User talk:Nlu/archive35

Hi Again
I thought you might want to see my new expansion in the "Far East" section of Painting, where I contributed about 90% of its writing (lol), with a new History of Chinese Painting sub-section. It looks very good now, two new pics within the body of paragraphs, and two external links to pics located in the Freer Gallery of Art in the Smithsonian Museum, Washington D.C. (the latter two are exceptionally good, two of the best examples of Song and Ming era paintings that I've ever seen).

--PericlesofAthens 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look, but as someone who has almost no artistic aptitude, I am not sure I can be of much help even as a critic... Thanks, though, for letting me know.  --Nlu (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Your recent block of DarzieP
Hello. You recently blocked, and they have asked to be unblocked. Thank you, Sandstein 21:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose it if you wish to unblock. I'll leave that decision in your capable hands.  :-)  Thanks for letting me know.  --Nlu (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand I just received this odd message from his "brother", whose silly (co-)userpage you have recently MfDed. What do you mean - sock alert? Sandstein 22:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is plausible that they're brothers, but it is also just as plausible that they're sockpuppets of the same person. I don't know what I'd believe, but I'm inclined to give him/her/them the benefit of doubt that they are in fact different people.  But different people shouldn't be sharing the same account.  --Nlu (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine
IMHO, I think you should've asked another admin to block him. You were pretty involved in this case, especially at Talk:Goguryeo. Do you mind if I unblock him? Keep mind that if he is disruptive again, you can always go to WP:AN/I. Khoikhoi 05:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would mind if you unblock him. His conduct at Suspected sock puppets/Assault11 was pretty unreasonable -- even in his initial report, and things went downhill after that -- and he is thoroughly unapologetic.  If he apologizes, I would not be opposed to an unblock, but he either doesn't realize the wrongfulness of his conduct or doesn't care.  Until he shows that that's not the case, an unblock will lead to worse behavior, not better.  --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I am all for second chances, but second chances requires that the people learned from their mistakes. He's not learning from it, yet.  I gave him multiple warnings -- I told him to stop taunting Ksyrie and the other people that he accused of being sockpuppets; I told him to stop arguing that such conduct was not wrongful.  I told him that doing it again would draw a block for disruption, and he taunted me.  Unless he apologizes, he shouldn't be unblocked.  --Nlu (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, but you still can't block people you're involved in a dispute with. That kind of thing is frowned upon. See and  for some examples. Khoikhoi 06:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe those referred to edit wars; I wasn't in an edit war with him. Further, plenty of people were witnessing his conduct on the sockpuppet report; they had an opportunity to block him and didn't.  --Nlu (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Only the second one. The one with Malber was an issue with civilty as well, in addition to a controversial RfA question. Anyways, you don't have to be edit warring with someone to be in a dispute with them. Khoikhoi 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV
Sorry, the script I was using made them show up twice and I didn't notice the timestamps were nearly identical... &mdash;dgies tc 07:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems. Thanks for your diligence.  --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, they're back...
 * ... and blocked. &mdash;dgies tc 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) Thanks for letting me know.  --Nlu (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppetry
Hi, Nlu

We have a confirmed sockpuppetry at Requests for checkuser/Case/Etimesoy. And this involves TWO of our mediation participants Etimesoy & CronusXT.--Endroit 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'm inclined to block  and  as abusive sockpuppets, while leaving  unblocked but warned.  Did you notice any recent instances of 3RR violations for CronusXT, when sockpuppetry is accounted?  (I don't think a block for a Mar. 14 3RR violation is warranted now.)  --Nlu (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding, he has singlehandedly violated 3RR in Comfort women on March 14.  &  have together violated 3RR in Japan-Korea relations on March 14.


 * Based on my observation, this user has an agenda, and engages in revert-wars across multiple pages at a time. The pattern fits PREVIOUS sockpuppet users at Requests for checkuser/Case/Goguryeo and Requests for checkuser/Case/Appleby.  But of course, there's no way for me to confirm if there's any connection.  All sockpuppet users except  have been blocked in the PREVIOUS cases.  ( has been inactive since its sockpuppetry was confirmed).


