User talk:NuclearWarfare/Archive 39

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 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

I have the Rosas article on my watchlist and, upon seeing Langus' edit, I seem to have correctly concluded Lecen would come here.

Dear Lecen, did it ever occur to you to discuss this directly with Langus instead of casting aspersions [1]?

You continuously keep accusing me of canvassing editors, without any proof at all other than your clear disregard for WP:AGF. I am neither the first nor last person to comment that the image you keep uploading for the Rosas article is unnatural. Even the image you uploaded of Rosas at age 37 shows him with dark hair and a normal vision.

And this message you leave here with NW does again exhibit your ownership problems, because the only apparent sin committed by Langus was to lay a finger on "your" Butterfinger article. I provided a whole list of evidence of this in the ArbComm case, and Sandy above further bolsters my statement. In fact, your recent actions also bolster my statement: Despite being continuously recommended by the Wikipedia community to change the main picture of the Pedro II of Brazil article (recent discussion and older discussion), you keep refusing to do it for no good reason other than that you don't think it should go on the article.

Just like Sandy, and several of the arbitrators, my hope was that the reminder would be enough for you to stop your egregious behavior, Lecen. However, your recent (post-ArbComm) edit history shows that this is not the case. And, unless the ArbComm ruling is amended to include more appropriate remedies for you (and, consequentially, diminish the harsh findings that lay all blame on Cambalachero and me), you will more than likely continue this misbehavior.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment if I may insert a minor comment here. I'm not involved in this discussion (I don't recall ever editing that article) but I have to say that if I were to describe the image Langus replaced I'd definitely use the word glow about his eyes. It looks a bit creepy actually. How about a middle ground solution? I propose the article uses a third image, also by the same painter (Cayetano Descalzi) but a bit less "I'm going to eat your soul if you stare too long at me". Here's the image I'm talking about. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gaba, the image you propose is the most widely known for Rosas, and was the image originally in the article (prior to Lecen including the unnatural image). However, Lecen claims that Rosas was blond. This is why I consider that the black-and-white image is the best middle-ground; Langus seems to think so as well. Added that the black-and-white image, with a few minor edits, could easily get a Featured Picture status.

Personally, due to color and direction, I think Lecen's upload of Rosas at 37 would be an awesome image to have on the lead as well. For similar reasons, I think this image (see [2]) would also be best in the Pedro II article.

Color and direction do much to engage readers and draw them into the article.

Cordiallly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I edited the image suggested by Gaba with a better version I found of it online. A bit smaller dimensions, and I still don't like the fact of him looking to the right. I'll keep searching until I find an even better one. I'll add (to the discussion) that Rosas' hair is obviously brown.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is another absolutely beautiful image of Rosas (see [3]); I think that this one is the best. I don't know if it's in the public domain (since it's a UK site, and given the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, they may not react kindly to that picture being uploaded). If it is the PD, this should be the one in the infobox. Not surprisingly, his hair is again brown.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at this ([4]). Lecen hasn't even waited for Langus' response and continues to show an absurdly aggressive stance against me. I think you are a witness that I have been extremely kind in my responses (no way "baiting" can be used to defend Lecen this time), even adding some humor to defuse the situation. All I've received in return is ownership of my comments (Lecen moving them placing them wherever he wants) and continuous insulting and unfounded accusations.

What Lecen has against me is a personal grudge. Should this be tolerated?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Both your and Lecen's behavior has been suboptimal, but please recall that it was you who was topic banned from the area, not him. I have given you a fair amount of leeway on this page because it was in relation to you asking about your future editing career but you have shifted back over to continuing your disputes with Lecen. I would advise you to stop even thinking about Rosas and Lecen, no matter how wrong you think his editing behavior is, and just stick with your future editing plan (#MarshalN20. NW (Talk) 00:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Yes, it was me who was topic banned, and Lecen was the one warned ("reminded") to follow the behavioral guidelines. I haven't done anything to "bait" him (the claim used to justify his prior actions), and yet he again has insulted me in a variety of manners (rudeness, ownership of my comments, casting aspersions, and unfounded attempts at getting be banned). Clearly he is the one that needs to leave me alone. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What is in the past can be left in the past. I see no reason why you two ever have to speak again. NW (Talk) 18:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

NW, I am a Latin American historian by education, and that common ground is what led to the interactions. If by the time my topic ban is lifted he is still around, the likelihood of again interacting will remain the same. I only hope that, by then, the civility warnings/reminders have been exhausted and action is finally taken upon he who deserves it.

NW, I will now remove your page from my watchlist. I plan to follow your advice and demonstrate through actions that I am not a POV-pusher. Once that is demonstrated, I would appreciate apologies from those who tarnished my reputation (in particular the one who mocked my civility).

If you need to contact me, please do feel free to notify me on my talk space. [:)]

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to this article please consider taking a look at this discussion apparently Keithbob found your removal of the resume tag premature and DGG has similar thoughts.--MrBill3 (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

fwiw, I never bother complaining about the addition or removal of such tags, or even commenting on it. The important thing is to improve the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct, as long at the items get fixed, the tag is not of much consequence, which is why I did not replace it but instead brought the points out on the talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions he seems to be doing nothing but reverts on multiple articles. I see you previously blocked him for that. At PRISM, there has been talk page agreement to shorten the lead, but Somedifferentstuff does not participate on the talk page, he just reverts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I see the game you're playing. In the future you should post on an editor's talk page if you have a problem with their edits. (Check the PRISM talk page for my recent addition.) Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

In the future, could you please discuss this with the user and escalate to ANI or through the dispute resolution chain rather than contacting me directly? I remember nothing about this situation. NW (Talk) 20:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello - FYI, I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jurtal. MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, NW. In this edit you typed "Uesr:" instead of "User:", and I think that typo corrupted your link. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Hmmm, my mistake - you did make that typo, but something else seems to be messing up your link. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was an extra pipe[5]. Thanks for the catch. NW (Talk) 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I believe you closed this discussion too rapidly, considering I had just posted a new observation, to which nobody had yet replied, when you closed it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I offer this diff to show you what I mean. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Start another RM in a couple months if you want. While your point is true, the discussion had already been open for over a week. NW (Talk) 21:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand: The only basis for your decision was that the discussion had been open for a week? That would seem to be grounds for a WP:Move review. What do you think?GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

