User talk:Nlu/archive44

Ah

Hey Nlu, it's nice to see you pop up on my watchlist, and I know I haven't stopped by in while, I hope all is well? Stopping by your talk page makes me remember all the times you helped me, when I was still new to Wikipedia, so thank you again for it! (Even though it's been like what 2 years?) It feels good to reminiscence on old times. So please have a cup of refreshing tea, enjoy the rest of your day, and continue to kick vandal butt! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tea is good.

Thanks! (Gobbles it down.) Basically, doing felony trial cases takes a lot of time out of me, and also, Safari 2 isn't the best browser, performance-wise for the purposes of editing Wikipedia, so I had decreased editing. Safari 3 seems to be very, very fast at this.  :-) --Nlu (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I'm a Firefox man myself, but whatever floats your boat and tickles your pickle! lol KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 15:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on a map

Hi Nlu! There is a map that appears on the Nanyue article created by User:Talessman; it has recently been uploaded, and the entity Nanyue has the name (Vietnam) attach to it (at where Canton is). What do you think? Since I know your knowledge of Chinese history is pretty extensive, I hope you gave comments. If you feel any inaccuracy, you can talk to the creator of the map at his talk page or at the map's talk page. I commented to the editor since I feel applying modern political names to ancient states is probably inappropriate, however he feels that since it is a kingdom in Vietnamese history, it should have the name attached to it.--Balthazarduju (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC) This is the map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:East-Hem_200bc_web-sm.jpg

In my opinion, calling Nanyue/Nam Viet (both are reasonable ways to call it, being different romanizations of the same state) Vietnam is misleading and incorrect. --Nlu (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time to commenting on that, however, I think you commented on the wrong map in his talk page, it is a 200 bc map not the 001ad map. The user made a dozen of these maps.--Balthazarduju (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nlu. Thank you for your concerns. You can read my answers to Balthazar's concerns on the talk page for the image. With respect to your knowledge of history, as I pointed out to Balthazar, I had reasons for adding (Vietnam) to Nanye. If the Wikipedia articles I pointed out in that discussion are incorrect, then they need to be corrected as well. Once that happens, and I get reliable source information to prove my map is incorrect, I'll happily fix it. But Balthazar has wasted enough time crying about my maps, instead of correcting the articles I'm using as sources (which he claims are wrong). Sorry, but I'm a *little* beyond tired of Balthazar's self-important whining. If he has information that proves my maps are incorrect, he should present it instead of arbitrarily deleting them from pages. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've responded to the substantive arguments on that talk page. --Nlu (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, Nlu. I responded on the talk page. Would it be a good compromise if I replaced (Vietnam) with (Nam Viet)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talesman (talk • contribs)

I think that would be a good compromise, yes, and I have no opinion on which name goes as the primary name and which goes as the secondary. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Shared IP

Hi Nlu, I noticed you removed the shared IP template, saying ComCast addresses are rarely, if ever, shared. I'm just wondering if you know much about IPs. Sometimes when I run a whois search, I get an error saying "IP Range Reserved" (try 77.116.72.82 for example). Is there a reason this occurs? I'm asking because I've encountered many IPs with that error and they're likely to be the same person. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I've actually ever seen that before. I think the only occasion that I might have seen it, it was an American government intelligence IP. (I'm not kidding.) --Nlu (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Haha I doubt American government intelligence people would be editing those pages :) Thanks for your input anyway. Spellcast (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Louisdale, Nova Scotia

I've been having a discussion with user:GRBerry about this page and Grandique Ferry, Nova Scotia, a similar page. It seems like a conspiracy theorist bringing their own information to Wikipedia. Since the information on the page is based on the sources he provided, what do you think should be done? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just eliminate the external links -- and I'll do that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The links are back up on both pages. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at it. I'm inclined to block the user involved. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Xgmx

Just curious, why the indef block? Sure, he is a bit of a low-level vandal, but maybe a shorter block would be more appropriate, at least as a warning to fly straight. Burzmali (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There have been enough warnings, in my opinion, and he's not productive in the smallest aspect. If he apologizes and promises never to do it again, I might consider lifting the block, but editing is not a right; it's a privilege. Just demanding a block without any promises of reforms in behavior is inappropriate. --Nlu (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not after your head. It's up to him if he wishes to appeal after all. Burzmali (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

