Misplaced Pages

User talk:NuclearWarfare: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:18, 12 April 2009 editRockiesfan19 (talk | contribs)125 edits Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppetering. (TW)← Previous edit Revision as of 20:20, 12 April 2009 edit undoRockiesfan19 (talk | contribs)125 edits my mistakeNext edit →
Line 195: Line 195:


I have finished my first run-through of the article (you've seen my comments on the talk page). Overall, I think the article is quite good. It has a little repetition in the first half that can easily be solved by a little reorganization. The writing is also very good - it is clear and concise. You might want to ask one more copyeditor to go over the article before FAC. It can never hurt to use a finetooth comb ''before'' FAC when you have the leisure time to fix things. I would recommend someone like {{ul|Scartol}} or {{ul|Brianboulton}}. Let me know when you want me to read the article again and return to my list of comments. Note that I haven't read through all of the notes to see if they are properly formatted. You should do so before you submit the article for FAC. ] (]) 05:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I have finished my first run-through of the article (you've seen my comments on the talk page). Overall, I think the article is quite good. It has a little repetition in the first half that can easily be solved by a little reorganization. The writing is also very good - it is clear and concise. You might want to ask one more copyeditor to go over the article before FAC. It can never hurt to use a finetooth comb ''before'' FAC when you have the leisure time to fix things. I would recommend someone like {{ul|Scartol}} or {{ul|Brianboulton}}. Let me know when you want me to read the article again and return to my list of comments. Note that I haven't read through all of the notes to see if they are properly formatted. You should do so before you submit the article for FAC. ] (]) 05:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

==] case==
{| align="left"
|| ]
|}
You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] (]) 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:20, 12 April 2009

I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
    Home page     Talk page     Email me     Contributions     monobook.js     Content     Awards     Userspace
Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace
This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41


RFA

Hello Nuclear Warfare,

You recently closed my RFA request early. I would like to thank you for your advice. However, I would like to request you to let the RFA last for the full time. I would appreciate it if you reverse your actions.

Thank you, Yuvmil (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to still be open at the moment (see current revision). If a non-bureaucrat does close it early, you of course have the right to let it run for the full time, but let me caution you that it probably will not be long before it is closed. I hope you do stick around Misplaced Pages though; it is a fun place to interact with people who are interested in collaborating on important reference material for the public. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ulitimate Edition‎

This is a cleanup effort but I could see how it might look otherwise.

This article was created under Ulitimate Edition‎ and Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Ultimate Edition, both are copy and pasted from Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3#Ultimate Edition. It appears that the editor plans to split the article but simply copied and pasted to each of these articles, then stopped. Ulitimate Edition‎ is a highly unlikely redirect so the first step is to clean up this. A note has been left on the editor's talk page about their intentions for Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Ultimate Edition.--RadioFan (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I went ahead and nominated it for RfD. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Why did you nominate it for review? Is there some question about my making it a redirect?--RadioFan (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no question about it; it was more for propriety's sake than anything else. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for the clarification,--RadioFan (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup of Prakash Amte

...just a note to let you know that your clean-up was good, and makes the article encyclopediac and readable! Cheers. prashanthns (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! It is very kind of you to say that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

FTC

See ? at USNA alum FTC. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

www.misericords.co.uk

Hi, I recently edited about 80 articles, adding information about the either the complete church or just adding information about the misericords and adding an "external link" to the relavent page on the www.misericords.co.uk site - as this site currently has in excess of 3000 photos of misericords, and by the time it is fully complete will have about 40,000 photos, is an educational, non-profit making site, I thought that these were valid links.

In the middle of March, your bot decided that I was spamming - something that I still do not understand, as this was never the intention. When I queried this - stating for the record that I am the site owner - I was given the very unhelpful (as i did not explain how I had infringed) answer, that I had not been blacklisted, but I would be if I continued to spam. As mentioned I did not, and still do not believe that I was spamming.

As several links had been left intact by your bot, I decided to restore a coupel of the most relevant links - and , both of which have been deleted by your bot under the heading of "unreliable source" - without in any way making this a threat - I would point out that for someone who has dedicated some 8 years of his life to studying misericords, who has be quoted as a source of information in at least 7 thesis, and has had been quoted in at least 4 published articles, this could be construed as libel, howerver the point is, I am at this point unsure why I am supposed to be an "unreliable source" and whether to bother adding the other 490 articles to Misplaced Pages.

