User talk:Nlu/archive7

Could you do me a favor?
Could you speedy delete: Vormeland looks like a personal attack page about a teacher in Norway. It keeps getting blanked or just extra nonsense added to it. Knowledge Of Self |  talk. 22:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just did. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  --Nlu 22:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * repeated vandalism been warned numerous times Knowledge Of Self  |  talk . 23:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC) .....You must really get tired of me asking for these favors lol (a lot of personal attacks on linuxbreak too!  Knowledge Of Self  |  talk . 23:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * :-) Blocked, but since it's a shared IP, I blocked it for 75 minutes only.  --Nlu 23:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, last thing for a while because I am about to cook supper. Could you take a look at Aisha (Winx Club) I was going to speedy it, but it had some 26,000 google hits. so I put tagged it for wikification. I'm not sure but now that I think about it I think this article might not be notable enough to stay. At least as it presently is. Just want your opinion on if you thinks it meets SD, AfD, cleanup, expand and so forth. Thank you very much it's all very appreciated. Knowledge Of Self  |  talk . 23:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think leaving it up is fine. --Nlu 00:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
I'm writing this up on the 3RR page right now. Thanks for the tips, as I'm new to dealing with abusive people (within wikipedia, anyway). McNeight 01:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. I hope you were not offended by the note I put on your talk page either.  Wikipedia can be a rough place at times.  Thanks.  --Nlu 01:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, no blood, no foul ;) McNeight 01:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The warning on User:Asshat. I didn't think it was nesisarry as I think i know who is that user is. Probaly one of my friends who created a wikipedia account. Thanks --Aranda 56) 02:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Category issues
1. I wasn't calling you homophobic. If Haiduc was calling you homophobic, that's between you and Haiduc. I was only referring to a similarity of style between some of the arguments given (less yours and more the "delete, irrelevant" or whatever kind - at least you put up an argument).

2. If you read my addition to Haiduc's page, you might have noticed that it was an attempt to express sympathy for someone else's situation, and to offer help on a possible solution. In other words, I was trying to be nice and trying to make the situation a little better. Thanks for interfering with that by adding self-absorbed comments only likely to make the situation worse. I appreciate it.
 * What's the point of "expressing sympathy" to someone who was calling others names? --Nlu 05:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You've made your position clear. -Seth Mahoney 05:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Finally, as I said on the CfD page, I'd like to see this category changed into a category tree in hopes of avoiding future issues, likely with rules involved on how the categories should be used. If you'd like to contribute to a discussion about that, in a less ascerbic tone than you've been using to date, I would appreciate and value your contributions. -Seth Mahoney 04:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The category, no matter what it's called, is hopelessly POV. Simply, it's not workable.  --Nlu 05:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And you've made your POV clear. -Seth Mahoney 05:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Mind if I ask what this request for arbitration business is all about? -Seth Mahoney 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While I understand your view of how it can be renamed and reorganized (and while, as I noted, I disagree with your view, but I respect it), it appears clear to me that Haiduc's view is "let's just rename and repopulate the category." I believe that to be a perversion of CfD but that, without an ArbCom injunction, he will do exactly that.  Further, he did insult me and everyone else who voted "Delete."  I feel that this needs to be acted upon.  --Nlu 05:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For the sake of saying it, have you noticed the way you have written on the CfD page? It gets fairly insulting, especially considering that Haiduc has apparently put a bit of effort into this category (if it would make it clearer what I'm talking about, I can pull relevant quotes, though I'd really rather not revisit that CfD ever again, because I find it insulting, and I don't see Haiduc as the one doing the insulting there).  I mean, and this isn't to be aggressive or rude, but its not like you're totally innocent here, and its not like you've made any efforts (that I've seen) to make peace.  -Seth Mahoney 05:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to feel that. But be assured that any defensiveness on my part is not about the sexuality-related subject matter; it's about historical accuracy.  --Nlu 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I feel, in addition, that I did try to make peace -- my comments on Talk:Gaozu of Han were intended for that effect, to let Haiduc to see where I was coming from. He came back by distorting WP:NOR (well, at least I feel it's a distortion) and by calling me homophobic.  If that's going to be the result if I tried to make peace, what use was there to try to make peace?  --Nlu 06:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The point of making peace, regardless of the history involved, is to try to keep good editors (and Haiduc is a good editor, and, though I'm not sure I've noted any of your contributions, your dedication suggests that you are also a good editor, and I'd hate to see either of you get frustrated and leave). As for my comments, I wasn't trying to express my feelings, I was hoping you would take a look at the language you used and maybe back off a little.  Also, maybe, try to understand where Haiduc is coming from - when you see comments like "Delete.  Sick.", you're bound to get a little angry.
 * As far as where your defensiveness comes from, I don't claim to know. I will point out again, as I did on the CfD page, that I doubt you would make this much fuss if Haiduc were trying to put articles in Category:People who married people of the opposite gender who are roughly the same age as them and making claims of historical inaccuracy.  This isn't to say you're particularly homophobic, I guess - most people operate the same way.  But if you required the same amount of proof for all claims that so-and-so had a sexual relationship with so-and-so, its not likely any such claims would ever be made.  And it is particularly troublesome to me that you resorted to pointing out that pederastic relationships are currently illegal in most of the world (which, as Haiduc pointed out, is false) as if that had anything to do with the discussion at hand (which, as Haiduc pointed out, it does not).
 * That category I'd put up an CfD as well -- on the same grounds and with one addition: the name would be obscenely long. --Nlu 06:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd hope so, but you do see my point, no? -Seth Mahoney 06:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish that you could rewrite your CfD nomination, because to me it was apparent that it was offensive from the get-go, and probably motivated by an earlier frustration, and that we could then proceed by providing rational arguments for and against, instead of the irrational POV-baiting that has gone on there. Since that can't happen, I'm still extending the invitation to discuss a new category scheme with anyone who is interested (and, no, despite your claims, the category isn't inherently POV, and you've yet to supply a single reason supporting that claim - again, this isn't to be inflammatory, its just the way things are).  -Seth Mahoney 06:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything particularly aggravated about what I pointed out. It might be what Haiduc didn't want to hear, but those are indeed all problems with the category, as it stands.  --Nlu 06:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I really need to get to bed, so I'm going to keep this short: Would you be interested in setting up criteria on how to structure a more NPOV version of this category? I would appreciate your input.  -Seth Mahoney 06:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, unless it becomes clear that the community wants them. As it stands, I think that the category is of dubious value in any case even if arguendo capable of NPOVness.  Further, I don't want an additional war with Haiduc, who would surely want to be overly inclusive.  --Nlu 07:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good morning. This is quite a chat you two have been having. I have posted my response below your note on my page. Loosen up a bit, you'll have more fun. I too am a polyglot, and I too started out by being ultra-cerebral and inflexible, but I am twice your age and things change with time. Be well, Haiduc 12:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

