User talk:Nlu/archive21

User:LowDensityUser
User:LowDensityUser is an apparent sock of PoolGuy. He should be block immediately. Thanks.--Bonafide.hustla 06:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem.

But speaking of socks of checkusers, I came across this link [], when I googled my username. The result was shocking and disappointing. I wasn't aware that my privacy was actually invaded. Unfortunately, one of the checkuser was submitted by you back in April, which connects me with User:Thousandsons. The result was inconclusive, which fails to prove my innocence. Nevertheless, I don't think my behavior at that time warrant a checkuser. Apparently, my pattern of POV edits already ceases at that time. It is even more apparent that base on contributions, me and Thousandsons usually contribute in different fields. The accusation is highly dubious and invade my privacy. I was a registered user before User:Thousandsons arrival, so there is no way that I was created to circumvent his block. You could have easily contacted me via e-mail or talkpage. I don't know how clear I can be: I don't and won't create sockpuppets. (Why did I request a name change if I use sockpuppets?)

I felt User:Thousandsons indef. block plus talkpage protection was clearly out of process. Yes, he makes personal attack, but many users are worse than him. (ex: User:PoolGuy)The block was imposed without the involvement of the arbCom and the talkpage protection forbid him to request to be reinstated. I requested the unprotection on the ground that 1. He was probably gone. 2. Enough time had passed since his indef. block and permanent talkpage protection.

I also did not copy User:Thousandsons userpage. Well, partially I did because I wanted to put some of his userboxes and contents that also apply to myself on my page. I do that all the time. However, I did not add any of his personal attack material (one aiming at you) and other irrelevant stuff on my userpage. I also copied User:Silensor userpage and constantly copy others' userboxes that I like to my userpage. That being said, I feel the checkuser was really unnecessary and a waste of time.

Anyway, I hope you can take a bit of your time to elaborate your reasonings a little bit. I'm not really trying to make a big deal out of this, it's been such a loooong time ago. And I'm not like User:PoolGuy lol. But I will definitely appreciate a little more feedback on this. Thanks.--Bonafide.hustla 08:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, CheckUser is designed in such a way that, because so few people have access to it, there's really no threat of invasion of privacy. Obviously, Essjay found good cause to have the CheckUser done after I requested it.  CheckUser requests without sufficient cause are denied all the time.  --Nlu (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.--Bonafide.hustla 10:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

checkuser
seems to be sock of (or in this case IP address) of User:RevolverOcelotX. According to the edit history, he seems to be using it as a way to circumvent 3RR. Can you please look into this? Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 23:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. --Nlu (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Might or might not be his IP, but I don't have CheckUser powers and I don't think one is warranted, because there is no 3RR violation yet; his last reversion was only his second over a 24-hour period. If it does happen, you can file a RCU, or report it at WP:3RR.  (Whether the edit was his or not does not affect 3RR count, in any case, since he immediately edited after the IP.)  --Nlu (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nlu, accusation is false and groundless. That IP address clearly only reverted once in 24 hours on Chinese people. And I myself have not even reverted the Chinese people article in the same 24 hours as that IP address. This is an attempt to water down this issue on the part of . Please see  User talk:Alex Bakharev for a full explanation. Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 01:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. In any case, as stated above, there's no 3RR violation, and even if I do have CheckUser powers, I would have denied a CheckUser request at this point.  Folks, in any case though, please play nice.  --Nlu (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

is blanking his talk page
Hi, has been repeatedly mass blanking and deleting content from user talk page, including all the valid warnings regarding the blocks he has recieved in the past, even when warned not to about it. Are Bonafide.hustla's edits appropriate? Thanks. --RevolverOcelotX 01:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a controversial topic, even among admins. I'd suggest bringing it to WP:AN/I and ask for suggestions.  That's particularly because I am fairly busy tonight and can't really deal with the issue with any kind of justice.  --Nlu (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Aggression
Could you please help me delete Aggression for housekeeping? I need to reverse a redirect with Aggression (psychology). ThanksJianLi 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. The double redirects need to be fixed.  Are you going to do it, or do you want me to?  --Nlu (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, there was some confusion. Here's what happened: I actually wanted to move the content "Aggression". Someone else did that in the time before you took action, so it seemd to you like I wanted it moved to "Aggression (psychology)". Anyway, it's all sorted out now, so don't worry about it. I just pressed the "revert" link in the deletion log . I didn't know there was such a nifty option :) JianLi 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And I'll take care of the double redirects JianLi 04:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Help. Nahdatul Ulama
Hi there. You once helped out by removing an in progress box I'd left on too long. Could I ask for your help again?

