User talk:Nlu/archive40

Hetoum
Hi. Could you please have a look at Church of Kish article? I’m having problems with User:Hetoum, who changed his name to User:Hetoum I. It is the same user who was involved in repeated vandalism of my user page a few months ago. This user keeps on edit warring and reverting the article to his version, ignoring opinions of other users, claming that the church is Armenian and using as a sole reference an Armenian nationalistic online source, which is not third party and cannot be considered reliable due to the obvious conflict of interest. I explained him the rules many times, but he keeps on edit warring. I would appreciate if you could have a look at this article. Regards, Grandmaster 11:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest filing a RfC. Right now, I am quite busy in real life, so I don't think I can easily get in and research the history of this myself.  --Nlu (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. Grandmaster 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Suyab assistance
Hello, sorry for bothering you again, I can found no admin who are interested in the Sui & Tang history, I'm sure whether that's your field, but could you look over the Suyab for the issues addressed under the talk page as well as the article of Tong Yabghu? Your input will be appreciated. Thanks. Eiorgiomugini 16:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * While Tang history is a major area of study of mine (not academically, just personally), I am actually unfamiliar with these particular subjects, and if/when I actually get to the time of adding/revising articles for the Xuanzong period, I might be able to give some input them. Until then, I really don't think I can say much on the subjects.  --Nlu (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Footing and citations
It seemed that our friend here Ghirlandajo had been removing my comments on the examples of attack to others, what should be done right here, any help or suggestions for solution for this? Thanks. Eiorgiomugini 17:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see these as attacks. The tags are harmless.  --Nlu (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Harmless, yes, but WP:STALKING, the user in question had been following me around over the past few days, in particular, the articles that I had been created, such as Tuqi, Huyan, Battle of Ikh Bayan, Battle of Mobei, Luanti. If you can see his last edit summaries over the articles, he was asking for deletion on the ground of the lack of footnotes. This was obviously a retaliation as you can see, since I had earlier added the harmless tags (footnote and unreferenced) to the article Western Turkic Khaganate, though was removed by him later on. Here is another obvious stalk that can be seen under the edit summary, it said "specifically for Eiorgiomugini", as you can see this guy had been obvious enough to shown his personal vendetta towards me.

This leads me to make a warning on him over his talk, but was removed, I'm thinking of adding another one, since he simply neglected it, but there's no way for me to re-add again and again. There is only a few things I could do, (1) ask for a RfC, but that would be difficulty, since the problems lies on the issue with his misbehavior; (2) ask for help in WP:ANI, but that would be consider as forum shopping, even though he had been doing the same; (3) request for attention over WP:LA, which is even more than a mission immpossible, since I practically know very few of them, and there no guarantee whether anyone of them would help me out. Eiorgiomugini 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given this, then, I'd say that filing an RfC might not be that bad of an idea. --Nlu (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Nlu - This reprimand/announcement below sent apparently from you, dated 2005, appeared today, 6/2/07, citing my IP address. You are mistaken. I've never even looked at the Second Amendment page, let alone tested on it. Thanks.

quote: '' (Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ) Newer edit → Current revision

This message is regarding the page Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. --Nlu 23:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC) ''- endquote

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annelibrary (talk • contribs)


 * If you share an IP with others and did not log in, you will see comments like those. The solution simply is to log in.  --Nlu (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Contributions
Hi. Are you having any trouble viewing users' contribution histories? When I view them I only see contributions up to a few hours ago, even mine. There is no problem viewing the history of articles. Saw that you are currently active, and just wondering if you are having the same problem. Cheers TigerShark 23:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; before I just came back now, there was a major lag with the contribution histories, and it appeared to be a system-wide problem. --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yao Hong's empress
A "" template has been added to the article Yao Hong's empress, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.--Ozgod 00:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking the next step
I don't think the discussion is going anywhere. One outside comment from RfC was in support for the name "Manchuria", but it seems none of those editors care what the outside commentor suggests. I want to list this on Third opinion to draw some more neutral opinion on this, but it seems that it is only viable where only two editors are involved. The next step seems to be the mediation, but I don't think mediation will work, as was the case for Goguryeo. If this cannot be taken to Third opinion, I'm thinking of taking this straight to arbitration. Any advice would be appreciated. Cydevil38 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think basically, you're right. --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean taking this to Third opinion, or arbitration? Cydevil38 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Third option is right, but at the end arbitration request may be necessary, although arbitration is not often accepted. --Nlu (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My User Page
Thanks for clearing up the vandalism.

