is hardly a single paragraph there that doesn't include spammy language like, "Customers use NetCracker’s OSS solutions to deploy new infrastructure and services, reduce service delivery costs, manage Network and IT resources, and track telecom assets." That's marketing-speak. No encyclopedic article will describe a product as a "solution": it's software, or service, or whatever, not "solution."
The final splatter from the pigeon is the trademark assertion on the end.
Could you re-write it to contain only facts, with no marketing language, customer braglist, etc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would, but I'd prefer to keep GFDL too. Can you undelete it first please? I promise to rewrite it fairly quickly. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Tony1
You're right, of course. Deb (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Irony in ANI
Which? Edit-warring in TE, my reverting editors that aren't contributing to the discussions, my reverting an editor that feels the need to attack me rather than contribute to the discussions, that editor's rationalizing his behavior by saying that I'm a tendentious editor, that the editor appears in the ANI to make incivil remarks and point out that the edit-warring might be in response to another incivil (and ironic) remark he made, that we have people using tor accounts to edit-war in TE, or something else perhaps? --Ronz (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was mostly remarking on the fact that there was edit warring in TE. Just a humorous remark that probably ought to have gone in <small> tags entirely. Just move along, nothing to see at this silly little editor's talk page :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Due to the possible deletion of my page on Rai Uchiha
Please do not delete my page o Rai Uchiha, i didn tmean to make any problems i just wanted to share my ideas with wikipedia and wanted to make this page because i love the naruto manga and wanted to make a character of my own..So pleas do not erase my page im begging you. Hope i convinced you not to delete it thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rai Uchiha (talk • contribs) 05:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but it will still likely be deleted if the community does not believe it passes the notability guidelines. Since it probably won't, I advise you to copy the information back to a word document and save it onto your computer. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
MAGNUS BAREFOOT
Regarding the reverted edit to Muirchertach Ua Briain Though he is also known as Magnus Barelegs, he is most commonly known as Magnus Barefoot. It makes more sense to have his most commonly known name rather than a little known variation. Look at the Magnus Barefoot entry for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.38.227 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you for contacting me on this matter. I looked into it a little more, and found that you were indeed correct. I have changed it back to your version. Let me offer my apologies to you. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This file appears to have a Wikipedia-only license. That makes it a speedy deletion candidate at the Commons (and here, I think). Lupo 21:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- It was also tagged with a template that says "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the photographer Krzysztof Makara is credited," which is the one that I went by. Did I make a mistake? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do you feel the SVG is better even though it is a poor (and somewhat bloated size-wise) copy? Wouldn't mind if it wasn't going to be used at any large scale or if it was a little more accurate but it doesn't seem logical to me. Not going to revert or anything, just interested. treelo radda 21:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I have always heard that .svg images are always better to use than .png. I'm unsure if this is valid or not now that you've mentioned it to me, so if I am wrong, please do go ahead and revert it. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Usually yes if say it's freely useable, something that'd be more efficient and smaller if rendered as a vector image or likely to be used at different sizes. In this case it'd be pointless to replace a 1Kb PNG of a logo not in common usage with an ungainly 178Kb SVG on the basis SVG trumps PNG. Also, there's the grey area surrounding using SVG for non-free logos so best to play it safe on that also. treelo radda 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I have reverted my edits in that case. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Usually yes if say it's freely useable, something that'd be more efficient and smaller if rendered as a vector image or likely to be used at different sizes. In this case it'd be pointless to replace a 1Kb PNG of a logo not in common usage with an ungainly 178Kb SVG on the basis SVG trumps PNG. Also, there's the grey area surrounding using SVG for non-free logos so best to play it safe on that also. treelo radda 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)