User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 40

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

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

A reader wrote in to request a change in protection (VRTS ticket # 2014010310005121 )

I see you added the protection, but I do not see why, so I do not know whether the request should be granted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burzynski_Clinic&diff=477895639&oldid=477895618

Can you help me provide a response? I'll provide them a link to this discussion.--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(Just to correct any misconceptions you might have: I do have OTRS access, though I don't do much with it anymore)

Previous edits to the article included , which has a now-deleted edit summary. The edit summary was a violation of our biographies of living persons policy, as it accused a well-known scientist of committing academic fraud without the slightest bit of proof, and the page had been receiving quite a lot of those at the time. I have no objection to you unprotecting the page if you feel it is appropriate; however, I am not going to do that myself. NW (Talk) 21:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought you had access, but I checked one page and did not see your name. Now I can't find that page, but no matter. I will chat with the requestor.--S Philbrick (Talk) 23:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you seem to be involved in this, I don't know if I did anything wrong in reporting it? Maybe it is simply not enough or I am wrong. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your attention would be welcome here, where an edit war threatens over the second law of thermodynamics. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there NW, AL "here",

maybe they will leave the article in peace like you said in my last report, or maybe THEY WON'T leave the article in peace. This IP (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/188.82.104.65) proceeded to go extra mile and removed the EXTERNAL LINKS section (last time it was "only" the references) and replacing it with the personal website of the subject, and of course the storyline was again replaced with a poetry treaty on how marvellous as a coach and a person Mr. Cajuda is. Upon being reverted by three (THREE!) users he proceeded to re-revert; incredibly, his antics now seem to be a mix of incompetence and vandalism, as his last version rested like this (here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Cajuda&diff=590226147&oldid=590226023), with the MANAGERIAL CAREER section completely removed!

Do you still feel the same way after this report, mate? If so i give up, it's not fair on both of us to be wasting our time. Happiest of weeks, keep it up.

P.S. I have retrieved this message from archive #40, because you were absent for such a long time there is a strong possibility you did not notice the original briefing because it was archived more than a week before you returned. Sorry for any inconvenience if i was not supposed to remove this from the previous place. --AL (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address one or more redirects you have created. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Callanecc, sorry I took so long on this. I just changed it. NW (Talk) 18:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Who ratted out Pigsonthewing? NE Ent 02:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't think I'm at liberty to say who emailed me beyond that it is a user who I believe is in good standing with the community. I take responsibility for the posts I made, and have encouraged the party to comment themselves publicly if they feel it to be necessary. NW (Talk) 03:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Understand and respect your position. Suffice to say they're not in "good standing" with this 1 / 120,074 th of the community -- I don't have any respect for editors unwilling to put their ~~~~'s on the line. Especially over such a chicken shit "violation." (That's not to say I have a problem with you asking for opinions at AE, if you were unsure, it was the right thing to do.) NE Ent 03:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Move Like This
by 28bytes

Somehow I thought of you (thread of thought: missing arb), read your voters guide - still interesting after the event. (Mine is linked in my infobox under "look at facts", - remembering that "banning the worst offenders" wouldn't even help if you could find them. I found this.) - I have been a friend of 28bytes for years and can happily report that his blue duck attacks the German Main page right now, - had to happen on the 28th ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting Gerda, thanks for pointing me to the story. Sorry I took so long to respond. NW (Talk) 03:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That was such a sad story when it happened, level 10 on my sorrow scale, I translated Sorrow then. I translated Stargazy Pie, this time not for a missing user but with thanks, - it resulted in my greatest success on the German Main page (SG is their DYK) ;) - I would translate one for you in thanks, if you moved to withdrawing the strange request on enforcement ;) It has only level 2 on the sorrow scale, but it seems another waste of time, causing unneccessary fight. Did you follow my example? (Trying to clarify that "infobox templates" are not "infoboxes", and that no article is without an infobox when a template gets replaced by a better one, it also shows that there were infoboxes in Classical music in 2007, and replaced by better ones before the so-called infobox case even started. The cleanup should continue.) I work happily with Andy, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, NW,
I was looking at how you closed this case with the comment, "Tabled for now, with the understanding that there is a low bar for reporting newer disruption." Now, "disruption" seems very vague, some editors call reverting an edit or disagreeing with the consensus disruptive. One can easily justify ones own edits as necessary while those of an editor whose views you oppose are labeled as disruptive.
So, I read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and it seems like in the pseudoscience cases, like Rupert Sheldrake, it's a two-way street, like edit warring. Putting aside the SPI case for the moment, if Askahrc was disruptive, then several other editors were just as guilty of the same type of behavior.
Now, this is where someone says, "If this is true, then why don't you put together an AE case with diffs that prove your point?" But, in the 9 months I've been active on a daily basis on WP, I've only seen editors on the neutral or positive side of the pseudoscience debate get called out at AE even though discretionary sanctions apply to every editor who works on these subjects. It seems like disruptive behavior of the more skeptical editors is overlooked even when it is very strident and borders on harassment.
I guess I'm posting here to check in and see if it is truly unruly behavior that is being sanctioned and not simply having a different point of view, voicing that opinion and not being cowed into silence. Because I think WP:CENSORSHIP should not just apply to dirty words and sex topics but on valid opinions as well. Building consensus means respecting other people's opinions, even when they differ from ones own and not dismissing them and labeling them disruptive. But in articles that are labeled "pseudoscience" there is the right way and the wrong way and everyone who is at odds with the right way are run out of town. At least that is one person's perception of what's going on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you expect me to say here. That I view pushing pseudoscience as inherently disruptive? Yes. That's pretty obvious. There is no equivalence between pushing pseudoscience and enforcing evidence-based principles; NPOV does not mean "take the middle ground between homeopathy and chemotherapy". If Wikipedia is biased against pseudoscience...well, somehow I'll find the will to go on.

If you want to put together a serious report about all of this harassment that you have observed, I'll look at it. But crying bias and having nothing to substantiate your position doesn't help anyone. NW (Talk) 13:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

As Sir Humphrey would say, "to edit is one of those irregular verbs: I edit properly; you edit disruptively; he/she vandalises". Having different points of view is natural, and believing your own point of view to be the right one is just as natural, so we generally tolerate others' views on Wikipedia. The problem though is that in science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement (credit: User:Stephan Schulz), so what should we be doing when someone who believes in a particular pseudoscience edits that article based on their view? No matter how much we'd like to accommodate that editor, there's really no room for compromise on scientific fact. I don't think we should be running editors out of town, but the bottom line is that in some topics, there really is the right way and the wrong way, so what room do we have in finding a "consensus"? --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I wish it could be that simple.The problem is that the right way and the wrong way have become subjective. Reasoned and collaborative discussion might solve the problem but not when on either side, disagreement is seen as a reason to attack other editors, their motives, and even their education.. I see the word incompetent tossed around a fair amount when someone disagrees. In BLPs, disagreement can be seen as permission to discredit the person the BLP is about which seems pretty immature. Then, there is the tendency to use the words fringe and pseudoscience as pejorative collecting points, trigger words. Can a movie be pseudoscience or does it have pseudoscience aspects, a very different use of the word. We've become lazy in using those two words, so that use is blurred and has become the go-to cliché for that which is unusual. Source choice is not always clear cut and determining which sources are best needs collaboration not subjectively derived standards . Further, there is the circular argument made which goes like, this is a fringe topic so I can be as pejorative as I I want, but you, the other editor cannot describe the topic except per its pejorative sources. If you do try to describe the topic per itself and attempt to add something neutral per the skewed neutral center point of the content, skewed because it has been determined the topic is "fringe" or pseudoscience, then you are POV pushing. Further there are standard ways of removing editors both from a discussion and an article and even the site, all the while creating narratives about them. Say something enough times and it becomes true. So while I respect your comment Rexx. I guess I do have to disagree with the last statement. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