confused....
hey, I was wondering why you reverted this edit? I'm really happy how many people seem to be watching my talk and all, but this one has me puzzled ;]. Anyhow, thanks ;] -- негідний лють  ( Reply 06:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I had not been aware that you had taken to use the Cyrillic alphabet, and therefore I had assumed that BunchOfGrapes addressed the remark to the wrong person. Sorry.  Feel free to revert back.  --Nlu 06:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Richie Jen (任賢齊)
Could you please add a picture of Richie Jen onto his Wikipedia page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.151.50 (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, I don't really do images (due to my lack of expertise with manipulating them and with layout design), and I don't have an image of him anyway. --Nlu 06:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediation regarding List of Jewish jurists
Please direct your attention to Requests_for_mediation. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but since I am actually not a party being mediated, do I need to respond? I think it should really be the parties who decide how to go about this.  --Nlu 02:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I was just notifying all people who had posted on the mediation page. If you would like to add comments regarding the situation, though, please feel free. On a seperate note, mediation regarding Korea has also been accepted; see Requests for mediation/Korea. (Again, just for your information.) Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * All right! Thanks.  --Nlu 16:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheesy explorers
Thanks! Shinobu 09:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Help Desk (Deleted Article)
See the post Deleted Article on the Help Desk about the Richard Gregg article:

I am the poster of the original article. Congratulations! The article is republished and in a much better form, restoring my faith on this comunity. However one question remains: an article was deleted without any attempt of discussion. Even if I did attempt to refute the criteria and start a discussion, my reasoning was no answered. The relevance of the article was clearly stated on the external links and on the original article himself (was an empty article coming from another entry and he coined a philophical word). I know vanity can be a problem, but deleting a first contribution without giving further explainations on the discussion can be also a form of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.82.160 (talk • contribs)


 * And? I didn't delete Richard Gregg, and if you're referring to Category:Cheesy explorers above, there is nothing redeemable about the category.  --Nlu 16:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well was marked as deleted by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.82.160 (talk • contribs)


 * I checked; I can't find out who deleted it, based on the page history. But regardless, as noted, the article was not written in notable way.  The re-writing is a different matter.  --Nlu 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Just to end the matter: The point was not the quality of the original article but the fact that was deleted in spite and after a request for discussion about its relevance. The request was not answered. I go thru the effort of pointing this out to you, because similar attitudes towards new contributers can endanger the spirit of wikipedia.

