User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 11

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.

I've changed the "no permission" tag to a "no license" tag on this image as it seems to accurately reflect the status of the image. Users don't need to grant themselves permission to upload their own images. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. When I first started tagging images, I think I misunderstood the difference between the two, but is is nice to know that someone is looking my work over. Thank you, NW (Talk) 21:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NW for the template explanation. No malice or vandalism is intended, but rather due to my ignorance of the wiki and all of it's intricacies. I try to learn as much as I can and conform to wiki standards, but sometimes for novices, mistakes and not knowing where and how to find the answers are difficult.

For example I would be happy to use the merge template as you described, but the reason why I did not use it was because I didn't want to merge the contents of the old page with the new page. I wanted to delete the contents and redirect. I did not know how to do this. I looked around for a proper template, but could not find a template that would allow one to delete contents of an old page, in other words, blank it out, then enter a redirect to a new and better page. Merge to me is defined by combining the contents of two or more objects. This is something I did not want to do.

If there is a template that specifically states something like "the contents of this page will be deleted and title redirected to a more appropriate page" without having the contents merged together, I could not find one or figure out how to do this. Others tell me to "look there" or "read this" but nothing I could find allowed me to do what I wanted to do. Thus I used the "speedy deletion template with reason" template. That one seemed to explain what I intended to do, very clearly. My apologies if this is disturbing to you, but again no malice or vandalism was intended.

I think the difficultly that I experienced is common. I wish there was a mechanism in the wiki such as a template director that would tell you what template to use when you want to do something rather than the user trying to find one that is appropriate to the situation. Huo Xin (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I do know that that the template situation is a bit crazy, and I too wish that there was an easier way to learn all of this. I just had one question. Do you want the title of the page to be a new page, with the content all the same, or do you want to take parts of one article and move it to another article? It is the former, use the "Move" button next to the History tab at the top of the page, and change the name of the page to the title you want. If it is the latter, then simply copy and paste the link of the article in your edit summary, and copy/paste the specific section/content to the appropriate article (see Wikipedia:Merging). I hope this helps; if not, feel free to ask me for a clarification. NW (Talk) 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply NW, that info was very informative. However, I had created a new page and did not want to utilize anything from the old page since the information there was already covered in the new page. I just wanted to delete or blank out the contents of the old page and redirect it to the new one. You may know this already, but in the Chinese language, spoken Chinese, Mandarin, or Cantonese or what ever dialect, is tonal based and not phonetic. In other words, words such as Choy can be written as Choi; or Li as Lee, Lei or Lay, or Lai.... because the pronounciation of the word cannot really be written using the English language very effectively. Attempts such as Yale and Giles tried to standardize Chinese using the english alphabet, but have not been too effective. Another example, the word "tai chi chuan" can be spelled as "taijiquan" and mean the same thing. So from my perspective I did not see any wrong doing in what I did. Basically Choi Lei Fut can be written Choy Li Fut or in Mandarin Cai Li Fo, the contents were already listed in the new page so no merging or moving was needed. Just a blanking a redirect. Thank you again for taking the time in explaining how the move function works. I will try and remember and utilize it in the future. Huo Xin (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Could you just make a note in the edit history of the page (making a small edit) remarked where the page from? That is necessary to maintain copyright issues with the Creative Commons license. NW (Talk) 22:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi NuclearWarfare, I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and I have a question considering the copyright status of images. I have a book that was published in 1976 (not in the public domain), but it contains pictures from as far back as the 1800s. Are these images in the public domain? Jujutacular (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If these images were first published (published, not merely created) in the 1800s, then yes, they would be in the public domain. If the images were first published sometime in the 1900s, I think I would have to know more information about the images before proceeding. NW (Talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The book is "Heritage of the Creve Coeur Area" by Gloria Dalton, published by the City of Creve Coeur (Amazon). The images are listed as being obtained from various historical societies, but no indication as to whether they had ever been published before. Jujutacular (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I would put both a public domain license as well as a notice for fair use, with the explanation: "I believe that the images are in the public domain, but if they are not, the following fair use rationale applies:" NW (Talk) 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 12:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I say "delete" cuz is not a single. --190.29.157.129 (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not really sure what you mean by that. Do you think you could explain further? (If not, you could list the article at WP:AFD to try to get wider community input on keeping or deleting the article). NW (Talk) 20:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