 * Regarding the CURRENT revert-warring (last few days), there are multiple articles involved. Out of those, Syngman Rhee line is an easy one to observe at this time.  And I suspect  and  as sockpuppets of, based on the history of that article .--Endroit 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's actually enough at Syngman Rhee line implicating CronusXT (plus, the 3RR didn't involve that account), and I'm not inclined to block CronusXT for the 3RR violation on March 14; that's over a week ago. I've warned him/her; please let me know if more misbehavior comes up.  I'd suggest another RCU based on the results, however.  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, since CronusXT hasn't edited in five days, I think it was intended to be a throw-away account, so I'll block it indefinitely as well. --Nlu (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and submitted a new RFCU at Requests for checkuser/Case/Etimesoy. Please stay tuned.--Endroit 17:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ... And has been confirmed as well.  Regarding Herrich, please note:
 * On March 4, Jossi did not block Herrich for multiple-3RR violations. That's because Herrich was never warned before.  However, we now know that its sockpuppet (OpieNn) has been warned as follows....
 * Diff of 3RR warning to OpieNn: 08:17, 13 February 2007
 * Based on evidence, this user used sockpuppets to evade 3RR violations.
 * This person appears to have a clear pattern of evasive editing using sockpuppets. Is there a good forum to ask for people's opinions regarding this person's behavior?  Also, I'm inclined to ask what Jossi thinks of this behavior.  Please let me hear what you think.--Endroit 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll block. There's really not much to be done beyond that. --Nlu (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine 2
He only made one comment after I unblocked him, after I said "Please be more civil, and please note that you should not taunt others or argue that such conduct is not wrongful." I'm not sure what's wrong with this:

''Thanks a lot! I check my talk page about every 5 hours... Yay! Wikipedia's whole lot scarier than I thought. Now that I'm free to do something I don't know what to do.''

The last bit doesn't even make any sense. Do you think that was supposed to be a rude remark, because I honestly can't tell. Khoikhoi 02:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the context shows that it's a snide remark about being unblocked. Regardless whether it is, it's certainly not an apology for his conduct.  --Nlu (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure. And, apologizing is not an action that can be imposed by force. If he is disruptive again, I will handle it myself. Khoikhoi 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Hello admin Nlu. I came to apologize, and look what I see. High-level data gathering & analysis of me?

I'm very sorry for my rude remarks & any sign of resistance that I showed in our discussions, & especially "another admin will unblock me" comment. If such actions were to be ignored by admins, precedents could be set with which admins' powers could be diminished & Wikipedia's stability & order would be disrupted. If I were just a little more considerate of my thoughts, then I would have reworded that phrase to "I don't think that other admins will agree with you on blocking me under those conditions".

If you look here, I had said in reply to your request for Rfc on Korea history, "A respectable Wikipedian Nlu has resquested for Rfc on Korea history for KPOV. Could you guys comment on this?" I had known you for a long time (since your IP block on my school). My wish now is that only if we were able to work on something that both of us would agree on, then the whole issue might not have been personal, block would not have happened, and I would have had a good online friend.

Let me tell you a little about myself so that you could understand. I'm a non-conformist. What I've observed during my stay at Wikipedia is that the whole issue of adminship is not perfect & blocking seems to be used as a punishment more than as a preventive measure. Another issue is that, even though the founder of Wikipedia Jimbo Wales says that adminship is nothing special & that he doesn't know why people would crave for it, admins are elevated in status. For example, if I were to say something disrespectful to Good friend100, I don't get a block (unless it is repeated & at the same time, the user must request for a block) & the matter itself becomes personal. However, if I were to say something disrespectful to you, then it becomes a challenge to the bureacracy of Wikipedia, its ability to function properly, and a personal attack. See in the imbalance there? This is a challenge that Wikipedia must try to solve - trying to be in line with the idea that adminship doesn't grant you more authority & voice but that it's more of a functional need & at the same time making Wikipedia operational.

Just a thought. Thanks a lot! (Wikimachine 17:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC))


 * I appreciate your comments. Now, the issue really wasn't that you were being disrespectful to me, per se; it was these two issues:


 * (implied, yes, but what I saw as fairly strongly implied) taunt against others and asking for their IP addresses and
 * Assertion that, effectivelly, a block warning isn't effective against you since you'll get someone to unblock it.


 * Both of these statements are, in my opinion, big no-nos. I am more than willing to discuss with you on content.  I have no special privilege on content, and I would never (hopefully) be goaded into a block based on content, because that would be improper.  (That having been said, I do think that you need to watch some of your comments on Talk:Goguryeo; one comment of yours, which I did not respond to, basically told everyone (Chinese, Korean, and otherwise) "listen to me, or I'll disrupt," -- another major no-no.  Tone it down, and again, be more willing to listen to others.  Respect can't be demanded; it has to be earned.