I got into a pickle the other day. Spotting a red link, I created a stub called Nadhatul Ulama as a place marker until I had time to add more detail. Then I realized it was spellt differently on another page, so created another page called Nadhalatul Ulama. Tragically I then realised that a page called Nahdatul Ulama, also a stub but rather better than my effort, already existed and that Nahdlatul Ulama automatically linked to it anyway (at least two spellings exist, but I invented a new one as well).

Following the rule that if you're in a hole, stop digging, I turned off my computer and went to bed before I wrecked the Indonesian history and politics pages in their entirety. As an admin, could you possibly help by deleting Nadhalatul Ulama and Nadhatul Ulama, but not Nahdatul Ulama? Sorry and thanks. Davidelit 05:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  --Nlu (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

User 216.186.163.167
is out spamming Wikipedia and advertising the same site again now that his/her block has expired, you can check their recent edits. I guess this person didn't learn the first time. --Life is like a box of chocolates 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a new spam4. Thanks for letting me know.  --Nlu (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Block
Figured you might be interested in this comment I made. :-) Ta bu shi da yu 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, no such user exists, does one? --Nlu (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Cute 1 4 u
User:Cute 1 4 u is the puppet master of socks User:Raven Symone, User:Gemini531 proven by the below checkuser request []. Please take a look at this and block the 3 accounts accordingly. Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 10:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I am unfamiliar with the situation, I think it may be better for you to bring this up in WP:AN/I; sockpuppets are not automatically blockable, only blockable if they're abusive, and so if you can discuss what abuses Cute 1 4 u has committed while you let the admins know this, it would be helpful. Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was already discussed, but no further issue was addressed following the completion of checkuser. Shouldn't the user be blocked for impersonating a celebrity figure Raven Symone? Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 01:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there's actually no set policy on this either, but I'll block Raven Symone as an inappropriate user name. --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like beat me to it.  --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Block of Biggus Dickus
On Friday, August 4th, you blocked my user name Biggus dickus. Would you kindly consider revising that decision, or explain why you think it's so inappropriate? It's not a provocative name, it's just a Monty Python character.Raymond Luxury Yacht 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been repeatedly and patiently explained to User:Biggus dickus and he has ignored that explanation, suggesting that he was trolling - demanding explanations of things that have been explained and apologies from users who have followed Wikipedia rules and guidelines correctly. ➨  ЯEDVERS  18:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that you've explained it appropriately, and I have no plans to apologize or to reverse my actions. If Raymond Luxury Yacht (which is not an objectionable user name) continues this, I think he should be blocked for disruption.  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lara Veronin
My link of Lara Veronin's page was not my own blog. It is her own. I feel that if the Twins (band) site can post their email, her Xanga can be on it too. It is her's and not some fake user. She attended Taipei American School with me and I know her personally. That is her Xanga. If you have any more concerns, please contact me. Thanks--the MOLIU gecko 15:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no verifiable way to ascertain whether she was the author of the blog or not. If you have some verification, please cite it.  --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness... well, I know her personally and that is her blog. In any case, not having that link is just a loss for Wikipedia. --the MOLIU gecko 02:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Colin Farrell
That revert was funny. It actually made me laugh out loud, staring at it. I feel the need to BJAODN it now! Heh heh :D Iola k ana |T  15:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) --Nlu (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD: Buffyverse studies
Hiya, I noticed you nominated to delete Buffyverse studies, well I spent a bit of time trying to improve the article, and would massively appreciate it if you had a read over the newly edited article, and comments in the deletion forum and considered if you wanted to stick with your delete vote. I think that the new version is far more encyclopedic. -- Paxomen 13:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention, but I don't think I am changing my vote on this one. The subject matter itself is unencyclopedic, in my opinion.  --Nlu (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research
I saw your message and immediately tried to remove the reference, but found it missing :-) Thanks! Nyttend 04:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you!  --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kuomintang
Apparently you reversed my edits. However, I can't help but question the correct English translation of the chinese term. I think "Chinese Republican party" should be more appropriate than "Chinese Nationalist Party." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodecahedron45 (talk • contribs)
 * Maybe, maybe not. The point is that your edit was not in conformance with the neutral point of view policy.  --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be more careful
This comment-less reversion was completely inappropriate. Please execute more care with your editing privileges. --Gmaxwell 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You were the one messing with another user's user page. The revert was appropriate.  --Nlu (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please restate that, because I'm not sure I understand your response. I told you that you revert was completely inappropriate so now you will argue with me??--Gmaxwell 17:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Not only do I disagree with your assertion that the revert was inappropriate, but I believe strongly that the revert was appropriate.  --Nlu (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for your position? Looking at your history I see a number of questionable reverts, I'm concerned that there might be a significant misunderstanding going on. --Gmaxwell 20:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel that I make "a number of questionable reverts," go ahead and request that I be de-adminned. I do not appreciate accusations without the guts to back them up.  --Nlu (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I've been trying to resolve this without filing an RFC but your hostility is making it difficult. Here is an example of a similar inappropriate revert.  Cleaning up vandalism is good, but it's not like edits on userpages are going to go unnoticed if someone isn't reverting with extreme aggression. --Gmaxwell 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm the one who started being hostile here. --Nlu (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then you misunderstand me. What reason would I have to be hostile towards you? As far as I could tell, you made a mistake, and I've seen you make other similar mistakes... I understand that you mean well and I couldn't fathom viewing your action as anything other than a bit of carelessness. Had I thought that you were acting out of malice my response would not have been to ask you to please be more careful. It seems to me now, however, that you are laboring under a mistaken impression that userpages are not editable by others rather than simply mistaking okay edits for vandalism. If this is your view I must point out that you are incorrect and request that you discontinue reverting non-vandal edits on userpages. --Gmaxwell 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nlu, I think Gmaxwell is "personally acquainted" with User:Mindspillage and edit with the same IP address, so the revert isn't really a big deal. Note that Mindspillage's userpage called Gmaxwell her "significant other". (I think they're a couple)--Bonafide.hustla 04:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Nlu, this is a wiki, you're allowed to edit other people's userpages. Remember, no one owns anything here. -- Cyde Weys 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, there was no explanation as to the basis of his edit. --Nlu (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um. I explained it in my edit summary. She was back. What greater explanation could you desire? --Gmaxwell 20:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Specifically, WP:UP states:


