User talk:Nlu

Archives:

1 (10/4/05-10/17/05)
2 (10/18/05-10/31/05)
3 (11/1/05-11/9/05)
4 (11/10/05-11/18/05)
5 (11/19/05-11/25/05)
6 (11/26/05-12/2/05)
7 (12/2/05-12/9/05)
8 (12/9/05-12/20/05)
9 (12/21/05-12/26/05)
10 (12/26/05-2/10/06)
11 (2/11/06-2/17/06)
12 (2/18/06-2/20/06)
13 (2/21/06-3/19/06)
14 (3/20/06-3/30/06)
15 (3/31/06-4/16/06)

16 (4/17/06-5/2/06)
17 (5/3/06-5/17/06)
18 (5/18/06-5/26/06)
19 (5/27/06-6/29/06)
20 (6/30/06-7/24/06)
21 (7/25/06-8/17/06)
22 (8/18/06-9/4/06)
23 (9/5/06-9/10/06)
24 (9/11/06-9/26/06)
25 (9/27/06-10/19/06)
26 (10/20/06-11/4/06)
27 (11/5/06-11/17/06)
28 (11/18/06-12/3/06)
29 (12/4/06-12/26/06)
30 (12/27/06-1/11/07)

31 (1/12/07-2/1/07)
32 (2/2/07-2/22/07)
33 (2/23-07/3/6/07)
34 (3/7/07-3/19/07)
35 (3/20/07-4/1/07)
36 (4/2/07-4/27/07)
37 (4/28/07-5/12/07)
38 (5/13/07-5/19/07)
39 (5/20/07-6/2/07)
40 (6/3/07-6/22/07)
41 (6/23/07-7/13/07)
42 (7/14/07-8/24/07)
43 (8/25/07-11/18/07)
44 (11/19/07-12/12/07)

45 (12/13/07-1/2/08)
46 (1/3/08-1/26/08)
47 (1/27/08-2/15/08)
48 (2/16/08-3/14/08)
49 (3/15/08-4/18/08)
50 (4/19/08-6/6/08)
51 (6/7/08-9/9/08)
52 (9/10/08-10/7/08)
53 (10/8/08-10/27/08)
54 (10/28/08-11/13/08)
55 (11/14/08-12/27/08)
56 (12/28/08-2/6/09)
57 (2/7/09-3/8/09)
58 (3/9/09-3/29/09)

User:Themightylubu246 and his edits

Hi Nlu, it's been a while since I came to you to ask questions. There's been a user who, in one day, has been creating all these fantastical articles about mostly fictional (fictional as in he made them up) people before the actual Three Kingdoms period, with the contents being, I suspect, fanciful imagination interlaced with actual history (gathered from Wikipedia articles). Usually I would pursue the AFD avenue in this kind of situation, but I wanted to make sure that I'm not undoing someone's good faith edits that really are according to historical records and only outside of my knowledge, and also the user created so many in such a short time I wonder if there is a better way to deal with these articles (and his other edits made to legit biographies to include his story). Sorry for troubling you with this and thanks. _dk (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that I see suggests good faith. I've wrenched my mind to come up with who this Lü family that he seems to be creating a history for might be, and I can't think of any. If you do bring a mass AfD, please let me know and I'll corroborate it. Meanwhile, you may also want to report this to WP:ANI so that some other administrators might also be able to keep a tab on him in case he gives tell-tale signs of vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated those articles for deletion in a bundle here. Thank you for your help! _dk (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else (?) made another Three Kingdoms hoax article on Cao Pao and was summarily sent to AfD by yours truly. What is with the wave of people with too much historical imagination on my side of the wiki recently? _dk (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Li Jiang

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Li Jiang, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zhang Hongjing

On March 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhang Hongjing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Zhang Hongjing (張弘靖), some changes had been made to Zhu Kerong. The changes are made because there are sources that provided the correct information. I will complete the article regarding Zhu Kerong in the very near future, so I don't think I'm "interfering" with anything. However, thanks very much for your help, Nlu. If there's any other format/syntax errors, please tell me. I'm just doing what I can to make the articles more complete. Ttzz2003 (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Wei Guanzhi

On March 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wei Guanzhi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 12:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toktoghan

Hello Nlu, I eventually create the article Toktoghan with what I know about him, but : should Toktoghan be rename into Tuotuo ? I think the both are de facto correct, but that Tuotuo is more modern (chinese-pinyin) that the mongolian name. Yug (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about how well Yuan-era names transliterate to "modern Mongolian" — it's outside the area of my expertise. If it transliterates well, I do think that the Mongolian transliteration should be used. (The situation is different with Xiongnu, Xianbei, and Tujue names because none of those languages survive to the present, and therefore any proposed "native" transliterations will be speculative at best.) --Nlu (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,

My vision was that Tuotuo would be more convenient : b. most sources being Chinese-centered will cite « Tuotuo » ; b. Tuotuo is easier.

But I was not aware of the distinction between still alive language, and death language.

