User talk:Nlu/archive25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tuoba expansions

Hi I have started articles for a number of the Tuoba chieftains, mainly through translating the Chinese wikipedia articles for them, feel free to double check my edits and make corrections as necessary, thanks! Abstrakt 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] yuval a

Nlf hello,

Please reconsider excluding my links from wiki. They r indeed to a specific site but that site has articles which wikipedia's readers can find helpful & learn a lot from. Please notice that Omedia is an academic and not a commercial site – it sells nothing and doesn't even have ads in it. Please reconsider.

Yuval a —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuval a (talk • contribs) 10:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If you can make a reasonable case for the link's inclusion, go to the article talk pages and discuss why they should be on. --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] terrorism vandal - block?

hey. 216.56.8.66 just vandalised Terrorism after 2 level 4 warnings - one by you. Another block required? just informing you. cheers, Jpe|ob 13:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Pokémon Master Ryuumaru.

sorry, i have no clue what Pokémon Master Ryuumaru is. this change was definately not done by me. a window on my comp tells me that someone is sharing my IP. 198.7.242.130 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've added a {{sharedip}} to your talk page. Any additional information you can provide as to what organization owns the IP would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warning on my user talk page

I received a vandalism warning on my user talk page bearing your signature. The warning was placed by User:216.7.254.254 and I believe it likely to be a spoof of your signature. See this diff and three subsequent ones; the addition was kindly reverted by User:LittleOldMe. Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Talk page vandalism

Thanks for the offer. If it gets worse I'll protect or semi-protect it. Sometimes it's better to let the vandals get it out of their system. -Will Beback 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for getting back to me. --Nlu (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teddy bear

Hi, I reverted your last edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teddy_bear http://teddybearsearch.com is not spam see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links "Links to be used occasionally" item #2

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.71.10 (talk • contribs)

I disagree strongly, and I think other editors agree with me. If you can make an argument that it does comply with WP:EL and WP:SPAM, please discuss on Talk:Teddy bear. Continuing to place the link there without justifying it will likely get your IP(s) blocked. --Nlu (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree as strongly as you ;-) and opened a talk on Talk:Teddy_bear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.76.78 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Wolfmother wiki vandalism

Salutations Nlu! As the administrator that welcomed me, you acquiesced to helping me out whenever needed, right? Well, anyway, the time has come I suppose. Recently whilst random-paging, I came across the Wolfmother wiki, and began to peruse it, then I realised that said wiki was rather inane, and so, I checked the history. Having checked the history, and the edits, I decided to revert the page to its most reasonable wiki (I believe I haven't done an awfully good job with it though - I'm sorry). Also, I noticed that this page was subject to several attacks by vandals, and so, now, I am requesting that you might look into this issue, and possibly protect this page, which I liken with other recent musician/bands/artists, whose wikis have fallen under attack of editors, most of whom are not members/signed-in people. A huge thanks in advance, Nlu, from Qwerty. Qwerty 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I really know nothing about this band, and I can only revert what is obviously vandalism. If you need some help with the article, I suggest adding {{cleanup-date}} (put "|October 2006" after "cleanup-date") to the top of the article. --Nlu (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks anyway, Nlu. I, also know virtually nothing about this band, save a couple of things. Thanks again, Nlu. Say, with the reverting of vandalism, how is it done? I refer to the "(Reverted edits by 220.240.93.161 (talk) to last version by RexNL)" bit. Is there any button that allows the IP to be linked, or allows this to be inputted without manually typing it out? Cheers. --Qwerty 06:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an admin-only button that, however, is approximated by some people with Windows-based gadgets. Since I don't use Windows except in a pinch, I don't really know much about them. Sorry and thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
'Tis a pity, then. I guess I shall just copy-paste, or have to memorise how it should be set out and type it. Thanks again, Nlu. Also, another issue, spammers - what should be done in response to them, and their edits? I know reverting is a step in dealing with them (their edit), not to 'feed the vandals' and 'bite' them.--Qwerty 09:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Impressive, your user page, that is; I can discern that there are several commonalities between the two of us. --Qwerty 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 :-) Good to see you around. For spammers, you can warn them by using {{spam}}/{{spam-n}} series of warning templates, used similarly to the {{test}}/{{test-n}} series. However, because it can take a while for non-admins to revert spam, if there's a prolific spammer, refer to WP:AIV for help. Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You too, Nlu. Okay, thanks for the assistance.:) Hopefully, I have not been that much of a bother to you. Thanks! --Qwerty 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Me, Sock-Puppet?

