User talk:Nlu/archive3

subst

Please rememeber to "subst" the {{test}} warnings you issue. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 00:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a bit of a different theory on this. I know that it causes greater load on the server, but I also think having the warning templates not subst'd allows the warners who come after you to clearly quickly see the progression of the warnings. I know that I certainly had a hard time figuring out how the {{test-n}} series worked for a long time. --Nlu 01:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your comment mostly applies to new patrollers. I bet experienced patrollers like you can take one look and figure out the progression. I try to always list the template in the Edit Summary, I think most others do too. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Nlu, the "test" templates now include an embedded comment showing which template was used. Therefore, you can now use "subst:" on all test templates, and anyone can quickly see exactly which templates were used. Since you are one of our main vandal-hunters, I think it is important that you start using subst: on all test/test-n type warning. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 00:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

All right! Will try to remember to do so... --Nlu 00:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wackymacs

In addition to the two Support votes you eventually restored, your attempt to revert vandalism also removed my vote. Please be more careful. Thanks. Owen× ☎ 03:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Sorry. --Nlu 04:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

24.15.73.202

• Re [1]
  • Well, technically speaking it might not be. However, as these things do eventually get moved around (especially when some of the sneakier vandals try to renew their IPs), I generally do a WHOIS for all anons and use the {{sharedip}} template for all of them. Plus it serves as a convenient reference for where everyone's coming from. -Loren 06:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re;Steven Platt

Stephen Platt shows notablily by being in a band so it doesn't qualify for it. Better off send it to AFD instead with the band article. --JAranda | watz sup 06:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, my point is that the band itself is not at all notable. Notability should not be established by circular reasoning. There was nothing in the band's article (which I also inserted an AfD which the anon is repeatedly removing) that showed that the band itself is notable. --Nlu 06:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That page will clearly be deleted anyways with a AFD. Sigh I which articles that fail WP:MUSIC qualify for speedy --JAranda | watz sup 06:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. :-) (Certainly I think we need to stop the trend of every single non-notable band popping up with their articles along with their band members. As a Chinese proverb goes, they are appearing like bamboo shoots after the rain. And, unlike bamboo shoots, they're not edible.) --Nlu 07:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a sec

I saw that u have more than 4500 edits in only a bit more than 3 months which is alot.You are a very good userand I was thinking of nominating you for adminship later on but if you want I could nominate you now. Its up to you --JAranda | watz sup 06:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... I think I'll wait, at least until I get back from my trip (to Taiwan) (11/3/05 to 11/10/05). But appreciate the support.  :-) --Nlu 07:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

November 15th is fine with you? --JAranda | watz sup 07:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be appreciated. Thanks. --Nlu 07:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If you remind me when the RFA is up then I will add a support vote :). Thue | talk 17:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Will try to. Thanks.  :-) --Nlu 17:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible Vandal Attack

I have a unusual problem in the Article:Earthfiles. Found 2 templates in it. When I investigated them, found a statement in BOTH of the templates' discussion page,NO signature, so I can't find out who made these remarks,placed these templates, history page has no signature on them as well. Also have a Admin. looking at this to help determine what happened and to prevent a miscarriage of justice.One is a NPOV, the other is a clean-up article.Martial Law 07:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC) :)

This does not appear to be vandalism -- whoever put the tags there basically believes (rightly or wrongly) that the article needs to be cleaned up, and that the article is not NPOV. While those views may or may not be correct, they're unlikely to be vandalism. Or is there something I'm missing based on the history of the page? --Nlu 07:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

test5

Nlu, when you find a blocked user, but the admin forgot to issue a {{test5}}, please issue the tag yourself. You are allowed to do that too. Owen× ☎ 03:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know that. Thanks. --Nlu 03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, for shared IP users, if the user hasn't been warned for several hours, there's a good chance someone else is using that IP address. Feel free to issue another warning, and if he persists--then list it on WP:AIV. Thanks for all your help! Owen× ☎ 03:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ali Empire

Kindly explain why you slapped speedy tags on all of Special:Contributions/Wikipedia_TFE? May I draw your attention to http://www.aliempire.co.uk/ (it does not work properly with my browser so you may have to look at this Google cached version).

What pages has User:Wikipedia TFE actually vandalised? (I make a distinction between "vandalising [existing] pages" and "creating nonsense pages".)

