User talk:Nlu/archive16

List of resources for learning Japanese Revert

Hi Nlu, I can't understand why you reverted my change...

1. The link I added is neither a commerical (the site is free) nor my own private site.

2. The purpose of the page "List of resources for learning Japanese", as suggested by the title, is a collection of external links of resources.

I think the link I added is a useful resource for learning Japanese. Does it have any difference with other existing links on that page? -- Megaroad 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel that the link satisfied WP:EL, and that's why I removed it. If you believe that you added it correctly, if you can discuss on the page's talk page, then that would be good. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikitruth

Erm, Nlu, the wikitruth user you just removed from AIV's only contribution is an attack page directed at jimbo, which ALSO happens to be a POV fork of an article up for deletion, AND, they're acting in the EXACT same style as the massive wave of wikitruth sockpuppets we had a day or two ago. I'm urging you to reconsider, if for nothing else, then it's a vandalism only account. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's User:Wikitruth -- not User:Wikitruth1, who hasn't been shown to have been a sockpuppet of Wikitruth. it's quite suspicious, but suspicion isn't enough. --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hetoum

Hi. Looks like Hetoum is trying to remove sockpuppet tags from his personal page. Is it allowed? Grandmaster 17:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a gray area. I'll review the situation when I get home. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhtcmu

I believe that he means well. Many of his links are actually OK. They're to free scans of books. He's a noob, please don't bite him. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:83.100.168.42 block

I noticed that you blocked User talk:83.100.168.42 for 3 months, for vandalism. What concerns me is that: it is a shared IP, so there is no reason to assume the vandalism is coming from the same person, and, in this case, there were a total of two edits by this IP in April(all of which were vandalism). Two edits does not seem to require a 3 month block, and at least a cursory look over the IPs contribs does not show that the vandalism was to a recurring topic. It seems to be different people. I have not reversed the block, but I would greatly appreciate a response/further explanation. Thanks for all the work you do for Wikipedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the block message, there is no evidence that blocks on this address has caused any collateral damage. With that being the case, I believe a lengthy block is warranted because of the prior patterns of vandalism; anyone who is collaterally damaged can request an unblock, and if the request is made to me by e-mail, I will certainly unblock it. Further, the reason why there were only two vandalisms in April is because this IP just came off a one-month block. --Nlu (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That makes sense. We really ought to clarify the blocking policy about this. As for the month long block - the IP has been unblocked for 18 days without any edits, so I don't really think the previous block had much to do with the lack of edits. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

65.54.97.190

Hi. Could you please have a look at the actions of 65.54.97.190? This anon removes sourced and adds unsourced information to the article Artsakh, and also adds totally disputed tag to the article Shusha without giving any explanation. He constantly changes his IP to avoid 3RR, and it looks like he’s been warned before. What should I do? Grandmaster 18:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protected Artsakh, which I think is about the only thing that can be done. I don't think adding {{totallydisputed}} to Shusha is as much of a problem. --Nlu (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now could you please have a look at Azerbaijani people, a serious revert was is going on there, the same IPs inserts nonsense into that article, and it’s well over 3RR. Thanks again. Grandmaster 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some of those IPs got blocked. Grandmaster 04:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.110.201.162 =

I don't understand why you feel I vandalized Barry Bond's article or Ryan Leaf's. I stated a fact about Bond's only weakness which is a sub-par arm which cost his team a chance to go to the World Series. I don't dislike Bonds like everyone else, I felt that if you're going to pump him up that you have to show both sides. In regards to Ryan Leaf, I am a native of San Diego and remember watching the ESPN show, they said, "If he ever shows back up to San Diego, he better wear a mask." If you don't believe me, review the show and you'll hear that statement.

This is your "last chance" and other associated nonsense

Okay, something is really grinding my nerves here. I didn't do a d@mn thing to any Maya Angelou article. I have not been repeatedly violating Wikipedia guidlines. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people use this IP address and are dependent on it. It is unfair to block the entire IP address because of the actions of a few stupid indidividuals. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply lock these articles to recent users, as has been done regularly with the George W. Bush article? Every time I attempt to contribute something to this site, I find that I cannot because of the actions of others. Some sort of just solution must be found. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.22.177.10 (talk • contribs) .