At some point, move discussions have to be closed. For better or worse, we have put a week as the endpoint, barring a good reason why discussion should continue. Consensus was already fairly clear in that discussion, and there would have to be a monumental shift to change things. That is why I suggested waiting a few months before reopening the discussion. But frankly I don't care to fight you on this. I have reverted the close. I can't guarantee that someone else will not close it within a few hours, but there you are. NW (Talk) 22:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Fight? Who, me? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi NW, I noticed that you indefinitely protected St. Mary's Central High School in 2010, I presume for the spate of vandalism that was occurring then. Since high-school vandals generally move on to bigger and better things, I was wondering if we could try unprotecting it? Regards, Crazynas ^t 06:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Check your email please. Since you've added me as a party in the ArbCom proceeding on Tea Party movement, I've sent you a request to add two other editors as well. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't responded. I have been spending most of my wiki time as of late running around like a headless chicken dealing with WP:BASC and WP:CUOS2013. I'll try to get to your email later today if possible. NW (Talk) 14:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have forwarded your email (slightly redacted) to the rest of the Arbitration Committee for action. NW (Talk) 01:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi NW, Are we allowed to update our evidence (on the evidence page) or should we post anything we want the Arbs to consider on the talk page of the PD? ThanksMalke 2010 (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If it's something small, you can use the talk page (but don't let it turn into a shouting match; that just looks bad on everyone). If it's something larger, use the evidence page (but link to it on the PD talk so we know to go back to it). NW (Talk) 12:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Posted the information on the user's talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have brought it to the attention to the rest of the Committee. NW (Talk) 01:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there NUKE, AL "here",

unfortunately the topic's the same, as the title of my message implies :( Manuel Jesús Vázquez Florido is the page, a Brazilian anon user has been giving me and User:MYS77 (also Brazilian, but "legit") the time of months, changing the infobox stats to his personal taste even though we have reached him with the proper data. Well, reach may not be the correct word, as this guy uses a vast array of anon IPs (if you check the mentioned article's edit history, you'll see several addresses starting with 186, that's them).

So, chances are he: reads the messages (in Portuguese mind you, so there's no language barrier!) and does not care or does not read them because of his "hopping" IP. Either way i think page protection is in order (and seeing that you tend to accommodate with fairly large periods), because this is getting really annoying man!

Thanks in advance, happy week from Portugal --AL (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done, for three months. NW (Talk) 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Highly appreciated! Ohoh, more...after more than ONE YEAR a Spanish vandal has returned to persecute me in Júlio Regufe Alves, totally destroying the infobox with lies and removing refs (!). If you notice something about his many IPs, they ONLY edit in this article on WP, nothing else (hence the "persecution" idea). Please see how you here, last year, protected this very page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C3%BAlio_Regufe_Alves&diff=495646937&oldid=495561448). Is it too much to ask for an extension? --AL (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• It would not be. I have extended protection for two years on this article. NW (Talk) 15:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response at WP:ARCA. You seem to have inadvertently omitted a word or two at the end of this sentence: "However, Prioryman now longer wishes other editors to refer to him by his real name, and Prioryman does not appear ." Regards,  Sandstein  06:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a drafting error. I have fixed it; thanks for your note. NW (Talk) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I am Malikussaid. Half a year ago, someone from 118.99.80.160 make an edit on my talk page that were quickly oversighted (please refer here). Now, may I ask what a verbatim copy of the edit?

Thanks. Malikussaid (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Without even looking at it I can tell you the answer is going to be no. The whole point of supression is that the edits should not be visible, even to administrators, and must be permanently removed. If you would like to question a specific OS action you should contact WP:AUSC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually in this particular case, this should be directed to the WMF. --Rschen7754 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Rschen7754, sorry, but as I remembered, you also involved in it. If Beeblebrox hasn't known yet, let me review, that the IP made the threat against me, containing personal information that is mine. So why am I not allowed to access it?

Additional comment, the WP:AUSC has a heading "The Audit Subcommittee (or AUSC) investigates complaints about the misuse or abuse of the advanced permissions CheckUser and Oversight (suppression).". I think the oversight usage is not misused nor abused. So I think that isn't the best choice. Malikussaid (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Malikussaid. I am not authorized to give out such information, as the two above have stated. I would recommend contacting the Legal and Community Advocacy department of the Wikimedia Foundation to see if they might be willing to release it. NW (Talk) 21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted Philippe Beaudette regarding this and has not receiving reply in 7 months. Here is my e-mail header.

<redacted>

Please do not post my email address online. Community members are not authorized to release information in this case - that determination needs to be made by the WMF staff, and only they can make it here.

@Philippe (WMF):: Ping. --Rschen7754 06:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry regarding my ignorance. I think an email address is not a huge deal. But as you say so, I respect your right to remove it. Now waiting for further follow up Malikussaid (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It is simply not within the oversight team's purview or powers to provide you with the access to the suppressed edits that you seek. It is up to Philippe and the LCA team to decide whether to do so, so any further discussion here is not going to achieve anything. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 06:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but GorillaWarfare says that I should contact an oversighter..? Quite confusing for me... Malikussaid (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Malikussaid, I understand your frustration. Trust me, please, when I tell you that for a number of reasons, it's better that you not have the contents of that edit. It has emerged that it was likely a hoax, and therefore, best left alone.

One of things that I want to know is how the threat could have some credibility on it as per Rschen7754's email. Since I see clear misunderstanding such as rulings on Indonesian Law of National security which even hasn't been signed into effect.

I'm sorry that I can't be more clear - in this case, it is in your own best interests that we not release this edit to you. Releasing it could put you and the WMF in a legal position that would be untenable.

So, the no-release decision is for my own interest or for WMF interest? I would not launch a legal case against hoax, if you say so.

At this point, it's best to move on, and please trust that I talked this through with MULTIPLE attorneys, and the advice was unanimous (and agreed with my own feelings that this was likely a hoax). Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I already thinking next small things I could do at Wikipedia, if that's the definition of moving on. Even if it was truly a hoax, I still want to know it out of curiosity. I think it's my right to know it, since it concerns my private info. If a legal case is what WMF wants to avoid, I could say that's infeasible. Even if the threat were not hoax, I shall launch legal case againt the threat-maker, not WMF.

As per now, I still want to know it. But if this is against Wikimedia's or en-Wikipedia's or Wikipedia Global policy, then I think it's purposeless to continue this request. Malikussaid (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Our attorneys will not allow me to release this information, I'm sorry. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If this is WMF's final answer, then forward I go. Thank you. Malikussaid (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm here, as the topic suggests, to request protection of the following page:

Bernard (footballer)

Some anon users are "moving" him to Arsenal, and I am doing a couple of reversions to fix this. Please, can you protect this page, because this is getting really annoying man!

Thanks in advance, cheers from Brazil! MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 05:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done NW (Talk) 15:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Have a good week! MYS77 ^{talk with me ☺} 21:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello NW,
It has been nearly a month since the ARBARG ruling, and I wanted to update you on how things have been going on. Since then, I got an article through FA review (Pisco Sour) and currently have another one ready to sail-off (Peru national football team). On the docks is still the Falkland Islands article, but I have kept up with my promise of working on it (please see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). I planned to have it ready by the month's end, but a couple of problems kept me busy (you may have seen the couple of failed requests for enforcement filed against me).
I hope all is good with you.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, and I wish you all the best with your future endeavors. Two featured articles in a month is no lean accomplishment; it took me years to achieve the same. NW (Talk) 02:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely remember that we once had a discussion about Bayesian vs. frequentist approaches to statistical inference. So I thought you'd appreciate this, which is pretty much the last word on the subject. :) MastCell ^Talk 00:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I saw, brilliant as always :) NW (Talk) 00:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really feel like an "involved" party in this case, but I also don't feel comfortable unilaterally removing my name from a case I opened. If you think it's reasonable to remove me, please do so.—Kww(talk) 00:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If a case is opened, we will remove your name then (and somehow otherwise indicate that you filed the request). NW (Talk) 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