So, let's go for « Toktoghan » for the moment. I copy our talk to the article's talk page. Later user may know more about this issue. :] Yug (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Template:Chinese Emperor -- multiple reigns

Blimey, it's been a good long while since I did anything with that template! :) I have added additional fields for a second reign, though I don't think it would be possible to have references in the infobox as you currently have at Emperor Ruizong of Tang (can they be moved into the main text of the article?). If you need anything else then let me know. Regards. PC78 (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll take a look and began moving things around when I get a chance. --Nlu (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pei Du

On April 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pei Du, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Li Fengji

On April 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Li Fengji, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the Goguryeo Article Again

Hey Nlu, remember me? All those epic battle in the old Goguryeo article back in 2007. We have a little problem there. There is a user with the undefined screen name of Tnaniua who keeps making odd changes to the article, calling the kingdom a great "Korean Empire" and all the Goguryeo kings "emperors." Could you perhaps see if wiki can put a semi-protection on the article so only established users (i.e. wiki users who choose to show themselves rather than hide in undefined user names or sockpuppets) can modify said article? If you look at the edit history of that page, Tnaniua has made himself really annoying. Thanks in advance. WangKon936 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for one week. Thanks for letting me know about it. Please, however, put forth your arguments on the talk page as well. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, I noticed that the Goguryeo article has the monarchs as "emperor" with the E lower case. Is this what was ultimately decided? WangKon936 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have the authority to decide what it is. Let me see what's going on, but I think at some point an WP:RFC might be necessary. I personally don't think "emperor" is appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like protection expired. Nobody has edited it substantively since, which means that the article, as previously protected, is now unprotected. It looks to me that we have a near-consensus of using "king" instead of "emperor." If you want to go ahead and make the changes, I think you can do that. But if dispute persists, I think a RfC would be appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will make the changes over the weekend. What is RfC? WangKon936 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment — i.e., to request the community to get involved in the discussion. Doesn't always work well, but sometimes does. --Nlu (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Wang Yai

On April 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wang Yai, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue Regarding Wang Yai's name

Hi Nlu. I am certain that 王涯 is pronounced as Wang Ya in Chinese (Mandarin), and that it is also it's pingying. So the name of this article should be changed to Wang Ya from Wang Yai. You can verify this with any Mandarin speaking person. "Yai" actually doesn't even exist as a Chinese character. I have already made some changes in the article, but I don't know how to change the name of the article, therefore I ask for your assistance in such. Thanks in advance. Ttzz2003 Ttzz2003 (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Problem with DYK nomination of Cui Qun

Hello! Your submission of Cui Qun at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Han Hong (general)

On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Han Hong (general), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 02:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sandra Cantu

I have a personal conflict of interest (my office, although not I myself personally, now represents Melissa Huckaby), so I have refrained from doing so myself and also have not substantively edited the article since that conflict arose (and, for the same reason, I am neither advocating delete or keep on the deletion discussion), but I would like to ask you to consider moving Murder of Sandra Cantu to Death of Sandra Cantu, as there has been no legal adjudication that it is a murder. Please review the situation. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I do agree, at least partially, with you. The word "death" is rather broad ... and it might imply that someone died in a car accident or of natural causes or of cancer or whatever. "Homicide" at least indicates that the death was some form of a killing, whether murder or otherwise. So, I am comfortable with "Sandra Cantu homicide" ... but not with the very broad "Death of Sandra Cantu". I think homicide is a more appropriate term than either murder or death. Thanks. I have made the change. Whether other editors agree / disagree, I cannot predict. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

DYK for Li Yijian

On April 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Li Yijian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 23:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu

I made a very lengthy response in defense of the fact that the Standard Histories are secondary sources, NOT primary sources. However, please refrain from suggesting that editors here are "borderline racist". I perhaps do not have to remind you that we should all assume good faith. Good night.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I certainly think it was possible I got too hot-headed. --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

The dispute of sourcing at Cui Qun seems to have spilled over to some people edit warring over tags, and I've been forced to protect the article to quell it. My apologies if this put further obstacles in the DYK process for this article. henrik•talk 06:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was no pending DYK process for this article. Nlu let it expire with 11 days of refusing three times, to three different people, to add a single inline note for the hook (per DYK's rules), so it was already rejected yesterday. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 06:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is fair. I certainly don't think that a nomination becomes a mandatory accept. Henrik, I do appreciate your letting me know about the article being protected, and while I was not involved in that dispute, I have put forth my opinion as to one of the tags on the talk page. --Nlu (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's featured!

Han Dynasty is featured! It's a Han victory. Lol.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Well, right now there's still the issue of people finding traditional Chinese sources to be unreliable without ever having ever read them or translations of them. Sigh. --Nlu (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll make another comment there, but just one more. I feel like I've already chipped in my two cents on the matter. But since a mediation has been opened up, I'll make one more comment. However, I have to go to Mandarin Language class (Level 3) tonight, so I won't have time to do it anytime soon. Sorry! Later.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty).

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Rabbits

守株待兔 is my favorite proverb! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --Nlu (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Hi I would like for you to unblock the Greater San Bernardino Area redirect please because it is wrong and redirects to the wrong page. If not, can you please make it redirect to the San Bernardino Valley, were it is the Greater San Bernardino Area. Thank-You -itzzHouse1090duhh (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced, but I'll unprotect the page, and you're free to change it. I think it might be best to discuss what might be the best redirect, though. (I protected the page because there was a banned user who was putting on spam.) --Nlu (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Armor of God Broadcast

Comment The Full Armor of God Broadcast is facing deletion. Any advice, assistance or help would be much appreciated! Help represent NON-SELLOUT Christian Metal!! Help The Full Armor of God Broadcast keep giving the devil a blackeye on Wikipedia!Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. You probably do not remember me from around and thats cool. But I'd just like to say I need out. As in, I need you to delete everything of mine that you possibly can. My userpage, my talk pages, anything. I just can't do this anymore, and I don't want my username around if I'm not going to be here to help out. I know I have done a lot of work here in the past few years, and you are probably wondering why I am quitting. Well, it has actually started to slip into my real life, whereas Wikipedia has become more important than other stuff. Thats not good, so I have officially quit,and I fear having the ability to come back in a snap. So please take the time out and delete everything you possibly can of mine. I truly appreciate it. Thank you and keep up the good work you do here. This is my farewell to you and all of Wikipedia. Goodbye. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]