My advice is: register. Then, if you find the IP blocked, send e-mail to the blocking admin to have the block lifted. Without a record of your contributions, we have to rely on looking at the history of the IP to determine whether to block or not, and the history of your IP is not good. --Nlu (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide

You protected the Armenian Genocide article but it has a couple of mistakes which I believe can be corrected on a protected page. It says that "The majority of the camps were situated near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers", but neither "Iraq" nor "Syria" existed at this time (it should be something like "situated near what is now the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers"). Also, Dayr az-Zawr is on the "Euphrates" river, not the "europhites". The footnotes should be fixed as well to go to the correct number. Makgraf 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to fix footnotes, to be honest. I'll fix the others. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Kingdoms

Alright, I would like to explain to you my method of my Three Kingdom profiles. Romance of the Three Kingdoms X has a very large portrait galllery that tells of various officers in the Three Kingdoms. It contains historical biographies for these individuals, from which the information in my articles is taken. If you believe Koei is publishing fradulant biographies, talk to them about it. I have always written unbiased and historical biographies, and will continue to do so. If you wish to ban me for that, go ahead.

Farewell for now.

~Darin Fidika

It's not that they're fraudulent. They know that it's a novel, and they're basing what they have on the novel. Do you understand the difference between fact and fiction? --Nlu (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you really have such doubts on Koei's work then email them about it. But by what you are saying it sounds like you believe that if information is attained through the novel, then it would be classified as being "fictional". But the problem is is that just about any information about a person in the Three Kingdoms is based through the novel since that is one of the few references of the Three Kingdoms. So basicly then the novel is based off of history.

User:Darin Fidika

You're not listening. Please see Sanguo Zhi and Romance of the Three Kingdoms articles on why this is false. For example, Gore Vidal's novel Burr is fictional, and any article that's based solely on Burr will have to be considered fictional, even if certain elements of Burr is historical in origin. Koei's own work is intended to be fictional, not intended to be historical; there's therefore nothing wrong with what they're doing. What's wrong is that you can't grasp the distinction between history and fiction. --Nlu (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deformed Workers States

Defining China and North Korea as deformed workers states is completely accurate, and certainly not grounds for a threatened expulsion. The former definitions, Socialist Republic and the infantile "Communist State" say absolutely nothing about the true nature of these governments, or even worst, are horribly inaccurate and misleading. If it a Wikipedia tradition to respect such an inaccuracy, than so be it, but do not go around making threats to vandalize people because they are correcting errors in this site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.67.242 (talk • contribs) .

Read NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An incorrect term such as "Socialist Republic" or a meaningless term like "Communist State" are worst than any correct point of view. The term "deformed workers state" is the most legitimate model to describe the states in mention, and has been used neutrally in the past. In fact, when the USSR was still in power, defenders of that nation often refered to it using this term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.67.242 (talk • contribs) .

User talk:209.77.222.37

Continues to vandalize articles since your final warning: Lao New Year (changing "bpee" to "pee") and Yuan Shikai (randomly inserting the name "Jose Miguel Vasquez") . cab 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a school IP, however, so might not be the same person. I added a new {{test4-n}}. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:142.227.207.193

The IP vandalising again (playing a clever guy, he/she removed it once having posted the rubbish!). [1] --Constanz - Talk 16:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the last warning had been given a couple of days ago...--Constanz - Talk 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shared IP, so might not be the same person as before. Since he/she removed own vandalism, there is really nothing further that needs to be done at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caught a vandal on his/her last warning

Hey, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, but I caught an edit by 209.175.13.34 in Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 that constitutes vandalism. How do I report it, revert it, and recomment that the user be blocked from editing? Thanks! Red1 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me take a look at this one, but for future reference, you can/should report it on WP:AIV if it were a very recent event (the last couple hours), or WP:VIP if it is not. To revert the vandalism -- well, Wikipedia:Reverting explains the procedure better than I can. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Nlu,