Can I get an invesigation made of myself? Devilmaycares has flagged me as a suspected sockpuppet of Lightbringer. Now, none of the edits that I've made fit the modus operandi of Lightbringer (I have nothing against Freemasons!), so I think that Devilmaycares is just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope that some of it might stick. But, in any event, I don't think that the SS categories should be clogged-up like this. —75.18.113.152 06:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly do it by filing an WP:RCU on yourself. If you run into any difficulties there, let me know, and I'll do it for you, but I'd prefer that you try it yourself first. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I've done as you suggest! —75.18.113.152 06:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing, 'tis a befuddling praxis

Nlu, I've created the Songbird (Bernard Fanning song) page, but I'd like to use footnote-referencing, as opposed to the external-link-referencing method, could you please explain it for me? Thanks in advance. --Qwerty 10:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Footnotes... --Nlu (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POVness

I have left a reply about your “neutrality tag” on the Four Buddhist Persecutions in China Talk page. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 12:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC))

I have left another reply on said page. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 19:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
I have left another reply. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 10:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC))

I have made a few changes to the Four Buddhist Persecutions in China page. If you think it is okay, since you originally posted it, take down the neutrality tag at your leisure. Thanks. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks!

My very first barnstar! Hmm...now I'll have to find a place to put it. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you tell?

[1] Sarazyn • TALK • DE 16:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would guess the man on the chair, since he was more prominently displayed, but there's nothing intrinsic in the picture that tells so other than that. --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chien-ming Wang wiki

I don't see any harm in the external link i added. It also appears under the Chinese language wiki for CM Wang.

Please tell me what i am doing wrong.

Thanks. lawrenceku Lawrenceku 03:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is compliant with WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If you disagree, please discuss on Talk:Chien-Ming Wang. --Nlu (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I will start a discussion on Talk:Chien-Ming Wang. Lawrenceku 03:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit conflict vandal fighting

Looks like we both warned User:65.167.223.183 at the same time about the eminem article... somehow i got credit for the edit, but you got the sig... kinda strange. Themindset 07:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

 :-) --Nlu (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ménage à trois

Please see my comments at User_talk:Atomaton#M.C3.A9nage_.C3.A0_trois, and also at Talk:M%C3%A9nage_%C3%A0_trois#M.C3.A9nage_.C3.A0_trois_vs._threesome. Thank you. Atom 01:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xue Cong

Hi, I removed the {{fiction}} tag you put on this page, because I couldn't find why you expressed your concerns. I hope you'll take the time to review this article again :) -- lucasbfr talk 02:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding it back, because I think the character might entirely be fictional. (I am not aware of who this character actually is.) Further, even if the person actually is not fictional, the "war of words" with Zhuge Liang must be entirely fictional, as Zhuge only visited Sun Quan's headquarters once, and that was under an emergency situation, before Eastern Wu was even established. --Nlu (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bloods

Ah, I think I understand. I had just never heard that usage of the word before, so I assumed the author meant "sect." According to dictionary.com, the usage you mean would be "70. a number, company, or group of persons associated by common interests, occupations, conventions, or status: a set of murderous thieves; the smart set," then? -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 05:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about the reason why "set" is used, but that is the word that is typically used both by the gang members themselves and by law enforcement and lawyers. --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JackyAustine

