User talk:Nlu/archive6

Sean Black RfA

Thank you very much for your support of my RfA. Thanks, in part, to you, I am now an Administrator, and I pledge to use my newfound powers for good rather than evil. Thanks again!--Sean|Bla ck 07:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Ju

I'm basing it on wikipedia convention to start biographies with the full name. Jimmy Carter begins with "James Earl...."--Jiang 09:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case, Crown Prince Li is not a full name; it's a posthumous name. I don't see an analogy. Can you elaborate? --Nlu 09:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please block this vandalist user: 80.111.190.220

Thank youDiyako 17:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to investigate the situation as quickly as I can. Right now, though, I can't block without warning him/her. I'll put a note on the talk page to let him/her know. --Nlu 17:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess warnings have been given before. Will block shortly; I need to verify his network information. --Nlu 17:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Indefinite block message

I know, yours was funnier, but we have to stay professional. :-| Owen× ☎ 00:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reversing the vandalism to the Millwall FC I'm pretty new 'round here and don't know to do it yet. Best wishes, Lion King 01:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For the barnstar, I know it's me you're trying to thank for my hard work, but sometimes we should turn around and thank those that sometimes go thankless... I can't give you a pretty award but I can give you a smiley: :] (If you're intrested in why I joined into the CVU, you can read my user page ^_^) --White Wolf 03:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Reminder

Hoax articles like the Guinea hair article you recently deleted(reason was "A1 content was: '{{deletebecause}}{{verify}}Guinea Hairs is a term used to describe thick body hair that grows in places where body hair doesn't usua...") do not qualify for speedy deletion. The article has context; it's just a lie. However, it desreved AFD time. For all we know, someone might have come forward saying it was real slang in their region. In this case, I'm not going to go to WP:VFU. Just please be a little more conservative in the future. Thanks for all the hard work. Superm401 | Talk 07:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For the barnstar. I'll add it to my Trophy case. :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

What? What makes you think I'm doing that? (Even though I don't really get your problem....) If you see ?'s, its probably cause you don't have whatever language code the signer is using. If stuff isn't underlined, well, I can't change that... R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 09:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like what happened was that someone changed the user defaults to make those ?s rather than underlines. I still don't know who changed it, but I am changing my own personal preferences to try to handle it. Thanks and sorry. --Nlu 09:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Massive spamming by 87.194.26.232

It looks like there are approximately 200-300 articles spammed by this IP address.

Blocked. Thanks. --Nlu 09:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone wishes to utilize there rollback capabilities.

persecute versus prosecute

Your page should say, "you've persecuted us for generations," not "prosecuted." It would be really funny if the Dark Templar were complaining about extensive legal fees:-) 07:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It shall be done... For Aiur! Thanks! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Otherwise, this defense attorney may have to block you... --Nlu 08:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Want another physical? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... --Nlu 09:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

hi,i am new to wikipedia. thanks for letting me know what is allowed and what is not! --Nikhilbelsare 10:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block on 87.194.26.232 (talk · contribs)

Hi Nlu,

Not a biggy, but I thought I would mention that your block on 87.194.26.232 (talk · contribs) was probably a little premature this morning. Yes they were spam linking and they needed stopping, but it looks like this user has made some good garden related edits on previous days. Also they didn't have much chance to react to the spam warning messages. The first warning from an anon was a little garbled since it was unsigned, and we usually proceed to {{spam2}} before blocking if they carry on after that.

It might be an idea to lift the block, but ask them not to add any further external links to gardenvisit.com and point them to the policy pages. I doubt we have many editors who work on gardening subjects, so it would be a shame to loose them if they can contribute in a positive and responsible way. -- Solipsist 15:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not sure what would be the best pages to point them to, so would it be possible for you to do that (so I can see how it can best be done)? I'd appreciate that. Thanks. --Nlu 16:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saw it. Thanks. --Nlu 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK done. I've lifted the block and left them an apology. In general, the two places I point people to are Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. Some spam linkers like this one can be well intentioned - they assume that anyone reading each one of the pages would also be interested in their web site. Unfortunately the {{spam}} link templates aren't entirely appropriate for cases like this as they tend to be a little brusque and only partially point to policy. Hopefully they will return with the good edits. -- Solipsist 17:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall F.C.

