User talk:Nlu/archive18

Vandalism by 72.20.156.250

Hi Nlu. I see you gave this IP a final warning for vandalism a short time ago. Well, the person(s) at this IP has been at it again on the Sudoku article, this time (adding links contrary to explicit requests against this). Is it now time to block this IP? --angusj 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Since what he/she did this time (spamming) is kind of a different offense, I gave another warning. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you think to drop a dime?

re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_Baen's_UNIVERSE, Ahem!!!

Has elementary courtesy gone so far from our society that you forgot to notify the originator of this, at least after nominating it? Funny, I seem to have misplaced the noticefrom you on my talk.

I do hope you won't be too peeved when I reconstruct the edit lost. It was a nice little article 'cept for closing the wrong browser window checking around.

Best regards, FrankB 04:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you recreate it, it will be immediately deleted. See WP:CSD. And Wikipedia does not require the AfD nominator to notify anyone personally; the AfD notice is what it is, a notice. --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

trebuchet

Re the trebuchet article, why did you remove the picture that was uploaded by vandal? I would have thought that one was quite appropriate, unlike the others axellj uploaded. It actually added to the article - would you mind if i put it back? THE KING 14:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the picture as well, I think. A reason why I didn't trust that photo is because, given the user's pattern, we have no reason to believe that he actually took the picture and therefore properly granted Wikipedia the right to use it. --Nlu (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I guess it's too late now then. But i would have thought that images should be innocent until proven guilty - after all, the vandal did say that he took the pic, surely we should accept that as the truth until it becomes disproven? What is the wikipedia policy on this? THE KING 16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is not a court of criminal law, and so I don't think that presumption should be given. :-) For one thing, images aren't people, and they aren't entitled to due process rights. I am not aware of policy on this, but I tend to believe that we need to presume that we should take actions that would preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. In this case, since the vandal's credibility is shot, I don't think I can believe his/her assertions of copyright ownership. --Nlu (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette

Hello. I was the one who tagged the article on Plan XVII as under construction. I did it a week ago, and I am currently working on a draft. I've been somewhat busy, so things got delayed. If you don't mind me saying so, next time you may want to leave a small note on the talk page of the editor who tagged the article before proceeding, so you don't have to make decisions and based on what things look like to you while you are policing around Wikipedia. It's just a matter of etiquette and good manners, that's all. Take care. Andrés C. 19:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that I intruded on it; however, as stated, {{underconstruction}} is for articles that are actively under construction. If it hasn't been touched for a week, it really isn't under active construction any more. --Nlu (talk) 00:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. What's done it's done. The rules have been enforced. However, I think it would be a good idea if you edited your entry on the talk page for the template, so that we could all know that when you say for a while you actually mean for a week. That way, the risk of us simple editors mismanaging the templates would be reduced. Andrés C. 01:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ProgressSoft on DRV

An editor has nominated the closure or deletion of the article ProgressSoft for deletion review. Since you closed the deletion discussion for, or speedy-deleted this article, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated. Kimchi.sg 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put a note on it. --Nlu (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

CityNightLine Passenger compartments

I agree with you, we ought to merge this article with CityNightLine. But let me finish this article and then you merge it. That way I can still edit it and work on that section-to-be without too much clutter everywhere.

Thanks, Jean-Paul 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

All right. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Indef block

Thanks for catching that. Naconkantari 16:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

User Page?

Hi Nlu/archive18,

Is it O.K to just add the number of times the page has been vandalized just to fool around on your user page? There's an IP adress currently doing it. ForestH2

I think it is. --Nlu (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think its vandalizing? Forest

Can you elaborate on this? I thought you mean a vandal counter, which I have and which lots of people have. If you mean messing with other people's pages, then that's a different matter. --Nlu (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean now. Thanks for watching out for my user page. Yes, I agree with you that it's not all right to mess with other people's user pages to add to the vandalism counters just to do it (as opposed to doing so after reverting vandalism). --Nlu (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Help again, please

My school sent out a message, that our school is blocked from wikipedia for three weeks??!?!!? Is it not possible to make sure that at the very least *my* account User:JamieJones doesn't get blocked?!?! I promote wikipedia, i try and stop vandalism, i've created many pages, edited even more, and most importantly, i *like* wikipedia; but, sigh, blocked at every turn. I'm at a library now. If you can help (or pass on this msg to an admin who can) please do, i'd really appreciate it! JamieJones ^talk 00:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

if it's the address I am thinking of (and please leave me the IP involved so that I can verify this), the block was done at the school district's request. If that is the case, I was merely honoring their wishes, which I think is entitled to deference. --Nlu (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Hello. I am a mediator from the Mediation Cabal who accepeted your case. Please leave input and feedback on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-18 Nlu and Eiorgiomugini on Chinese history-related articles. Thanks! Olorin28 03:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The New Hanoian link

