User talk:Nlu/archive9

Until....

O.K. People, until Nlu is better, which should be shortly, reduce your visits. Go to my User page to contact a Admin. Nlu, this is NOT vandalisim. I will be checking up on you, to see how you're doing. See your doctor, follow his/her advice, and stay in bed as much as possible.Martial Law 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Starting now, what is your status ? I am not trying to be a "troll" ,pest.Martial Law 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is in compliance to you reducing Wiki time.Martial Law 00:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be checking on you daily.Martial Law 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is your current status ?Martial Law 02:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you're better, let me know.Martial Law 02:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am feeling better, but still not completely well. However, people don't really have to stop contacting me; just be aware that it may take longer for me to respond to things. --Nlu (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon! :-) android 79 04:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking them not to contact you, just reduce the visits until you're well. By the way, what is your status ?Martial Law 05:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned a few hours ago -- feeling better, not completely well. Hoping to be back at work tomorrow. --Nlu (talk) 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling better ? Just checking on you, like I said I would do.Martial Law 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Decided to take another day off work, though, and spent the day largely sleeping... --Nlu (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make it 1.5 to 2 days to be on the safe side. Status ?Martial Law 04:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No real change. --Nlu (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a 1.5 to a 2 day vacation. By the way, have you seen my User page lately ? Been placing Wikipedia "Shortcuts" on it for quicker access to Admins. and the like. Is this a good idea to have these short cuts ?Martial Law 10:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current status ?Martial Law 10:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Hoping to go into work today. As for the shortcuts, I think it's not a problem. --Nlu (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought these short cuts would be helpful. Current status ? Take another day off.Martial Law 21:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took today off. Feeling better, but still cutting back on Wiki time until fully recovered physically and caught up on everything else that I missed during the break. --Nlu (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you're better. See Special Report on my User page.Martial Law 05:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You better yet ? Martial Law 08:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC) :)[reply]

List of Jewish jurists related mediation etc

Hi there. I thought to inform everyone involved as to the current status. I note that you wrote a "summary" of your views as to what had happened in the case, and thought it pertinent to advise you of recent events. User:Poetlister was banned indefinitely yesterday due to a suspicion of sock puppetry that she may be the same person as User:RachelBrown (along with several other users). The evidence of why the ban was placed has not been made clear, there was no arbitration decision and no verification that they are sock puppets, and a rather large proportion of users are questioning why the user was banned, given that Poetlister had just requested for the RfM to be escalated towards an RfC after Lulu of the Lotus Eaters refused to cooperate with the mediation. If you are interested in the case, you can follow appropriate links from their user pages. If not, I am sorry to have bothered you. My involvement, by the way, was that I was sent an e-mail by Poetlister, given that I am a neutral party and have had no prior contact with any of the persons in the dispute, to assess the information available and form my own view. My view was a recommendation to escalate it to an RfC but to drop the name of SlimVirgin, and to add a 3rd name to Poetlister and RachelBrown, the name of User:Jayjg, who had similarly contradicted Lulu's edits and rationale. You will note that Lulu has since tried to run something akin to a smear campaign against me, claiming that I am not neutral just because I viewed that Lulu's actions were inappropriate and that he was primarily the guilty party. Anyway, if you want to look through it all, its there. If not, well, bye. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have made a page here User:Zordrac/Poetlister which explains the situation in detail. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different takes

I am sorry that your attempt at resolution (the RfA) came to nought. I do not think matters need to rest there, perhaps we can still find common ground. Let me know (and get well soon). Haiduc 02:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to figure out why you think I was playing in the sandbox with respect to my update of the Chad Johnson web page. What I described about "Santa Chad" really happened, and I think his celebration was just as significant as the others referenced in the article. --User:mharlow23 mharlow23 22:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, you didn't have to alter another section to insert it. --Nlu (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi Nlu, thanks for the quick revert on my user page. Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 08:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My pleasure. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What...

