User talk:Nlu/archive34

please[edit]

please protect the comfort women page, because I am on the verge of violating the 3rr rule, and the editwar is getting nowhere. Odst 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little lost. What's the nature of the dispute? I'd advise you to file a RfC, actually, before protection is tried. Unless I'm missing out on something, this doesn't seem to be too bad. --Nlu (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc?????? Odst 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFC. --Nlu (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Guardian Tiger socks: User:LioneartX[edit]

Hi Nlu, I always respected you as a zealous sockpuppet fighter since the User:PoolGuy incident. Unfortunately, a similar incident has occured. I'll spare you the details [[1]]. It's just that an editor has continued to create ban-evading socks. (even admit that he is a sock)[[2]]. Anyway I am hoping you get block User:LionheartX (preferably as soon as you can before he spam your talkpage) since he is obviously community banned according to his previous block logs under User:Guardian Tiger Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see how BenAveling (talk · contribs) reacts to this. If he doesn't respond within a day or two, let me know. --Nlu (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nlu. I've updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Goguryeo edit warriors with some 3RR evidence, and LionheartX is on that list. Also, I've added a section on Comfort women below that, and LionheartX is on that list also. Please check for accuracy and update the RFCU if necessary.--Endroit 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discourage you from your work, but I don't think that the checkuser users will change their mind and grant the checkuser request. It's good work, however. I tend to think that checkuser is underutilized. --Nlu (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but how Ben reacts to this is totally irrelevant. He has campaigned to have him unblocked ever since they first met. In fact he already voiced his support on User talk:BenAveling This is more of an issue of enforcing policy. I always thought such sockpuppets are blocked on sight. Do we have to go through the same drama everytime?? :(--Certified.Gangsta 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu, sorry to bother you. I am an reincarnation of the account User:RevolverOcelotX, but unfortunately I cannot access that account anymore. Contrary to what the above have said, I am not banned The block log on my previous account were wrong. There was no strong consensus for a ban per official policy. Yes, I have used a number of accounts, but never two at the same time [3]. And my original account is not blocked [4]. I am willing to accept the conditions that User:Shimeru stated in the previous ANI threads. I have never denied being a reincarnation of User:RevolverOcelotX and request that Certified.Gangsta stop harassing me on my userpage. I apologize for my previous account-jumping in the past. I want a chance to prove I can contribute.

Here is several threads recently on WP:ANI showing that there isn't strong support for the block or ban per official policy.

