User talk:Nlu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

  • 1 (archived 22 Oct 2005, covering 4 Oct 2005 to 17 Oct 2005)
  • 2 (archived 1 Nov 2005, covering 18 Oct 2005 to 31 Oct 2005)
  • 3 (archived 11 Nov 2005, covering 1 Nov 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
  • 4 (archived 19 Nov 2005, covering 10 Nov 2005 to 18 Nov 2005)
  • 5 (archived 26 Nov 2005, covering 19 Nov 2005 to 25 Nov 2005)
  • 6 (archived 3 Dec 2005, covering 26 Nov 2005 to 2 Dec 2005)
  • 7 (archived 11 Dec 2005, covering 2 Dec 2005 to 9 Dec 2005)
  • 8 (archived 22 Dec 2005, covering 9 Dec 2005 to 20 Dec 2005)
  • 9 (archived 28 Jan 2006, covering 21 Dec 2005 to 26 Jan 2006)
  • 10 (archived 12 Feb 2006, covering 27 Jan 2006 to 10 Feb 2006)
  • 11 (archived 20 Feb 2006, covering 11 Feb 2006 to 17 Feb 2006)
  • 12 (archived 22 Feb 2006, covering 18 Feb 2006 to 20 Feb 2006)
  • 13 (archived 20 Mar 2006, covering 21 Feb 2006 to 19 Mar 2006)
  • 14 (archived 31 Mar 2006, covering 20 Mar 2006 to 30 Mar 2006)
  • 15 (archived 17 Apr 2006, covering 31 Mar 2006 to 16 Apr 2006)
  • 16 (archived 4 May 2006, covering 17 Apr 2006 to 2 May 2006)
  • 17 (archived 19 May 2006, covering 3 May 2006 to 17 May 2006)
  • 18 (archived 28 May 2006, covering 18 May 2006 to 26 May 2006)
  • 19 (archived 30 Jun 2006, covering 27 May 2006 to 29 Jun 2006)
  • 20 (archived 27 Jul 2006, covering 30 Jun 2006 to 24 Jul 2006)
  • 21 (archived 18 Aug 2006, covering 25 Jul 2006 to 17 Aug 2006)
  • 22 (archived 6 Sep 2006, covering 18 Aug 2006 to 4 Sep 2006)
  • 23 (archived 12 Sep 2006, covering 5 Sep 2006 to 10 Sep 2006)
  • 24 (archived 28 Sep 2006, covering 11 Sep 2006 to 26 Sep 2006)
  • 25 (archived 21 Oct 2006, covering 27 Sep 2006 to 19 Oct 2006)
  • 26 (archived 6 Nov 2006, covering 20 Oct 2006 to 4 Nov 2006)
  • 27 (archived 19 Nov 2006, covering 5 Nov 2006 to 17 Nov 2006)
  • 28 (archived 6 Dec 2006, covering 18 Nov 2006 to 3 Dec 2006)

Contents

[edit] User talk:12.167.200.173

Can my user talk page be unblocked now. Vandalizing wikipedia pages is no longer fun anymore, and i would like to have my user talk page unprotected so it doesnt seem as if i am a vandal, which i have no intentions of doing anymore.

[edit] Thanks...

...for reverting vandalism on my user page. Waggers 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lord ciron

I saw on this user's talk page that you have warned him (last warning) for vandalism. Maybe it is time to take action, as he vandalized the Ed Edd n Eddy article overnight. Thank you. -- 75.7.153.51 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh.... I think I made a mistake. It looks like it was User:207.210.84.116 who put back slashes in front of all the apostrophes in the article. User:Lord ciron may be innocent. I'm new to this. Sorry. Please check the page history. -- 75.7.153.51 03:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, Lord ciron is not "innocent" in the sense that he's clearly been vandalizing and POV-pushing, to say the least, despite warnings. 207.210.84.116's behavior may be due to a faulty news reader rather than vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:82.153.184.230

Thank you for your help with my WP:AIV report on this user. I see that you reverted his most recent edits and added a final warning - which should be a great help. Unfortunately, I may not have been clear in the AIV report that this same person is also engaged in the same vandalism from another account - see User talk:Ishilly. I would greatly appreciate if you could add the same warning to user:Ishilly. Best regards. Jogurney 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked it, but I felt that I didn't have enough to justify blocking. Also, this really isn't something that is appropriate for WP:AIV since while it might be vandalism, it's not obvious vandalism. I suggest filing a WP:RFC and see if this person has further things to say about him/herself. --Nlu (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for checking into this. I appreciate your help and will follow your suggestion. Best regards. Jogurney 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Davetabler

Thanks for the indefinite block! --A. B. 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mammal pages

