User talk:Nlu/archive32

Republika Srpska

Hay! I am glad you've protected Republika Srpska, but you haven't revert vandalism. We agreed that flag, coat of arms and athem should be removed. --Kahriman 20:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus formed, really, on Talk:Republika Srpska, and that's why I didn't revert to your preferred version. I know it's quite possible I protected the wrong version, but please try to talk it out further. I'd also urge you to enlist greater community participation by filing a WP:RFC. --Nlu (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vseferovic, Alkalada and me were saying that symbols should be removed and we also gave proves. User:Bože pravde was onlyone against removing symbols, but he agreed with us [1]. So, please, revert it. And I am not planning to stay a lot on english wikipedia, becuase I am an administrator on bosnaian :) --Kahriman 20:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I still feel that there's not enough of a consensus. Again, I urge you to file a RFC. --Nlu (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me who did not agreed with us? (of course, I mean, saying that on talkpage, not anonymously reverting it without explanation)--Kahriman 20:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, as much as that anonymous editor's behavior is unacceptable, that doesn't make him a non-person. By protecting, I'm hoping that he'll engage in meaningful conversation as to why he believes that those symbols should be there. If he doesn't anytime soon, I'm inclined to unprotect and go back to the last version, and if he reverts again, block him for 3RR. --Nlu (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I won't bother you anymore, I will talk to another administrator. But, can you answer me just one question? Why don't you leave our version becuase it is 4:1 who are supporting this version, and our 4 have proves, and one anonymus editor (who is maybe vandalising) doesn't. If he give proves, we will discuss about it and maybe change it. --Kahriman 20:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not endorse the current version, as {{protected}} states. However, I also believe that (although that was not the determining factor there) that until there is a consensus, the safer course of action is to keep the version with more information, unless it is clearly vandalistic -- and in this case, it's clearly not vandalism (as defined in WP:V). It may be erroneous. It may be wrong. But it's not vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but four persons who are not vandalising articles (3 Bosniaks and one Serbian) agreed that symbols should be removed and we all explained our arguments and gave prooves. And suddenly appears anonymus editor who's vandalising article, and you protect the article and don't revert to version made by 4 editors who agreed about that (different ethnics) --Kahriman 20:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to change action at the moment. Again, I am urging that you discuss and also file a RFC. You are also free to request that other admin(s) reverse my decision. --Nlu (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are totaly right - i am going to talk to somebody else about this. This is becoming ridiculous...--Kahriman 21:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please listen...

Hello, I respect your decision and I actually requested a "semi-block". The problem rises that you placed the block on the version of the vandalizing anonymous user. As you can see the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has deemed the flag, coat of arms, and anthem of Republika Srpska unconstitutional (illegal). I, along with many Bosnian and Serbian, and other suers, have discussed this on the talk page. if you have read the talk page you would have a seen a consensus. The consensus was that we have agreed to removed the flag, coat of arms, and anthem. As I have stated and many agreed there are no more possible appeals left. Even if there is no new flag, etc, (and by the way Republika Srpska is a Bosnian entity (part of Bosnia and Herzegovina (I am not talking about Serbia)), it still does not change the fact that the current flag, etc. is unconstitutional. Please do not leave the current addition, which is that of an anonymous user. We have already discussed and agreed upon on the discussion page. Thanks, Vseferović 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

However, it should be noted that the Wikipedia community, for good or bad, is not bound by the ruling of the Constitutional Court. I think a consensus is still necessary; that's particularly because it's unclear whether the Republika Srpska authorities will abide by that ruling, which makes the issue murky. See, for example, Republic of China, which is not recognized by the world community, but is treated differently by the Wikipedia community. --Nlu (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not mix other politics. There is a consensus (maybe by not all anonymous users) but surely by those who are registered. I bet not all Chinese people or users on Wikipedia support the articles on Republic of China (Taiwan). I can see that articles concerning the Republic of China get their fair share of vandalism. However, the majority do support the decisions I have stated. We have to follow some rule and authority. I do not understand how you have come to the decision of an anonymous user. I mean if you actually read the final arguments, there are no more undecided disputes/facts. I even created a "wiki-friend." With this we ended with a consensus! Any article can have vandalism and that is done by the uneducated and hatred filled world. Thanks, Vseferović 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, this really isn't "vandalism" per WP:V. It's edit warring, and again, I am not condoning the behavior of the anon. However, the fact that his/her behavior is unacceptable doesn't make the version community-accepted. Again, I am urging that you file a RFC. --Nlu (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Matti Rajakylä