Do you still feel this way? This makes it difficult to keep track of IPs who would be blocked except that they have stopped (for the moment) editing with that IP? (Also, I'd like to make a special template, or a variety of {{IPsock}}, which reports it's a sock puppet of "The Michigan Kid".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, it looks like this was another request for my attention that I simply ignored. Would you still like my input on this? NW (Talk) 03:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think so. I may have made a mistake, but it looks as if you were responsible for the change to WP:HSOCK (that only blocked sockpuppets can be tagged), and I think it is (and was) a bad idea. Could you comment at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#WP:HSOCK again? See also the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 13#Illogical wording and Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 13#Illogical wording 2. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I think there are two issues here: (1) the tagging of IPs and (2) the tagging of named accounts. Starting with the latter, the issue is it's entirely fine to tag someone as a suspected sockpuppet very temporarily, but it's entirely unnecessary if you're also reporting them to SPI (where your suspicion will be looked into. If you still suspect them from being a sockpuppet after the SPI has passed, it doesn't really matter because insisting on the tag at that point becomes a violation of WP:NPA. The other issue is with IPs and the reason I think we shouldn't tag those is simply because the vast majority of sockpuppeteers who keep their activities use dynamic IPs, which makes tagging old ones a bit useless. Tag a range, sure, but not a single one-use IP.

Does that make sense? Is it on topic? I wouldn't want to comment on the policy talk page if not. NW (Talk) 20:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it makes sense, but there are at least ~~two~~ three purposes for a sock-puppet tag.

To notify the offender that we are on to him.
To notify those editors looking at articles which the sock-puppets edited that those edits may be reverted per WP:EVASION. I have not yet been able to set up a script that would revert all of an IP's edits, with edit summary including WP:EVASION. if I could do that, it would help.
(For IPs only) To gather information in order to find the appropriate range to block, keeping WP:COLLATERAL in mind. This use suggests that the tags should be persistent, to determine usage over months of time, in the case of persistent IP vandals, such as the Michigan (formerly Kalamazoo) Kid. User:Arthur Rubin/IP list also serves some of that purpose, but I don't think other editors should be forced to check my subpage for analysis.

I think the Kid has not been active since January 16, 2014, but the person was blocked indefinitely, even if his IP blocks were only up to a year in length. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, the Kid has returned to IPs after even one or two years of absence, and without any edits not by the Kid. (That IP pool may have few Wikipedians.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

With the first two reasons, is that not taken care of by virtue of the indefinite block and the mass rollback that always happens after a sockpuppet is definitively identified? I definitely understand the third reason, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, though I'm not sure how I really feel about the matter nowadays. NW (Talk) 14:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:

By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Can you restore the full history and talk page for that article. I am currently working on several emulators (mainly Project64) for possible restore. Ii would help me to see the state the article was in. Thanks Valoem ^talk 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Let me know when I can delete it. NW (Talk) 21:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I was hoping to maintain the article as a redirect with history intact. I've been going through a wave of restorations lately and was hoping to merge Mupen64Plus with this article, I have found some citations such as this one, Digital Trends here. I plan first on restoring Project64 following the discussion here. Valoem ^talk 14:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. NW (Talk) 15:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

NW, since you have blocked User:Beyond My Ken for "3" RR, I bring to your concern. After he has violated "3" RR on the dispute here, User:Beyond My Ken is going out of the way accusing me for my content addition which is supported by WP:RS.EconomicTiger (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

EconomicTiger is one of a series of sock or meatpuppets editing on behalf of American Academy of Financial Management. See the article's talk page for more details. AAFM is a "diploma mill" whose operations have been exposed by the Wall Street Journal. They've been very active on WP trying to protect their "image", including a bogus legal threat, and other activities attempting to keep the facts about the "Academy" out of the article. EconomicTiger is simply the latest editor representing AAFM - probably he or she should be blocked indef, as their intent is not to improve the encycylopedia, but to bolster the rep of their organization. BMK (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

NW, There was a sockpuppetry case here and I was cleared after CU. Even User:Beyond My Ken participated on the sockpuppetry discussion; but now accusing me. Is that he is not accepting the CU results or misleading you here. I have come across this "Academy" like other professional institutions which I have edited. But I found something strange here and taken some interest. Most socks edited the "Academy" are from USA, but I am from Asia. I have previously created many articles including, Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies, Ceylon Chamber of Commerce, Exnora International, Daily FT, Vels University.EconomicTiger (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. NW (Talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is FYI. IMO, it would have been better form to wait until the other party either laughed or bitched, and let everyone else either chuckle or yawn. But whatever. Hope you find something to laugh about today! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday was indeed hilarious, thank you for your thoughts. NW (Talk) 13:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Pseudoscience sanctions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved

About this ANI thread OP 16:14, now in ANI archive. A simultanuous ANI thread is here with mostly same topic, editors and timestamps).

I have some issues with and questions about your contributions to that thread.

1. 13:43 "DePiep, you have made your case and should step back". Well, since I initiated the review request, I am quite allowed to discuss there. On top of this, given that I was personally attacked in the very first response, I have the right to speak for myself. I do not see why I should have shut up as you judge. If there is a guideline that says so (or a guideline that allows admins to hold it against me when I react to personal attacks), please inform me.

2. "let the community comment at the move review" - As with previous remark: I don't see why I sould be disadvised to push back against bad faith accusations. As it appears, more so since the admins of that community did not find it necessary to warn BHG against personal attacks.

3. 17:05 "Furthermore, your tone did not serve to calm matters down but instead has unnecessarily escalated this rather minor conflict". After an inconsequential apology for misreading and "see[ing] at most minor fault by BHG", you throw in this "tone" remark without substantiating. Could you provide diffs and quotes that made my tone cause the issue? How is that in the timeline? How am I supposed to respond to such a casual injection anyway?

4. "I see nothing wrong with BHG's [BrownHairedGirl's] comments". You can see it that way. I maintain that BHG writing "falsehood", "lie", "dishonest" is introducing judgement of bad faith. The editor could have used neutral words to argue. The timeline: OP 16:14 by me, 17:36 first response, by BHG (in the editsummary: "blatantly dishonest"), and 18:54 my response.

