Hi, Nlu! I'm reviewing articles that have been protected for a very long time, and I ran across Iraqi dinar, which you protected back in November, 2006 with the summary "Roving IP vandalism". Do you think that protection can be removed? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Luo Binwang, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I noticed on your wikiBabel that you support the use of gender-neutral language, but consider the singular 'they' substandard. Besides using the always redundant "him or her," or "one," and without using newer pronouns such as "ze" and "zer" that people are laregely unfamiliar with, isn't such a pairing of positions problematic?
(I'm bored, and was just wondering.) --Dan Lowe 20:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I prefer "he or she." It's actually standard in California government use, and I think it's more correct. --Nlu (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no comparison whatsoever between Lara Veronin and Bruce Chen. Lara lived in China, may have been born there for all we can tell from the article. Bruce Chen is at least four generaions removed from any ancestors who were born in China, has never been in China himself, isn't known by a Chinese character name by anyone. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except he is. Chinese language news sources use the Chinese name for him, and the name was verified; there is no reason to remove that information. Moreover, your edit also removed his birth date and place. --Nlu (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BFD. Chinese news sources use the Chinese characters for George Bush and Hillary Clinton too. It doesn't belong here, and birth date and place don't belong in Chinese character template in the first place. Put them back in, fine. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's different; those aren't Chinese names, but transliterations; Chen's name was a name given by his parents, and that's a major difference. Frankly, I think removing the Chinese name under this argument is disrespectful. --Nlu (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Chen's name is a transliteration, too. No difference whatsoever. Slapping Chinese characters where they don't belong in an English Wikipedia is disrespectful of the English language. The Spanish spelling of his name, if it differs in any way from the English, might belong here; Chinese characters do not. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Juana "Dulce" Gonzalez actually attended Ransom Everglades. She is an anchor on Telemundo here in Miami and a former porn star. That's pretty notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.244.163.101 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of any Telemundo-related links that gives her name or her history that I can find on Google, and given your edit history of inserting vandalism, pardon me, but I don't believe you. Cite a source. --Nlu (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nlu, thank you for your comments, but please note that I am only using the new BC/AD template for pages that are already BC/AD. I am avoiding pages that are using BCE/CE. Pages that are BC/AD should have the option of a BC/AD template. This is an attempted compromise Simplonicity (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response made on your talk page. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your courtesy Nlu, I'll leave the issue to the Wikipedia community to decide. Merry Christmas Simplonicity (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see that you've reverted the anon who is removing Chinese characters from Vietnam-related articles. He appears to be a user who has an account (Jacques Nguyen), but who also uses multiple IPs--actually quite a few. Jacques Nguyen has been blocked for this (having done it in many, many articles) but I see you didn't warn the IP. This user is quite persistent, and seems immune to reason in this matter, so IMO warnings and possible blocks seem in order. Thanks, Badagnani (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look, and I don't think the edit patterns were sufficiently similar to be certain. As the edits were not vandalism per se, I don't think I am going to treat it as vandalism yet -- in fact, it may be inappropriate for me to do so. However, if this continues, I may file a RfC to see how the individual reacts. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nlu, I've replied on my talk page, but I was on my way to wish you holiday greetings anyway, so I figure I'll not deprive you of that wonderful orange bar! ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 05:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid! You're the one who stops for massive and undiscussed removal on the article. Also, you say you're interest in Chinese history well then go for it and don't ever pay attention to Vietnamese history. 69.234.181.115 (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whole heartedly agree with your assessments at AIV. All too often it seems that our fellows are to fast with the block-stick. Nice to see that I am not the only cautious or judicious admin on AIV patrol. Kudos to you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the page and found that some descriptions are quite weird. The page is about Goguryeo, isn't it? Wars between Goguryeo and other countries were described in a way of other countries. Then, what is the point to have the war part in the page of Goguryeo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.244.181 (talk • contribs)
That's not unusual. In fact, a lot of other articles on history are that way on Wikipedia. Basically, when there is something complex, you pull it out and make it its own article while giving a shorter description in the parent articles. --Nlu (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re 24.30.29.233 - you're right, I thought I had given a 4 but it was a 3. Nonetheless, he was repeatedly inserting nonsense into an article after being warned, and a short block might have been a good idea. Tvoz|talk 07:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps -- but the lack of a level 4 warning made me a bit uncomfortable. Thanks for being understanding. --Nlu (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he's gone, it's all good. Tvoz|talk 07:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my changes to SwatJester's discussion page?[edit]
