User talk:Nlu/archive24

Hello Nlu,

I understand this user was indefinitely blocked, and this decision was reviewed and supported by another admin. Per an AMA request sent via email, I was asked to look into the case. I only saw 2 posts by this user to the mainspace of the article, both of which consisted of additions of references from www.fairtradeauthority.com. While this user may have been upset when his contributions were reverted, I don't see evidence of a sustained pattern of sockpuppeting or other abuse from this account. The only evidence of conduct violations I do see are a few civility and NPA violations in response to the revert and later administrative actions. If this user is suspected of being the poster from 86.123.74.58, I would say his getting an user account and posting what seem to be verifiable sources indicated a desire to join the WP community as a collaborator. I am still unfamiliar with the entirety of the case, and I would appreciate being filled in on it as I don't seem to have all the pieces to the puzzle.

Thank you,

--Amerique 20:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are long term recurrent vandalisms of StormPay. Based on the contents of the edits, I judged User:Keepthefactsinwikiplease to be the same person. I don't believe that I am erroneous in this. This is further supported by the fairly WP:POINT-violative name of the user, which suggests highly that he/she was upset that edits by his/her previous sockpuppets were reverted. --Nlu (talk) 04:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu, I've also received an AMA request by Keepthefactsinwikiplease. Could I suggest the User talk:83.131.79.166 and User talk:86.123.74.58 accounts involved in the abusive vandalism probably are not the same individual as the User talk:86.132.46.236 account, which previously included the www.fairtradeauthority.com links. Apart from slightly different writing styles, the User talk:83.131.79.166 account is based in Croatia, [1] the User talk:86.123.74.58 account is based in Romania, [2] while the User talk:86.132.46.236 account is UK based [3]. In this context, if we assume that User talk:86.132.46.236 is the same person as Keepthefactsinwikiplease, then you have given this individual a first warning and then blocked, which is reasonable enough. However, could I suggest this block should be limited, because he or she has only introduced the www.fairtradeauthority.com links on two separate occasions and this would not usually result in a permanent block. Addhoc 14:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to exercise your independent judgment and reduce the block, that is fine. I do still believe that it's the same person, and so I have no intention to reduce the length of the block. The fact that these posts came from IPs of different location are not dispositive, because it is clear that the same person has been using open proxies all around the world to vandalize the article. It should be noted that the user name is still WP:POINT-violative and I feel, deserves a block on its own. --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, could you explain why you believe the same person has been using open proxies all around the world to vandalize the article, because I don't understand. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume there are several vandals in different countries? Addhoc 17:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StormPay is an American company that doesn't operate, as far as I can see, internationally. It is not reasonably probable that people in other countries would want to make POV statements about StormPay specifically, particularly when the allegations are substantially similar. --Nlu (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment that Keepthefactsinwikiplease is based in the UK and introduced a link to a London based organization. I don't understand the rationale of assuming Keepthefactsinwikiplease is the same user as the Romanian or Croatian vandals. These vandals used poor English in contrast to the precise usage of Keepthefactsinwikiplease. These editors also repeated their vandalism, in contrast to Keepthefactsinwikiplease, who after being reverted took the discussion to the talk page. Also these vandals haven't expressed a clear argument, while Keepthefactsinwikiplease has been coherent. In this context, I would suggest you are probably mistaken in assuming Keepthefactsinwikiplease is the same person as the Romanian or Croatian vandals. Also the current version of the article indicates that StormPay "allows anyone with an e-mail address to buy or sell StormPay Auction items after opening an online account", accordingly there could easily be an international clientele, with a few dissatisfied customers. Addhoc 22:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as well that it is more likely that these are different users using different accounts, in multiple countries, posting what seems to me like references from an online consumer rights organization which further substantiates or contextualizes some information already present in the article and perhaps also reflects a universal perception of this company from a consumer's POV, a perception which seems to be further substantiated as universal by the IP ranges of posts to the article. The username of the banned poster does not seem particularly disruptive, nor does the history of vandalism to the Stormpay article seem particularly excessive, even if this poster were the sole individual responsible for every post that could be considered an act of vandalism to that article. On this basis I wholeheartedly recommend that the ban of User:Keepthefactsinwikiplease be lifted and his user page be unblocked as soon as possible.--Amerique 01:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced this block from indef to 1 month, and it is almost over. I'd remind the editor that continued entry of POV material may be considered vandalism, and the perhaps some of our other million articles may be more interesting to edit than StormPay. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Addhoc 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "vandalism" you are referring to seems to be a complaint about a sockpuppet of user: Sceptre. 206.124.31.24 06:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have evidence of sockpuppetry (and what you wrote is not evidence, just an accusation), it's vandalism. Please stop doing it. If you actually suspect sockpuppetry, bring the issue to WP:RCU. --Nlu (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following the WRONG PROCEDURE gets me blocked? I know what your clique is up to. When one of yours harasses someone and uses sock puppets you do everything you can to keep them from finishing the job of documenting it, and if they persist you block them...you're written up too then. (In case you're just being a dumb***, let me let you know that I was actually trying to document the case when you blocked me.) 70.5.174.56 06:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of sockpuppetry by a sockpuppet. I love it. --Nlu (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can explain how one files a report about a sockpuppet when said sockpuppet, sockpuppetteer and his clique actively prevent filing the report by blocking the IP address being used. Explain how one works around that without using a different IP address. Claims that THAT is somehow the use of a sockpuppet (especially when there is no attempt to hide it or pretend to be someone else) is, quite frankly, deceit. 68.246.76.187 16:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you get blocked, using another IP to get around the block is sockpuppetry, per WP:SOCK. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should go into comedy. (See Catch-22.) 70.5.177.2 16:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may find [this] interesting. 70.5.51.142 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, please take a look at what this person [131.109.143.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)] did to Pedro Martinez' page. Pedro is coming back tonight and he doesn't deserve this kind of treatment the day of his return from the DL. It also really pisses me off when people do crap like this because it serves no purpose at all and it isn't even the least bit funny. It looks like their is a history of this kind of vandalism from this IP address. The IP address is registered to Exeter-West Greenwich Regional School District, so I doubt it can be blocked as I know that IP addresses themselves are rarely ever blocked. This case definitely warrants some consideration, however. I'm referring this to you because I know how you like to get badass on wiki when it comes to vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatthand9 (talk • contribs)