5. For now, I'll leave other problematic diffs by BHG aside (present in the ANI). Basically, they show more of the same.

6. I still find it astonishing that you did not find any message to make to BHG's tone, in the same threads where you found my tone a cause. Apparently there was reason to block an editor for writing "grow up" and "are you drunk?" , but writing "falsehood", "dishonest", "lie" in a WP discussion does not even need a warning. It is these uncheckable inconsistencies that makes ANI rather useless, and gives bad experiences to editors like

-DePiep (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Response please. -DePiep (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Why no reply? -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure you saw this. Very sad news. Nathan^T 15:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw it yesterday morning, went the whole day dropping in and out of a daze. Incredibly saddened and shocked to hear. NW (Talk) 15:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nuke, please show me the place to appeal against the topic ban you indiscriminantly gave me - can't see it at all! Ta :) Cjwilky (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the page didn't have the link I thought it did. Just do a search for "Appeals" on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement; that should do it. NW (Talk) 14:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking I was losing it not finding it there! Thanks :) Cjwilky (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It's unclear where to post the appeal. Cjwilky (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A new section at WP:AE. NW (Talk) 15:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cjwilky: Have a look at this and Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) Though I shan't be bothering, if this is the way wiki works, I'm gone. Cjwilky (talk) 05:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Unresolved

Regarding your edit here , I think "poorly settled" would have been a more apt description. Our present definition of abortion clearly cuts against WP:UCN. I am glad, however, that you noticed and "corrected" the link problem which would have had readers going to "termination of pregnancy" to learn more about the distinction between that and abortion, only to wind up back at "abortion" again. Also, take a gander at this page: which, of course, defines "late termination of pregnacy" as, you guessed it, "late term abortion". Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please review the generally productive discussion at Talk:Electronic_cigarette (and then, obviously, unblock FergusM1970). NE Ent 01:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed. Not unblocking. NW (Talk) 14:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This was a featured article. Apparently accordingly it is admin-only protected. I sought to move it to Eurasian treecreeper, which I thought was the orthography to be used for articles titled with vernacular names of living things. Please either reduce the protection (I think I am whitelisted at WP) or move it.

I wish there was more consistency in this regard so the links from Wiktionary to WP did not always have to be checked and often rrevised. DCDuring (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have unprotected it, but I'm vaguely aware of some controversy with this issue. Maybe you should consider bringing this up on the talk page or at WP:BIRDS before you move it? NW (Talk) 18:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's what WP:BIRDS says on the matter:

The common name of a species used to be capitalised to differentiate it from more general terms[1] but following discussions, it has been decided that capitals will be used only for parts of the name that are proper nouns.

Unfortunately I suppose each relevant project (LIVERWORTS, ALGAE) may be having, has had , or will have this controversy.

Anyway, thanks. DCDuring (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the Nuclear protection of Marshall Mathers, as in full protection, but I think it's overkill—when conventional means like semi or less is more than sufficient, in my opinion; please reduce it. I posted an edit request, at first, but I now think unprotecting it to a lower degree is a better option. Especially after seeing these:

so unprotected, and free to edit. So This is step one; asking you—hopefully this resolves in the single step. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really remember why I chose to full protect it (it was four years ago), but I'm guessing it was a misclick. Unprotecting... NW (Talk) 17:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I was hoping you could downgrade all the symbols you protected en masse in Category:Chemical element symbol templates. Template:Actinium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), for instance, has 9 links to it but no transclusions, but it's under sysop-level protection. I'm kind of "locked out" of working on them, and would like to see them semi-protected or fully unprotected. There's just no real vandalism of them to begin with. Would you do that?

By the way, started this conversation over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Actinium. Thanks, meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC) Edited 06:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Drop to no protection? Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Done for all articles in that category. NW (Talk) 21:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You rock. Now I can categorize & improve them! Thanks! Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I know that you will most likely see it because i have highlighted your name in the message to the other user, but i notify you anyway about this message (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smalljim#Manuel_Cajuda). Serious situation, indeed...

Attentively --AL (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Already taken care of. I always contact you on the matter of page protections because you hand out lengthy protections more often than not (just saying because of what i have seen during our wikirelation, not overall), and this countryman of mine is really trying his best (worst!) in Manuel Cajuda's article.

Sorry to bother you, keep up the good work (by the way, i am leaving WP for good on 12 July 2014, so after that really can't be bothered about who vandalizes what!) --AL (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi AL! Sorry, I haven't been that active on Wikipedia in 2014. Glad that this is already taken care of, but why are you leaving Wikipedia in six weeks? NW (Talk) 21:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Tired mate, just plain tired. Not fun anymore, pretty much a chore after eight years. I've never been one to follow much guidelines (one reason to leave), and the idiot vandals like the one described above took care of the rest (that's number two for you :)).

However, whistle if you need anything until the "doomsday", i will gladly help! --AL (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

		The Minor Barnstar
		For a timely and considerate close of the HRC move review. NickCT (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really the close I was hoping for, but granted it would have been hard for you to make any other. It would probably be an understatement to say this topic has received its "day in court", and I for one plan to respect the moratorium. NickCT (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As a quick postscript I didn't get your point re "neither side is making policy-incompliant articles." Did you mean to say "arguments" rather than "articles"? NickCT (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Quick post-post script; it might be wise to for you to comment at and/or close this discussion. NickCT (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And also probably best to put a notice box documenting the moratorium in the talk page header. I just added the move review close result to the move log on the page. PaleAqua (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nick! I think I've taken care of everything. Thanks to all who cleaned up after me; Move Review is not a place I usually tread. NW (Talk) 21:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A minor tweak is needed in the HRC move review close. The consensus at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#A simple solution is in favor of a moratorium for a period of nine months "from May 1, 2014". That date will be February 1, 2015, not March 2015. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've changed it. NW (Talk) 11:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The move review closure itself still reads "until March 2015". I note, also, that some participants in the moratorium discussion would have preferred a stay of six months (until November), rather than nine (until February), but were willing to compromise by going to the longer period. bd2412 T 13:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that's what you meant. I had only fixed it on the talk page. I had read the arguments for a shorter period and opposed to one at all, but I think my 9 month decision was still a fair summary of the consensus. NW (Talk) 12:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi NW, you blocked FergusM1970 for WP:TE at Electronic cigarette, among other problems. I'm sad to inform you that within hours (perhaps even minutes) after that month-long block expired, the editor went right back to it, making the same kinds of edits. Could you please check it out and see if further action is necessary. Thanks... Zad68 14:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? Nobody told me I can't edit there, and nobody at that article is complaining about my edits.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 14:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up User:Zad68. I have indef blocked; I don't see any reason to go to AN/ANI first on this one. Literally the sixth edit on the talk page is . NW (Talk) 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This guy has been an intractable problem at Stanton Glantz, too. — goethean 17:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi NW. I was looking at this block. I know User:FergusM1970 vaguely and would like to help him if it is possible. Do you think you could briefly give some background regarding this block, when you have a chance? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This block i don't understand (and i do understand the previous ones, and agree with them), could you explain? :) That Fergus disagrees with other editors is not a blockable offense, nor is being a WP:SPA such. I see a small inkling of editwarring (2 reverts of an IP editor who didn't use the talkpage, and in fact ignored the talkpage). Is there something that i overlook? The comment about an author being an aerospace engineer is actually correct, and not afaict a WP:BLP concern (Had he gone further on this i would agree though), there are problems with this review, and the authors are very strongly in a particular (scientific) political camp on this issue (as another editor on WT:MED noticed before this. --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC) [i react to this not because of Fergus really, but rather because other editors use this to quell disagreements] --Kim D. Petersen 00:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

John, it may be useful to start with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Uninvolved admin input: edit-warring and BLP violations at Stanton Glantz, which was the first time I became aware of Fergus. It also might be useful to take a look at a couple sections above the most recent block message, starting maybe near the beginning of 2014.