I believe my comments on Swatjester's page were on topic, and not vandalism. Why would you revert my comment without discussing it first on a talk page? My understanding is that swatjester does not own his user page, the wikipedia is not a blog, and the wikipedia is not a social network. I think it's pretty clear that swatjester is violating these policies on his own talk page, and I believe you acted not assuming good faith by your reversion without discussing this. By the way, congratulations on attending the great schools of the Bay Area. I encourage you to become a lawyer that acts for society.... 70.6.6.216 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I already am. In any case, I understand your point about Swatjester, but in my opinion, it was getting to the point that it was becoming harassment. Leave him/her alone. --Nlu (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 29 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Li Chengqi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my categorization of Gokturk rulers as Turkic rulers?[edit]
Nlu, is there a policy of building deep hierarchies? I flat list is more informative. Please, do not revert my categorization of Gorkturk rulers as Turkic rulers.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CAT. There is a general policy that you do not include both a category and its subcategory in an article, and large categories are supposed to be sub-categorized. Moreover, categories are not substitutes for lists. If you want to create a list of notable Turkic rulers, you're free to do so. --Nlu (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's category system. Definitely not a tree structure.I did not get that impression. It it says:
Categories do not form a tree. Each Wikipedia article can appear in more than one category, and each category can appear in more than one parent category. Multiple categorization schemes co-exist simultaneously. In other words, categories do not form a strict hierarchy or tree structure, but a more general directed acyclic graph (or close to it; see below). Nevertheless, parts of the category graph will be tree-like, and it may be convenient to think of parts of the category graph as being like multiple overlapping trees. When applying the guidelines above, consider each tree to be independent of the overlapping trees. A person browsing through a hierarchy should find every article that belongs in that hierarchy. This can lead to a good deal of debate as to what the hierarchies actually are. To clarify the structure of the hierarchy and help people browse through it, you can add a classification to each category.
Please, do not waste my time and effort by undoing my changes. A ruler does not have to belong to any dynasty. Ruler is a person. It is not the same as a ruling dynasty.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing this:
Usually, articles should not be in both a category and its subcategory. For example, Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges. However, there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored. For example, Robert Duvall is in Category:Film actors as well as its subcategory Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners. See #5 for another exception. For more about this see Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories
(Guideline No. 3.)
Also note:
Another possibility is dividing the category into several subcategories. Note that there is no technical consideration, policy or guideline requiring that large categories must be divided into smaller subcategories. When creating subcategories, group similar articles together in a meaningful and useful way that will make it easy for readers to navigate later. Remember that several subcategorization schemes can coexist (for example, if Category:Software gets too big, you don't have to choose between subdividing it by function or subdividing it by platform, you can simultaneously subdivide it in both ways).
While, as mentioned, there is no requirement that large categories be divided, large categories are rarely helpful to readers and should be avoided. Again, there are better ways to handle this. See WP:CLS. --Nlu (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated above a ruler is a person that does not have to be a member of any dynasty. Even members of different groups can form a union that would constinute another perspective for invormative puposes. I do not want to navigate the tree hieararchy in order to make a comparison among members of the different dynasties. A flat list will serve an informative pupose. Again there is no hard rule for enforcing a tree hierarchy. Especially when we are talking citrus and oranges.--Nostradamus1 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about whether it's a part of a tree hierarchy or not. Again, you are ignoring that the guideline specifically says that generally, an article should not belong to both a category and its subcategory, and that in this situation, what you are trying to do -- create a useful list of Turkic rulers -- is better done in a list, not in a category. The diagram of the overlapping trees that you discussed above has nothing to do with this. It has to do, effectively, with overlapping structures such as, for example, how a person might belong to a category that is under two different tree structures. --Nlu (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of what I mean with overlapping tree structures, see, for example, Category:People of the Three Kingdoms and its subcategories, which are also subcategories of other tree structures that have nothing to do with the Three Kingdoms period. --Nlu (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing inappropriate that you're doing. It is normal -- in fact, expected -- that if you are on anti-vandalism watch that vandals and others will attack you. Thanks for doing it. (But for that fact that you just got two barnstars, I'd have given you one -- I'll let you take time to earn more. :-)) --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Huaiyi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 31 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wu Youji, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
i would appreciate muchly if you help me save the template by helping me improve it. It took me several days and hours to make and it hurts me to see to be deleted. sorry for my not so good english. thank youBlack Knight takes White Queen (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I do not believe the template is salvageable. If I did, I would not have proposed it for deletion. It simply tries to do too much, and that's not what a navigational template should be doing. You can request, if the decision by the community is to delete it, that it be moved to your user space for you to continue to work on it and perhaps bring it back later on in a more useful form, although I am, frankly, skeptical that it's doable. --Nlu (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Sheng Xian, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Sheng Xian, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheng Xian and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