Re RFA
Thanks for asking, but I had been renominated already by Karmafist already here Requests for adminship/Aranda56 3. Thanks again --Aranda 56 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't realize that. I'm not as active on the RfA scene.  I'll certainly vote yes. :-)  --Nlu 23:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Longest Yard (2005 remake staring Sandler)
Hi Nlu I'm back :-D lol. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on where to move this article to? I don't think Longest Yard (2005 remake staring Sandler) is a suitable title for an article. What do you think? Thanks Knowledge Of Self  |  talk. 04:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll say Longest Yard (2005). --Nlu 04:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks I think I'll add The Longest Yard (2005).

Constanze Weber
One more thing :-D Could you SD Constanze Weber. Thanks again Knowledge Of Self  |  talk. 04:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, in my opinion, she's notable enough, so I won't do that, but I will try to stubify it properly. --Nlu 05:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll go with you on that. But "She was not popular to her husband's father, but she bore several children." That needs to be omitted from the article has no encyclopedic value. The article has been SD 3 times for a total of 7 deleted edits though Knowledge Of Self  |  talk . 05:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * They were speedy-deleted because of copyright violations, I think. (At least the last one was.)  --Nlu 05:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 04:52, August 3, 2005 JeremyA deleted "Constanze Weber" (content was: 'hello hello')


 * 05:56, July 5, 2005 Sarge Baldy deleted "Constanze Weber" (content was: '#REDIRECT Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart')

Just the last one was a copy vio I think. Anyway again thanks for your help and time. Cheers.
 * P.S. I hope you don't mind I split our little discussion. Knowledge Of Self  |  talk . 05:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Thanks.  I do think that she's notable in herself, but I can certainly view the reaosn why she wouldn't be considered so.  --Nlu 05:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No Hard Feelings
I just disagree and have less tolerance for vandals. This vandal will likely come back in 2 weeks and do it again and get another test4 due to the space in time between vandalisms. I think that's an obvious loophole in a blocking policy and wish admins would not be so generous to those who pose the greatest threat to Wikipedia. Just my OP. No hard feelings or yelling involved. Have a good one!Gator (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Nlu 17:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Civil Air Patrol
Would it be possible for you to block both User:McNeight and User:68.112.201.90 for violating the 3RR on Talk:Civil Air Patrol? Grant 23:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think 3RR applies in this case; these are not reverts. They're insulting each other, yes, but I think not in a way sufficient enough to justify blocking on that ground either.  --Nlu 23:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strike that; I see what you mean; it's gotten a lot worse; let me take another look and then block if I can confirm. Thanks for letting me know.  --Nlu 23:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Apparently I was confused by Vandalism and thought that it applied to all users, and not just administrators. So, I have been reverting what I believed to be vandalism and I warned 68.112.201.90 thinking that I needed to do that before reporting it. In the future, I will just report the vandalism and leave the rest to administrators. McNeight 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I meant. You can warn people; it's just that in the case of 68.112.201.90, it's clearly not a case of simple vandalism, and since you and he are obvious adversaries on this dispute, I think just as a matter of caution that you might want to leave the warning to somebody else.  Also, while it is arguably vandalism, it's also arguably not.  I am not saying that you're in trouble -- not at all.  But use a bit more discretion is what I'm saying.  Sorry if it sounded like I'm scolding you.  --Nlu 01:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahhh... OK. Yes, you are absolutely correct that I should not have warned him and let someone else do it. I felt the need for someone to do it, and that someone shouldn't have been me. I think I finally recognize that my biggest problem right now is that I'm being easily goaded by a troll. I've noticed that Linuxbeak has managed to keep out of all of this, and I commend him for it.


 * I think I'll just uncheck Civil Air Patrol from my watchlist for a few days and steer clear of the whole mess for a bit. I just went through and tagged all of his responses (excessive, perhaps, but if this is going to be archived then it was going to be a mess without them) and now I'm done for a while. Thanks for your patience and your "free time". McNeight 03:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I can get entangled on other articles just as much sometimes.  :-)  I hope that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia.  --Nlu 03:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Squakyduck
Squakyduck was banned in the past block log

