User talk:Nlu/archive13

Vandal

Since I've been getting no response on AIV...

• 218.188.3.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Has vandlized multiple pages, ignored warnings. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it as soon as I finish dealing with vandalism on my own user page. :-) :-( --Nlu (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I appreciate it. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Thanks

Happy to help :) Pegasus1138 07:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanization for Bohai-related articles

I proposed to use Pinyin as the default romanization for Bohai-related articles (again). If you are interested, add your comments at Talk:Bohai. --Nanshu 10:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

When I can, I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I just started reporting to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Now i learn how the system works, i'll report after test4-n. Cheers--Ugur Basak 14:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence! --Nlu (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nlu, possible suckpuppet User:Omiz. Vandalised same page, but stop after warning. I guess he gets new usernames--Ugur Basak 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible, but let's just keep watching. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Haitian Transportation Sensation

I realize you've been hit a few times by these vandals, as have I. I've done the best I can to catch and revert as many instances of their "work" as I can, however with the ever growing number of sock puppets these guys are using, I'm strongly suggesting we ban the ones that have user names now and nip this in the bud. I've compiled a list of sock puppets and instances of vandalism on the page for User talk:Repartee. So far only one of the puppets has been blocked. User:Kmf164 and User:Adashiel have also been targeted. Any other ideas? I'm going to remove all the information from Repartee's main page and put it in his talk page for now so as not to feed the trolls. Yankees76 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that with open proxies, there is no way to prove who did it. --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. However we can take care of the user accounts first. Yankees76 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem, again, is that there is no way to prove that those open proxies are the sock puppets of the banned users. They are likely ones, but even in case a heavy attack there is really no way to prove whether if it's that person, or an imitator of that person. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

socks

nitrites history- he used the ip 68.251.158.126 contribs, the other ip sock he was using. can you zap him for evading a block through sock puppetry? thanks; if i was an admin i'd do it myself but i'm not. sorry for always putting this on your shoulders. --Heah ^talk 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now probably not serious enough to warrant blocking unless open proxy (but I can't check right now). --Nlu (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

4 rv's tonight[1] and he's calling me a vandal again. --Heah ^talk 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And now a 5th[2] from a new sock, ip 69.39.135.109 . . . --Heah ^talk 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm out of the country right now with sporadic access. Might be best to bring this up on WP:AN/I. --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, seems the page has been semi-protected for now. Thanks for your help, as always. --Heah ^talk 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

Hi there, this is the user who has been adding those Australian football vandals to AIV. It looks like he has stopped for now, but his IP was probably just shared amongst a dialup ISP. I'll post new alerts if more activity comes up. Thanks for your quick responsces on AIV. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 06:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism messages

Ah, OK. I seemed to have put only warnings, but I'm not so much into the thing. Thanks. Attilios.

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Sima Daozi, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 09:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

arbitration

you know what?? i'm sick of gettin block for no apparent reason. so anyway i'm takin this issue with you and jiang to arbitration just to let you know ahead of time. hit be back on my talk page if u got stuff to say. oh and btw this ain't no personal attack so don't block me again strictly because i'm tellin you this. if you really think you and jiang are doing the rite thangz then u shouldn't be scared by arbitration. so anyway peace--Freestyle.king 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want arbitration, go file an arbitration case and follow the procedure. --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Another vandal

On 7th Feb 2006, you issued a warning to the IP 62.232.224.4 to stop vandalising articles, or face a permanent block. Well - they've been at it again, vandalising the articles for Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. and Leeds United F.C.. They've had several warnings already - how about putting that block into action? -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am out of the country right now, but I'll take a quick look to see if there are sufficient recent vandalism for me to block. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:216.12.45.47

On 19:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC), you issued a final warning to the above captioned IP address. They are at it again. Two other people have warned him on his talk page and I have just reverted vandalism by the individual on the Starcraft page. Just thought you'd like to know.--Silverhand 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I see you're out of the country, as reported above. If there is anything I can do to help with this, please let me know.--Silverhand 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked and found out that it is a shared IP. As the edits today (Mar. 2) are legitimate edits, I am taking no actions at this point. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