What is needed to become a Administrator ? Martial Law 21:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:RFA. --Nlu (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just inquiring. My law enforcement heritage forbids me from abusing power. Martial Law 03:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Well, my experience as a defense attorney makes me feel that that makes you more likely to abuse power. :-) --Nlu (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not likely. Abuse of power reflects badly on the honest people, just as a scandalous cop makes honest cops look bad. Then, there are the crooked lawyers who make good lawyers, such as you look bad. Just stating the truth. The Enron scandal, the Bill Clinton scandals, (Bill was a lawyer himself)has proven this time after time. Did not intend to be offensive, if so, do humbly apologise. Martial Law 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Enron lawyers should've stopped the whole thing before it got out of hand. Martial Law 06:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I need judicial advise on the government plese put on my talk page. --Cao An Min 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean. Can you clarify what is it that you would want advice on? --Nlu (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Marchant AfD

Please have a look at my comments and reply, if you wish.Musikfabrik 09:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hey Nlu, its been a long time since we last conversed! I have a request, could you check out....well I was going to ask you to clear out WP:AIAV but your already doing that! lol Thanks!KnowledgeOf Self | talk 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) My pleasure. --Nlu (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, excuse my manners I hope your feeling better, I'm just getting over some type of flu myself! It was horrible timing, I had a RfA to maintain and yet I had to stay in bed most of the time. That was not fun lol. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 01:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... I hope you get better soon. --Nlu (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I feel much better today just a little weak limbed, but I think the worse is over. Happy editing! KnowledgeOf Self | talk 01:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With the flu, you do NOT take any chances. Martial Law 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks Nlu, I won't have to ask you to clear out WP:AIAV anymore lol :-D KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Polls/ Surveys

Is it illegal in Wiki protocol to hold a personal poll/survey on your User page and/or your talk page ? Martial Law 05:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am aware of, but if you're going to do it, I'd do it on the talk page. What kind of a survey is it? --Nlu (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen some of these on other User talk pages. Martial Law 06:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

195.93.21.33 vandalism

Although this IP belongs to AOL, and is used by multiple users, I don't think that a 75 minute block is enough. DUe to the severity of the vandalism, and the fact that it is happening repeatedly, I suggest that you lengthen the block, and post a notice to the good natured editors of that IP suggesting that they get an account... but that's just a suggestion. I put this page on my watchlist, so please don't reply on my talk page. Gnome of Fury 19:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a longer block will be ineffective. Unlike other shared IP situations (WebTV, for example), AOL is unique in that AOL users can easily switch (voluntarily or not) to other IPs in a single session. By putting in a 75 minute block, I was hoping to make it short enough that it doesn't cause collateral damage and long enough that the vandal wll be forced to switch to another IP and hopefully blocked there again, &c. (Some admins use a 15-minute block, which I consider ineffective since the vandal often doesn't even need to switch; just wait out the 15 minutes.) For other shared IP situations, I do often put in much longer blocks and ask anybody who might be collaterally blocked to e-mail me, but for AOL that doesn't work. (I would have responded much sooner, but my Internet connection died about 9 1/2 hours ago and didn't come back until now.) --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

return of allabout

he's back in Alkyl nitrites- the diff of what i just reverted is here. can you keep an eye on this? thanks a lot. --Heah ^talk 04:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defcon

Don't stress yourself out. block the "Penis vandal". Martial Law 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the penis vandal (or vandals) keeps shifting IPs. Impossible to block them all; we can only block them one at a time. --Nlu (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Admin. blocked this account. It could be a sockpuppet. How do you find these things ? Martial Law 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't. You just have to wait for him/her to pop up and then, once you see the vandalism, block him/her. --Nlu (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Admin told me about a "Check User" device. It is designed to find Sockpuppets. Cheers. Martial Law 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

The problem is that there are very few people who have the privileges of accessing Check User -- and also, it is also reactive; you can use it to check if the account is a sock puppet, but you can't preventively find sock puppets. --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Wu of Han