Cheers--130.108.192.178 06:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem -- although I assume you are a registered user who forgot to log in? --Nlu (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Little edition war with Exploding boy
Hello Nlu,

As I stated in the Stroke order talk page one week ago, I re-write the Stroke order article. After one week working in my sub page user:Yug/Stroke order ; I moved the merge to the Stroke order page (see explanation of the merge in green).

Yesterday, exploding boy reverted simply all my change.

I state on the talk page Talk:Stroke_order that exploding boy declare thing which he believe true, but which are clearly not. In the past, he was the main editor of this article. Being the de facto leader of the stroke order project, I edited lot this article, and I'm now the main editor.

Now, It appear clear for me that Exploding boy haven't the level now need to improve futher this article and keep the article in a mid-level, without propose more.

So, I come here to notice you that I will revert him. I previously tryed to make him softly understand, but please take a look at this, because I now look for a solution to don't lost time in an edition war. --Yug (talk)  08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rewriting is good, but I think that he's got a point with removed information. In particular, unless I'm missing something, I do think that the Unicode table should be in there.  Would it be possible for you to incorporate that information?  --Nlu (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble with Unicode strokes it's that this list is uncomplete. In example, we have HZ (L), but this "list of CJK strokes" haven't Heng, Shu, Dian, Pie (exclude of the CJK strokes list because they are already coded in the radical list), or more complex such HZZZ (Hengzhezhezhe), or SZP (Shuzhepie). This "list of CJK strokes" exclude so much CJK strokes， this because this list is for coding, not for calligraphy nor to learn Chinese strokes. This is why I removed all this list into the CJK strokes article, and replace it by this new section.
 * In the stroke order section : I did a merge with what Exploding boy wrote. I kept the ideas, not the sentences, all this is explain in green text there.
 * This is the 2 bigguest change I made.
 * --Yug (talk)  20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If dispute continues, I suggest filing a WP:RfC (as to content, not personal conduct), as in a way this is out of my expertise area. --Nlu (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ok.
 * Just one thing, it finally appear that the biggest of our 3 points of disagreement was a computer trouble, and that we were both of good faith. We now have to find solutions for the 2 other points, but we restart on a better "assume good faith". I hope this will quickly have good result.
 * --Yug (talk)  21:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Last week, I read again the Cambridge history of China, ed. 1979, volume 3, about Tang Taizong. One section is about Taizong VS Goguryo's wars : nothing is said about vasality. You were right, they are not evidence of Goguryo stoping to be "vassal", and that seem to appear like an internal rebellion. --Yug (talk)