Please be more careful. -- RHaworth 06:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing User:Nlu speedied these because every one of the The Ali Empire-related pages is extremely short and completely unverifiable on Google. Can you provide some credible, verifiable information to prove that these articles are not completely fictional? That might at least stay the heavy hand of speedy justice, but with so little content, the articles will probably end up nominated for deletion anyway, short of significant improvements. You might also consider condensing all of the tiny articles into one significant article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

To HorsePunchKid - did you see two external links above? -- RHaworth 06:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at those external links. The links from the main page all come up with blank content. My guess is that the person who is the same person as User:Wikipedia TFE had created the page as a school project or as a vanity page and never bothered to flesh out the page better. It's an obvious spoof, in my opinion. Note that none of these "companies" has any actual contact information or concrete descriptions of what they do. Our savant boy/girl isn't that creative, I guess. --Nlu 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Put them up for AfD - don't enter into an edit war over speedy tags. -- RHaworth 06:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're the one creating an edit war that would have been nonexistent if you had used a bit more discretion and actually looked at the "Empire"'s web site. --Nlu 06:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have looked at the website - see more links on the AfD page. I was prepared to ascribe the "deadness" of each page to the trailing-edge browsers that I use. -- RHaworth 07:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Test templates

Hi, please consider using test, test2, test3 before test4. A few of the users I have gone to usually didn't have any previous warnings on their page for that day. Plus, if you use test4 and they stop, there is not much need to place it on AIV unless they continue. Thanks for all of the effort though. «»Who?¿?^meta 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason is that (and I think I know which users you're talking about) is that the vandalism was happening quickly in rapid succession. I usually try to give them multiple warnings, but in that case I'm caught in a bind; without a {{test4}}, admins usually won't block despite the severity of the current active string of vandalisms. --Nlu 16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thats understandable, and I've been there before (b4 I was an admin :) ) I try to at least give 2 warnings, even if its' test3 and test4 first though. I mainly just mentioned it so other admins wouldn't ignore your posts, if they stop by the time you post on AIV. Just a bit of advice though, don't take it to bad, I think you've done a fine job so far. Thanks. «»Who?¿?^meta 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) --Nlu 17:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If you find something incorrect with an edit, you should correct or revert it with a message in the Edit summary or on the talk page. But you shouldn't leave a test template on their talk page unless they're a newbie or they've deliberately vandalized an article. –Shoaler (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

All right, thanks. --Nlu 17:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Back on Bush

Oops...I read your comment seconds after I made one more, uh, little, change, or seventeen. Sorry, I won't do it again...Sorry, I lied to you. I can't help it.

                                              WAS 23:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm.  :-) --Nlu 23:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

w. sahara

I already voted! for option 4 :) I replied on the page.. Astrokey44 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

rvv

...on my user page. Thanks! –Hajor 02:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Nlu 02:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey, I notice you all the time when I go to check WP:AIV and it seems to me like you are a great vandal-fighter. Would you be interested in being nominated for adminship? -Greg Asche (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I would, but as I noted to JAranda, who proposed the idea to me as well, I'm going on a trip tomorrow and won't return for a week. After I get back, yes, a nomination would be appreciated. --Nlu 04:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask you about this as well. I think you'd be a fine candidate. You beat me to it, Greg. :-) android79 16:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) --Nlu 16:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Old WoW names

Why should the be watched? They've all been blocked indefinately for being WoW, so it's not like he can still use them. 68.39.174.238 04:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think an admin can still inadvertently unblock them; therefore, they should be kept on the list. --Nlu 04:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds slightly paranoid. If an admin did unblock one - would Willy know? Do you think he goes around trying them on the off chance? And even if he did know, (I suppose he could read the block log) and used one, would watching it identify the problem any quicker than RCP would anyway? --Doc (?) 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

User Page

The stuff on the discussion page represented a misunderstanding. I edited the userpage of one of my other accounts using this username. Please stop reverting, it is my userpage.

Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

It's not a user page; it's a talk page; there is a major difference. --Nlu 05:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not a major difference, admins do it all the time. If you want proof I am the same user compare the main userpages of the two accounts and you will see they are identical. I consider K.S.'s comments the equivalent of vandalism. just stop please. Admins always shoot first and ask questions later, it is SO irritating.

Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

They don't "do it all the time"; they archive their talk messages, which is also a major difference from blanking it. --Nlu 05:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, but in case u didn't see it. Nothing to really be done atm, but you sometimes a seperate page is created to keep track, like creating a sub-page of the users talk page, and only revert it, and let them blank their talk page. Other than that, an RFC if it becomes really bad. If I have a chance I will monitor what is going on, on the talk page. «»Who?¿?^meta 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Nlu 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

User:212.85.15.83

But 'returning vandal' is not a criterion for someone to be blocked. They should get warnings before being blocked just like everybody else. And they've only been warned once today (I was the one who speedied that article, by the way). :) - ulayiti (talk) 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

All right. Understood. --Nlu 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

WS

Hi, thank you for your interset in the WS subject. I just want to tell you that I think that if any user have any comment to add about other users votes, it would be in the talk page. Otherwise all the voters could add such comments in the vote page making it a huge mess. I have many objections about other users comments, I just don't want to respond to any because it isn't a talk page but a poll. I think that we should respect everybody's opinion at least in the vote page. After all the aim of this poll is to browse WP users opinions. No one has the monopoly of truth, there is no truth in such disputes. I trust you and your good faith. Cheers. Daryou 13:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it's a reasonable one, but I disagree. Even in WP:RfA, for example, there are lots of responses to votes right within the body of the voting itself. It's what Wikipedians do, and it fits with the style of Wikipedia's voting. --Nlu 16:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok :). Daryou 21:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Ixfd64 19:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Joseph Wood

