User talk:Nlu

Archives:

archive1 (archived 22 Oct 2005, covering 4 Oct 2005 to 17 Oct 2005)
archive2 (archived 1 Nov 2005, covering 18 Oct 2005 to 31 Oct 2005)
archive3 (archived 11 Nov 2005, covering 1 Nov 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
archive4 (archived 19 Nov 2005, covering 10 Nov 2005 to 18 Nov 2005)
archive5 (archived 26 Nov 2005, covering 19 Nov 2005 to 25 Nov 2005)
archive6 (archived 3 Dec 2005, covering 26 Nov 2005 to 2 Dec 2005)
archive7 (archived 11 Dec 2005, covering 2 Dec 2005 to 9 Dec 2005)
archive8 (archived 22 Dec 2005, covering 9 Dec 2005 to 20 Dec 2005)
archive9 (archived 28 Jan 2006, covering 21 Dec 2005 to 26 Jan 2006)
archive10 (archived 12 Feb 2006, covering 27 Jan 2006 to 10 Feb 2006)
archive11 (archived 20 Feb 2006, covering 11 Feb 2006 to 17 Feb 2006)
archive12 (archived 22 Feb 2006, covering 18 Feb 2006 to 20 Feb 2006)
archive13 (archived 20 Mar 2006, covering 21 Feb 2006 to 19 Mar 2006)

Brentwood School

Hi, I noticed your final warning for vandalism for Brentwood School (Brentwood, England) for User:217.205.48.138. It's happened again, and keeps happening on this page, obviously with bored schoolkids with nothing better to do. As nearly all the edits are vandalism, I wonder if this article could be blocked altogether for a while from any edits.

Tyrenius 17:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look into it. If it's a single IP, I think it's better to block the IP. If it's multiple IPs, I may protect the article. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the level of vandalism justifies protecting at the moment. I issued the IP another warning. Again, thanks for watching out for vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's junior-grade mischief-making but it won't ever stop. How have they accrued three last warnings? It simply devalues the threat. Can't they be blocked from editing particular pages? -- ThwartedEfforts 11:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the blocking mechanism isn't capable of that level of specificity. If it gets more serious, I'll protect the page, but otherwise there's not much that can or should be done, because there is not way to tell if the same person got the multiple warnings. --Nlu (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by User:198.170.191.248

You banned that IP for 24 hr a week ago; user is back committing more vandalism at RAH-66 Comanche.

By the way, which script do you use to generate the "reverting changes by XX to last version by YY" edit changes? --Mmx1 18:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a script I'm using; it's a button that's available to admins only. There are scripts that approximate the behavior, but I didn't use them when I was a non-admin, and I don't use them now. --Nlu (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for 48 hours. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP logs

Hi. I noticed you had deleted Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 September 29. Please don't. Like all logs, they are sometimes needed to refer to in future. Just because all entries on a page have been handled doesn't make the information on the page irrelevant, and it's not like deleting the logs actually achieves anything in particular. I've restored Sep 29 since it was needed in a discussion; can I ask you to go and restore any others you've deleted? Thanks. -Splash^talk 18:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that I did that -- but if I did, it was when I was a newby admin who should have known better. :-) Sorry if that were the case. I am not aware of my deleting any other. --Nlu (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did, because the deletion log says you did! In fact, I think most of the redlinks in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Log are yours... -Splash^talk 19:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. --Nlu (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to report a notorious vandalizer

User:Thousandsons have vandalized the NWA page only a few hours later he'd been re-allowed to edit after his first 24hrs-block. Lajbi 01:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at a place where I can address this right now. Try (if vandalism is continuing) listing it on WP:AIV. --Nlu (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Could you identify the personal attacks on WP:ANI you are referring to that led you to block SPUI for a whole week? Thanks. — Mar. 21, '06 [05:55] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The attack was taunting Rschen7754 and saying that he needed to be educated about vandalism. IMPO, SPUI vandalized, but I was unwilling to get into a wheel war with regard to unblocking him. However, upon unblocking, he's taunting others. That's good reason to reinstate the block. --Nlu (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you blocked him for a week, twice, because you found SPUI's opinions unreasonable? Well shit, are you gonna block me next??? — Mar. 21, '06 [06:15] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

If you engaged in sockpuppetry, I'd say yes. I don't see why you're choosing to overlook that fact.

