| Revision as of 01:04, 22 September 2010 editCla68 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers48,127 edits →You are edit-warring: really?← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:07, 22 September 2010 edit undoA Quest For Knowledge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,191 edits →You are edit-warring: Even if I was wrong - which I am not - this gives you no excuse to be edit-warring.Next edit → | ||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
| :No. Enforcing ontopicness on an extension of the administrators' noticeboards != edit warring. If you have an issue to bring up, please don't try to slip it in; raise it through appropriate channels. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | :No. Enforcing ontopicness on an extension of the administrators' noticeboards != edit warring. If you have an issue to bring up, please don't try to slip it in; raise it through appropriate channels. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::NuclearWarfare, you don't think that WMC's edit warring in the BLP of a climate change sceptic is related to his edit warring at RealClimate of ''The Hockey Stick Illusion''? ] (]) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | ::NuclearWarfare, you don't think that WMC's edit warring in the BLP of a climate change sceptic is related to his edit warring at RealClimate of ''The Hockey Stick Illusion''? ] (]) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::Even if I was wrong - which I am not - this gives you no excuse to be edit-warring. You are an '''Admin'''. IMHO, you should be held to higher standards which includes not acting in conduct unbecoming. ] (]) 01:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:07, 22 September 2010
I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Thwack!
Whack!
For not matching div tags in this edit and breaking everyone's watchlist :) Shubinator (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Oops! Looks like Preview wasn't good enough to catch that. Thanks for fixing my mistake.
Also want to ask, would this update to the watchlist break anything? NW (Talk) 16:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, unmatched tags can be tough to spot.
- The watchlist update looks good now. You might want to run it by Xeno just to make sure. Shubinator (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Drafted to do research
... the short answer is yes (I added the L.A. Times obituary to source Gajdusek's military service). In theory, everyone was liable to the draft, including researchers. If they were drafted and turned out to have relevant skills from their civilian life, then they might be assigned to an appropriate command. Gajdusek was assigned to the Walter Reed Army Medical Service, presumably because he was a research virologist in civilian life and the military was interested in viruses for the obvious reasons. As another example, my personal hero, Tom Lehrer, was drafted in the 1950s. Since he was a mathematician, he was assigned to the NSA - basically, he was drafted to do "applied mathematics". MastCell 19:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. The reason I was surprised was the only war that I could think of that was going on at the time was the Korean War, which mostly required men for the infantry, if I recall my history readings correctly. Do you know why the US Government bothered to assign him to Walter Reed instead of exempting him, besides the obvious answer that it is simpler and cheaper to force someone to work on something if they are your employee rather than a contractor? NW (Talk) 21:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. I can't say much more about Gajdusek, because the sources are somewhat limited, but when Lehrer was drafted he basically went along with it because it was very hard to get an exemption; you had to be in a reserved occupation, which was narrowly defined. To be honest, though, that's pretty much the limit of my knowledge about the draft. MastCell 22:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you, for the closure of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Most Hated Family in America. :) I saw your edit summary here , thanks so much for the quality upgrade to B-class, and the kind comments about your assessment of its current level of quality. Much appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The Hockey Stick Illusion
Re the protect: fair enough, if that seems correct to you. I put it to you (m'lud :) NW (Talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)) that an alternative approach would be to semi it William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and I just noticed Including with likely sockpuppets - would a CU on the anons be in order? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps. If I were a checkuser, I might check the IP ranges to see which logged out users (most likely) are edit warring, but since I'm working on limited information, I don't know if I could do per WP:SILVERLOCK (2nd bullet point). NW (Talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful, but I'm not sure if the checkusers really have the time or the inclination to look into this. A formal SPI is probably unnecessary, but an email to a few of the newer and hence more active checkusers might be worth it. NW (Talk) 17:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Doubt
Hi there wiki-warrior, VASCO here,
Could you please (if you can't then nobody can't :)) clear me on why did this edit of mine, as anon, merit the tag "possible BLP issue or vandalism", in the article's edit history (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gonzalo_Arconada_Echarri&diff=385996580&oldid=377889246)? Really bizzarre, to say the least.
Cheers, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Probably as a result of the word "sacked"; sometimes the edit filter will pick up on these things and flag it for review. It's not a presumption of wrongdoing or anything like that, but it is nice because a lot of articles get vandalized that this filter picks up, unfortunately with some false positives as well.
By the way, how come you didn't add a source to the article when you added that bit of info? NW (Talk) 00:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ummm...please don't delete my posts
Ummm...please don't delete my posts. This is not polite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
You are edit-warring
Can you please self-revert? You are edit-warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- No. Enforcing ontopicness on an extension of the administrators' noticeboards != edit warring. If you have an issue to bring up, please don't try to slip it in; raise it through appropriate channels. NW (Talk) 01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, you don't think that WMC's edit warring in the BLP of a climate change sceptic is related to his edit warring at RealClimate of The Hockey Stick Illusion? Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even if I was wrong - which I am not - this gives you no excuse to be edit-warring. You are an Admin. IMHO, you should be held to higher standards which includes not acting in conduct unbecoming. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare, you don't think that WMC's edit warring in the BLP of a climate change sceptic is related to his edit warring at RealClimate of The Hockey Stick Illusion? Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)