207.237.104.94 still unrepentant

He claimed that he "blocked you for a lifetime" for "annoying him" and stated his intention to form an "anti-Wikipedia" [3]. Should he be reblocked? --TML1988 04:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sufficiently serious to warrant a block at the moment -- and I don't think it's even worth a warning at the moment. But thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I believe this would be a very bad idea. In fact, it's a little hard for me to believe the suggestion was made in good faith, unless you were going by edit-count alone. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he's a little frivolous, but aren't we all? He's been fairly vigilant at finding vandalous activities, and he's shown good propensity in seeking advice and in counseling others. While sometimes his judgment can be questionable, again, that can be true for all of us. --Nlu (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is surreal to me, sorry :-) Have you looked through his edit history? ([4]) Of his 5000 edits, only 669 have been to article space, and a brief perusal of those shows little or no vandalism reverting. Instead, all his time is spent in talk pages, alerting people to real or perceived problems. Have you ever looked at his contributions to Talk:Bigfoot? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have, but a lot of what he does is bringing problems to the attentions of administrators. Maybe it is a bad idea, but I'll see how he responds. Perhaps a RfA process will show him that he needs to contribute more. --Nlu (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bad idea. And he's far from frivolous, he's a very earnest contributor; his unsuitability for adminship is other, and, from your responses to Bunchofgrapes above, I think you must have missed something. Is it really your opinion that, since everybody's judgement is questionable sometimes, there is no difference between people as regards their share of judgement...? Please think about that one. Please don't do this. Nominating him for adminship can only hurt an editor who's doing his best, by forcing many people to object. RFA can be a lacerating process, and in this case I'm sure it would be. "See how he responds"? I do realize that the way he has now responded makes it a bit difficult for you to change your mind (I really wish you had sought some advice before asking), but please do all the same, because that RFA would be far more painful. Bishonen | ノート 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC).

I have to echo Bish here. This was not a good idea, but unfortunately, the cat's out of the bag. I think this will only serve to confuse ML more. I am particularly baffled at your praise for his handling of the Beckjord situation; at best, he was a distraction. android79 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought he made a good effort to try to calm Beckjord down, and while that was ultimately unsuccessful, a good attempt was made. --Nlu (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gross misinterpretations

I resent your assertion that I've grossly misinterpreted the law in any way, shape, or form. Brian Peppers was convicted of two felonies in the state of Ohio, and I have quoted the definition of gross sexual imposition in that state. Silensor 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Except, as I've pointed out before, he wasn't convicted of gross sexual imposition; he was convicted of attempted gross sexual imposition.

Further, your statement of the law is a misleading one, because there are many other ways that the statute can be violated by. See the statute itself [5]; the statute can be violated in far less serious ways than you implied that the only way in which Peppers could have violated the statute in, since the statute has so many alternatives in which a person can be found in violation thereof. As I pointed out, theoretically, Peppers's crime could have been as minor as giving two teenagers some money and asking them to have sex. --Nlu (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Rfa fouled ?

Did as indicated, got a red link on the MAIN page of the Rfa page. Hope this does'nt foul up things. Martial Law 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :)

It was straightened out. Who is the "boss' on that page ? Martial Law 03:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The bureaucrats close out the RfA process when time elapses, if that's what you mean. --Nlu (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

List of University of North Texas people

Many thanks for putting protection on the page! Unfortunately, I don't think it's ready for unprotection yet. Since the vandal in question can't re-add his name again, he is now using the Talk page to essentially argue that since *he's* not notable, most of the people on it aren't notable either — including a number of names drawn from UNT's official list. (Even added a comment to a discussion on the UNT page from when the list was there.) Assuming good faith is just not working, and he flat out refuses to acknowledge that he might be wrong.