Millwall FC Has been vandalised again. Lion King 21:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. When you get a chance, perhaps take a look at Wikipedia:Revert, which will help you to know how to revert vandalism. Thanks for reporting. --Nlu 22:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - thanks for your help Lion King 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No racist

Glenn is no racist. He posts on his site material taken from various sources that are about illegal aliens comitting crimes, belonging to racist groups, terrorist groups, and he also states where that info came from, so that you and/or I can view it. THAT is not being racist.Martial Law 06:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I don't know what you mean in your original post, which appeared to imply that he was.

But while I don't know Glenn himself enough to say most "anti-illegal immigration" organizations are racist. They seek to stop Mexican illegal immigration (and sometimes Asian) only; they do not do a thing about "white" illegal immigration, and they spread untruths about what would happen if undocumented aliens are given driver's licenses -- because they don't actually care what the impact would be. --Nlu 06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People still have the 9-11 jitters, and the Border patrol has intercepted "OTMs"(NOT Mexicans) recently, and Glenn has recent demonstrated how easy it still is to get a WMD into the US via the US/Mexican border by using a FAKE WMD. I'm around people who still have 9-11 jitters, and when 9-11 happened, I was in NM. myself. I've never seen anyone so outraged before or since 9-11, and a lot of hardware, and I'm not referring to ACE Hardware either. I am no longer in THAT area. FOX News had even claimed that the US has Al Qaeda terrorists that came into the US via the Mexican border. IF that is true, and if the US has another 9-11, the American people will be so angered and outraged that the innocent legal aliens may end up being thrown out with forcibly deported illegal aliens.Martial Law 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And your point is? --Nlu 07:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innocents, such as you and I may get caught in the middle of a 2nd American Revolution, and that nearly happened on 9-11 itself,since I had seen people taking their guns out and oiling,fixing them, buying ammo. I would've been caught in a rebellion, had not cooler heads prevailed.Martial Law 07:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't state what my reaction was and still be in compliance with Wikipedia regulations about obscene/profane matter.Martial Law 07:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White illegals ?

Do know about the Russian Mafia. Is this what you're referring to ? The Russian Mob is allegedly composed of illegals from CIS. Can you elaborate ?Martial Law 07:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't cite figures right now, but it has been pointed out that after Mexico, the largest wave of "illegal immigration" actually comes from Canada and Great Britain. Somehow, those are never discussed in the news. --Nlu 07:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail CNN, FOX News and see what happens.Martial Law 07:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have already tried, and I don't hold out hope that Fox would do anything but throw them away. But in any case, we're wandering off topic. Whether Glenn is or is not a racist is of no relevance to his famed status or not. --Nlu 07:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Martial Law 08:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

New Wikipedian

We have another new Wikipedian: Go to User Talk:Brianporter. I can't remove the red coloring.Martial Law 08:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The red coloring is because there is no article Brianporter. When there is an existing article, you get a blue link, but the red link shows that there is no article. (In any case, the link should be User talk:Brianporter.) --Nlu 08:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brianporter had edited a UFO related matter.Martial Law 08:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, want to give him a {{subst:welcome}}? --Nlu 08:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done just that,even have this Wikipedian to contact you should there be a problem.Martial Law 09:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Placed the template, it appears to be malfunctioning.Martial Law 09:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill O'Reilly

If you are awake, will you please do something about the edits to Bill O'Reilly (commentator)? An anonymous editor from the same IP address as the DotSix sockpuppet is making a large number of grossly POV edits. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look... --Nlu 10:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 3RR, and it's not provable yet as sock puppetry. I am taking a look at the situation, and if he edits after Wayward has just reverted, I'm probably going to protect the page to force him/her into discussion. --Nlu 10:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

bubblegum shitface and rotten milk!!!