Please stop moving these to lowercase. Use of capitals is standard in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. I also note that, completely contrary to wikipedia policy, you have not even bothered to check that the dozens of double redirects you are creating are fixed. - MPF 11:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that those moves to upper cases had not been explained with any kind of summary at all. WP:TOL, which you cited, did not itself state that the articles are to capitalized. Do whatever you wish, but don't act as if those moves were sufficiently documented. --Nlu (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
By all means check with User:UtherSRG, but generally the style for mammals has followed the same guidelines as Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. I'll admit this doesn't appear to be spelled out on the WP:Mammals page, but the fact remains that the vast majority of mammal pages use caps, and I don't see any reason why it should be changed. - MPF 12:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
But there was no reason given for converting them to upper case in the first place -- and in general, pursuant to WP:NAME, second and subsequent words are not to be capitalized. Obviously, if there is a consensus otherwise as to species names, that should be followed, but I don't see one, and this means there is no real reason to deviate from WP:NAME. --Nlu (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Pay some attention; there is a long held convention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). I explained to the person who asked that caps was the convention. --Peta 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Also did it happen to occur to you that people actively editing these kind of articles might know the article naming conventions. Don't waste my time. --Peta 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
And did it occur to you that nowhere in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is it stated all words of a species' name is to be capitalized? --Nlu (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reblock of 67.128.203.2

Could you please check this out and consider a reblock? Thanks. (I don't know if this is the right way to do this... I just went through the edits of that user. Lots of vandalism.) -- Ben 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP is a shared IP, and there was only one single unwarned instance of vandalism. I don't feel comfortable blocking in this case. If the IP vandalizes further today, please post it on WP:AIV. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 64.2.184.130

Hi! The IP address above is from Montgomery Bell Academy. I wanted to edit Wikipedia from my school using my account, but found that the access was blocked. (Wikimachine 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I've converted it to a soft block. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestion page for u to edit

Sino-Indian_War McMahon_Line Aksai_Chin Arunachal_Pradesh Tawang_District

p/s: The may be u can passed the link to ur frens that interested to edit those article.Sawadeekrap 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although I know very little about all of these topics, so when I get the time, I may look at them for style only, but I don't think I can contribute much substantively. --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 199.111.74.57

Hi. You put a {{sharedIP}} tag on User talk:199.111.74.57 several days ago. While this account is registered to the University of Mary Washington, there's no reason to believe it's shared. All of the edits involve spamming middlesell.com links or complaining about the aftermath. Others U of MW IPs he's used have included 199.111.69.111 (talk • contribs), 199.111.71.54 (talk • contribs), 199.111.74.57 (talk • contribs), 199.111.74.73 (talk • contribs), and 199.111.85.42 (talk • contribs), 67.131.148.171 (talk • contribs), 68.110.254.122 (talk • contribs). All appear static.

There's still another university IP, 199.111.85.50, he's used that is shared from looking at the edits.

I was reluctant to remove your tag since I'm not an admin. --A. B. (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that nobody else from the university may be editing from the IP doesn't mean that the IP should not be considered shared for our purposes. The {{sharedip}} tag is basically there to alert the blocking admins to only block with soft blocks, which will still block this vandal. --Nlu (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I ended up imposing a soft block on the range for a month, since I see little productive editing. Whoever wants to edit from the university can log in and edit. --Nlu (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:thousandsons

This user has been blocked months ago, why is there so much activities in his userpage in the last week?--Certified.Gangsta 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question, but without further evidence, I am hesitant to label these IPs as sockpuppets. --Nlu (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial Sites

I understand your concern about commercial sites placing external links, however I was wondering why you removed FilmSpot from the external links and not the other obviously commercial external links. I placed the link in order to give users another choice amongst the several sites that are already listed. If you really have that much of a problem with commercial sites on external links, will you remove the other links as well? When one of our users comes on here and adds the site, will you delete it then?

Again, I understand your concern with preventing outright spam of wiki pages, I just want to clarify your position... --216.239.124.38 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

That there are other possibly spam sites is not a good defense for adding another one. I don't have the ability to spend my time looking at every one of these links. The link that you added is, in my opinion, violative of WP:EL and WP:SPAM, and that's why it was removed. It doesn't have anything to do with the relative merits of the site. --Nlu (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick reply. I can see your point, and while I may disagree with the fact that you chose to only remove the link that I added, I will refrain from re-linking on that wiki page. If anything, I can agree that it is a conflict of interest for me to add a page that I personally worked on. I really do believe that as a site that does not force registration to allow users to access information, actively encourages users to submit information about movies, and opens the door to discussion about movies that it can be a valuable resource. I hope that should a user of our site add such a link in the near or distant future, as a resource and not as a promotion, that you would consider the merits of leaving the link intact. --216.239.124.38 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your response. My suggestion is to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article involved, and see what the community consensus is. --Nlu (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 66.99.1.66 (talk • contribs)

