User talk:NuclearSpuds

Welcome!

Hi NuclearSpuds! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Anerdw (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🙏👍 NuclearSpuds (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job

Professionalism etc. LOVECEL ^🤍 01:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 🫶 ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 04:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Second presidency of Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 20:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nuremberg Defense

Hello,

I'm not sure that DOGE is not responsible for having done what it did, even if it just "follows order".

By that logic, we might argue that DOGE has no impact at all, at least if we presume that it indeed just "follows order". Selbsportrait (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Selbsportrait, what in particular are you referencing? Some of the recent edits I made to the DOGE impact section were because the described impacts weren't attributed to DOGE if that's what you're talking about. I do agree that if DOGE was ordered to do something then it would still fall under the impact section though, so let me know if that's the case. ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 06:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes DOGE says that it has been told to do what it does, sometimes it says otherwise. Depends on how they gallop in various court cases, or if it's part of their PR stunts. Their ambiguous pleadings have disappeared from the page. We know what DOGE does. We don't need their testimony, which isn't reliable anyway.

If we accept that DOGE fiddled with USAID, and that this fiddling led to deaths, then whether they act by their own authority or they simply "follow orders" is immaterial: they're responsible in both cases. The Nuremberg defense seldom works. It certainly doesn't work for Bill Gates.

The WP:SYNTH question is different. To keep claims where a clear trace to DOGE is made in the source makes sense. Attribution can't be strict: it's really hard to tell what exactly that DOGE did that led to what exactly. Only very rough correlations can be made, and partial ones to boot.

All this will only be clear when the Actions section will itself be clearer. So perhaps I should work on getting to a level of generality that can afford attribution. We can't trace all the small things DOGE did, like when Farritor overruled Rubio. And even if we did, how can we trace back deaths to that specific event?

As long as we agree on the Nuremberg Defense, I trust your judgement. Selbsportrait (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maryana Iskander, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to edit requests

Hi, I noticed you implemented some of the requested edits for the article Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, but you didn't close out the edit request templates once completed. I've done this for you know, but I wanted to let you know for any future edit requests you come across that it's important to mark them as answered once you have resolved them. This stops them filling up the backlog at CAT:EEP. You can do so in the source editor by changing the answered=no parameter of the request template to answered=yes, more details at Template:EPER. I also wanted to mention that whenever making an edit someone else has requested, especially when directly copying and inserting their exact words, it's very important to include a link to that user in your edit summary for copyright attribution purposes. More info on that at WP:ERCOPYVIO, and the rest of WP:ER is also a good read if you're just getting into responding to edit requests. Hope this helps! SI09 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll keep that in mind. I didn't know there was an 'answered' parameter for requests. ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 21:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious Topics

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful, thanks. ^📻NuclearSpuds_🎙️ 19:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]