hey did somene vandalize the pages i made for bubblegum shitface and rotten milk? i was going to add some more to them today!!! please leave me a message if you have any information!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorgrigas (talk • contribs)

I deleted them as fitting under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If you wish to contest this, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review, but please do not recreate the articles without first discussing there. --Nlu 18:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

Ah... my apologies. :) I carelessly matched the text and corresponding image incorrectly. I suppose a belated thanks is in order! Cheers, Sango 123 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Thanks. --Nlu 06:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Sorry, didn't mean to step on you on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I was blocking and editing at the same time you were posting your message that you were going to wait, and I wrote right over it. —Cleared as filed. 06:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. I was contemplating a short block myself. :-) --Nlu 06:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Societies in Singapore speedy deletion

One article, albeit a stub, is not grounds for the creation of a category. I have again resubmitted the category for deletion.

211.30.72.208 09:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my question; my question is again what criterion you believe it should be speedy deleted. If it doesn't fit under speedy deletion, it should go under regular Wikipedia:Categories for deletion process. --Nlu 12:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a test, nor was it nonsense. Be a good Admin. Not a bad admin.

You left messages on my talk page warning me against "Test" and "Nonsense", and advising me to use the sandbox.

That wasn't a test by any means. I added the description "Gay Marriage Prime Minister" to Paul Martin's name. What in the world makes you think that is a test? That isn't a test. It's the Truth. Paul Martin IS the "Gay Marriage Prime Minister" of Canada. No amount of covering up this fact, will change that true fact.

That wasn't nonsense by any means. I added the description "Gay Marriage Prime Minister" to Paul Martin's name. What in the world makes you think that is nonsense? That isn't nonsense. It's the Truth. Paul Martin IS the "Gay Marriage Prime Minister" of Canada. No amount of covering up this fact, will change that true fact.

I suggest you find something better to do by abusing your power as a new admin. Those were valid edits, and not a pov but the factual Truth, and I reject your warnings. Also, I advise you to read the page about Administrators/sysops very carefully if you wish to be successful at this. Regards, 172.145.214.133 14:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I've just noticed you reverted some vandalism on my User page about two weeks ago. Thanks for that, I didn't have internet access for a while, so I didn't even notice it when it happened. --BadSeed 15:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My pleasure. --Nlu 17:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, redux

Just noticed that you reverted some vandalism to my talk page. It's the first time my userspace has been vandalized. I feel so proud. Like I've finally arrived, y'know?

Anyhow, thanks for reverting it. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My pleasure. --Nlu 17:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information

I am a publicly accessible terminal. While I thank you for reverting "my" edit, I am afraid your message will never reach the intended person. So to speak. 134.39.100.71 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Excuse me, you left this message in my talk:

This message is regarding the page David Miller (singer). Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please note that unexplained page moves and blanking are also considered vandalism. --Nlu 05:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've just gone through wikipedia's definition on vandalism and I found this: Vandalism by new users New users are prime suspects for vandalism. Special:Contributions/newbies will show you the latest contributions by the people who most recently created a Wikipedia account. Be sure not to confuse a vandal with a clueless newbie.

The Unexpected Just because some people are editing in unusual ways doesn't make them vandals. If they are making solid edits but writing, "Hi, Mom (Mum)!" in their edit summaries, this doesn't make them oddball vandals; it just makes them newcomers. By all means have a friendly chat about the proper use of edit summaries. Don't blanket revert them. Don't block them.

Learning Wiki Markup and Manual of Style Some users require some time to learn the wiki-based markup, and will spend a little time experimenting with the different ways to make external links, internal links, and other special characters. Rather than condemning them as vandals, just explain to them what our standard style is on the issue in hand—perhaps pointing them towards our documentation at Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and the like.