Looks like he's stopped after the warnings. I don't think a block is justified at the moment. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Best wishes, Lion King 15:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my user page yesterday. =) -- Gogo Dodo 22:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are way off on this. This term is common in economic analysis. The citations were typical economic analysis and more of same and others are available. The concept itself is used as a teaching tool to introduce concepts of economic cycles and indexes. Economic indexes amount to any calculation used to generate a decision, at least in this context. No implication of causality is made, the basis is only corrilation.

It does not make sense to me that wikipedia accumulates esoterica like "all your base" while concepts that come up in the real world are filtered out. I am trying to work out this problem with the objectors and plan to reintroduce the page with edits.

I'd like to work with you on this. Perhaps you can address my criticism of your argument? I am not entirely sure how this kind of thing proceeds. I am using the dispute resolution manual. -- M0llusk 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just me. The community has spoken. Basically, they've ruled that the concept is not worthy of an article. --Nlu (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:151.205.122.157 vandalized National Association for the Advancement of Colored People again. Please block. 216.58.18.92 14:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours seems awfully mild for User:151.205.122.157. This person's edits have consisted of nothing but racist spew. Can I at least rest assured that you would have no problem if I were to make a much longer block if this is repeated? - Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24 hours is fairly standard for a first block. Blocks do, and are supposed to, get progressively longer the more times a person is blocked. I'd have no problem with that. --Nlu (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's time to remove the tags? The problem is that he still hasn't admitted that it was indeed him to vandalized Grandmaster's userpage. —Khoikhoi 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think let's leave it there for the time being. If he's unhappy about, he can bring it up. --Nlu (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has brought it up. He asked me here to remove them, so I said I would if he promised not to vandalize anyone's user page again. He didn't respond, and then removed them himself. —Khoikhoi 22:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made the same point to him, while protecting his user page. Let's see what happens. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 23:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BTW, isn't {{usertalk-sprotect}} the incorrect tag to use here? (His/her userpage is fully protected) —Khoikhoi 23:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure. I think WP:PP/U indicates that it's the right tag. --Nlu (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, would you be able to do a favor for me? —Khoikhoi 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what kind of favor it is... --Nlu (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, could you please protect Pontian Greek Genocide? There's a continued removal of the dispute tags, and I'm tired of reverting. I would normally list it on WP:RPP but I get faster results if I ask an admin directly. —Khoikhoi 23:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know so little about this subject that I am not sure that I even can tell if this is a genuine dispute. Let me think about it. --Nlu (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, take your time. —Khoikhoi 00:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, I was suprised to see on your User page that you have a JD and do not know who Floyd Abrams is. Any notion you have of the First Amendment was defined by this man. Period. So think about what you know of free speech in the US, and those thoughts were shaped by Floyd Abrams. I ask you to revoke your request for deletion of my series, based upon my defense of it on the talk page for deletion. --DavidShankBone 03:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can also tell you that your law school professors would find shocking the statement written by you, "Floyd Abrams appears to be sufficiently notable." He is beyond that. You should ask them. --DavidShankBone 03:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote here does not deserve a response. --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that is too harsh, but I'll say this: the First Amendment is not a ticket to write bad writing. What you have here is utterly unencyclopedic, and you need to realize this. --Nlu (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm sorry if I appeared curt in my repost of the AIV on the Australian IP vandal. I have been watching a number of pages that User:Pnatt has repeatedly visited after starting a new sock or dynamic IP. The result is that he then goes to one to two pages that he wants to edit and picks the worst way to edit them. This is a two-fold problem: 1) He is community banned for this exact behavior followed by consensus going against him and then becoming completely uncivil; any editing is an evasion of his ban and should be reverted if a community ban is going to mean anything and 2) his edits are often commentary, unsourced, and he begins to violate WP:OWN as he tenaciously reverts anyone's efforts to remove his policy violations or improve the parts that might even stand true.

Tonight was a continuation of this same pattern following his edits on the MySpace article and then some of the sport-related articles. Without any ability to keep him from evading his ban and thereby vandalizing the articles, I saw no recourse but to give him no satisfaction of keeping his edits (particularly those that I saw other editors had already reverted for policy violations earlier this evening even though they did not know of his community ban and that policy violation).

I apologize if my continual reversion (which done through popups looks nice and clean, but in examining the page histories is clearly a mess) was the wrong course of action. I'd like to know any suggestions for how to deal with this situation. Every account he opens is closed due to the community ban and the most recent RfCU resulted in such a wide range of IPs that he's able to access through Telstra that the sysop was not comfortable blocking any particular ranges. ju66l3r 06:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my words were a bit too harsh. I'd say, if he starts up again, after a couple reverts come to WP:AIV and explain the situation in a clearer manner. Don't keep reverting. --Nlu (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do that in the future. Thank you for the advice. ju66l3r 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm wondering if sprotection is really necessary for Shangwen Fang? It hadn't been edited at all in four days and then was only vandalized twice last night. That's hardly a George W. Bush or Steve Irwin level of vandalism. I worry that anonymous users from Asia may want to legitimately edit that article but will be locked out now. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in addition to the two vandalistic edits, there were also additional impersonator sockpuppets -- see the list of Prior400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s sockpuppets. --Nlu (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know there are sockpuppets. But at the average rate of one vandalism or less per day, sprotection seems like too much trouble. I think of sprotection as a last resort in cases of dozens of vandalisms per hour like in the Steve Irwin article recently. In the Shangwen Fang case, I'd prefer to use User:VoABot II or an IP range block or something. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, Kuff and the Buttheads were written about this weekend in the N.Y. Daily News. So I edited the page referencing the band and the song again, although I did not put any link to their webpage. However, I did cite the Daily News article and provided a link to it on the page. Fatthand9 14:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't touch it at the moment, but I think you should bring this to the attention of folks on Talk:Xavier Nady and see if this convinces people or not. If people are unconvinced, it should be re-removed. --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu. Your last nomination for the deletion of the Roy St. Clair article was successful. As you know, I opposed deletion. However, I am willing to accept community consensus that collectible card players are not notable. That said, there are many other bio articles of collectible card players that deserve review. I have recently nominated articles Mike Long, Kai Budde, Jon Finkel, Darwin Kastle, and Olivier and Antoine Ruel. A few of these were speedily kept based on an incorrect assumption of bad faith due to my participation in the St. Clair debate. I think issue of notability an cited sources should be reviewed for these articles. If you could look into this and possibly re-open the debate it would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at them tonight. Thanks for bringing them to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Justinian I Award, Nlu. Much appreciated! RexNL 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but those edits you just reverted looked like an attempt to introduce error into the article by mixing them in with what appears to be legit copy-editing.