Considering that he generally hasn't edited on weekends, Friday was his only quiet day ... a pity it couldn't last. Thanks again for your help. — Hedgey42 07:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Another admin's removed the protect, and as I expected, he's ba-a-ck. I'll post to AIAV in a sec. - Hedgey42 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

It would seem VinnyCee has calmed down. Maybe we can try unprotecting my page and see what happens. Nomen Nescio 08:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for contacting me. --Nlu (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Fingers crossed! Nomen Nescio 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation)

I'm offering to take on this mediation. Please note that I am not yet a member of the mediation committee and am under trial. If you are happy for me to mediate please email me using Subject:"East sea mediation", a summary of your view of the issue. MyNameIsNotBob 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sent. Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for asking, but i'd really like to keep my position simple for an outsider to read. this thing's already overgrown, & i'm feeling queasy just recalling the interminable & pointless "discussion" various people had on various talk pages. feel free to make your own subpage, though, or otherwise alert me of any points you want me to address. Appleby 08:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

If this isn't vandalism I don't know what is (which is why you reverted). AND it's been occurring after a test4. Please block. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I didn't block is because ChrisO already did. --Nlu (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Question

Whay did you delete the Random Acts Films article? This is a valid article. You had no right to delete it. -- Doo Doo 09:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly non-notable (under WP:CSD). Please do not recreate it. If you do so, it would be viewed as vandalism and be dealt with as such. --Nlu (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is notable. The videos have been featured on an Australian tv show. They are very popular with the Autralian public. Who says its up to you to decide wheter it's notable or not? -- Doo Doo 11:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just me; every admin who has looked at the issue believed it to be non-notable. If you have complaints about it, bring it up on WP:DRV and see if people agree with you. --Nlu (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:142.32.208.238

Actually, I was really only fixing Curps's and Hall Monitor's conflicting blocks, but my understanding is that we've been getting a bargeload of vandalism from that school (good God we need an immunity flag on the autoblocker). I've unblocked for now, but if it gets bad again we're going to have to block again. I'll leave a message on CJGB's talk page. Chick Bowen 04:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Chang'an/Wang Mang

Hi Nlu, utterly impressed as I am by the work you've done on Chinese history here, I'd still like to question your rendering in English of Wang Mang/the Xin dynasty's capital's name as "frequent peace". Without having looked up the sources it would seem to make much more sense if Chang'an 常安 was given in English as "everlasting peace". As in the beginning of the Dao De Jing. Or? Berox 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a good interpretation as well, but perhaps I am overly given to the irony that after Wang Mang changed 長安 to 常安 that his dynasty did not last long. Plus, 永安 (yǒng ān) would correspond to "everlasting peace" better. --Nlu (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, given the way things turned out, the irony is no less with "everlasting" (or any good synonym) …

Plus, it would, I guess, give the reader a better sense of what Wang was hoping for. Looking at the characters I would say that 常 more often than 长 (in Classical Chinese) has the meaning of "everlasting" etc. NTL, I won't do any editing on my own here if you want to keep the joke :) Berox 10:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer it, but if you want to change it, that's fine too. --Nlu (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of IP 24.227.244.237. I was beginnig to wonder if it would stop. Cheers! --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:83.221.83.61 and Bestie Boys link

I'm not totally certain that the above user actually threatened anyone here. Reading his removed comment, it looks to me like he said that the website he was removing "hunts people down", not that he intended to do so. This sounds pretty wild and extreeme, and if this is the correct context of his comment, then it's a rather strong attack on the web site, but it's not really an attack or a threat on another WP editor. Just my differing interpretation of the comment... - TexasAndroid 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, threat that another person/entity would do something (without evidence) is still a threat, I think. But let's see if that editor does something else improper... Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page a few days ago. Apparently, you changed it back so quickly that I didn't even notice! Kuru ^talk 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) No problem. --Nlu (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, for reverting vandalism on my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 07:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) No problem. --Nlu (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection not against editorial disputes

Nlu,

As far as my understanding of policy goes, full protection on articles is not to be used except in cases of vandalism. You protected natural selection and gave the reason "3RR violations by sock puppets [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]". There was one 3RR violation by Marcosantezana, which got him a 24hr block; he circumvented this by editing without logging in, got his IP blocked, then edited again from a different IP address. However, neither did he use sockpuppets (he did not create new user accounts), nor was he vandalising the page (he has genuine concerns about the article, albeit an unfortunate way of expressing them). Can you please confirm that the protection is in keeping with policy?

