User talk:NuclearUmpf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (protection log). If you wish to make a change, you can request unprotection.

Contents 1 Some people 2 Words to live by 3 Thank you for staying. 4 Hipocrite's complaint 5 Please stop 6 911cd 7 TfD 8 The threat 9 Mediation? 10 Re: 9/11 Reversion 11 Notification AN/I Discussion 12 Refactor talk page comments 13 Blocked 14 Peace Out 14.1 Godspeed NU

Some people

• Can give but not take. [1]
• Think they are WikiThugs. "You best to ..." should be replied with "... learn to format a sentence?"

Words to live by

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

Thank you for staying.

We need people like you here. --BenBurch 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you its appreciated. I decided to fight a different way. Instead of arguing and reverting I will support the items I think should be mentioned and articles that I feel should be kept by providing citations and asking for them in return. There is too much arguing and not enough proving it seems. Just have to remember there will be lumps to take in the whole thing, can't always be right, can't always have your way. --NuclearZer0 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite's complaint

Except you're currently going through my contributions list and merely reverting everything I do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You removal of EL's by DTN because you and another random person agreed. Not everything, stop being a dramatist. --NuclearZer0 17:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

I am trying to disengage from you, and all of your cohorts. I'm begging you to please stop following me around the encyclopedia egging people on to get into fights with me. You don't need to profess your innocence in response - in fact, you can just delete this comment after you read it, but please stop following my contribution history. It's not helpful to either of us. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you consider disengaging? You cannot continue the same act that people disagree with, removing the links, then say you are disengaging. I would like to have nothing to do with you either, however your method of disengaging invovles removing DTN and having noone oppose you, that is not disengaging. Perhaps if you ceased your crusade against Horowitz or at least supported your claims that he spreads lies on purpose, #2 of EL, then perhaps you would get somewhere. --NuclearZer0 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You have again, followed me to a totally unrelated article with the express purpose of reverting me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You added a ^{[citation needed]} tag and I added the citation, I thought you would be happy and it would be a sign of peace. Why are you mad about me providing a citation? --NuclearZer0 20:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I want you to leave me alone. Leave me alone. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

O please stop, I am allowed to add content, which is what you requested with your tag. I am not banned from adding citations. Again I did you a favor, you requested a citation and it was provided. I am done with your "woe is me" behavior on my talk page and see it now as baiting. Please do not post here again. --NuclearZer0 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

911cd

Ahoj, Nuke, could you please drop by, I could really use your expertise here. How do I source that so it can be implemented in the article? And when you find some time do correct, expand, trim or improve in anyway. Thanks. Lovelight 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD

I have nominated for deletion Template:911cd. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your suppose to nominate the creator. Thank you, though. --NuclearZer0 17:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template." -- WP:TFD Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd one of the people you nominated was not a contributor. --NuclearZer0 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who would that be? Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, you only notified 3 people. --NuclearZer0 18:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin contributed this edit on 03:42, 12 February 2007. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LoL --NuclearZer0 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and I'm sorry that I wasted your time, should have seen it coming… I've certainly earned some experience points today, with regards to naiveté… Lovelight 23:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The threat

Thanks so much, but I'm not going to break the rules. If he wants to pull this stuff, he's welcome to break the rules himself. RunedChozo 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation?

I've created a collection of possible dispute loci here for which mediation might be appropriate, including some guideline violations I may have committed. Please do not edit the page, but comment on its talk page. Some of the loci would require adding additional editors in the mediation, and some other loci make no sense without those loci, and some loci might not be appropriate for mediation, but I think it wise to determine our loci of dispute in order to see where we may reach agreement immediately, or to assist the mediator in determining where we might readily reach agreement. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: 9/11 Reversion

Hi, while I agree the article is made up of content from other sub-articles, that doesn't mean all the links etc. from the related articles need to be in the main one. Just the notable ones only. Looking at the reversions, the broader consensus appears to be that the link isn't notable enough to be included in the main article, given that it already has is own related article, and I stand by my reversions. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Notification AN/I Discussion

Thank you for participating in this discussion. I feel that this discussion has helped me clarify and improve my practice in providing these notices. I have summarized these improvements on my talk page. Please feel free to comment. Thanks again. Edivorce 18:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Edivorce 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Refactor talk page comments