Hello, Nlu, since you've had to deal with this user in the past, I thought you'd want to know that I've lodged a case against JackyAustine, accusing him or her of using sockpuppets again. I'm a bit new to this, so I don't know for sure if I've done all this correctly, which is part of why I wanted to let you know. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer 20:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a new procedure, so I am not familiar with it either, but it looks fine to me. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism template

I like the vandalism block template you're using, where is it please? Guy 21:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

{{test5-n}}. --Nlu (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tradesports

Please consider withdrawing your nomination for deletion for Tradesports, per Wikipedia:Speedy keep. The article clearly now meets the criteria for notability. Thesmothete 04:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Oddball Barnstar

....for wha now? Nyo? --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:203.10.72.213

I blocked the user before seeing your test4 at their talk page -- while looking through their contribs, I noticed what I'd consider a pretty strong pattern of editing. It's a soft block, one week long, given the IP's history. In retrospect, this may have been a bit trigger-happy on my part; if you'd like to reduce or negate the block, I have no objections. Luna Santin 00:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a one-week soft block is fine. I wouldn't have blocked it myself without another instance of vandalism, but your actions were more than reasonable. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Homotoad359

Guess I don't need to send him that vandalism warning. :-) -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 13:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 :-) I think the name is sufficiently offensive in itself, but hte vandalism certainly pushed it over the line even if it was not quite over. --Nlu (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query RE: Reverting and Warning

Hey, sorry to bother you. I'm new, and am focusing on Reverting Vandalism and Nonsense edits, and warning as appropriate... I think... hence why I'm here. I've got no idea whether I'm doing things right or am being useful or whether what I'm doing is futile etc. Any pointers? Pursey 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not futile, any more than resistance is futile... :-) Thanks for your work. Do you have something you'd like a specific pointer on? --Nlu (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was just concerned I might be doing something wrong or being too harsh with my warnings... but it'll probably take you too long to look through my contribs to work that out. Pursey 14:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
My feelings are that if you stay with standard warning templates, you'll be OK. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Kaih

Was wondering if you had any thoughts or input on this user's current unblock request. Since the original account has no blocks logged, it looks to be an autoblock problem (I disabled the one I found); beyond that, I was figuring I should ask what you thought. Luna Santin 08:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Kaih (talk · contribs) because, after a report on WP:AIV, i determined that the person was using both Kaii (talk · contribs) and Kaih (talk · contribs), apparently for POV-pushing and 3RR-avoidance. I did not block Kaii (talk · contribs). --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism 63.211.140.184

Not obvious? Calling the lead singer of the band "Andrew "Retarded Monkey" Stockdal" and this sentence "Their music is inspired by rubbish dinosaur rock acts such as Jimi Hendrix". What DOES constitute obvious? Just wondering... SilentC 02:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I missed that edit. Will add a {{test4-n}}. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] La Vie Boheme

I was wondering why you put a {{cleanup-date}} tag on that page. Cbrown1023 19:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The list of references was getting too long, and I am skeptical that all of those things were actually referenced (particularly when the link to the junk article Trisexuality (since deleted) was added). --Nlu (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
All those references were in the song and were actually articles (at least at some point... and trisexuality was not a junk article... it was actually interesting (as it was in the song)). You can even look up the lyrics yourself. If all you have is a problem with that they are a list, then I'm going to remove the {{cleanup-date}} tag. Cbrown1023 11:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Where was, for example, the reference to MIT? --Nlu (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, for the most part, they are in order of when they appear in the song... Second of all, MIT is referenced when Angel is singing about Collins, saying "Collins will re-count his exploits as an anarchist, including the tell of his successful reprograming of the M-I-T virtual reality equiptment self-destruct as it broadcasts the words: ACTUAL REALITY ACT-UP FIGHT AIDS!" Cbrown1023 19:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the clean-up tag unless you can come up with any other reasons (as are supposed to be place on the articles talk page or discussed in whole upon being asked). Cbrown1023 01:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  :)

Thanks for that ;) Glen 15:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing vandalism