Thanks, LionheartX 01:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reappearing by being a sockpuppet is still improper. You should go back to your original account to the extent that you can. I don't know why you say that you "don't have access" to it; you can always have your password e-mailed to you. --Nlu (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for losing access to my original account due to a loss password, but unfortunately I had never set an email for my original account. In the spirit of forgive and forget and ignore all rules, I want a chance to prove I can contribute positively to wikipedia. LionheartX 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a rule-violator to invoke WP:IAR is a point that is not well taken, at least by this admin. You are given another chance to prove that you can contribute positively. Use that chance. Meanwhile, I trust that you've learned your lessons over the password that you've set your current account so that in case you lose your password again, you'll have your password e-mailed to you. If this happens again, it will be very difficult for me, or any other admin, to believe you. I am giving you this one chance. Don't make me look foolish for doing it. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've set up an email with my current account. I promise this won't happen again. LionheartX 02:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, can you block him ASAP?? please??--Certified.Gangsta 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still considering it. Since RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs) hasn't edited for months, I am inclined to block that account regardless. I will probably have a decision tonight. It's more complicated than it appears at first, but still, I am not thrilled with the use of multiple accounts, for sure. --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made my decision: I blocked RevolverOcelotX indefinitely. As for LionheartX, I am not going to block that account at the time being. However, LionheartX, please be aware that you will be on a very short leash; any further improper behavior -- including any sockpuppetry -- will draw an indefinite block, and I will personally request that a lengthy block be placed on your IP as well. --Nlu (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I promise not to use multiple accounts again from now onwards. LionheartX 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, I don't know what you're doing. Obviously this user will not go back to the Revolver account, he'll just create new ban-evading socks once he is blocked. so blocking that account seems rather irrelevant (that is the reason why it wasnt blocked before) As for a decision by admins, a decision was already made a few months ago and that was community ban which means this user will be block on sight under any account. Many unblock requests were turned down on User talk:Guardian Tiger and the page was protected. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template. So the only remaining issue now is policy enforcement, so that's why I want someone with admins tool (like you) to enforce this policy. Please block LionheartX accordingly. Thanks--Certified.Gangsta 02:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I was not community ban. The threads on WP:ANI does not show strong consensus for a ban per official policy. Thanks. LionheartX 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was. Please stop wikilawyering.--Certified.Gangsta 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't. Please refrain from personal attacks. LionheartX 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) for his input as well. Meanwhile, both of you, please stop this tit-for-tat. --Nlu (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same situation every single time. I'm tired of this. He'll stalk me and spam admins talkpages then admins think I'm the vandal. That is why I said block on sight so we won't have all these useless dramas.--Certified.Gangsta 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your statement with evidence. Nlu, please see this ANI thread and post your comments there: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban-Evasion. Thanks. LionheartX 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment made there. I think I make myself plenty of clear now. LionheartX, you are not the victim here. You are being given one last chance. Use it wisely. --Nlu (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry about spamming of admins' talk pages. It won't happen again. LionheartX 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lion could've utilize the e-mail function when the previous account's talkpage was protected instead of continue sockpuppet abuse.--Certified.Gangsta 07:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already raised that, and he already stated that he did not register his e-mail with that last account. I am going to believe him -- once. If it happens again, there will be no further justifications. --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Dickhooker's username[edit]

It's real. Hooker is my last name, taken from my step father, while Dick = Richard, used for disctinction between the other guys named Richard in the military and work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dickhooker (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All right. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, could you please delete my talk page and block me for a year (preferably block me indefinitely) with the block log saying 'per user request'. I know about the Right to Vanish, I also know about Wikibreaks. I have made my decision, please do this if possible, or else I'll ask another admin. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not normal to block per request. If you want to enforce a wiki-break the recommended way is to set up your monobook to log you out as soon as you login. I don't have the reference at hand, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disenting opions[edit]

An excellent summary: [5] I can neither add to it, nor take anything away from it. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Meanwhile, I already blocked Nobleeagle before your note, but I suppose he/she can always e-mail me if he/she wants to return. --Nlu (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess it's the equivalent of putting a lock on the fridge door. :-) Thanks again for your input, much appreciated. Cheers, Ben Aveling 07:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV and User:Noobett[edit]

The user's last addition was Lankybugger and as you can see (now that you know the article) it was after his/her final warning. I deleted the article and neglected to notice Noobett was on AIV but have now blocked the account. auburnpilot talk 10:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffalo, New York[edit]

Hi Nlu - I saw that you had put up a "Last Warning" note on the talk page for 24.38.15.122. This person has vandalised the Buffalo page several times since then (continuing to do so all day), and I was wondering if you could do anything about it (or point me in the right direction to ask someone). Perhaps a block or some kind of protection on the article page? Thanks in advance! -- Oaxaca dan 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him/her for 24 hours. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged!! --Oaxaca dan 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Emperor_Taizong_of_Tang#Map[edit]

Hello Nlu, I think I have now understand where we disagree for the map. That was out of my mind that Goguryeo was vassal of Tang's China from 619 to 642, and I was just looking on the fact that Goguryeo was not vassal in 649.

Now we have a way to find a solution for this map.

Moreover, I think I will have to delete and rename the maps relate to Tang Taizong. Most of this maps just say "Tang.png" or "Tang dynasty.png" which haven't any sense. With such big periods (618-907) we will have again and again edition wars for those maps if we keep those names.