I suggest you remove the comment where you included my supposed place of work in your talk page edit.[2] You have been blocked four times since your arbcom probation and now banned from one article for three months. I'd appreciate it if you don't attempt to defame me in this manner again.--MONGO 16:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My apolgies, did you not admit to working there on your talk page already? If this is a mistake, just confirm and I will change it. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 16:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PS, WP:DICK regarding your Arbcom mention. --NuclearZer0 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am asking you to remove it since it is obvious that you added it deliberately to defame my contributions. Nothing is hidden on wiki, and no, I have stated repeatedly that I haven't worked for <redacted> since June 2006. I'll give you 30 minutes to comply.--MONGO 16:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF. I refactored according to the statement you made, where you admitted to working there. I am not sure what the problem is other then you assuming its meant to defame you. I will update it again stating you do not work there currently I guess. --NuclearZer0 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not add or restore comments specualting about where Mongo works. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Go away, its not speculation, he admitted, right above you, lol. And in his Arbcom hearing ... do your homework before you harrass me. --NuclearZer0 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I do not know what you think you are playing at trolling MONGO, but you are blocked while I consult other admins as to what we should do about it. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware I am not involved in this ongoign dispute, whatewver it might be. Perhaps you can tell me which dispute it is, so I can see if I'm involved. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As blocknig admin you cant turn down the request anyway, stop harrassing me. --NuclearZer0 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you this daft in real life? You asserted that I have a conflict of interest> I'm intrigued to know what it might be. Asking you to state what the conflict of interest might be is not "harassment" according to any rational definition of the word. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your a dick, you come here stating "are you daft in real life" , are you a dick in real life? You state publically that you want conspiracy articles expunged from Wikipedia, then do not think its a COI to deal with conspiracy articles and arguements on those pages using your admin powers, wow get real. Stop asking stupid questions you know the answer to already. Why are you even hear, I got the indef, you can stop baiting. PS you are suppose to bait with a passive agressive tone, asking are you daft in real life, isnt passive, noob, go ask Morton how to do it, he can teach you. Dont post here anymore. --NuclearZer0 10:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Peace Out

For final, for all I have added to this encyclopedia. I will open two accounts, one to harrass the gang of <personal attack redacted>, and one to edit anonymously. Later all and thanks for wasting my time. --NuclearZer0 17:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your above stated intention to disrupt through harassment, your block has been extended to indefinite. Good bye. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear God, what is wrong with you people? Where are these hearings held? I'd like to have a word too. Please leave a notice about whereabouts of discussion with regards to this case, either here or at my talkpage. Thanks. Lovelight 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANB/I. --StuffOfInterest 20:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no hearing, Zer0faults/Nuclearumpf was not on trial. I blocked him per, as I stated above, his explicit threat to disrupt the project through harassment. After blocking him, I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef_block_of_NuclearUmpf.2FZerofaults so there would be visibility. Again, please note that it isn't a trial or 'case', it's a straight forward block based on his own behavior. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious...what have you (Nuclear/Zer0) added to the encyclopedia. All I've seen is disruption, and, at best, marginally POV edits. And personal attacks. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to troll here. Rather than remove your comment I'll give you an answer, of one incident off the top of my head where Nuclear was reported for disruptive editing. I reviewed it, and found he had removed several sections that were unsourced and had been so tagged for more than a week. (Allegations that the US engages in state-sponsored terrorism; it was not clear whether the allegations were from the mind of the previous editor or were from a reliable and notable source.) One editor ran straight to complain; in the mean time another editor actually found a source and readded the allegations with proper references. The encyclopedia was thereby improved, and Nuclear was properly respectful and complimentary to the editor who found the source. This is certainly not representative of every one of Nuclear's edits, but its a fair answer to an unfair question. Thatcher131 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I'd forgotten about that one. I'm sure I'd seen it. On balance, I think his damage and disruption of the encyclopedia outweigh his constructive edits, but there were some, even in 9/11 articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions

• Abu Sayyaf - Extensive sourcing of article.
• Akir - Extensive copy editing of content.
• al-Badr - Create article. Sourced it.
• Big Noyd - Add Discography. Created articles for all albums.
• Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri - Convert to cite format. Created sections, basic copy editing.
• Kimberly Osorio - Created article, heavily sourced.
• Paul Thompson - Recreated more detailed article and fully sourced.
• Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network (PAGN) - Created article and heavily sourced it
• Operation Sinbad - Created article and sourced it appropriatly.
• Sikh Light Infantry - Cleanup, wikify and infobox details.
• Thai Rak Thai - Extensive sourcing to Factions section to remove "sources needed" tag.