Kim, I don't disagree with the facts of your statement but I do disagree with your framing. It wasn't that Fergus was diving back into an article with a point of view; it was that he was insisting on talking about the same lines of argumentation that had derailed things in the past. Might it have been possible to wait a bit longer before blocking? Sure. But I've seen enough time wasted on medicine-related articles going round and round on the same issue that I figured I would try to cut it off early. If Fergus is willing to accept certain unblock conditions to avoid this situation in the future, I would be perfectly fine with him being unblocked. I'm not sure what those conditions are, but many other admins are smarter than I am.

I'm not sure if I'll be around this long weekend (Memorial Day here in the US), but if you want to take any action to reverse me and don't think it's necessary to consult me, please feel free to go ahead. Best, NW (Talk) 02:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Zad68, since you have reviewed that talk page recently, might you may be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)##MEDLINE versus other databases? Best, NW (Talk) 14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that was useful. I have made the user an offer and we shall see what he does with it. Enjoy the holiday weekend! --John (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've unblocked, with conditions. Thanks again. --John (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

John, sorry for not being around the last couple of weeks. Thanks for taking the initiative to look into this. Best, NW (Talk) 12:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Would you consider unprotecting the 10:10 page? It's several years out of date, and given the opportunity, I'd like to do a comprehensive update.

Full disclosure: I work for 10:10, but would be doing this in a personal capacity. I understand that 10:10 has received plenty of (often well-founded) criticism, and it isn't my intention to suppress this, or downplay the things the organisation has got wrong in its time.

As you'll see from my contribution history, I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, so apologies in advance if I've gone about this the wrong way. Please do set me straight if that's the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simuove (talk • contribs)

@Simuove: I have unprotected the page. Please review WP:COI before you edit, and consider when it would be best to seek out advice from another editor in the page's history rather than editing it yourself. NW (Talk) 12:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: Thank you, that's really helpful. I'll read the conflict of interest advice carefully before I make any changes. Would a post on the article's talk page be the best way to get advice from another editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simuove (talk • contribs)

Indeed it would. It is quite possible that no one is watching that talk page, so you may wish to ask some specific individuals listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force to come by if you don't get a response. NW (Talk) 11:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You (rightfully) deleted the 2023 Rugby World Cup page in 2009 because there was no meaningful content, and the page remains "protected from creation." Since that time, a number of years have passed, the tournament is closer, bidding is likely to formally begin around 2016, and there are already several media reports about which countries have publicly declared their interest in hosting the tournament.

I am requesting that you remove the "protected from creation" status to allow interested editors to begin adding content to the page. To get a sense of what the initial article might look like, and to assure yourself that there is sufficient content and sufficient reliable sources, you can take a look at the following wiki section: Rugby_World_Cup_hosts#2023:_TBD.

And for further context, in case you think that creating an article about a sports event that is nine years away would be a radical departure from wikipedia practices, there are already articles in existence for sports events even further into the future — 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics. Thank you for your consideration. Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 03:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi NW. It has been a while since I last wrote to you. I am surprised you are no longer an arbitrator (I always considered you were the only one that, well, cared about the editors getting the bottom end of the stick). That aside, and please forgive me if that topic I brought up is bothersome, I am writing to ask for advice on how to remove the topic ban that was placed on me about a year ago.

I think that my time since then has been spent on very positive editing, mainly getting articles through GA and FA status (I'm in-line for my third one: the Falkland Islands). As you can tell, I followed your earlier advice and went about to demonstrate through action that I am not the "evil mastermind" (or whatever) that I was painted as during the proceedings a year ago. I am really proud of the work on Pisco Sour and Falkland Islands, mainly for having dealt with partisan controversies through dialogue and friendly communication (not that I was doing anything much different at the time of the arbitration case).

If you have some available time, I would appreciate some pointers on how to finally put an end to the topic ban. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 03:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi MarshalN20, my apologies for the length of time it took me to respond to you. If you feel that now is an appropriate time to review your topic ban, I would recommend that you post a request listing all the work you have done since the ban and also spend some time in your request detailing work you would like to do in the future. There really isn't any more advice I can give beyond that. Just make your statement as clear and persuasive as you can, and it simply be a matter of ArbCom agreeing with your point of view or not. Sorry I can't help any more than that. Best of luck, NW (Talk) 17:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it means less than nothing to you, coming from me, but I can't help but register my serious disappointed with your approval of Jenks24's re-listing of the LDS church move request, since he specifically said that the purpose was to allow one side of the discussion more time to respond. I really had thought you were more unbiased than that. BMK (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Why would it mean less than nothing to me? Your point of view is a perfectly reasonable one; I just have come to a different conclusion. I will always take reasonable criticism into consideration. NW (Talk) 11:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Commercial Providence.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Could I con you into userfying The Detonators (band) to me? It was PRODded out, but it's a GNG pass, I think. Article in Flipside #47 etc. I don't want to start it from scratch if I can avoid it.

Thanks! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like some other mark did it. NW (Talk) 22:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello NW, and welcome back to AE! Do you agree that this thread reached consensus to limit appeals to once every six months? If so could you notify the user and add it to the log of WP:ARBIPA? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I will do that, sorry about the trouble I may have caused! NW (Talk) 02:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sir, I read your message on my talk page. Can a user successfully get his TBan lifted? If so, how?—Khabboos (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Responded some days ago in response to your email. NW (Talk) 22:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that didn't last long! He's been socking and violating his topic ban, as well as creating disruption in the homeopathy area. Take a look here: Of socks, topic bans, and failed AEs..... I'm pretty sure that User:AcidSnow (who filed the SPI) will be interested in your reaction. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Sandstein dropped an indefinite block, so that's all taken care of. NW (Talk) 22:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I was answering a semi-protected edit request for a user for John Richards (radio personality), and I noticed it's been indef'd by you since 2010. However there isn't any reason given for it. Do you remember what the reason for it was? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stickee: I gave up my WP:OTRS access some time ago. Any admin with OTRS access is free to review the ticket and override my action if they so wish. You may wish to ask at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard, if this has not been dealt with already. Best, NW (Talk) 01:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please tell why you would delete the page for Michele Adamson, and more importantly, how to get information on the history and status of her beautiful voice. I can only imagine two reasons, in either case, be it congratulatory or wtf-ish, I am still disappointed. I would like to hear more (read 'ALL') of her glorious singing, and be able to do so without the laborious and unnecessary research since there was at one time a page devoted to her self. Some direction, please? 2601:7:4100:D47:226:BBFF:FE03:5066 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Patriko2601:7:4100:D47:226:BBFF:FE03:5066 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was deleted after a community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Adamson; the community did not feel the article met the inclusion criteria for creative professionals. NW (Talk) 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you unprotect the user talk page? If not, could you explain the "bot spam" issue, and how it could be fixed? Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chess: Bots tend to drop talk page messages on that page because it's often an exception that isn't caught in coding a bot. Since no one controls that account, there is no reason for bots to need to be doing that. Protecting it should have solved that issue. Best, NW (Talk) 01:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw your comment about forgetting about the election, - you obviously don't need new arbitrators ;) - I asked the candidates, saying that my favourite comment had 4 words. Here's a nutshell, I like the replies, - one candidate even mentioned common sense! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh, now I have to make sure I voted against that last candidate. NW (Talk) 23:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean last-mentioned? First in alphabet, making common sense the first word shown, behold ;) - "Go and sin no more" was another option, a recommended response in many arb cases but not here where most agreed that there was no sin, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