On commons, I want to rename :

the map without Gogureyo into => Image:Tang dynasty 649.png
the map with Gogureyo + Western turks => I think it should be deleted. Or Image:Tang dynasty 642.png (but I don't think it's accurate to say that Western turks and Tarim kingdoms where down in 642)
A map with Gogureyo(from 619), Eastern Turcks (from 630), Tibet (from 641) => Image:Tang dynasty 641.png

But I think I should recreate a map, that will be better.

I will probably do this within 2 weeks. Yug 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your answer about this. I haven't look my sources yet, but I haven't objection against your source. I will answer about this later.

One other thing : Do you agree with the need to rename those maps on commons ? (I need the benediction of one user). Yug (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind it. It'd make things clearer. --Nlu (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need Maps ?[edit]

Hello [again] Nlu.

I just notice you that, if you list clearly

all geographical informations according to current province's boundaries of China (RPC),
all historical informations need to draw an historical map (years, main leader)

then I can draw historical map for you.Yug

I appreciate it. I am, however, sometimes a little leery to draw maps (or have others draw them) because a lot of times we're not actually sure of historical boundaries. (And I don't do it personally anyway since I'm terrible, terrible at anything having to do with drawing. :-)) If it is opportune, I'll take you up on your offer. Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I think Tibet (Tufan)'s vassal status is a quite a bit more questionable than Goguryeo's (and Baekje's and Silla's), actually. Tuyuhun was a vassal, but Tuyuhun, even at its prime, did not reach really outside modern Qinghai. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi any chance you can indefinitly block my account? Basically the same person the forced Nobleeagle to quit is harassing me. He's annoying, kinda fat too. But to the point please give me the right to vanish. Thanks. Demonblade 08:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Nlu (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exorbitant contention.[edit]

understand. from now on, use talk.

But you take a neutral attitude. your attitudes very one-sided China.

why do you always, have a complete disregard for a Korean history book?

You have to think about that. Thanks.

--Korea history (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability. As I wrote before, Korean history can be relied on. Korean fiction is not, and I am becoming increasingly convinced that you are relying on fiction, not history, given your inability to cite sources.

And I believe I have been writing in an WP:NPOV manner. (If you can't understand the article, read its Korean equivalent, ko:위키백과:중립적_시각). NPOV is not Korean or Chinese or, for that matter, American or British. It's required minimum standard on Wikipedia. You should read the NPOV guidelines. What I wrote isn't "pro-China," and if you believe that it is, you should point out why. --Nlu (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu... The same goes for you. Your behavior is Chinese centered. Korea history 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think my behavior is wrong, feel free to complain about it. Again, keep doing what you're doing and I'll block you. --Nlu (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu...

Dae Makiji is (대막리지, 大莫離支) in fact. and Dae is mean 대,大. Yeon was make addition.

Dae + Makiji

Korea history 14:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That part of the edit is fine. The other parts are not. In particular, please don't revert without fixing the parts that the revert that will also knock out. --Nlu (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Template:Infobox Country[edit]

Hi Nlu,

It appears that {{Infobox Country}} has some code that's causing articles that transclude it to have an extra } at the end of the infobox. As I can't figure out the coding, can you look into it? ...

Started working to remove this glitch (and to try to simplify/cleanup the code!) yesterday and am about to return to it; I hope to have it repaired soon. Thanks, though, for your message, as I may not've been aware of the problem. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for quote your translation[edit]

Some complex for nowdays chinese,there are so many different ancient ethnics like Khitan,Dongyi,Xiongnu,Xianbei finally become chinese,even the nowadays Manchu,they are of 99% similarity with other chinese.Someday,they will become more chinese than chinese.You know,it is a process.And the problem for Goguryeo.Apparently,the Korean have the right to trace their roots to Goguryeo,no one want to deny it.But,there are surely some genes flowed in Nowadays chinese.The Korean claim their ancestors to be of Goguryeo,and in the same logic,they could claim the Buyeo,Tungus,or even the Dongyi.So,they claim the whole East Asia as their own.The way of their reasonbecause the ancestor of some members of Korea could trace to XXX country,So XXX country is ours.Dont' tell me it's my fabrication.Just look at these korean textbook.[6], [7].So I am afraid of the situation of USA.You know,in the america,perphas there are the immigrants from all over the world.We follow the way of Korean thinking,All the countries could claim USA as their own.We are all rational human.We know it is something absurd.--Ksyrie 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with quoting my translation; you just need to attribute it. In any case, however, please keep your civility while discussing, and please also pay attention to WP:NPOV. The fact that some other editors could not stay NPOV doesn't mean that you shouldn't, either. --Nlu (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney vandal[edit]