Hello Nlu. I saw that you removed the New Hanoian link, suggesting that it was spam. I appreciate the work you do for Wikipedia, and I'm certainly glad that endless commercial links do not clutter these pages. I think, however, you may want to reconsider. The New Hanoian at this time is not a commercial site. If at any time in the future it becomes so, I will take the link down or somehow make it clear that it has commercial aspects. As of right now, The New Hanoian is filling a glaring need in Hanoi. When I arrived in the city, it was amazing the amount of misinformation that was present in both guidebooks and on every website I could find. We have set the site up so that while we do a lot of legwork to provide content initially, we expect user contribution to be both the primary source of new information, and the ongoing guide to the relative merits of all entries in our database. I'm sure you can appreciate this user contributed approach. We are still in our infancy, but I would not hesitate to contend that the information currently on the site far outstrips any to be found on the web. I won't lie to you Nlu. The possibility of using the site to charge businesses to post on event calenders, job boards, or housing lists has occurred to us, but we are a long way from that. Furthermore, even if such a situation becomes practical, the commentary on the site will still be overwhelmingly diverse in its points of view. It will become the online community of Hanoian expats in the very near future, and I think you seriously need to reconsider it as a suitable addition to the external links of the Hanoi page. Also, it seems that several of the other sites contain explicitly commercial aspects that haven't resulted in them being removed from the list. If in fact you continue feel that the New Hanoian is inappropriate for this page, would you please articulate why you think it differs so dramatically from the other links currently listed. Thanks. --Anh_Ot 13:16, 20 May 2006

Well, I'd say discuss on Talk:Hanoi, but my feeling is that whether the link is spam is not only related to whether the link is itself commercial is only one aspect of whether the link is appropriate. Right now, it's not an essential external link. And that other links on the page right now may be also spam is not a reason to add it; that would mean that other links should be removed. I cannot go through every external link on that page and other articles around Wikipedia to remove them; I can only look at things as they come in, and more and more I've found myself needing to simply tag articles with {{cleanup-spam}} and try to get other people involved. --Nlu (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On Chinese classic texts

Please help me out on moving this section to Chinese Classical Texts as it suited the opening and Chinese wiki, I coudn't find any admin to move it Eiorgiomugini 15:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think capitalizing it is proper, because it doesn't fit with Wikipedia's usual convention on naming. For example, see Yellow journalism. Capitalizing it is only proper if they are proper nouns, but I am not convinced that they are.

However, in any case, you don't need to be an admin to move pages. You just have to have the account long enough. Still, I would not encourage you to do so based on Wikipedia's general convention on capitalization. --Nlu (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Hui of Jin

Hello, Nlu:

Firstly, my apologies for presuming to edit your work on Emperor Hui of the Jin dynasty. I did so without having registered with Wikipedia, a condition that I have since remedied.

I am very new to Wikipedia, having discovered the site by doing a search on numerous historical figures of the Jin. I was delighted to see your very fine articles and spent a long time reading those that are of particular interest to my own studies.

I appreciate your acceptance of my minor changes to the birth date of Empress Jia Nanfeng and the correcton from "Crown Prince Jia" to "Crown Prince Yu." I noted belatedly your comment on the birth date of Emperor Hui to which I now reply.

My source for the date of Emperor Hui is the Jinshu (Beijing 1974), ch. 4, p. 89 which records the designation of Sima Jung as Crown Prince in the "third year of the Taishi reign period at the age of nine sui."

Taishi 3 is calculated to be 267 A.D. Age 9 sui is calculated to be age 8. Therefore, mathmatically, 267-8=259, i.e., Emperor Hui was born in 259 A.D.

I have noted from various sources that Emperor Hui's birth dates range from 258-260 A.D. I can only imagine that these dates vary because of their readings in works other than the Jinshu. I would very much like to know if you have a more precise birth date for the emperor, if only because calculating the birth date of Empress Jia Nanfeng (245 A.D.) depends on an accurate birth date for Emperor Hui.

Now, a technical question. As you can see, I am responding by editing this page. (As you might guess, I am not terribly adept at the computer. I have e-mailed Wikipedia Help with contacting you and am awaiting their kind reply.) Is there a way to access the your talk page by clicking on an icon or other devise? I would prefer, as a courtesy, not to edit your work without first discussing it with you.

With all best wishes,

SDOwyoung

No apologies needed at all. In a way, it is I who must apologize since I made the mistake on the year calculations. And Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and therefore people are encouraged to edit articles that each other had created. Indeed, I didn't create the article in question, although I did expand it in a major manner.