On July 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nikita Zotov, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On July 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The All-Joking, All-Drunken Synod of Fools and Jesters, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 00:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi NW, you wrote me recently about the legality of this photo. I was given explicit permission, but I don't have a record of this. I am working on this and hope you will not delete the photo yet. I understand your concern and will see how I can address the matter. I have been out of town and just saw this. Eperotao (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if not deleting the image can be done. However, what I would advise you to do is save a copy of the image on to your computer, and then attempt to obtain written permission and send it to OTRS. NW (Talk) 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am determined to get this list to Featured status before retiring from Avatar-related Wikipedia articles for good. Since I was not pivotal in passing any of the episode lists, I was wondering if you had any more suggestions for the character list, since you have more experience with the Featured List process. (Quite frankly, I think that the current reception section is the best we can make considering the absolute lack of reviews available to read from.) Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that right now, the best thing that we could do, seeing as we have included all the information we can, is to properly format the citations, give it several run-troughs for spelling, grammar, cohesiveness, flow, etc., and possibly send it through peer review. I'll start as soon as I can with the article. NW (Talk) 13:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really remember why I visited your talk page, but while I'm here: Please try to make User:NuclearWarfare/Menu compatible with non-monobook skins. I can't access my watchlist from your talkpage (I use Modern), see here. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure it's a problem with the menu? I can access it just fine in Modern skin (tested in Firefox, IE and Chrome). Regards SoWhy 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It didn't work in the old version of Firefox on Linux I used this morning, but on this computer, it works. Weird. (Oh, and I'm sure it didn't work; there was something invisible overlaid over the "watchlist" etc links that covered the upper, but not the lower half of the "user page", "discussion" etc. links). On this computer, it only becomes a problem at certain (larger) font sizes. Kusma (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems I am in the same boat as SoWhy on this one. What resolution is your Linux machine that you used this morning set at? NW (Talk) 21:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1600x1200, and the problem is still there (Firefox 1.5 on Debian). Kusma (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't even have access to Linux or that big of a monitor. I don't know if I could really fix that. Is there any way that you could give it a shot? NW (Talk) 14:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a problem with the monitor, rather with Firefox 1.5. I went ahead and fixed it (and tidied the code). See here). Hope you don't mind, it should work again now, at least in my Firefox 1.5 it did. Regards SoWhy 21:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! NW (Talk) 22:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It works now, thanks SoWhy! Kusma (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your message on my talk page about copyright status of File:Westpac_weather_beacon.jpg. I wasn't sure how to label it. I put on the information page that I cropped it from another verified Wikipedia image. What's the appropriate way to label it? SDC (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the image that you cropped it from is licensed under CC-BY-3.0, I think you should probably keep it under the same license. However, I think it is allowed for you relicense it under anything that keeps the attribution requirements. NW (Talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All the needed information is at the file description. Which license should I tag it with when it's MY OWN WORK? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagged... hope it's fine. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that is great! In the future, the licensing it with {{GFDL-self}}, {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}, {{CC-BY-3.0}}, {{Attribution}} or {{PD-self}}, or any combination of the above would probably be your best bet. Hope that helps, NW (Talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you are using my script, and I thought I would let you know that I have split the script into two, namely User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js and User:Plastikspork/date.js. If you would like to use both, you can just add importScript('User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js'); and importScript('User:Plastikspork/date.js'); to your monobook.js. Alternatively, if you are only using the date formatting buttons, you can just add the date.js script. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, bug reports, suggestions, requests, or really anything. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Plastikspork. NW (Talk) 21:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at QuantumEleven's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The copyright owner is listed in the image description (Masten Space Systems) - it was uploaded by a MSS employee, and they uploaded it with GFDL. How is this a copyright question? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

On File:XA-0.1.jpg, I saw nothing to suggest that User:Jongoff was either an employee of the MSS, or that they uploaded it under the GFDL (I saw only a vague "Permission"). Was there anything that I missed, by any chance? NW (Talk) 21:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that Jon Goff is in fact a MSS employee. You can look up his blog and the MSS website if you have any questions...

As for the GFDL - hmm, you might be right, I'll ask him to verify the permission on it. I thought I saw it, but on re-re-reading I see what you mean there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Do you want me to remove the delete tag on the image? I trust that you could go back to it and update it once the permission issue is settled. NW (Talk) 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ben Brockert, who I can personally confirm is another MSS employee, updated the image file (official MSS release with CC-SA) and removed the tag from the article. Should be all taken care of now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good then :) NW (Talk) 00:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't nominate Unites States v. Adams et al. for deletion because of the "et al." -- did you notice the spelling of "Unites States"?  :-) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I fail. :-) NW (Talk) 23:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TB #2 A More Perfect Onion (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

repl3 A More Perfect Onion (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Phase two of outline integration (de-orphanizing outlines by adding links leading to them into article see also sections) is nearly complete. The better that outlines are integrated into the encyclopedia, the more use they will be to readers.

Due to greater exposure through outline integration, and with most of the OOK team on school summer vacation, development activity on outlines has increased a lot...

New members

Be sure to welcome our newest members to the team:

• Tiamut
• Mandsford

News: Outline of Palestine survives AfD

The outline was nominated for deletion for being too general in scope. The consensus was overwhelmingly for keeping it.

The most memorable comment was posted by Mandsford: I like the poetic name, anyway. [Outline of Palestine]. "Master Plan of Pakistan" and "Rough Sketch of Bangladesh" would be good too.

Special thanks to Tiamut for greatly improving the outline, and helping to save it from AfD.

To keep track of outline AfDs and other outline-related discussions, see WP:OOKDISC.

Who's active on Wikipedia this summer?

Courtesy of Rich Farmbrough, here's a list of editors by their edit counts over the previous month (8th June to 8th July).

It would be nice to get the most prolific Wikipedians involved with WP:WPOOK. If you can, find a good reason to contact one or more of them, and invite them to work on a relevant outline - or all 500!

Who's been up to what?

• Buaidh, Highfields, and Gimme danger have been working on the government sections of the country outlines. Being that there are about 240 of these, with critical information being filled in on each, this is by far the hardest and most important chore of this WikiProject right now.
• Penubag is working on a redesign of the top OOK page.
• Tiamut has done an incredible job developing the Outline of Palestine.
• And kudos also go to Eu.stefan for his work on Outline of Buddhism.

Thank you.

Here's what else has been going on...

