User talk:Nlu/archive19

Spam?

How was what I posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History spam? Half of the external links on the page are to blogs and forums. http://www.shadowedrealm.com/ has articles, over 1,000 glossary terms, hundreds of timeline events, etc. Did you even look at the site? What kind of a basis are you using to judge what counts as vandalism or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.199.47 (talk • contribs) .

"There are other spam sites on the page" is not a good reason to allow spam links to stand. For the Wikipedia guidelines on external links, see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Nlu (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then get rid of all of those other spam links. If you're going to edit a page to 'remove spam,' why not remove all of the spam links from the page?

I do not want my link back. I do think, however, that it's ridiculous that you remove the link that I added, which at least had some useful information, while at the same time you let several other links stand *on the same page* that are better examples of spam than mine was. I'm not going to argue your decision, but I do think that if you're going to make it your policy to remove spam, you should do a better job of it. I checked on one of the forum links in the history of the page, and it's been up for at least a year. Good job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.199.47 (talk • contribs) .

I don't have the ability to go track down every single spam link on every page on Wikipedia; I can only get rid of them as I see them. There is a reason why people add {{cleanup-spam}} tags; that's so that someone more familiar with the page in question can go in and review the links that are already on. --Nlu (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...

When you reverted the vandalisim on my page, I looked at your page and saw it had been vandalizing 102 times (I believe) So, I watched it and have reverted any vandalisim ever since. Has the page ever been protected? ForestH2

It had, when vandalism was particularly bad. Since that hasn't been the case, it's no longer protected. --Nlu (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's good...Wow, 114 or so vandals. I knew of 30, 40 but not over 100!. ForestH2

Fifth-century year and decade reverts

I'm curious as to why you thought [this version] of the 410s decade entry was better than [this one]? (Of course, the original page was cleaner before you removed the no-include tags from the interwiki links of the included years...) Abou 03:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought in your edits, you also took out a bundle of Interwiki links, or am I misreading something? --Nlu (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Decade List template adds interwiki links automatically; the ones in the article were redundant. I guess I should have explained what I was doing in the edit summaries... Abou 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. --Nlu (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

Well, please don't misuse Wikipedia tags. The link was neither commercial nor from my own website. The link I added represents one pov on Jesus, and being the chapter of a book is well referenced, lenghty and informative. --Iendo 09:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you believe the link belongs in there, please discuss on Talk:Jesus. --Nlu (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link provides an overview of secular and psychological interpretations by e.g. Nietzsche, Freud, Jules Soury,, W. Hirsch, Ch. Binet-Sanglé, and G.L. de Loosten, Dr. Schweitzer and others. It is as informative as the other external links. Being an admin, you should point to me to concrete arguments per WP:External links. It is surely more informative than this [1]. --Iendo 09:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is irrelevant because it's a pure modern interpretation of Jesus that is not supported by historical evidence. That there are other irrelevant links on the page is not a good reason to include another one. --Nlu (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link is not so much an interpretation of Jesus but much more an account of different interpretations by psychologists and secularists. It is about the secular and psychological interpretations and perspectives on Jesus. The section and the whole article has already many different pov's, but rather from a religious perspective (Muslim, Jehova Witness...) and not from secular and psychological perspectives, which are underrepresented. --Iendo 10:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my point is: rather than linking it, you can discuss adding content to the article on Talk:Jesus. As it stands, the link itself is not sufficiently relevant to be added as an external link under WP:EL. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User EurowikiJ keeps removing warnings and ignores them

Hi. Could you please help - User:EurowikiJ keeps removing warnings from his talk page. He was warned several times not to blank sourced sections, but he neither wants to discuss it and ignores policy warnings. Now he even removes warnings from his talk page. Could you please help?

Thanks. Mostssa 11:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk vandalism

Hi. Could you please have a look at this vandalism of a user page: [2] It’s exactly the same vandalism as Hetoum did at Khojaly massacre page, even though there’s no direct proof that this time it was him. Grandmaster 18:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this appears likely to be an ISP proxy (EarthLink), I am not going to block, but I added a new {{test4-n}}. Consider requesting a CheckUser. --Nlu (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think he ever used this IP to log in to his account, but I may request check user if the vandalism continues. Thanks. Grandmaster 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your gentle rebuke

This is in reference to your, "Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites)." The offending website (www.henrymerwinshrady.com) has 100+ photos of the Grant Memorial by Henry Merwin Shrady -- and almost nothing else. Please help me understand why such a link doesn't belong in the "Henry Merwin Shrady" and "Ulysses S. Grant" articles.