--Charlesknight 21:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, and that's why I decided to revert, just to be on the safe side. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nlu: Thank you for your email. We are not a commercial site. We are the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and the Timeline of Art History is our online resource visited by more than 20,000 per day, most of whom are students, teachers, professors, scholars, and art historians. If you were to review our contributions, you would see that these are links to directly related content on our site and this is done in an effort to broaden the audience to our educational resource. Please reconsider our contributions. We are interested in adding web links and not editing the existing textual content. Please advise on the proper methods.

Sincerely, Teresa Lai, Editor-in-Chief, Timeline of Art History mettimeline 17:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the links were not compliant with WP:EL; however, if you disagree with me, you are certainly free to discuss whether your links should be allowed to stand by going to the talk page of the article in question. (As an example, if the link were to be added to, say, Donald Duck, the talk page would be Talk:Donald Duck.) But your edits had another major problem; it was adding the wrong link to the articles, as the script that you were using to add the links apparently was one article off -- the link referred to the article that you had edited right before. That needs to be fixed, at least. But I still disagree with your addition of the links. --Nlu (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the additions thati made to UK hip hop music were not just relevant but essential. The artists originally specified such as dizzie rascal have attained widespread press coverage but are not even hip hop in its purest sense. The atists specified by me have gained widespread acclaim among UK hip hop fans and so deserve recognition, indeed a section on Nottingham hip hop should be written. (see links)

http://www.leftlion.co.uk/articles.cfm/id/100

http://www.bbc.co.uk/1xtra/tx/scorzayzee.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.116.113 (talk • contribs)

If they have gained sufficient notability, then they should first have their own articles. Right now, there is no way for me to judge that they are in fact notable. --Nlu (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are allowed if they have information about the subject that does not belong in an encyclopedia. What you want is vanity, or links normally to be avoided (under 9: blogging). Also, there are two "last warnings" on his page, and the timestamp is weird. --Raijinili 06:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think the {{spam}} series still works. Meanwhile, there are multiple last warning tags because it is a shared IP. --Nlu (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu. Thank you for your kind note. The link in question is a complement to the topic of the article, namely people recounting their *personal* experiences with the activity. It obviously does not make sense to add personal perspectives to an encyclopedia article, but I believe that the content of the link on an external site is highly relevant for people who are interested in the topic. Beyond relevance, to my knowledge the content is entirely free to access and not burdened with advertising. I replaced the link because you removed it together with an obvious spam link for a dating site and I presumed (perhaps mistakenly) that you threw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. Referring to Wikipedia's external link policy:

What should be linked to: ... Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article

Likewise, it avoids all pitfalls outlined in "Links normally to be avoided"

I don't think I've done anything incorrect, but I have been a Wikipedia user for a long time, so am always open to honing my participation and continuing to add value. Thanks for your thoughts and help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conserned (talk • contribs)

I believe it violtates WP:EL's guideline against linking to original research and to blogs. I don't believe it belongs, but you're welcome to discuss it on the article talk page. --Nlu (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm sorry, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, and I'm starting to get used to the policies, but I noticed that you listed an article for deletion tonight. I'm trying to list Gingervitis for deletion, but it's just not working. I was hoping you could tell me how to fix it? I put it onto the afd discussion page, but it's just not showing up. --Riley 05:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key is to follow the WP:AFD directions to the letter. In this case, I think you forgot to use the {{afd2}} template. Meanwhile, the article is sufficiently nonsense that I think I'm going to speedily delete it. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! I feel kind of akward asking random people about it, but I'm glad you were willing to help. I think I need a wikitutor or something! --Riley 05:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Welcome. --Nlu (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, im sorry i didnt know an article had to BE protected to put that tag on, i thought that to REQUEST an article to BE protected we had to put that tag on!!! so, tell me how do i get an article to get protected? we need one on the Boxing article its being vandalised almost each and every day. --Too Cool 08:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. For requesting protection, go to WP:RFPP. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the template of the IP address to assume that Grace Lutheran College was in Sydney, Australia? Would you mind if I changed back the template to the previous one? --JRA WestyQld2 13:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WHOIS information came back as registered in Sydney, Australia. Is this not the case? --Nlu (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Brisbane, Australia which is the largest city near it :-) --JRA WestyQld2 00:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu.