New outlines

Recently created outlines include:

• Outline of England - TT
• Outline of Scotland - TT
• Outline of Buddhism - Eu.stefan
• Outline of ancient Greece - TT

Recently converted to outlines

These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format and added to the OOK:

• Outline of the Vietnam War - was "List of Vietnam War-related topics" - TT
• Outline of combinatorics - was "List of combinatorics topics" - converted by Minnecologies
• Outline of category theory - was "List of category theory topics" converted by Minnecologies
• Outline of scientific method - was "List of scientific method topics" - TT
• Outline of ancient Rome - was "List of topics related to ancient Rome" - TT

Recently merged into outlines

There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following articles have been recently merged into OOK pages:

• List of finance topics into Outline of finance - TT
• List of England-related topics into Outline of England - TT

Outlines that have been tagged

Tags are requests to fix a problem or improve an article in a particular way. Unless we want the tags to sit there for an extended period of time cluttering up the outlines (we don't), it is up to us to fulfill those requests or attend to underlying misassumptions (if any).

• Outline of literature - tagged as Original research
• Outline of ancient Greece - tagged as under construction
• Outline of mathematics - tagged as in need of attention from an expert
• Outline of arithmetic - tagged as not citing any references or sources.
• Outline of immunology - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of organic chemistry - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of psychology - tagged as in need of attention from an expert on the subject
• Outline of family and consumer science - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of energy storage - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of nuclear technology - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of ergonomics - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of construction - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of machines - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of free software - tagged as an orphan
• Outline of design - tagged as containing original research or unverified claims, and needing references or sources
• Outline of automobiles - tagged as an orphan

I can't stress enough the importance of watching

With so many outlines (now over 500), and a growing number of support pages (guidelines, wikiproject pages, etc.), I can no longer keep up. I need your help watching over it all.

If you'd like to omnisciently view everything "from above", see this page:

• WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.

Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):

• WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
• WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
• WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.

What's next?

There are a lot of contradictions in guidelines related to outlines. I'll be turning my attention to fixing those.

The number of "Outline of" articles is rapidly catching up to portals, and will probably pass them by the end of the summer!

Keep up the excellent work.

The Transhumanist 00:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember how we were going to collab on USS Massachusetts (BB-59)? Well, now it's going to be under the Spotlight for the week of 1 August. Feel like lending a hand? ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 05:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I'll do what I can, although this caught me by surprise at a time when I am about to receive a major project for something else. I'll do my best though! NW (Talk) 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey NuclearWarfare. Could you take another look at Brisingr and provide some comments at the peer review? Thanks, Theleftorium 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer review has never really been my thing, actually. I will be happy to copyedit the article for you, though of course I would have to recuse myself from reviewing the GAN. NW (Talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just wait and see if I get some comments on the peer review then. :) Theleftorium 16:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Has run to 7 days, and needs to be closed.

The Transhumanist 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, as a matter of fact, and I don't think this is clear-cut enough for a non-admin closure to stick. Try Juliancolton though; he is probably online now. NW (Talk) 02:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You're not an admin? And all this time I thought you were!

If I nominated you for adminship, would you accept? The Transhumanist 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha.

And at this time, I don't think I would. If you are interested, here is a link to my disastrous first RfA. I have cleaned up my act since, but I was still thinking about doing at least some decent content work before running again. But thank you for the offer! NW (Talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, you are quite correct. I have responded to your comment, I hope that this may alleviate some concern. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there, but thank you for following up with me. NW (Talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Lost Years of Merlin.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, Mr. BJBot ;) NW (Talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

...to award Buaidh for all his hard work.

It's at User:Penubag/Sandbox3.

But it's not done yet. Feel free to help improve it.

I'm hoping that everyone involved with the WP:WPOOK will sign it (please sign without a timestamp).

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at JHvW's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Getting to what you left on the Senate article's FAC, how does one show that copyright was not renewed? I have an image coming from the California State Archives, that was taken by their centennial commission in 1950 and it shows Nixon and his campaign station wagon. According to correspondence in the file there, images were sold for fifty cents each then. I doubt very strongly anyone renewed those copyrights, the images have just been sitting in the archives for almost sixty years. They are scanning it for me, and they said it was my responsibility to determine copyright.

Also, I found another image, taken in 1940, in an archives. No indication who took it. What can I do with it?

Thanks for your advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I am not 100% confident with my advice, and my image review at FAC was at least partially based on Awadewit telling me what she had done with image reviews in the past, I have asked her to comment here. She is much more experienced on this matter than 99.9% of editors, so I think it is best if we just wait for her. NW (Talk) 04:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Investigating whether or not something has had its copyright renewed takes some time and effort (and sometimes money). Here are a few sites on the web that give good advice on how to do so: Library of Congress and UPenn. What else can you tell me about the 1940 image? Awadewit (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not post it. It is from the Jerry Voorhis archives at Claremont, and in one of the folders on the 1938 (my bad) campaign, there's a photo of a trailer to be towed behind a car, with legends and photos on the trailers endorsing Voorhis and the Democratic candidates for governor and senator as well. Nothing written or printed on the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can show this is an orphan work, you might be able to upload it. Otherwise, not - it is not old enough. See Commons:Licensing for an explanation of the dates. Awadewit (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, am I correct in assuming business cards, letterhead, and printed return addresses on envelopes are not copyright (nothing fancy, just print)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming they are just non-artistic font, yes. Awadewit (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I felt it very likely to be a hoax because it was supposedly discovered in 1845 but little research has been done. I apologize if I was in error. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem! All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've added three new images to the article from the Nixon library, an envelope, a matchbook and a business card and would be grateful if you'd redo the image check to be sure we are all good on these.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