[edit] Album Articles

• Welcome To Our World by Timbaland & Magoo
• Tim's Bio: Life From Da Bassment by Timbaland
• Indecent Proposal by Timbaland & Magoo
• Under Construction, Part II by Timbaland & Magoo
• Episodes of a Hustla by Big Noyd
• Only The Strong by Big Noyd
• On the Grind by Big Noyd
• The Stickup Kid by Big Noyd

[edit] Under zer0faults [edit] WikiParticipation

• Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq - Rework of contents for clarity, reduced size of overview.
• Operation Enduring Freedom - Added large portion regarding OEF-P and OEF-HOA. Trimmed OEF-A contents down.
• Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa - Created article, currently a stub. Searching for more information.
• Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines - Added information on Operation Smiles, humanitarian work.
• Graffiti - Reworked center portion to create a cohesive linear timeline. Layout work, copy editing.
• Al-Abud Network - Created article, currently a stub, looking for more information.
• Jaysh Muhammad - Created article, currently needs more.
• War on Terrorism - Considerable work with co-editor Rangeley. Added Theatres of Operations + Objectives & Strategies.
• John Matos - Created article on prominant graffiti artist John "Crash" Matos.
• Cope2 - Extensive reworking of the article, expansion from stub to complete article + sources.
• Kurdistan Freedom Falcons - Extensive cleanup and sourcing of article, removed copyvio.

As you can see I have created numerous articles, about 4-5 I believe. Heavily sourced many, and helped rewrite 1 from scratch. I also organized the Graffitti article into what it is now, format wise, since it was a mess before. You can see articles like Cope2 and see where they were before I started working on them, and then after, same for Graffitti. I created the John Matos article, Jaysh Muhammed article, al-Abud network article, OEF-HOA (along with rangeley), Kimberly Osorio, al-Badr. What has most of the people who pushed me off Wikipedia done? Seriously I wasnt gonig to harrass anyone. If I wanted to I could easily hit a web proxy and be the next Willy on Wheels. I will however edit anonymously as politics of having a username is a waste. Also to those saying I made a homophobic slander, grow up, unless one of the people it was directed at has admitted to being a homosexual, its not really a homophobic slander, much like the word Fuck isnt related to garden tools anymore. So here is the question, what has the people opposing me contributed? Thank you Thatcher131 for standing up for me through all the Scarlet Letter harrassment, maybe this just needed to be done so I can edit in peace, without Tom, Aude, MONGO, JzG (which stated he hated conspiracy articles) and the lot fo others on Mortons "friends" page following me around. Note most of the people supporting the block and instituting them all have that -rl takg on Mortons page ... I bet its all a coincidence. This will be my last edit, felt I needed to address the nonsense, and dramatics. PS. Ryan stated I made sockpuppet allegations? when, show a dif please, it was Ryan that accused me of being a sockpuppet of Rex for almsot half a year, yet now I am the one accussing people? o lord. --NuclearZer0 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Godspeed NU