The same user who repeatedly edited Gando and Balhae seems to be at it again, using an IP address at the following pages: Dongyi, Manchuria, Gojoseon, Jurchens, and Jin Dynasty, 1115–1234. Some of the edits involve large deletions, other involve some major factual inaccuracies, while others are POV. Some could potentially be useful contributions were they to be verified and NPOVed, but this user simply keeps reverting to old version and ignoring subsequent edits. If you have the time, please take a look and see if they're deserving of page protection. Thanks.--Yuje 04:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the same person, as the former did so without real backup from Chinese (or any other) historical texts, while this one is citing passages from Chinese historical texts. However, please continue to watch for a pattern, and let me know if a pattern develops. --Nlu (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits look pretty similar. Take a comparison look between these two. [4] [5]

--Yuje 04:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes it clearer. What I think I'll do is to slap a {{sockpuppet}} flag on; meanwhile, if he/she violates 3RR, go ahead and report it to WP:AN/3RR. Right now, I don't feel equipped to judge whether the edits are proper. --Nlu (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After further looking at the edits, I decided to block the IP for 24 hours for 3RR violations (but note that this is a dynamic/shared IP, so he/she might come back with a different IP; if so, let me know) and also block the account Breathejustice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours as well. --Nlu (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, as he/she seems to have multiple IPs. Based on this edit, [6], I would guess 68.75.20.143 (talk · contribs) is another one of them. --Yuje 05:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am sorry I reverted without trying to explain it to you. But the thing is, that article deals with a very controversial topic and I have still not added references and citations. Also it is not fully complete yet and many important details are missing. In such a state, it will easily become fair game for POV warriors and once many editors start editing it, it will become extremely difficult to retain sanity on that page. That is the reason I've had the tag on until I complete it and I intend to complete it soon. The reason I've not been able to do it is I've been sucked into a war with User:Mahawiki for no fault of mine. Most of my editing time on WP is being wasted on him. If you are an admin, you would do well to mediate there. Thanks.

Sarvagnya 22:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what article it is that you're having trouble with? I am not particularly a good mediator, however, but I would encourage you to file a WP:RFC. --Nlu (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please unsemiprotect my user and talk pages? Thanks,  Jorcoga  09:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page has been unprotected. However, I can't tell well enough from the protection and edit histories of your user page whether unprotecting would be within the wishes of Mailer diablo (talk · contribs). It might be better if you contact him/her. --Nlu (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You summarized your edit as "rv vandalism and POV." However, neither is true. First of all, Dog Chapman and his crew acted illegally in Mexico according to Mexican law. Bounty hunting is illegal in Mexico. After a short chase, the Mexican authories asked them to turn over Luster. They refused. Chapman and crew posted bond on kidnapping/illegal detention charges and skipped town. He was arrested by the FBI recently in Hawaii on a warrant from a federal (US) judge based on an extradition request from Mexico. So when I say "unlawfully captured," I am referring to his actions under Mexican law because the actions were committed in Mexico. Whether you agree with Mexican law or not is another story. But the fact of the matter is, Chapman and crew broke the (Mexican) law. That statement does not show POV, it is a fact, and a federal judge finds merit for an arrest and an extradition hearing. Even Chapman and his attorney have informally acknowledged breaking the law to a certain extent. There is no POV when a fact is stated. You could have checked by reading the main article on "Dog." 24.13.203.76 16:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until Chapman has been convicted, characterizing the action as illegal is still POV. I am well aware that he is charged with the offense in a Mexican court and that he, ironically, jumped bail. However, he's still entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu. Can you please look at this deletion nom? The editor who closed it is not an administrator. The reasons listed were WP:SNOW and an assumption of bad faith. This is a pattern of behavior with the closing editor. I think this discussion was closed prematurely as the keep voters were primarily editors of the article and closing an AfD nom after one day does not allow for outside opinion which could attract some delete votes. Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, the deletion guidelines are ambiguous as to whether a non-admin can close discussions as "keep." (It's clear that only admins can close discussions as "delete.") I'll bring it up on WP:AN and see what people think and whether this should be taken to WP:DRV or simply reopened. --Nlu (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "I agree with your block of 204.108.195.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but I think you should probably put a block message on the IP's talk page. Just a thought."