✓ 'Done'! :-) NW (Talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm reasonably certain that generic business cards are not copyrightable, since all they do is contain information as per a telephone directory. And I don't see a government envelope being copyrightable. It's a work of the federal government!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that does make sense for business cards, but since they are bit more complex than the average {{pd-ineligible}} case, I figured it is best to develop a mini-consensus. And, well, technically, it could have been a campaign worker unaffiliated with the House of Representatives who made that envelope, right? Then it wouldn't be in the public domain, or at least I wouldn't think so. NW (Talk) 16:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so; the frank is printed on the envelope, so it had to be government work. You can't use a frank for campaign material. Though what is interesting about that is the address to Pomona and Los Angeles being crossed out. Pomona was in Nixon's congressional district, not Douglas's. Douglas, or her office, was probably playing a little fast and loose with the rules there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I was unaware that you couldn't use the franking privilege for campaigning; I thought people did that all the time. And that is quite an interesting historical tidbit there. NW (Talk) 16:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by –Juliancolton | ^Talk at 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NW! I hope the upcoming August is a good one for you. I've converted two small sets of notes into prose. What do you think so far? I will be tackling the rest tomorrow. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have made these fixes; check them out and try to incorporate what you have done into the writing. NW (Talk) 00:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Gunmetal Angel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, thank you for your message [1]. I nominated this for speedy as an IP. I found the subject non-notable at the least, and a possible hoax, given the dearth of actual support gleaned from Google and Amazon searches; neither author nor books come up. If this is eventually deleted, I will ask that you take a look at the many additions of the subject's name to other articles as a 'notable', as well. Thanks, JNW (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I did not actually search Google; I saw that you had tagged it for A7 and I assumed it was because you believe he is not notable, which publishing ten books seems to at least possibly refute. If this is deleted, you may wish to employ Twinkle's "unlink backlinks" feature, which can be used by going to the deleted page and clicking unlink. NW (Talk) 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

levefland (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is not a real user.

That's because you're missing a letter. Try adding a "C": Clevefland (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) --Calton | Talk 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Nice work there. Who knew how deep it went? --Calton | Talk 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice Calton. I asked J.delanoy to block it, and have tagged the account. And good job to you too, for your work in the spam area and for finding the tip of that sockfarm. NW (Talk) 14:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, some of the arguments were weak, but the basic ideas were good. If you wish to appeal my decision, you may go to deletion review. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

All right then. you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Conrad Murray. NW (Talk) 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey NW. Brisingr got a peer review a few days ago. Do you think its been improved enough since the last nomination? Theleftorium 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly a vast improvement. But as a reviewer the last time, I should recuse myself from performing the GA review and we should get someone completely neutral to do the review. Would you like me to see if I can find someone? NW (Talk) 21:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that'd be great. Theleftorium 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You posted an "I agree" comment on this request. I just wanted to point out that you are agreeing with mis-information posted by the previous editor, in that the edits in question were done on Aug 3, not "months apart" as suggested. The IP in question has shown a history of vandalism (similar to Bambifan101, if you are familiar with that case). We are documenting related edits here -- more made today from a different IP -- if you would like to advise on how best to handle this. Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I believe it is just one person shifting through his range, because the IPs are so similar. If it gets too bad to handle, ask an administrator to semi-protect the articles or block the entire range (83.70.128.0/17). NW (Talk) 16:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We have, and once the articles come out of protection, everything starts anew (and, even when a request is made - such as the one you commented on - it isn't necessarily acted upon).. This has been going on for a much longer period of time than what's in that summary document, hence the sockpuppet request. I'll request perm semi-prot on the range of articles to see if that helps. SpikeJones (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

On August 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Queen of Hearts (poem), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that the episode of Wikivoices in which you created this wasn't available when it was on DYK, it would have been an interesting accompaniment. Long Shrift (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

What would have been even cooler, I think, would be if we could actually put the recording onto the main page. now that might cause up some stirs :)

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure what's holding up the recording. It might be Shoemaker's Holiday's illness, but I'll go check up on that and see if I can't get you a copy posthaste. NW (Talk) 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I read your opinion on my adminship request, and have thought your opinion to be right. However, I do not know how to withdraw my request. Can you help? --Lionelisbest (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I have asked User:Juliancolton, who knows how to archive it properly, to take care it. There should be no problem at all.

And if you ever feel like you need any assistance with Wikipedia and editing, feel free to come to me with questions. NW (Talk) 02:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I sure will if I do need it. Thank you for your kindness. Cheers, --Lionelisbest (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, It's lionel here. I need a little help. Where can I get the codes for some templates to put on my User Page?--Lionelisbest (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you truly want to add userboxes to your user page, check out Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery. I recommend keeping the number down; don't overload your page with them. 21:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's Only actually two I'm interested in putting. Thank you--Lionelisbest (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Contrary to your username, I award you this for being incredibly thoughtful, gentle, and helpful to a new user in your recent suggestions made in RFA comments. I can think of a few million ways that one situation could have gone much worse, but I can think of no ways in which it could have possibly gone better. Well done!    7   talk | Δ |   05:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! NW (Talk) 05:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I left a similar message at Kanonkas's talk page. User:Mynameisstanley appears to be back as an IP according to this recent list of edits ([2]/[3]). Should this be reported as vandalism or would another sockpuppet investigation have to be made? 71.184.38.184 (talk) 09:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I feel like no SPI case would have to be made; just post a note at WP:ANI with links to the SPI case and to the IP's contributions. Thanks for the alert, NW (Talk) 15:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello NW, I have looked up Wikipedias rules about recent news and I am not sure about this article. In Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, read section 4 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

4. News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:News articles

Maybe the article should be renamed something like The LaGuardia Airport Scare, rather than an article about Scott McGann as he is not very notable in history. The event may delay planes from the airport for a few months but in a 100 years time will the event have changed anything? If a law is passed tightening up airport security after this then maybe the article should be on Wikipedia.

