User talk:Nlu/archive29

User talk:12.167.200.173

Can my user talk page be unblocked now. Vandalizing wikipedia pages is no longer fun anymore, and i would like to have my user talk page unprotected so it doesnt seem as if i am a vandal, which i have no intentions of doing anymore.

Thanks...

...for reverting vandalism on my user page. Waggers 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Lord ciron

I saw on this user's talk page that you have warned him (last warning) for vandalism. Maybe it is time to take action, as he vandalized the Ed Edd n Eddy article overnight. Thank you. -- 75.7.153.51 15:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh.... I think I made a mistake. It looks like it was User:207.210.84.116 who put back slashes in front of all the apostrophes in the article. User:Lord ciron may be innocent. I'm new to this. Sorry. Please check the page history. -- 75.7.153.51 03:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, Lord ciron is not "innocent" in the sense that he's clearly been vandalizing and POV-pushing, to say the least, despite warnings. 207.210.84.116's behavior may be due to a faulty news reader rather than vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk:82.153.184.230

Thank you for your help with my WP:AIV report on this user. I see that you reverted his most recent edits and added a final warning - which should be a great help. Unfortunately, I may not have been clear in the AIV report that this same person is also engaged in the same vandalism from another account - see User talk:Ishilly. I would greatly appreciate if you could add the same warning to user:Ishilly. Best regards. Jogurney 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked it, but I felt that I didn't have enough to justify blocking. Also, this really isn't something that is appropriate for WP:AIV since while it might be vandalism, it's not obvious vandalism. I suggest filing a WP:RFC and see if this person has further things to say about him/herself. --Nlu (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for checking into this. I appreciate your help and will follow your suggestion. Best regards. Jogurney 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Davetabler

Thanks for the indefinite block! --A. B. 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mammal pages

Please stop moving these to lowercase. Use of capitals is standard in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. I also note that, completely contrary to wikipedia policy, you have not even bothered to check that the dozens of double redirects you are creating are fixed. - MPF 11:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that those moves to upper cases had not been explained with any kind of summary at all. WP:TOL, which you cited, did not itself state that the articles are to capitalized. Do whatever you wish, but don't act as if those moves were sufficiently documented. --Nlu (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means check with User:UtherSRG, but generally the style for mammals has followed the same guidelines as Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. I'll admit this doesn't appear to be spelled out on the WP:Mammals page, but the fact remains that the vast majority of mammal pages use caps, and I don't see any reason why it should be changed. - MPF 12:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But there was no reason given for converting them to upper case in the first place -- and in general, pursuant to WP:NAME, second and subsequent words are not to be capitalized. Obviously, if there is a consensus otherwise as to species names, that should be followed, but I don't see one, and this means there is no real reason to deviate from WP:NAME. --Nlu (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Pay some attention; there is a long held convention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). I explained to the person who asked that caps was the convention. --Peta 01:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also did it happen to occur to you that people actively editing these kind of articles might know the article naming conventions. Don't waste my time. --Peta 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And did it occur to you that nowhere in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) is it stated all words of a species' name is to be capitalized? --Nlu (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reblock of 67.128.203.2

Could you please check this out and consider a reblock? Thanks. (I don't know if this is the right way to do this... I just went through the edits of that user. Lots of vandalism.) -- Ben 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP is a shared IP, and there was only one single unwarned instance of vandalism. I don't feel comfortable blocking in this case. If the IP vandalizes further today, please post it on WP:AIV. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

64.2.184.130

Hi! The IP address above is from Montgomery Bell Academy. I wanted to edit Wikipedia from my school using my account, but found that the access was blocked. (Wikimachine 00:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I've converted it to a soft block. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestion page for u to edit

Sino-Indian_War McMahon_Line Aksai_Chin Arunachal_Pradesh Tawang_District

p/s: The may be u can passed the link to ur frens that interested to edit those article.Sawadeekrap 09:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, although I know very little about all of these topics, so when I get the time, I may look at them for style only, but I don't think I can contribute much substantively. --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

199.111.74.57

Hi. You put a {{sharedIP}} tag on User talk:199.111.74.57 several days ago. While this account is registered to the University of Mary Washington, there's no reason to believe it's shared. All of the edits involve spamming middlesell.com links or complaining about the aftermath. Others U of MW IPs he's used have included 199.111.69.111 (talk · contribs), 199.111.71.54 (talk · contribs), 199.111.74.57 (talk · contribs), 199.111.74.73 (talk · contribs), and 199.111.85.42 (talk · contribs), 67.131.148.171 (talk · contribs), 68.110.254.122 (talk · contribs). All appear static.