I was wondering if you would re-examine the course of action you took? Yes this was an edit war, but in this edit war one party (Niklas) was attempting (albeit in good faith, I'll suppose) to insert content without providing appropriate verification which is especially important here in view of WP:BLP. I jumped into the argument after doing a cursory, but unpromising, Google search to try to verify this information. I explained to Niklas that reliable sources were required, and I actually got somewhere with this explanation, since in Niklas's next revert he upgraded his reference from Answers.com to a myspace page :-). Instead of protecting the article, maybe you should have explained what a reliable source is (and why neither myspace nor Answers.com is a reliable source). At least, per WP:BLP and this unfruitful Google search, maybe you should remove the unverified material from the article. Thanks for your consideration, Pan Dan 23:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to see if either side actually tries to discuss things. --Nlu (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

re: Adminship

Yes, I accept the nomination. The spambot attack last night finally convinced me to apply. I'll round up the most recent of the co-noms, though if anyone spots this on RC patrol they're more than welcome to add theirs. MER-C 09:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Could you please adopt me? I figure you're a nice guy, and being the one to welcome me, I invariably found that I should seek you for assistance.:-) - Qwerty 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh... What do you mean? :-) But is there anything I can help with? --Nlu (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know, myself. Sorry. Uh, well... at the moment, I am unsure what to categorise this Nane Maria Annan page with. I know bolding of the subject should be done, in accordance with the MoS. Anyway, thanks. :-) - Qwerty 11:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, unless you can think of some reason why she's notable, she shouldn't get her own article; rather, a redirect to Kofi Annan would be appropriate. --Nlu (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dear Hunter

I have read the arguments for and against the deletion of The Dear Hunter article. I am still unsure as to why you are opposed to this article being on wikipedia. There are thousands of articles on topics that less people care about the The Dear Hunter. Not only was Casey a member of The Receiving End of Sirens (who are infact quite a notable band, especially in the Mass/CT area), but he has released two albums as The Dear Hunter. They are signed to a major label and they are one of the only bands on the label that does not have a wikipedia page. I would greatly appreciate if you would consider unblocking this page as many people actually do care about this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forgedcasualties (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

The proper thing to do is to file a WP:DRV. --Nlu (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Taipei

Sorry, I was just trying to make the encyclopedia richer. These animations are made by a Taiwanese; i believe they can give another vision (a creative vision) to the city than the usual touristic presentation. But that's just my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cewiz (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I do not believe the addition complies with WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If you can make a case that it does, please discuss on Talk:Taipei. If the community agrees with you, then it can/should be added. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Afd to close

This Afd is for the article you speedied. Thanks. One Night In Hackney 05:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to your removal of a jiu jitsu link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brazilian_Jiu-Jitsu#How_much_advertising_is_too_much In the name of consistency, kindly explain why 1 of 3 links was removed, when they are all very similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.142.197 (talk • contribs)

please doublecheck my Chinese.. is this correct?

See link at "left arm": In the movie Alpha Dog, the aggressive-looking Chinese characters in the prominent faux-tattoo on Justin's left arm actually mean "ice skating." --Ling.Nut 14:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. (And it doesn't look "aggressive" to me -- it looks like a fairly standard Chinese font in a style similar to Times New Roman.) --Nlu (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The tattoos are supposed to make him look aggressive. :-) But will change text in an hour or so, busy now. --Ling.Nut 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the help! --Ling.Nut 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Barry Bonds

hey man. i appreciate the msg about the Barry Bonds deal, but could you tell me how to get wikipedia to stop telling me i have a new message on every page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.204.205 (talk • contribs)

By reading your messages. --Nlu (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

hello

Why did you remove that comment? I thought it was against policy to remove talk comments, whether personal attack or not. why don't you just cross it out? Odst 05:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Those particular comments were not signed and were getting mixed with comments above and below them. I think that's why Korea history (talk · contribs) removed them, and I agree with his/her call there. --Nlu (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

oh ok... I must have made a mistake then... by the way, why don't you answer goodfriend100's question? (I'm curious...) Odst 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which question you're referring to. --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

the one goodfriend1oo wrote in talk: goguryo... Odst 05:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 (talk · contribs) asked many questions on Talk:Goguryeo. Again, I am not sure which one you are referring to. --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. 24 on the table of contents. Odst 06:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

hello (again)

theres this one dude with a very vandalish-y history...it might be more than one dude....user:24.75.73.158 Odst 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a shared IP (school), and there is only one recent instance of vandalism. I'm not going to block it at the moment. --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan's spam

Hi Nlu

I believe you raised the question of whether the Dylan web-sites Expecting Rain, and BobLinks were spam. I've tried to explain on Dylan Talk page (under heading: Spam?)why I think these web-sites are invaluable archives of Dylan scholarship, Dylan's performances, set-lists, & activity in many fields, including Dylan's paintings, Dylan's films. best wishes Mick gold 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin

Please read about pidgin or read its definition on dictionary.com and you will see that pinyin is a form of pidgin. 142.35.144.2 06:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pinyin is not a conglomeration of two languages. --Nlu (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting legitimate spelling on Penis Enlargement page

When you reviewed the Penis enlargement Page on 15:40, 9 February 2007, you reverted a legitimate spelling change from mould back to mold. Please refer to mold and spelling differences, Furthermore I feel that your reversion of the changes to my user talk page 60.241.7.211 to be unjustified.