Thanks,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion (an opinion not completely shared by other admins) that sockpuppetry (particularly sockpuppetry to evade blocks) is a form of vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. Therefore, it was not a simple case of editorial disputes. Further, with his ever-changing IPs, it is not effective to block him. I don't believe that my block violated policy. If you disagree, you can raise it on WP:AN. --Nlu (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He used exactly two IP addresses as far as I'm aware. That's probably his work and home one. He may well have run out after that, and blocking all unregistered users is no simple matter. In fact, it is one that I have been reprimanded for soliciting in a case where there was vandalism going on, and I must register my reservations about double standards. Let's also not twist the meaning of words. Vandalism is the destroying or defacing of things, not the changing of IP addresses.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the IP2location output for those two IPs, showing that Marcos had not acquired IP addresses outside of Chicago:

69.222.248.161 US UNITED STATES ILLINOIS CHICAGO PPPOX POOL - RBACK6 CHCGIL

128.135.104.220 US UNITED STATES ILLINOIS CHICAGO UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's (presumably) only because the article was semi-protected that we're not seeing additional sock puppets. I still don't see where the double standard is. If you believe that I've employed a double standard, plese show it. In any case, someone, either I or another admin, would lift the semi-protection in a little bit anyway; semi-protections don't stay on a long time. --Nlu (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI - Jim Nuzzle related edits

These attacks on Jim Nuzzle & co are related to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FourthAve FourthAve

Agathoclea 07:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. --Nlu (talk) 08:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

For reverting vandalism to my talk page...looks like a sock of FourthAve to me...wonder what is up with that chap? Ayway, keep up the good work!--MONGO 09:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! --Nlu (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

The user blanking their warnings was starting to get to me, I was just about to suggest protecting but you saved me the keystrokes :) -- Tawker 09:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) No problem. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Marcyu

Thanks for your help in bumping this guy off for a day. Although he'll probably keep going after that, we can probably then file an RfC, paving the way for an RfArb. He was really getting on my nerves. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Marcyu has contacted me by email asking if there is any way I can help in "some difficulties with some users here who seem to travel in packs". Having skimmed the issues, there's plenty of bad behaviour, but some of the edits thought to be vandalism don't seem unreasonable, admittedly without knowing the detailed background. My inclination is to express sympathy with someone used to doing things their way and finding the harsh world of reaching consensus with others here a bit of a shock, and to suggest reading all the good advice linked to on the talk page. Since I'd prefer not to answer by email, the best route seems to be to add this to the user:talk page, but thought it best to get your comments before editing the protected talk page. ...dave souza, talk 21:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, basically, I don't care what position Marcyu is taking substantively; what he was doing was uncivil. Further, he was engaging in sockpuppetry (proven -- see WP:RCU) while simultaneously denying that he was engaging in sockpuppetry. This made his credibility nonexistent. He should then be blocked for 3RR if for nothing else, but since I am less acquainted with that situation, I chose to block him for personal attacks. --Nlu (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I take it that you've no problem with me adding a response to the blocked talk page. Fully agree about the block for personal attacks, I'd add the sin of editing other people's user pages. I'll try to get round to organising a message for Marcyu sometime later on 13 March, ..dave souza, talk 00:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, no problem at all. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've received a request on my talk page, which seems reasonable if M is to turn over a new leaf and behave better. I've no idea at the moment how to do it, or if a name change is needed, but no doubt can work these things out. ...dave souza, talk 22:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Just turn my back for a minute! Is there any problem with M archiving his pages in the interim? ..dave souza, talk 23:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, Marcyu has again put a request for assistance on my talk page, and I have given there the advice that he uses the time while he's blocked to try drafting productive polite edits that make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. ...dave souza, talk 01:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that he wasn't really archiving; he put in so many line breaks that are designed to cover up the warning messages (as well as to make it difficult to remove them if someone tried to add new warnings), and put the archival link at the bottom. I'm not going to play that game with him. --Nlu (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I left out some details: the full text on my user page is "Markyu, playing games with pushing the link to the bottom of an otherwise blank talk page wasn't in the instructions I pointed out to you, and your sig is lacking in tact and diplomacy. While you're blocked you can try drafting productive polite edits that make a positive contribution to Wikipedia: Nlu has rightly pointed out the consequences if you can't manage that." There's probably some other naughtiness as well, but hopefully that covers things. ..dave souza, talk 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks good. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RfA. It passed with a final tally of 98/13/10, just two short of making WP:100. If you need my help with anything, don't hesitate to ask.

Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

New Sports Wiki/Community

Hi:

I noticed you were active on many baseball pages on Wikipedia. My friends and I are starting a sports wiki that you may be interested in. It uses Wikipedia's software but we made a lot of technological improvements to allow for more news and opinion articles, as well as regular encyclopedic entries. It also has a database where you can display statistics for any baseball player since 1871.

Thanks --Roblefko 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the links from the above message because the user was engaging in linkspamming. If you would like to see the links again, they're available in your talk page's history at [6]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

24.31.99.170

I noticed you gave him a warning for Bill O'Reilly which he proceeded to ignore and revandalise - as well as the Journalism article. I reverted his second attempt and warned him again but you may want to keep an eye on him. Glen Stollery ^{C T} 06:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I will pay attention. --Nlu (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Relax

Whoa. Relax, be cool. Please research before attacking my comments. "You are not "dozens of other Wikipedians." " is an aggressive and obviously unresearched statement. I am one Wikipedian. Dozens of other Wikipedians are dozens of other Wikipedians.

Also, threatening me with being blocked is completely uncool when I advised an individual to stop deleting the content created by dozens of others. Your hostility is not appreciated. My comment was related to the blanking vandalism of a page. Please take time before personally attacking me by claiming I personally attacked someone. Please note, I am not attacking you now, I am responding to your unwarranted hostility toward me that seems to have come out of nowhere. I have never left a comment for you. Please don't threaten me. PoolGuy 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Your attack against Ohnoitsjamie is not justified. Do it again and I'll block you. --Nlu (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

haha Nlu needs a chill pill. if u really have so much faith in wikipedia, check out my user page. also as a admin, you gotta treat others with respect no matter if they're vandalz or not, block them if they are but ain't no need to threaten sumone you dunno strictly cuz you got more power as a admin. kno what i mean???--Freestyle.king 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I don't believe that PoolGuy's remarks to Ohnoitsjamie was made in good faith. He needed to be warned, and I don't particularly care how he felt about it. --Nlu (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not permitted to edit my user or user talk pages (except to post a comment in the appropriate format, not to delete anything). If you do so once more, I will send this issue to arbitration.--Freestyle.king 04:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You can do so after your block expires; I consider your last edits to be personal attacks and will block you accordingly in a few seconds. Feel free to file an arbitration request after that. --Nlu (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• All of my remarks are made in good faith. If you review my history you will see that I am a good Wikipedian. The attitude and hostility that you showed to me is disappointing and in my opinion certainly more of a personal attack than my statements to someone continually blanking a large portion of an article. Please refrain from going on a power trip and please care more about good Wikipedians than 'Whatever'. I would like to retain some hope that those that have been vested with Admin authority would be tempered in their approach. I certainly have not received that from you. This is written with all due respect to your authority and deference to the possibility that you think I am somehow attacking you now. Your future courtesy is appreciated. PoolGuy 04:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Hmm the creator of the article "little girl" appears to be a very new, extremely inexpert and clueless, but apparently good-faith editor, so while its true that the article was pretty much nonsense, I dunno if it was necesary to speedy it... Herostratus 04:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, being nonsense is a reason to speedy it, good faith or no... --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Demos ocracy sockpuppet?