Also see Wikipedia:News articles, read Articles in relation to news events:

Articles should not be about events that have strictly passing significance and interest. Events which only garner transitory attention do not merit encyclopedic articles, and may be better suited for news portals such as Wikinews. While it may be difficult to determine whether or not an article's subject will have long lasting significance, articles which clearly do not meet these criteria are likely subjects of only very short-lived usefulness to the readers, and therefore should be considered for either deletion or merger with an appropriate corresponding article on a broader subject (such as merging information about a one-shot news event involving a celebrity with the celebrity's main article). This should be done with due caution, however. Subjects which have already received significant coverage over a period of time, with follow-up stories exploring new information or story angles are demonstrably not of only one-time interest.

And the section Criteria

News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria:

The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate. It might be covered by public debate about airport security, but I doubt many books will be published or documentaries written specifically about this event. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future). Unless a new law is created, I'm not sure whether the article falls in to any of this criteria, maybe it will lead to new or increased safety legislation?

Where a single news wire story or press release has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability discussions. Likewise, when reporters base their information off other news coverage (for example, "AP reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent of each other and can not be used to verify each other. However, if multiple mainstream news outlets do independent reporting on a single event, this is independent coverage.

News items that do not meet the above criteria, but which involve a notable subject should be included in the article about the notable subject, if it can be put in appropriate context there. Where no one subject is an appropriate merge target for the content, it may be better to create a stand-alone article with additional material to appropriately contextualize the content.

It is debatable and you may think I am wrong, which I may well be. But check out these pages then see what you think then.

Thanks, WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 10:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe the article should be renamed something like The LaGuardia Airport Scare, rather than an article about Scott McGann as he is not very notable in history." < Exactly. WP:BLP1E says that if a minorly notable person is notable only for one thing, than any article written about them should be written only in the context of that event. Scott McGann might be a perfect example of something that can be rewritten as 2009 LaGuardia Airport Bomb Hoax. NW (Talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On August 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Penitents Compete, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Jimmy Wales Fundraiser Appeal edit.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 01:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes and Babel boxes of your userpage overlap on my PC (babel boxes get under userboxes boxes). I guess it is a screen resolution issue - 3 columns of Userboxes don't fit into the intended margins on my screen (1024x768, Firefox, XP). Userboxes don't scale properly (fixed pixel width). Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have had that complaint more than once before, and though I tried to fix it last time, it is clear that it won't work. I have decided to just remove that information

Radical solution :) I thought remove babel boxes or putting them all in one table would do, but off course its all yours. Materialscientist (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And of course, I forgot to readd the Babel ones. I have done so, but still kept the other userboxes out. Tell me if this looks fine? NW (Talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What is taking so long to get the audio published? I suspect that the content is being suppressed by some WMF Board and/or Staff member(s) who want to make sure that my counterpoint views are not heard by voters. The election polling window is nearly closed. This session's delay in publication renders it almost worthless to voters. Utterly disappointing. I feel like my time was wasted on an audience of a handful of Board candidates and a few WikiVoices regulars. -- Thekohser 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I have no idea, and I too wish it had been able to come out the Friday before last, before the election actually started. User:Promethean was supposed to do the publishing, as he has the recording, but he has simply vanished. Perhaps you could try getting in touch with him? NW (Talk) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Greg's got a good point. This is an embarrassment. NuclearWarfare and I don't edit audio; we've done all we can. Durova²⁹³ 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This rings true with many things in life, when things don't go to plan, blame someone who isn't around. FYI Shoemaker's Holiday was supposed to be doing the audio editing to fix up the mishaps that occur with audio etc. He renewed this vow several days ago. Shoemakers Holiday has the copy of the audio (unless he deleted it) for all parts required so I'm not sure what is taking so long.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for blaming you; I honestly thought you were doing the editing. My apologies, NW (Talk) 00:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When do you think I can become an admin? AlienX2009 (talk) 05:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the eBay auction is scheduled to close in 46 hours. Dollars and euros accepted via PayPal. Durova²⁹⁴ 05:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Durova, Durova. Tsk, tsk.

In all honestly, AlienX2009, it really depends on you. First off, why do you wish to become an administrator? NW (Talk) 05:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all I don't want users who are writing nonsense on Wikipedia. And a user is harassing me for everything I do because of my user sub space. AlienX2009 (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For the first case, I suggest that you try working with Recent Changes Patrol. Antivandalism is always quite helpful. As for the second, more specific reason, if it is an ongoing problem, I would suggest speaking to an administrator about it. NW (Talk) 02:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

