User talk:Nlu/archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Constanze Weber[edit]

The article has grown greatly. That was a great call....(See:[1]) :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 :-) Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Thank you![edit]

Hi, Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. :) Hbackman 05:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

...and for blocking the IP. Go you! Hbackman 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sea of Japan/East Sea[edit]

Hi it's Mjump, I didn't know where to put my opinion. Please allow for East Sea section and other things such East Sea naming dispute. Please keep it independent from Japanese monopoly. It is not right for East Sea to be redirected to Sea of Japan. If you know the history, Sea of Japan should certainly not be called as it is because it has started to be called that way after Japanese colonialism after World War II. East Sea is the correct word for it. Thanks for your cooperation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjump (talkcontribs)

You're not going about it the right way. Again, take a look at the links that people have been putting on your talk page to point to Wikipedia protocol.
And I know history; Japanese imperialism aside, "East Sea" causes confusion with East China Sea -- but that's my own POV; here at Wikipedia, we decide by consensus. Take a look at Talk:Sea of Japan for the history of the discussion. Unless there is a very good reason to believe consensus has changed, don't go around and start putting your own view point. Again, take a look at WP:POINT. (And, to a lesser extent, WP:NPOV.) --Nlu (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is still wrong to redirect East Sea to Sea of Japan. East Sea should stand on its own. Please make a section for East Sea for the fatal error that could be caused by netizens or wiki users who will tend to think Sea of Japan is the right name for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjump (talkcontribs)

Please read up a bit more about Wikipedia protocol. In any case, I'm trying to get that issue resolved; it is still my view that it should redirect to East Sea (disambiguation), but we're talking about it. --Nlu (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Winstonsmith[edit]

Just remembered, forgot to thank you for reverting the odious edit on my page, and of course for your handling of this immature character. Thanks.--Holland Nomen Nescio 09:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems our friend has returned from exile, and it looks as if he is more seriously contributing to Police state.--Holland Nomen Nescio 07:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

However, while whether his edits are in good faith is questionable, he is now at least discussing the matter, which means there are really no grounds to block him yet. If he violates 3RR, please bring it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean now -- don't mean to imply that you asked for a block. I just misread a couple words you wrote. --Nlu (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hope it was not because I made a mistake in my English. Have to admit it, I had to learn it in school, so I might make some mistakes.--Holland Nomen Nescio 07:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 :-) Your English is fine. Note that English is not my native language either (although I have lived in the United States the last 21 years). --Nlu (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible Tisquantum and FaithfulCamp are sockpuppets of Winstonsmith? Is there any way of ascertaining that?--Holland Nomen Nescio 12:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's possible, but the only way to find out for sure is to run a program called CheckUser, which very, very few people have access to. You can start out by posting a note on WP:AN. --Nlu (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It has been some time since you made the request, so I was wondering how long does it take? Had another edit war with one of the possible socks. Anyway, just curious or should I say impatient?--Holland Nomen Nescio 21:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
So far, nothing. There is a terrible backlog. --Nlu (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

69.196.139.250[edit]

Hi, Nlu, this user 69.196.139.250 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has broken 3RR rule several times and HAD BEEN warned. vandalises Kurdish related pages. removes valid texts... Please block him. Diyako Talk + 23:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it. However, please note that 3RR violations should generally be reported to WP:AN/3RR. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at it, and I'm uncomfortable calling them 3RR violations since they're not pure reverts. (No, pure reverts are not requried for 3RR violations, it's just that I have insufficient knowledge of the subject to tell exactly what is a revert and what is not.) Based on the amount of activity on Kurdish people, however, I'm going to semi-protect it. --Nlu (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-troll law[edit]

I've heard and seen news that being a "Internet troll" is now a criminal offense w/ a 2 YEAR prison sentence, servere fines under US law. Prez. Bush has very recently signed legislation that makes trolls out to be criminals. What are the exact details of this new law ? Martial Law 10:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Would this affect Wikipedia ? Martial Law 10:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it (and I don't practice federally, so I'm not an expert on it), this deals with sending massive amounts of spam. It shouldn't affect Wikipedia in any way. --Nlu (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

156.63.113.54 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

There was a warning yesterday and 2 incidents today of blanking. I've always been a little unclear whether the "report within 24 hours of last warn" means the final straw gets another warning or not. This IP has a long history of warnings - should he/she get another chance today? -Jcbarr 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no hard and fast rule; in this case, since it's a shared IP, I am a little more hesitant to block unless vandalism is continuing. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler[edit]

