User talk:NuclearWarfare

The World Water Organization

Good Evening Nuclear Warface,

Would is be possible to get the deleted The World Water Organization article. I'd like to see what was previously put up and see what it would take to bring it up to par. From reading archives it seems the biggest problem was sourcing/ credibility. Can you give me an insight?

Best regards, Pam

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Price0125 (talk • contribs)

@Price0125: Hi Pam. It appears that I deleted the article as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The World Water Organization. I have emailed you a copy of the article. If and when you are able to bring the content back up to par, let an administrator know and if they think it is fine enough to add to the encyclopedia as a new article, we can restore the old history. Best, NW (Talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare:Thank you NW, I look forward to the email!

I sent it using Special:EmailUser/Price0125; send me an email at nwwikipediagmail.com if you didn't get it. NW (Talk) 00:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Hi NuclearWarfare,

This is regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Acupuncture, which you recently commented on. It's my first time dealing with Arbcom and I'm looking for an experienced mentor to guide me through the arbitration process. You appear to have a great deal of knowledge about arbitration proceedings and I was wondering if you might be interested in helping me out by offering some practical advice on how to proceed. Thanks for your time! -A1candidate (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@A1candidate: Unfortunately, I have more experience with ArbCom than I would wish. I am not sure you need to do anything more with this case request, as it looks to be trending to be declined, but I would be happy to assist you in case that it changes or if you are brought to WP:AE. Best, NW (Talk) 04:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Retrieving a deleted diff

I would like to access the User page of User:Levine2112 to retrieve a diff, but this page and its revision history has apparently been deleted. Could you tell me if there's a way to recover the relevant diff (it contains an important sockpuppet accusation). This will strengthen my case for arbitration against a particularly disruptive editor of acupuncture. -A1candidate (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

You are accusing someone of being particularly disruptive editor of acupuncture. This is disruption. QuackGuru (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

@A1candidate: Were you the old holder of that account? I see that QuackGuru has accused you of this. It is not essential that the page be undeleted to make reference to this. [1] is a link that all admins will be able to access that you can use to note that someone has accused you of having a previous account. Best, NW (Talk) 14:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not the old holder of that account. I have nothing to hide and this accusation is completely baseless. -A1candidate 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement. Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Best, NW (Talk) 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Significant finding generator

This is my new favorite web-based tool. It takes a series of 10 random numbers, and generates a statistically significant finding (p<0.05) from them. It's like being a social psychology researcher, from the comfort of your web browser! :P MastCell ^Talk 02:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, this just seems mean.

Oh, while you're here, I have a stats presentation question for you. Imagine you're seeing a demographics paper on a disease that often presents with bilateral issues, let's say kidney issues. Some people have only one diseased kidney and others have both. Would you rather have your standard Table 1 (age, sex, race, degree of kidney damage) have as the unit of measurement "kidneys" or "people"? Assume that neither materially affects the final outcomes of interest but that some of the demographics vary substantially (e.g. females are more likely to have unilateral disease). NW (Talk) 20:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a little bit hard to say without knowing the specifics, but in general, it depends on your target audience and how they think. Most physicians think in terms of people rather than of kidneys (one would hope), so expressing Table 1 in terms of people would make the most sense if they're the target audience. I'm not sure what your target audience is—maybe demographers or epidemiologists would find kidneys rather than people to be the more informative unit in this context. I guess in an ideal world, both would be presented in Table 1, but I know that these tables often become unwieldy. MastCell ^Talk 16:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I might have to end up buying this.

It's something to think about for sure. I think we'd more likely be going for the nephrologists than the epidemiologists, as our methods are interesting but not particularly groundbreaking. Honestly, rather than going back and forth on this, maybe it's better just to send it in, have reviewers 1 and 3 get mad at us no matter which way we go, and fix it for the revise and resubmit... NW (Talk) 14:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hah... I see you're wise in the ways of peer review. At some point I was working on a reviewer-to-English translator. For instance, when a reviewer complains that you've "failed to cite seminal papers in the field", the translation would be: "failed to cite my papers". When a reviewer says that your manuscript "addresses an extremely important and relevant question but requires further experimental support", what they mean is: "I am almost ready to submit a manuscript on this exact same topic, so hopefully this will keep you busy long enough for my grad student to finish our manuscript". And so on. All totally hypothetical of course.

I like the T-shirt idea, and even better, the proposed captions (especially the one that simply reads: "Psychological Science"). Andrew Gelman is a hero of mine.

