User talk:Nlu/archive46

Retiring discussion page of anonymous user

Hi, Nlu! I want to apologize for poor netiquette a while ago on wikipedia. I've recently decided to register a username and as a result my old "user page" which is based on my IP address has been retired, according to wikipedia. However, the discussion page is still there - can I erase everything there and get a fresh start? Konger07 (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can, but I think the better practice to let the discussion page stand. After all, there is really no way for anyone to identify that address with your new account, since only the several users with CheckUser access can check your IP, and they do it only do it in exceptional cases. Certainly I, and the vast majority of administrators, have no access to this information and have no interest in it. Thanks for checking with me. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nlu - I'll go ahead and remove them then. I will be a responsible user. Happy belated New Year! Konger07 (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You too. --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have a quick question - is there any way for me delete the IP-based user page altogether, now that it serves no purpose? There seems to be some kind of speed delete guidelines on wikipedia. Thanks again. Konger07 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot delete it; an administrator can. It is my opinion that deletion is unwarranted, but you can make a request at WP:MFD and see what the community thinks. Be aware that if you want to have a clean start, doing so may create more of a trail. --Nlu (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Konger07 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T:DYK.

On 4 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yao Silian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! · AndonicO ^Hail! 09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

I'm not making it up: http://www.slate.com/id/2134010/ --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it would still be an inappropriate thing to add to the article. --Nlu (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for Posting Links To Chinese Language

I apologize for posting links. I did not know I was posting spam. Thank you for notifying me. I will completely cease and desist from posting such links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.241.5.253 (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilteris Sad

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Ilteris Sad, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore Girls

Stop your condescending attitude. My change was topical, Edit summaried and followed both guideline and consensus. None of which can be said of yours. --87.189.123.95 (talk)

The "guideline" you refer to deals with synopses, which are necessarily within the universe of the show itself, not the description of the show as a whole. --Nlu (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I missed that. It's still an error to assume that the show somehow stopped existing, see my original edit summary for examples that this is never done elsewhere, and rarely inside Wikipedia.

Oh, and it's not a "guideline", it's a guideline. --87.189.86.20 (talk)

(From User:Chicagofacts)

Hey what the hell is your problem stop reediting my work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagofacts (talk • contribs) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this threatening tone. As I directed you, take a look at WP:SPAM. That edit in question was problematic -- because how can there be an "official" gang site, particularly for multiple games. Also note verifiability guidelines. Failure to comply will (eventually) get you blocked. --Nlu (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm looking for sources

why did you leave a messages on my discussion board??? Ui9eo u0 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling sources fake sources does not sound like a good faith edit. --Nlu (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invite for comment

Hi Nlu, would you kindly comment on my proposal on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Proposed_modification_to_current_policy? So far there are little discussion and there are two users consistently state their opposition. Thanks.--Will74205 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

The guy's got a major ownership problem, and can't understand how gaming instructions (written in the second person; a sure tip-off, IMHO) constitute a violation of WP:NOT#MANUAL. I'd welcome a third party's look at the relevant article (Dancing Stage MegaMiX). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, but I really don't play games and therefore don't really feel that I'm competent as to how much to include. I suggest filing a RfC. --Nlu (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly change

Why did you change my edit of circumference back to width when if you look at the info box it is clearly correct. Perhaps you should do a little looking around before mindlessly undoing edits.--74.138.83.10 (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your other edits made me have no confidence in your edits. --Nlu (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm...because one edit might not have been perfect you change all others...very wise Nlu...What is vandalism about writing that he got his wife pregnant and they had a kid. Isn't that what happened?--74.138.83.10 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, and the tone is not even arguably encyclopedic. It's not much better than, "He inserted his penis into her vagina and had an orgasm and she got pregnant." --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well would you rather write it as you have written it above. That would work for me.--74.138.83.10 (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: merge Yecheng

Thanks for your message. John Hill, the creator of the article Yecheng, still edited it today. I don't know whether he agrees with this merge. --Neo-Jay (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave him a message. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Taekwondo

JJL is Japanese Pushing POV Troll. He find 'one sentence' from one matial arts paper book. and claimed that "TKD originally from Karate!".(actually, that book written by karate teacher[1]) I really sick and tired of this Japanese Pushing POV troll. most important thing is FACT. but JJL is not FACT. please, support me.[2] Manacpowers (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know enough about the subject. Sorry. --Nlu (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D vandal

Hi. I've just been reviewing the actions of the many anon D&D vandals that resist all efforts to clean-up those articles and I see that you've made many reverts in this area and thought I'd pop-over and say "thanks" --Jack Merridew 08:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about Chiang Chiang-ku

Hallo,

although what I wrote it represents somehow a conclusion. I don't think it is totally wrong. Maybe I had to formulate it better...