I wonder if you'd review your semi-protection of this. It seems that a single edit has triggered a reprotect here: one edit does not a war make. It also looks as if it's a content dispute with an anon: that means full protection to avoid being discriminatory. Or is ROHA an out-and-out bad-faith vandal? -Splashtalk 02:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ROHA has such a bad history with disregarding rules that I, as I wrote, will revert on sight regardless of content; thus, I don't see this as an edit war issue. The alternative is to block his range (which I've done before when he got really bad), but now with semi-protection having been implemented, I think semi-protect is better than to block his range. He's not a "bad faith vandal" per se, but he is a POV pusher who will not abide by 3RR, NPA, or any other Wikipedia regulation. --Nlu (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be viewing ROHA as a hard-banned user. Did the ArbCom have a case? -Splashtalk 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No; I never brought one, and maybe I should have, but this user's behavior is simply unacceptable, and I feel that it's my duty to stop him until he agrees to comply. (The last time I offered to let him have his say if he would comply by 3RR, he basically taunted me by doing 6 or 7 reversions in a row with edit summaries that state such things as "Block me yet?") --Nlu (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:P0P0[edit]

Thanks for taking care of that. However, as the user claimed another user User:SarekOfVulcan was a Chooserrr sock, he must have had prior info (or thought he did; the evidence doesn't hold up). Yet having no edits, and being a new account, would that not in fact make P0P0 someone's sock as well? How does one go about reporting a sock like that when the orginal user is unknown? MSJapan 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV is probably fine, but probably WP:AN is better. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Wyss[edit]

I left him an explanation on his talk page. It looks to me like he kept putting in the words, "and political skill." If you look at it and feel the block is not warrented, or is now unneeded because he's learned his lesson, feel free to unblock. I won't be offended and won't reblock him. Tom Harrison Talk 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why Wyss was unblocked. The user is very disruptive. -- Simonides 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The edits that he/she was making don't seem to be a 3RR violation to me, and that's why I unblocked. --Nlu (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
As Tom Harrison noted, the user keeps re-inserting phrases that there is enough consensus against on the Talk page. Please look at all the debates on the Talk page. The user also refuses to debate the matter on the Talk page, evading the subject when requested to provide sources or arguments. -- Simonides 03:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I still don't think it's quite a 3RR violation. Right now, he/she hasn't re-edited Adolf Hitler, so until/unless he/she does, there's not a 3RR issue. --Nlu (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you didn't read the Talk page or look at the diffs - the user inserted the phrase "political skills" AFTER several users (including myself) didn't see the point of including it and reverted MORE than three times. That is a clear violation. If you're having too much trouble finding the objections, I listed them again here: Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Let.27s_start_again; by the way, the reverts listed occurred while I was editing, there were previous ones during the day ie within 24 hours. -- Simonides 03:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
After further review, I think you're right; I've therefore reimposed the 3RR block. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Simonides 03:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ROHA[edit]

Dear Nlu, you are absolutely right. I wasn't trying to appease him. Str1977 17:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Block on Jack Abramoff vandal[edit]

Thanks for putting the anon IP block in place for 62.0.93.134. As to your suggestion for page protection, that has been tried several times before. Unfortunately, another admin keeps removing it but not sticking around to help clean up when the vandal returns. --StuffOfInterest 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, if that's a problem, let me know if/when he/she returns. --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Federal Street 1st warning[edit]

I see that you left NSA warrantless surveillance controversy vandalized. Actual wiki doctrine thus appears to call for leaving pages vandalized. I guess I'll be too busy brushing up on my doublespeak and doublethink to do any reversions. Metarhyme 19:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (Eying your talk revert): Good of you to be keeping an eye on things. It would be bad for me to contend with a demented sock collection (I'm just explaining on my way out now) - interesting but bad. Have fun. Metarhyme 06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
User:Ta bu shi da yu did the revert. POV honeypot: Senate hearings start Monday. Metarhyme 09:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

Just tried to archive my talk page. Failed. Martial Law 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How did you do it? The proper way to do it is to call your archive file something like User talk:Martial_Law/archive1, and the cut and paste the discussion to that file. --Nlu (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Haing Ngor[edit]