Thank you for your efforts, but please, the next time you revert a vandal on a userpage, do that to the last changes made by the owner of that page, NOT to the previous vandal. --Illythr 15:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Noted. At that time, the person vandalized a large number of pages and I was trying to revert them all, so I didn't notice. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that user:Blurb sock guy followed that anon vandal around and kept reverting his/her/its vandalism. --Illythr 19:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I do not understand why you consider the links to be inappropriate. None of the sites added exists primarily to "sell" any product. They are informational sites that are valuable and non-profit. Besides, the descriptions you have put for the links you decided to keep contain many errors anyway. I tried to fix them...but you just reverted all the changes. BTW, I am not affiliated with any websites. I do not see the sites you kept any different from the sites I added. If you believe the links I added are "inappopriate," I don't see the ones you have listed any more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsnn (talk • contribs)

That there are other inappropriate sites around is not a defense. If you think that those other sites are inappropriate, remove them. --Nlu (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying the sites that are listed now are inappropriate, my point is that I just don't see why you believe the sites I added are NOT okay. They are not any different from those you kept. Hope you understand my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsnn (talk • contribs)
As I said, the fact that there were other links is not a justification. See WP:EL. If you think that the links you added are appropriate under that guideline, discuss on Talk:Leslie Cheung (as others have). We decide things here by consensus, and if people agree with you, the links will stay no matter what I think. --Nlu (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I will discuss it there from now on. From what people have said so far, I can see that people agree with me and it seems that you are the only one who is following your "own" interpretation of wikipedia's policies regarding external links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsnn (talk • contribs)
Whatever. Make your case there. --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] possible expansions

Hi thanks for the barnstar, anyway I've started expansions on articles for many of the Rouran khans, the chieftains of the Yuwen, planning to start expansions on chieftains of the Tiefu and I'm almost finished with the chieftains of the Tuoba. so feel free to check and make corrections as necessary. Oh yeah just asking should there be an article on Sima Shunzai 司馬順宰 [[2]]and the Northern Jin 北晉[3]? Abstrakt 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe they warrant separate articles. I don't believe that Northern Jin is a commonly accepted moniker for his regime, which did not last long enough. I'd say that Sima Shunzai himself is sufficiently notable, but I would not spend a lot of time on him, nor treat him as a "real' emperor. --Nlu (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC for Ménage à trois

Thanks for putting in that entry. As I indicated I think that you could have just stated that there was a dispute about the image. Whatever. As I've discussed on the talk pages of that article, the image is appropriate for the most common connotation of the term. Trying to word the RFC to bias a potential readers perspective is just poor judgement. Why not just ask for people to look at the article and decide for themselves? Atom 19:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is not fair and balanced at stating that it depicts a sex act (which is the entire point of the dispute)? --Nlu (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

You are usually revert the wiki page about the korean history in favor of some users. See what you have edited. For example, Baedal is mythical nation of Korean. So, I have added the category of Category:Korean mythology, However you revert my editing to the previous version even though Baedal is myth...!

You also do the same thing in Hwanguk. Hwanguk is mythical nation so that I added the Category:Korean mythology' to Hwanguk. But you blindly revert it without even reading the my edition

You said "I generally have no personal interest in the contents of these articles; it is you who have been changing them against consensus", But you revert or edit in favor of some users because even the Baedal and Hwanguk are myth and I added Category:Korean mythology, then you revert my modification version to previous version.