 * As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:
 * Contributions must be licensed under the GFDL, just as articles are.
 * Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
 * Community policies, including No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.
 * In some cases, material that does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as well as edits from banned users.


 * In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited, and may even have a note to that effect. Other users may object and ask you not to edit their user pages, and it is probably sensible to respect their requests. The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. In some cases a more experienced editor may make a non-trivial edit to your userpage, in which case that editor should leave a note on your talk page explaining why this was done.  This should not be done for trivial reasons.


 * In this case, Gmaxwell edited Mindspillage's user page without Mindspillage's permission. My revert is, I still feel, more than justified -- it is virtually required to make sure that it was not vandalism.  As Bonafide.hustla noted above, it might very well be the case that they are a couple, but there was still no explicit authorization on Mindspillage's part.  And Gmaxwell then had the audacity to come in here and accuse me of inappropriately reverting articles.  No, I see no reason for Gmaxwell's accusation, and I do not take his voice kindly.  --Nlu (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. You leave me speechless. --Gmaxwell 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Psst. The correct response when someone points out that you reverted a good-faith edit as vandalism is "Oh, I'm sorry about that." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC
 * You think that his tone of voice and failure to explain are justified? --Nlu (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not ideal, but, frankly, your revert was kind of dumb. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nlu, *what* failure to explain!?@ You never requested that I explain, and my edit summary explained why I made the edit. I asked above, what more could you want. Please answer that question. --Gmaxwell 22:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "No you're not!" is not a sufficiently good explanation. --Nlu (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the text that said "In Boston/Cambridge for Wikimania.", my edit summar was "No you're not". I don't see the problem with that, but if it wasn't enough for you, you could have simply asked me.. I've made thousands of edits over a number of years, so it's not like I wouldn't have responded to any questions from you. It is fortunate that she hadn't seen my removal before your revert.. if that had happened the notice might have stayed up for weeks until someone else fixed it, and then would you have reverted them too?  Am I mistaken in assuming that you've read WP:AGF? --Gmaxwell 22:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