Would you be able to block someone for violation of the 3RR for me? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 05:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who and what page? But in any case, it might be better to report to WP:AN/3RR. I am not the most familiar of the admins on 3RR. --Nlu (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well I was going to ask you if it's valid - 1st revert, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. —Khoikhoi 05:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's OK with you, I'd rather let the more 3RR-capable admins handle this. If it's on WP:AN/3RR, I think it will be taken care of relatively soon. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. —Khoikhoi 05:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: template

hold on... before you revert such a highly used template, could you point me to an example of a bad output in an article first? I'm pretty sure I could fix whatever the problem is if I could see it. I've just spot checked a few in the last couple seconds and they look ok... — Apr. 21, '06 [08:06] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Could be a database error, actually; it was messing up the succession boxes in Helian Chang's empress, but I can't reproduce the error. Let me unrevert. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did sandbox test it first. And the articles I sampled from Whatlinkshere seem to appear normal as ever [2], [3], [4]. So I'm not seeing the problem, I guess? — Apr. 21, '06 [08:09] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

OK, I'm going to guess that it was a temporary database problem. Sorry. --Nlu (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a database problem. It's a problem local to that article. It's because somebody subst'ed (a possibly old version of) the templates, and tweaked around with them by hand. I'll try to fix it. — Apr. 21, '06 [08:14] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Nevermind, that was you just now... In that case perhaps the titles are too long. I believe the template is set to make each cell 1/3 of the total width. One cell with an unually long text will enlarge the entire table. Perhaps pipe the links to something sorter, or force <br> linebreaks in the link text after the pipe. — Apr. 21, '06 [08:21] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this look okay? The problem with the way it's coded is not the handling of conditionals, but the fact that the whole box will always be 3 times as wide as the widest cell, and 3 times as tall as the tallest cell. Another thing you might consider in a pinch, if all of the text is critical, is putting the whole thing inside <div style="font-size:NN%"> </div> to proportionately reduce the size of the text. — Apr. 21, '06 [08:34] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Ugh. :-) :-( Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal template

Sorry about putting that template up! First time I've ever reported a vandal. Now I know. beekman 15:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Thanks for helping! --Nlu (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Padres

I see your comments about adding a blog link. But, I'm confused why you don't have a problem with the gaslamp blog. The thing is, the article is a nice factual account, but someone who wants to find out what's going on with the team might want to read a blog. The result is the article stays streamlined. I just don't see the difference between adding an external link that is a blog and adding a site someone has created that calls itself official. The line is unclear. Additionally, my blog doesn't have any ads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.235.202.176 (talk • contribs) .

Please see WP:SPAM and WP:EL. And, that other spam links exist on the page isn't justification for putting on more spam links. --Nlu (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moon for sale

I noticed that you've protected some moon for sale related articles against editing because of a specific IP who continues to revert. I believe that IP belongs to Ufviper (talk · contribs). The user has logged in to get around the page protection. Just thought you should know. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all out of reverts for the protected articles, don't want to violate 3RR. I've reported the user at WP:AIV since the warnings on the user's talk page are ignored. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Meanwhile, can you consider filing a WP:RCU as well? --Nlu (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

61.17.255.142

Hello, this is regarding 61.17.255.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who I reported to AIV earlier. [5] He's continuing to advertise wowtelugu.com. I can understand your reluctance to block a shared IP, [6] but this user has made literally zero constructive edits to Wikipedia, and has repeatedly spammed and vandalized over the last two months. Fe e zo (Talk) 19:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not only that it's a shared IP (which doesn't stop me from blocking them), it's that it's a shared and portable IP, which means that if you block it, the user simply goes to the next IP. If he/she were in the middle of a spamming spurt, I'd block briefly (my own standard block time for such IPs is 75 minutes), but blocking longer is counterproductive since it pushes the spammer to another IP. --Nlu (talk) 04:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sima Qian