Moreover, dont remove my saying in dicussion your page--Hairwizard91 00:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are hardly in any shape to demand anything of me, given your massive violations of WP:POV, WP:SOCK, and WP:3RR. You are on very thin ice here; don't make the ice any thinner. --Nlu (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that Nlu also violate the rule WP:POV. Nlu abused his authority of administration.
Where does it say that he is demanding anything of you??? He is not, he is just commenting that it looks like you are stalking his edits and reverting them without even looking at them. That is not very good administrative behavior. You are supposed to see an example for new editors, he only started yesterday.
Since when does it go from one offense to a last warning. Normally, on first, second, and sometimes third offenses you use the {{test}} template, but you were not very nice about it (or so it seemed).
And when does a POV violation lead to blocking? I've seen no instances in which that has occured. Adding opinionated statements is not vandalism.
You especially should know that talk pages and user pages are not at all owned by the user and that you are not supposed to remove or edit other users comments.
However, I do agree with you that his use opinionated contributions are very disruptive, annoying, and time-consuming to revert. He should not be contributing POV-statements. But I do not think you had the right course of action (even though he did not listen very well). Cbrown1023 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that Nlu do not edit articles using the right way as an administrators when the articles are concerned about the histories of Chinese and Korean. This is not a right way as an administrator. Nlu does not show POV way when he edits chinese and korean history. He is not qualified as an administrator.
Nlu's adminstrative editing was very weird. Wiman Joseon was edited by hairwizard91 with cited references. However, Nlu reverted to the previous version with no references, Nlu added the Wiman Joseon to the categories of "Category:Articles lacking sources", and then Nlu semi-protected the article. The edited version by hairwizard91 has more reference and is confident. But, the reverted version by Nlu has no sources and cited references. He is also doing vandalism... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.210.12.141 (talk • contribs)
That is ganging up on him and is just being rude. Also, I have reason to believe that you are all IP adresses of Hairwizard91. That can be considered a sock puppet and will give Nlu a definate reason to block you from editing. Cbrown1023 03:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hairwizard91 -- or whoever you actually are -- using an open proxy is not going to help your credibility. --Nlu (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason is..., the account of hairwizard91 is blocked. And my IP is allocated dynamically so that the IP's may be different for each editing. Yesterday, I have no choice to access wiki except proxy because IP is blocked by Nlu (Yesterday, I used static IP). Today, it is dynamic IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.41.164 (talk • contribs)
As per WP:SOCK, evading blocks is a no-no, and your current IP has just been blocked for block evasion. Your gross disregard for Wikipedia rules will not be tolerated. --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I didnt know the rule of "sock." I should be patient until it is unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.44.204 (talk • contribs)

All right. Thank you.

As I've written previously, you obviously have good things to contribute to this project, and you are welcome to do so. However, please be aware, again, that at Wikipedia, the concept is cooperation, not unilateralism. Therefore, if you're going add controversial changes, you need to convince the other users that the edit is proper and not impose the changes unilaterally against consensus. I hope to be able to collaborate with you in the future. --Nlu (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You have reverted the articles that are not controversal. See what you have done.!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.44.204 (talk • contribs)

When you act the way you have, I have no ability to go in and check if each edit is controversial; I have to revert them all. Stop your behavior -- and wait out the block. You're not supposed to be editing right now at all -- based on WP:SOCK, which you've acknowledged by now that you've read. Wait for the block to expire. Again, edit in a cooperative manner. --Nlu (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Even it is not controversal, you reverted it. See Three Gojoseon. The more explanation were added about the capital city of Gojoseon, but you reverted the article to the previous version that has little information. In addition, if you are an administrator, you must read and check the difference between the versions. So, you should remove the controversal stuffs, and must keep the additional explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.44.204 (talk • contribs)
When you impose changes the way you do, you force me and other admins into reverting all of your changes. Again, you're not supposed to be editing right now at all. Please stop and sit out your block. Otherwise, your range may be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that an administrator should differentiate the controversal and additional explanation. Reverting the entire article is to neglect his duty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.44.204 (talk • contribs)
I've given you enough explanations, and you're still not stopping. A range block will be put into place for 24 hours. Take some responsibility for your unacceptable actions. --Nlu (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

75.35.132.212 (talk · contribs) is removing maps from the dynasty articles, tagging early quasi-lengendary eras as fiction, and pushing just about all sorts of POV....I'm quite certain that the ip belongs to the above users....I don't know, can you semi-protect the dynasty articles where he struck? _dk 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I've got them all -- I hope. Please let me know if there's any I didn't. Thanks for watching out for this vandal, whose POV is clearly a hatred toward everything Chinese or perceived as Chinese. --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hairwizard91