SPUI has had so many issues here that he should have known better. Blocks are supposed to be progressive in length, and his behavior pattern deserves it. It's not just an opinion; it's the taunting, it's the utter lack of remorse and the failure to apologize for his disruptive behavior. If we wouldn't take it from an anonymous IP, we shouldn't take it from SPUI. --Nlu (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that SPUI is under probation from the pedophilia ArbCom; it says that admins can block him for up to a week. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I must say that I don't believe he violated that probation. --Nlu (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that inappropriate harassment. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:21] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

What is "that"? My behavior? Rschen7754's? SPUI's? --Nlu (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any unnecessarily punitive block that is one attempts to justify by citing the former fiasco. — Mar. 21, '06 [06:34] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I'm sure you'll disagree, but IMO, it's not inappropriate because SPUI should have known better than to provoke. --Nlu (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, upon second reading of that probation term, I think SPUI has violated it. Part of the probation term is "no provocative edits." I still believe he vandalized yesterday, but if it's not vandalism, it's certainly provocation (and the most recent taunting certainly is provocative.) --Nlu (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provocative edits? See SPUI's edit on my talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thanks... I owe you big time after this is over. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but I don't think you owe me anything. I didn't really do you any favors by my position. --Nlu (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but not everyone is willing to stand up for what is right though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Thousandsons: I am sorry for vandalizing N.W.A's page, you are mistaken I'm not even sure what I did to the page, I don't vandalize anymore I've spent the last hour working on these two pages Lil Eazy-E & Prince of Compton, please forgive me and let's jsut start over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thousandsons (talk • contribs)

No problem. Sorry if I erroneously assumed it to be vandalism, but inserting links regarding Sin City (including interwiki links) certainly makes it look like vandalism. Welcome to the project, and I see that you're productive in your last few edits. Keep up the good work! --Nlu (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experimenting?

"Thanks for experimenting with the page Chad Johnson on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks."

What experimenting? The cheerleader in question was a Ben-Gal. That is what the Cincinnati Bengals cheerleaders are named. - 24.33.91.71 (and I intend to register here sometime in the near future)

Then it creates a redundancy; if they're known as the Ben-Gals, then "Ben-Gals cheerleader" is a double descriptor. --Nlu (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the name of the cheerleading squad is not common knowledge; an unfamiliar reader would not know the article referred to a cheerleader. - 24.33.91.71

Then, it should perhaps read something like "a Ben-Gal (a Bengals cheerleader)". --Nlu (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that works. I'll do that. - 24.33.91.71

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan

I'm going to unsprotect this now, since it's been a good length of time since you protected it. Since WP:SEMI is for dealing with serious current vandalism, this seems longer than "current" can really be stretched to, particularly since the 3RR only covers 24 hours. I noted a few other quite lengthy semiprotections by you; they can be hard to remember since they don't expire like blocks, but can I ask you to take a cruise through your protection log and see if you have others that got left protected? Thanks. -Splash^talk 22:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

No problem. --Rory096 06:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocking me again

I responded, it got saved, and became vaporized. I got a letter, went to talk, and nothing was there, so I blanked it. It's you, your vandalism. I agree with Wiglaf. This wikipedia is a failure, and all economic support for it must be withdrawn (and perhaps Congressionally); in the meantime, I'm doing the non-copy-vio bit stealing articles for another wiki. --FourthAve 07:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contribs, all you were doing was pushing your POV. Wikipedia is a complete success if we judge by how well we reverted your edits, since all you were doing was violating the WP:NPOV policy, unless a neutral point of view doesn't exist in your ideal wiki encyclopaedia. --Rory096 07:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of my articles were geographic and archaeological. I did an enormous bit with 1911 EB project. The current 2500+ edits are actually closer to 3500 after all the EB 1911 annotations (the documentation for which are now all gone). See Range Creek, my last serious article. Wikipedia will collapse upon itself. All those Beyonce articles and people like you. Go away --FourthAve 07:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you might have had positive contributions, personal attacks and defamatory POV are still no-no's -- that's even if you're the greatest writer in the world. --Nlu (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Well, we blocked that user, and then this IP showed up, exact same method. I don't think it's coincidence; maybe I was a bit too quick to judge, but there is probablity at least. M ^o P 07:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Which user are you referring to? --Nlu (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iamtehc00lies. M ^o P 07:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is very suspicious, but without more I don't think we should block. Just keep watch out for it. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't want a blocking spree. But I will watch him; removing the notice though. Thanks! M ^o P 07:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.