It doesn't belong in Ulysses S. Grant's, for sure, because it has almost no relevance to Grant's life. If you believe that it does, please discuss on Talk:Ulysses S. Grant. Before you do, however, check out WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Nlu (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your vigilante nonsense

I've checked out a lot of your reverts and have come to the conclusion that you are just deleting almost all links on pages, especially on China-related sites. Many of these pages are in no way shape or form spam, except by perhaps your twisted definition which is neither supported by Wikipedia WP:SPAM or general consensus on the internet. You need to get off your high horse and stop deleting perfectly legitament links and then threatening to ban helpful users in the process. It is inconsistent with other similar Wikipedia pages and needs to stop. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JDDunn9 (talk • contribs) .

WHY?

Why did you revert my edit, "Rape is having non-consensual sex with another"? The present definition that states there needs to be force for rape to be present seems patently untrue. There need not be any force in "statutory rape," or raping someone who is unconscious. Often there is just the threat of force, no actual force. Are you saying if a female willingly has sex with someone because she fears for her life that she is not being raped?

Michael D. Wolok 01:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an incomplete definition, which still has the same problem that you complained of (since consent is not a defense to statutory rape), and you also took out the pertinent fact that almost every jurisdiction requires sexual penetration. In fact, your edit leads to more issues since it takes out the explanation that if consent were obtained by force, threat, or other duress, it is not valid. --Nlu (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu,

The reason statutory rape is a crime is minors can't give consent. If consent is obtained by force, that is not considered true consent, but "consent under duress." "Consent under duress" is not willing consent. "Consensual" implies "willing consent." No one would say that sex that was extracted by threat is "consensual" even if consent is given. I agree with your criticism that I should have included the fact that rape usually implies penetration. But is penetration of the mouth, rape or just sexual assault? How do you feel about my emended edit: Rape is non-consensual sex, in particular penetration of the vagina or anus. ?

Michael D. Wolok 14:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape"

WikiLove!

Here's a pizza for you! Pizzas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others using Template:smile! Happy editing! ~Linuxerist (talk · contribs)

Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nlu

> Still wrong, because very few jurisdictions consider forcible oral sex "rape."

Isn't this EXACTLY what I said, and what my edit says. Are you reading my words? I don't understand why you are saying my definition is less accurate, when "force" is not a necessary element of rape, but non-consent is needed for rape. Since minors are not able to give consent, that is why we have statutory rape. I don't understand your problem. I am not sure how to invite other editors to participate. I wish you would do this, since I don't have the know how. I am willing to abide by popular opinion. I just ask you to get a few other people involved.

Michael D. Wolok 18:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... can we be friends?

plz? Angry Gnome 00:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Angry_Gnome[reply]

Uh, I don't understand this one. In any case, please just contribute to the project. --Nlu (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahahaha man that guy's desperate. wikipedia ain't myspace man.--Bonafide.hustla 07:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

hey Nlu, long time no talk. Well, I was wondering if I am qualified as a good candidate for adminship because I have been doing a lot of soul searching lately and I really like the idea of being more productive on wikipedia. I also genuinely hope to contribute more to this great project. But anyway I hope I can have your support. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 07:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, not yet. For someone to be an admin, he/she really needs to contribute more to the quality of the project. I am hopefully that you'll get there, but right now I can't honestly say that I'll support you. --Nlu (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this definition?

How is this definition: "Rape is non-consensual penetration of the vagina or the anus (for sexual gratification). It is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."?

I put (for sexual gratification) to make clear we are not talking about a doctor doing emergency surgery on an unconscious patient.

or maybe

"Rape is penetration of the vagina or the anus (for sexual gratification) against the wishes of the individual. It is usually achieved by physical force, the threat of injury or some manner of coercion."?

This is the edit as it stands now:

"Rape is forcing somebody into sexual activity, in particular sexual penetration, against his or her will through use of physical force, threat of injury, or other duress."

PLEASE NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT EDIT FORCABLY KISSING SOMEONE OR FORCABLY TOUCHING THEM IN ANY SEXUAL MANNER WOULD BE CONSIDERD RAPE, AS "SEXUAL ACTIVITY" CAN JUST BE KISSING OR TOUCHING THE BREAST OR BUTTOCKS.