There's still another university IP, 199.111.85.50, he's used that is shared from looking at the edits.

I was reluctant to remove your tag since I'm not an admin. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that nobody else from the university may be editing from the IP doesn't mean that the IP should not be considered shared for our purposes. The {{sharedip}} tag is basically there to alert the blocking admins to only block with soft blocks, which will still block this vandal. --Nlu (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I ended up imposing a soft block on the range for a month, since I see little productive editing. Whoever wants to edit from the university can log in and edit. --Nlu (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:thousandsons

This user has been blocked months ago, why is there so much activities in his userpage in the last week?--Certified.Gangsta 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question, but without further evidence, I am hesitant to label these IPs as sockpuppets. --Nlu (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Sites

I understand your concern about commercial sites placing external links, however I was wondering why you removed FilmSpot from the external links and not the other obviously commercial external links. I placed the link in order to give users another choice amongst the several sites that are already listed. If you really have that much of a problem with commercial sites on external links, will you remove the other links as well? When one of our users comes on here and adds the site, will you delete it then?

Again, I understand your concern with preventing outright spam of wiki pages, I just want to clarify your position... --216.239.124.38 19:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

That there are other possibly spam sites is not a good defense for adding another one. I don't have the ability to spend my time looking at every one of these links. The link that you added is, in my opinion, violative of WP:EL and WP:SPAM, and that's why it was removed. It doesn't have anything to do with the relative merits of the site. --Nlu (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I can see your point, and while I may disagree with the fact that you chose to only remove the link that I added, I will refrain from re-linking on that wiki page. If anything, I can agree that it is a conflict of interest for me to add a page that I personally worked on. I really do believe that as a site that does not force registration to allow users to access information, actively encourages users to submit information about movies, and opens the door to discussion about movies that it can be a valuable resource. I hope that should a user of our site add such a link in the near or distant future, as a resource and not as a promotion, that you would consider the merits of leaving the link intact. --216.239.124.38 19:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. My suggestion is to discuss the matter on the talk page of the article involved, and see what the community consensus is. --Nlu (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

66.99.1.66 (talk · contribs)

Can you protect my talk page? I requested that my userpage be unprotected but now this anon is trying to vandalize my talk page. This is nuts, I would like to be able to get rid of this guy. Thanks either way. --Strothra 21:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. I don't think a range block is justified at this point, and IP block isn't going to be effective. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pyrenees External Links

Hi,These 2 links have been removed from the Pyrenees page:

• Pyrenees Guide a detailed guide of the Pyrenees Mountains.
• Pyrenees Tourism travel information resource for the Pyrenees.

I don't consider Pyrenees Guide and Pyrenees Tourism as inappropriate external links (and as such, to be removed). I think they are 2 of the best information resources about the Pyrenees Mountains on the internet and that is why i included them as external links. Sorry for my English. Regards —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davicito (talk • contribs) 10:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Forumula1.net

Dear Nlu, I registered to question the continued management of the External Links appearing

upon the F1 page of Wikipedia. I am a member, and friend of the owner (who happens to socialise with the F1 fraternity), of the aforementioned site.

Following a recent 'Spam cleanup' (Manipes description), only the 'most reputable sites' were kept, removing the majority of non-commercial, not-for-profit and non-spam sites. Now I see absolutely no logic in this. Surely Wikipedia should be embracing the best independents, and not supporting those sites with shareholders to satisfy. I am at a total loss as to this action, and disappointed in the actions of the users in removing such sites.

I don't want to make an issue of this, but I would like to see such sites reinstated. Yes, some do carry advertisements, but believe me when I say that the $5 such sites make by showing such relevant ads, goes little or nowhere to affording the hosting let alone their URL.

