User talk:Nlu/archive20

Paris Review
Why are you reverting the insertion of these links? While we should be combatting link spam, we shouldn't be deleting links to legitimate resources such as a PR interview. Gamaliel 14:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel that those are spam. Look at the user's editing pattern.  I have little doubt that these were intended to be linkspam, and I think that this kind of editing pattern needs to be discouraged in the strongest terms.  --Nlu (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if the links are legitimate and useful resources? Gamaliel 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think so -- and that's assuming that they are legitimate and useful. I don't find that they are.  --Nlu (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A link to an interview with an author from one of the world's most prestigious literary magazines is not a legitimate and useful link? Gamaliel 14:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not going to have this argument with you. The user's editing pattern needed to be stopped.  If the links themselves should be added, they should be added by consensus.  --Nlu (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see why we should prevent someone from adding useful links because of their editing pattern. Gamaliel 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a student interested in linking these Paris Review interviews--free interviews, I might add, from a non-profit institution--how might I provide readers with these important piece of information without offending Wikipedia's guidelines?--Linebreak 15:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll say that you're already seeing a disagreement between me and Gamaliel here, but I'd say, read WP:SPAM and WP:EL for more guidance. --Nlu (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So the more appropriate thing would be to discuss the contents of the interview in the body text and then cite the actual TPR interview below? I'm still a bit hazy how a free, non-profit resource that does nothing but inform interested readers could be viewed as something malicious and commerical. Deleting these links seems to indicate that somehow we should also delete the author's list of published works because someone could go out and buy these books, therefore making Wikipedia a contributor to a commercial activity. --Linebreak 15:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not debating this. It's not that they're malicious; it's that Wikipedia is not a search portal.  --Nlu (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A "search portal" in what sense?
 * "I'm not debating this." Well, that hardly seems fair. Isn't consensus the guiding light? I think adding maybe a salient and telling quote about an author within the body of his or her entry and then linking to the interview from which it came after that would be a sensible compromise. It's worlds away from a linkbot's actions, and it would improve the entry.--Cw cw 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although now I see that basically your entire talk archive is filled with this kind of fight. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but gosh if being eternally vigilant isn't incredibly confining.--Cw cw 15:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As someone interested in Lawrence Durrell, I appreciate Linebreak's addition of the Paris Review reference to that article, since it contains good background. Why can't Wikipedia contain comprehensive references to other reputable web sites? Nlu cites WP:EL, but that says: "What should be linked to: . . . Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." I think that describes the Paris Review interview well: it's 30 pages long, so it would be excessive and a copyright breach to incorporate it in the article, but people wanting to know about Durrell will find a link helpful. -- JimR 06:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the link to the Paris Review article on Yevgeny Yevtushenko, which is not freely available and can only be accessed by an online purchase, I originally formed the view that the anonymous poster who added it was a spammer. This suspicion was reinforced when I noticed that the editing history seemed to consist of little else other than the addition of such links. On examining the other links, however, I found that the majority appear to lead to articles which can be freely downloaded in PDF format, and hence are a genuinely useful resource. I don't really think that the single-minded bias of the editor can in itself be held against him/her, if the material itself is useful. Can I suggest, then, that these links are reviewed on a case by case basis to establish whether or not they are valuable? Personally I still strongly believe that where a link leads to nothing but a pay-for-view issue of the periodical, it should not be on the page. --Stephen Burnett 10:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll copy-and-paste this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:Spam, where I think it would be more useful. --Nlu (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Block question
Regarding blocks for this user; Blnguyen and I both blocked this user within seconds of each other. I didn't realize they were an abusive sock, so I only blocked for 24 hours while Blnguyen blocked indefinitely. The Block page states
 * A user may be blocked by more than one administrator at a time. In this case, the user will be blocked until his/her shortest block has expired. For instance, if an administrator blocks a user for one day, and another administrator blocks the same user for two days, then the user will remain blocked for one day, assuming that the blocks were given at the same time.

Am I to read "at the same time" as "the same timestamp?" In other words, if a second block is given seconds or minutes afterwards, does the system default to the shorter block? I unblocked my 24-hour block, then reblocked for indefinite to be safe. Was it necessary to do that? Thanks, OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. With two overlapping blocks, once the shorter one expires, the whole thing expires.  --Nlu (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Drumaville Consortium
Thanks for putting a protection on Drumaville Consortium. ... disco spinster   talk  14:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you.  --Nlu (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Latin help again
Hello, I remember your help at Forever Charmed (Charmed episode), and I wondered if you could help out with a similar situation. There are several other spells at Hollow (Charmed), which I suspect to be poorly spelled Latin. Could you take a look to see if you can figure out the correct spellings? Thank you. — Mi ra  07:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look... --Nlu (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can venture guesses that are better than what's on there right now. When the episodes rerun I'll try to catch the spells.  Thanks for letting me know.  --Nlu (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for trying. — Mi ra  02:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome back from your wikibreak, Nlu.--Bonafide.hustla 08:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Compromise" in East Sea
Welcome back from your wikibreak, Nlu.