Sorry about that. Won't mess with that again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisekwai (talkcontribs)

No problem at all. Thanks for trying to help. I realize that my comment was a little too brief, and I'd like to say -- welcome to the project, and I hope to see you around. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed RfD[edit]

Oops, sorry about that. —Larry V 21:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. Didn't mean to ding you. :-) But unless you are sure that the RfD is a vandalism, don't remove it, because a record of the discussion needs to be kept. Even in the case of bad faith nominations, what admins should do is to close the discussion but leave the discussion standing on the page. Thanks for your concern. --Nlu (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mexico[edit]

I'm not sure how I could help, and I don't want to jump in lest I make the situation worse. But I mentioned your plight to some folk in the CVU channel on IRC, so hopefully someone there will heed the call to action. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 09:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Simple method to delete one revision from Mexico[edit]

I see you're attempting to delete one revision from Mexico. Manually restoring all edits is normally a rather daunting task for such articles. However, there's a much easier method to do so that is very little known. I'll present it in step form, as it can get confusing otherwise.

  1. Delete the entire article.
  2. Undelete any revision you'd like to remove from the history. This is a good time to clean out vandalism, if you like. Don't undelete any good edits.
  3. Move the page to another location (Mexico/dev/null perhaps?). This will move any edits that are currently undeleted, but leave deleted edits behind. Delete the moved page.
  4. Undelete the edits that were left behind at Mexico.

I hope this helps; checking 2000+ checkboxes is a somewhat long process. ;) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that looks even more complicated than what I'm doing, and I'm basically restoring everything except that one, without taking the time to judge whether they were vandalism or not (and even ordinary vandalism we should leave in the history, I think; it's that in this case, there was a highly malicious vandalism that damages browsers).
What people can do to help right now, if you have time, is to restore from oldest edit forward (since I'm going newest edit and back). --Nlu (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
It's not all that complicated; the entire process takes about 30 seconds plus loading time. Do as you prefer, though. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 10:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I understand it now. My brain simply wasn't working in the panic. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Hi there, sorry, but I reverted my talk page because it is mine and no user has a right to get any comments continuously posted there. Unlike Swatjester who had complained I had answered his questions. Afterwards I remove. His complaints are completely without a basis, I just saw someone complaining about an Iraq war page being dominated by three guys of the US military and as I saw the point I asked the others who had edited on the page if they might take a look. Now they take offense even though I explained to them what I did. They also make false claims about me pretending they were biased although I never said so. I saw they harrassed the anon as well, filing a complaint for 3rr although pookster11 had violated the same rule, deleted an npov tag and the discussion about it. Swatjester did not even answer when I asked why he complained about the anon but not about his mate. Get-back-world-respect 13:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please tell Swatjester not to claim you were supporting his complaints? He does not see that it is unfounded, even though admin Finlay McWalter told him so and he thinks you were backing him when you removed his complaint from the list of vandalisms. Get-back-world-respect 01:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
He did that a while ago, and I think that Finlay McWalter already sufficiently conveyed the message. --Nlu (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree, it's only that Swatjester does not and says you as an admin agreed with him. Get-back-world-respect 01:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Aranda56 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I've discussed the 3RR situation with Aranda56; given that blocks are intended to be preventive, rather than punitive (i.e., the reason for blocking for 3RR is to prevent the user from engaging in further reverts, not to punish them for making more than three reverts) I am going to unblock on Aranda's promise not to edit the page at all for the next 24 hours. I've made it clear that if I see any edits to the page before this time tomorrow, I will reinstate a full 24 hour block. I believe this is a fair deal, as it allows good work to continue, but prevents further reverting. Of course, I wanted to let you know this as it is technically your block (although the original block was by another admin); if this is unacceptable to you, please let me know as soon as possible. Essjay TalkContact 20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no problem at all. In fact, if I were the original admin on the issue, I wouldn't have blocked at all. Thanks for looking into it. --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Shcool IP[edit]