F1Reader (aka Sally)

Take a look at WP:EL and WP:SPAM. The Wikipedia community has, as a whole, reached a consensus as to what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting reading, so given that Forumula1.net would be considered more appropriate as an external link than the ones currently linked to, would you consider re-including such websites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.14.244 (talk • contribs)

Not in my opinion; the proper solution is to remove sites that you consider inappropriate, not to add sites that are inappropriate even if less inappropriate, but you are free to discuss this at this appropriate talk page. --Nlu (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nlu, I have decided to follow your advice having seen that the page appeared again today. So are you looking forward to the new season? F1Reader 17:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

12.169.162.99

States on User talk:12.169.162.99 "Hai guys. This isn't a proxy". I'll throw it on WP:OP for checking, but I thought you should know as the blocking admin. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I still find it suspicious that Blu Aardvark (talk · contribs) was able to use it, if it wasn't an open proxy. --Nlu (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What the? User:Darkfangal

I just make a new accout and you falg me? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkfangal (talk • contribs)

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you are blocked, you wouldn't have been able to post this message. --Nlu (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

Hi Nlu, An editor left a warning on my talk page for vandalism saying that I've reverted large sections of edits made by anons. This was due to anons adding edits which conflicted with certain guidelines and vandalism. I have no idea where this editor came from since he hasn't edited in quite some time and comes back on to warn me. I'm suspecting he's one of the anons. Regardless, my edits aren't vandalism and you can see my contrib history. Could you remove the vandal warning from my talk page? I don't like removing them myself. --Strothra 13:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Nlu (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

199.111.64.0/16 unblocked

% whois 199.111.64.0
Mary Washington College MARYWASHINGTON1-VERNET (NET-199-111-64-0-1)
                                  199.111.64.0 - 199.111.95.255

Hi Nlu, a month long soft block for an entire university isn't really appropriate in my honest opinion. If there is an IP hopping vandal, I've found that sending an abuse report to a university's IT department is much better solution and they are usually very responsive to such complaints. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but I disagree. This vandal hops their IPs so much that I doubt that they have any way of tracking him. Anyone who wants to edit can simply log in to edit. --Nlu (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Most universities have camera surveillance of their computer labs and/or require a student login. I suggest you do a 72 hour range block and email the university's IT department. A month is just too long considering most university students in the United States live on campus. By the way, note that you can use {{schoolblock}} as the blocking reason if you decide to reblock. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:CA SupremeCourt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CA SupremeCourt.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

82.203.3.8?

Nlu,

Would you consider us changing the block on 82.203.3.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to an anon-only block? There's a collateral damage block on the unblock category at the moment, and since they are a registered account (tho with no contributions) we could always track whether they immediately begin vandalizing again. Syrthiss 18:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who's the collateral damage? --Nlu (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Infomail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Syrthiss 18:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, will do. Thanks. When you talk to him/her, can you ask him/her to add a {{sharedip}} tag with the proper information? --Nlu (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll go add the sharedip tag to that usertalk now. Thanks! Syrthiss 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

198.248.84.254

I re-listed 198.248.84.254 after blocked at WP:AIV to ask for a permanent block. Vandal-only IP, and vandalism is similar in type; it looks like a static IP belonging to one person. Argyriou (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We don't really ever permanently block IPs, as a matter of policy, unless they're open proxies. While I would have blocked longer, I am uncomfortable overriding another admin unless there's a clear abuse of discretion. --Nlu (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

please unblock

[1] I did not do it the network leaked, now it is fixed, the vandal removed out of the net system. Please unblock. 68.178.225.19

I wasn't the unblocking admin, and I feel uncomfortable reversing Curps (talk · contribs) on this. You should e-mail him. --Nlu (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Curps is on a very long wiki vacation. Please unblock the account and IP, I like wikipedia. 68.178.225.19

Obviously, the IP is already not blocked; otherwise, you wouldn't be able to post this message at all. The reason why I asked you to e-mail is that that way, regardless of whether Curps is away or not, he should be able to get your message. --Nlu (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I´m on another PC. I already did email User:Curps. Please you do the unblock process. I like wikipedia very much and did not do this heavy vandalism. 68.178.225.19

As I said, I'm not comfortable doing it. --Nlu (talk) 08:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Who else? Please do it. You can ask the top admin, if this exist here, for permission. Please. 68.178.225.19

There's no "top admin." Just wait for Curps. --Nlu (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he is never coming back and I can´t wait so long. Please do it. It won´t hurt him or anyone else.68.178.225.19

Wu Shu-Chen -- What is your problem?