NW, thanks so much for that cleanup of citations at PANDAS, but ack ! It was not until I saw your edits that I realized that I had missed an IP edit that had made some good changes, but had also removed inline attribution of direct quotes, removed acronyms, and worse ... had converted textual mention of primary sources by secondary reviews to primary source citations! Those were not intended to be citations-- they were mention of the specific studies mentioned in secondary reviews. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

@SandyGeorgia: Ack, sorry for causing trouble then! Let me know if and when it would be fine for me to stop by the article again to fix up anything. NW (Talk) 16:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It was no trouble-- it led me to see what had happened! I'm sorry you had to do all that work for nothing. The (well-intended) IP saw inline mention of primary sources, as they were discussed in secondary reviews), and converted them to citations. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

PS, search the forums at latitudes dot org ... they hate me. That is a pseudoscience-promoting parent advocacy support group that is also a commercial site (the owner/author has books for sale, and her work is fringey ... she puts in enough science that her followers believe her). Most of the traffic at PANDAS comes from there, as you can see from their posts about the evil one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You participated in previous related discussion. There is an ongoing move discussion, and I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Adjusted further per here Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment there. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

NW, thanks for your notice and note here. You did ask to drop you a note if you feel this behavior is continuing--actually what you're seeing today is the continuation of similar, worsening behavior by that editor that's been going on for maybe two years now. He ignores WP:TPG, taking pointed potshots at editors despite being referred to that guidelines, oh, I don't know, I'd estimate over 100 times by now.

He is a textbook tendentious WP:SPA (last 500 edits) who comes to the article with clearly-stated, extremely negative personal views regarding the article subject, here he uses the article Talk page to express his views that it's "an act of rape" (along with a reference to the "cabal" he believes exists), can provide more.

He does seem to recognize his article content views aren't being accepted, but instead of listening to WP:PAG-based reasons why, he blames this on a "cabal" or (more colorfully) a "coterie" blocking his efforts. In this edit he actually names, in addition to myself, a list of well-established editors (Yobol, Doc James, Alexbrn, Flyer22), plus "the rest of the Desert Patrol"(?). The idea that consensus may be against the ideas doesn't occur to him.

The likelihood of his being a productive editor is, in my view, essentially nil. If you have any advice, it'd be appreciated. Zad68 03:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Wish I had more advice to offer. Circumcision wouldn't fall under any of the ArbCom sanctions, and to the best of my knowledge, it wouldn't fall under any community sanctions either. Is that correct? I'm perfectly comfortable doing an independent review of their edits and taking administrative action as I see fit, but I just want to know what my options are ahead of time. NW (Talk) 04:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your understandings are correct. Appreciated, whatever you might do. If you need help digging up particular edits to support suspected behaviors I can do that. Thanks... Zad68 04:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: After having reviewed the talk page pretty extensively, I think a topic ban discussion on ANI is warranted, but honestly, an indefinite block with a conditional unblock if he or she were willing to agree to restrictions would accomplish the same goal quite a bit easier. I know you're not uninvolved and thus can't make that decision yourself, but what does that analysis strike you as? Just right, too harsh, too power-grabby?

PS, did you see this story on the CDC's recommendation regarding circumcision today? NW (Talk) 16:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, this has been going on for such a long time so I'm sure there was a lot to read. I agree a topic ban is justified and your planned path forward is a great solution. I have had the thought of putting together an ANI case for some time now but for a situation like this it's just so time-consuming to do and shepherd through (especially with how polarizing this topic can be for some), and I've always had other things I've wanted to do with my Wiki-time (limited these days) so it's just never been enough of a priority for me... although honestly I've probably wasted more time now dealing with that Talk page than I would have dealing with it in another venue.

Regarding the CDC's considerations, no I hadn't seen that, thanks for the pointer. If it actually goes anywhere and ends up being an actual decision it might be worthwhile to mention in the article. Thanks... Zad68 16:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I vanished for a couple days. Should be taken care of now. NW (Talk) 17:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for handling. I'm hoping you'll continue to monitor, but also I'll be sure to notify you if problems continue in that direction. Zad68 03:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm basically the least reliable person ever these days (I just logged onto my Wiki email for the first time in a week and saw literally ten emails on one topic that I haven't addressed, and I'm not sure if I will be able to). But it looks like this situation is resolved now. NW (Talk) 18:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Responding to his note and your note and ghost notes and notes that allude but do not name - Hi ! Will we make sweet music with all these notes ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 13:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Good Evening Nuclear Warface,

Would is be possible to get the deleted The World Water Organization article. I'd like to see what was previously put up and see what it would take to bring it up to par. From reading archives it seems the biggest problem was sourcing/ credibility. Can you give me an insight?

Best regards, Pam

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Price0125 (talk • contribs)

@Price0125: Hi Pam. It appears that I deleted the article as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Water Organization. I have emailed you a copy of the article. If and when you are able to bring the content back up to par, let an administrator know and if they think it is fine enough to add to the encyclopedia as a new article, we can restore the old history. Best, NW (Talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare:Thank you NW, I look forward to the email!

I sent it using Special:EmailUser/Price0125; send me an email at nwwikipedia

gmail.com if you didn't get it. NW (Talk) 00:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi NuclearWarfare,

This is regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture, which you recently commented on. It's my first time dealing with Arbcom and I'm looking for an experienced mentor to guide me through the arbitration process. You appear to have a great deal of knowledge about arbitration proceedings and I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me out by offering some practical advice on how to proceed. Thanks for your time! -A1candidate (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@A1candidate: Unfortunately, I have more experience with ArbCom than I would wish. I am not sure you need to do anything more with this case request, as it looks to be trending to be declined, but I would be happy to assist you in case that it changes or if you are brought to WP:AE. Best, NW (Talk) 04:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieving a deleted diff

I would like to access the User page of User:Levine2112 to retrieve a diff, but this page and its revision history has apparently been deleted. Could you tell me if there's a way to recover the relevant diff (it contains an important sockpuppet accusation). This will strengthen my case for arbitration against a particularly disruptive editor of acupuncture. -A1candidate (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You are accusing someone of being particularly disruptive editor of acupuncture. This is disruption. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@A1candidate: Were you the old holder of that account? I see that QuackGuru has accused you of this. It is not essential that the page be undeleted to make reference to this. is a link that all admins will be able to access that you can use to note that someone has accused you of having a previous account. Best, NW (Talk) 14:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not the old holder of that account. I have nothing to hide and this accusation is completely baseless. -A1candidate 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement. Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Best, NW (Talk) 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What was the reason for deleting the page I created?

It did not make any attempt to meet the neutrality or anti-advertising policies of Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 23:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This RM could use an experienced and respected uninvolved admin to close it. There is a long debate, with by my count a slight majority of editors Opposed to the proposed move, and the Supporters split over exactly what title they want to move too. Please Google the proposed title too. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac. I have reviewed the talk page and will be happy to close the discussion for you. Am I correct in stating that we have never had significant interaction in the past and to the best of my knowledge, I am not WP:INVOLVED with this topic? I believe that to be the case as well, but I would also like to make sure that WP:CANVASS is appropriately followed. NW ;;

(Talk) 23:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, I can't remember ever having other then passing interaction, and I'm not aware of you ever working on this topic. I reached out because I remembered you were an Arb in the past and happened to see you delete some spam I flagged. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey NW. You mentioned that discretionary sanctions could be logged centrally. That sounds doable. In effect the community already has the equivalent, at the WP:General sanctions page. If there is a central log for WP:AC/DS it might be housed at WP:AC/DS/Log. If the log is centralized then alerts will probably make the recipient eligible for sanctions in every Arb case. But we should be able to live with that -- maybe tweak the wording of the alert. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if ArbCom would go for the idea that one alert is enough to cover all topic areas; after all, discretionary sanctions are authorized for two or three dozen topic areas. But I like the general idea of a single log. We could also then actually format it in a more legible manner instead of just randomly signing our usernames next to more and more sanctions. NW (Talk) 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A more legible manner? How? In the past Arbcom has liked putting things in tables. I can see both pros and cons. EdJohnston (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that it's extremely illegible now, but tables would help. Sometimes it just gets hard to find things among all the diffs and the signatures. NW (Talk) 04:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is my new favorite web-based tool. It takes a series of 10 random numbers, and generates a statistically significant finding (p<0.05) from them. It's like being a social psychology researcher, from the comfort of your web browser! :P MastCell ^Talk 02:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, this just seems mean.

