User talk:Nlu/archive11

User:Philwelch

Deckiller has my permission to add pirate jokes. It's cool that you're looking out for vandalism but don't revert anything that isn't obviously vandalistic--good-faith contributions to my userpage I'm willing to accept :) — Phil Welch 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK... --Nlu (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we have a pirate joke contract going. Perhaps we should send them to AfD? :) Deckiller 00:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks alot for banning that obnoxious troll, he was really getting on my nerves, it's hard to believe somone so ignorant and intolerent would take an interest in editing Wikipedia. -- WaynaQhapaq 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which one you're referring to -- as I try to block as many as I see :-) -- but thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my cable connection got cutoff in mid-edit, Just to clarify, the one from talk: Police State (he was really bigoted). It's sad that people still have such attitudes... -- WaynaQhapaq 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Metousiosis

If someone has tried to pass off two forged quotations as genuine, who is contradicted by everyone else on the Talk page (Csernica/TCC and A.S. Damick), who thinks that any editing, even if sourced, that does not fit his ideas is vandalism ... surely that is the person to block. Lima 11:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Nlu, I'm sorry but you are mistaken here. User:Nrgdocadams has been extraordinarily hostile, beginning the discussion almost immediately with personal attacks against User:Lima, failing to assume good faith [1]and insisting on characterizing a disagreement over content as "vandalism" right from the start, without even any prior discussion. [2] (It's difficult to provide concise diffs, since as you can see Nrgdocadams is in the habit of re-editing his Talk page posts.) He even took Lima's placing of the article on his watchlist as a "threat". Lima has been amazingly tolerant, extremely civil under the circumstances, and unlike Nrgdocadams has provided references for everything he has written. [3] Nor, unlike Nrgdocadams, has he forged any citations. [4] I don't actually know that he himself forged them, but the above diff represents the second time I ask for his exact sources and explain why -- the first time is here [5] -- and both time he has refused to give an answer.

I ask that you re-evaluate your view of the situation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I warned Lima was that he indicated that he added two extraneous paragraphs in order to make a point with Nrgdocadams -- which is a violation of WP:POINT. It should be noted that I did not block Lima nor accuse him of vandalism. However, I will review the situation. --Nlu (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The added paragraphs were relevant and informative. they were "really unnecessary" because they were required to bring balance to an article where, had it been written accurately, it would not have been needed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If I may add my two cents, I concur with the two gentlemen's statements above. My experience with User:Nrgdocadams on a number of articles has never been peaceful nor remotely agreeable, and he frequently makes unsourced edits, or if they are sourced, the sources are quite questionable. This article is a good example of claims that seem to fly in the face of everything I have read or studied about the subjects in question (areas which are central my vocation). In any event, while I am of course no authority, the authorities that I do know of very often disagree with the idiosyncratic POV which User:Nrgdocadams presents. I regard his activities on Wikipedia mainly to be those of a "rogue editor," so to speak.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter. I know I, at least, appreciate it. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 14:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry

i'm sorry for vandalizing, and even though you haven't taken my privlages away, i know now never to do it again. I was just experimenting, and i know now to use the sandbox. sorry again! Braniac22 21:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, no problem. Just be productive with your edits. :-) --Nlu (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I so have no idea what I am doing here!

But, we chatted last night about my adding of a link to the Enlightenment page. I wanted to add a link to my blog, which contains my free poetry. I was wonderfing if it would be excaptable to add a Poetry Blogs page and link to a number of blogging poets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.172.253 (talk • contribs)

Linking to blogs is generally not acceptable. --Nlu (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Henry the Eighth

Do whatever you think is right, I haven't really interacted with him, I just needed to get rid of the {{helpme}} on the talk page.--Commander Keane 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Metousiosis

You tagged the article and made it uneditable in the from it was edited into by the persona who was VANDALIZING it. You fool. This is why Wikipedia has no legitmacy with mainstream researchers and encyclopedists, and why it has received so much (fully due) criticism from the media -- even recently over the Dianne Feinstein and Richard Blum articles affair. This is why Wikipedia will always remain third-rate. I'm resigning my memerbship, and I hope the foundation goes broke. Nrgdocadams 07:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am also sorry that you are apparently unable to discuss matters with people with different views. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks for contactin me

well is it absolutely ok if i post the picture that made fun of muhammad? it will cause outrage. so it's the same for disrespectin taiwanese and their president. to add to that, if jiang is NOT biased why did he change my article on taiwanese american? he is clearly incompetent to be a admin but anyway thanks for contactin even though i don't know you. i appreciate it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freestyle.king (talk • contribs)