 * Personal nonconformist philosophy is fine, but here on Wikipedia, we have standards. If you can't abide by those standards, you shouldn't be editing, as Wikipedia is a cooperative project.  I hope that you'll channel your energy the way that David Henry Thoreau did with his nonconformism.  You obviously have things to contribute to the project on.  Do it in a positive manner.  I'm sure you have it in you to do that.  --Nlu (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

History of "Manchuria" template
Nlu, you are not serious about adding this template to articles related to Northeast China, are you? As I stressed earlier, Manchuria is an inappropriate term for Dong Bei and would be considered a slap-in-the-face for us Northeast Chinese. I sincerely hope that you reconsider. Assault11 22:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't impose it without consensus. Again, I'd like to see what the community thinks.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else can individually decide what goes on.  --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well then. I have made clear my representations on the issue as well as rebuttals with regards to the use of "Manchuria" in Chinese historiography. In any case, I'm not worried considering there are many other editors that also disagree with this issue - albeit for completely different reasons. Assault11 22:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kool-age H8R
Hello! Could you remember to leave a notice when you block someone, in line with the Blocking instructions? It can make things much easier for other editors and admins. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 10:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I really don't think that there is an appropriate block message when the block is for both user name and vandalism; neither the user name block nor the vandalism block messages tell the whole story. --Nlu (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you can just write a line or two. It means that other admins, for example, don't find half-way through the blocking process that you've already blocked. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 17:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All right. Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello
My apologies for posting the links in Liu Bei and Wu Zixu's section. However, I do not understand how links to my English translation from the actual Sanguo Zhi and Shiji biography would be considered advertising or promotion while a "Comprehensive Biography" from KMA, whose source is unverifiable, wouldn't. I don't quite see how this is not promoting KMA. Read any wiki page on Three kingdoms characters and there are always links to KMA biographies. If these standards of no-advertising or promotion of sites are uniformly applied and in a non-biased fashion, then these KMA biographies should never even be linked on any wiki page related to the Three Kingdoms.

Besides, I am in the process of publishing my translations on KMA so does that mean that only then will it pass this criteria? Steve8988 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, again, I don't think this complies with WP:EL and WP:SPAM. What I find even more problematic, in addition, is that it requires a password -- and providing a password does not solve the problem, but compounds the problem, since you are making Wikipedia complicit in the usually-disallowed practice of sharing passwords.