Oh, while you're here, I have a stats presentation question for you. Imagine you're seeing a demographics paper on a disease that often presents with bilateral issues, let's say kidney issues. Some people have only one diseased kidney and others have both. Would you rather have your standard Table 1 (age, sex, race, degree of kidney damage) have as the unit of measurement "kidneys" or "people"? Assume that neither materially affects the final outcomes of interest but that some of the demographics vary substantially (e.g. females are more likely to have unilateral disease). NW (Talk) 20:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a little bit hard to say without knowing the specifics, but in general, it depends on your target audience and how they think. Most physicians think in terms of people rather than of kidneys (one would hope), so expressing Table 1 in terms of people would make the most sense if they're the target audience. I'm not sure what your target audience is—maybe demographers or epidemiologists would find kidneys rather than people to be the more informative unit in this context. I guess in an ideal world, both would be presented in Table 1, but I know that these tables often become unwieldy. MastCell ^Talk 16:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I might have to end up buying this.

It's something to think about for sure. I think we'd more likely be going for the nephrologists than the epidemiologists, as our methods are interesting but not particularly groundbreaking. Honestly, rather than going back and forth on this, maybe it's better just to send it in, have reviewers 1 and 3 get mad at us no matter which way we go, and fix it for the revise and resubmit... NW (Talk) 14:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hah... I see you're wise in the ways of peer review. At some point I was working on a reviewer-to-English translator. For instance, when a reviewer complains that you've "failed to cite seminal papers in the field", the translation would be: "failed to cite my papers". When a reviewer says that your manuscript "addresses an extremely important and relevant question but requires further experimental support", what they mean is: "I am almost ready to submit a manuscript on this exact same topic, so hopefully this will keep you busy long enough for my grad student to finish our manuscript". And so on. All totally hypothetical of course.

I like the T-shirt idea, and even better, the proposed captions (especially the one that simply reads: "Psychological Science"). Andrew Gelman is a hero of mine.

I've been inspired by Wikipedia, and specifically by the ongoing "debate" at Talk:Homeopathy, to create a simple didactic problem: let's say a treatment has a pre-test likelihood of effectiveness of 0.01%, based on existing knowledge (this would be extremely generous to homeopathy, but it's a teaching exercise). Then you see a randomized controlled trial published somewhere reputable but untrustworthy (let's say, I dunno, The Lancet) with an α=0.05 and power (1-β) of 80% which reports a statistically significant benefit (p<0.05) for homeopathy over placebo. How likely is it that homeopathy actually works? Now let's say you see 5 successive well-conducted randomized clinical trials with those parameters, each of which finds that homeopathy is significantly more effective than placebo—now how likely is it that homeopathy actually works? And so on. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So, I never actually took an epi class and Dr. Google and I are not on good terms today. But the fact that it took me a couple minutes to understand this the other day means that I probably ought to learn it one day. NW (Talk) 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you understand that figure, then you already know more about statistics than 80% of biomedical investigators and 100% of social psychologists. So don't feel bad. :P MastCell ^Talk 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When I saw this header, I thought it was a web application that randomly generated significant findings for ArbCom to use. --Rs chen 7754 03:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That fishing test is a thing of beauty. Great tool for making up data. :) Guettarda (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

YOu topic banned user Jimmuldrow from Sarah Palin related articles due to his behavior vis-a-vie obamacare diff. He's back, more or less following the same script diff. Bonewah (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi NW, wanted to let you know I've mentioned you in this ANI thread regarding Tumadoireacht, whom you blocked about 3 months ago for disruptive editing. This ANI thread is about a topic ban (I didn't start the thread). Consider checking in there with your perspective. Thanks... Zad68 03:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that a topic ban is being discussed by others, it probably wouldn't be proper to short-circuit procedure and indef block, but at this point something more is warranted. NW (Talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you have a moment could you please see that I have correctly loaded this script, and how do i verify it is working? Many thanks. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The script doesn't work anymore. I have no idea how to fix it. NW (Talk) 13:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, it still works for me. I use the script with the source directly from ruwiki. Epic Genius (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's working for me again. No clue why, but I'll take it. NW (Talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I saw the ANI thread about that article: apparently it was copied from another wiki which has CC-BY-SA licensing like Wikipedia, so copying is permitted as long as attribution is supplied. The problem (from what I could tell) was that whoever copied it didn't supply the necessary attribution. I have no view about whether the topic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the first place, but assuming it is, instead of deleting it, couldn't we have just fixed the attribution issue by adding a cite to the other wiki? I didn't see the article before it was deleted, so don't know if there were other possible problems. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It still would have violated the plagiarism guidelines. But more importantly, as you note, it was just a lot of fancruft that was not notable enough for Wikipedia to begin with. Best, NW (Talk) 19:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

While researching on this ongoing sockpuppetry since 2010, I came to know that at least 2 accounts(DanS76 and Zhanzhao) that were used during the RFC/UA and ANI re:La goutte de pluie were owned by a single person. Since this matter is equivalent to long term sock puppetry, I would be glad if you would want to discuss further.

I have also restored an earlier version of La goutte de pluie's UP. They haven't socked for 3 years now. Revert if you disagree. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no time restriction on when to use the sock templates. It's one thing if that user wants to come back and make a fresh start, but otherwise we don't just blank pages like that. NW (Talk) 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your mark-blocked script causes a strange bug in the latest version of Firefox where having it installed prevents the use of the up or down arrow keys within the edit-box. The result is that the only way to jump around in your entry text is (shudder) the use of the mouse. ResMar 00:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. After loading and testing several pages it wasn't your script. I have no idea what it is, but it seems my ability to scroll or down using the associated keys is going out and coming in, and I still have no idea about the source. I'll query VPT. ResMar 00:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Is there a chance the Mark-blocked script could be modified so that it also marks globally locked users somehow? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not my script unfortunately; I imported it from ruwiki. Might be worth checking on one of the technical noticeboards to see if someone tehre knows how to modify it. NW (Talk) 14:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi NW, you closed a move request on ISIL in January.