I've nominated the article: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emperor Wu of Han/archive1--Jiang 12:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --18:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

if you have the time, there are some objections there that need to be addressed. --Jiang 02:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to look into it more when I get a chance, but I really think that it's going to be difficult to improve it further without making it difficult to read. As it stands, some of the alleged POV statements are really not disputable and therefore not really POV, but I am not sure that we can get people unfamiliar with Chinese history to understand that. --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Flanders

How is Ned Flanders an inappropriate username? We have plenty of users with names based on fictional characters, including admin Lord Voldemort. Please reconsider. R adiant _>|< 11:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user was also vandalizing Ned Flanders and User:Xaosflux with language that was designed to imitate Ned Flanders, suggesting that the user name was selected with intent to confuse vandal-fighters. I see absolutely no indication that this user had a rightful purpose in choosing that user name. --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the guy is up to no goodily-doodily and don't dispute the blockity. I am merely wondering why {{usernameblock}} was used. But it's moot anyway. R adiant _>|< 18:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I used that because the vandalism was really not quite, by itself, justification for a permanent block, but the two things combined together (the vandalism and the at least somewhat inappropriate user name) was sufficient, I think. --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball on Wikicities, a new wiki website

Hi ~~KnowledgeOfSelf~~, Nlu ~~Googie Man~~ here. I've noticed you make some edits of baseball players on Wikipedia. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done such great work on Wikipedia I was hoping you could help me get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please tet me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 15:34, 4 January 2006.

Hey Nlu i'm passing this message on to you, because I know you are intrested in baseball. Thought you might find it intresting. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: vandalism

You're quite welcome, that guy was nasty! --Winter 01:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on allabout

i have filed an RfC concerning the behavior of User:Allabout2006 and his socks which can be found here. comments would be appreciated. thanks. --Heah ^talk 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

hi! the ip at the high school i work at is blocked! Can you unblock it? I was logged in and everything...how can i get around that, i want to access wiki from my school, i'll be able to do alot more editing! Please help! Your name came up on the block.

JamieJones 21:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the IP number that was blocked? I'll look into it. --Nlu (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew...hold on, i'll try and find it, somehow... JamieJones 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm here now, it works now. Our ip seems dynamic...the numbers were different...is there a wiki tool to look up ip if it happens again? And can you add my talk to your watch page...it's low volume, but i can post to it if i am blocked (so the message said). Thanks! Jess

Will do. --Nlu (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got a message from User:Anonymous_editor saying he fixed it. That's great. The IP is shared at the school I work at. But I'm not a student. Although, ironically, it was a student that got me interested in wikipedia. Thanks again JamieJones 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for alerting me. --Nlu (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on administrator intervention

Hi there! I reverted your removal of User:204.174.27.234 on the administrator intervention list. I think if you'll look more closely, especially to his or her earlier edits, that it's very likely that the user has a financial interest in the books he/she links to. Also, the user keeps reinserting these links to the repeated annoyance of the regular users of the concerned pages. Junes 17:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree; however, the purpose of WP:AIV is clear; it's to stop current vandalism, and we don't block if the person has stopped -- and the person has stopped. I'd like to ask you to remove the person again unless that person has resumed his/her behavior. --Nlu (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the user has done it 6 times since the last warning, 3 times in 24 hours since the last warning and 3 times in the last 24 hours. I don't call that 'has stopped'. But if that's not intense enough, oh well. I don't really work on these articles, so I'm not bothered by it. But the regular contributors there probably are. Junes 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Lü Bu -> Lu Bu

a trend? I'm not aware of it, but I don't feel strongly either way, so I'll have to believe you. They do seem to be using ü in English-language history texts, but it is not in modern contexts (e.g. Annette Lu)--Jiang 02:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if it is all right, I'll change Lu Bu back. Annette Lu is kind of a special situation -- she (just like a friend of mine who has the same last name) spelled her last name that way because that was the "official" transliteration when she (and my friend's parents) came to the United States to study, and the spelling stuck. Plus, keyboards back then don't have umlauts. :-) --Nlu (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block