:-) --Nlu (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I swear I didn't even read this, I just apologized cuss the new and improved me will stop all vandalism, I'm gonna be on your guys's side, that is if its ok with you. Thanks for the unban, and thanks Burzmali.--Xgmx (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Welcome back. --Nlu (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks again, I'll be looking for some ppl messing up. And remember, I'm watching--Xgmx (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
• Hey take a look, I already spotted 2 or 3 articles that had information about NOTHING, a guy who won a skateboard championship that wasn't even official, lol, wow, now I know how hard I've been on all you admins before, now I see what you have to deal with. I did not however delete those articles just put a article for speedy deletion thing on their.--Xgmx (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nlu I'd like to recommend you re-evaluate the unblocking of Xgmx, [1] [2] [3] here are examples of his "helpful edits" which in my view constitute trolling. And yes he has gone around tagging pages for speedy deletion - with {{db-attack}} on articles were that rational is so obviously wrong. I'll leave the decision up to you. But in my opinion a block is definitely in order, as this guy, contrary to what he claims does not seem to be here to contribute to the encyclopedia. With regards, and happy editing. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give him another chance, but if you think he should be blocked again, I don't have any quibbles with that. The question is whether the tagging is in good faith or not, and I have insufficient knowledge of the subject area to judge that. --Nlu (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with giving second chances - it's just that in my view he already used it up. One of the things he tagged did qualify for SD but he used {{db-attack}} when it was a {{db-bio}}. The thing I have issue with is he went to talk pages of established articles and added {{db-attack}}. Perhaps not an indef ban (I wouldn't argue against an indef ban mind you) but a 1-3 month long block? Because as from what I gather he has a long history of disruption. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me think about it. Thanks for bringing your concerns to me. --Nlu (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I concur I thought a brief block would convince him to think twice before doing something like that, but it apparently only incited further acts of vandalism. Perhaps an RfC is in order? Burzmali (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who reported Xgmx to AIV. I reported him because a few of his subpages showed up on MfD and I noticed a ton of warnings on his talk page and I got tired of his crap. My 2 cents now is if the guy wants to redeem himself, make him do a classroom thing or mentor thing, otherwise the guy wastes too much of other editor's time on his crap. Regards.--12 Noon 02:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My bad everyone, I just saw that a few articles were unimportant: one was about a person of little significant impact (no offense, I mean the guy is a skateboarder, no info on him, only like 2 sentences saying "he skateboards, he won a contest", and it is against the rules to make articles about yourself (unless you like stopped global warming or something) I will consult the official Wiki staff before making moves against vandalism now.--Xgmx (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He's back to his old tricks [4]. He has been warned about this before [5], [6] and [7]. Burzmali 22:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is now in an area that I'm really at a loss, since I'm not a gamer, and therefore I don't really feel qualified to judge whether this is a spam link or not. Would you mind reporting it to WP:ANI and hopefully an admin who is more understanding of gaming can make a judgment call? Thanks. (If an admin wants to confer with me on this, he/she can do so.) --Nlu (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Gao Yan

Thanks for your message. First, it's just a matter of time that the PRC politician Gao Yan, a high official at the governor level, is created. Second, even if the PRC Gao Yan will never be created, there are still two articles for persons named Gao Yan. Although the title of article Emperor Xiaozhao of Northern Qi does not mention his personal name, Gao Yan is the Emperor's name. Many users searching for Gao Yan may want to find the Northern Qi emperor, not the prince. They may be more familiar with the emperor's personal name, not his posthumous name. The title of the Chinese Wikipedia article is simply zh:高演. It's good to keep Gao Yan as a disambiguation page since Gao Yan (Northern Qi prince) is not so famous to be the main article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 04:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. I understand your position. (Although, it should be noted, Emperor Xiaozhao of Northern Qi does mention his personal name.) I thought a {{dablink}} is sufficient, but I will leave it alone. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I know that the article Emperor Xiaozhao of Northern Qi does mention his personal name. I means that the title of the article does not mention his name like Gao Yan (xxx). Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Shakatapuram