See this PumpkinSky talk 20:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What way to handle it! I can only laugh.PumpkinSky talk 22:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that this post will be archived rather quickly don't you? — Ched :  ?  22:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep.PumpkinSky talk 22:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of United States v. Lovett at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Replied, thanks! NW (Talk) 04:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Approved, good article. Thanks for putting up with my pedantry. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to continue developing this article (or just to learn more about the case), John Hart Ely wrote a superb law-review article about Lovett in volume 10 of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. The piece was reprinted in his book On Constitutional Ground, which may be more accessible depending on your library situation. Highly recommended. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I have downloaded a copy for later reading, thank you! NW (Talk) 01:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi I'm Persian Wikipedia users. Complain I'm a bureaucracy and a user. They did not respect the rights of others., Please investigate this issue. I could tell you what is my problem? (Translated by Google Translate) ((Note: I'm sorry if I do not speak good English because my native language is Persian))--Boyabed (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I received a notice from Callanecc today that there was a proposed motion on an ARBCOM case that affected me.[6] Penwhale notified me of the case 16 July.[7] I did not reply because no comments were made about me. AGK, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Silk Tork have voted to ban me. Could you please explain why I am part of this case. TFD (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

For posterity: I initially responded here. NW (Talk) 17:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am disappointed to read your comments on the case. Are you now going to ban KillerChihuahua, Mastcell and A Quest For Knowledge as well? KillerChihuahua is an involved party, although I have had no contact with him on this article, Mastcell set up the discussion thread and A Quest For Knowledge set up RfC to which I replied. If you want to make the decision more consistent and effective, I suggest bans for the other 1200 editors who have contributed to the article. TFD (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand why you are disappointed. I think I have said all I'm going to say about it, but I didn't make this decision lightly. I spent a long time thinking about my vote and a number of possible alternatives, but I will stick with what has been proposed. NW (Talk) 13:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

-- Moxy (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to reconsider the protection of this article. The only reason is because pending changes level 2, which is the option you chose, has been explicitly rejected by the community. Only pending changes level 1 is currently authorized by the community. See here for a curent discussion of this and several other PC2 protections. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you did another of the PC2 protections on the list, but explicitly invoked IAR as a reason. I'd be inclined to just ignore that one, if only because almost nobody is bold enough to admit when they ignore a rule anymore... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I gave an explanation at WP:RFPP explicitly invoking IAR for both, but I guess I only logged one of them. If you want, I can dig it up for you. I don't think that's it is necessary to terminate PC2 early. NW (Talk) 21:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a bit more about this in the discussion linked above if you're interested. My main concern is that the acceptance of PC1 took years to accomplish after the perceived fait accompli of the never-ending "trial period" so anything that looks anything like an attempt to backdoor PC2 into regular use could cause old grudges from that era to flare back up. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

On 5 August 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Lovett, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that even after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Congress unconstitutionally withheld Robert M. Lovett's salary, the House Appropriations Committee did not appropriate funds to pay him? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Lovett. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you have once restored the discussion from automatic archiving [8], but now it was archived again (see [9]).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I pulled it from the archive and I think I set up do-not-archive bit correctly this time. NW (Talk) 17:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Mark Arsten#Page Remover!.--Forward Unto Dawn 11:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is this all about? I'm tired and haven't really read this carefully, but you need to give me more context than this. Or email the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 12:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. This user is under age and has published their date of birth and possibly their first name on their user page. In addition, their immature edits on my talk page and Administrator Mark Arsten's talk page prompted me to report this issue to a member of the arbitration committee per WP:CHILD. However, if I'm overreacting to this, just let me know. I just felt as though I should inform someone. Kind regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This issue came to me via another route and I've handled it. Forward Unto Dawn, if you run into situations like this in the future please don't comment publicly about what you think someone's personal details are, especially not in multiple places. Your impulse to report the situation to an arbitrator was appropriate, but it's safest if you do it via email or other private message route, rather than by on-wiki posting. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fluffernutter, and to you as well, Forward Unto Dawn, for noticing the situation in the first place. Now that I have had several cups of tea this morning, I'm awake enough to understand everything better. I don't always check Wikipedia this early in the morning though, so in the future, reporting it to the Oversight Team (WP:RFO) or the Arbitration Committee (Special:EmailUser/ArbCom) is probably the best way to go. NW (Talk) 14:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any inconvenience I may have caused. In addition, I'm also sorry I didn't use the appropriate route of communication. All I knew was that I had to inform the arbitration committee ASAP. Clearly I should have done that via email. In the interest of keeping this user's information private, may I suggest redacting my reference to this user in my second message above and their edits on Peridon's talk page just as those messages on Mark Arsten's talk page were also redacted?--Forward Unto Dawn 09:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I'll do as you suggest. NW (Talk) 12:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For dealing with [10]. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! NW (Talk) 17:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I second this barnstar! --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, I just wanted to stop by and let you know I am not trying to be dismissive of your comments. I made my oppose and gave my reasons. I do not think I should have to justify why unless you are going to require all the support votes to justify why they supported as well. Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

While the sheer number of supports are useful as a quick glance to see what the commentators think of a candidate, the decision is ultimately up to the Arbitration Committee. I am most interested in reasons why I shouldn't trust a candidate as my impression of all eleven candidates is already positive. If you can provide evidence to back up your position, it will be a lot more useful to me and the other Arbitrators as we make our final votes. NW (Talk) 15:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't take this personally because I think very highly of you and most of the members of the Committee individually but my impression of the Arbcom is pretty much as low as it can be. So I am not sure I can provide anything, particularly regarding an Arbcom clerk, that I feel would be taken seriously or would even be used in making a decision. I no longer have faith in many of the decisions or logic from the committee these days. So taking the time to draft something or send it when their elections are already virtually assured is just a waste of my time. But I didn't want it said either I didn't take the time to vote my conscience on the matter. Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there NW, AL "here",

page protection request again, if you please...Why? Article Manuel Cajuda. Situation as follows: two "users" (or maybe just one with two accounts, CAJUDAFAN and then MANUELCAJUDA) proceeded to rewrite storyline as they pleased, removing all the refs in storyline (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Cajuda&diff=next&oldid=560726872) and some links (here, anon address but same guy doing the same http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Cajuda&diff=560725754&oldid=560725166).

I brought it to your attention, can you accommodate? Thanks in advance and happy week --AL (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi AL, nice to see you around again. Since the last unhelpful edits to this page were more than a month ago, I don't think this falls under the acceptable protection guidelines, so I don't think I will be able to protect the page. Apologies, NW (Talk) 13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• No worries. If i learned anything from all these years of editing, they WILL return (it looks like a relative or a fan of the subject - or himself! - per name of accounts), maybe we'll catch them "red-handed" next time. Cheers --AL (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion has once again disappeared into the archive [11], even though it should be there by August 15.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You can move it out of the archive. Put up a new subsection header asking for someone to close the discussion. NW (Talk) 16:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: [12], maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it the appointments that are planned for 24 August and not the nominations? We already have the nominations. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