Hi. Thanks for your work handling vandals. I'm not sure if this is the place to report it, but it looks like the User:Demos ocracy that you just banned has a sockpuppet as User:How cme tkn4, or at least the latter has been reverting to the former's edits. --BluePlatypus 03:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for the star, that was very nice of you. Also thanks for reverting vandalism on my personal page. I just would like to ask you if it is possible to semi-protect my personal page, and also maybe the Azerbaijani people page from editing by anonymous users, same as you did for Azerbaijan. The amount of daily vandalism on Azerbaijani people page is increasing, and it takes time to revert the POV edits with risk of exceeding 3RR rule. If someone wants to contribute, he should have no problem registering and discussing the proposed changes. I can file a formal request, if required. I actually support the view that only registered users should be allowed to edit the articles here, because I can see that most of the edits by anons are the ones Wiki could do without. Thanks again. Regards, Grandmaster 08:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think, as for Azerbaijani people, I'd feel more comfortable if you file a request for page protection so that someone else can look at the issue as well. I'll semi-protect your user page, however. --Nlu (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Azerbaijani people appears to be quiet at the moment, so I will file a request when this page becomes an arena of edit wars again. Take care. Grandmaster 10:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

209.103.213.254(talk)

He has vandalized Volgograd five times after the last warning. It is time to block him. Funnybunny 23:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking me on the alkyl nitrite/poppers page

Per Wikipedia's page on blocking, I'd like to respectfully ask you to please provide additional rationale, outlining the facts and the part of the blocking policy you feel applies, and why.

Again, I believed I was making genuinely supportable and meaningful contributions in my edits. Please explain why you believe they constitute 'vandalism'.

Thank you.

209.248.254.66 03:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Nlu: I've made edits to the alkyl nitrites/poppers page that you have called 'vandalism'. However, each of those edits is based on sound evidence. It appears that this is a 'content dispute' mistaken for 'vandalism'. I am interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies. I would appreciate it if you would explain why you consider the subject edits to be 'vandalism', so that I may understand where you're coming from. If we're not able to come to consensus, I would recommend that we consider any number of the Wikipedia options for dispute resolution, including but not limited to, "Informal Mediation", "Discussions with Third Parties", "Requesting an Advocate", and finally, if none of this helps, using Wikipedia's last resort, "Arbitration".

Thank you. 209.248.254.66 03:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

We've rehashed this too many times. Your continued sockpuppetry and failure to abide by 3RR doesn't exactly give you credibility. The warning stands. --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI

Mind if I unprotect his talk page? If he were vandalizing it that might be appropriate; right now a very prolific contributor is merely defending himself against a week long block. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

He's inviting a wheel war, which I find also unacceptable. Unless there is good reason to unblock him, I don't think his talk page should be unprotected. If there is such a good reason, obviously, he should be unblocked and the page should be unprotected, but right now he's just spewing drivel. --Nlu (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let him give a good reason. You've stopped him from contributing to the only place he can. I think a person is allowed to add nonsense to their talk page. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was adding personal attacks, and it's not just to his own talk page, either. When I asked him to give his reasons, he gave unacceptable reasons -- non-apologetic and implying that he's ready to carry out more of the same behavior. Did you see how he responded to Rschen7754? I do not find those responses acceptable one bit. If he had apologized, I might have considered unblocking, but a lack of an apology means that I can't see unblocking as a good idea. If you want to debate this, WP:AN/I (where I asked for a review of the situation) might be a better place to put in the arguments. --Nlu (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Email isn't sufficient? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

SPUI unblock

Please read my comments at the noticeboard. JDoorjam Talk 08:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I noticed you edited a Hip Hop related article. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. Tutmosis 23:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not equipped to help. I think I just reverted vandalisms. --Nlu (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)