Guy, what is your problem? You accuse me of inserting NPOV commentary into an article for changing the word "accident" to "attack?" The section already states that he was "trying to murder her." How is terming the incident an attack "breaching the formal tone of wikipedia." I was only making the section AGREE WITH ITSELF. I suggest that next time you put a bit more thought into what tags you decide to leave on someone elses talk page, before you make yourself out to look like an idiot again. --Bri 10:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPOV. There is nothing about your edit that is neutral. --Nlu (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I've been using wikipedia a long time and I understand NPOV just fine. But let's get something straight--I could care less about Taiwanese politics; my edit was simply to make the section agree with itself in that you can't say Ts'ai tried to murder her, but call the incident an "accident." If he tried to murder her, then obviously it's not an accident, is it? Why don't you try to exercise a bit more discernment before making knee-jerk reverts and tagging my talk page with NPOV violation warnings? --Bri 10:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The "tried to murder her" assertion had a {{fact}} tag attached to it. In any case, while the paragraph might have been internally inconsistent, your edits made it POV by establishing one view over another. --Nlu (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It had a {{fact}} tag because I put it there. Anyways, as far as your insistance that what I did was POV, you're obviously grasping at thin air; an apology wouldn't kill you, you know. I know you're on some crusade to stop vandalism and POV edits or whatever, but why not try to slow down a little bit demonstrate a bit of sagacity in what you're doing. --Bri 12:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You edited by response on Talk:Jesus

[2] Maybe you weren't aware that editing someone else's talk response is against wikipedia policy? 75.14.212.55 11:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You were spamming. See WP:SPAM. Spams can be removed, and in fact they should be. --Nlu (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob Brinker

Someone is trying to doctor Bob Brinker's record by making sure there is no mention or link to any failed market timing call he has ever made. The Brinker website link you put back up is certainly NOT an example of neutral point of view. If you haven't done so already, I suggest you read the talk page for the article before making further edits to it. Friend of Kirk 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The solution to that is for you to add verifiable content (not links, although one might be acceptable) to the page. Deleting a link to his official Web site just because you disagree with it/him is unacceptable. --Nlu (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with his "official" website is that it does not mention two major failures. It violates neutral point of view to have that link without even one link to the missing information. Every fact unfavorable to Brinker has been deleted from the article over a long period of time, and that includes both the verifiable information and the unverifiable. Given the ferocity and longevity of the edit war, restoring the missing information to the article itself would most likely be reverted within hours, if not minutes, so that would be a waste of time. One link would be a step in the right direction, and Brimelow's articles are the most neutral I have seen, but someone insists on deleting even that. Friend of Kirk 19:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

When you eliminate the link and replace it with the Brimelow link, it is a violative of NPOV. Please stop doing it. Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Nlu (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the page on external links. I don't see how an official site of a commercial enterprise can be considered neutral on its own products and services, especially in this case, but since including them is the policy of Wikipedia, I will abide by it. As for the link on spam, are you saying that the Brimelow article is spam, and if so, why? Friend of Kirk 06:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't include any additional information that you can't simply summarize and add a link to. Just adding the link violates the general policy that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory of links. --Nlu (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with spam? The Brimelow article is not advertising. One of the help pages you directed me to made it clear that a reasonable number of links is not a problem. Most Wikipedia articles have far more than the Brinker article, which currently stands at three. I would be happy to summarize the article if I weren't so sure it would be deleted. Friend of Kirk 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Tufa Lilugu

I see...but however, the zh interwiki has to be updated because I moved that Chinese article.--Hello World! 16:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

All right... That's fine. Do you want to do it or do you want me to? Thanks for getting back to me. --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Thank you for your attention.--Hello World! 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Weapon (final fantasy) page reverted

Hey, why was the weapon (final fantasy) page reverted? The information was correct. please reply, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.104.51 (talk • contribs)

Your behavior (or the behavior of the person sharing the IP address with you) (see Special:Contributions/139.168.104.51) made me have no confidence in your edit. If you can verify the information that you put in, please put it back but add a citation to a source. --Nlu (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

i had no idea. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.104.51 (talk • contribs)

hey, i've added to it now. Hope it works. Thanks and hope you have a great christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.104.51 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Merry Christmas. --Nlu (talk) 08:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)