Please look through their contribs, talk page (history) and past blocks. --  A dam1213 Talk + 05:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I did; I looked it up, but as I then went back to block him/her, Curps put up the indefinite block. --Nlu 05:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

so is it an idenfinite block now or 48 hour? --  A dam1213 Talk + 05:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That I've never understood. As Curps is more experienced than I am, if there is a problem, I'm sure he will fix it. :-)  --Nlu 05:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism template
You recently put: ...regarding your edits to George Bush... on someone's talkpage. What is the template for this?--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the /// series. :-)  --Nlu 07:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon admin-voterr
Are anons allowed to vote in Admin elections? Because this one has been adding essentially the same thing to every one.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure they are not, and their votes will be discounted when discussion closes. --Nlu 07:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm just asking you because you're a (probably:-)) experienced Wikipedian.--TheDoctor10 (talk|email) 07:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not that experienced. I'm a relatively new admin, and I wasn't a user for all that long before that.  --Nlu 07:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstars
I somehow completely missed the page for proposing new Barnstars. Thanks for the save. I shall submit my new award forthwith. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 16:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Bobby Jenks
I personally have no idea but http://www.city-data.com/city/Mission-Hills-California.html says he's from the one in Santa Barbara County. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. :-) --Nlu 18:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dang, you're fast!
I got edit conflicts on test2, test3, and test4 right in a row for User talk:168.99.152.243! --Elliskev 22:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * :-) --Nlu 22:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of speed, thank you for speedily taking care of that series of HKSSU-related articles that plopped onto AfD. :) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-12-07 01:59:03Z
 * :-) No problem.  Those kids are cute, but cuteness != notability...  --Nlu (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you have a look please
Thanks Knowledge Of Self  |  talk. 05:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was just looking when Jossifresco blocked him/her/it. :-) --Nlu (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It never ends :-D  Knowledge Of Self  |  talk . 05:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked. --Nlu (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Got a real bug
Recently, everytime I log on, using my user name, the site acts like I have NOT done so. This mess could have ME end up being accused AS a sockpuppeteer or worse. This bug is not remotely funny at all. What is the procedure for handling these accusations, should they appear, or a admin. is called to handle this matter ? Martial Law 09:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've seen that happen quite a bit myself, but it's not a recent phenomenon. It seems to happen more on Internet Explorer, and I suspect might be browser-dependent.  Do you set your preferences to be always logged in as yourself?  If not, you might want to do so, because that will reduce it.  --Nlu (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the info. IF I am accused of being a sockpuppetteer or worse, what are my options ?Martial Law 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say, explain the situation with the user who called you a sock puppet, and, if that fails, discuss it on WP:AN. --Nlu (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Appreciate the info.Martial Law 22:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up
on my user page. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. My pleasure.  --Nlu (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

216.152.145.24
You, correctly, blocked 216.152.145.24 for a week before (I guess it was, wrongly, removed) and, surprise surprise, he's at it again. Do you think another block may be in order? Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reblocked. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Spam "test"
Hi Nlu, I do not consider my edit on the Spam(food) page to be a test. "Spamming" is a very common term among players of internet computer games, which is mentioned in the other article on (electronic) spamming that I linked to. I consider this term to be just as culturally important(if not more) than "Spam haikus" or the internet religion "Spammism", which I have never heard of.

Admin intervention against vandalism
Over ten percent of the last 500 edits to Administrator intervention against vandalism are yours. Keep up the good work. --TantalumTelluride 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Once Moore
Yeah i created that article from the information i found on Mandy's site, along with information i found from the internet. Now i am not that good a googling, however i can try to tighten up this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parys (talk • contribs)


 * No problem. Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User page vandalism
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem - happy to help out, especially someone who is obviously so vigilant against vandalism themselves. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 02:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection?
Hey Nlu I just noticed that you were the one that page protected AIAV I'm just curious what the reason was? I left a comment on the AIAV's talk page. I'd appreciate it if you replied there for my benifit. Thanks Knowledge Of  Self  |  talk  04:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know I replied :-D Knowledge Of  Self  |  talk  06:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Me again :-D Maybe that discussion should be moved to the WT:AN to get more feedback? Knowledge Of  Self  |  talk  06:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think where it is should be fine. Everyone who's interested in this page should already have it on his/her watchlist.  --Nlu (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

204.117.145.194
We had a long talk about this guy before, if you remember and he's at it again and now there's A THIRD test4 message by ANOTHER admin who just won't block. All the "final" warnigns are getting ridiculous. Can you lpease just block this vandal? Thanks.Gator (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Izehar is not an admin -- so that's probably the reason he didn't block. :-) I'll look ito it.  --Nlu (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then that explains it. Although why he felt it was wise to add a third test4 instead of just reporting it or leaving it alone, is beyond me. Thanks for your help. This vandal is not goign to stop unless we block. He's made it perfectly clear and has takena dvanage of the obviosu loopholes in our system that allow vandals to get to be entitled to more final warnigns if they space out their vandalism.Gator (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to block in a minute, but the reason why adding another is this: we are not supposed to block someone if he/she hasn't been warned lately.  What "lately" constitutes is in the eye of the beholder, but Izehar probably felt that the last warning was stale.  --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