Thanks for blocking 24.155.125.9 again. Such a nuisance. Chick Bowen 04:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I might have simply rewarned if he/she had not put in so many misleading edit summaries. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the block on 68.185.158.145. I really don't understand why some people are so childish. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 08:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see these people in real life as well. In real life you just walk away from that person's place in the bar (if you have good judgment); unfortunately, they insist on making the Internet their part of the bar. --Nlu (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball on Wikicities

Hey Nlu, I'm just wondering if you've looked into the Baseball on Wikicities as of yet. Thanks KnowledgeOf Self | talk 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really yet. Just been pretty busy... --Nlu (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I just created an account over there. Hope you don't mind but I'm going to spam you with more info :-P this is more about the project. It looks like it might be fun :-D KnowledgeOf Self | talk 22:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

194.8.54.251 vandalism

1 month. I like it. :) Cheers. --Bookandcoffee 10:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Nlu (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For just blocking that user. Reverting his edits was starting to get tedious, lol Swollib 10:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks for being diligent. --Nlu (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, vandals are rife tonight, eh ? Swollib 10:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a standard night, actually, I think... --Nlu (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.121.169.154

Nlu, User:65.121.169.154 vandalized asparagus directly after your warning. He/she should be blocked, in my opinoin. Kukini 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He/she hasn't been warned in a month, though, and so I'm not comfortable blocking yet. I added a new {{test4-n}}. Thanks for lettin gme know. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Just trying to figure out how to be of the most use here. Kukini 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is needed...

Someone is pretending you gave them a barnstar when their history has no mention of you editing it. The link-[1]J.J.Sagnella 13:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. I've removed that barnstar. I'll see how others react on this... It's not vandalism per se, but certainly this user's behavior is inappropriate. --Nlu (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was odd huh :-P KnowledgeOf Self | talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shared IP blocks

Thanks for your blocks on vandals. However, when an IP is shared (such as 217.33.74.20) please try and avoid lengthy blocks - it shouldn't be more than a couple hours. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 08:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I felt that the regular block period was justified since that IP had only been used for vandalism with no useful edits, and because I left instructions on how to get me to unblock if someone ends up being collateral damage of the block. --Nlu (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The great grape ape is straight out of the know

I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused, I have just joined Wikipedia and was testing my user page. Again, a thousand pardons and if there is any boon that I may beg upon you, don't hesitate to inquireThe great grape ape is straight out of the know 21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Nlu (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Socks

Is it really a good idea to create sockpuppets ?! Martial Law 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would'nt think of doing that myself. Seen things, like, "User ? has 200 sockpuppets all over the place." Martial Law 22:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry tends to cause you to lose credibility... --Nlu (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people do this then ? That is like shooting yourself (polite) in the foot. Martial Law 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:SOCK kind of explains it; some people do it to skew the result of polls; others do it to disrupt. I tend to think that there is no good reason for good faith editors to have sock puppets. For disruptive users, there are many reasons. --Nlu (talk) 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

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

--Gurubrahma 10:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed strange capitalization (Shi Le)

Howdy. Just came from Shi Le where I noticed that in every instance where the word 'province' was used, that it was capitalized, e.g. "Bing Province". I don't think this is correct. That is, I think these should be "Bing province", for example. I noticed in another Chinese article that "Yangtze River" followed that same pattern. But looking at History of China I see both usages. Shenme 06:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, when referring to a particular province it should be capitalized -- this follows standard modern capitalization standards ("states" when referring generically and "State of Washington" when referring to Washington specifically, for example). --Nlu (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note

Good to know I'm not losing it. Unfortunately, I don't know much about template construction, either.-Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help again please

