User talk:NuclearWarfare

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

NFCC mentorship and roadmap to get topic ban lifted

I know you were involved in the ANI case and would like for your advise/suggestion. In order to get the topic ban lifted, I am propsing aa stage by stage roadmap towards the lifting of the topic ban. Maybe a page where both me and the mentor can carry out an accessment and countersign it? What do you think? I think that would be the best way forward. I have started User:Tyw7/topicban appeal. Also, can you be my mentor/can you suggest who would/could? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. I'm probably not the best person to be your mentor though. Perhaps you could try asking someone who you know disagrees with you to be your mentor, such as Treasury Tag. If either you or he is not willing, might I suggest asking HJ Mitchell? NW (Talk) 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not willing with him and I believe that me+treasuretag = war. I will copy and paste this thread to HJ Mitchell talkpage. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have copied and pasted the above thread to his talk page. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 22:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Apollo 13

I posted a Request for Comment two weeks ago and have received no response. Do you care to look at the problem? Or can you suggest where I can post it and get an answer? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 21:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. It might also be worth adding {{rfctag|sci}} to the top of the discussion. NW (Talk) 00:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry to say I could not follow the directions for applying the tag. Does it go at the top of the Apollo 13 talk page? This: This template should immediately precede the signed text of the request. sounds like it goes on the RfC page, but I don't see any templates like that there. So sorry so dumb. Yopienso (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It should go on top of the appropriate discussion section on Talk:Apollo 13. NW (Talk) 01:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Yopienso (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A bot has removed the tag twice as "expired." There has been no response at the request board. Yopienso (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed NW (Talk) 16:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

...or not. Perhaps you'll get a better response at WP:3O? NW (Talk) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BeanyFans, 17 May 2011

Sup man BeanyFans (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi? NW (Talk) 16:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Troubles log could be sorted

Hi NW. The log at Wikipedia:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Log of blocks, bans, and probations is out of date order, and new items are being added by admins in two different sections. I am thinking of

1. Moving the log to the bottom of the page
2. Sorting it in date order
3. Merging into the main list the few wandering items that were logged at Wikipedia:ARBCOM/TROUBLES#Final remedies for AE case.
4. Putting headings into the log, 2007, 2008 etc like the ones at WP:DIGWUREN#2007.
5. Changing 'Final remedies for AE case' to 'Community sanction'
6. Violations of the community sanction go into the main log with all other entries (this is how it works at ARBPIA)

Does this sound like a good idea? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. In addition to all that, perhaps you could write a note at the top of that section saying something alone the lines of "In addition to the sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee in this case, the Community has independently imposed further sanctions on the case in these discussions: (links)"? NW (Talk) 19:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

My proposed reorganization of the Troubles log is in User:EdJohnston/Sandbox for your perusal. I added a small section called Guide to enforcement which is supposed to explain to admins (and others) how the sanctions work. Let me know what you think. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good; feel free to replace the current log with it. NW (Talk) 04:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 18#Pamela Stein (closed)

I don't understand your decision in this deletion review. The consensus was clearly in favor of restoring the history. There was no consensus that all 73 revisions in the history needed to be suppressed. I'm an admin, and I reviewed all 73 revisions and I didn't see anything in the history that obviously needed to be suppressed. There might have been something that possibly needed to be suppressed, but I doubt it appeared in all 73 revisions that were revdeleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My close was more a technical close than anything else: enforcing Courcelles' decision to delete the previous versions of the article while still maintaining the attribution history, which is what I thought most editors were requesting. If Courcelles is fine with it, I would be OK with you or any other sysop undoing my revdeletes or reopening the DRV. NW (Talk) 16:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Would you consider reopening the DRV? There are outstanding issues that I would like to comment on. Metropolitan90 has followed up on individual revisions at User talk:Courcelles#Pamela Stein. The creation of List of Playboy Playmates of 1987 as a collection of unattributed copies needs to be addressed. WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect included some discussion of deleting the page history before redirecting at the closing admin's discretion. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, why not. Done. NW (Talk) 04:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes closure

I'm happy to hear any argument supporting the idea that Newyorkbrad didn't add that part from his own personal judgment rather than actually deriving it from the contents of the discussion. I'm not seeing any support from that on the RFC talk page.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I frankly don't give a damn. Until things are settled and a new formally expressed statement of consensus is promulgated by an appropriate party, you shouldn't even think about overruling an action taken pursuant to the current status quo. NW (Talk) 21:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Joe Pasquale

Hi. I've replaced PC with FP. I leave it to your appreciation. Regards, Cenarium (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

[1], for future reference. NW (Talk) 23:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)