While I appreciate your attempt to mediate, there are three problems. First, the "edit war" wasn't; a glance at the history suggests that the same edits have been reverted backwards and forwards, but in fact a number of them involved the anon's removing the cleanup templates without doing the required work (because he couldn't see what the problem was supposed to be). Only more recently did he start merely changing the dates. Secondly, regarding those dates, he's changing circa dates to precise dates, despite giving no source (I know that he says that he did, but check his edit [7]). Thirdly, the page is no protected with the unsourced dates — and as his attitude suggests, he's not interested in discussion. He now has what he wants, in any case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps; let's see what happens. I don't intend to protect the article a long time. --Nlu (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Sima Qian. I think that you were rather too quick to accept the anon's rather dubious grounds for changing the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected page

A request for unprotection of my userpage is requested on the ground that there is no violation of wikipedia regulations. Please cite the regulations violated before protecting any userpage. In addition, even if you decide to decide to revert, please do not delete any contents on the userpage. --Bonafide.hustla 01:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freestyle.king is no longer your user page, and therefore there is no ground for you to continue to maintain it. Either you are switching to a new user name or you are not; you can't do both. Note that User:Bonafide.hustla has not been protected. --Nlu (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is still no ground of protecting it since i already made it clear on User:Freestyle.king talk page that I am switching my name. In addition, you decided to delete the content (why is this page black) of User:Freestyle.king 's userpage--Bonafide.hustla 02:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat: you have no right to maintain two user pages. I am going to call User:Essjay's attention to what's going on, and I don't believe that he'll sanction this, either. --Nlu (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok i got your point (although Freestyle.king is a defunct userpage that has no value of existence). but you still need to need to revert the contents on my user page to it's original status, instead of simply leaving it blank and protect it.--Bonafide.hustla 04:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect will only work if there is no other content on the page -- and it should be redirected. --Nlu (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit anything on the original userpage since it is now a defunct page no longer in function. The only thing I did was to remove linking it to my new userpage, so I do not understand the accusation of soapboxing--Bonafide.hustla 04:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should link to your new userpage, so I interpret the reverting it back to the past content (which was soapboxing, permissible soapboxing or not at that point) as impermissible soapboxing. --Nlu (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the clarification.--Bonafide.hustla 06:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC) what is the point of protecting my userpage after it is linked?--Bonafide.hustla 00:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you promise not to mess with it again, I will unprotect it. --Nlu (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok fine i promise not to mess with it--Bonafide.hustla 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. --Nlu (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhenchod

Why did you delete my work? Mutebutton 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CSD G4. --Nlu (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Were you planning on telling me this, or letting me know on my talk page, or are you just rude and insensitive? Mutebutton 15:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel that letting you know is necessary; the article's history was available to you. --Nlu (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I see of it is your two edits. Why is not letting me know necessary? Do you consider other human beings to be irrelevant? Mutebutton 15:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide (again)

Things have cooled down now, so I guess you can unprotect it if you feel like it. —Khoikhoi 02:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Sorry if you already saw this and you're busy. —Khoikhoi 01:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —Khoikhoi 06:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been busy, yes, compounded with other things. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Azerbaijan

Hi. Have you seen this? [8] So what in your opinion can be done now to protect the article from vandalism? I am afraid that once the protection is lifted those users will start it all over again. On the other hand, the page can't remain protected forever. Thanks very much. Grandmaster 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen it. I think all that can be done is to be vigilant. There are many articles that get vandalized even more. --Nlu (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks a lot. Grandmaster 11:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bonafe

Nlu,

Do you ever read defense magazines? Or perhaps watch the news? You probably never heard about this person since the news that provided coverage about him was in Washington State on KOMO News 4, and on top of that he was interviewed in Defense Weekly, so please stop messing with my content on Mr. Bonafe! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrxhonor (talk • contribs) .

You have to show notability, not just say that he's notable. --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, Back off! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrxhonor (talk • contribs) .