族
Do you have an unquestionably authoritative Chinese/English dictionary to cite on this question: does 族 mean "barbarian" or "ethnic group or tribe" ?? thanks Ling.Nut 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ethnic group" is probably best translation. It certainly does not mean "barbarian."  --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was fast.... an IP editor (I'm sorry, I have little or no respect for IP editors) changed the text of Taiwanese aborigines.. do you have a dictionary ref (including publisher, page, etc.) to back up that translation (I'm not questioning your accuracy; rather, I want to buttress it)... thanks! Ling.Nut 17:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really a published source to cite at the moment, since I actually don't currently have access to a Chinese dictionary. The online dictionary of the ROC Ministry of Education defines the term "民族."    Would that be sufficient?  --Nlu (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(undent) I've seen Chinese characters wikilinked to wiktionary, but forgot the trick... would that work? Ling.Nut 18:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that would work, but a problem is -- is that really an internal reference that doesn't count as a reliable reference? I think it's in the eye of the beholder.  As far as how to link to wiktionary is concerned, see WP:IW.  --Nlu (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah you're right; forgot about the internal reference problem.. well we'll see.. and thanks for the link to WP:IW. later! Ling.Nut 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OI? what's the AfD on Five Tiger Generals for???
OI? what's the AfD on Five Tiger Generals for??? Ling.Nut 20:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion, after some thoughts, that those articles have no historical basis and are not independently notable. --Nlu (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of ROTK has no historical basis, but exists in ROTK and is notable as such... Ling.Nut 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But articles already exist for the individual generals. I don't see a reason to have these "collective" articles.  --Nlu (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the intrusion, but a similar argument can be made for Four Beauties - it is a well-known concept that is a popular subject in Chinese arts and is well-known in Chinese culture as well. While I won't argue for Five Wei Generals, I think in the scope of Chinese literature and not just history, the Five Tiger Generals article is very notable. _dk 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with that. Articles exist for each individual officer, but these do not explain the meaning or significance of the Five Tiger Generals or what the title actually alludes to. Gamer Junkie 22:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points, but these articles are also subjects of meaningless disputes and do not really add much to our appreciation of history or, for that matter, literature, I think. --Nlu (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On the topic of meaningless disputes...that is not a problem with the topic, but with the misguided editors. To paraphrase a Chinese idiom, we shouldn't stop eating because food chokes people. Surely a concept that's familiar to almost everyone in the Chinese cultural sphere is encyclopedic? I beg you reconsider. _dk 07:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming that the food is worth eating, that is. Here, I think the food is junk food, so if it chokes people, getting rid of it is a good idea.  (Of course, that didn't work for George Bush's pretzel...)  --Nlu (talk) 07:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Xueyantuo
Please look over to the article that you had created, it seems that Ghirlandajo is back from the peculiarity conduct again. This time, trying to moved over the page to the Turkic name, though there is many spellings for that, I would still prefer pinyin for the context. Tell me what do you think.

He also made a few changes such as this one, this seemed to me that he is rather unfamiliar with the subject itself except unsubstantiated hypothetically theories which only good for hypnotized patient like himself. Once awake, everything turns cleared. Btw should we asked another opinion from User:AQu01rius as well? Thanks Eiorgiomugini 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think asking for another opinion is always good. The problem is that here, there are reasonable Sinocentric and Turkocentric views -- neither which is particularly correct or particularly wrong, as the Xueyantuo themselves are no longer around to say anything on the subject, unfortunately.  --Nlu (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

While much of the problem with this guy was that, he seem to know particular not enough to the subject itself, since when did you see him editing the article. He claimed something like Xueyantuo to be a Chinese names, not knowing these are actually transliteration and had no meaning at all in Chinese. So far I had seen no others Turkish nationlists trying to brought the issue up for the article with exception of him, this further leads me to become suspicious on his vainglorious behavior. As far as I know even English encyclopedia like Britannica prefer Xueyantuo over the Syr Tardush, but this guy seem don't bother to seek for consistency before moving it. Eiorgiomugini 02:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's true -- and I think I see a similar issue with regard to Balhae. (I won't touch Goguryeo, since I think Goguryeo was far more clearly Korean than Balhae.)  At some point, if this behavior continues, further outside intervention, preferably non-Chinese, may be a good thing.  --Nlu (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Three Kingdoms categories
hey, thanks a million for your work on the 3K cats! I really appreciate it... Ling.Nut 13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thank you.  --Nlu (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(About user's vandalism of User:The Epopt)
I had taken great troubles to create an article on Read Write Web and it was deleted under some crappy policy by Epopt. Is n't that vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharadtriyama (talk • contribs)
 * It's not his/her policy (I don't know the user's gender); it's Wikipedia's policy. If you are editing here, you have to follow Wikipedia policy.  Failure to do so will get you blocked, eventually.  --Nlu (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Epopt blocked for unwarranted deletion of so many articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharadtriyama (talk • contribs)
 * Please specify which articles were deleted that were unwarranted. But in any case, the proper action for you to take is to address the issue on WP:DRV, not to vandalize.  --Nlu (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Amphitere
FYI: I've listed suspicious activity by this user at WP:ANI. Perhaps these 5 users are related to the deleted article AINW or User:AINW?--Endroit 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Posting to ANI is good. I've had a very busy week, so I'm not sure when I'll be able to look at the history anyway.  --Nlu (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, this case is now resolved.--Endroit 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:History of Manchuria
CPOV editors cannot come to consensus.