Sorry re that, it was a false alarm and I really wasn't paying closer attention. — NathanHP ^{(T • C • W)} 07:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, no problem. Thanks for being diligent. :-) Better false alarm than no alarm. --Nlu (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thorp_naga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You and I blocked Thorp naga about simultaneously -- I blocked for 24 hours and you indefinitely. I have no quibbles about an indefinite block, but if you want it to stay in place, you may need to unblock and then reblock indefinitely. --Nlu (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will take care of this. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey man

yo how's it goin??? thnx for revertin my userpage. and as you might know. i filed an arbitration against you guyz. but i mean you're not really such a bad editor. i mean you're a pretty good wikipedian, i respect that. so anyway do you think there's anyway we can settle our difference mayb thru another way??? i mean all i want is for jiang to remove dat image from his userpage (not his talkpage). and uhh...this isn't personal attack so plz don't block me again. i'm juss tryin to communicate. lol i always get scared of being block when i post a comment on ur talkpage. you kno wut?? juss forget it and mayb we can start over. anyway hit me bak okay???--Freestyle.king 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still say: don't mess with his image. He isn't inserting POV into articles, and neither should you. He has already repeatedly told you that he does not agree with the statement that the man in the image was making. Nothing more needs to be said. Further, even if, aguendo, Jiang does agree with the message that the man in the image was depicting -- well, he is allowed to have a negative view of President Chen. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then maybe i didn't personally endorse the big black image on my userpage and you shouldn't had blocked me for a week. the block wasn't justified.--Freestyle.king 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block was for this; I stand by it. I doubt that many people on the ArbCom will find the block to be unjustified at all. --Nlu (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse me!

User:Spectre

Doh!. Sorry, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging

G'day Nlu,

I appreciate that Hanging is probably a textbook case of the need for fullprotect at the moment, but I was kinda hoping to use it to ferret out more sleeper accounts. Ach, well. G'night, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to move it back to semi-protection? --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh, no point. I just wanted to let you know why I hadn't gone for full protection as soon as the socks showed up — and why I'd not recommend it in the future. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

Where did i post a span link? --Jordantheking 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion (shared by a few other admins) that this site constitutes spam. If you disagree, feel free to try to bring it up at WP:AN or WP:ANI. --Nlu (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The reason I used possible thret was because he was actually creating his vandalism page user talk: Never mind see history and I never knew you liked the han Dynasty. Do you play Dynasty Warriors by the way? Whopper 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about SockPuppets

Good Day. I have noticed from your posts to CheckUser that you are interested in chasing down sockpuppets. I wanted to let you know that users having a sockpuppet is not a violation of Wikipedia Policy. Please read SockPuppets to learn all about them. I would not want you to waste your time trying to fix something that is, in fact, not wrong. I hope this helps. Good Luck! HereIsFIVE 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Hi, sorry to see you're not well, and I hope you recover soon. I've just reverted T.S. Eliot after edits and was going to leave a test template on User talk:65.125.82.250, but that editor is a consistent vandal, and has been blocked before etc, so I thought I would bring it to your attention.