Threats against administrators don't work well with me (or, in general, on Wikipedia). Do it again and you'll be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rouran, tuyuhun, gaoche, gaochang

Hi I've added information on the Rouran, Tuyuhun, Gaoche and Gaochang articles, please feel free to make corrections if necessary. Abstrakt 18:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I can't look at them right now, but I will when I get home. --Nlu (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is very well made

I am truly humbled by the power you have as an Admin. Your ability to block accounts, protect pages, and reverse edits is truly immense. You have successfully demonstrated that you weild this power and use it without the need to explain your action or engage in reasonable discussion of its merits. Even when clearly demonstrated that Wikipedia policy violations have not occurred, you can still use your intruments of power to impugn others and label them as being abusive. Hypocrisy needn't deter you. With your might you can continue to unabashedly label, block, protect, and revert without dignifying other users with the courtesy of dialogue and honest debate. You can clearly persecute someone who has been a good Wikipedian and treat them as an enemy of the community. Your cavalier means obviously justifies what you do. With all the respect you are due from your position of authority PoolGuy 04:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admin noticeboard

Based on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Freestyle.king_-.3E_Bonafide.hustla, I apologize for falsely assuming your connections with Willy on Wheels and Jiang. However, just to be fair, you did accused me of being a sockpuppet of GrandCru. (maybe we shouldn't get into that now)--Bonafide.hustla 05:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vprotect

Vprotect is not meant for solving editor disagreements, but exclusively to prevent vandalism. If somebody claims that something is a libel and removes it, that's an editor action, not vandalism, even if people revert them repeatedly. Sock-puppetry may get one blocked if used to circumvent things like 3RR, but again, it's not vandalism. And, there's no deadline - it's perfectly OK if a part of an article remains out of the article until it's established on the talk page that it should be in. I don't see any such discussion going on there. Zocky | picture popups 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user

I was wondering if perhaps you would be able to reverse the block on User:206.235.249.50 as it is a school wide account. This may prevent various people from making constructive edits to Wikipedia. Philip Gronowski 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. However, please be aware that the block can/will be reinstituted if vandalism resumes. I'd suggest that you talk to your network administrator at school and see if there's anything that can be done. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

am sorry if i did something u interpreted as spam i only wanted to include a fact of local comics in Puerto Rico just like they included Yenny comics here by David Alvarez he is not the only local creator in the island just tell me what can i put coes am confuse??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpionexus (talk • contribs) .

In my opinion, you should put in facts, not links. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Nlu (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok

so if i only include the information without the .com prefix after the name of the publisher will be alright? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpionexus (talk • contribs) .

I can't really answer this question -- it depends on what information you're referring to. Again, add content, not excessive links. --Nlu (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

209.248.254.66 is back

More of the same linkspam. Amcfreely 04:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuoba Shiyijian

hi I started the article on Tuoba Shiyijian not too long ago, it seems notable, since his grandson did found the Northern Wei Dynasty. Abstrakt

Agreed. Thanks (and thanks for letting me know). --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ddavid

Hi there.

I see you been removing various links to www.ddavid.com, added by user:ddavid1253, presumably the guy who runs that website. Because it's his site, I guess it does look like spam. However, I spend quite a lot of time working on Wikipedia: Wikiproject Formula One and to be fair, www.ddavid.com is actually a very useful reference site for historical stuff - more useful than some of the others currently listed at Formula One#External links. I had actually been considering adding it to the External links - History section myself.

Would you have any objection if I added some, perhaps all, of his proposed external links back in? You will note that the F1 articles are in general very short of references in any case and while web references are perhaps not ideal, they do have the advantage of accessibility. 4u1e 06:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, only if the links are really essential, as per WP:EL. --Nlu (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it on a case by case basis. I think the site is probably justified as a general F1 history site linked off the main page. The others, I'll see as I go through - they may well be appropriate references for now. Which isn't to say that there aren't better ones out there somewhere, but I don't have them. Cheers. 4u1e 27 April 2006

I'd do it sparingly, if at all. I am still troubled by Ddavid1253's behavior, and I don't want Wikipedia to become an advertising ground for his Web site. But a couple links are probably OK. --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:207.69.139.162