I'll take a look at Taiwanese American in a few minutes. Meanwhile, however, as much as I would find the picture distasteful, I wouldn't remove the picture of Muhammad from your talk page or user page if you put it there -- it would not be violative of any Wikipedia policy I know of, and users have leeway in editing their pages. On the other hand, I have removed that image from articles -- as they were placed in such a manner to obviously create affront, without adding anything to the usefulness of the articles. --Nlu (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a look at your edits. They are clearly not NPOV (or, for that matter, factually true -- as you were considering all Taiwanese Americans together without considering individual opinions). For one thing, I am a Taiwanese American who consider myself ethnically Chinese and therefore Chinese American. Jiang was perfectly correct in reverting your edits. --Nlu (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

that's exactly my point, why does jiang bother to edit if it's not NPOV? and by the way, i didn't say every taiwanese american don't consider themselves chinese. the key word in that sentence is "generally, most people don't..." just to get this clear. and just for your info, i also happen to be a taiwanese american and i don't consider myself a chinese person —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freestyle.king (talk • contribs)

Whether you consider yourself Chinese is your business; however, please don't presume to speak for an entire group without supporting evidence. "Generally" is still too strong of a word; "some" is what I'd consider NPOV. Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with ~~~~. --Nlu (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, in case you're not understanding the abbreviation -- it stands for "neutral point of view," and since your view is not neutral, it should be removed. Again, please read up on WP:NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

lol ok calm down...i know it's my business and if you consider yourself chinese it's your business too. what i mean is, you're the one who's sayin you consider yourself chinese american because you're taiwanese so don't blame it on me when i talk about my opinion we're all allow to express our own opinions, aren't we? if you think "some" is acceptable you should edit it instead of revertin to jiang's which is also not neutral by sayin most taiwanese americans think they're chinese freestyle king

But it doesn't say that. It said that most don't care -- which is probably an accurate statement. Regardless, note that he wasn't the one who wrote it; take a look at [6]. He was reverting to the state before your edits -- which something all administrators do on a frequent basis when they see questionable edits. Right now, it already said that some do mind one way or the other, so the qualification is already in there. --Nlu (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

RfM notifications

Actually I tried to use the template {{RFM-Filed|Case name}} as per Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide but it doesn't work! Yes, if you can inform Appleby and the others, it would be great.

I believe Masterhatch (and perhaps Kusunose) may be interested also, as they appear regularly in the Talk:Sea of Japan and Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute discussions. Should we ask them first, though?--Endroit 08:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they can be notified. Then, if they want to be involved, they can add themselves. --Nlu (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK then please notify them too. Thanks.--Endroit 08:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I notified Appleby, Deiaemeth, and Masterhatch, but not Kusonose, as I took a look and feel he/she wasn't really involved in this issue. --Nlu (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that seems fair. Thanks. I think the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide procedure is brand new, and I left a note with User Talk:Essjay about the problem I had with the template.--Endroit 08:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I would be interested in helping out, but I don't have a lot of time to spare. Also, since i have never been involved in mediation before here in Wiki, i am not too sure what I am suposed to do. Masterhatch 08:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the mediation committee would take care of it. It's just a question of whether you want to get your two cents in during the mediation... Just think about it for the moment. :-) --Nlu (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism by 82.234.48.203 on my talk page! Copysan 09:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please try to keep your reverts NPOV

Please, at least try to keep your reverts NPOV. Thank you. -- VinnyCee 18:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that although I'm sure you started off meaning well, you seem to have allowed yourself to have become annoyed and made some edits that qualified as vandalism. So it's legitimate to warn you. So Vinny Cee has done nothing wrong and your warning to him about the warning he gave you was not legitimate, that is, it was vandalism. Clear? If not, feel free to ask me either here or at my talk page. and by the way do NOT delete warnings from your talk page or it is likely that you'll be blocked —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freestyle.king (talk • contribs)