His defintion of lately was flawed, clearly. The last warning was only 1 or 2 days ago and that was the second "final" warning. Why do we even bother giving final warnings if they become "stale" so quickly? I don't get it. My defintion of "lately" is not as constrained as some. People know vandalism is wrong and when they receive a test4, they don't somehow forget that it's wrong. If we were serious about fighting vandalism, we would broaden our defintion of "lately" so that creeps like this dont get to come back now a third time and damage the project. Just my HOP. Thanks.Gator (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * However, one reason why stale warnings are no good is because IPs do get reassigned -- even "static" IPs -- over time. Today I warned someone who was warned with  back in 2003 with , but I would have been thoroughly uncomfortable with escalating beyond that.  --Nlu (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice block. My faith is restored. lol.Gator (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, a 2003 test is stale, but a 2-4 week old isn't, in my OP. Thanks again.Gator (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Qin Dynasty
Hi, thanks for the heads up. I thought it was a definite case of vandalism as the same IP which made this change vandalised Tang dynasty the very next minute (he changed the disambig text of rock band to rock bandhi). Hence, I thought it was a case of vandalism. Regards, --Gurubrahma 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Golly!
Thanks for the star! Herostratus 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

72.1.206.12
This IP is a terminal case - I've thrown a 24-hour block on him. BD2412 T 20:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

206.113.132.25
He hasn't vandalized anymore because I blocked him right before you placed ur watch message. I got disconnected right as I blocked him, and wanted to let you know. He's been blocked about six times, and will probably continue if he is unblocked. -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 20:50, 08 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the IP is shared by many UUNet users -- and there is no way to get around it. A 75 minute block might be too long as it is, but it's a reasonable length, I think.  --Nlu (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, I didn't know it was a shared IP (how can you tell?). -- PRueda29 Ptalk29 20:53, 08 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have an Unix machine connected to the Internet, and your ISP has whois services, use the whois command. If not -- I'm not sure how it would work on a PC.  --Nlu (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * on a PC, there's www.dnsstuff.com... hope it helps ;] -- негідний лють  ( Reply 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

User talk:68.39.174.238
I love the IP warning box. --WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 22:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * :-) Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Should anything be done about this?
Im naked I don't know what constitutes as a inappropriate user name and what if any restrictions user page's content should have but this is one that would merit a blanking and/or block in my opinion. Thanks for taking a look and taking the time to address my petty requests. Knowledge Of Self  |  talk  23:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I indefinitely blocked him/her as an inappropriate user name. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.  --Nlu (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello! Proceed with caution: I don't know if this is of any relevance, but (when they were nascent) the Barenaked Ladies were banned from playing at Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square by mayor Barbara Hall (for new year's festivities one year) because of their name.  There was significant outcry on both sides at the time ... now look where they're at. E Pluribus Anthony 02:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, this user was also spamming his/her user page with a porn link. I doubt that the Barenaked Ladies did that. :-)  --Nlu (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK! I would disagree with you, however, on one point: the BN have variably appeared naked and not (and recently) he he.  Thanks for your consideration!  E Pluribus Anthony 02:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My failed RFA :)
Dear Nlu, I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 03:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that it failed. I think that you deserved it, and I thank you for your continued support and contribution.  --Nlu (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

67.189.119.201
Yeah, he appeared to stop right after I issued the final warning, and posted his address on the Admin. intervention page... Thanks for your attention. --Valermos 06:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.  --Nlu (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Being Challenged at every turn
Nlu,

I'm trying to play by the rules. What is it that I'm doing wrong?

Allabout2006 06:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't add those sites. That's my suggestion.  Those sites are of no value to the page.  --Nlu (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

allabout2006
thanks alot for your attention with this guy. he's told us he wants to learn how to write a proper article etc a million times, but he hasn't listened yet and i don't think he will. he continually links to www.allaboutpoppers.com, so i think it's fairly clear what his agenda is. thanks again for your time. --Heah talk 06:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Evan Williamson
Hi Nlu could you have a look at this article please? An anon user keeps removing the speedy tag from it thanks. Knowledge Of Self  |  talk  07:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I speedied it. Thanks.  --Nlu (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)