I agree that some of the vandalism that he did was way out of line, but I don't think that you should immediately judge him and start a campaign to block all his usernames because he deleted the AfD template from the article. First of all, he could not have known that you're not allowed to do that (well, he could have known, but obviously he didn't) and he found it offensive that also the changes that he made to the article (other than removing the template) were reverted together with the AfD notice removal by an admin who was too lazy (?) to use manual rollback. Now, this person seems to have thought that Wikipedia is some kind of a place where you can write articles on anything you want to, and perhaps he should have been pointed to the user space for that.

Secondly, he might not have been aware that the creation of sockpuppets isn't allowed either. He also didn't know what AfD is and how it works, so perhaps that should have been explained to him. On the whole, you and Jeffrey O. Gustafson (talk · contribs) could have assumed good WP:FAITH about this person instead of starting to block his accounts without any warnings. Things like this can often be resolved with a little friendliness, in spite of the nature of comments that he left on your userpage.

That said, I do agree that for him to start vandalising was definitely not a good thing to do. - ulayiti (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion:Flying Humanoids

I'm holding a discussion on WHAT these creatures could be,if they're creatures. See Flying humanoids , then go to the discussion page.Martial Law 00:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC) :)

Another reason for the discussion is to make sure no lies,errors get into the Wikipedia format, and ruin it.Martial Law 08:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC) :)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Though I've got to say that the vandal may have been onto something there.... Leithp 08:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

:-) My pleasure. --Nlu 15:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

User:203.52.130.136

My mistake. Unfortunately, I can't block him as a result of vandalism two days ago; if he does something today, I'd give him one warning and than a month-long block, based on his behaviour pattern. However, if he doesn't do anything further, there isn't much I can do because we're strictly instructed to use blocks as a preventative rather than punitive measure.--Scïmïłar ^parley 17:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

jakewater

24.15.73.202 is the ip adress that is used by Jakewater, so if 24.15.73.202 makes changes to Jakewater, let it be and do not count it as vandilism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakewater (talk • contribs)

OK, but then make sure you log in. --Nlu 06:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: Embedded comments for test/test-n series

Interesting idea, but I don't think this is really needed. I think we should give the patroller the choice of what is the next appropriate warning. I often go from test1 to test3, or from test2 to test4 when it is obvious that the vandal isn't getting the message. We don't want to make this too mechanical; not all vandals should be treated equally. Owen× ☎ 23:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Carr & Malone

What do you have against Emily Carr and Karl Malone on the Irish people page? Can you give a specific, clear answer? 64.12.116.204 01:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)DarbyO'Gill

The same IP that was used (yours?) was also used for much vandalism, and I've never heard of Malone being Irish. --Nlu 01:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This is just inquiry.

I have found that you have deleted my edition on Korean geography. Becuase I just started wiki in english, I still have little idea on neutral point of view. Would you notice me which part of my edition is out of border of NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaipur13 (talk • contribs)

Hi, it's good to hear from you. These are my thoughts about your edits:

1. First of all, it was deleted semi-accidentally; I was removing POV edits by another editor (218.41.20.127) which were interspersed yours.
2. Second, though, I do think your edits need stylistic fixes. The grammar needs to be tightened up.

If you can fix the stylistic problems, your edits would be perfect. I hope to see you fix and repost them. Thanks. --Nlu 16:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.Jaipur13 05:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Re, WS

• Hi, I see that Astroky44 added an Option 4b, but I have many objections about this version:

1. The UN don't recognize Western Sahara as an independent state, it is definitively not true.
2. The title of the infobox has to be "WS" not "SADR".
3. This infobox uses the word "occupied" witch is pro-polisario biased, refused by Morocco and absolutly not used in Minurso and UN Secretary General reports (witch are accepted by both sides);
4. Information about Morocco is ommited, the only information kept is its flag, saying that this version includes both flags and both information isn't true: It includes both flags but no information about Morocco.

• I do agree with Arre: major changes should only appear as new options, the option 4b is a major change from Option 4 and should be considered as a new option.

===> This poll is very important for the neutrality of WS article. I debated longly with Arre and Koavf and I know that consensus is very difficult to reach with them as we defend the POV of the 2 parties of the conflict. The poll is a unique occasion to reach it, by then, every thing should be clear. The situation after the version 4b was added is really confusing, I would like to know your opinion, Thank you very much and best regards. Daryou 16:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the situation with Option 4b doesn't really concern me; it's something that you really need to take up with Astrokey44. If Option 4 "wins," it is my intent to for now insist that my infobox be installed until further discussion settles the matter, but that's really not the case right now yet. --Nlu 20:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)