Nlu, your behavior with Hairwizard91 was terrible. His edits were bad, perhaps, but not plain vandalism, and unless you suspect him to be a sock of someone else, he started editing on October 9th. Moreover, his username suggests he/she is just a teenager and by threatening and blocking etc, you seriously violated WP:BITE. Harsh treatment of anyone, let alone newbies, is not warranted on Wikipedia, and you as an admin should also follow the WP:AGF carefully. I suggest you file a RfC on yourself to get some more input on this. Sorry, forgot to logon. 10:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing some of his edits, I believe it's possible that Hairwizard91 may in fact be a sock puppet. Reviewing his contribution history, many of the articles he edited have a long series of identical controversial and/or POV edits by multiple newly created users with short edit histories and various IP addresses. --Yuje 12:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Should this be the case, I apologise for the above rant. 131.188.24.10 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That's all right. Thank you both. --Nlu (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Thank you

Thanks so much for your offer. I really can't accept, though, sorry -- and I hope you don't mind me posting here despite your request that I respond if I would accept.

I just don't have the time or, as my talk page and archives might show, patience to be a good administrator. I would really rather just rely on the fantastic efforts of good admins like yourself (and thanks for all the help on RCP and at AIV) and stay a regular user, to be honest. I actually have a small, very contrived section on why I wouldn't be a good admin hidden away on another page in my userspace.

Still, I really appreciate it. You're more than welcome to give me a yell if you need vandal-related help sometime.

Thanks again -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I understand. Let me know if you change your mind in the future. --Nlu (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Canthaxanthin

You should read the talkpage before make harsh assumptions. The aforementioned article is now updated. -- meatclerk 17:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get your point. What harsh assumptions did I make, other than that it was not undergoing active construction at the time I removed the tag? (And it was not; it hadn't been edited in well more than a week.) The {{underconstruction}} tag has to mean something other than "It's not done yet." (See Template talk:Underconstruction on the history of that discussion; that was the thing that people who wanted to delete the template altogether argued.) --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert edit summaries

I'm having some difficulties with my revert edit summaries, being only able to place small ones such as 'rv' or 'rv vandalism'. Your edit summaries are the ever-so-descriptive kind, and I'm wondering; are those automated, or do you take the time to actually gather the links and information for the summaries? Kudos, ¡Kribbeh!Speak!\Contribs 17:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

These edit summaries are the result of an admin-only button that allows admins to revert changes at a faster pace than other users. There are people who have written tools to simulate this behavior, but they're generall Windows-only, and since I don't use Windows to edit except as a last resort, I am not sure at the moment where to get them. Thanks for your interest, and maybe this will be an impetus for you to become an admin.  :-) --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abaoji

I have challenged the accuracy of the Abaoji article. Please respond to the challenge in that article's talk page.

Ludahai 00:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Nlu

Hey Nlu, long time no talk. Well I just need you to help me out because even though you described to me the policy of wikipedia back in March, several admins apparently misinterpreted the meaning of several regulations. [[4]], you clearly states this is a userpage, not an article so we are allow to put any contents on there as long as it doesn't degrade the quality of wikipedia articles. [[5]] [[6]]. So can you unprotect my userpage on the ground that the regulations don't apply (plus I explicitly stated I don't endorse it). I know the contents was a little offensive especially to the Chinese population but I definitely hold no grudges against Chinese people (probably except the communist government). Thanks man.--Bonafide.hustla 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, while I would not have protected your user page, the admins are also making a reasonable interpretation, as the situation is different here. Jiang was including an image that showed the view of the person depicted, which he indicated that he did not endorse. You, on the other hand, was typing a view that you claim to not endorse, and yet is clearly not the view of another person. I do not feel comfortable reversing the decision of those other admins at this point, but I think you should consider bringing the issue to WP:AN to see what the admin community at large thinks. --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal on India page

Hi, the vandal on the India page (whom you blocked for 24 hours yesterday) is at it again. Please do something about it. Thanks! Fowler&fowler 10:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I blocked him for 48 hours. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)