In good faith as I see this is a legitimate misunderstanding on your behalf I have created this account for your correspondence, Please delete the user talk from 60.241.7.211 or transfer it to my new account, as I feel I have followed your advice and furthermore have not breached any rules of wikipedia. (Nloob 00:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

I will do the latter. In any case, "mould" is not correct as even in the British spelling, "mould" has other meanings and so would needed to have been disambiguated. --Nlu (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Mould does have other meanings, and so maybe it does need to be disambiguated. Perhaps following this logic also, mold should be disambiguated as well. In any case, neither is more correct than the other, please refer to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mold for other meanings of mold. However I am happy to leave it as mold as it doesn't really bother me either way. Thanks for moving my talk page :) (Nloob 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

All right. Thanks and welcome. --Nlu (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

No problem. SteveO 12:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your block of IP 168.169.181.55 for Robert Frost vandalism.

Thanks for your swift work! What do you think of doing the same for 168.169.181.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 168.169.148.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as they seem to be mere variations on the above? Figma 17:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

They might or might not be the same person, and haven't vandalized past final warning, so I'm hesitant to do that right now. Please do report them if they vandalize further. (They might be all the same schoolboy/girl vandalizing, but they might not.) --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 17:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Block on 216.108.4.72

You appear to have blocked the User_talk:216.108.4.72 IP for a month. Unfortunately, this is a caching proxy, not an individual user. It is maintained (I believe) by the Yellowknife ISP "internorth.net", and is downstream from the entire Government of the NWT network, among other users. Could you please remove this block, or at least limit it to anon edits, not signed-in users. Note that 216.108.4.71 is/was a similar caching proxy, and they may be running them on a couple of other addresses in that range. - David Oberst 23:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Internorth appears to be running webcache proxies on the range 216.108.4.71-75 - you'll notice the DNS names all start "wc". I suspect that they are providing service to some of the local schools, either directly or through the GNWT, and that is where the vandalism is coming from. In any case, there are a large number of users going through these IPs, and any block should be on anon editing at the most. - David Oberst 01:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Username block of Guest9999 (talk · contribs)

I've referred your contested username block of User:Guest9999 to WP:RFC/N for discussion. You may want to contribute there. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

Hello, can you look into the edits of Tiptop356 (talk • contribs)? It looks to be another BlahBlahBlah124 (talk • contribs)/Nine eight seven (talk • contribs) sockpuppet account. --Muchness 15:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, unfortunately there is still some sockpuppet-related disruption on the Dynasty Warriors articles. RandomJoe125 (talk • contribs), the anonymous editor 4.186.186.25 (talk • contribs), and possibly Dr.Headache (talk • contribs) are sockpuppet accounts of blocked user RandomJoe123 (talk • contribs). I'm not sure if they're the same editor as BlahBlahBlah124. --Muchness 16:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to keep bothering you about this, but soon after you blocked those sockpuppet accounts, Teniii (talk • contribs) resumed editing on the same articles the blocked user had been revert-warring over: [2], [3], [4]. Looking at Teniii's editing history, it's possible this is yet another sock of the above accounts. --Muchness 18:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You know what man you really need to get a life. I really, at this point, don't care if I get blocked. Why would you just assume i am taking on the persona of a formerly accused account? Stop being a crybaby and listen up. If you paid attention you would see that I made the changes and posted a link becuase I too saw it on Koei's website. Stop jumping to conclusions, and defanitely stop ratting wrongfully accuse people out. Take it up with me before you take it up with an administrator in the future, your acting like a seven year old on the playground. You must have picked on a lot in school for you to act like this, i really don't know what your problem is, but it needs to stop here and now. No hard feelings i hope. Teniii 2:03 19 February, 2007 (UTC)

Please stop personally attacking Muchness, Teniii, as well as your abusive edit summary as to Deadkid dk (talk · contribs). I am giving you one more chance to show that you are not editing abusively. If you keep up doing this, I will have no choice but to conclude that you are, in fact, the same person who has been inserting historically incorrect information and block you as a result. Go read some real history. Games are good for general background, but they are no substitute for the real thing. --Nlu (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh Nlu, I think it is very likely that there are more sockpuppets on Dynasty Warriors related page. All of the sudden there are new account emerging to agree with Tenii. Like here List_of_Dynasty_Warriors_charactersSuredeath 03:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't think the situation is serious enough yet to warrant protection (which I thought about). I think that it might be worth it if you want to file a CheckUser request. --Nlu (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing {inwork} templates

Nlu,

Thanks for removing the {inwork} and {underconstruction} template tags from my WIP (work-in-progress) pages at my userpage - I mean it - I'm not being sarcastic!. I didn't know they were visible outside the "userspace". Is there any way to have them in there (one of the pages is a boilerplate template I use a lot), but not active, or am I just going to have to grin and bear it? NDCompuGeek 05:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I suppose you can make your own personal versions of those templates... --Nlu (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay - once again, thanks! NDCompuGeek 07:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)