US governs act in such a way, and I cannot do anything to change it. If you read the following book ("the generalissimo's son", written by a US professor at Harvard University), you'll find out that my conclusions are correct.--Antonio.napoli (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards Antonio

Well, whether "correct" or not, it is not NPOV. That is one of the key requirements for a Wikipedia article -- to have a neutral point of view. --Nlu (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'll review the reference in the book I cited, and we will talk later how to report this aspect in the context of Chiang Ching-kuo biography. Many Thanks for your attention! Antonio

Chiang Ching-kuo II

What do you think about the last part where in the current biography they talk about the fact that father and son have not been moved yet from the place the have been buried. Does it have anything to do with the current president from DPP? I was in Taipei 3 months ago, and I couldn't visit the Chiang Kai-Shel memorial...officially they were restructuring...but the people there said that they never started the work of restructuring...and that it is only a way to avoid people to visit this memorial...

Let me know what you think. Antonio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you should be able to tell from news articles, they've reopened it, now with all kinds of decorations to direct attention from the CKS statue, although the statue remains. (See, e.g., [3].) My guess is that the hall will be restored to what it was (not completely so) after Ma become president, which seems likely. --Nlu (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Taiwan is deciding to vote for the KMT candidate. The current president is not adeguate for the current Taiwanese problems. Antonio P.S. It seemed that they waited I left the island to re-open it:)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonio.napoli (talk • contribs) 00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'd just like to say thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. Cheers, Weirdy Talk 05:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Hundred and One Dalmatians

Sorry, I honestly didn't know what I did at first but now I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.26.237 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request for unprotection

Viridae abused his admin privilege by protecting User:Certified.Gangsta, my userpage. He violated WP:OWN, conflict of interest, and garners no consensus. You previously made it clear (years ago) that anything is allowed on userpages since NPOV does not apply[4] [5]. Please unprotect my userpage and let my preferred version stand until a consensus can be reached on AN/I. Thanks a lot--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since then, however, WP:UP had been amended to disallow content that is likely to be considered offensive -- which what you had is, I think -- and absent further discussion and consensus that it is not offensive, I don't think I should overturn Viridae's actions -- it would likely just result in a wheel war, and I don't see strong justification for me to intervene. In any case, however, I'd encourage you to file a WP:SSP against Palaceguard008/Sumple. --Nlu (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was changed after the joke banner incident. Controversial contents are frowned upon, not disallowed. I’m surprised at the double-standard, Nlu. I never stated I endorse the header. You also might remember Jiang’s “Taiwan=shame” image that you consider to be appropriate? Is it because Jiang’s is an admin and I am not? As for Sumple’s sockpuppetry, what would SSP achieve? Even though he tried to lie about his identity on AN/I, his personal website clearly stated he is Sumple. If there is ground to block him, why not block him now? If there isn’t, SSP wouldn’t change a thing.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not it; the reason is that:

The person depicted was not Jiang himself, and Jiang repeatedly stated that he does not endorse the person's views, and
The person was clearly targeting a single person -- Chen Shui-bian -- not an entire group, as you are.