Hello,

I noticed that you have nominated this article for deletion. I have cleaned up the article now and have provided reliable third party sources. Please have a look. I would request you to withdraw the nom if you feel that the article is now in a good condition. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work, but I still don't think it asserts sufficient notability. I would appreciate it, however, if you note the cleanup on the AfD page and ask people to reconsider their opinions. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have further added citations to prove notability. The place is of religious significance to Hindus and thousands of devotees visit the place. The new citations that I have added prove this point. Please let me know if this is insufficient for keep. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What I think I'm looking for is whether this is a "religious place" that is of substantially more significance than any other "religious place." If it is, that part needs to be asserted. --Nlu (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to differ with you on that front. I think the only criteria of notability is that the subject in question has been sufficiently covered by reliable third-party sources. So far, I have presented five reliable articles from mainstream newspapers which cover the place or events related to the place. Whether this religious place is more significant than any other religious place, is not a defining point as far as notability is concerned. Please let me know if I am missing something -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; in the United States, for example, churches are referred in newspapers all the time without being, in my opinion, notable churches. There has to be something more significant about the place itself from a religious standpoint. --Nlu (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have a difference of opinion here. I have pinged the Wikiproject Hinduism members, who would have dealt with such notability issues in the past. Lets hope they have something to say on this.. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 10:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WCFL

Sure would appreciate it if you'd monitor this exchange (watch both the talk pages). I know this is not your area of expertise, but it IS mine, and I know what I am talking about. The other user seems to have some agenda. Thank you. -- Elaich ^talk 08:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that it is really completely outside my expertise. I don't think I can be of much help here... --Nlu (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Lop.dong

This user was requesting unblocking, but I see you have already unblocked. Anyway, they wanted some feedback, so I just figured I should make sure you were aware of it. Mangojuice^talk 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. There may be an autoblock in place, which I forgot to check for. I'll take a look. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Public health in the People's Republic of China

Hi Nlu. You recently reverted an edit to this article. I can see an argument for the CDC external link not being appropriate, but the link you restored is to a 404 page and doesn't seem appropriate either. Could you clarify what you were attempting here? Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 18:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought the editor's edits were suspicious and blocked him. I've since reconsidered and reversed the block. --Nlu (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

As you may know, I have been assailed by Swimm1 (talk · contribs) and Swimm11 (talk · contribs), with attacks on my talk page, etc. Add to that list Swimm333 (talk · contribs) and Spongeboy1 (talk · contribs). All demonstrate the same pattern, and I highly suspect they are actually Claymort (talk · contribs), as I have seen numerous similarities to Claymort in all of them. I looked for the sockpuppet case against Swimm1 to add these new accounts, but apparently it has been closed with the indefinite blocking of both Swimm1 and Swimm11. What do you suggest as a course of action? This person needs to be identified, and permanently blocked from Wikipedia. Any help is appreciated. -- Elaich ^talk 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the history I have unraveled. This all began with 65.31.98.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who made controversial edits, yelled at people in caps, commanded people in the edit summaries not to change his edits, etc. If you look at User Talk:65.31.98.166, he calls himself ClayMort. After 65.31.98.166 is blocked, Claymort appears as a registered user. At first, he seemed to be trying to be a responsible editor, but soon degenerated into exactly the same behavior as 65.31.98.166. See User talk:Claymort. Claymort also called me "a homosexual jackass" on my user page, and subsequently ended up blocked. It was quiet for awhile, until the Swimm family showed up. Today, a new version, Spongeboy1. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the same person. They all have the same issue with me, all yell in caps, and all have the same obsession to write the future of Ed, Edd n Eddy before it happens. -- Elaich ^talk 02:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it is rare that the several users with CheckUser privilege would be willing to use that privilege in this type of situation. If you want, I can semi-protect your talk page and protect your user page. Meanwhile, I am going to semi-protect the article. --Nlu (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, I don't think there is enough evidence for me to be sure that 65.31.98.166 and ClayMort are the same person; it's quite possible that they are not, in fact, because when an IP is blocked, usually, user creation will be blocked for a while as well. --Nlu (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I watched you removing the external links in John G. Kennedy and Chitranjan Singh Ranawat pages. My opinion is if given links of their respective web sites, people who search for those physicians may find it helpful. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.93.196 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For reverting the nonsense on my talk page! :) Peace, delldot talk 02:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Referencing may help

Hi, is there anyway you can use <ref> reference syntax more often? It would make it that much easier for other editors if you reference it the first time using whatever source you are looking at. Many of the articles are marked as "no references" by other editors, which is a shame because the contents always check out fine using 3rd party sources. Benjwong (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to do that more (and have been doing that more with articles I wrote lately), although I also would prefer it when people point out what particular facts deserve footnotes. As it stands, I don't really think it needs to be footnoted every single line or so. Thanks for getting to me on this. --Nlu (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Some examples can be Gao Yanzong. Incident at Xuanwu Gate is an example of an article that can use inline ref. I hope you are not offended by the comment in any way. It just helps other editors insert a line or two from our own sources and not mix it up with yours. Especially if you are translating classical texts, which makes your edits probably more direct than anyone elses. Benjwong (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, not offended, just that I think that where the inline citations should go is an issue that I am not good at judging. I think that people can help by adding {{fact}} tags, for example. --Nlu (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warnings to spammers