His complaint is about me and the MFD I have for a page he has in the user subspace.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain this one to me please and I am not clear on what happen. I suspect the Goodridence is a sock of one or the other of KevinLeary or LeagueofIreland - but I would say that whichever one isnt the "sockmaster" of Goodridence therefore isnt a sock.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is almost 100% certain that LeagueofIreland, Goodridence, and KevinLeary - all three of them - are the same people. It doesn't really matter which one is tagged as the sockpuppet and who is tagged as the master; for convenience sake, I tagged the first one as the master account. I think I am slightly confused as to your statement; could you please clarify it for me? NW (Talk) 16:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My point is that I dont think all three are sockpuppets. I think Goodridence is a sockpuppet for one of the other two - not sure which one but I dont think the other is a sockpuppet, Was an IP check ran?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser (IP check) was indeed run; that confirmed that the three of them were almost 100% likely to be the same person. NW (Talk) 18:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - that ends my enquiries then.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have it in the photo (File:Downtown Mill Demo 8 July crop signed.jpg.)that I'm the author inbedded in the photo and I post it (and thefore essentailly "signed" by me on wikipedia) therefore I'm not sure how it can't be determined that I own the copyright and can post it. I also noted it in the description as required. Please explain/clairfy for me. Thanks.--Ernest Everett Blevins (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. Since I cannot actually see the image in question (I am not an administrator), let me refer you to two administrators who I trust. Matthew Bisanz or Juliancolton should be able to help you out with this matter. Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Back from holiday Nuke, all I wanted was listen to a recording of the Skypecast of the Wikivoices Board Candidates just before the end of the election. I missed the Skypecast live, I'm missing it now. Ping me when it is up, please (I only know one magic word). Dedalus (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, the Skypecast still isn't up, but I will be sure to let you know when it is. NW (Talk) 18:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Did I do this SPI report right? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheNoNonsenseMan Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it looks good! An administrator should come by to look at it soon; ping me in two days if no one has shown up yet. NW (Talk) 03:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why you did this [4]. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Future MD 217/Archive doesn't help William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, we don't tag IP sockpuppets anymore; only accounts are tagged. NW (Talk) 00:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I made a response to your requests regarding the images used in Ancient Egyptian literature. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I have responded there, but basically: everything is good now. NW (Talk) 02:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An admin confirmed the sockpuppetry issue for TheNononsenseMan. However, nobody has blocked him. What should I do? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The account has been indefinitely blocked. Nothing more needs to be done. Regards, NW (Talk) 02:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for talking on that. My mind is not clear yet, but I'll throw some comments so that you understand my harsh reaction at FAC.

• It is a shame Zotov didn't have a proper page, and your efforts in this direction are more than appreciated.
• It is very difficult for a non-Russian to write a proper (FA) page on Russian history. Not only one has to get access to proper sources (most of which are still not available on internet or/and never translated), but one has to understand the (complex) Russian history as a whole.
• I myself disliked history as a subject for most of my life. I'll try to help as I can, but a russian-speaking humanitarian would be 10 times better here.
• In Russia, Peter I is probably the most popular and important figure of the entire Russian history. Whereas there views on Lenin, etc, differ vastly, Peter is treated apolitically and favorably by most sides. I may not judge whether he was a cruel tyrant or best human of the time, most likely neither, but the issue is sensitive and painting him villain might induce strong opposition, sooner or later. Evidence suggests, whatever cruel he's done (no angel is capable to rule Russia) he had a great sense of humor, so as Zotov.
• As a close friend of Peter, Zotov is well described in Russian literature (not only him, but even his sons). The literature I used in my 1st FAC comments was found in no time on the web (not blogs, but proper articles, copies of Solovyov, etc.). I don't know whether this FAC can be rescued, I guess it depends on others. Finding sources is a technical issue. I feel it is important to quickly brush the style to avoid any potentially conflicting statements (keeping in mind that almost every "fact" there might be corrected later). Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding whether this is salvageable for this current FAC; no need to worry about that. If it is, great, if not, no big deal.

Now, moving onto the sources. As I mentioned in my FAC introduction, I tried to exhaust as best I could both internet sources and my local library network. It is clear that you feel that at least a few points of view from Russian historians, as well as several facts from Russian-only sources, are missing. Could you explain a bit further on that note, and link to where I can find references for these? If they are offline sources, is there any chance that you could scan me those pages? Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So, I looked through the Brockhaus and Efron link, and saw the list of sources down at the bottom. Do you have access to any of those sources by any chance? NW (Talk) 03:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My internet time is fragmented during the day .. Your source coverage would be good in other circumstances, but not for this particular topic .. Brockhaus and Efron is much too brief (even on references) .. I have no access to any russian library (live abroad), but I'll look on the web, very soon. I'm still mulling whether or not google translation will be illegible. Try Brockhaus and Efron page and see for yourself (seems better than I thought). I am afraid this is the most realistic option (I can give russian pages, and check questionable points, but its too much work to translate them manually - e.g., that Solovyov's page was rather long). BTW, you'll need to decide when the teaching of Peter started (i.e. choosing the sources). So far, it seems 1677. I'll try to give my opinion (on the sources). Materialscientist (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, 1677 seems like it makes far more sense with the timeline of Peter's life (After 1683, he was away from the Krelim and his sister I believe, hanging out at Preobrazhenskoye), but seemingly reputable sources do say 1683. Would it be acceptable to just cut mentions of 1683 from the article?