As far as why I don't just block him right now, it's that I'd rather have an admin who is more experienced with what to do when you have this situation where there are productive posts from both accounts -- which one to block? (I'd say one should be indefinitely blocked, and the other should be blocked a short period.) Right now I don't have the time to do the proper research into this, at least not until Monday, I think (Martin Luther King, Jr. Day). --Nlu (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very experienced with sockpuppet hunting and blocking. Remember the old User:PoolGuy case we collaborated?? But sure take your time.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw you don't have to do any research, PalaceGuard userpage has a link to his personal website * Personal website specifically here [6] where he says he is Sumple.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, the situation is complicated by the fact that PalaceGuard008 (talk · contribs) was created after he stopped editing as Sumple (talk · contribs). Out of an abundance of caution, I blocked Sumple indefinitely and labeled that account as a sockpuppet, even though it's really the other way around. --Nlu (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think you should block PalaceGuard too. Not only as a sock, but as a troll who wants to sabotage me under a new identity. It's kind of pointless blocking the main account since it's not active even though it should be blocked. It is also worth noting that Sumple claimed to have left/retired from the project, but his 1st edit under Palace was made exactly one day after he abandoned Sumple. The proper way is to ask for a name change. Both accounts should be blocked, I think since this is a case of deliberate disruption. --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is becoming a not-so-clearcut case. What I'll do is I'll label PalaceGuard008 as a sockpuppet as well. I think you can and should consider bringing a RfC or RfAr. --Nlu (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. I'm not sure if I used the right tag though.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{sockpuppetproven}} would have been the right tag except that it also shows the account as blocked, which it isn't, so I've changed it to {{sockpuppet}}. --Nlu (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly remove the templates from both my old and new accounts

A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively. In particular, using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll or to circumvent Wikipedia policies is forbidden.

Although not common, some Wikipedians also create alternate accounts. An alternate account is an additional username used by a Wikipedian who already has an account. In such cases the main account is normally assumed to be the one with the longest history and most edits.

Neither User:Sumple nor User:PalaceGuard008 are alternates of each other. One is the successor of the other, mainly because I changed the password to the User:Sumple account to a string of random letters, and not having an email address stored, could not retrieve it. I have never simultaneously operated from both accounts.

The two accounts have not been used deceptively. I do not operate from both accounts, nor have I ever at any point. I have never represented that the two accounts were/are not the same person. When User:Certified.Gangsta and another vandal previously accused me of sockpuppetry, I clearly stated in both cases that they have no evidence of "sockpuppetry" - which they do not, since neither account is an alternate of the other, and they have not been used deceptively. In fact, the two accounts have not been used together at all. They are successor accounts. Never have I denied that both accounts have belonged or currently belong to me.

Having lost access to the previous account, the creation of a new account is clearly justified. The amount of personal information I choose to reveal on either account is a matter entirely up to my own discretion.

This is clearly harassment from Certified.Gangsta as "revenge" for my objection to his racist user page content. Please remove the templates, or file a proper sockpuppetry case so that I can defend myself as per natural justice.

If the notices are not removed in the next 15 minutes, please excuse my impatience in taking matters into my own hands. Regards, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must beg additional forgiveness. I have removed the templates from both pages myself, since sockuppetry has not been proven. There is no evidence that the two accounts have been used as alternate accounts, so any accusation of sockpuppetry fails on the most basic definitional issue. If User:Certified.Gangsta persists in his belief, he should open a proper sockpuppetry case so that I can defend myself. Regards, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least one other administrator viewed the situation differently and did believe that the use was abusive. See Blnguyen (talk · contribs)'s comments on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive354, and, after looking at the situation, so do I. I'm going to restore the {{sockpuppetproven}} tag on User:Sumple, as well as the {{sockpuppet}} tag on User:PalaceGuard008. You are welcome to again bring the issue to WP:ANI for other administrators to look at the situation. --Nlu (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to delete the tags again. As I said, there is no proof of sockpuppetry. Registering for one or more accounts is not sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry has to involve alternate accounts. Even if I had been abusive, which I have not, this is not sockpuppetry. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sumple