I for one, am very sorry to see NU go. Until his recent metamorphosis, we seemingly resided in different galaxies of the political and philosphical universe, and he even filed an RfC against me (helped make me much more civil, and guarded), but he was always fair in his battles, and always fair with his charges of WP violations against me. No 'traps', no phony claims based on misrepresentations, no whining to Admins. (unless my fondness for his recent change is giving me a rose-colored rear-view mirror ;-) His application of WP was also fairly applied to subjects he 'opposed' or 'endorsed' - a sometimes rare commodity among editors. He was also always willing to go head to head in the battleplace of ideas, rather than relying on Wikilawyering and specious ever-shifting interpretation and application of BLP, depending on if the goal was inclusion or exclusion. He put WP above politics - not many 'Poli-Warriors' do. I remember an incident right in the middle of one of our fierce battles - I had gone to NYC and bought some really upscale jeans ( PRPS ) and decided to add a bit to the article. I saw NU's name on the page the next day (?) and thought "Fuck! He's 'wikistalking' me and is going to mess with the article just to annoy me." He added some useful content instead. He had a good sense of humor too. I'll weigh-in on his metamorphosis and his storied exodus from Mythical CTNB Cabal once I figure it all out - and that may not be in THIS lifetime! ;-) Godspeed NU! - FaAfA 09:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cause PRPS is the pimps. Honestly after a while i got tired of the "roving concensus" tactic that was "possibly" being used. I actually felt bad after seeing what happened to seabhcan, cause while I disagreed with him and wanted to quash his view, I did not want them (random people, no accusation of a cabal rofl) to push for him to lose his admin powers. In the end MONGO got exposed of all the dirty work he did on conspiracy articles as well and lost his powers. In the whole drama though they gained another conspiracy hating admin in JzG. Which is even more blatant, he has actually stated he wants them wiped off wikipedia, like that Iranian president kinda comment rofl. Anyway FAAFA, its not really about politics its about whats right for Wikipedia. The people who follow GabrielF's noticeboard do not vote for whats right, they vote against what they hate, which is conspiracies. How else can you vote for Steven E Jones to be deleted? especially by using NN as your reason ... wtf? I guess Cold Fusion isnt that notable after all. Anyway happy wiki editing, I may return one day to the political arena, been editing some local articles and will see how that goes for now. --NuclearZer0 11:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're back! Welcome back NU! What got me pissed was when I started researching the CTNB AfD's and found this one AfD Kathleen_Christison. The nom argued "NN. Only real assertion of notability is from her book, which gets only 150 Ghits practically all of which are blogs. Aaron" Gotta love those bogus intentionally narrow Google searches, eh? (didn't work for Morty with CommonDreams though ;-) Look at the REAL search results for her. Ghits 16 years with the CIA too. I wondered why she was even listed on the CT board. (like that Osama article and a few others) At first I thought they nominated her for being an anti-Zionist, and that isn't too popular a view with the Neoconian CTNB'ers, but then I found the REAL reason! She is MARRIED to a 9/11 'truther' - and one comment even said 'wife of 9/11 CT Bill Cristenson!'. (she isn't very involved with husband's 9/11 CT work) I tried to get it overturned but The Force of the Mythical Cabal is strong! - FaAfA 12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really back. I do not edit under this name anymore. I had to create a new username etc. I agree with you on the joke that they have made of AfD. The problem is that Wikipedia in general feels that even a "roving concensus" is a concensus. Its ok for a group of 6 people who hate conspiracy theory related articles to go, nominate, then all vote delete in tandem. The only problem is I cannot post TBeatty's non-existent email (so they say its not existent) which would prove that their is off Wiki "discussion" involving "I put XYZ up for deletion for NN, you can cast a !vote to delete." Not a direct quote of course. I thought posting there name would have been enough to prove I had been contacted, but apparently not.

The people who believe in conspiracy theories are just going to have to suck it in. There is now MONGO who other admins are sympathetic to because of ED, JzG who has openly stated they wanted conspiracy articles off Wikipedia, Tom Harrison who I am sure you have dealt with, opposing simply to oppose, circular logic etc. Arthur Rubin who is also a treat, told Lovelight to make a 9/11 Controlled Demolition template instead of editing the conspiracy theory one, I told Lovelight they will just have it deleted or not let them place it anywhere and not to bother, Lovelight went ahead and so did they with having it deleted, no surprise.

Its kind of odd that there is no cabal, yet according to User:NuclearUmpf/trends it seems Tom Harrison has never voted differently from Morton or TBeatty. And you can always count on those on Mortons friends list, marked with -rl, to vote in tandem with Morton. =/ Anyway I will reply here now and then, but continue to edit under my other account instead.

To Thatcher131, sorry it came to this, but I can only take being ganged up on for so long, especially when all the admins responding to my complaints on ANI were on Mortons friends list. --NuclearZer0 13:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)