(looks up, completely befuddled at the flap over this issue) Yes, his edit of my userpage was perfectly fine. I don't believe userspace is sacred, and I have an open invitation on the page to anyone, not just my SO, to edit it (because I am absentminded and will leave such notices up far too long, among other reasons!). As I do have the open invitation to edit I would prefer edits that are not obvious vandalism not be reverted; in general it seems overly aggressive to me to revert an edit to another user's userspace that isn't clearly vandalism, especially when one established user edits another's. (As it happens, I hadn't noticed that any of this had happened before I removed the notice myself an hour later!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is everyone blaming Nlu? He made the reverts in good faith. In my case, several users have vandalized my talkpage and he was really helpful in reverting them. Finger-pointing at a good admin is hurtful to the project.--Bonafide.hustla 21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * From the thread above it appears that Nlu intentionally reverted a non-vandalism edit because he believes the only userpage a user may edit is their own. This is in incorrect interpretation of policy and does not match standing practices on Wikipedia. Nlu has made a number of such edits, which may cause harm if allowed to continue. It isn't a matter of blame. Nlu should discontinue reverting good edits based on his bizarre position. I was quite surprised to get any reply other than an oops from Nlu. --Gmaxwell 22:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an incorrect interpretation of my actions. You removed a notice from Mindspillage that she was away; I had no way to know whether the removal was vandalism or not.  --Nlu (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you had no way of knowing then you had no reason to revert it. We do not revert by default at Wikipedia. --Gmaxwell 22:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel I should also point out that your claim of having no way of knowing is incorrect, you could have simply asked. :( --Gmaxwell 22:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel that by default, since she did not change the notice, a removal of such a notice needed to be presumed to be incorrect and reverted. --Nlu (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that you should make a point next time to ask before reverting an edit whose purpose you do not immediately understand. Notwithstanding the fact that Greg and Kat are widely known to be closely acquainted to one another, or the fact that Kat explicitly encourages people to edit her page, you really should have asked either Greg or Kat about the edit before reverting.  The removal of the notice, if it had been inappropriate, did not immediately endanger the encyclopedia; the time it took for you to engage one or both in discussion would not have harmed anything, and you could have avoided both antagonizing a valued editor and also looking like a fool.  You really need to work on not assuming that edits you don't immediately understand are vandalism; that is a failure to assume good faith and is a sign that you spend too much time doing vandalism patrol and not enough on actually editing the encyclopedia.  Kelly Martin (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I find the assertion that I don't do enough editing to be mindboggling. Check my contributions list.  --Nlu (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your recent contributions appear, to my eye, to be mainly reverting vandals, yelling at vandals, and talking about reverting vandals. Not what I'd call "editing the encyclopedia".  Kelly Martin (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. :) Dinosaur puppy 05:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) Good to have you.  --Nlu (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

User:OG loc
I don't see anything that User:OG loc did to deserve an indef. block, just another desperate wannabe-gangsta. Can u plesae elaborate the basis of your block?--Bonafide.hustla 05:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I blocked the account both for inappropriate user name (clear gang use of "loc") and for vandalistic edits. He/she can always come back with a more appropriate user name if desired (and keeps edits clean).  --Nlu (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(From H4x)
Sorry. I was showing someone who is a critic of Wikipedia how amazing it can be. Won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by H4x (talk • contribs)
 * That's all right. --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Back
I'm back. ForestH2 t/c

Thanks. ForestH2 t/c

Anonymous editor 194.1.191.29
Hi there. On 25 April 2006 you temporarily blocked the IP 194.1.191.29 . This editor has continued to use Wikipedia almost exclusively to place spam external links to a hotel booking service disguised as photo pages. This can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=194.1.191.29 My suggestion would be for this user to be blocked indefinitely. --Bcnviajero 15:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention. We don't usually block IPs indefinitely unless the IP in question is an open proxy, but I have blocked the IP for 48 hours.  --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. The thing with this person is that he/she disappears for a while then comes back with more spam.  Therefore, the temporary block may not do much good.  In any case, we'll keep an eye out and see what happens.  --Bcnviajero 16:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I have happened across you, there is some very strange activity going on at the Barcelona page. I am not sure whether the intention is vandalism or not, but it certainly appears to be and the result is certainly so.  The user is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Quirze.  This does seem like a case where a temporary block might do some good. --Bcnviajero 16:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave Quirze one last warning. Let's see what happens.  --Nlu (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I may bug you in the future with similar issues now that I know how quickly you react......  Many thanks.  --Bcnviajero 16:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I am only reacting quickly right now because I am on and available. I am actually not often around during the day.  --Nlu (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough. The Barcelona one I seem to have persuaded to stop, I think it was not malice, just extreme misguidedness!  Thanks.  --Bcnviajero 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Block IP Address: 68.220.56.137
68.220.56.137 has vandilazed another talk page (Talk: Johnny Pacar).Is this worth blocking?You already gave him/her a warning.-- Cute 1 4 u   22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have if I had found this out sooner, but it's been a week since he/she last vandalized anything. I'd say no at this point.  Thanks for letting me know.  --Nlu (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: 61.69.12.14
Thanks for letting me know, Nlu. Raul654 unblocked 61.69.12.14 about an hour after you left the message on my talk page. I think imposing a "hard" block on such an IP would be appropriate if the blocking admin ticks the Block anonymous users only checkbox, which I must have forgotten to do. I'm not going to reblock since they've already served the majority of the month. Thanks again,  Sango 123  13:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)