User talk:NuclearWarfare

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Would you do the same for the country outlines?

Thank you for going over the state outlines and spotting those missing items.

Would you mind browsing the country outlines and look for ways to improve them as a whole?

I look forward to your ideas.

Thanks man.

The Transhumanist    00:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for image review

Hi! Since you've done a number of image reviews of Featured Article candidates, I was wondering if you could take a look at Planescape: Torment's images. We're hoping to nominate it soon, and it would be nice if we could fix any image-related problems before the actual nomination. There's a peer review page open right now; it would be much appreciated if you could comment there. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 19:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; I did so and have posted at the peer review. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Email

I read your email, and I'm a bit confused at what the issue is. I read the discussion, but all I understood was the bit about article size. Is the discussion about shrinking the article, or a split into a different one? If so, what would the second article be? Could you clarify a bit? Thanks, --haha169 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the editors there, think the article is too long and so ought to be split. They think the most logical splitting part is to recreate Bending in Avatar: The Last Airbender. I disagree. Mind popping over to Talk:Universe of Avatar: The Last Airbender? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing it, but I have nothing to say. I wasn't very involved in the original articles nor the universe articles, and I don't really have much of an opinion on this issue. Sorry about that, but I feel like I would just be asking questions more than debating. --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I just thought I'd contact you as you are one of the most active WP:AVATAR members. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not yet a WP:AVATAR member yet. :P --haha169 (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Help Request

This article Chiang Kai-shek and Kuomintang and Republic of China frequently Vandalism by anonymous IP address, so I consider these article should be became full-protected or semi-protected for a long time. thank you. 59.105.23.41 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

He wrote some four editors> I told him I disagree. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear IP: While I'm not an administrator, I would agree with Debresser's opinion here. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Debresser: Thanks for letting me know. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 18:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase

Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

• From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
• Special report: Community weighs license update
• News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD

Spoilsport. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on, there are plenty of other places to mess around. :) NuclearWarfare :  Chat  01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't tempt me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy April Fool's Day

File:Portapotty3000ppx.JPG		Port-a-Potty!!!
		Fastily (talk) has given you a Port-a-potty!!! Now whatever are you going to do!? Happy April Fools Day!!!! Give others port-a-potties by adding {{subst:User:Fastily/Portapotty}} to their talk page with, importantly, a friendly message.

Happy April Fool's!!! :P - Fastily (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi there, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Last Airbender

I'm not sure what you're trying to do. You restored a lengthy lead section and marked it as too long. You removed spacing from {{Infobox Film}} so the fields don't line up as easily. You replaced a cited "Premise" section with an uncited one. You restored an inappropriate non-free image. Please undo your edits, and let's discuss each item at Talk:The Last Airbender#Fresh Start. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm typing now. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, I do not understand why you went to a poorly written version of the article and then tried to clean it manually. Would it not have been easier for you to go back to the original, shorter superior version? Alientraveller (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at the talk page. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 20:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad we were able to balance out the revisions. I was wondering, where can I find the support you mentioned for the "crumpled" infobox fields? I always found the uncrumpled layout (as seen at Template:Infobox Film) and was wondering about the justification. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And honestly, I'm not actually sure. I'll dig around; see if I can find it for you. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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!

I don't understand why this was nominated. It's been around for some time, and hasn't been substantially expanded recently. Am I missing something? decltype (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied there with a clarification. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Outline of knowledge WikiProject update - 04/02/2009

Hi everyone.

Things are going slow again. Where have you been?!

Maybe what you need to get you going is a little competition...

Who are we competing with?

Encyclopedia Britannica. Specifically, with its Outline of knowledge (presented in its volume called the Propaedia). Currently, they're kicking our asses. You've really got to check out their Outline of Knowledge (available only in the encyclopedia's paper edition - not the online version).

Portals. Informally, of course, just for the fun of it. There are around 600 portals. We're about 100 behind them, with about 500 outlines. Let's blow past them and leave 'em in the dust!

Confusion in editors at large

Now that the country outlines have been moved to the encyclopedia proper (article space), recruiting help on these is of high priority -- it will soon be time to alert all relevant editors to the nature and function of these and how they relate to other country coverage on Wikipedia.

However, I've noticed instances in which editors do not understand the nature and function of outline pages, and complain that they are redundant to articles. Well, ya. (That's the point of an outline - to provide the essentials in a structure for greater understanding, for easy viewing and faster reading, and to provide a topical guide).

A few editors over the years have viewed outlines as redundant to portals, not understanding the purpose and scope of outlines, nor the benefits provided by their structure and standardization.

These problems of misunderstanding need to be solved before "going public", to prevent their expansion as the community's awareness of these pages increases. Consider the response we'd get now if we announced these pages on the talk pages of 500 WikiProjects, 500 article talk pages, and placed links in 500 see also sections, etc.

That could be a nightmare.

So...

Encyclopedic and administrative support

I've been working on a couple things that will help alleviate confusion and hopefully reduce the need for editors to ask questions and seek advice. They're drafts, still under construction. Please look these over and jump in and help complete them (directly or by providing feedback):

First is an Outline article draft, intended to replace the current Outline article.

Next is a guideline on the Outline of knowledge and its outline pages.

Let me know what you think. Do they help you understand outlines better and how to develop them on Wikipedia? What is missing? How can they be improved?

The Transhumanist    04:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 - [misericord] and [Cologne_cathedral], 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 Wikipedia.

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 [Magdeburg_Cathedral]

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 Wikipedia: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.

Wikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

• Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
• News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
• Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
• WikiProject report: WikiProject China
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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)

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 | ^Talk 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)