Hi, you gave above user a 'last warning', and I've found they've been up to more vandalism (article Praetorian Guard). I'm not sure what to do next about it, can you help? -Shai-kun 17:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he/she hasn't been warned for three weeks, I decided to give another {{test4-n}} warning. If he/she vandalizes again, please let me know, or post on WP:AIV. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong rv

Hi! You deleted a few links on the Angels and Airwaves article that are official, so they aren't spam, and in fact, they are relevant to the article. Anyway, two of those links were in fact spam, so I tried to fix them. Keep editing! .-Zingazin 17:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

for the revert. Is there a guideline for how long ablock to impose?? 17:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not per se. Here's my personal guideline:

If the IP is an open proxy, block it indefinitely.
If the IP is shared and portable (e.g., AOL, but also applies to ISPs in such countries as Australia and Singapore), I block them for 75 minutes.
If the IP is shared, but not portable (e.g., school IPs), I check to see if there had been prior collateral damage to legitimate registered users. If there had been, I block them for 75 minutes as well. If there had not been, I treat the IP as non-shared (see below).
If the IP is not shared, my progression of blocks (and if previous blocks were by other admins, I basically take the longest block imposed previously and go one step further) are:
1. 24 hours.
2. 48 hours.
3. 1 week.
4. 1 month.
5. 3 months.
6. 6 months.

I have never imposed a block longer than 6 months. If I would have to, the next step would probably be one year.

If it's a registered user who vandalizes, I go by the same principles, but if the user is clearly only interested in vandalism, I block indefinitely.

--Nlu (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User: 172.141.31.118

Hi, thanks for blocking User:172.141.31.118, although I am afraid that 75 minutes will have little impact. I'm not sure if you investigated the whole picture, which I wrote on WP:AIV, but this user is a sock of User:172.203.70.132, who was given a 24 hour block yesterday (please see User talk:172.203.70.132 for details). This user (as a self-proclaimed former Wikipedian) seems to have something against Wikipedia and its board (notice the vandalism on pages such as Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley, as well as having impersonated User:Jimbo Wales on User talk:IronChris). I am asking that you keep an eye on this user, and be vigilant when his/her block expires. This user seems to be letting his/her personal problems loose on Wikipedia, which only wastes the time and energy of other editors who then have to go clean up the mess. Thanks for listening, roma rin[talk to her ] 17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these are AOL IPs -- and AOL presents, in my opinion, the most serious problem with vandalism on Wikipedia in that lots of legitimate users use AOL IPs, and yet lots of vandalism also comes from them, and what makes it extremely difficult to deal with is that AOL IPs are portable -- that means, a vandal will fairly automatically, even without his/her wishing to do so, jump from IP to IP. A lengthy block will be thoroughly ineffective, and that's why I block only for 75 minutes, so that hopefully the vandal is blocked for the rest of duration that he/she is assigned that IP. There is a current proposal that would require AOL users to log in as registered user in order to edit, and I support that proposal, but unless that proposal passes or some other measure is put in, there is really nothing else we can do. --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I wasn't aware of all the details. I guess we just need to keep our eyes open for now... Thanks again, roma rin

[talk to her ] 18:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is There a Reason?

Please tell me the reason you removed the NPA warning from a user who you have blocked and warned in the past for NPA violations. PoolGuy 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "attack" in this case was the truth, since you were being a sockpuppeteer. It's therefore not a personal attack. --Nlu (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, If you are going to be an Admin you should really learn Wikipedia policies. Your lack of knowledge and off base interpretation is truly disheartening. According to WP:NPA some examples of personal attacks are "Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:

Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life.""

According to WP:NPA Wikipedians are supposed to Comment on content, not on the contributor. When one Wikipedian tells another to "Get a Life" that is clearly defined as a Personal Attack. That is why I put up the NPA.

Please open your eyes Nlu. I don't know why you have them so closed regarding me and you persue me so tenaciously. You appear to have a blindspot for very clear statements of Wikipedia policy that you will ignore it to justify deleting my posts. You have never ever been able to cite a policy I violated to justify the administrative action against me. Open your eyes Nlu. Read the Wikipedia policies. Once you figure out that I have never been abusive you will unprotect my page and pull off the tag on my user page that calls me abusive.