I usually do use previous levels first but I issued the 4th level immediately because it had already spammed some four articles and it seemed intentionally malicious since it spammed the link multiple times on the same article, on diverse articles, so I'd be surprised if it thought that the link might be useful. -- Mentifisto 07:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Block messages

Sorry about putting Test5's (block templates). I put them on the WP:AIV, and I hope that an admin will ban them. Thanks for telling me about it, and sorry. Weirdy Talk 08:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Stallone grew in Northeast Philly

he went to lincoln high school at ryan and rowland in mayfair. He lived in a twin home in the holme cirle section of NE Philly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.179.130 (talk • contribs)

Then please add a citation to your edit and also write in a grammatically correct manner. Unsourced edits that aren't even explained by an edit summary will generally be considered suspicious, particularly coming from non-established editors. --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

umm..

you left me this message: Thank you for experimenting with the page East Asian calligraphy on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia but i never went on that page OR edited it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.97.158 (talk • contribs)

If your IP address is shared, it was probably an edit from another user using the same IP. To avoid this (as well as potential blocks on the IP, for the most part), register. --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you object?

Would you object to some discussion with Meleniumshane90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) with a view toward lifting his indef block? There is a discussion at ANI about him. I won't lift it or do anything without your consent but would you be open to me talking with him and possibly lifting the block? JodyB _talk 14:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not object. I think he/she can be a productive editor, but must learn how to behave properly. If/once he/she does, I think the block can and should be lifted. --Nlu (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh well.... - JodyB _talk 11:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I take it no-one is going to overturn the block despite his email requests? Spellcast 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not me. His attitude shows that he hasn't learned a thing from this incident. I am for giving people second chances if they understand what they did was wrong. He doesn't (or is trolling despite knowledge thereof). In fact, I am tempted to, again, protect his talk page, and then unblock and reblock to block the IP for a bit longer. --Nlu (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the block seems justified if he's not even learning from it. Spellcast 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock

He comes back nearly every day to make the same edit. I can't even track all the puppets, here is a short list, make sure they all get blocked:

Seajion = Paobroe = Jiowiu = Quagliu = Mouse m = Xeaclee = Finger man5 = Vriovaenue = Dliekruazia = Peter Zhou

SchmuckyTheCat

Yes, but basically this edit was the same one as a series of them a few months ago, but I don't remember the name of the first one. Thanks for getting back to me. --Nlu (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

JackyAustine ? (Can you get rid of Didopad while you're active?) SchmuckyTheCat

Ah, that's what it is. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Can you clear out WP:AIAV please? It is getting backlogged pretty bad. 74.133.9.95 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)`

Will go look. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 74.133.9.95 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I hadn't realized I had gotten 'hit' until i saw you had corrected it. Your efforts are appreciated! --LeyteWolfer 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:-) Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Go Huskers!

Sorry for the personal attacks on Bender, but he is out of line reverting this. Osborne was officially an interim head coach, and as such should be noted here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.213.39 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not; where editors have good faith, different positions, they should try to resolve them by discussion and reaching a consensus. In this case, you should engage in discussion, rather than personal attack. --Nlu (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Either way, you should unprotect the article and fix it the way it should be. I don't have time for Wikipedia nerd games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.213.39 (talk • contribs)

In Rome, do as the Romans do. Wikipedia is a cooperative project. Edit warring is counter to the spirit and law of Wikipedia regulations. That's why I'm asking you to discuss on Template talk:HuskersCoach. If you continue to behave like this, you will (eventually) be blocked from editing. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Words can't describe how annoying I find you Wikipedians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.213.39 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not logical to edit on Wikipedia if you are annoyed by Wikipedians. --Nlu (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about logic, I care about the tradition that is Husker football. Although brief, Tom Osborne was head coach of Nebraska football once again and it was a great few days at that. There are newspaper articles, websites, and local news shows that report all of this, yet Bender decides to throw his ridiculous German self into the mix thinking that he knows best. Coach Tom Osborne is a legend that is being shafted by the Wikipedian bureaucracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.213.39 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Osborne

I request that you remove your block on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:HuskersCoach Bender325 is no longer making logical arguments, and is starting to be insulting and demeaning. Meanwhile, another person has come out to agree with me that it is just common sense that Osborne be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gohuskersosborne (talk • contribs)