At least three of the key nouns in that sentence are plain wrong. NW (Talk) 02:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello NW, I saw your comment, Malke has done plenty that has been just fine, especially in the moderated discussion, but there is also plenty of evidence of misbehavior. NW (Talk) 18:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Would you be kind of enough to show diffs of "misbehaviour?" Also, you stated that my primary focus was American politics and you referenced a diff that shows editing stats. But you failed to noticed that the editing stats were primarily focused on 2010. That was three years ago. I do not have a primary focus of American politics and even if I did, there's nothing wrong with that. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You also referenced KillerChihuahua's 'evidence' and she has told me I can link to this comment she made on my talk page. I did as she suggested, and actually, I'd already done all that beforehand. She doesn't see any need for sanctions against me here. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Please also show where I've behaved "incivily." Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You also claimed I opposed an 'academic source' and then you linked to a "discussion generally." You need to read that whole discussion, and subsequent discussions. Also, it might interest you to know that I used the Theda Skocpal book, here and elswhere. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You obviously are far too emotionally invested in this topic area to see if you cannot see where in those diffs you have treated Wikipedia sa a battleground. It has continued well past the case filing. KC and V's evidence give evidence of misconduct before then; the other discussion is evidence of misconduct after. I have read that whole page three times now, just as I have every recent(-ish) archive of the TPM talk page and moderated discussion page. If the other Arbitrators disagree, they can tell me. If they do not, well, then it will be our prerogative to impose sufficient sanctions as we think will be necessary to resolve this dispute. This may seem unduly harsh to you. If you feel that way, well then I'm sorry that is the case. But we are doing the best we can to resolve rather than exacerbate this dispute, and you running all over the place making demands of us is not helping. NW (Talk) 21:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. On the contrary, I'm not emotionally invested in the topic at all, and my editing, or more accurately my non-editing there, should bear that out. I'm invested in getting the arbs to see what I've really been doing rather than having them make a decision based on page stats and comments from 4 years ago. And I'm trying to discover what makes you and AGK so determined to topic ban me from an article I don't edit. You'll recall your own words before the case was accepted:

*@KC: When this was brought up on the mailing list last night, I wrote, "We could probably write the proposed decision for such a case now: discretionary sanctions, ban, ban, topic ban, topic ban, admonishment." Do you think that ArbCom replacing community article probation with discretionary sanctions for the area by motion would be a helpful step? That would allow the case to return to ArbCom for closer inspection only if it fails. NW (Talk) 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems you'd made up your mind already and without any evidence, based on your personal beliefs. I don't use Wikipedia as a battleground. I don't argue against academic sources, and I didn't argue against Skocpal. I argued against Xenophrenic saying the book said something it did not. And as proof of that, I mentioned I went to my local library and checked out the book.

All I'm asking, I'm sure the same is true for everybody named in the case, is for evidence that actually shows behaviours and not just generalized comments, "using Wikipedia as a battleground" for example. And for additional time to offer rebuttal evidence before any decisions are made. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The ArbCom case pages alone provide ample evidence of you and a number of other editors treating Wikipedia as a battleground. The phrase "using Wikipedia as a battleground" is a useful encapsulation of a set of behaviors which is easy to recognize, but difficult to demonstrate in a single diff. MastCell ^Talk 01:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be necessary to demonstrate "a set of behaviours" in a single diff? Why not show diffs of behaviours? Malke 2010 (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I undid this diff a few minutes ago, and it seems like it should probably be hidden as personal information. Their other contributions have been trying to add information about that profile (non-notable artist), so I wasn't sure if it was worth an oversight request. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It's just a link to a public Google+ profile. If it were a private profile and the diff revealed other information, I would have considered suppressing it, but for this, a simple reversion is fine. Thanks for letting me know though! NW (Talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nukular. You gave me range block instructions in words of one syllable here. :-) But soxred's tool has expired. I've got this, sort of, but it's just for the contribs. I'm supposed to know the range to put in. I mean, you know, *I*'m supposed to know the range. (I tried optimistically to just put in the two eye peas I had, but no joy.) So now what? The eye peas are 41.103.100.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 41.103.84.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They're already blocked, one for 31 hours and one for a week. (Don't ask. Different admins, mainly.) It would actually make me happy to block my first range, so if you can tell me about yet another tool like soxred's, that would be cool. If not, then I guess fate is against me and maybe you could block the range? If its blockable and so on. Bishonen | talk 09:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

This may be completely and utterly wrong, so take it with a grain of salt. If you click the WHOIS link on one of the ip addresses you see above, you'll get " 41.103.0.0 - 41.103.255.255". That indicates the range is 41.103.0.0/16, but if you aren't sure how I got that you can just google 'ip range calculator' and use any of the tools with the two ip addresses I mention in my comment to calculate the range. Once I can to my laptop I can teach you how to manually calculate ranges if you want but I imagine this way will probably be easiest. NW (Talk) 12:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No manual calculate, I stupid! But there's nothing wrong with putting the range you gave me into helloannyong's contribs calculator, is there? That gives a lot of IP contribs. A minute's clicking around suggests they're probably all the same vandal, but I'll check a bit more before I block the range — got to go out now. And then I'll google for tools as you suggest, also. Thank you, Nuke. Bishonen | talk 13:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

Nope, that tool will work just fine. NW (Talk) 13:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked the range. I clever! Bishonen | talk 21:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC).

There are administrators I have seen who have been more interested in blocking editors who have possibly violated their topic ban than addressing editors who refer to transgendered individuals as having a "sexual abnormality" or think they ought to be referred to as subhuman ("it") or think that gender expression can be analogized to wanting to be a banana or a dolphin. Maybe some folks in the administrators corps ought to rethink their priorities... NW (Talk) 12:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

NW, I'm pretty sure you'd be surprised to know how often I think of you and wonder how things are going for you in your new position. When I get discouraged by what seems to me to be the case of a few manipulative editors tirelessly attempting to write our encyclopedia according to their own biased version, which seems to be happening more and more, I am forever grateful to have you as an editor. You are always logical and fair, and you are a decent human being as well. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy; it is very nice to hear from you. NW (Talk) 20:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, i would like to update that the amendment request of Syrian civil war sanctions (following the motion) has not yet been closed. I herewith retrieved it from the noticeboard archive, putting in "requests for closure" section [13]. I'm a little concerned what is the policy in the meantime, since the temporary sanctions are expired on August 20, so currently (until somebody closes the amendment request) there is no official policy.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you like me to close the discussion (in my capacity as a community member, not as an Arbitrator)? NW (Talk) 23:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if you can do that it is for the benefit of the issue - it keeps disappearing into the archive, while it is important to set a rule (especially that all editors agree, the only question is whether Syrian conflict sanctions will be applied on 3 articles or the whole topic).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually considering that I am on the Arbitration Committee, I should probably not be the one to close this discussion. Do you want to ask another admin (maybe one of the ones who frequent WP:AN). NW (Talk) 03:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you suggest whom? I see that meanwhile the Syrian civil war topic is getting out of control (Ghouta incident [14] and other articles are already sanctioned with other limitations due to edit-warring).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps any of: @Future Perfect at Sunrise, Sandstein, and Bbb23:? NW (Talk) 20:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was moved to AN, and I've closed it. Any help on the technical end would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have created {{Syrian Civil War sanctions}} and modified Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions. Thanks for closing the discussion! NW (Talk) 21:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pitching in, particularly changing it to general sanctions. I've modified the edit notice on Syrian civil war. I'll do some more patterning as you've done if no one else does it for me. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both, it was an important thing to finish :)Greyshark09 (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: I understand that the Syrian civil war sanctions also ought to be logged into Wikipedia:General_sanctions list. Shall i do that or is it an administrator's job?Greyshark09 (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it, thanks for letting "me" know. NW, feel free to tweak what I did as I've never done it before.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I updated the framework at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions. I created a notification template, {{subst:Syrian civil war enforcement}}. Not sure if it was necessary to create the dummy entries, but I thought it might be useful. They can be removed as soon as there is at least one real entry. The only other thing I can think that remains is to update the links once the AN discussion archives.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you add user Stanselm as an involved party please? In here you can clearly see him state that he tried a page move but failed. Pass a Method talk 17:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That was nine days ago, and the request was never actioned. I don't see why it would be necessary to add him as a party. NW (Talk) 17:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