Best Tyrenius 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. In this case, though, 65.125.82.250's edits appear to be good faith edits -- the links that he/she removed are arguably excessive, and there was no content defacement. There was also a poor attempt at sectionalizing -- which, however, actually suggests that it was good faith. Further, this is a shared school IP, so whoever the editor this morning is not necessary the vandal in the past. (I justed added a {{sharedip}} to reflect that.) Therefore, no action will be taken at this time, but thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi! I saw that you've recently reverted some changes on Patrick. This page was modified again today and all its content was deleted. Could you revert it to its previous form or teach me how to do it? Thanks. Lujanjl 17:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look in a minute -- but if you want to do it yourself, you just go to the page's history (by clicking on the "History" tab) and select the last version before the vandalism, and then select "Edit", but don't actually edit it -- and then put something like "rvv" in the edit summary, and click "Save page." That would get rid of the vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE Personal attack

Nlu, that was in no way a personal attack. I said quote " How about - Nlu,Dlyons493,Deville and moreover Golfcam, you sicko - let's create threads for the 468 people in front of Ms. Knatchbull" If you are offended by the sicko comment, that was not to you, it was for golfcam who wanted to see a picture of her. I was highlighting the fact that you, dlyons493 and deville should think about filling up the threads before her instead of deleting her which would defeat the point of having an online encyclopedia. The whole idea is that the material is useful. Let's say someone wanted to find out who she was, they could come here to find out.

I am also quite offended by the fact that you think it was a personal attack. Let's get this straight, I've not got a harmful bone in my body. The suggestion was in my opinion, maybe not yours, not offensive and was never intended that way and has left me rather bemused. how was I attacking you, my job is to stop that article being deleted and I am making an argument. if you have got wound up about it then I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it was offensive. Please e-mail be back because obviously I don't want to be blocked. Thank you and God bless, Jonathan.

QUOTE - Examples that are not personal attacks

Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to:

Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack—it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment—if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. UNQUOTE.

Whether it was directed at me or not, the "sicko" comment is a personal attack. Don't do it again. --Nlu (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection

Hi Nlu,

Would you please be able to semi-protect the Armenian Genocide page? Some anon continues to remove images and information - he/she was blocked for breaking the 3RR but simply changed their IP and continued. On the talk page, all they have really been making is personal attacks by calling everyone "Turk-haters". I'd really appreciate it if you semi-protect the page for now. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate it. --Khoikhoi 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete lie, read through the changes and you will realize that the new entries have no purpose other than to provoke the other side. This topic is highly contested, if you decide to temporarely block it, thats your perogative, but to actually revert and block it, I am sorry, thats just not fair because it clearly means that you are not neutral and are siding with a particular POV! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs)

See m:The Wrong Version. In any case, I have insufficient knowledge of whose version of the events was correct, nor am I interested in the merits thereof; what I can see is that you've been completely uncivil and unwilling to obey WP:3RR. In that case, reverting to the version you oppose is a perfectly good solution. --Nlu (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I beg to differ, there have been additions to this topic that are totally unwarranted for and the instigators (Fadix, khoikhoi, Thoth, latinus) have successfully hijacked the topic. By reverting and blocking you are in fact agreeing with thier POV, you therefore cannot claim to be neutral on this issue! The right thing to do would have been to just block it, but you went a step further! I ask you to revert back and keep it blocked. 83.78.105.144 07:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I would have done had you not been acting in this manner. --Nlu (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, I still ask you to revert, these additions are highly POV! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs)

That's not the point of protection. What this would allow you to do is to calm down and rethink your position, and also to rethink your own actions. What I'd say is this: eventually, I, or another admin, will unprotect that page. When that happens, there should not be a reeruption of the edit war. Rather, explain your rationale, in calm, non-attacking language, on the talk page to the article and see if you can persuade others that your proposed edits are correct. If you cannot, consider filing a request for comment in the appropriate area. Edit wars are not good for Wikipedia, and what you are proposing is for me to join the edit war as well and to condone your behavior. This I decline. --Nlu (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again I disagree with you, if you were a bit more attentive you would have noticed that I put this issue into the talk page (see PKE) and non of the instigators bothered even to respond, they were busy with a revert war. This 3rr is highly unfair in this case because the other side is ganging up so you have several contributors reverting, thereby avoiding a violation of the 3rr. I strongly suggest that you reconsider the highly POV revert! 83.78.105.144 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again to reconsider your revert, this point was submitted to the talk page but the vandals decided to ignore it and go into a revert war instead. Unless you give me a valid reason for your revert followed by the block, I cannot consider you as a neutral participant in this matter. Do you really believe that your are going to resolve this issue with this attitude of yours? Think again! 83.78.105.144 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]