Whatever. Removing POV edits does not qualify as vandalism under any definition of the word as Wikipedia policies interpret them. --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mcfly85

Hi Nlu, it doesn't look we will have to put up a RfAr after all. Fred Bauder has blocked his IP range after running a CheckUser. Some, not all, of the Socks I suspected were Mcfly's. Although the results didn't show it, I'm almost 100% sure that all of them were Mcfly. Anyways, I guess we won't be seeing him around anymore! SWD316 ^{talk to me} 00:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me see what Fred did, but I am actually a little troubled, because I don't think we should block a range like that... But I'll see. Thanks for updating me. --Nlu (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation) has been accepted by the Mediation Committee; mediation will begin on that page as soon as a mediator is assigned. Mediators are generally given several days to review and volunteer on cases which they feel particularly suited to mediate; if no mediator volunteers to take the case, one will be assigned. Please pay careful attention to the mediation subpage, as further communication from the Committee will occur there. (Adding that page to your watchlist would be very helpful.)

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Cuba Vandal

You did not block(205.240.227.15 | talk | contributions) due to the RFC I am making. He is adding damaging nonsense and pov commentary to articles, and has had a long history of vandalism. Would you be able to block for a 3RR violation? I have removed 4/6 of the reversions, so you may block me too if need be, (I am not sure if that policy applies to removing extensive vandalism....) Thank you, --Colle||Talk-- 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ack, he started reverting again. [7] Please help.--Colle||Talk-- 00:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violations. --Nlu (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Niu: Colle is using a single source, a Canadian Communist Party Member, Arnold August for his proclamation that Cuba is a democracy. Anything Colle believes contradicts his hero's words he labels Vandalism. One who is watching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.136.161 (talk • contribs)

Australian Ufology

Thank you Nlu... this person(s) seems to be a full time pest! Any ideas on what I can do?? Vufors 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, not much. Just watch out for the person and if the acts continue, let the administrators know. --Nlu (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• • They are at it again? Changes an admin redirect...[8] will this end? Thanks Nlu Vufors 14:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Info posted to User_talk:JIP Also Discussion [9] Best Regards Vufors 03:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Police state yet again

Could you help me with VinnyCee who seems bend on making my life miserable. Is once again vandalizing my talk page. Would appreciate your intervention. Thanks Nomen Nescio 18:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:FeloniousMonk helped you. I'd say that he's beginning to get in hot waters. --Nlu (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Suzy Sachs Page

I have edited out "Creator" from her page and you added it again. Nowhere is there any documentation backing up the "Creator" claim. All links provided never mention Sachs as Creator. I will stop edits to this page when this false "Creator" claim is removed. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.90.35 (talk • contribs)

You are violating 3RR. It's not obviously vandalism, and I think you should stop this until the AfD is decided, anyway. --Nlu (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Based on what I've seen from you on AfD, I think that you might have something to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cart00ney. I'd appreciate you weighing in on the matter in either direction. Savidan 19:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. --Nlu (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Can You Look at this AfD?

Hello Nlu

After you reverted our pest vandal 202.94.65.232 - old AfD tag [10] Soon after another ANON same ISP 202.94.65.232 again taged the page and that was reverted by Admin [11].

BUT? For some reason a new 3rd tag has got through for some reason?

But I can not see his ISP address, just an admin "Astrokey44" [12] who said he fixed the Anon AfD tag? I see no history?

Note the words of the first Delete that read: (There are many omissions, so much so that it is difficult to argue that it is an accurate history, rather a skewed history that seems to spend a lot of space offering a history that approximates what many Australian UFO researchers know but with some aspects few of us are familar with. The owner of the Wikipedia "Australian Ufology" entry is censoring efforts to correct and edit this skewed and incomplete history so it would be appropriate to highlight the questionable nature of the document and its owner attempt to white out a lot of history and contributions, seemingly in an effort to create a biased and some what flawed history of Australian Ufology.)

This sound very much like one of the past vandal text! However, even looking at the rules its not ground for an AfD?