Can you please participate in, Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 19 April 2015, or if it meets your standards for SNOW close, then explain that nothing has been said that hasn't been argued? I think this is going to take a lot of time, and I don't think this is going to reach any consensus. ISIL may not be the best name, or "perfect" article title, but it is in common, widespread usage and there's no consensus to move the article on ideological grounds. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. NW (Talk) 14:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please contact ame at genws@hiwaay.net. I would like to ask about the sources for a couple of your statements.I am sure there is a better way of doing this on Wikipedia but I am new to it. Bob Davis````

Please feel free to email me at this link and explain further, but right now I have no idea what this is about. NW (Talk) 21:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nuclearwarfare Hope you are very well. I'm writing to you regarding your edit on Fernando Otero's article in August 2011. I've added references. Please let me know if it's necessary to add more. Thank you so much :-) Victoria Plebs Vickyplebs (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. NW (Talk) 21:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Pavlov's RfA reward

Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

It's now been over a year since you indefinitely fully protected Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. Do you think it can be unprotected now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly.

Unprotected. I'll keep it watchlisted though. NW (Talk) 22:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

To set the record straight, the topic ban 3.5 years ago is because many reliable sources say that Palin's death panel remarks didn't quite fact-check, and you apparently think they do, based on zero references that you chose to mention in those 3.5 years. If you believe in death panels that much, you have a right to your opinion. You don't have a right to intimidate, threaten and censor, regardless of how strongly you feel. Editors such as yourself used mass censorship for years to portray Palin as never having said a single word about death panels. Now you allow that she said two words about death panels, and said much more about foreign policy.

I don't expect anything I say to change what you say or do, just setting the record straight about what we both know about the honesty of your opinions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're right that I'm not going to change anything I say or do based on this comment. NW (Talk) 19:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi is one of the most helpful, bright, thinking and even mind-reading editors I had the pleasure to know here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have filed a Request for clarification of Remedy 2.2 of WP:ARBRAN, concerning a topic ban placed on User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Since you were a member of ArbCom at the time, any insights you may wish to share about the committee's thinking would be welcome. Thanks. BMK (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I put this on the users page but it was reverted so I'll just diff it here in case you didn't see []. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, NW, you around? I'm pretty sure this isn't sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, for reasons I outline at the SPI. I saw you say, at Alakzi's talk page: "For the record, I am perfectly comfortable with another administrator reversing this block if they feel the behavioral evidence isn't strong enough." But if you're around I'd like to discuss for a minute or two first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm on mobile for the next few hours but should be on my laptop again soon after. If we can't connect in four hours go ahead and unblock. NW (Talk) 23:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to be around in 4 hours - need my beauty sleep - so we won't be able to connect then. I'd love to try to straighten this out before then, as I'm probably off-wiki much of tomorrow. Let me see what Mike V says from his CU, but I'm probably going to unblock unless there's a surprise. If I end up wrong you can laugh and point at me and I'll owe you a beer. OK? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, won't be a straight unblock for Alakzi, will talk first, as he/she does seem to have gone over the edge a little. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at it a little more I can totally see how I misinterpreted the evidence to see what I was expecting to see. I was very unhappy with the rape comparison and made my interpretation of the editing histories fit what I expected. Your explanation is a lot more rational than mine. Feel free to work it out and then unblock. I'm still on mobile and I'm not fully clear what I'm next going to be on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 02:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

?

Hi NW, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakzi just came to my attention and I felt obliged to comment, although I'm quite short on time at the moment. I've participated, briefly, in the move discussion that started all of the current drama, and am familiar with the users involved. I was surprised to see an SPI started (by the author of the essay in question, who was going to essentially get his way on the matter in any case), not very surprised to see the discussion there escalate, and shocked to see a WP:NOTHERE block of a productive editor who is obviously feeling distressed, frustrated, and railroaded by the way he has been treated recently. Yes, the comments at the SPI are over the top, but to call someone who's been a productive member of the community for months "not here" because he made inappropriate comments in a frustrating situation is entirely wrong, and does not seem to have come from a thorough understanding of the context. (For one thing, just look at the history of the article the two users collaborated on - the sock thing is clearly specious.)

Honestly, this is the first situation I've encountered since returning to Wikipedia this past January in which I felt this uncomfortable with the way another user was treated. If I had the time right now to manage the resulting potential drama I may well have unblocked already. (edit conflict) after getting distracted IRL with this window open for while Oh, I'm glad to see others have stopped by with similar comments; I should be around 4-6 hours from now and will follow up then if things haven't been sorted out. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Response to all

I apologize for the mess that's been made. I'm back home now (though about to go to bed) and have had a chance to review everything in a little more detail. I think that Dirtlawyer is right: I definitely overreacted to that post; read Alakzi not trying to get involved further as being sneaky and evasive; read the edit war over WP:ROPE as something that only a troll would do. Someone mentioned that it reminded them of a now-banned and un-CheckUserable individual acted—I had been thinking exactly that. All the warning signs after that seemed like they were pointing in the same direction. It appears that I was very wrong, and I wanted to apologize for the overly hasty administrative block, User:Alkazi.

To whomever asked about the block length: even absent the sockpuppetry suspicion, the block would have been of indefinite duration as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Indefinite blocks. NW (Talk) 03:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you NW. Pssst, fix the ping, username is typo'd :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's also addressed to only one of the two editors who were wrongly blocked; and in any case the apologies should be made on their respective talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a red link any spelling. Do red-link user page owners get a ping, anyway? - Ping or not, perhaps an apology on the user's talk would be a good idea? Not for the user but as a clarification for others who look there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I had rather poor access for a while and then stayed mostly away from Wikipedia following my vacation. Both of them should have received an email from me, but I'll drop them a talk page note now. NW (Talk) 22:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Medical Common Sense is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Common Sense until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Citizens United. Since you had some involvement with the Citizens United redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

you were the Admin who deleted the former article with regard to Alexander-Martin Sardina due to the author's request back in 2009. Reading the article in the German project [Alexander-Martin Sardina], I now wonder how I can import it to the English project in order to translate it? As far as I am informed, it's not allowed to translate it directly as a new article in the English-speaking Wikipedia project, is it? Can you help me with this task, please?

Cheers --Alsterdrache (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alsterdrache: If you feel the individual meets the notability criteria on the English Wikipedia, please do. I'm not entirely familiar with the translation process, but I think Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects should be enough to get you started. NW (Talk) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I was looking through the article-history for anyone that may have an interest in this page, and noticed that you previously closed an AfD discussion in 2009. There's a bit of history of promotional, conflicted editing that I'm hoping to remedy, as well as general improvements. Was hoping you might be able to take a look here. As I have a financial connection with Smartsheet, I am proposing my changes on the Talk page. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for making your proposal on the talk page rather than implementing it directly. I would rather that someone else took a look, so I would suggest posting at WP:COIN if you want to get an outside eye on it sooner. Best, NW (Talk) 15:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting all the pointless redirects I made in the past. Now that I'm older and understand this site better, I will never make unlikely redirects again. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, glad to help. NW (Talk) 00:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c · ping in reply) 20:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

NuclearWarfare,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 14:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

The amendment request for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Amendment request: American politics 2 (January 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You recently closed an AE Appeal by myself regarding Electronic Cigarettes. Part of the rationale of the AE was given by EdJohnston as

"People who are still coming up the learning curve on Wikipedia should stay away from troubled areas. Up till now E-cig has been the only area he works in. So I'd make the topic ban from electronic cigarettes indefinite"

I would like to know where in Wikipedia this is delineated out as a rule, or something that should be enforced?? I do not believe it exists. Ironically Electronic Cigarettes are not even listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Current_areas_of_conflict
As you read in my Appeal EdJohnston put this out in TALK, and it was something that I had to respond to, if I were to be granted