All the page moves happened nine days ago. The request was answered by Tariqabjotu. Pass a Method talk 17:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of editors made comments requesting or opining that the page be moved. Stanselm is not an administrator and his request was denied. If that is enough to add him as a party we would have to add half of the active editing corps. No, I am not adding him as a party. If you would like, you can request that another Committee member look at this at WT:A/R. NW (Talk) 20:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

[at 556]... It is well established that the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment does not permit a state to deny effective treatment for the serious medical needs of prisoners. The Supreme Court articulated this principle in Estelle v. Gamble:

An inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met. In the worst cases, such a failure may actually produce physical "torture or a lingering death," the evils of most immediate concern to the drafters of the Amendment. In less serious cases, denial of medical care may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose. . . . We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.

[at 557]... As defendants point out, some medical uncertainty remains as to the causes of GID, but there was no evidence of uncertainty about the efficacy of hormone therapy as a treatment. Just as the legislature cannot outlaw all effective cancer treatments for prison inmates, it cannot outlaw the only effective treatment for a serious condition like GID.

— Fields v. Smith, 653 F.3d 550 (7th Cir. 2011)

SCOTUS declined the appeal. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC) BTW, the above is not intended as a comment on the current Chelsea Manning RFAR (didn't know it was going on). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation; I wasn't really that knowledgeable about this line of jurisprudence (the state's right to provide healthcare for prisoners). I think the most I had ever seen was that thing a couple of years ago where a man got himself arrested (for bank robbery?) so that he could be treated for some disease (cancer?). I had no idea that the 7th Circuit expanded those rights to include hormone therapy. Thanks, NW (Talk) 12:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes case: you now support 6) "Gerda Arendt ... has added infoboxes to many articles systematically and without prior discussion, including articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial." Please show me such cases, - the last line is essential as you point out. I did not - to my knowledge - add an infobox where I knew it would be controversial. I did NOT "chose to fight the battles", I wanted no battle and keep being surprised what is considered controversial. How should I have known that a Mozart mass is controversial, after Schubert masses were all welcome? - "one after the other": yes. After Robert Stoepel was accepted, I tried Bach. You know how that went. - "working out a project-wide solution" is a great goal, but I can't do it alone, - I looked at years of battle and thought it was to much to even try for someone whose first language is not English. Said before: I would like to see the territories lined out better, to avoid controversy. - "peace and reconciliation" is on the Main page right now. - Ched, who initiated the case, deleted all his pages. It makes me sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The hymn mentioned on the decision talk is also for you, - thank you for your vote of confidence, - we will try to live up to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you have a lot to offer the Community in this area for sure, which is why I am not voting to support any actual sanction against you. I wish you all the best in the future and I hope that the community is able to set up a well-structured RfC that would allow this dispute to be settled once and for all across all similar articles. NW (Talk) 13:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nukular. I've posted on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, commenting on a template there, that you purportedly created (as in, edited a previous version, I expect). I think it could be improved, and have suggested how. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Wuzzunt me. Anyway, I have fixed it. This will all be moot whenever the whole discretionary sanctions motion gets adopted (don't ask me when, I have been asking three times a month all summer). NW (Talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in.[15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit appears to contain personal info (including an email) for an individual who, given the context of the content ("her last known current email address"), cannot be assumed to the editor who posted it. Seems appropriate for suppression per WP:OUTING. Thanks! DKqwerty (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, please do NOT post requests for suppression or revdel on wiki. Follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and it will be taken care of. Legoktm (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This request has been handled, but as Legoktm (talk · contribs) mentioned, please contact the team privately in the future. LFaraone 02:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Appologize all around. I completely misunderstood "direct personal contact" as meaning "on their talk page." Obviously, this was a gaff on my part. But thanks guys for removing the edit! DKqwerty (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; glad it was handled properly. I'll try to edit WP:RFO to make this clear. NW (Talk) 13:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When you get a chance, could you look at edit filter 68 with respect to this blocked move, and see if its functioning as intended? It appears to be blocking all moves, not throttling. Monty₈₄₅ 16:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The filter is working as intended. I put that user in the "confirmed" usergroup, which means they should be fine for now. NW (Talk) 16:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

First, a tiny bit of background. I have long-term goals to have more involvement in our consensus processes, including Arbcom. Despite that, I have not spent as much time at ArbCom as I should. I have followed some cases closely, some not at all. While much of your life (it must seem) has been immersed in the Tea Party case, I had virtually no awareness (beyond its existence) before today.

I saw a request at Jimbo's page. That prompted me to look at the case in more detail.

I'll caution that I haven't reviewed every bit of evidence, but I don't think I need to review every bit of evidence to reach some conclusions.

Not wanting to write a mystery story, I'll list to my conclusions, then try to share with you how I reached those conclusions.

1. Arbcom processes could be improved
2. The sanctions reached with respect to Collect are unfair in the normal English sense of the word. If they are fair within the rules of Arbcom, it means the Arbcom rules need revisiting.

I notice that the case was opened in March, at which point Collect was not a party. This, in itself, is not a concern. I fully understand that a case may be opened with an initial list of parties, and as the case evolves, some may be added (or removed).

However, I see that Collect was not added until July. Notification.

I do not see any indication explaining who asked for Collect to be added, or why.

I agree with the process requirement to notify parties, but I suggest that the notification ought to include some explanation.

The main case page states:

• Evidence closes 20 March 2013
• Workshop closes 27 March 2013

On the surface, this mean Collect (and others) were added not just after the close of evidence, but after the close of the workshop. I assume the dates are in error. While a possibly minor point, one of the points of these pages is to capture, for posterity, what happened. You may well know why parties were added after the dates of closure, but if this is not recorded in the documents at the time of the case, it will be quite difficult to reconstruct later. When was the evidence closed? When was the workshop closed?

I reviewed the Statement in the request for the case to see how Collect's involvement was characterized. I saw no mention. This is a simple observation, not a critique. For reasons mentioned above, it is not surprising that the request for the case might not mention all the evidence, and may have no evidence about some of the parties.

I moved on to the Evidence page

I see a section by Collect, as he provided some evidence. However, I am looking for evidence about Collect.