I appreciate your writing to me, and I hope to be working with you on future occasions. No need to discuss the changes before making them -- just be ready to discuss them if there is a disagreement. --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Nlu:

Thank you for your response and navigating advice. I too look forward to working with you on Wikipedia and its entries on Chinese history.

SDOwyoung

The Ginsberg Thing

While I appreciate (and most of all, respect) all that you apparently have done for Wikipedia, I really have to ask you what was wrong with that link? It's a site I myself have gotten a lot of great information from, and it's not - as far as I can see - commercial in any way. It does not even have ads.

Pueben

edit a few minutes later: Oh. I'm sorry - I didn't see that you gave me a link. Well, if that's your policy, then I apologize, and promise to follow that.

Regards

Article Deletion: Jacob Kosoff

I am not a notable personality, so you are right that my article should be removed. Sorry if I caused any problems. I am new to Wikipedia. I will try to be less vain :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Kosoff (talk • contribs)

That's all right. --Nlu (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Dear Nlu!

Thank you very, very much for enfeoffing me that barnstar. It's so great to be rewarded this way! As you noticed, we aren't used to award each other barnstars in Wp.de. This is one difference between the German and the English WP, and not the only one — there's no doubt about that. I kinda like this custom and would like to promote it in my "home" WP... good night! Sarazyn • TALK • DE 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps try to translate WP:STAR to German and then try to have it instituted as policy?  :-) --Nlu (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I know some users that would oppose such policy till wikideath :} Sarazyn • TALK • DE 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-Moo-ving vandalism from my talk page

Thanks for helping us all out like that! I'm not sure why that editor had the particular need to Moo at people, and I guess it's mostly harmless, but maybe he was off his medication or something. Bovine fixation maybe, or a fetish. I don't know.

Anyway, thanks!
~Kylu (u|t) 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

202.85.42.140

This IP is requesting an unblock, but the grammar used in the request (we teachers wants to edit) doesn't really help the case. I'll assume good faith and accept that a teacher said that, but you're the admin, so your choice. >_< Just bringing it to your attention. Amyway, cheers! Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 00:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Template Barnstar

Thanks for noticing! Ardric47 00:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Talkpage vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. :) -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 03:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Nlu (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

alright but what kind of people can i write about? do they have to be famous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theproducer85 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:VAIN for the guidelines. --Nlu (talk) 09:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted section Dry and Wet way

I have no idea why the section I added to the alchemy had to be removed. I discussed it on the discussion page on the 9th of May, since one one seemed to want to reply I assumed no one had any objections.

I did not alter anything from other user, I simply added a new subtitle because It was on a subject that was not yet discussed in the article. I placed it in that specific place in the article because it had a link to modern alchemy.

I also payed attention to layout to make it fit nicely into the article. Could you please tell me why the text was removed. It would be a pitty if valueable info was lost due to wrong communication.

217.136.171.130 12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

As written, the assertions are confusing, and they are not supported by citations. --Nlu (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have several citations but was not aware they had to be added. I have several links regarding the matter, I best not paste them here but in the discussion page of the alchemy article. They are of mostly trusted sources, one of them is levity.com (already known in the discussion page, alchemy), and I have trusted books on alchemy discussing the wet and dry way. If the assertions are confusing, why aren't they altered to less confusing in stead of simply deleted? It was my intention to link this to modern alchemy and modern science to give examples everyone understands since simply stating there are two ways adds no value to the article at all. Tearke 12:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say -- provide a summary and give a couple citations, and that should be all right. --Nlu (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

IP blocking

Hi Nlu, Wondering if you could point me in the right direction, I noticed you put a shared IP notice on someone I was watching 169.204.230.6 - Talk. I'm not an admin, just a general wiki busybody. Is there an administrators guide on how shared IP's are dealt with? Can the IP name (not the actual IP address) not be blocked with a message on the talk page saying that they must create an account, due to previous vandalism? This would one make it easier to stop future vandalism and maybe force the institutions to better police their systems, or is this already done? Thanks for any insight Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 15:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no real guidelines on this that I am aware of, but forcing people to register, right now, is not going to work, since registration does them no good if the IP is block. This might change in the future, and if it does, I think we should require them to register. --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

CityNightLine Passenger compartments

The article is now ready for transfer. Jean-Paul 16:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you do that, since you are far more familiar with the subject than I am? Then, go ahead and make it a redirect (or let me know to delete it if you prefer to have it deleted) when you are done with that? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Roy St. Clair

I like the compromise text you've introduced. I've come to the conclusion that this article is unlikely to be expanded unless he becomes a major player on the Magic:The Gathering pro circuit. If this comes up for deletion again, I will not oppose. I'm tired of the edit warring too. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki links

When you add them to templates, remember to wrap them in noinclude tags. I fixed {{Test-n}}. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry. --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 211.72.108.19

He did it to Chiang Kai-shek. But before he was already issued a last warning. You issued him another "last warning." He should be banned immediately. (Chiang Kai-shek 04:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

HINET IPs are shared IPs -- which means that the person who got the previous warning is not necessary the person who carried out this particular vandalism. I don't block immediately under these types of situations. --Nlu (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Harry Potter/Quotes

I received a notice from you that told me not to test in the quotes area, but I was not testing; I was, actually, adding new quotes. Am I not supposed to add Half-Blood-Prince quotes?