I'm sure you've read all the information posted above since you're an administrator (or a candidate for adminship, I'm not sure). Yet, you preferred to leave a warning in my page that left me clueless and nervous for a while instead of helping me solve my problems. Was it so hard for you to figure out that I was a newbie especially since although I had deleted the "David Miller (singer)" article, I had also been the AUTHOR of it? Fortunately there were some other friendlier wikipedians that were gracious enough to understand my ordeal and aid me. Rosameliamartinez 20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brisbane Grammar School

Hi. Just wondering why you reverted the changes at Talk:Brisbane Grammar School. Cnwb 22:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was accidental; I meant to revert a vandalism of Brisbane Grammar School and clicked on the wrong link. I've reverted the reversion. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu 23:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

maternal footwear

Ha! Thanks for the cleanup and the bonus translation! :-) FreplySpang (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) --Nlu 00:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction Alert

What is going on ? Can't even get on "en.wikipedia.org", talk pages are frozen, got time out signals. Is Wikipedia in some kind of meltdown ? HTML Tidy may be @ it again.Martial Law 02:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but things appear to be OK now, at least as far as I can see. As it is the case with all Web-related things, things are liable to break at times. --Nlu 05:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Article

Can you examine the Article: Mysteries-Megasite for any problems ?Martial Law 06:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My honest opinion? It's not notable enough to warrant its own article. Perhaps it can be a link from an appropriate article, but I don't think this should be a separate article on its own. I won't propose it for deletion, since you came to me about it, but I do think that it should be deleted if proposed to be delted. --Nlu 06:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Song, Nigeria

I requested it deleted because there is nothing there--and there isn't. Lotsofissues 10:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point is -- is it a real location? I see no evidence that it is not real, and if it's real and is truly a region of Nigeria, then it should have an article, I think, so leaving the stub in place may induce someone to expand it. --Nlu 10:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, are you fast...

Hey, you beat me to it (usernameblock) :)Lectonar 10:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Nlu 10:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adbusters

hi Nlu, your post got reverted, but i think its a credible criticism, find a source or something. i had never heard about that. Spencerk 00:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

user 216.120.146.3

See Legume, block? MH 21:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not serious enough yet to justify a block. I will rewarn with {{subst:test4-n}}. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu 21:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism all the way

Hi, I just came across Jan and I noticed that you had reverted the last vandalism edit; the edits shortly before that had also been vandalism but weren't removed, so it might pay to always check the history before reverting. I noticed the exact same situation on Sasuke (you weren't involved), and I fear that this is a pretty general problem. Cheers, AxelBoldt 22:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's hard to spot all the vandalism all the time. :-) :-( Thanks for being attentive. --Nlu 23:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thank you very much for the barnstar, it's greatly appreciated. :-) Andromeda321 01:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. --Nlu 01:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey

It's pretty bad when I go to warn someone, then hit submit, I get the editing conflict message.. then edit my warning to be a level 2 warning, hit submit, and get another editing conflict showing that the user has now been level 3 warned and one of the warnings is for the page I reverted. :P Damn you, heh. ;) Locke Cole 03:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Nlu 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandal 65.125.115.30

I reported this vandal, and you wrote 65.125.115.30 (stopped), Does that mean that he has been blocked? Or stopped vandalizing? I think he vandalized at 14:00 on Nov 1, about 13 hours ago, within the last 24 hours. Bubba73 (talk), 04:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He/she stopped vandalizing. WP:AIV is really intended for current vandalism -- some admin will react to very recent (say, within the last hour) vandalism on it, but we're really not supposed to go beyond that, because the regulations that we're given is that blocks are supposed to be to stop ongoing vandalism, not to punish. (I know, we stretch that principle sometimes.) In this case, the vandal also wasn't warned all that much, and I felt it would be too much of a stretch to block him/her. Thank you for your viligence. --Nlu 04:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I count 10 warnings, including 3 "last warnings". I thought the page said "within the last 24 hours", and the last was blanking a page (Flag of Spain I think) about 13 hours ago. checking the user's contrabutions, it looks like he has vandalized more than that and not been warned. How many "last warnings" do they get?