Based on what you wrote above, you have a lot of gall calling any other person's argument not logical. Protection stays until there is a wider discussion and consensus. And, if you continue your lack of civility and unreasonableness, you'll be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You just completely blasted my attempt to help Gohuskersosborne understand policy out of the water by blocking him indefinitely after I left him a message and declined to block him. How can it ever hurt to ensure someone understands policy before blocking them for it? I doubt that that comment was serious, or came with a full understanding of how seriously we take edit warring. I find it hard to reason with people who refuse to listen to arguments and compromises, but on Wikipedia ignorance of a rule is an excellent reason not to follow it, no? At this point we might as well see if he posts an unblock request, but I still think that it is important to make sure people know that they will be blocked for breaking policy x, or it becomes a sort of ex post facto block. Prodego ^talk 01:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I felt that I gave him a chance yesterday already (see exchange above) by blocking the IP only 24 hours and not preventing signing up for an account (which he promptly did). During this time, he edit warred some more, harassed Bender, and generally made arguments that cannot possibly be good faith arguments. I don't think he's worth the time to talk to any more. --Nlu (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been accused of being too generous. Mostly because I was given quite a few chances when I was new, and ultimately it worked out for me. I like to give everyone every opportunity to change their mind, to pay that back in a sense. Let me tell you, from my perspective, Wikipedia was a giant maze, with traps everywhere. It took me a long time to grasp the overall picture, and I want to make sure everyone can see that before we call them useless. While I have you, do you mind taking a look at Talk:Don't Copy That Floppy? We could use a few more outside opinions over there, as far as whether the program should be called propaganda. I don't mean to influence you to any side of that argument (actually now a three four way argument), but if you have the time... Prodego ^talk 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I emailed the Nebraska athletic department about their coaches' official status and received a response, which I posted on the talk page. I'd like to see the page unprotected; hopefully cooler heads will prevail this time around. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

129.93.213.38

Why am I being blocked for blanking my own user page? That ridiculous "New Messages" wouldn't get off of my screen, and so I deleted it. I want to be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whateverhappenedtojesus (talk • contribs) 09:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sun Pin

Since you seem to be such an authority on Chinese history you should know Sun Pin had other names IE. Sun Bin, Sun the mutilated and Sun Tzu II. Why did you revert those edits? 206.125.176.3 (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sun Pin" and "Sun Bin" are the same name, different romanization systems. "Sun the mutilated" and "Sun Tzu II" are nonsense; they are not used in Chinese historical resources. It would be similar to referring to George W. Bush as "George Bush II"; it would simply be improper and inaccurate. --Nlu (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true there is a whole book with his work and the author is Sun Tzu II. Ref: Sun Tzu II translated by Thomas Cleary (1996). The Lost Art of War. Harper Collins Publisher (Under HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-251361-3. This book by Thomas Cleary is a translation of the sequel to Sun Tzu's classic strategic manual. I think a publishing firm knows a little more then you do; and as I stated this is referenced and factual so please stop deleting these additions based on your limited knowledge. Thanks 14:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.176.3 (talk)

I disagree. This author uses a title that is not commonly accepted by Chinese historians both in China and in the United States. Just as, for example, there is a book called the Soong Dynasty (referring to Soong May-ling and her family) doesn't mean that the Soong family is commonly, or should be referred to in an encyclopedia article, as the "Soong Dynasty." I've made my arguments on Talk:Sun Bin; please respond there. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Block change notice

Hi. Just a note that I have softened the block you implemented on User:216.190.22.200 as it is a shared ip registered to Sacramento Public Library. If you have any queries please contact me either on my talk page or by email. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 12:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Hi. Is there any way to view the history/content of a deleted article? Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Administrators can see them, but as contents of deleted articles are deleted for hopefully good reasons, we generally will not give people contents of a deleted article without particularly good reason. Is there some content you are interested in having (for example, some content you created so that you can move it to your own subpages)? --Nlu (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I was just curious about some random articles that had been deleted (because they were random and useless). Thanks anyway. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

!

I've noticed frequent vandalism directed towards Wu Zetian. Personally, I don't like her either, but the lady deserves some dignity at the least. Is it possible for you to semi-protect the article? Thanks. Odst (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look. I understand your concerns, but I don't think the level of vandalism justifies semi-protection yet. --Nlu (talk) 09:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

no problem, I got a firm grip on it for the time being. Odst (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One Question

I honestly was wondering why you took out "great father" from the article on Arnold Johnson. He is my grandfather and he was an incredible father too my father.