Could you please come and help bring the article to stability? One user is threatening me to file a sockpuppet report against me.

Apparently, it is nearly impossible to discuss with them. They simply will not accept anything they do not like. The CPOV editors are simply closing their eyes and ears and shouting the same things as before.

Manchuria is the historical word for that region and the wikipedia article Manchuria certainly shows the extent of the region. I have asked them to read the article and showed them the map Wikipedia uses but they don't even care.

I have already warned them of their edit warring and incivility, but they don't care and Assault11 deleted my warning, calling it "vandalism". I'm sure he is breaking Wikipedia policies. Good friend100 21:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, would you think we have a case for arbitration? I went as far as filing a mediation, but to no avail. User:Naus and User:Assault11 continues to make reverts to their preferred version without a single consideration of Third Opinion contributions which all favored Manchuria as the primary definition. And I even posted on their user talk pages to request their participation in the mediation, but they were not being responsive. I've requested the admin to lift the protection to see if they'll join the mediation then, but they still engage in revert warring without participating in the mediation. I believe all steps in the dispute resolution process prior to arbitration has been exhausted, and it's time to take the next step. I'd appreciate your advice on this. Cydevil38 22:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But with all the arguments that had gone on, the current text for the top of the template actually isn't bad. The rhetoric is troubling, but the result is decent.  --Nlu (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The current one still uses Northeast China as the primary definition, which has been reverted by some anon IP. Cydevil38 05:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I still don't think it's too bad of a result, but I think bringing an arbitration request would be fine; although it is not likely to be accepted, I don't see a problem with filing one. --Nlu (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor has suggested that a RfC on User Conduct should come first, so I prepared a draft. I'd appreciate any advice regarding "Desired outcome" and the description of events that has transpired(Yeah, I know I'm susceptible to bias, especially with regards to Assault11). Cydevil38 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I've signed the RfC myself as well.  --Nlu (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting on the Template History of Manchuria, The template History of Priamurye region (Amur Region) i created recently concerned the northern part of Manchuria (Heilongjiang, Priamurye, Jewish AO and south Khabarovsk Krai) and do not include region located on the southern part of Manchuria(Primorye, Jilin and Liaoning). That templated is part of the template History of Manchuria.Whlee 12:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

beautiful Chinese fonts?
Hey Nlu, do you know offhand where a bloke could download some beautiful/artistic/FREE Chinese fonts? Thanks! Ling.Nut 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't, particularly since I use a Mac and not a PC (which I assume you do). On a Mac, of course, the operating system already comes with a fairly good number of Chinese fonts.  --Nlu (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A third-party help: I have some Chinese TTF fonts, but all in my local directory. Maybe you can google the following font names (the searched out weblinks are very volatile, so I think it is not very helpful to post every weblinks for these TTF files):

bkai00mp.ttf         FZSTK.TTF     Kai-GB18030.TTF   SongU0.ttf    STFANGSO.TTF  STZHONGS.TTF bsmi00lp.ttf         FZYTK.TTF     SIMLI.TTF         SongU12.ttf   STXIHEI.TTF   FangSong-GB18030.TTF  gbsn00lp.ttf  SIMYOU.TTF        SongUP.ttf    STXINGKA.TTF FZHT_GB18030.TTF     gkai00mp.ttf  Song-GB18030.TTF  STCAIYUN.TTF  STXINWEI.TTF

bsongsj.ttf heitisf.ttf  kaitisj.ttf  lsongsj.ttf   weibeisf.ttf  xiyuansj.ttf  zyuansj.ttf cuheisj.ttf heitisj.ttf  lishusf.ttf  README        weibeisj.ttf  xkaisj.ttf fsongsj.ttf huposf.ttf   lishusj.ttf  songtisj.ttf  xiantisf.ttf  zongyisf.ttf