I did! Right at the bottom. Do you think it isn't detailed enough? Note that I restricted anonymous edits but did not restrict the ability to create new accounts. Minimal impact, hopefully. --Yamla 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, odd. I thought when I last looked at that talk page that message wasn't there. Thanks and sorry. --Nlu (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your comment on my anonymous edits, I just forget to log in sometimes. I appreciate the reminder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squilax (talk • contribs)

Thanks and welcome. --Nlu (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Admin,

This is to bring to your notice the wiki-feud I've been having with User:Mahawiki for almost one month now. It started with the Belgaum page which went to mediation, warnings were handed out to both parties, and when Mahawiki's incivil ways continued, Admin:Bluyugen handed him a warning and then a block. Find that here.

I do not want to turn the clock back and go through all those content disputes again. Infact, I dont want to present to you the details of any content dispute we've had. All I want to present to you is the brazen incivility and personal attacks being committed by User:Mahawiki either in the course of his content disputes or even simply just out of spite.

All the diffs(exhibiting his incivility and personal attacks) I provide below are from AFTER, I REPEAT, "AFTER". ADMIN BLUGYUEN INTERVENED, WARNED ALL OF US, AND HANDED MAHAWIKI A BLOCK.

Please find below dozens of instances of blatant incivility and personal attacks by User:Mahawiki either on me or on User:Dineshkannambadi and all Kannadigas in general. His remarks are in extremely bad taste and counterproductive resulting in undermining of the good faith efforts of the other editors to carry on editing their articles.

While I dont want to go into each and every diff and explain it, just to give you a sample of his incivility, he has made edits where, even if only in jest or sarcasm, he makes atrocious claims like, I am on a kill Mahawiki mission, that User:Dineshkannambadi is the Kannada (Bin) Laden(sic). In another edit, even if only for jest(which I certainly dont find amusing nor appreciate esp., when it comes from him), he has threatened to sue me. He has called us cultural TERRORISTS, losers, notorious, shameless etc., etc. He uses the word vandalism like one would use 'Hi' and 'Hello'.

Find all the above and much much much more in the diffs I've provided below. Whats worse is his antics are going unchecked because Admin:Blugyen who knows about our feud is on a wikibreak and Admin:Sundar whose intervention I've sought more than once, is busy with other things(I presume, in real life) - which ofcourse, I dont hold against either of them.

But wikipedia will be a poorer place if brazen incivility like this goes unchecked for weeks simply because many admins dont know about it or the ones who know are by force of circumstances, too busy to deal with it.

I request immediate and harsh action on Mahawiki.

Once again, let me remind everyone that in the links below, none of them pertain to any content disputes. I belive in dealing with the content disputes on the relevant talk pages and dont usually bring it out on user talk pages.

Infact, I have even not listed below, the atrocious claim he made a couple of days ago that I had deleted and later undeleted an article. Also not listed below is his blatant removal of {{fact}} tags I had added in a couple of articles without even clarifying or providing a citation for the claim which I had tagged. Also not listed below may be umpteen other instances of incivility and npa violations on his part that I might have missed.

All the diffs below deal purely and only with his brazen incivil comments and personal attacks not just on me, but on User:Dineshkannambadi and also highly respected historians like Mr. Suryanath Kamath et al(who have been cited in some articles by Dinesh) whom he has trashed and dismissed in the most uncivil manner possible.

Apart from this he also makes disparaging remarks on Karnataka and Karnataka politicians who he keeps claiming are oppressing and torturing Marathi speaking people in Belgaum. This is not a content dispute, this is plain nonsense and insanely belligerent language.

His incivility apart, he has made it a habit and a routine to go around all over wikipedia branding me and Dinesh as 'Kannadi' vandals bent on Kannadizing all articles we touch. Ask him if we have included any uncited material or if we has ever cited any references for his numerous claims or whether he has taken it up on the article talk page instead of on a random user talk page. His answer will be negative. And yet, that doesnt stop him from going around shouting that we have been vandalising articles!!

Anway, I dont want to veer this towards the 'content disputes' which is a whole different matter altogether. Content disputes can always be discussed and agreements reached. Let me present to you just his brazen incivility and personal attacks.

Here we go -

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]

Sarvagnya 22:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not the person who's equipped to deal with this. I suggest going to WP:RFC or WP:RFAr. --Nlu (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]