Hi, I saw you blocked 216.37.228.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Do you know if there is a report somewhere on this vandal? Since I am an admin, I already blocked multiple ip's and a user account of him. Before that I think I reported at least 5 ip's and another account to WP:AIV. I am getting quite sick of that sneaky vandalism. Garion96 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of one. It will be great if you can write up a report on it. Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I was hoping someone else already did that. :) I'll see what I can do. Thanks, Garion96 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Romanization in Manchuria articles[edit]

Nlu, I saw Talk:Goguryeo, and I am supportive of your efforts to restore Chinese Romanizations to Manchuria-related articles. One year ago, we had a similar situation when Appleby and Deiaemeth collaborated to remove all Chinese Romanizations from these articles. At that time, I prepared a plan at User:Endroit/Chinese Romanization and received endorsements from 6 users. With lack of leadership, and Appleby-meatpuppets relentlessly revert-warring, I had given up. But after Appleby was indef-blocked, I reinstated the Chinese romanizations and the list of monarchs in Balhae. However, I haven't got around to doing the same for Goguryeo. If you would like to take over leadership for this effort, it would be very appreciated. Please do whatever you like with User:Endroit/Chinese Romanization, transfer it to a project page, etc. I will help you in any way I can.--Endroit 13:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think things should go that far. In any case, if there's anything like this to be done, it should be done through consensus and should be done as part of the dispute resolution process. --Nlu (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:AIV[edit]

Yeah, sorry- i have a feeling i hit the wrong report option, i recently changed from popups to TW and so i'm still making the odd mistake. Thank you for letting me know of my mistake. Jonomacdrones 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to dismissal of vandal report[edit]

I am requesting you to kindly reconsider your dismissal of my report against IP vandal Special:Contributions/200.168.32.36. You claimed that the user "hasn't vandalized since last warning", which is clearly erroneous since the last warning was given yesterday and the vandal repeated his deletion today. You also claimed that "last edit was over an hour ago", which is true, but I find that to be an unacceptable justification for not blocking a long-term vandal. If such activities are meant to be reported to a place other than WP:AIV, I would be grateful if you could point it out for me; otherwise, I shall be resubmitting the report. CounterFX 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection is noted, but I am not changing my decision. The reason is that WP:AIV is intended for current vandalism activities. In any case, even if this were reported to, for example, WP:AN/I (and I don't advise you to, although you are free to do that), this level of vandalism won't be considered sufficient to trigger a block. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are making too stringent an interpretation of the current criterion. I shall be submitting a request for a third opinion. Please do not take it personally, but this user has been uncooperative and persistent in his deletions, with sufficient evidence and plenty of warnings, and my opinion is that he should blocked. CounterFX 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

