NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) →Help needed: reply |
Nothughthomas (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
VASCO - --[[User:VascoAmaral|Vasco Amaral]] ([[User talk:VascoAmaral|talk]]) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
VASCO - --[[User:VascoAmaral|Vasco Amaral]] ([[User talk:VascoAmaral|talk]]) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Hi Vasco. I have moved the page back per your request. Hope everything looks good now. Best wishes, <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
:Hi Vasco. I have moved the page back per your request. Hope everything looks good now. Best wishes, <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Problem with Block Shopping== |
|||
I'm really having a very serious issue with User:antiuser. Despite my best efforts he is engaged in lobbying many multiple users against me, as a result of the speedy deletion of a UFO conspiracy article he was engaged in. He's working overtime to flood admin Talk pages with every conceivable complaint and I simply don't have the bandwidth to keep up and jump from page to page to page, 24/7, defending myself. I have no doubt that, if you shop around to enough admins eventually you can get anyone banned on wikipedia. I think my days here are likely numbered and I'm at a loss of what to do. I think an ANI complaint would simply make matters worse as it would lead to more lobbying and "block shopping" and I don't want to reply in kind by "block shopping" because I don't think it's contributive to a positive environment. [[User:Nothughthomas|Nothughthomas]] ([[User talk:Nothughthomas|talk]]) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:58, 3 February 2010
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
page on Green
hi i understand that the page on the colour Green is semi protected
can i edit the article?
i want to add a comics/entertainment section for the colour green and some more stuff on camouflage as well
wondering when i can edit the article. Iureor (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I would highly advise discussing your changes on the talk page first. Green is a good article, which generally means it is pretty comprehensive and well-structured. But as for actually editing the article, you can do so any time, as I have just added a permission to your account that would allow you to do so before the normal time. NW (Talk) 12:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Who do you imagine they might discuss the matter with on that talk page. There has been no activity there for 6 months, and little activity on the article for the same time period. It's a 'good article' which means that it didn't make the grade for 'featured article' but yet was good enough that everyone has abandoned it to it's fate. Looking at the article I would venture to suggest that in this case 'good' means 'could do better'. Discussion on the talk page shouldn't be necessary before editing this article in good faith as the article does not belong to anyone who might take a look at that talk page. Weakopedia (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wrad and Keraunos, the primary authors of the page, are both still active on Wikipedia and presumably still watch the page. As restructuring the article is a fairly major change, it is always nice to get consensus first. NW (Talk) 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thanks for that Iureor (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Mexicali
Hi NW, just to inform that user Talpis is using a second sockpuppet in the Mexicali article, check this Special:Contributions/Geluk17. Cheers.--Jcmenal (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Eastern Front image
You removed the image under a wrong pretext. The policy says "no free equivalent", not "no free substitute". The image you removed has no free equivalent, so the fact that it can be substituted with something else has no relation to what the policy says. I believe it would be correct if you to reverted your edit and restored a stable version until consensus is achieved.
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I have reverted back to an older revision for now. As for if the image should belong in the infobox, I believe that is a matter better suited for the article talk page. NW (Talk) 01:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You continued to revert after the page was protected. You should not have done this. Even if we ignore the fact that the image does not meet the NFCC, it should not be there. This is really not on. You have really, really crossed the line here. I advise you fix this. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, not only did I self-revert, but I reverted to the version before the edit war, which is clearly allowed per WP:PREFER. Further discussion of this can take place on the talk page. NW (Talk) 12:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It became an edit war when the image was added back for no good reason. This is semantics. I stand by what I said, I feel your continued reversion was wholly inappropriate. You know as well as I do that that image should not be there; being polite and giving everyone a chance to be right for ten minutes can go to hell... J Milburn (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I need an admin to take a look at this, if you have a minute.
Hi, could you please take a look at Talk:David Lewis Anderson and User talk:Nothughthomas and tell me if I'm way off base here? This is the first time I get this sort of reaction from a fellow editor and I don't really know what to say/do. I feel bad since it seems they've given up on WP, but I don't feel like I was wrong regarding the CSD discussion. Please do let me know. XXX antiuser eh? 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I really don't have time to take a detailed look at this. Could you ask on WP:ANI please? Thanks. NW (Talk) 03:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, I went ahead and did that. XXX antiuser eh? 07:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov
Hi, I notice that you have closed the debate as "No consensus, default to delete per subject request." Is there actually an WP policy which takes the views of a BLP subject into account? Varsovian (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yep; you can see it at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Biographies of living people. NW (Talk) 15:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply.Varsovian (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Help needed
Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,
No, no vandal(s) now, but i think your valuable assistance is needed. Some user (DEFINITELY a fan of the club due to his username) moved a page, needlessly enlarging Gimnàstic de Tarragona (Spanish soccer club)'s name. It now stands Club Gimnàstic de Tarragona S.A.D. and i would like to have it reinstated in its previous denomination, if you please.
Example: it's like having an article as such: instead of BARACK OBAMA, then BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (and to add insult to injury, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA Phd, that's superfluous). In the case of the football club i mentioned, S.A.D. stands for Sociedad Anónima Deportiva (Spanish for Anonymous Sporting Society), that is highly uneeded in an article's name and, besides, the full name is mentioned (as in 99,99999999% of other clubs, not 100% because this user "ruined" the average) in INTRO, so, in this club, Gimnàstic de Tarragona would suffice, methinks. Also, it has created a number of needless redirects now, and, in the future, when creating more players for this club, it will take a lot longer because of the enlarged name of the club.
Attentively, from Portugal,
VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Vasco. I have moved the page back per your request. Hope everything looks good now. Best wishes, NW (Talk) 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Problem with Block Shopping
I'm really having a very serious issue with User:antiuser. Despite my best efforts he is engaged in lobbying many multiple users against me, as a result of the speedy deletion of a UFO conspiracy article he was engaged in. He's working overtime to flood admin Talk pages with every conceivable complaint and I simply don't have the bandwidth to keep up and jump from page to page to page, 24/7, defending myself. I have no doubt that, if you shop around to enough admins eventually you can get anyone banned on wikipedia. I think my days here are likely numbered and I'm at a loss of what to do. I think an ANI complaint would simply make matters worse as it would lead to more lobbying and "block shopping" and I don't want to reply in kind by "block shopping" because I don't think it's contributive to a positive environment. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)