In Talk:East Sea, you have said "I am not particularly opposed to the 'compromise'".

Concerning the first/prominent sentence, we have 2 versions to choose from....


 * Tortfeasor's version: East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan.  See also Sea of Japan naming dispute.
 * Endroit's version: East Sea is another name for the Sea of Japan as described by the Sea of Japan naming dispute.

Can you specify which of these 2 versions you prefer? I believe Endroit's version treats Sea of Japan naming dispute equally with Sea of Japan, and Tortfeasor's version does not. This is important because the Sea of Japan naming dispute article talks about the controversy including other uses for "East Sea", whereas the Sea of Japan article does not.

Also Bridesmill suggested using the tag in "East Sea". Please comment on that also. Thank you for your cooperation.--Endroit 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for making my time in Wikipedia super. I have decided to leave and I don't think I will be back. Thank you again for helping me and making my time in Wikipedia super. Best Regards, ForestH2  t/c 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I hope you do come back sometime.  --Nlu (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that I may want to come back soon because I liked contributing a lot when I didn't have to get invobled in some users. I maybe come back this fall or late summer, but for July, I'm out of here. I think I will come back. But my plans may change. ForestH2  t/c 23:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Elections in Indonesia
Hi, I see you removed the 'under construction' tag I'd added to Elections in Indonesia. You have a point - I have made some changes to the articles, but I haven't finished because I've just found some original material relating to the 1971 election. I shall bow to your experience and not put the tag back. Sorry if I broke any rules :-) Davidelit 10:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you broke no "rules," as there aren't really any rules with regard to this. However, I think if it's not been touched for a week, then it really isn't under active construction.  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Links
Thanks fro your message

If you think that "Genocide of Tamils" should not be given under the external links section, please state your reasons under the discussions section.

There is alreadya discussion on the aprticular matter invloving Kankman and other users.

In the event you are unable to provide a reason, the link will remain.

If you think I should be banned for adding the link, then you may do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.188.198 (talk • contribs)

Three Disasters of Wu
It has recently been proposed that my article, the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution, be joined with yours. I think it would be a good idea. Do you know about the "Four Buddhist Persecutions in China"? I haven't written the page on it yet, as I am lazy, but the first 3 involved emperors with the names of "Wu" and the last, and WORST, happened during the early Song Dynasty. I touched on it briefly in my article about the famed martial-scholar Zhou Tong, he was the adopted father and martial arts teacher of General Yue Fei. Click here! if you would like to read that section of the article. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC))
 * Well, the persecution by Emperor Shizong of Later Zhou is often connected with the three. (It didn't happen in the Song Dynasty, but the preceding Later Zhou.  I don't believe that the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution is at all an appropriate name, since it is not what it is referred to among Chinese historians.  --Nlu (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

80.249.52.136
Hi. You blocked 80.249.52.136 for six months for being the source of endless vandalism. Fair enough, but I edit from behind this proxy. Since a week ago today, as a result of Tim Starling's recent work on MediaWiki Bug 550, it's now possible to soft block IP addresses, so that non-logged in users can't edit, but logged-in users can. Could you change the block on this IP to a soft block please? You may as well also make it a permanent block - it's history shows that it never stays unblocked for more than a couple of days except in the school holidays. Thanks. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for reminding me.  --Nlu (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much - that's going to make my life a lot easier. Can I suggest you change it to an infinite length block?  Otherwise there'll be more vandalism at some point on the morning of the 18th December 2006, and I'll get blocked again.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 10:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I want to do that -- and, again, since there is now softblocking available, I think/hope whoever does it next, if it happens, will give it another softblock. Blocking it permanently is kind of a "no more chances" thing that I don't think I want to do.  --Nlu (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of your own page
Why do you continue to delete comments off your own discussion page? It appears you cannot accept criticism of any administrative blocks you make. Additionally, you have falsified admin moves you made by deleting them from the admin page itself. Can you explain your reasoning? Or will you delete this comment and once again claim these questions as acts of vandalism? -Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)
 * I do not understand what you're referring to. I periodically archive comments, if that's what you're referring to.  All of the archives are accessible above, as should be plain to you.  In any case, resumption of your past harassing activities will draw another block.  --Nlu (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As you have threatened me with another block on my user talk page for not using my signature because it is an act of vandalism, I would like your assistance in showing me exactly where in the wiki guidelines or rules where it states that not leaving your signature can be construed as an act of vandalism. In advance, thank you for your assistance.  -Policeman of the Control Freak Wikipedia Admins  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcyu (talk • contribs)
 * I am not playing this game with you. You're getting blocked.  --Nlu (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit War
I am in the middle of an Edit War with a user "Pentb" on the Mulatto english wiki page. Despite me winning the debate in the disucssion section, he persists in editing the page to his liking ignoring any of my contributions. Nlu - get on top of this ,please. CreoleMe 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. --Nlu (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I blocked everyone involved in the edit war CreoleMe and Pentb for an week and their likely sockpuppets indef. Jaranda wat's sup 01:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Ok, yes it was foolish to engage in an edit war. However, we had a lengthy debate in the discussion section and Pentb still refused to accept my edits. And his version of the article is now protected. How can I resolve this? Thank you. CreoleMe