Hey Nlu, is there a way to find out if an IP adress is a school/shared IP? I really don't know much about this, nor am I familiar with the process that is used to accomplish this. (I am incompetent with this matter, i.e. I know I wouldn't understand any of it) If you could help me i'd really appreciate it. The IP that is claiming to be a school IP, is 210.8.110.36. I've blocked for a month based on the contribs, also the block log showing multiple blocks of 1 week and 1 month. Since this might be a school IP I've unblocked until it can determined whether or not this is a shared IP or not. Thanks KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 03:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have access to a machine that runs WHOIS, that's the best way to go, but even then it may be difficult to tell sometimes. Someone gave me a link to a Web site that can do the same thing before. The WHOIS article may give you more details. --Nlu (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I only comprehended half of what that article had to say...the half that had words like "the", "is" and other short letter words! :-P J/K. But I really didn't understand a lot of it...Do you have access to a machine that uses WHOIS? KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
A couple. Pretty much any Unix machine will have it -- and my Mac is an Unix machine. :-) My old school machine (which I still have access to) can also run it, so that's what I use when I'm not home. --Nlu (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is the big question Nlu....Will you run a WHOIS on the IP? :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 14:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a "portable" IP registered to "AAPT" in Australia; most likely, it's an ISP that doesn't provide static IPs, in which case blocking is pointless except for short durations to stop a rapid vandalism spree. --Nlu (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Nlu! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Glad to help. --Nlu (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

LankaUpdate[edit]

Can you be more specific? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LankaUpdate (talkcontribs)

Take a look at WP:POV. Your edits do not at all comply with that requirement. --Nlu (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP[edit]

Hi. I didn't realise it was a shared IP, thanks for catching it. Is there a way for me to tell in future? It wasn't on the AOL list. Thanks again. --Fire Star 17:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You need to run a WHOIS in order to know -- but even if it's not a shared IP, it really shouldn't be blocked indefinitely either. Just give it a progressively longer block each time. --Nlu (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, will do. Thanks! --Fire Star 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Awesome Block[edit]

About time! Well done!Gator (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 :-) Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

216.125.163.54 block[edit]

Hi, I noticed that we both put blocks on this IP, but for very different times. This is a school IP if I read the talk page right so I gave them a short block (15 minutes) to minimize collateral damage. Unfortunately shorter blocks take presidence over longer ones so the 3 month block won't take effect. If you'd like to unblock and reblock to a longer time that's fine with me, I didn't want to keep a whole school blocked for very long myself though....thanks! Rx StrangeLove 18:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Yeah, I think I'm going to reblock for 3 months; this IP is used only for vandalism, and if there's collateral damage, whoever gets hurt by it can request an unblock. --Nlu (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Or you (or I) can wait another 5 minutes and reblock. But either way is fine, thanks. Rx StrangeLove 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

162.58.0.60 Warning[edit]

Thanks for posting the warning on our frequent FAA vandal on Oklahoma City. I guess he/she is using our tax dollars wisely. Your last block was short-circuited by another admin and didn't last the full week. The frustration on that page is that it isn't watched as frequently and vandalisms by this person can last many hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claygate (talkcontribs)

Yeah... Still, I'm hesitant to block it since the last warning was nearly a week ago. --Nlu (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
He just vandalized Oklahoma City again from a different IP address - must be home from his taxing FAA job. See 205.143.222.10. I don't think this guy reads warnings since is an anon user. --Claygate 01:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, he/she will get notes that he/she's got new messages; whether he/she reads them, of course, is his/her perogative, but the yellow message will stay there until/unless he goes to the talk page. --Nlu (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, now a signed user has reverted my reverts back to the vandalized version - I'm about to give up :( --Claygate 02:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You should drop him a message and explain the situation. --Nlu (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I did and it was an admin making a mistake. He fixed it. Cheers, Claygate 02:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

82.176.207.91 Vandalism[edit]

After you blocked this user for 24 hours for vandalism they returned and vandilised the Water polo article. I have fixed the vandilism but please sort this goose out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zig_c (talkcontribs)

Another chance...[edit]

to take care of a similar vandal in a similar manner as the other day. 147.31.4.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the history shows that a legitimate user shares the same IP. I'll block for one hour, but that's it. --Nlu (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Brentwood School[edit]

Thanks for blocking Viatoris2001. I MOVEd the page back to its old location - can you double-check that this is fine? IainP (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

hey[edit]

i know you've helped me in the past...got two vandals, one on the CPR page, one on the novel, i reverted ... should i do anything else? Should an admin follow up? Thanks JamieJones talk 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. If the vandalism is serious, you can consider asking an admin to protect the page by asking on WP:RPP. If a particular vandal returns and has been warned but won't stop, you can ask for block of that person by asking on WP:AIV. --Nlu (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Spock[edit]