Michael D. Wolok 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Better. And as you pointed out, there is a flaw with the current description. But I'd still say that input from others would be helpful. --Nlu (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson

What makes you an authority on Mike Tyson (or Physicians for that matter)? Do you have nay information that disproves the content i added? Stick to the areas you do know, and please do not interfere in areas you do not know about. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faito (talk • contribs) .

What I am sure is that you're not familiar with Wikipedia's regulations. See WP:VAIN and WP:NPOV, for example. --Nlu (talk) 09:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trebuchet

Why did you delete the link to the WSJ article? --Hesperides

I did not find it relevant. if you believe that it belongs (and there is a policy against linking to subscription articles anyway, though), please discuss on Talk:Trebuchet. --Nlu (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you dealt with MostWanted05 or the 86.xxxx user?

I have no choice, I will report this person to the Wikipedia commitee. He choose to continue the "think I own this site" excuse "over-and-over" again! Wikipedia:Requests for comment/user:MostWanted05 Any thoughts? Thanks. LILVOKA. 31 May 2006 04:33 (UTC)

User 81.171.170.30

Hi, you blocked this IP address for vandalising my user page. They have twice since removed all warning tags, including you block notice, from their talk page. Surely this counts as further acts of vandalism, does this merit a longer block? --Wisd e n17 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but I'll protect the page. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not add commercial links!

Hi NIu,

I do not add any commercial link! Please visit the website and make sure that content is not commercial. By the way, I edit your articles and add useful information, that's why I add an external link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.164.105.16 (talk • contribs) .

Not all non-commercial external links are acceptable. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM on the guidelines. In particular, it is exceedingly rare that a site that takes membership will be considered acceptable under those guidelines. Please stop adding the links. --Nlu (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you are being unfair to an innocent user!

I did not know that administrators are into bullying people like me out to improve the site. As Jimbo Wales himself states, he does not want a hierachical system dictating wikipedia, but you, YOU are bullying me because you do not agree with my edits. I links my claims of the Brisbane Grammar School sexual abuse scandal to two incriminating websites, but you simply dismissed them. I am about to take this attempt to bully your own opinion and push me out of the way to a higher level. I demand justice, because my additions to the article were perfectly fair. Don't you start with me, just because you're an administrator. you are nothing more than an opinionated vandal, ruining the site. please explain why you deleted my addition, before i take this to a higher level. i demand justice. --138.130.217.86 10:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you should see, I had reversed the warning after finding supporting documentation -- and a law firm's self-serving one-paragraph assertion is not sufficient supporting documentation -- which you could have done yourself. Wikipedia requires verifiability, which your edits fell woefully short of. --Nlu (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, Nlu, but what about the OTHER SITE??? conveniently forgot to mention that one, didn't you? as well as this, the school board has verified the incident occured. what more do you want? a video documentary of the incident? a novel about it? I am working with facts. it is not in your jurisdiction to classify what you think is 'woefully inadequate' and what is acceptable. I am replacing my edits once again, and if you delete them without warrant, i will be taking this to a higher level. --138.130.217.135 00:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. As I noted, the sites that you added are hardly informative; I had to find that report and link to the report, which provides far more information. --Nlu (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

81.171.170.30

Hello. I became aware that you instigated a 24 hour block on this IP address due to minor vandalism to the talk page of Wisden17. However, the time period has expired but the protected talk page banner is still present on the talk page. Thanks. --New t on2 18:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Thanks for informing me. --Nlu (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK all well now --New t on2 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Spam

The links you removed to Zionism-Israel.com in the Israel Entry were not spam and fit the definition of links to be added as external links to articles. I suspect you didn't even bother looking before your removed them. I am going to replace them. If you have an issue with that, then you will need to remove almost all the other links there as well. Zionism-Israel.com, like Wikipedia, is a volunteer effort, not a commercial Web site, and the links are there to provide materials about Israel that could not possibly be fit into that article - a few hundred entries in an encyclopedia, dozens of map links. Mewnews 20:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they're commercial or not is not entirely dispositive. See WP:SPAM and WP:EL. In particular, the links are not particularly germane to Israel overall; they might be germane enough to Zionism or History of Israel, something that I do not express an opinion on right now. --Nlu (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

son of man

You've got impressive credentials. It looks like I've been reverted by one of the best. I'm referring to the son of man reversion. I looked for an explanation on the discussion page but didn't find it. I'm still sort of new at this. Anyway, I was hoping you could school a newbie and tell me what I did wrong. Was it a POV issue? I really struggled to be neutral when I gave the context for the quote. Thanks. -Jonathan