I found three references to Collect:

1. (Hal peridol)I just wished to point out that Collect's assertion about this paper is incorrect - the paper was externally peer reviewed, as stated in the footnotes.
2. ( Ubikwit) The response by Collect to the Tobacco article demonstrates recourse to hyperbole as well as outlandish associations such as the comparison to "Joe McCarthy". Setting the irony aside, it is similar to the nonchalant bandying about of the label "anti-Semite" I've encountered on WP.
3. "Oppose Per Arthur - Wikipedia is not a place for Humpty-Dumpty redefinitions of terms of art."

Not one included a diff. I've reviewed the Case clerks remit, and while I do not see a specific instruction that they should insist that providers of evidence include diffs, I think it would be a good idea. While the first and third are hard to get excited about, the second, if supported is more serious. Were you expected to track down the discussion to see if the allegations were accurate? Did you? If not, I would think the unsupported "evidence" should be dismissed.

At this point I've reviewed all of the evidence mentioning Collect. I haven't yet seen enough to warrant inclusion as a party, much less a sanction.

I then moved on to the Workshop page.

I saw Collect mentioned by Goethean: He was of course joined in this effort by North8000 and Malke2010 Arzel, Darkstar1st, Collect, ThargorOrlando. I saw a request for a supporting diff, but none were supplied.

Collect was also mentioned in the context of an ANI which requested topic bans on a number of editors, one of which was Collect. That thread was linked. Five editors weighed in, all opposed.

Collect also mentioned in an odd exchange about who added Collect to the thread.

I've now reviewed the workshop, and every mention of Collect, which adds up to...nothing.

I then move on to the Proposed decision, and to my surprise, I see Collect, not just mentioned, but the subject of a proposed Topic ban

This proposal mentions nothing that was raised in the Evidence phase, nor anything that was raised in the Workshop.

Before even addressing the diffs cited in support, how can it be that a sanction can be proposed when there is nothing relevant in the evidence or the workshop?

This feels like a major process failure. It feels like it is coming out of left field.

What am I missing?

It is hard not to comment on the diffs used to support the finding, which I found unpersuasive, but I don't wish to debate them, and even if I did this wouldn't be the place. My concern is more about process. How can it be that an editor is topic-banned after only passing mentions in the evidence and workshop phases, where those minor mentions are not the basis of the sanction?

I'm not entirely sure where or how to ask these questions, so I picked one Arb to ask. Sorry you got the short stick. If this belongs on the PD talk page, or elsewhere, please let me know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case. I found some helpful things there, but honestly I just set aside some amount over time over a few weeks and read all of the talk page of the articles. I can't comment if others did the same or not but I would suspect that they did. I found that the evidence provided was good but not all encompassing. This was an interesting case, one which I was not especially enamored about (either the initial community's response or our actions). I will understand why, when all is said and done, people will label this as the worst case of 2013. But most Arbitrators also weren't given a ton to work with. We had to come up with the proposed decision functionally from scratch, and those don't end up going that well. I'm comfortable with your assessment with this as a process failure, but I'm not sure if it could have gone that much better.

As for where this discussion should go...WT:A/R or the proposed decision page. Take your pick. NW (Talk) 01:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I realized, after giving it additional thought, that I may have been implicitly assigning a "judge and jury" model to Arbcom, in which you would only be allowed to make decisions based upon evidence provided by others. I realize that is not an apt analogy, and you do have the authority to do independent research. I have not reviewed the talk pages of the articles, except to the extent that they were introduced into evidence, so our views of the situation differ. I am still troubled by the Collect sanction, but will out my views on hold until I have reviewed more material. Thanks for the suggestion re location; irrespective of the specific situation, I think there is room for process improvement, and will try to add some thoughts there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick Regarding your query relating to the "Joe McCarthy" analogy, that was made by Collect on the evidence page here with this time stamp

Collect (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if when attributing something to me that you place it in context: This "article" was reviewed by at least one person - which is a bit weak for what is clearly an article making leaps of connections worthy of Joe McCarthy <g>. The impression I now have is that the sanctions were decided on first under the "kill them all" premise, then when it became clear that such an interesting sort of decision would not fly that there was a desire to find "evidence", no matter how flimsy, on which to hang findings of fact to which no responses were allowed (I recall being told I would be blocked if I continued "bickering.") When it was pointed out that the "evidence" was of nil value, then the reasoning became "but it is your 'general attitude'" which is the first time ever any Arbitrator in any case in a decade ever said "if I don't like your attitude, then we will sanction you even if there is not a whit of evidence of any violation of any Wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines." I am more than halfway tempted <g> to assemble lists of four-letter words used by arbitrators who find quoting Teddy Roosevelt to be actionable <+g>. It is of no minor interest that User:KillerChihuahua specifically stated that I ought not be in the list, and she was the original complainant here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI. I linked this page at Jimbo's talk page, so letting you know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could quote the entire post and not (accidentally) take that sentence out of context. NW (Talk) 18:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I ought to acknowledge your comment to me at the now-closed ANI thread. Of course, yes, I do keep in mind that Arbs are people too. Editors who have just been sanctioned are people, Arbs are people, we all are people. Please understand that I heard what you said. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It was mostly just the comment about the "Maybe every arbitrator should be given a flame-retardant suit" that got to me. It wasn't you; it was mostly just an attitude that Arbitrators should "suck it up and take it" that's pretty pervasive sometimes. NW (Talk) 16:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I keep learning about the pitfalls of communication online. I intended that comment sympathetically, as in Arbs seem frequently to have to walk through fire and maybe we don't equip you enough, sort of. I can see in retrospect, however, how it sounded to you. Sorry. My personal take isn't exactly one of sucking it up, but one of recognizing that anyone who has just been sanctioned is likely to have an immediate reaction of having been horribly insulted, and to understand the resulting incivility in that context. But of course I realize that it's easy for me to say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi NW,

Can you please look at [|this] to determine if a block is necessary? Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as this is a situation which may come before the Arbitration Committee, I should probably not intervene here. NW (Talk) 16:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, looking through my talkpage, I see that you posted a question to me here about the most recent PHS II publication on multivitamins and cancer. The thread was highjacked by a verbose IP editor whom I frankly don't feel energetic enough to argue with at the moment.

But since you asked... my views of the study were actually expressed beautifully and coherently in the accompanying JAMA editorial by Bach & Lewis (if you can't access the full text, let me know). They mention the "marginal statistical significance and the perplexing and somewhat counterintuitive nature of the study findings" and (as you've alluded to) they situate it within the larger body of evidence on multivitamin supplementation. A few additional points:

• Like good Bayesians, they point out that the pre-test likelihood of benefit from multivitamins is low (given the lack of biological plausibility and the existing literature which has failed to find any benefit).
• There was no dose-response relationship. In other words, subjects randomized to the multivitamin arm but who didn't actually take multivitamins achieved the same "benefit" as those who did take the multivitamin.
• Most crucially, the PHS II study has now been analyzed with regard to at least 28 different endpoints. Using a p-value threshold of 0.05 for significance, it takes only 20 statistical tests to reliably produce at least one false-positive. Given the extremely marginal statistical significance of the cancer finding (p=0.04), the problem of familywise error arising from multiple comparisons, and the low pre-test likelihood of benefit, this finding is (statistically speaking) almost certainly a false-positive.