Sorry.. even Commander Spock can't help me now... ;-) — Moe ε 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

About that IP[edit]

I think it needs to cool off and it keeps on attacking the user claiming that she is Susan. Either way it is unpleasent for a contributor who does make reasonable contribution even though it may be autobiographical. Dr Debug (Talk) 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suzy_Sachs&action=history doesn't that at least qualify for a 3RR. Not to mention all the shouting on user pages that he is right? I'm sorry but that IP needs to be blocked right away! Dr Debug (Talk) 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not helping. I'm sorry but I've had it with loud mouthed people like that. And it is always very nice that somebody could intervene especially since the original user felt threatened by this guy and I don't feel comfortable with somebody shouting fraud. So this is no thanks for you. I'm sorry but that was a job not well done! Dr Debug (Talk) 02:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I felt I had insufficient knowledge of the situation. If you're going to slam me, go ahead. --Nlu (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I already had a feeling that it was going to be very unpleasent dealing with the guy, because there was an earlier flame fight at the Help desk because she asked for help because he took revenge on her user page. From what I can now from a distance is that he probably had a point and that she wrote an autobiography and made herself a director when she was a casting director, but this guy just kept shouting and I saw him shout at Curps as well who didn't have a clue as to what was going on either. I took a huge fight just to figure out what his problem was. Anyway it's over now and maybe he'll cool off. I think that our casting director is gone though. I already had the feeling at the Helpdesk that she felt threatened by him. So I shouldn't have checked the page later on and reverted. But then again it was an hour wasted with a useless fight. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Norm Coleman Entry Censorship.[edit]

Since you so cowardly took the path you did, feel free to address the issue here:

http://www.democrats.com/

Bob will stand by my entry about your activities tonight.

Preventing me from posting to the discussion thread started on my entry on the Coleman page was a big mistake, dude.

I don't bluff. I also know the law. I'm already drafting the FEC complaint about you offering free advertising to Norm Coleman. That is illegal.

I will propose a compromise on the edit I made though...

You ask for a credible source? Would a sworn and filed statement to the effect of that paragraph by myself count? I can go see a Notary easy enough, and I'll put myself under oath on the subject.

Even if I do, I'm a bit miffed about the bias displayed here, and feel that there is ample probable cause to initiate an FEC investigation, and nothing you can do can stop that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.204.193 (talkcontribs)

I have no intent to defend Mr. Coleman; I don't know whether he's guilty of what you're charging him with. However, again, a lack of sources means that you're not getting this in, sworn statement or not. See WP:NOR. Continued violation of this policy and violation of WP:3RR will simply get you progressively longer and longer blocks. When in Rome, do as the Romans. --Nlu (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Norm Coleman[edit]

I unprotected it, thinking it was just one user (it was basically one user on the 8th and early AM of the 9th) but someone else hit it. I reprotected. So you may hit me on the noggin' as hard as you'd like. Have at it! lol --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, the most recent edits are arguably not vandalism (and that's why I didn't remove them), but that prior vandal has already changed IP once and I expect him/her to come back again. --Nlu (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi There![edit]

Looks like we were trying to block the same IP vandal simultaeneously. I'll remove the notice I place on User talk:150.176.182.29. Sorry if there was a conflict. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 15:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm leaving my warning tag in place and I increased the block to one week for blanking the talk page and adding an obsenity laced personal attack there in its place. Thanks in advance, Regards Hamster Sandwich

Can't revert vandalism[edit]

I'm trying to revert the vandalism by 156.63.242.11 (talk · contribs) (who you recently blocked) on the Igor Stravinsky page, but my changes aren't being saved for some reason. Can you help? —Wrathchild (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like what happened was that he removed his own vandalism. If that is the case, when you try to revert, since the version you try to revert to is identical to the version he saved (by removing his own vandalism), the database won't consider it an edit. --Nlu (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA nom[edit]

I really appreciate the vote of confidence, but I think I should wait a little longer before trying again. It seems like most of the "Against" votes didn't feel the my tenure was long enough. (P.S. I was having the same rvv problem that the message above described with Rosa Parks. I tried 4 times to revert it before giving up). OhNoitsJamieTalk 19:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One way to see is to go to the history of the page and compare the version prior to the vandalism and the vandal's final version. If they're identical, then we're OK. --Nlu (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)