I am happy to leave the AfD go to Peers to vote, but I wonder if you could look at our page and look at the 2nd AfD? SEE: [13]

Thank You Vufors 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like the admin believed that AfD was legitimate, and I can't say 100% that it wasn't. I guess we can let the community decide whether the article stays or not. --Nlu (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Alkyl nitrites ( . . . )

thank you. I was just refreshing myself on dispute resolution procedures because i really didn't know what to do about this guy . . . It was getting out of control. --Heah ^talk 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand them all that well myself, but what this guy was doing can't be possibly acceptable. --Nlu (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't either, and i'm not really sure why it was even on my watchlist in the first place. But like you say, what this guy's doing can't possibly be acceptable . . . I mean, if he wanted to cite some research, that would be one thing, but . . . --Heah ^talk 20:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, not trying to cause problems...learned quite a bit lately. I only wanted to add alfrankenweb to a couple of spots but I can see I overstepped my bounds a little. So, I've placed the link in only Al Franken related areas.

HiMom

I still don't find it appropriate -- as WP:SPAM indicates, Wikipedia is not supposed to be full of external links, whether commercial or not. Still, I'll see whether others agree with me about this particular issue. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well the alfrankenforum was linked to the "Al Franken" article for quite sometime. I also linked the forum to "The Al Franken Show" article as well considering I was linking to a fan page of Al Franken I thought it was quite relevent, Did you consider removing the Randi Rhodes external links while you were editing me? If someone is looking up a subject do you not think it helpful to them to find outside resources where they can have an indepth discussion? Just asking as I see external links for almost any subject, why are you singling me out?

HiMom

I'm not singling you out; I don't have the time to track down every spammy (and I don't mean this pejoratively; again, see WP:SPAM) link; I can only revert them as I see them. --Nlu (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand you are doing your job, but when you edit an article it's clear to see that the link I posted is right up there with everyone else. I read the WP:SPAM link; and I don't think this qualifies as spam if the external link is on target. Here is the text:

"There are two types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, and wide-scale external link spamming. Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities, however."

I'm not creating articles, or trying to sell something. I am posting the largest forum on the net for a topic "Al Franken". I see there is also a smaller Al Franken forum that has been posted and left untouched. I really don't mean to be a pain, but I do feel like I am being singled out....probably for the right reasons because I did over post the link and I apologize for that however I'm just asking that the link remain for only the few articles that are directly related to the subject. Nothing more.

Emperor Hui of Han

I hadn't read the discussion on the talkpage before I added that category. I only added the category to Hui after I had found several sources elsewhere online and his mention on a list of Pederastic lovers on Wikipedia. If this fact is untrue (of which I am still not convinced), you may want to remove it from that list so that it doesn't contradict Emperor Hui's article. My apologies. --Caponer 02:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am rather hesitant to be involved in another fight with User:Haiduc over this, but at least I think that these allegations don't belong on the emperors' own biographies without more solid proof (and there won't be any -- this is about as much as we know historically). As for the lists -- since I think that lists are of dubious encyclopedic value anyway, again, I don't want to fight him on this in particular.

No apologies necessary -- thanks for getting back to me. --Nlu (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wang Fuzhi

The only source I have that mentions this uses "Quanshan"; are you sure that "Chuanshan" is the pinyin transliteration? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that the characters (船山) are correct (and I believe it is), "Chuanshan" is the correct pinyin. Thanks for following up. --Nlu (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for keeping an eye on my user page. Yankees76 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Nlu (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• And thanks also for removing the racist comment on Talk:Yagan. Snottygobble 22:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. My pleasure. --Nlu (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Edits

Hello, Nlu. I've been watching POV edits of certain users, and noticed a new user DueDiehcal (talk · contribs) performing similar POV edits. Is there any way you can check if DueDiehacal is a sockpuppet of Deiaemeth (talk · contribs) (or another user)? If DueDiehcal is Deiaemeth, then he (they) just broke 3RR in Korean-Japanese disputes. If not, DueDiehcal defaced the user page of Kamosuke (talk · contribs) in his first edit. I think this is getting out of hand....--Endroit 22:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I found it doubtful that Deiaemeth would use a sock puppet; his edits don't exhibit that pattern. If you want to ask for a check on WP:RCU, however, I don't mind that. --Nlu (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

After review, I find it far more likely that User:209.232.148.108 is a sock puppet of DueDiehcal. I've warned DueDiehcal as to 3RR and sock puppetry, as well as put a {{sockpuppet}} tag on 209.232.148.108's user page. --Nlu (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)