As I mentioned, reading the JAMA editorial helped crystallize a lot of these ideas, which were among my first reactions on reading the paper. Frankly, I'm surprised that JAMA published these findings without noting the obvious problem of multiple comparisons/marginal p-value, but that's the tyranny of positive results for you. I think they count on the editorialists to be the voice of logic and sanity, but of course their fine points are lost in the media representations of this study, which are generally variations on the theme of "AMA admits that vitamins prevent cancer!!!". MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi NW - Two things. The first, I'm about to bring evidence about Daira Hopwood's conduct. I'd assume adding her as a party is standard procedure. If it's not, that's fine. Number two, given your participation in the dispute on Daira Hopwood's page, shouldn't you recuse?--v/r - TP 14:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please email the ArbCom list. As I wrote on Guerillero's talk page, a request to add DH as a party has already been declined. And no. NW (Talk) 15:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've emailed the list about Daira. I've also emailed them about your recusal. No offense toward you, I think we get along, but I'm just not comfortable with you on the case because of your comments elsewhere recently.--v/r - TP 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I mentioned you in a TfD discussion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 29#Template:IPSock in regards to where the policy was changed to only allow tagging of IPs as socks if they had been blocked. Prior to you changing it, it only allowed admins to tag IPs as socks. This was during the Climate Change arbitration, and while the discussion was hot and heavy about falsely tagging individuals and IPs as Scibaby socks. No action on your part is needed, just thought you would want to know you were mentioned. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I remember the time period of course, but I don't really remember the details of this particular template or why I made that change. I don't think there will be any need for me to comment. NW (Talk) 01:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanx. -- llywrch (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. A thread has started regarding your page move and a subsequent reversal. I just thought someone should mention it here. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have left a brief comment there. NW (Talk) 16:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey NW. I'm helping to organize Open Access to Mass History Week during the week of October 21-27. We're looking for some experienced Wikipedians who would be able to provide some in-person support to these institutions. They'll have their own staff on hand but most if not all of them will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Bluerasberry suggested I get in contact with you as one of the events is focused on medical history (Harvard Medical School's Countway Library).

Thanks, Protonk (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! What do you think of Wikipedia:Meetup/Countway OAMass13. Did you see Atlantic article? I think there may be some momentum for interest in Wikipedia and medicine. Thoughts? Please post on the project page if you would. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, BR. I forgot there was a specific Countway page! Protonk (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you've thought about this, but.... surely you could just stay on, but at a reduced level? That's why there are 16 15 13 of you, so not everyone has to be 100% here all the time.

Anyway, assuming that this request is going to be denied, thanks for volunteering for such a thankless task, you're a better man than I. Indeed, you were one of the most careful and thoughtful Arbs we've had. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Should the circumstances which prompted you to resign change in the future, I hope you perhaps consider running again. From what little I have been looking over ArbCom matters recently, I have gotten a very high opinion of your judgment, and I can't say the same about all the other Arbs, past or present. And thank you very much for taking on a task many of us would strive to avoid, being an arbitrator, in the first place. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Support what you said, both, all of it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi NW, thanks for all you've been doing, hope all is ok, and best wishes for the future, . dave souza, talk 21:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I note a lot of the comments here and elsewhere seem to be taking this announcement as being not only a retirement from ArbCom and tools, but also a bit of a retirement from wikipedia in general. I dunno if other people know more about this than I do, although, in general, I think its generally a good idea to assume that around here, particularly regarding me, but I think it might be welcome if you made some sort of statement regarding whether you plan to continue to edit as an editor with a smaller number of administrative options, or whether this is to be seen as being more or less a fairly universal retirement. I could of course add some wildly emotional and basically pointless statement here, something along the lines of "Good God, man, don't retire - we have few enough competent editors here as is, you are beyond irreplacable," etc. etc. etc., all of which would be true of course, and I will make such statements if I think they might do any good, but it might be useful for everyone to have some clearer idea regarding your intentions as a result of this action. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you Floquenbeam and everyone else who commented; it is very kind. I can't say for certain what the future holds for me, but my statement today was meant to be a resignation from the Committee and Functionary team only. NW (Talk) 01:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope everything is okay. As someone that didn't realize the cost of passion and paid a price, I hope everything works out and this is but a blip on the radar of life. Good luck to you and I hope your future is along a path of your choosing. --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems you've got larger issues going.

Curious, about this one: [16]. Should I proceed to requesting a deletion review?

best.

Youarealwaysfree (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I might be able to help you out without you having to go through that whole procedure. What do you think has changed in the last four years that you think DaCamara ought to have an article, or why do you think the discussion was flawed? NW (Talk) 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello NW,

My Name is Pam, I was wondering if you can help me to put a temporary lock or a Semi Lock on NOELIA page, lots of people keep vandalizing this U.S Latin Singer, a member that goes by the name of "lalain9" and other keep reverting per say DOB, the right DOB is 1979 and people keep changing that, we funs solid reference for the DOB a US Passport Scan, just to give an idea, stuff like that, can you please HELP !!

Thank you so much !!!

Noeliawike - Pam

(talk page stalker) Article fully protected, both edit warriors warned to stop. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello NW,

I was hoping that you could make this Proposition 8 page redirect to "California Proposition 8 (2008)" rather than just "California Proposition 8". As you probably remember the article title was recently changed. I would just fix it myself but that page is protected; you were the last person to edit it. Right now if you type in "Proposition 8" you end up at a soft redirect. If I should contact the person who protected it instead, just let me know. Thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I can handle it, don't worry. I have unprotected the redirect and pointed it in a new direction. NW (Talk) 00:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain what you meant by [17]? It's not clear why that would earn a block. Would it be an Arbcom block?--v/r - TP 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on ArbCom anymore, and I should have phrased that differently: I would have requested a block and not issued one myself (too WP:INVOLVED with that article from some stuff a couple years ago). And I would not have left that message to a new user. But for an editor with >20k edits to categorize abortion under infanticide (the parent article, no less)...that's just a sign that they have no care whatsoever for community discussion/consensus in what would obviously be a contentious edit. NW (Talk) 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first scary thought fixed, thanks. I knew you weren't on Arbcom, that was a brain fart. But glad the involved part is clear. Okay, so I think there is a misunderstanding here. Darkness Shines has had no edits to abortion before and his topic area has always been India/Pakistan and generally southeastern Asia. He recently wrote an article on Female infanticide and created a category for it and I think this was a good faith attempt by him to link that new article and fill the category. I doubt he was aware that there was anything controversial about it.--v/r - TP 16:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What Tom wrote above, but never threaten an editor with a block for a single edit you deemed contentious, that is not in the blocking policy that I can see. I am not watchlisting this page, it is obvious you allowed your judgement to be clouded by your involvement in the article in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi NW,

I would like to know your opinion in the case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Problems_at_War_of_the_Pacific. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no desire to spend time looking into that situation. It is already on ANI; if it is presented in a coherent fashion, sooner or later someone else will see it I'm sure. NW (Talk) 19:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there NW, AL "speaking",

title says it all, and it's more of a nuisance as he also has a vast array of IP anon addresses. Has been giving the time of day (years?) at Mehmet Topal, gluing all sentences in storylines, removing refs he did not like and overlinking like no tomorrow.