Hey Nlu, can you do me a favour and check out my talk page again. I got blocked yet again, which is tough cause i wanna wiki. Gonna post this to User:Anonymous_editor too. Thanks! JamieJones ^talk 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this User is on AOL, have him to get off of this and get Firefox. AOL's nature has interesting properties. Martial Law 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had suspected this user was on AOL and had advised him/her to get OFF of AOL so that he/she will not be repeatedly blocked for someone else's misdeeds. I recomended that he/she use Firefox instead. I did not mean to overstep your authority if I had done so, do apologise if I had. Martial Law 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have I acted correctly ? Martial Law 04:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you're being helpful. :-) But in this case, it really wouldn't help. Take a look at what I wrote at User talk:JamieJones. --Nlu (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a bug behind this ? I had one that nearly caused me to a sockpuppet master, and I did duly report this on WP:BUG and on WP:AN long ago. Martial Law 04:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that he has an IP that is shared with another person -- in this case, due to how Packetworks (an ISP that he uses, I think) allocates IPs. --Nlu (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond, Virginia Vandalism

Since you reverted the Richmond, Virginia linkspam today, the page has been vandalized by the same user four times and reverted four times. I think it's time for a ban, here. This has actually been going on for several months with several anon IPs. 64.83.59.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 24.125.177.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Dr. Cash 00:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverting vandalism

Check out Wikipedia:Images. I didn't know how to revert, so i cut and pasted an older version. How does one revert? JamieJones ^talk 17:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You go to the history of a page (by clicking on the "history" tab on top of the article); that will give you the history of the versions of the page. Find the version before the most recent instance(s) of vandalism, and then edit it. Without making any additional changes, press save page. That reverts the article to that version. --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Can this be placed on my user page ? Martial Law 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Re.: Reverting articles,etc. on my user page. Martial Law 19:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sounds fine to me. --Nlu (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.241.114.199

User:65.241.114.199 just vandalized Renaissance twice. You have warned someone at that IP in the past, so thought you should be aware of it. --Falcorian | Talk 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him/her/it again. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is not required by law

Thanx for reverting the 64.92 vandal! 68.39.174.238 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My pleasure. (And I still think you should get an user name. :-)) --Nlu (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60.240.54.194

Hey Nlu, I've blocked this user, but you wanted to leave him listed, at AIAV. Do you think he should be unblocked or just leave it as is? KnowledgeOf Self | talk 07:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you appear to not be around at this time, I've decided to remove the vandal from AIVA. Happy editing. KnowledgeOf Self | talk 07:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for the recent handful of blocks, btw Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 05:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for reporting it. --Nlu (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Zanimum

Hey man can you help me? User:zanimum and his sockpuppet have added fair use images to their user page but vandalised my user page for doig so. This is the message they leave. Please block them Ferall 05:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deal with images enough to know what is the proper policy on this. Report to WP:AIV or WP:AN, where an admin who is more familiar with these issues may be able to help. --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferall, Kooorooo, Zanimum2, and Booren are all sockpuppets of Batzaroo. Bat refused to stop reuploading fair use images exclusively for his userpage. They violate Wikipedia's fair use policies 2/7/8/9. -- user:zanimum

Peter F. Paul

Thank you for your help with this. It's like trying to push back the ocean, the torrent of garbage this guy has been posting. I just tried to verify some of his claimed sources and couldn't find them. I imagine his claim to have appeared on 20/20 is also fake, but I'm not sure how to prove it. I've been trying to rigorously document the story from litigation releases and articles in the mainstream media, but this doesn't work for the older stuff. I have little clue what actually went down in 1979, for example. Uucp 00:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am contemplating semi-protecting the article. --Nlu (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of Princess Wencheng

Princess Wencheng was the adopted daughter of the Emperor Xuanzong from one of his brothers. I suggest to add her back.--Skyfiler 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I assume you mean Taizong.) I don't think there is any real evidence that he "adopted" her; she was simply a member of the imperial household whom he created princess for the purpose of the Heqin marriage. She's not his daughter, in any sense. --Nlu (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]