It wasn't a neutrality issue, but a relevance issue. A discussion about the Biblical Jesus and his views really fits a lot better in Jesus (and even that article cannot be continually expanded, and expanded, and expanded) than in Son of Man, which should be about that epithet for Jesus and any other uses of the term, not about theological issues about Jesus. --Nlu (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean. Can I put the quote back in and have my material refer strictly to the usage of the term "son of man"? Jonathan Tweet 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, make it relevant, and you'll be OK. --Nlu (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contents of chinese character talk page

sorry if i made a mistake

however, i did not remove anything without valid reasons, as im sure i made a change citing valid reasons but when i was loading my changes, an error occured; so im blaming my comp 202.37.68.206 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) No problem. Just be careful. --Nlu (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting the G-Unit article

That user MostWanted05 has redirect the article and disrupts the pages. As well as other unknown users. Can you semi-protect The Game's article if you see too much vandalism and revert wars? Thanks.LILVOKA 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't protect the G-Unit article; I assume another admin did, however. I'll keep The Game (rapper) in mind. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ReCap: The G-Unit is protected (June 2, 2006), but one of those users from the previous edit war left vandalism on the bottom of the paragraph:

-While attending a video release for labelmate Busta Rhymes, Tony Yayo and Lloyd Banks had a heated exchange with producer Swizz Beatz. After Tony Yayo and his entourage left abruptly, a shooting had occurred leaving one of Busta Rhymes' bodyguards dead. The New York Police Department is currently investigating the incident. Since the death, Tony Yayo as well as Busta Rhymes have been tight lipped about the incident, forcing the police to subpoena the rappers to testify. This on-going controversy surround the street credibility of rappers is determined on the power of not talking to police [external link]. dont mess with g-unit or you'll get capped!-

ReCap: MostWanted05 and the user 24.10.74.104 are hot buttons. I do play some fault in this situation, but it seems like there's got to be a simple compromise to editing these articles. These users are just ruining the articles and believe that me and Ted87 are the ones who disrupt articles. I'll get to the point, I will no longer disrupt these articles in a edit war with these users. I seen there's too much rumor and not fact in each article I revised. I guess the one way to solve this problem with The Black Wall Street, The Game, 50 Cent, G-Unit and Aftermath Entertainment nightmare is either redo it again or request a block. The user MostWanted05 is still on request for comment. I am planning on getting user:24.10.74.104 on the request also. Thanks again for reading. I will practice better editing. LILVOKA 10 June 2006 14:35 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute of deletion

MostWanted05 is causing vandalism (as a form of retaliation for the deletion of Young Life and Lil Dumu articles) and is disrupting articles to make a point at addressing his distaste for other users who dispute his uploads and articles writings. This user is on request for comment, see here. Examples Include:

Hot Rod (rapper) and Spider Loc

Thanks Again LILVOKA 10 June 2006 13:45 (UTC).

SlipKnoT

well, someone decided to blank the SlipKnoT page and move its content to the Slipknot page. I see no difference in that and what i did. I tried moving it, but the SlipKnoT page already existed and it would not let me move, so instead, i just transfered the contents... -Xornok 07:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a violation of GFDL. If you want to move the page, discuss. Don't get into a move war. If you can't complete the move after a consensus discussion, ask an admin for help on WP:AN. --Nlu (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet User:167.191.250.81/User:70.231.240.13

Following up on our yesterday's communication, this has been a total waste of time on my part:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry/Libelous links from User:167.191.250.81
User talk:A. B.#WP:AN/I
User talk:167.191.250.81 - note the history of deletions, etc. in the last 24 hours.

The sockpuppet issue was totally overlooked. I appreciate your help yesterday, but I don't seem to have accomplished much in the meantime. If you have any further advice, let me know. At this point, if this user's behavior is acceptable to the powers that be, then I see no point in my pursuing the matter further.