I incorporated Brockhaus and Efron as best I could with Google Translate, and I think I squeezed all useful information from that particular source. As for Russian sources, I do know someone who is a native Russian speaker who might be willing to help, so I will do the best that I can with any links/scans that you can send me. NW (Talk) 04:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the day was gone to find copyright-compatible pictures of Zotov. I've put them into the article, please double check copyright issues (assuming I'm right on all dates, those come from russian sources). Regarding start of teaching, most sources suggest 1677. Some refs (full ref can be extracted later):

• S. M. Solovyov, History of russia from antiquity (my translation), vol. 16, chapter 3 Соловьев Сергей Михайлович "История России с древнейших времен" 1866 - heavy reading. History, not about Zotov in particular. Search for Зотов or Zotov to find bits on his sons.
• ibid, Vol. 16, chapter 1
• ibid, Vol. 14, chapter 2
• ibid, Vol. 14, chapter 3
• Mirror site for the Solovyov's book (just in case)
• Klyuchevski, Russian history Ключевский Василий Осипович. Курс русской истории. 1904
• Mirror of Klyuchevski's book

Your Babel boxes (userpage) look fine. Materialscientist (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I got here via FAC. Regarding the onset of Peter's education, I just would like to refer both of you to WP:NPOV#Impartial tone and WP:NPOV#Balance. So I think to mention both dates without deciding for one is o.k. (as it is now). In history articles this should be the case (history is not an exact science). As regards Soloviev and old sources generally, they may be the best, of course, but FA criteria insist on including newer/newest research. I have the feeling that Massie took his stuff about the All-Joking Company largely from works like Soloviev, so it is o.k. to regard him, and Hughes, as "reliable" in this kind of context. Peter's general education or lack of it, is, as I pointed out in my GA review, more problematic: Perhaps you could concentrate on saying what Zotov taught him, instead of including what has been said he supposedly never learnt properly; this belongs rather to Peter's own article (which is quite dreadful) than to Zotov's.

This is the English WP, so WP:NONENG does apply; for the same reason I don't think that there will be much edit-warring for a quiet topic like Zotov. In Western biographies of Peter he hardly figures largely, the more academic the less, so many people will never have heard of him. Peter the Great generally, he used to be rather hated by some historic Russian groups (Slavophiles, people of the "old faith", some intellectuals etc.). It is a recent phenomenon that he is no longer discussed politically. NuclearWarfare, take comfort in this: WP is not about truth, but about verifiability!-- You (we) did not do so badly. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the links as well as the work you did to find those images, Materialscientist. I appreciate all of that very much, and shall do my best to improve the article.

And Buchraeumer, interestingly, Solovev is cited little by Massie, at least in regards to Zotov. However, Vasily Kluchevsky, Eugene Schuyler, and M.M. Bogolovsky are all cited quite frequently around the areas that Zotov appears. And I shall take your advice into consideration as I go through the article; thank you.

Well, off to work I go! NW (Talk) 16:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note regarding the start of teaching. The language of Ref.2 is not appropriate for a historical article (flashy, casual, trying to sell you every sentence - a recent web-writing style). I don't have access to ref. 8. I would use one version of Hughes book. IMHO, citing two editions of same historical book is a bit unusual - the later usually corrects the mistakes of the former, and if a text is not there anymore, it might be suspicious. I'll try to find a proper detailed biography of Zotov on Russian web, without any promise. I appreciate withdrawing the nomination. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Russian journal, I used that only for the date of birth and a 1683 reference. I have replaced its use in the lead, but have kept it to ref 1683 for now, until I can replace it with something else.

As for Hughes, I gave the wrong title of the 1998 book. Yikes! I shall fix that immediately. NW (Talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

And thank you very much. NW (Talk) 00:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Onset of teaching: I've now looked it up in Wittram (still the most scholarly biography on Peter, I dare say confidently), and I think we're getting some place there. He states (vol. I, p. 88) that after the political change of 1682, Peter continued to have lessons consistently; since 1683, "as can be proved", by Nikita Zotov and Afanassyi Nesterov. So, I hope that would explain the problem. Of course he had lessons before 1683, but we don't know for sure by whom. The curriculum seems to have embraced religion (the Bible and other books) and some History and Geography. Incidentally, he cites M.M. Bogolovsky and says that all authors rely on Vasily Kluchevsky for Peter's education. Nuclear Warfare, I leave it to you how to use this info, as you know I would get into trouble with that citation template anyway...The work by Wittram is in the Bibliography already. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to find more, but will probably give up free search. Some bits and pieces

• There is a contradiction in sources on Zotov's death (either 1718 or 1717), Zotov was a keen drinker.
• [5] said he had 3 sons, Vasilii, Konon and Ivan.
• [6] Ламбин Н.П. История Петра Великого. — СПб.: Типография Ф.И. Эльснера, 1844. С. 42—43. (Lambin, History of Peter the Great, 1844, pp. 42-43) says teaching started on 12 March 1677.
• [7] The first wife of Zotov brought him 3 sons and a daughter Agraphena, and died some time after 1706.
• [8] Biography of Konon Zotov Materialscientist (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

XVIII c. refers to 18th century. (it is standard in Russia, with Russian v. substituted for c., sorry about that :) Materialscientist (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

On August 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Thompson Lusk, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