--Jiejunkong 17:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Endroit's "Outside View"
Can his POV be really considered an outside view? Other editors who are active disputants at Goguryeo that achieved the consensus of creating the template but didn't engage in the disputes in the template itself, like Wangkon and Wikimachine, have identified themselves as disputants in this subject. Endroit were as involved in the dispute as these editors, if not more. For consistency's sake, either Endroit's "Outside View" should be put somewhere else or discarded, or classify views of Wangkon and Wikimachine as "Outside View". Also, if the purpose of Outside View is to have neutral editors provide their opinion on this, then Endroit is the least qualified to provide comments in that regard. Cydevil38 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just checked available classifications again, and I think Endroit's response best fits the "Response" section, where  other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. should contribute to. Cydevil38 03:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's arguable both ways. Let's see how this discussion develops.  (I'd suggest that, however, you take a look at other RfCs.  I think Endroit's classificiation is permissible.)  --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Cydevil38 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nlu, could you take a look at Talk:Goguryeo-Sui Wars? I think that your presence would be very helpful. Thanks. (Wikimachine 00:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm fairly busy right now, and really, I think the issue there -- whether to split/merge the article -- is relatively minor. --Nlu (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

help with image of mengchong doujian (蒙冲斗舰)
... any thoughts on how to track down/verify the original source (and relevant copyright info) of the mengchong doujian (蒙冲斗舰) here... ? Also maybe in Chinese wikipedia under "naval warfare" or some such? Thanks! Ling.Nut 13:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the article does not cite any sources, I don't think it's possible to verify the original source. However, the term was used in Zhou Yu's biography in the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms.  (See zh:s:三國志/卷54.)  I have a feeling that it should not be treated as a technical term, however.  --Nlu (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see Nlu
Hey, It's been quite a while since I've dropped by (not since I got my tools and didn't need to bother you with block/delete requests-maybe not that long but it's till been a while), so I thought I'd drop you a line. How are things, going for you Nlu? Still interested in baseball? Anyhow, I'm signing off for the night. Happy editing. K O S |  talk  06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to hear from you. I've been busy myself (have a trial coming up in a couple weeks) so haven't been editing as much.  Hope to see you back.  --Nlu (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:History of Manchuria
Wiki pokemon is now trying to replace template:History of Manchuria with template:History of Northeast China, so I have nominated template:History of Northeast China on TfD(Template for Deletion) for POV forking here. Please help reach a consensus on this issue. Cydevil38 20:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like your thoughts on this. Thanks. Cydevil38 05:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that -- are we ever going to get a consensus on it? I like the idea of Liao-Amur as a compromise (after all, I proposed it), but I doubt that we'd get a consensus on it.  --Nlu (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I thought it was Whlee who first proposed it, but you may have missed it. And yes, I believe there can't be a consensus there. Cydevil38 22:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I need to say that User:Good friend100 and User:Cydevil38 are very good at quiting an interactive talk towards consensus, and then suddenly jumping out to block the move approved by other people's consensus (the consensus does not include them, but they were quiet during the last 2 or 3 days, then at the final moment they appeared in the system admin page), for example, see Talk:Goguryeo-China wars for renaming the controversial title to Military history of Goguryeo. This kind of ambushing behavior is not very ethical.--Jiejunkong 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Se4448
I was under the impression that vandalism after a blatant-vandal warning was grounds for being reported depending on how bad the edit was ... so you think he ought to get a level 4 warning before getting X'd? Just wondering, as I'm being coached for adminship ... Blueboy96 15:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think not only should he/she have gotten a level 4 warning, but the more crucial thing is -- there were only two instances of vandalism. I don't think that calls for block.  --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)