I don't know why you keep coming after me Nlu, I clearly have no idea what I ever did to tick you off so much that you keep pursuing me. I just hope that you will actually read everything I have written to see that I have not violated Wikipedia policy. It is very simple. I didn't violate policy, your administrative actions have been unjustified. You can not demonstrate a policy violation, so I know I am right. If you were right, you would be able to simply demonstrate the policy violation. Every statement you have made I have refuted by citing policy. Please open your eyes, see that, and undo your administrative actions. PoolGuy 04:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who vandalized Jerry Yang?

He is current Chief Yahoo! isn't he? What the hell are you talking about? Make sense! 71.196.154.224 01:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I hadn't realized that they've given him the "Chief Yahoo!" title. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience

You are a patient individual. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 05:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- but any particular reason? --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Armenian Genocide

Hi again,

This anon keeps removing sentences w/o explanation, I always thought that this counts as vandalism, but I'm afriad that if I keep reverting someone will report me for 3RR. What should I do? —Khoikhoi 06:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look. --Nlu (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Help._User_Personally_attacked_me._Admin_is_threatening.

Take a look at the above. I have to admit it does look like he has a point (IMO) - after all I believe it was the Get a life that was the PA not the sockpuppet claim... This user cross the line elsewhere I presume? - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 07:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this user is a major sockpuppeteer. See WP:RCU's March 2006 archives for more information. A WP:RfAr is also currently pending. (See also Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of PoolGuy.) For him to claim that other people are personally attacking is surreal. His response on RfAr is a piece of work; it disavows abusive sockpuppetry while at the same time speaking in the third person as if his sockpuppets are individually detached personalities. I considered posting it to BJAODN, but this user has removed contents from there before, as well. --Nlu (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading the RfA now - I figured as much. Thought you were better off knowing about his complaint anyway. Thanks for your time :) - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 07:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez Obrador - Semiprotection

Hello Nlu

I believe that the recent wave of changes by anon-registered users merits that the page is semi-protected. As you of course knows this only means that any edition has to be done by non-anonymous users and by no means prevents contributions.

Glad to talk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primeditor (talk • contribs) .

No matter what, you went about it the wrong way. Again, please request protection on WP:RFP. --Nlu (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

talkpage comments

Thanks for reverting the comments on my talkpage. PoolGuy clearly is a puppet master and I was wrong when I told you to treat him with respect.--Bonafide.hustla 23:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he has to be treated with some respect, even if he doesn't deserve it. Still... --Nlu (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Moe

Thanks, I'll keep in touch.. Cheers! -- Moe ε 18:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sima Qian

You don't seem to have listed this page at the list of protected pages. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did before; I think I just forgot about relisting it. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My deathtreater

I believe that he deserves one more chance. He deaththreatened me, but I am willing to forgive him. You can unblock him, but please keep a close eye. I think that anyone deserves a chance - anyone that desperate. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remind me who that is? I've blocked too many threaters to remember. :-) --Nlu (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:87.116.154.180 --HolyRomanEmperor 15:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel comfortable undoing another admin in this case -- and that admin already shortened an indefinite block to six months. Again, the editor did not seem to be in fact repentent, and without repentence, there shouldn't be forgiveness. --Nlu (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am the one who reported him and had his punishment arranged shortened, so I feel responsible - I am giving everyone a second chance. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PoolGuy

I have made a last effort to encourage PoolGuy to contribute productively and positively on his talkpage.--Bonafide.hustla 06:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think it's going to work. He hasn't made a single productive edit upon his block expiring, and if he wanted to be productive, he could have. --Nlu (talk)

Question on External Links

I just received a notice not to add commercial or personal websites. I have used Wikipedia for some time but have never edited. I believe the policy on external links needs review as it appears to favor some commercial or non-commercial sites over others. Neo1az

As has been mentioned, add (or in this case, edit) content, don't just add links. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Nlu (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]