WP:DYK 02:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This was a nice surprise to see on my talk page. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you could try and do something to the lead of List of United States district and territorial courts, it would be most appreciated. MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. I have made a couple of comments inline with the <!-- --> code. NW (Talk) 22:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it seemed key to me...fetus in a bubble looking at Earth and all that..  :) Dreadstar ☥ 05:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/Compositions_task_force#Categories_of_classical_works. Nocturnes by Chopin is a subcategory of Solo piano works by Chopin so Solo piano is redundant. As for the year - it's really unused for classical works. Feel free to go to WP:CM and discuss whether we should start categorising classical works by the year but given some pieces take decades to complete, are then lost and published years later, you might find it a unhelpful categorisation. Centy – reply• contribs – 21:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I just saw it pop up on my watchlist and I was somewhat confused; thank you for the helpful explanation! NW (Talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Even though BullRangifer was on the previous sockpuppet report, he was not checked or run through Checkuser - because he was submitted late. I put a note of Bjweeks talk page. Here is where Shell said that I needed to submit a separate SPI: [9]. Please do not close this until this is straightened out. --stmrlbs|talk 02:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks for the notice. I shall indeed keep it open then. NW (Talk) 02:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer was checked in the last case - CUs have the logs. Nathan ^T 02:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks. Believe me, if I had known that BullRangifer had already been put through checkuser, I wouldn't have bothered. It takes a lot of time. However, I will try to set up a dummy setup of this SPI transclusion on my user space, since it caused the problem before. Might as well have something constructive come out of the effort. --stmrlbs|talk 05:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Stmrlbs didn't notify me about this SPI, but fortunately someone was kind enough to email me about it. They were flabbergasted that such an absurd thing had happened. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer, like I just explained in the Sockpuppet report, the case was closed about 5 minutes after I opened it. --stmrlbs|talk 06:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just want to confirm that stmrlbs is correct. In the future though, I'll make alerts one of my top priorities, even if the case is to be quickly closed. Thanks for the heads up, Bull Rangifer. NW (Talk) 14:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I had every intention of notifying BullRangifer - I just wasn't sure what the proper procedure was and asked here: [[10]]. I pointed this out to BullRangifer previously. By the time I got back from asking that question, the SPI was closed, so.. I didn't realize that you are supposed to notify someone of an SPI that was already closed. That was my mistake. Not that I deliberately intended not to notify BullRangifer. --stmrlbs|talk 19:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations of how things went down. I understand how things can happen quickly in one place while other things are going on elsewhere. It is only after the fact that one can figure out what really occurred. Now we can leave this unfortunate incident behind us. I'll leave a note on my own talk page so I'll have a historical record. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your comment. I've just found where the photo was taken from and it states that the photo is PD. I've added this to the image's page at Commons. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there; thanks for the notice. NW (Talk) 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for reviewing the photo on Commons and confirming the PD status. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. After seeing the tag added, I went ahead and changed the block from 31 hours to indefinite. Hope you do not mind. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert, Kralizec!. I had thought that one of the administrators that I was bugging would take care of it, but I guess they were too lazy to. Thank you very much for stepping up! Feel free to help out more in the future at SPI (hint, hint). NW (Talk) 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help! I am just starting out at SPI ... MBisanz volunteered to serve as my cleric trainer. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to ask, but didn't you want to change your username before running again? On a side note, I'd offer to co-nom if interested :-) Regards SoWhy 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much, SoWhy. However, I have simply gotten too many nomination offers to deal with, so I have decided to just keep it nice and simple at one. Thank you though!

As for the username, well, I'll explain that during the RfA ;) NW (Talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's your RFA of course. I wish you good luck with that. :-) Regards SoWhy 16:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: Have you decided which name you will want to rename to then? Regards SoWhy 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't just yet. NW (Talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! wadester16 17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, good luck to you! Pastor Theo (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for not holding a grudge, neither will I. I will do my best to take the criticism to heart and improve my communication style. As for AfDs I will go slow and be sure I learn the basics first. I will work to gain your trust by dilligent work. Thanks for participating in the RfA.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

How about Strategic Energy? or WhatABlast?  ;) --stmrlbs|talk 08:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I added these and the ones suggested by Airplaneman to the list. I also added two more that I couldn't believe were not taken (e.g., Nuclear). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Friday just gave you the PERFECT new name... you should go put in a request for it right now before somebody else takes it... but the new name HAS to be "USER:The Kid." "The Kid" is a nickname often given to younger people who excel in what they do. There are plenty of examples of this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Kid" has 34 edits, so there's a pretty good chance that something in there is GFDL significant and thus could not be usurped. Maybe just Kid (talk · contribs)? →javért ^breakaway 20:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right... I just looked to see if there was a user page... should have looked at edits... "Kid" might be ok... but The Kid would have been better.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Re GFDL significance, everything looked ok (just gnomy stuff that could probably be considered insignificant) up until the genesis of Injection well. "The Kidd" ? –xeno^talk 20:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing... except it also looks like "The Kid" uploaded some images as well... which proabably would be GFDL as well. The Kidd might work... if it's free...just checked two insignificant edits.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Kidd" was created on 21 September 2006 at 22:53. However, his two edits are to article talkpages. So usurpation shouldn't be a problem. →javért ^breakaway 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ive been trying to check the global contribs of all of these users (since NW says on his userpage that he'll only consider name changes that arent used on any wiki), but Toolserver seems to be still partly down (it was fully down a few hours ago). But here's a link that will be useful for tracking down potential conflicts. Personally, I think "NuclearWarfare" is the best name of all. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's usually expected for admins not to have names that may be considered divisive or inflammatory. (One of the reasons I renamed) –xeno^talk 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes and I really dont think NuclearWarfare is that bad now that the Cold War is over and the threat of literal nuclear warfare is minimal. Besides, if we're trying to avoid divisive usernames, wouldn't using a name like the Kid be a tease to the people who don't think minors should be administrators? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I found another tool. "Kid" is in use on other wikis. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)