Can you protect my talk page? I requested that my userpage be unprotected but now this anon is trying to vandalize my talk page. This is nuts, I would like to be able to get rid of this guy. Thanks either way. --Strothra 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. I don't think a range block is justified at this point, and IP block isn't going to be effective. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrenees External Links

Hi,These 2 links have been removed from the Pyrenees page:

I don't consider Pyrenees Guide and Pyrenees Tourism as inappropriate external links (and as such, to be removed). I think they are 2 of the best information resources about the Pyrenees Mountains on the internet and that is why i included them as external links. Sorry for my English. Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davicito (talk • contribs) 10:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Forumula1.net

Dear Nlu, I registered to question the continued management of the External Links appearing

upon the F1 page of Wikipedia. I am a member, and friend of the owner (who happens to socialise with the F1 fraternity), of the aforementioned site.

Following a recent 'Spam cleanup' (Manipes description), only the 'most reputable sites' were kept, removing the majority of non-commercial, not-for-profit and non-spam sites. Now I see absolutely no logic in this. Surely Wikipedia should be embracing the best independents, and not supporting those sites with shareholders to satisfy. I am at a total loss as to this action, and disappointed in the actions of the users in removing such sites.

I don't want to make an issue of this, but I would like to see such sites reinstated. Yes, some do carry advertisements, but believe me when I say that the $5 such sites make by showing such relevant ads, goes little or nowhere to affording the hosting let alone their URL.

F1Reader (aka Sally)

Take a look at WP:EL and WP:SPAM. The Wikipedia community has, as a whole, reached a consensus as to what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting reading, so given that Forumula1.net would be considered more appropriate as an external link than the ones currently linked to, would you consider re-including such websites? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.14.244 (talk • contribs).

Not in my opinion; the proper solution is to remove sites that you consider inappropriate, not to add sites that are inappropriate even if less inappropriate, but you are free to discuss this at this appropriate talk page. --Nlu (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12.169.162.99

States on User talk:12.169.162.99 "Hai guys. This isn't a proxy". I'll throw it on WP:OP for checking, but I thought you should know as the blocking admin. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I still find it suspicious that Blu Aardvark (talk • contribs) was able to use it, if it wasn't an open proxy. --Nlu (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the? User:Darkfangal

I just make a new accout and you falg me? why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkfangal (talk • contribs).

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you are blocked, you wouldn't have been able to post this message. --Nlu (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings

Hi Nlu, An editor left a warning on my talk page for vandalism saying that I've reverted large sections of edits made by anons. This was due to anons adding edits which conflicted with certain guidelines and vandalism. I have no idea where this editor came from since he hasn't edited in quite some time and comes back on to warn me. I'm suspecting he's one of the anons. Regardless, my edits aren't vandalism and you can see my contrib history. Could you remove the vandal warning from my talk page? I don't like removing them myself. --Strothra 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Nlu (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 199.111.64.0/16 unblocked

% whois 199.111.64.0
Mary Washington College MARYWASHINGTON1-VERNET (NET-199-111-64-0-1)
                                  199.111.64.0 - 199.111.95.255

Hi Nlu, a month long soft block for an entire university isn't really appropriate in my honest opinion. If there is an IP hopping vandal, I've found that sending an abuse report to a university's IT department is much better solution and they are usually very responsive to such complaints. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but I disagree. This vandal hops their IPs so much that I doubt that they have any way of tracking him. Anyone who wants to edit can simply log in to edit. --Nlu (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Most universities have camera surveillance of their computer labs and/or require a student login. I suggest you do a 72 hour range block and email the university's IT department. A month is just too long considering most university students in the United States live on campus. By the way, note that you can use {{schoolblock}} as the blocking reason if you decide to reblock. -- Netsnipe ► 05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:CA SupremeCourt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CA SupremeCourt.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 82.203.3.8?

Nlu,

Would you consider us changing the block on 82.203.3.8 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) to an anon-only block? There's a collateral damage block on the unblock category at the moment, and since they are a registered account (tho with no contributions) we could always track whether they immediately begin vandalizing again. Syrthiss 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who's the collateral damage? --Nlu (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Infomail (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Syrthiss 18:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
All right, will do. Thanks. When you talk to him/her, can you ask him/her to add a {{sharedip}} tag with the proper information? --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll go add the sharedip tag to that usertalk now. Thanks! Syrthiss 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 198.248.84.254

I re-listed 198.248.84.254 after blocked at WP:AIV to ask for a permanent block. Vandal-only IP, and vandalism is similar in type; it looks like a static IP belonging to one person. Argyriou (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't really ever permanently block IPs, as a matter of policy, unless they're open proxies. While I would have blocked longer, I am uncomfortable overriding another admin unless there's a clear abuse of discretion. --Nlu (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/l/u/User_talk%7ENlu_b319.html"