Again, thanks for your help and advice yesterday, Nlu.--A. B. 22:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. A lot of times it may look as if we are being overly lenient, but be aware that when it comes to shared IPs, multiple people can be editing from that IP, and blocking an IP will affect many people, and that's why there's a hesitation to do so without very recent vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:PoolGuy

PoolGuy is back, placing 3 NPA tags on my talkpage. PLease come on by and check if the accusations are justified.--Bonafide.hustla 05:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is (particularly not three of them), but right now I don't think I should be further involved in blocking him (which I think is justified). It is probably better for you to ask for help in WP:AN/I. --Nlu (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably best for you to warrant a block. Because PoolGuy resumes vandalism on my user talkpage and reverting contents on my talkpage. However, no other admins seem to be interested in taking on the case. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 20:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel I should at the moment. Let's see how his behavior is after the arbitration (which should close any day now). --Nlu (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish composer cats

Thanks for help with Jewish composer cat. User seems to have reappeared with a new user name, but same old mode of editing. User:ComposerCleanup Badagnani 11:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is still reverting. Gah. "Hi. Stop reverting back and I won't revert either. Then we can talk. ComposerCleanup 11:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)" is what he has messegd me with. Suggest another block? Thankyou muchly xxx HawkerTyphoon 11:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to submit the situation to WP:RCU, noting that the user is violating 3RR. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

No problem. Any time -- Samir धर्म 04:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymization of user name at User talk:211.27.149.19

Just to let you know, I reversed an edit you made to User talk:211.27.149.19 and I'm not entirely sure if there's some obscure policy at work that I don't know about. The edit you reverted removed a students name from the page and I think this info would only be useful internally for the school (and should remain private to them). Using headers wasn't the best way for the user to accomplish this of course... Antonrojo 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see any reason to "protect" the vandal's identity; it might be useful later on if we choose to contact the school again regarding the particular vandal. --Nlu (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condom external links

Hi there, I was wondering if you could explain to me why you reverted the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom), on which I added a couple of external links, to an older version? If you took the time looking at the links, you would've seen that the articles where very informative. They where not meant as a commercial link to this company! Please respond and revert it to my version please. If it makes you feel any better, we can decide to remove the main link to the website...

Thanks in advance,

Benjamin (incorrectio)

I don't believe that the links themselves satisfy WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Nlu (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Sorry for my ignorance, but could you tell me which part of WP:EL and WP:SPAM do not satisfy? There is, for example, a link in the external links area to a small movie on how to put on a condom. I posted a simular link, which contained a movie in much higher quality, and in two different formats. Why not show that? There also was a story about the history of condoms, which is a well written article. Same goes for the what to do and to do not with a condom... The fact that the links all go to the same site, is probably the reason you thought I spammed the external site. This really is not the case. I just thought the links could be nice and would make the article about condoms more complete. Hope you might consider reverting my version, cause it really are nice sources.

Hope you have a nice day!

Benjamin --Incorrectio (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2006

You can discuss on Talk:Condom whether the links are appropriate. "There are other spam links!" is not a reason to add even more links onto the page. --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Again, Seems the discussion on the Condom talk page isn't goging to fast. Why can't I just add the links?? Check them out if you think they aren't OK. Hope you can give me some arguments that prove I'm wrong, or why you think these links are spam and commercial... Benjamin --Incorrectio (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2006

User:167.191.250.81 misbehaving again

FYI, User:167.191.250.81 is deleting warnings from his/her talk page again. You had tangled with this person before. I reverted the most recent deletion and left another note. No action is required on your part -- I just thought you'd be interested. Cheers, --A. B. 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Peterson

I find your comments to be excessively arrogant since you have de-neutralized the page to a view which seems to be the official view of the Modesto Police Dept. and assuredly not of everybody. There are a substantial number of individuals who would point out that this case represents the worst injustice in recent history; Peterson having been convicted in a lynch mob atmosphere and with a complete lack of probative evidence against him. As yet I have seen no one who can make a case for guilt based on factual evidence, and, in fact, the prosecution's own evidence and witnesses make it clear he can be eliminated as a suspect.--A Voice of Sanity 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having "alleged" in there is fine, but attributing a motive to the MPD is not. Please read WP:NPOV. --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Brocchini admitted on video that he focused on Peterson before he ever went to his home. The MPD "efforts" to examine other persons were thinly disguised attempts to make all other suspects go away, even to the extent of "accidentally" hypnotizing witnesses incorrectly so they could not testify for Peterson, and destroying evidence he could use - for which they where censured by the court. There is a complete lack of evidence of guilt and a mountain of evidence of innocence. The malice of the MPD was undisguised. Brocchini admitted in court that he altered witness statements and perjured himself in order to convict. Distaso lied about his own evidence in his closing. Their motives were clear, and a comparison with the case of Gilbert Cano makes that all too evident. Your changes are NOT neutral and show a clear bias for conviction despite the lack of evidence.--A Voice of Sanity 20:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the conviction was just or not, a conviction was a conviction, and it would not only be POV but factually incorrect to state that it's not a conviction. Please take it further to Talk:Scott Peterson to see if you can get a consensus to agree with you. If not, any further changes by you will be construed as vandalism and be dealt with as such.