Hi Nlu, why are you chasing User:Sumple. Can you not see that he hasn't edited for how many months now? Even if PalaceGuard008 is the same as Sumple, this supposedly same person hasn't done anything wrong because it's not an offence to have two accounts - it's an offence to use two accounts simultaneously without a legitimate purpose. (Example: John Smith forgets his password. He signs up for a new account. John is fine.) enochlau (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, after reviewing the situation. It is my opinion that the new account was intended to elude the negative vibe created while being Sumple, but he then proceeded to continue disputes with Certified.Gangsta, which not only defeats the purpose of doing so but also made it not a "fair fight" in the sense that now Certified.Gangsta is viewed as having trouble with more than one user. If PalaceGuard008 simply dropped all of his prior disputes with others and/or had clearly stated that he was the same person, the situation would be different. The hybrid approach makes it abusive sockpuppetry, I feel (although clearly not the worse types). No, I am not saying that it is bad faith sockpuppetry, but it's still abusive regardless of the intent. --Nlu (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll tell you the full story, as his friend. He changed the password on Sumple to something random in order to throw his account away because he was frustrated with editing on Wikipedia. He later changed his mind and decided to edit again, but obviously he can't use his old account. I've now advised him that he should make it clear that Sumple is no longer usable and he will tag the user pages appropriately later today in order to make it clear that it's the same person. enochlau (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the information. In which case, I'd say that the sockpuppet tag on his new account can be taken off, but I am honestly unsure how I feel about the tag on his old account; I'll have to think about it further. --Nlu (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought to AN/I; see WP:AN/I#Past account sockpuppetry?. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First this account might be another sock of Sumple User:Lysol x. Stop harassing Nlu, enochlau. In fact, I suspect both Sumple and PalaceGuard might be bad-hand account of admin enochlau. You know Sumple in real life which doesn't make you a neutral voice. Sockpuppetry is abusive as Nlu point out. Also this edit by Sumple's IP is also very interesting [7] (2 days after he abandoned Sumple and 1 day after the creation of Palace Guard). Sumple, under his IP and sockpuppet, continues to orchestrate an anti-Certified.Gangsta behind-the-scenes. The fact that Sumple was blocked for three hours by admin User:Geogre after User:Bishonen removed a personal attack against me from his userpage then got a new account the next day doesn't corroborate with User talk:Sumple where he claimed that he has retired and added persona non grata via his IP in August [8]. This exchange is also quite interesting. blueshirt ask "Are you Mr. Sumple?" [9] (diffs doesn't show since this is the 1st edit) Sumple replied "As for your question, hush hush." [10] This show a blatant lack of respect to wikipedia policy and deliberate disruption.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

time to block

Hey Nlu. I think you should block PalaceGuard (the sockpuppet) not Sumple (the main account), not that Sumple shouldn’t be blocked given the trolling and disruption he has done. I think we’re setting a dangerous precedent if Palace isn’t blocked. For similar cases see [11]--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. As has been pointed out by several others, there were no overlapping edits, and while it might be bad faith, the evidence is not clear. --Nlu (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, I registered the new account intending never to deal with User:Certified.Gangsta again. Yes in my moment of foolishness (7 months afterwards) I got tangled by his (trolling) user page message again. Nevertheless, the two accounts are not sockpuppets of each other, nor have they been used abusively, for the simple reason that one of them is permanently out of use. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.I provided some diffs on AN/I about Sumple’s harassment campaign through both IP addresses and sockpuppet, so contrary to what Sumple’s sock stated, the harassment is never really over. I’m surprised at your dishonesty, Sumple. You got tangled up in my userpage? I didn’t add anything offensive after you left. Why continue to bring frivolous issues up? I consider your sock a reincarnation of previous problem user. You are a troll and wikipedia don’t welcome trolls. Period.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What IPs? Do you have any checkusers to back it up by? You need to realise that the world (or that subset which objects to your behaviour) is not one person. As for your diffs - if anything it proves that many different people object to your user page. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t even try to deny this. You know this is you. [12] [13] --Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue your fight here on my talk page -- or anywhere else. Both of you need to cool off -- and stay away from each other. --Nlu (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Anshi

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wei Anshi, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.territorioscuola.com/wiki/en.wikipedia.php?title=Princess_Taiping. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting Language

Hey Nlu, I'm a little confused on how languages should be sorted. According to [14], the most voted sort method is the alphabetical, based on language code. Yet the main page uses alphabetical on local language. Do you know more about this subject? Thanks. Hanfresco (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on WP:IL, it's by local language order. I am not sure that I agree with it, but that's what that page says. --Nlu (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Hanfresco (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Kings

Why do you act so high and mighty over something you clearly have no idea about. Why would you block people when you yourself have no knowledge of the that criminal organization.They are a Chicago based gang and have spread out to places like New York, California, and Florida. If you want the history of the kings from new york then add it to its own separate page just like the Black P. Stones have their own for their set in California.Chicagofacts Also check out the website before you judge

See WP:EW. Again, please don't edit war; please discuss -- and do so in the appropriate place. Continuing to edit war will be construed as vandalism and will get you blocked. --Nlu (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar for you, sir!