I removed the Gilderoy Lockhart posts (which I had added before), and added new ones, and (as they were all from the same part of the book) marked where in the book they came from. I could not, of course, use page numbers because the British edition and American edition probably have different page numbers.

So I am wondering what I was doing wrong that made you think I was testing? --HPNEWIK 14:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The "A Very Frosty Christmas" heading threw me off -- and I would still say, even though it's a chapter title, don't use it. You're quoting from the book, and it really shouldn't get down to the chapter title level. --Nlu (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No Chinese dictionaries in the Chinese language section

Nlu

I notice that you removed my links to CEDICT (a public domain Chinese-English) dictionary project and to a English-Chinese dictionary derived from it.

I also noticed that the Dictionary section in Chinese language article now has no dictionary links again.

I understand well that there is an on-going need to keep Wikipedia clean and that this is only achieved through the dilligent activities of people like yourself - but having no links to any Chinese dictionaries in the Chinese language section when, for example, dictionary.com has a whole article to itself.

How can this be consistent or in the interests of Wikepedia users? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Word.smith (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, since these links themselves are not consistent with WP:EL and WP:SPAM, the fact that the article would lack such a link is not good reason to include them. Further, once you add one, you invite bundles and bundles of excessive links. Wikipedia is not a search engine; if people need a dictionary, they can find one themselves. --Nlu (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty fine line and a difficult one to get absolutely right. While I, of course, understand your general point, it is natural for people to want to follow up on material directly included in Wikipedia thtough external links. And, although I agree that search engines provide an alternative way to find material, one positive feature that Wikipedia offers is that people like yourself are continously vetting material to ensure that quality is maintained whereas search engines are based on automated page ranking and similar factors whilst most web directories have little quality control. But surely having a dictionary links section but then removing any additions is rather strange. Either the section should be removed, and in my view a dictionary links section is a natural additional to a language article, or allow the list to remain but keep a watch to ensure that link quality is maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Word.smith (talk • contribs)

I disagree; precisely, we do not want Wikipedia to endorse a site over others, and that's what would implicitly be considered the case if a site were linked but not others -- which invites others to add their sites in. (I've repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly gotten the response when I deleted spammy sites: "But <insert site name> is on the page!" If you disagree with me, please discuss on Talk:Chinese language. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nlu - I don't wish to fall out (we are basically on the same side here) but then I'd be interested in your assessement of the following page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary.com

Is this endorsement or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Word.smith (talk • contribs)

In my opinion, no. And there is another criterion at stake there; the Web site is itself notable and gets its own article. (By the way, please remember to sign your articles by putting "~~~~" at the end of your comment.) --Nlu (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I think if we went to court on this one, the lawyers would have some fun. If the web site merits its own article (and this isn't an endorsement), surely there ought to be some real content there (unlike in the article in question). But enough is enough for one day. Since Wikipedia is essentially an open community, diversity of views is both inevitable and a good thing.Word.smith 16:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert at User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Hey; CSCWEM originally added the generic cleanup tag to his page, when User:Kimchi.sg changed the wording to say "user" instead of "article". "Userpage" seemed to be the intended effect. ~ PseudoSudo 22:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

However, CSCWEM himself has had a lot of chance to change this. I had assumed that he left the language in for humorous effect. Please go ahead and revert back if you believe I am in error. --Nlu (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You've a point, but I've had it on watch for a while; CSCWEM is extremely liberal with letting users change his page and never reverts edits to it; for example this vandalism lasted on the page for six days, the time span which included two edits by CSCWEM himself. I guess I'll put it back. ~ PseudoSudo 22:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

unblock request

When you get a chance, please take a look at the unblock request here: User talk:Parsssseltongue. Thanks -MrFizyx 01:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your strenuous efforts to keep Wikpedia free of vandalism. Grandmaster 12:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to mess up your user page, so feel free to move it around, reshape, etc. Grandmaster 12:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it greatly. --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Grandmaster 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Safran Foer

Could you please explain which links in the Jonathan Safran Foer article's external links section are spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PlasmaDragon (talk • contribs)

That's what I'd like other editors' opinions on. It seems that there are too many reviews, interviews, &c. in that section, and that a lot of it was added to promote those external Web sites rather than to provide information. I'd like it pared down to the essentials. --Nlu (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)