Where should I report a case like this - more than an hour ago but < 24 hours? (This was my first report of a vandal, but I've given several warnings.) Bubba73 (talk), 04:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to learn. This is a close call. If you want, you can also take a look at WP:VIP, although this doesn't quite fit there either. As far as serious vandalism is concerned, this vandal was relatively small potatoes. --Nlu 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was for one that was probably online, still vandalizing. I'm getting fed up with vandalism. I think two warnings should be enough. This one has 7 wimpy "please stop..." warnings and 3 "this is your last warning. If you do it again you will be banned...", but he wasn't banned. Not after the first "last warning". Not after the second "last warning". Not after the third "last warning". I think the four warnings is way too many, but we don't even enforce what we say. Bubba73 (talk), 04:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I am as fed up as you are, but another reason why these blocks are only for short durations when given is to try to see if they will reform themselves; and also, IP addresses do get reassigned from time to time, and we don't want to permanently wipe out that IP number from contributions. --Nlu 04:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thik that giving all of these warnings is silly. I think giving the warnings and not enforcing them is even worse. Giving all of the warnings may actually encourage some vandals, because they want to make us go to a lot of trouble. I think that only registered users should be allowed to edit. Everytime I see somethigng on my watchlist edited by an IP addres I have to go check it out. Bubba73 (talk), 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler concerns

I looked over the Talk page. What exactly are you looking for feedback on? The page protection? That seems to have led to discussion. The admonishing the anon who keeps switching IPs? That seems reasonable to me. Can you clarify? Jkelly 05:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what to do next. The anon is still effectively refusing to discuss (other than to throw invectives) and has effectively promised another revert war once the page is unprotected. And this is not an anon that can be blocked effectively without, presumably, lots of collateral damage (block the entire range). So I am at a loss for thoughts on what to do next. Any pointers would be appreciated. --Nlu 05:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Range block

Yes--that's the North Carolina Vandal (please see my comments on WP:AN/I both here [1] and here [2]. He invariably edits from that range, at least until tonight (since he seems to have gotten through the block for the first time) and I am yet to see a good edit from the range, or get an e-mail from a blocked user. This kid is one of the most prolific vandals in Wikipedia history; follow some of the links there to see; look at the 63.19 vandalisms in Luxembourg, Stokes County, North Carolina (and the sockpuppets there), and elsewhere. Sometime I'll write up a page on him on ViP/Long Term Alerts but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Hope this answers you question! Take care, Antandrus (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the heads up. I was just a bit concerned about collateral damage. It makes me start to consider unprotecting Adolf Hitler and be ready to put in a range block for 3RR on the sock puppets... --Nlu 05:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes range blocks are worse than other times--especially when they are for widely-used ISPs (AOL, Bellsouth, Pacbell, etc). For whatever reason, we don't have many editors using MCI (if that is what it is) in North Carolina/southern Virginia. In my experience, my e-mail box fills with complaints when I block innocent users, and I'm yet to hear anything when I block 63.19.*.*. FWIW, Curps has blocked it too; we have been having trouble with this guy since July at least. Antandrus (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you block Lazyboi69

Lazyboi69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) if you just take a look at his talk page, it's history and his contribs you'll see why! Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 06:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antandrus just did. :-) --Nlu 06:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking 64.48.71.23 :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 07:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks. --Nlu 17:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Necrophilia

Just a note that my comment on this AfD regarding the redirect to Necrophilia was in jest. The term is at best a non-notable insult that refers to a hypothetical act of Necrophilia. Although I suppose it is possible for it to have actually occurred at some point in time. Peyna 07:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking one of "your" vandals

I'm bringing this anonymous (User:209.94.176.249) up with you because you were the last person to put a warning message on his user page, and it was a {{subst:test4}}, so we now have to carry our threat thru — and I'm not an admin, so can't do it: I'm assuming you are.... The article vandalized today was Baseball bat, multiple edits. Your ball, I hope. Best, Bill 21:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Is there anywhere I can ask people to evaluate an article for POV - other than the article itself? I've just put NPOV back on Roswell UFO incident, but the people who keep putting in what I consider argumentative POV keep taking out my edits and have remobed the NPOV in the past. Bubba73 (talk), 22:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am actually not sure about this. If they violate 3RR, you can put it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, but otherwise I can't think of anything right now. --Nlu 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]