 * I protected the article so that everyone, including both of you, can cool down a bit. I say that the next thing is to try to redo your argument in a way that is not personally-attacking, and try to find sources supporting your argument.  --Nlu (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Chao Chien-Ming
I noticed you protected this article because of constant vandalism by user: Chiang Kai-Shek, which is probably a good thing. Unfortunately, he made one last edit changing the original version by you from Republic of China (Taiwan) to Republic of China on Taiwan, which is a violation of WP: Naming Convention see. Note that: Generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T" while the People's Republic of China should be alphabetized under "C". The former can be listed, depending on context, either as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or "Taiwan (Republic of China)". I"m not asking you to unprotect it. but would you mind reverting to the pre-Chiang Kai-Shek version. Thanks a lot--Bonafide.hustla 08:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't, in good conscience, do that. I do suggest that you should consider filing a RfC.  --Nlu (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Siganture
Sorry, I must have forgotten to log in. That is my IP. Thanks for looking out for things like this. aido2002 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for getting back to me.  --Nlu (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

re: link to chinese resource removal
Thank you for your message and I appreciate your vigilance. Obviously I am new to contributing (not new to enjoying Wikipedia however). I can assure you I have absolutely nothing to do with the site in question other than I have found it to be a useful resource, and the podcasts are free to download via the creative commons license, which I felt was in the true spirit of Wikipedia or I would not have posted it. I have never posted content before and felt a little guilty that I have never contributed to a resource I make plenty good use of.

I made mention of the extra paid subscription service as I felt it was only reasonable to point that out (as other links in the resources who do have extra "paid" services are not clearly stated upfront such as the monkeyking software with its buy now tab as well as advertisements for google photo organizer seems a bit deceptive to me). The site I had posted is a well known FREE resource, and many others unassociated with the website have also posted the free content on their sites without any mention to the additional services that are paid for and without attribution.

But I understand your point as I looked over your suggested link of Wikepedia Spam (although I feel that after reading the guidelines, several other links fell short of Wikipedias guidelines, while perhaps not your particular standards). While I should have read the guidlines first, I was following what I felt was in line and still do with the content that was on the page itself. I leave it to your conscience to thouroughly investigate where one should be removed while another remains (it took incredible and careful consideration for me to have even made a post, let alone delete one)--an arguement can be made for both, but I have a 10 page essay to write on the Groteque for Monday, so I will pass. But I do agree that Wikipedia should not just become a list of external links, and as I did not contribute any content (as the chinese language is out of my league but perhaps you will see me post some content on Claude Cahun, or some other obscure modern artist, though now I highly doubt it as I do not have the time or energy for obviously having to justify every entry I make)I also appreciate you politely lecturing me in private on my discussion page rather than knee-jerk naming me "spammer" on the chinese discussion page. ;)

Take care and keep up the good work. Cyngs 22:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)cyngs
 * Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bewitched
I do not think it is fair that you believe you have the right to remove links to websites I have labored over. I am a web designer and I have always loved the TV classic "Bewitched" I belive that my flash-based Bewitched website and BNN (Bewitched News Network) deserve to be shown on the Wikipedia. Both pages are worthy of their linking and this ISN'T an advertisement! How dare you say something of the sort. If other people can have their pages linked from the Wikipedia, I believe that I can have my pages (THAT ARE RELATED TO THE SUBJECT) can be listed as well. In conclusion, it was definitely NOT FAIR for you to decide my standpoint or my reasons for adding two GREAT links to the Wikipedia.

Please consult before removing links next time.

CWDServices —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwdservices (talk • contribs)


 * Please see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Your edits were, in my opinion, clearly disqualified under both.  I do not have any obligation to consult you.  Continued reinsertion of the contents will be construed as repeated spamming and be dealt with as such.  --Nlu (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)