Please can you explain what I have done wrong, and how to correct this.

If at the end of this you still decide I'm an unreliable source, surely you should remove all of my edits!

Lalratty (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I had gone through parts of your website, and I did not think that it was a reliable site. Since then, I went through further and researched your site a little more. It looks like it was indeed a good site, and I am at fault for removing the links. I shall see if I can get the "Conflict of Interest Bot" (which is not actually an editing bot, just a tool that collects the information; human editors decide individually to remove the links) to whitelist you, as your edits seem great. Please do continue adding your references and accept my apologies. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted ;-) Could you, please, leave a message when www.misericords.co.uk is whiltelisted - I'll then add details of the misericords to
Lalratty (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge WikiProject update - 04/06/2009

As the country outlines have been approaching completion and more attention has been given to the non-country outlines and the Outline of knowledge as a whole, I've run into this...

Topic lists

As you know, we've been cleaning up sets of pages the links of which are displayed on the outlines.

One of the most prominent of the sets presented are the "List of x topics" (including "List of x-related topics) pages, and they are in a sorry state.

There's actually 2 different kinds mixed together in the same set: most of them are alphabetical indexes.

The others are non-alphabetical hierarchical lists. That is...

outlines!

So, I've been renaming the indexes to "Index of x articles" or "Index of x-related articles", and wikifying them (especially their lead sections). So far, all the country-related topics lists that are indexes have been renamed. It appears the new name fits so well that nobody favors the old name over the new. It's been over a week since that was done, with no complaints, so I've started on the rest.

As for the topic lists that are outlines, those can be absorbed or merged into the OOK. Even though this would entail a lot of renaming and reformatting, and cutting and pasting, these pages might still save us some work! I'm not sure how many there are, but that should become clear once the index pages are all renamed.

Feel free to join in an help. It's hog's heaven!

The Transhumanist    04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, NuclearWarfare. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of judicial appointments made by George Washington.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 6 April 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates

There's nothing wrong with the way I format my dates. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know; I have just always preferred a consistent format, and your lists happened to be the first one I checked. I was just running the standard whitespace/table cleaner, and I figured I could run the date formatter at the same time. If it is a problem for you, please do tell me, and I'll stop immediately. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind the whitespace and table cleaning but I would like all my list on the academies (I've worked about 9 so far) to be consistent. Five are already FLs. Can you automate putting the dates back the way they were (2009-04-07 fmt)? If the list isn't an FL already they may not be consistent within that list but would be by the time I'm done with them. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no way to convert back to yyyy-mm-dd with an automated tool. Hmm, this seems to be a bit of a dilemma. If you want, you are free to revert my edits entirely, and I can go back in and add the other fixes. Alternatively, I can change all article you wish to follow the mdy formatting. My apologies for this inconvenience. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Either way it's a whole lot of work to get things to be the same through the series now. Argh. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you only want it to be the same throughout the series, converting it all to mdy makes the most sense, I'd think, as that puts it all in one format and takes very little effort. If you pointed me towards a category of "List of X Academy graduates", I'd be happy to go through it for you. Sorry about all of this. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You can change from B to A but not A to B? Unreal. If I'd wanted them formatted the way you did it, I'd have done it in the first place. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can talk to the script creator; see if I can't come up with something. Hopefully, it wouldn't be too hard to code. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. Python \o/. BJ 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I have "replied" on your talk page. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I asked him ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Project update

Thanks for the update. I just read a bit of User:The Transhumanist/Outline of knowledge, and it's proven quite useful so far. I'm sure I'll be able to use it to my advantage in the future.

Also, I think it might actually be a good idea to advertise the outlines, so the redlinks turn blue. Thoughts? –Juliancolton |  13:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this looks really great. I've come up with two suggestions: One thing that might be really useful is advertising the "Outline of Knowledge" in {{Infobox Country}} (or whatever template is used). Another would be to figure out how to expand the lead without bloating it too much. The simple one-sentence lead is too short, but four paragraphs for an outline would be excessive. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In a thread above (on my talk page), Penubag wondered if outlines could be made for medicine and physics. I pointed out that those already existed, and he replied: "I think we should make the outlines more visible in the article. The current outlines are buried all the way down in the See Also sections. It would be nice if they appeared at the beginning of the article like the hat notes. (I didn't even know we had outlines for those)."
Hatnotes would be the perfect place to mention these, because they are topical guides (tables of contents) for their respective subjects.
Anyone want to help with this?
The Transhumanist    03:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

New hatnote based on Penubag's suggestion (look at it in the edit window)

For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of whatever

It is the template {{Topical guide}}.