 * Fair enough, those passwords and use of PDFs are a relic from a few years back, where plagiarism in the community was a problem. It is as simple for me to make PDFs with no passwords.
 * --Steve8988 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An additional problem that I see is that this was intended to attract peopel to your translations. Even if that is not intended to attract people to the Web site, it is still promotion of yourself, which, in addition to not complying with WP:EL and WP:SPAM, creates problems with conflicts of interest.  --Nlu (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * However you haven't quite explained in detail how the Kongming's Archive links are themselves not a promotion of the website. If you apply the rules uniformly, then these should be removed too.  It is not my interest for self promotion but for the dissemination of knowledge, which may be not easily accessible in the public domain.   If you can advise on how to do this properly, I would be most grateful.
 * --Steve8988 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is: they might be promotion of the Web site. But I have no time and ability to track down every single spam link to delete them. I can only deal with what I see at the time. If you feel that they are, feel free to delete them. --Nlu (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Yuchi/Weichi
Sadly, I don't. Sources for pronounciations aren't very common. But I know for a fact that 尉 is supposed to be read as Yù when used as a last name in 尉遲. It's a 破音字. _dk 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In an attempt to back up my assertion in case my word is not enough, I searched Google for some verifiable and bilingual sources:
 * Here is an abstract of a Chinese academic journal
 * And here is a (non-wiki) encyclopedia entry
 * I hope these can convince you. _dk 16:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jason cox
This page, edited once by user Jasonquinn72 (contribs), may need to be removed, as it seems like an ego page, and there is little significance, therefore it may not be fitting for its very own page. --Qwerty (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Bah, beaten to the punch... my bad. --Qwerty (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * :-) --Nlu (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Vines HS
I see you have been editing the Vines page. Me and a few others are trying to coordinate the effort between us so if you could tell us maybe what area you would like to work on we would greatly appreciate it! Rockinbuddy 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To tell the truth, I know almost nothing about them. The only reason you see me on the edit history is because I revert and/or remove vandalism when I see it.  --Nlu (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Liberty Middle School IP
The IP Address is that of Liberty Middle School in West Orange, NJ United States of America 07052. I wrote the Liberty Middle School (New Jersey) article about 1 month ago, and if you check the history, you will see that this IP has made 2 edits on this article. I've noticed that the school's IP has been blocked, when I logged in during a free period to find out that Wikipedia was not able to be edited I'm not exactly sure If I'm supposed to put this message onto your talk page, but I hope it works out. Thanks, JarHead 20:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The IP doesn't appear blocked to me. Can you give me what the block message says?  --Nlu (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion.
I noticed that the change for 莫離支 to 大莫離支 in "Dae Mangniji (대막리지, 莫離支)" has not been agreed. As a native speaker (writer to be exact), it is true that 莫離支 should have 大 in the front because, the Dae in Dae Mangniji means 大. I no that this has nothing to do with your responsibility, but since you are an administrator who is related to or interested in this article, I was just saying my opinion of the change. Maybe you noticed it, but did not allow korea history to change it because there was a mistake in other things besides the 大. (?) I am not sure what to say about this thing, but it would be grateful if you can consider my petite suggestion just once s'il vous plait. Plus, I do not know what is going on, but some users have contacted me to tell you to  "free" korea history. I heard his opinion of the things that you did to him, but I will not choose a "side" before I hear your opinion. Could you briefly explain to me what korea history did? S'il vous plait. (尹一荷 Orthodoxy 15:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I really have no knowledge on this, as the Chinese sources only gave Mangniji, but are not conclusive on the issue.
 * As to Korea history, his/her behavior is/was unacceptable. He/she doesn't discuss edits, rarely uses edit summaries, and when he/she does either does so with abusive language.  Moreover, he/she freely removes uncontested improvements and inserts language that is horrendous in both style and grammar, just for POV-pushing purposes.  I have had disagreements with many editors here, but those are genuine disagreements as to opinion.  Korea history's edits were disruptive.  --Nlu (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

User:PortlandGayJew
Hi there. I notice you just blocked them for username but you left the ACB flag set which means they won't be able to fix the issue and create a new account. Mind if I unblock/reblock to fix? - Alison ☺ 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the user's (one, for sure) edit, I'm inclined to leave the flag in place to let the user sit out a bit of autoblock time. But I don't have a strong objection.  --Nlu (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 'sokay. I trust your judgement (newb admin here) - Alison ☺ 17:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankenstein
It's been vandalised a considerable bit these past days, so how about semi-protecting it, to prevent further vandalism? Thanks. --Qwerty (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's not warranted at the moment, and I don't think we need to worry about much of it again until Monday. --Nlu (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Jin Dynasty (1115-1234)
Nlu, can you please monitor the Jin Dynasty article? It appears that the reincarnation of Cydevil is asserting the ridiculous claim that "the ancestor of Wanyan (clan) came from Silla". There is no mention of Silla in the primary source Jin Shi. I doubt that he can even read Chinese. Assault11 04:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Coming from Silla would be a ridiculous claim, but coming from Goryeo would not be. Let me take a look to see what he's claiming exactly.  --Nlu (talk) 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

220.239.40.200
has vandalized after having received a final warning. I have warned the user for his/her/their last edit, but now I do not know what to do. Please help, Nlu. Thanks.

Also, I've run a WHOIS and "IP Information" check. --Qwerty (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like another admin got him/her. In the future, once you gave the final warning and user still vandalizes, it might be best to report to WP:AIV.  Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay, okay. Thanks, Nlu, for the help, again. --Qwerty (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you.  --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, no, I thank you (too). --Qwerty (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe your user page's "Special Wikistress-inducing issues: Well, not a "Wiki"-stress per se, but belated mourning (and it is my fault that I did not find out until a Wiki-debate forced me to find out) that one of the professors I am most grateful for having during my college years, Professor Jeffrey Mass, a true giant among American scholars of Japanese history, had passed away in 2001, at the relative young age of 60. It makes me feel more than a little ashamed and guilty that I had not kept in touch while he was alive." might be a bit more apt if it were relatively. Perhaps. --Qwerty (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That depends on whether "young age" is a noun for this purpose or "age" is modified by "young." I'll think about it. :-) Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)