I've been inspired by Wikipedia, and specifically by the ongoing "debate" at Talk:Homeopathy, to create a simple didactic problem: let's say a treatment has a pre-test likelihood of effectiveness of 0.01%, based on existing knowledge (this would be extremely generous to homeopathy, but it's a teaching exercise). Then you see a randomized controlled trial published somewhere reputable but untrustworthy (let's say, I dunno, The Lancet) with an α=0.05 and power (1-β) of 80% which reports a statistically significant benefit (p<0.05) for homeopathy over placebo. How likely is it that homeopathy actually works? Now let's say you see 5 successive well-conducted randomized clinical trials with those parameters, each of which finds that homeopathy is significantly more effective than placebo—now how likely is it that homeopathy actually works? And so on. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

So, I never actually took an epi class and Dr. Google and I are not on good terms today. But the fact that it took me a couple minutes to understand this the other day means that I probably ought to learn it one day. NW (Talk) 03:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

If you understand that figure, then you already know more about statistics than 80% of biomedical investigators and 100% of social psychologists. So don't feel bad. :P MastCell ^Talk 06:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When I saw this header, I thought it was a web application that randomly generated significant findings for ArbCom to use. --Rschen7754 03:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That fishing test is a thing of beauty. Great tool for making up data. :) Guettarda (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Central log for all sanctions

Hey NW. You mentioned that discretionary sanctions could be logged centrally. That sounds doable. In effect the community already has the equivalent, at the WP:General sanctions page. If there is a central log for WP:AC/DS it might be housed at WP:AC/DS/Log. If the log is centralized then alerts will probably make the recipient eligible for sanctions in every Arb case. But we should be able to live with that -- maybe tweak the wording of the alert. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if ArbCom would go for the idea that one alert is enough to cover all topic areas; after all, discretionary sanctions are authorized for two or three dozen topic areas. But I like the general idea of a single log. We could also then actually format it in a more legible manner instead of just randomly signing our usernames next to more and more sanctions. NW (Talk) 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

A more legible manner? How? In the past Arbcom has liked putting things in tables. I can see both pros and cons. EdJohnston (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not that it's extremely illegible now, but tables would help. Sometimes it just gets hard to find things among all the diffs and the signatures. NW (Talk) 04:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Brandon cooper

What was the reason for deleting the page I created?

It did not make any attempt to meet the neutrality or anti-advertising policies of Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 23:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Open Requested Move that needs an uninvolved admin

This RM could use an experienced and respected uninvolved admin to close it. [2] There is a long debate, with by my count a slight majority of editors Opposed to the proposed move, and the Supporters split over exactly what title they want to move too. Please Google the proposed title too. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Legacypac. I have reviewed the talk page and will be happy to close the discussion for you. Am I correct in stating that we have never had significant interaction in the past and to the best of my knowledge, I am not WP:INVOLVED with this topic? I believe that to be the case as well, but I would also like to make sure that WP:CANVASS is appropriately followed. NW ;;

(Talk) 23:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Correct, I can't remember ever having other then passing interaction, and I'm not aware of you ever working on this topic. I reached out because I remembered you were an Arb in the past and happened to see you delete some spam I flagged. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You topic banned this user, hes back at it

YOu topic banned user Jimmuldrow from Sarah Palin related articles due to his behavior vis-a-vie obamacare diff. He's back, more or less following the same script diff. Bonewah (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark-blocked script

If you have a moment could you please see that I have correctly loaded this script, and how do i verify it is working? Many thanks. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The script doesn't work anymore. I have no idea how to fix it. NW (Talk) 13:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, it still works for me. I use the script with the source directly from ruwiki. Epic Genius (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's working for me again. No clue why, but I'll take it. NW (Talk) 19:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you in an ANI thread

Hi NW, wanted to let you know I've mentioned you in this ANI thread regarding Tumadoireacht, whom you blocked about 3 months ago for disruptive editing. This ANI thread is about a topic ban (I didn't start the thread). Consider checking in there with your perspective. Thanks... Zad68 03:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that a topic ban is being discussed by others, it probably wouldn't be proper to short-circuit procedure and indef block, but at this point something more is warranted. NW (Talk) 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

List of locations in Once Upon a Time

I saw the ANI thread about that article: apparently it was copied from another wiki which has CC-BY-SA licensing like Wikipedia, so copying is permitted as long as attribution is supplied. The problem (from what I could tell) was that whoever copied it didn't supply the necessary attribution. I have no view about whether the topic is notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the first place, but assuming it is, instead of deleting it, couldn't we have just fixed the attribution issue by adding a cite to the other wiki? I didn't see the article before it was deleted, so don't know if there were other possible problems. Thanks. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It still would have violated the plagiarism guidelines. But more importantly, as you note, it was just a lot of fancruft that was not notable enough for Wikipedia to begin with. Best, NW (Talk) 19:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie

While researching on this ongoing sockpuppetry since 2010, I came to know that at least 2 accounts[3](DanS76 and Zhanzhao) that were used during the RFC/UA and ANI re:La goutte de pluie were owned by a single person. Since this matter is equivalent to long term sock puppetry, I would be glad if you would want to discuss further.

I have also restored an earlier version of La goutte de pluie's UP. They haven't socked for 3 years now. Revert if you disagree. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)