I hope the comment works to protect the hatnote. Suggestions welcome.

The Transhumanist    03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Characters list

Before I retire from the cartoon Avatar articles, I would like at least one decent attempt to get the Characters list past FLC. Since you are much more experienced at FLC than I am, is there any current problems with the list (besides the Reception) that will need work? Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I was moving on from Avatar articles too, but I was hoping we could at least finish the FTC together. It's OK though; I should be able to get Universe through GA with a bit lot of work. As for the character list; obviously the reception section could use work. I also think the Katara, Sokka, Toph, and Azula sections should be expanded to two paragraphs each; that would fit better with the rest of the sections. After that, we should copy edit the whole thing and send it to peer review, as the prose is extensive enough for us to need a third-party look over. After that, a FLC wouldn't be all that hard, I'd bet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

FLC nominations and reviews

Hi, NuclearWarfare. You may not be aware, but the new Featured list criteria was implemented Sunday 5 April, 00:56 (UTC) following two weeks of discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion.

I've gone through the nominations and have noticed you have !voted Support, Oppose or Neutral at the following nominations:

  1. Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Dexter episodes (List of Dexter episodes)

Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, and check them against the new Featured list criteria, and confirm/revise your !vote; any !vote made against the old criteria that is not confirmed against the new criteria will be ignored when the nomination is closed.

Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about the edits I have made a few months ago. I hope that ypu will accept my sencirest apolagy.

Jiggley puff (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) jiggley Puff 4/9/09

Apologies accepted :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Last Airbender

Updated DYK query On 10 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Last Airbender, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I should really create a duplicate version for testing, rather than editing the live version. Let me know if it's still broken, and thanks for letting me know! By the way, the script now has some documentation in the comment section at the top, and the buttons have been split into more buttons. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WPTC straw poll question

Heya, I just had a quick question about the straw poll (since you're the only person who's voted that I don't already know well). You said that because all cities have articles, why shouldn't tropical cyclones, but cities only exist (and are thus notable) if people live in them. If no one live in them (or ever lived in them), then it can't be a city, so it doesn't have an article. For most storms, I would agree with likening tropical cyclone articles to city articles, as most storms do affect people. That isn't the case for tropical cyclones that didn't affect people (or land), is it? What makes those storms just as notable? There usually isn't the same amount of info, as for storms that didn't make landfall, the info comes from only one place. Sorry to badger you, but I'm just a little curious! :) --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The best I can explain put my rationale is here. Even if the storm just formed in the ocean and ended in the ocean without hitting land, it still was tracked and warned on by at least one source, which merits keeping it in my mind. I noticed on Juliancolton's talk page, you said "I don't think the WPTC should be focusing so much of its time on articles that didn't affect anyone, and which nobody looks at." I don't mean to be rude, but if it bothers you so much, just try to encourage people to work on the more important articles in drives with you. I see no reason to merge articles and lose information which will actually have value to some people who don't want to bother to dig through the NOAA/NHC's very obscure and out-of-the-way database. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I have tried to get people to work on the more important articles, and it's never worked. As for the fish storms, most of the content is usually preserved when it is merged, and anything that isn't is usually trivial or not overall important. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge project summary, and future direction

In response to a friend on Misplaced Pages who was wondering about how I've been and what I've been up to, I got to spewing about our little endeavor, and well, I got so carried away I pretty much told him everything.  :) The message turned out to be a pretty good summary of what we've accomplished so far and the overall plan.

See User talk:The Rambling Man#What's up?

The Transhumanist    23:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

United States Academic Decathlon

I have finished my first run-through of the article (you've seen my comments on the talk page). Overall, I think the article is quite good. It has a little repetition in the first half that can easily be solved by a little reorganization. The writing is also very good - it is clear and concise. You might want to ask one more copyeditor to go over the article before FAC. It can never hurt to use a finetooth comb before FAC when you have the leisure time to fix things. I would recommend someone like Scartol or Brianboulton. Let me know when you want me to read the article again and return to my list of comments. Note that I haven't read through all of the notes to see if they are properly formatted. You should do so before you submit the article for FAC. Awadewit (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:NuclearWarfare: Difference between revisions Add topic