AE is open to all, but it would be more effective to get proper discussions going here. Anyone who has been following the threads here for a week or more could have something useful to say. User:Mystery Wolff, per your talk page "..I want to make sure that I am on the same level playing field as everyone else". if you want to have a level playing field it might help if you would give us a hint of why you created your account on 19 November with apparently no prior Wikipedia edits but much knowledge of the arb case, just to edit regarding electronic cigarettes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why I had to go through the process to explain I was not a sockpuppet in the talk pages? Can you explain why after repeated attempts to get EdJohnston to explain which edits deserved an indefinite Topic Ban, that it is he never responded. Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions Why is it that EdJohnston is devoid of that responsibility? Though it may be uncomfortable for any Admin to be critical of any other Admin, I need to get some answers, because of the ambiguity left by EJ constant and continuing refusals to explain his actions. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: I am going to go ahead and ask you to remove your closure of my Appeal. The discussion at ARCA is ongoing. At least one other editor who was involved with my request for an RfC, which was being done prior to the Topic Ban that is being appeal, has stated they wanted to comment on the Appeal. There are other editors like Doc James who is an editor of the section, which deals with the specific items of primary and secondary sourced information within MEDRS citations, and is a frequent editor of the articles, who may want to give their views, before the appeal is closed. Again as said in the Appeal itself prior to your closure, there is no time crunch to cross it off the list. Other editors may not be as frequently checking Wikipedia as you are. Please let me know, and if you are able to respond to the questions above also. Thanks Mystery Wolff (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I read your posts. A number of people have told you why your behavior has not been acceptable. I thought about trying to write out a whole thing as to why they are correct, but to be honest, if you haven't gotten it you just aren't going to . I am not going to be able to tell you anything that they haven't already. If any administrator wants to ask me to reopen the request I'm happy to but I'll be blunt: no one will. NW (Talk) 21:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, the entire point has been what about my edits are a problem. I have not edit warred, though yes I have edited. If you could explain it, why wouldn't you? Shouldn't Admin's be able to explain their role, when asked? Why take action when your stance seems to be TLDR. You seem to be reviewing my objection to the AE, and the topic ban, rather than the conduct in question. Be as blunt as you want, but at least be decent enough to look at the edits in question, being part of a scorched earth policy is not what WP guideline suggest, and I don't think you judiciously used your admin authority well when pushing the button. You can not even explain your rush to close. You won't even explain my edits, that are being appealed, what part of them were at such issue. Why? Mystery Wolff (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Ed's topic ban was to get you away from an area where you are confrontational, uncollaborative, and unwilling to understand where your edits flout key content policy regarding sourcing and appropriate weight. Literally no administrator reviewing your edits has been able to find any indication that you have changed on understanding that. I saw that you violated your topic ban by commenting at AE today. Please stop. Find a different topic area. If you haven't understood how your edits have violated the policies that were repeatedly pointed out to you at the original AE requests, then you aren't going to understand until you let time understand. NW (Talk) 23:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, you characteritzation of what you think EdJohnston did, is not reflected in the AE or what he said. While I believe that you took a very cursory examination of whether you thought EdJohnston was an involved editor, before you closed the appeal, I have very little confidence you did much else. You responses here really do show that also. The appeal had admins talking about EdJohnston's involvement or lack thereof, but did not speak to the rest of the appeal itself or specifically which edits of mine would give rise to how now you characterize them.
My edits that were raised were concerning the removal of a single sentence where a one off primary source made claims that Smoke residues were similar to Vapor residues. Obviously the differences between the artificats created by combustion are far different. AlbinoFerret removed the study which was the follow-up to the one cited, which confirmed that Nicotine was not found to be any greater in the homes of non-users compared to vapers. That study was presented to the FDA at a workshop that has an available transcript which I was in the process of getting, in order to replace it. At the time of my TB, I was continuing a discussion in TALK about this, setting up a RFC with the help of Kingsindian, concerning MEDRS sourcing. I honestly do not believe you are going to say that in your review you were aware of any of these items. Correct.
You claim there are a host of editors that have problems edits, when that again is not the case, as the AE did not have editors of the articles speaking to it beyond AlbinoFerret. As have learned since your closing of the Appeal, Albinoferret was to be topic banned, and a vote with many many editors had that as the outcome. Instead the admins let him stay, provided he topic ban himself. After which he came back and went to all the same practices. He opened 4 AEs on editors within 40 days. And went to Admins doing pre-work canvasing for those AE. The against CFCF, you will find that many of are the view that AlbinoFerret is gaming AE to get his POV in, and avoiding using TALK, or taking advantage of AEs to get his way in talk. The Admins left that editor in the mix, and they found me as I started to edit on Wikipedia.
I don't view Wikipedia as some sort of Playstation game. Finding another area at the for the convenience of admins who don't want to review the cases, and be fast to nuke editors is a problem for every article. I have spent a lot of time putting in good edits, edits that remain, and have had other edits removed for stated agendas. You will notice that S Marshall, is unhappy with the construction of the article and has removed MEDRS sourced information because he wants to make the Wikipedia something for high-school students to read before the pick up an e-cig. He says it over and over, and has said it as recently as the AE you just referenced.
A topic ban for editors who are actively using TALK to talk about edits, and not edit warring....is outrageous and unconscionable. Are you familiar with the learning's from the Stanford Prison Experiment? You are in the loop. As I said, you closed the Appeal before it could be heard full, it was rushed for not reason, and you certainly are evidencing a lack of familiarity with the nature of the appeal itself, including not knowing what the cause of the Topic Ban was. Nuclear Warfare and rush to push a button, has never been known to be wise or good thing, herein that error was made. Mystery Wolff (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieving a deleted diff

?

Response to all

Retrieving a deleted diff

?

Response to all

Protection level change

Help

Ravi Zacharias

Manuel Cajuda

Redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

Indef semi

WP:AE

Move like this

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Askahrc

Sock puppets (from 2010)

Arbitration request motion passed

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Mupen64

Opinion needed

FYI

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pseudoscience sanctions

ANI thread check

Hey Nuke...

Appeal

Abortion vs. termination of pregnancy

Please review

Eurasian Treecreeper

Disarm the nuke;

Template:Actinium protection?

Request for comment

Notification

Thanks for the close

Right back at it

Unprotect 10:10 page?

2023 Rugby World Cup

Request for Advice

Balance

Orphaned non-free image File:Commercial Providence.jpg

Say, Random Administrator...

WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos

John Richards (radio personality)

Michele Adamson

User talk:MediaWiki default

Vote

PANDAS

Talk:Sexually transmitted disease#Requested move (2014)

OA

Responding to your note

The World Water Organization

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

Request for guidance

Brandon cooper

Open Requested Move that needs an uninvolved admin

Central log for all sanctions

Significant finding generator

You topic banned this user, hes back at it

Mentioned you in an ANI thread

Mark-blocked script

List of locations in Once Upon a Time

La goutte de pluie

Very strange bug from a user-script of yours

Mark-blocked script marking globally locked users?

Please snow close ISIL move request

I need to get in touch with nattyrbumpo about hisncherokee wars article

Regarding Fernando Otero's article - your edit in August 2011

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

My RfA

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

Sarah Palin

Alakzi

ANI

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Request for clarification of an ArbCom decision you participated in

Reccomendations

Nomination of Medical Common Sense for deletion

Citizens United listed at Redirects for discussion

ArbCom elections are now open!