		History Barnstar
		I, PericlesofAthens, award you Nlu, this barnstar for your outstanding work in various Chinese history articles. Keep up the good work!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Nlu (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your work on various articles, especially Emperor Gaozong of Tang, is most impressive, considering the shoddy condition of that article before you graced it with your editor's touch. Simply put: nice work, dude!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what I hope to do -- there's so much that hopefully we can teach people about Chinese history, both the good and the bad. --Nlu (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Everglades

I made substantial changes to the Ransom Everglades article in an attempt to resolve the point of view dispute on that page. You were involved in the discussions about that dispute, I believe you may have initially tagged the article in fact. I would appreciate your involvement in any further discussion and about the recent changes. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I tagged it about a year and a half ago because of what I saw as some WP:PEACOCK-type language. As I don't really know about the school, I am not sure that I can substantively comment. --Nlu (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farsi-interwiki saboteur?

The user Lawrence S C Tam, whom you blocked in January 2007[15] for committing mass deletions of links to the Farsi Wikipedia, apparently returned under the name Lawrence H K in the following month, to continue the same behavior ever since. Before I became familiar with his "contributions", I thought that he might have just inadvertently pressed the wrong key when he deleted a Farsi interwiki, since in the particular edits that I noticed, he was also adding valid interwikis to other languages such as Chinese and Japanese at the same time. For instance, see History of Microsoft [16] and The Merchant of Venice [17]. However, it is now almost certain that he is deliberately targeting Farsi interwikis for removal. For just a few examples of other articles which have had their Farsi interwikis inexplicably removed, please see Student [18], Japan [19], and Yehudi Menuhin [20].

Another practice which commonly accompanies his deletions, which is illustrated in the cases of Japan and Yehudi Menuhin, is to purport to "protect" or "semi-protect" the article in order to preserve it in its Farsi-interwiki-free version. He has never explained in any of his edit summaries why he removes the Farsi interwikis (it should be further noted that his edit summaries are, as a rule, almost always marked minor, even when they involve wholesale changes to the content of articles). More importantly, he has never responded to messages on his talk page about the deletions, which have been posted by Graham87 [21] and Andy M. Wang [22]. Although it is his edits on the English Wikipedia which should concern us here, a look at his edits on other versions of Wikipedia only confirms the recognition of his behavioral patterns on English Wikipedia. He has been mass-deleting Farsi interwikis as well on the Chinese (e.g., [23] [24] [25] [26]), Italian [27], and Japanese (e.g., [28] [29] [30] [31]) versions. On the Japanese Wikipedia, he goes to the trouble of reverting edits by other users who have restored the interwikis he has wrongly deleted (see 13 July 2007 [32]). From what I can gather, warnings about these "rampages" have been left on his Chinese [33] and Japanese [34] talk pages, again without eliciting any explanation from him.

I hope you can assist in halting the bizarre and damaging editing practices of this user. Perhaps he does not understand some of the policies of Wikipedia due to a language barrier, as a result of which he also adds incoherent machine-translated text to articles (e.g., [35]) and plagiarizes extensively (e.g., [36] [37]).

Thank you.--Defrosted (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not sure, based on the what I've seen, that there is malice behind this, since the end result is disruptive, I'm going to block the account and wait for explanation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also copied over the thread to WP:ANI to see what other administrators think of this. --Nlu (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Link SPAM

67.172.174.120 (talk · contribs) has a long history of link spamming to his mfa sites on wiki. He has been repeatedly warned and even suspended, but continues to place SPAM links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhorn23 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he/she hasn't edited for four days. If he/she does it again, best thing to do is to report it to WP:AIV. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSearch plugins ?

Why did you remove the link to the opensearch plugins from OpenSearch --84.195.241.5 (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that they comply with WP:EL and WP:SPAM guidelines. If you disagree, please discuss on the talk pages involved. --Nlu (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know about chicago

quit acting so high and mighty just cause you can protect and edit something you have no clue about. What is wrong with you check out the site before you judge it you closed minded fool User:chicagofacts

As I said before, the problem wasn't your content, per se; it's that Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and when you have a contention with another editor, you are supposed to discuss your edits, not act unilaterally. --Nlu (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]