For the record, I believe that, to say the least, imposing the capital punishment in the case is injust, but whether you or I consider it injust is irrelevant; that's POV and doesn't belong in the article. --Nlu (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the vandal here. Your arrogance in assuming that each and every conviction is final is not supported by any facts, nor is it by the existence of an entire series of appeals courts. The sentence was insane, but the conviction is what shocks the conscience of judges, lawyers, police officers, forensic scientists and hundreds of other thoughtful people who simply ask what proof was offered of guilt? As yet none has been proffered by any reasonable person.

It is correct to state that Peterson was convicted. It is NOT correct to state that he murdered his wife when all of the evidence, without exception, proves the converse.

Stop altering my corrections to this page which are designed to return it to the original neutral point of view and stop imposing your arrogant opinions which are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. You clearly have no knowledge of the facts of this case and your opinions are worth nothing.--A Voice of Sanity 01:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If you don't have consensus behind you, your rhetoric won't be followed. --Nlu (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? I agree that the majority believes in his guilt. What I know is that I have yet to find even one person - anywhere - who can make a case for guilt based on evidence. They say he "looked guilty" or "didn't behave right" or they "believe he did it". A majority also believed in Iraq's WMD, at least before the war. People believe in all sorts of things. I only believe in facts. Each and every proposition that is made for his guilt can be destroyed, most of them trivially. Almost all of the arguments for guilt rely on the presumption of guilt to support them. Circular argument does not impress me.--A Voice of Sanity 01:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works on the principles of consensus. If you cannot work with others, get out of Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly cannot work with me. Take your own advice.--A Voice of Sanity 02:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your take on a silly edit war involving User:Skinmeister

In perusing his talk page, this uer's activities seem to be primarily disruptive and intentionally provocative. He is intent on capitalizing bell hooks's name in the article "Blackface", when the author clearly does not capitalize her name, it is not capitalized in other articles on the web, in print, or in the Wikipedia article devoted to her. I've reverted the capitalized version, but this user seems intent on pressing the issue. What do you suggest? Thanks. deeceevoice

I'd say, considering filing an RfC on this issue. It'd be good to have not just you, but other people, telling him/her that he/she is wrong. --Nlu (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolok RfC

As someone who has previously expressed exasperation with Wolok and who has been the recipient of some of his personal attacks, you may be interested in the RfC I have filed about him. Some of your interactions are described by me there. -lethe ^{talk +} 15:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PoolGuy

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the link above.

Delivered as a clerk to the arbitration committee. I take no part in making the decisions. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PoolGuy

He's on a 1 account block per ArbCom, I just chatted w/ Dmcdevit and Mindspillage and they concur. If he keeps putting unblock on the page though I think a pageprotect migth be in order -- Tawker 03:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. What do they think about the 15-minute block I imposed on him? Should I unblock him? --Nlu (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected his user page. He is allowed to use one account and seems to have chosen to use PoolGuy. I have addressed the question of GoldenToeMarrionette on Requests for arbitration. Fred Bauder 11:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CityNightLine Passenger compartments

What should be done for cleanup (to this article)? Book s worm Talk to me! 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it needs to be shorter and have less of an advertising feel, and I think it should be merged into the main article -- the compartments themselves are not sufficiently notable to have their own article. --Nlu (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

User:Drini deleted userbox "gangster" out of process. Although an overwhelming consensus showed support to keep the userbox. I am hoping you can get involved in this situation and possibly stop the abuse of admin power from occuring. Thanks. P.S. As you might have noticed, PoolGuy has been block indefinitely. :)--Bonafide.hustla 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks for the update. As to the gangster userbox, I'll think about it, but there is precedent for doing this -- kind of with Jimbo's implicit blessing, a bunch of userboxes got deleted several months ago. --Nlu (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Charmed (Charmed episode)

Hi, I noticed that you fixed up the spelling on that page. First off, thank you. There's been a minor (and very slow) revert war over which spelling to use, and I wasn't even sure it was written in a real language. Your edit summary made me very curious, though. Any chance you could translate the spell? —Mi r a 05:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a shot at what I think was the Latin on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th lines; I am still at a loss as to what the 3rd line is supposed to be, much less be able to translate it. --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. If this helps, an old version has the following for the third line: "Mos inconcessis." —Mi r a 01:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]