Watch how he goes about the first "item" here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehmet_Topal&diff=next&oldid=557232438) and here (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mehmet_Topal&diff=571711756&oldid=571654811). My request is, given that we can't block anon IPs indef (we should in my opinion, yes i know it would drastically reduce the number of editors, but in my seven years of editing i have seen this has NEVER been a case of "the more the merrier"), can you hand out an "interesting" page protection please? Would highly appreciate it.

Ah, before i go: here is the sock investigation dedicated to this "user", charming no (check out here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hyrijesaliu/Archive)? Thanks in advance, keep it up --AL (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait, can you explain what is wrong with those edits? I don't think they count as vandalism, and it seems like it is simply a reorganization synthesis of information in the article. NW (Talk) 03:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, "gluing" sentences in an article is not vandalism legally if you look at it, it just shows plain disregard for others' work, so i would say this person has been blocked for: 1 - sockpuppetry; 2 - being a blatant case of WP:(IN)COMPETENCE. Plus, if they have been blocked over and over again with those accounts (and i GUARANTEE you the person i showed you in the diffs provided is them anonymously, 100% sure!), that goes to show something am i not correct?

Obviously, you're the administrator and i have the utmost respect for your approach and decisions, if you do not feel comfortable "page-protecting" i'll accept it, just a matter of reverting and ignoring i suppose. Cheers. --AL (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The merging of paragraphs here seems fine though; it actually makes the article read more nicely overall in my opinion. I'm going to leave it as is. NW (Talk) 20:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Number one, what was wrong with the Daily Mail reference? Number two, you do realize that the IP was duplicating the info on him marrying Rose Falcon, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Secret ^account 20:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You recently closed this ANI, with the comment "No administrator action necessary". I respectfully disagree. As the ANI was closed while I was off-line, I did not have an opportunity to address the comments that followed my last response. As it appears that the comments of another admin lead to the closing, I have addressed the issue on his talk page. I request that you review that ANI and it's related pages again, then I invite you to comment there. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 20:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reviewed your comments and see no reason to change my decision. NW (Talk) 20:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yeah, you did OK here kid. There was no need for this to continue back and forth. It still doesn't mean I like you any better though. :p GregJackP Boomer! 20:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@GregJackP: - Um... huh? - ^theWOLFchild 22:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume you are asking why I commented on a thread that wasn't addressed to me or involve me. I have had this page watchlisted forever and saw the question you asked. I looked at it, saw that NW made what I believe to be a correct decision to close the thread at ANI, and said so. The last sentence is between NW & myself, and he'll understand it. GregJackP Boomer! 23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

As long as he is the "kid", that "you don't like" (joking or not), and not me. You may well agree with his decision, but I don't. It's just another small example of a large problem. - ^theWOLFchild 23:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, back in I believe July you said you would be able to grab pictures of the construction of the South Acton station. Is this still the case? I've heard that work has begun on one of the platforms, so if you're able to grab a shot or two I'd be very grateful. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I might be going there back then but it looks pretty unlikely that I'll be there any time soon. Sorry, NW (Talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Thanks for the quick response. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you still need to give it an official close at WP:ANI before who knows who takes off with it and does who knows what :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No need; S. Rich's comment there should suffice. NW (Talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You blocked Excirial. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, rollback conflicts and not paying attention. You would think that Huggle would try to solve for this, or at least make you double check that you're sure you want to block an admin/rollbacker. NW (Talk) 21:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: I think you kind of missed a target here? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry about that. NW (Talk) 21:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked. I can't see a block on Special:BlockList, so I think you should be good to go. NW (Talk) 21:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Above from User talk:Excirial

I don't know if that was an evil plot intended to hog all the vandalism for yourself, or if that was intended as a friendly reminder that my cup of coffee was actually starting to freeze. I think i will assume good faith instead of assuming this was an act of "warfare", but that reminder was really the "Nuclear" option, don't you think? I don't believe in using {{Minnow}}'s, but you won't escape my toe-curling bad jokes! Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC):::

Mmmm, coffee. That sounds good right about now. Logging off... NW (Talk) 21:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Hi NuclearWarfare, I'm dealing with an editor who refuses to stop making personal attacks against me after being warned about it many times. I'm tired of warning him. I was wondering if you could talk to him.

• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

Thanks — goethean 15:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the above, my warnings:

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]

Thanks — goethean 17:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have cited this post at User talk:North8000; I imagine further discussion (if any) can continue there, though you should of course feel free to come back to me in the future. NW (Talk) 22:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please again ban User:86.149.124.107 since s/he is still vandalizing the pages. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I recently added a segment regarding abortion and Obama care. Why exactly did you delete the entire things. I believe it was both relevant and properly placed.

Nerdypunkkid (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Affordable Care Act is certainly very important. And the provisions regarding abortion matter too. But abortion is an article that's about the medical procedure, global trends, and other transnational issues. America is not the only place in the universe; the information is simply not important enough to include in this article. A version of the information may belong in the articles about the ACA or possibly the Hyde Amendment, but that's another matter. NW (Talk) 22:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there NW, AL "here",

I asked for your assistance a few months ago, you said nothing could be done. Do you think you can accommodate now, after the "user" has turned the article from this (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Cajuda&diff=579386087&oldid=579385957) into this (here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Cajuda&diff=584975637&oldid=584743677)? New version praised the hell out of the subject (i'll be dead if the account that "contributed" here before the anons "took over", called MANUEL CAJUDA (!), was not of the sons referred to in the personal section), "Anybody that watches and care about football in Portugal, know him. his career has been a successful one. His strong character and humbleness has motivated a lot of Players and teams to achieve their goals." - gotta love that "players" with a capital "P", "He is very kind with the press. Manuel Cajuda is a charismatic coach , a characteristic recognizes for most of the players coached for him. Manuel Cajuda likes to throw players from the youth and throughout his career did players like: Quim (Braga goalkeeper and national team manager), Pepe (Real Madrid), Tiago (Chelsea, Juventus and Madrid Acts) Dany (plays in Russia). Manuel Cajuda was very strong option for Carlos Queiroz subtituir the National Team (confirmed).", with absolutely no refs from his part whilst removing FIVE (of course, anything that referred to the truth of this person being sacked on X or Y club, which happens to 99,9999999999% of coaches in EVERY sport, was summarily removed), what on earth is this?!

Happy holidays to you and yours, keep it up --AL (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi AL, happy holidays to you as well. It's obviously someone trying to make the page about their favorite player into a hagiography. Annoying, but not a big deal overall. I doubt they will come back; it's just a casual fan at most. Keep it on your talk page and don't worry about it unless it happens again. Wikipedia's open to all, limited use of protection style is annoying sometimes, but it does serve to attract new editors to the project every so often. NW (Talk) 22:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You protected Stratford School‎ in 2010 citing BLP issues. I'm not sure if it is still necessary(due to RevDel). If it is appropriate will you lift the protection? If not the page seems slow enough for pending changes. Crazynas ^t 11:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. NW (Talk) 22:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi NW, regarding my closure here of the AE case regarding Alfonzo Green, it was brought to my attention that perhaps enough time wasn't given for further consideration of Alfonzo's comments due to the holiday yesterday. Did you have any intent on making a substantive change in your position regarding that case after Alfonzo's comments and before my closure? Please let me know if so... Thanks. Zad68 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have left a note on your talk page. NW (Talk) 22:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)