This user clearly has a habit of deleting material. Why don't you start with a 24-hour block and go from there? Smee 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My decision is made. I see no compelling reason to change it. --Nlu (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay then. Unless someone puts this at WP:ANI, I'm going to say third opinion provided and take this off my watchlist, please notify me if this situation changes... Smee 17:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV has worked this way for a long time. Long term abuse to WP:LTA. Grouse 17:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter, Nlu was perfectly within his rights as an admin. It is normal policy, when dealing with an IP vandal, to "reset the warnings" after 24-hrs (depending on the IP). That is, warnings start at level 1, and rise with each incident to level 4 and a block. This is because IPs may be used by more than 1 person, and we don't assume that the same person does all the vandalism. A word of advice: stick to the standard user warnings, so that other editors can track them more easily. And "reset" the warning level after a significant amount of time (your 4 warnings are spread over the course of a week). Admins often will not block unless all 4 levels of warnings are present, within a reasonably brief period of time. Finally, the decision to block or not block is ultimately a judgement call by the Admin - and an error on the side of mercy is always better than too harsh a block too soon. -- Pastordavid 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I read the AIV talk page, and it appears that Nlu's decision conforms with the current practice. However, in this case, it is beyond doubt that the vandalism is being performed by a single person (all deletions were identical). Logically enough, my warnings were spread over the course of a week because the vandalism itself was spread over the course of a week. The current convention implies that persistent vandals who are cunning enough to leave ~~a week~~ ~~24 hours~~ just one hour between their acts of vandalism can get away with it indefinitely. Do you think this practice is constructive? CounterFX 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this discussion has gone beyond the scope of my complaint regarding Nlu's dismissal. The practice of 'resetting' warnings after short periods of time has already been objected to by several other editors, and I believe it warrants an RfC to receive broader community input. I shall be moving the discussion to WT:AIV. Thanks for all your feedback. CounterFX 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk page[edit]

Thanks for the sprotection; I'd been wondering whether or not to do it myself. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Nlu (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help[edit]

I was totally surprised by the User talk:Wikimachine who hold different view in the article of Goguryeo when He or she accused me for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ksyrie.I am a little disappointed by his behavior to attack me like this,I though it was just his or her way to infuriate me.I may need your advice.--Ksyrie 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion: don't react. Either the request will be rejected in its entirety for failing to show sufficient evidence, or the request will be performed and clear you. There's no reason to get overly upset on this. --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,User:Wikimachine didn't make constructive effort to clear the Goguryeo case,I have complaint for him.--Ksyrie 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your warning of User talk:69.94.170.116 [8] and would like to draw your attention to further vandalism: Oedipus [9] Thank you. --In Defense of the Artist 19:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo mediation[edit]

If Assault11 doesn't agree to the mediation, does it mean that it won't take place? Because from the looks of it, I doubt he's interested. Cydevil 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the Mediation Committee says. As I am not a member of that committee, I am not sure what its policies are with regard to that. --Nlu (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Objection[edit]

Any chance youd reconsider a year long block againsted 203.25.82.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the template on the page reads in relation:

"In the event of persistent vandalism, anonymous editing from this IP address may be disabled for up to 6 months at a time while abuse reports may be forwarded to your school administration for investigation in case of long-term abuse by registered users."

Im not saying a block of some sort is not necessary, however if you or another admin attempts to contact the school action will be taken, probably quite extreme action. Over 800 users each with an individual computer share this IP. I can provide contact information if you want it. Viva43 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block imposed is a soft block, which a registered user will be able to still edit behind. The last 6-month block was ineffective in preventing further vandalism from the IP. --Nlu (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unjust[edit]

My brother DarzieP (talk · contribs) was blocked from wikipedia because he accidentally edited the Kel Mitchell page. I assure this is an urban legend and because of the amount of people who believed he was dead his opinion was swayed in this way. It was not purposeful vandalism.

More over, he is the author of most of the character pages for the Phoenix Wright series and his ban count went towards these truthful pages? He was told these were nonsense pages. That is horrible insult to injury. The Charlemagne and Hurricane page was set up by me. I used his account and therefore you should ban me. But I swear to you that is a real underground band. I've heard at least one of there EP's.

PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR BAN OF DARZIEP. It's not fair that he shoould suffer because he's easily swayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Charlemagne123 (talk • contribs)

Your brother wasn't blocked just for the situation with Kel Mitchell. There had been warnings for other problems on his page. In any case, if he wants an unblock, he should be the one explaiining the situation. He can do so by placing an {{unblock}} tag on his talk page, with reasons. --Nlu (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Thanks for the comment, and the reference articles, much appreciated. I'll be contributing more soon, once I find some more stubs to improve upon.

--PericlesofAthens 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Deed Is Done[edit]

My brother apologises that he could not ask for an unblock himself as he was unsure how. He has now posted his explanation for the events on his talk page. He thanks you for your co-operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kid Charlesmagne (talk • contribs)