Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nlu (talk | contribs) at 14:58, 11 March 2006 (Reverted edits by 68.110.9.62 (talk) to last version by Nlu). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives:

• archive1 (archived 22 Oct 2005, covering 4 Oct 2005 to 17 Oct 2005)
• archive2 (archived 1 Nov 2005, covering 18 Oct 2005 to 31 Oct 2005)
• archive3 (archived 11 Nov 2005, covering 1 Nov 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
• archive4 (archived 19 Nov 2005, covering 10 Nov 2005 to 18 Nov 2005)
• archive5 (archived 26 Nov 2005, covering 19 Nov 2005 to 25 Nov 2005)
• archive6 (archived 3 Dec 2005, covering 26 Nov 2005 to 2 Dec 2005)
• archive7 (archived 11 Dec 2005, covering 2 Dec 2005 to 9 Dec 2005)
• archive8 (archived 22 Dec 2005, covering 9 Dec 2005 to 20 Dec 2005)
• archive9 (archived 28 Jan 2006, covering 21 Dec 2005 to 26 Jan 2006)
• archive10 (archived 12 Feb 2006, covering 27 Jan 2006 to 10 Feb 2006)
• archive11 (archived 20 Feb 2006, covering 11 Feb 2006 to 17 Feb 2006)
• archive12 (archived 22 Feb 2006, covering 18 Feb 2006 to 20 Feb 2006)

Vandal

Since I've been getting no response on AIV...

• 218.188.3.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Has vandlized multiple pages, ignored warnings. ¡Dustimagic! 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it as soon as I finish dealing with vandalism on my own user page. :-) :-( --Nlu (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I appreciate it. ¡Dustimagic! 07:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. ¡Dustimagic! 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Thanks

Happy to help :) Pegasus1138 07:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanization for Bohai-related articles

I proposed to use Pinyin as the default romanization for Bohai-related articles (again). If you are interested, add your comments at Talk:Bohai. --Nanshu 10:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

When I can, I'll take a look. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

I just started reporting to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Now i learn how the system works, i'll report after test4-n. Cheers--Ugur Basak 14:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence! --Nlu (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nlu, possible suckpuppet User:Omiz. Vandalised same page, but stop after warning. I guess he gets new usernames--Ugur Basak 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible, but let's just keep watching. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Haitian Transportation Sensation

I realize you've been hit a few times by these vandals, as have I. I've done the best I can to catch and revert as many instances of their "work" as I can, however with the ever growing number of sock puppets these guys are using, I'm strongly suggesting we ban the ones that have user names now and nip this in the bud. I've compiled a list of sock puppets and instances of vandalism on the page for User talk:Repartee. So far only one of the puppets has been blocked. User:Kmf164 and User:Adashiel have also been targeted. Any other ideas? I'm going to remove all the information from Repartee's main page and put it in his talk page for now so as not to feed the trolls. Yankees76 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that with open proxies, there is no way to prove who did it. --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. However we can take care of the user accounts first. Yankees76 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem, again, is that there is no way to prove that those open proxies are the sock puppets of the banned users. They are likely ones, but even in case a heavy attack there is really no way to prove whether if it's that person, or an imitator of that person. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

socks

nitrites history- he used the ip 68.251.158.126 contribs, the other ip sock he was using. can you zap him for evading a block through sock puppetry? thanks; if i was an admin i'd do it myself but i'm not. sorry for always putting this on your shoulders. --Heah 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Right now probably not serious enough to warrant blocking unless open proxy (but I can't check right now). --Nlu (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

4 rv's tonight and he's calling me a vandal again. --Heah 03:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And now a 5th from a new sock, ip 69.39.135.109 . . . --Heah 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm out of the country right now with sporadic access. Might be best to bring this up on WP:AN/I. --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, seems the page has been semi-protected for now. Thanks for your help, as always. --Heah 02:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

Hi there, this is the user who has been adding those Australian football vandals to AIV. It looks like he has stopped for now, but his IP was probably just shared amongst a dialup ISP. I'll post new alerts if more activity comes up. Thanks for your quick responsces on AIV. --lightdarkness 06:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism messages

Ah, OK. I seemed to have put only warnings, but I'm not so much into the thing. Thanks. Attilios.

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Sima Daozi, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 09:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

arbitration

you know what?? i'm sick of gettin block for no apparent reason. so anyway i'm takin this issue with you and jiang to arbitration just to let you know ahead of time. hit be back on my talk page if u got stuff to say. oh and btw this ain't no personal attack so don't block me again strictly because i'm tellin you this. if you really think you and jiang are doing the rite thangz then u shouldn't be scared by arbitration. so anyway peace--Freestyle.king 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want arbitration, go file an arbitration case and follow the procedure. --Nlu (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Another vandal

On 7th Feb 2006, you issued a warning to the IP 62.232.224.4 to stop vandalising articles, or face a permanent block. Well - they've been at it again, vandalising the articles for Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. and Leeds United F.C.. They've had several warnings already - how about putting that block into action? -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am out of the country right now, but I'll take a quick look to see if there are sufficient recent vandalism for me to block. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User:216.12.45.47

On 19:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC), you issued a final warning to the above captioned IP address. They are at it again. Two other people have warned him on his talk page and I have just reverted vandalism by the individual on the Starcraft page. Just thought you'd like to know.--Silverhand 22:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• I see you're out of the country, as reported above. If there is anything I can do to help with this, please let me know.--Silverhand 22:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked and found out that it is a shared IP. As the edits today (Mar. 2) are legitimate edits, I am taking no actions at this point. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

207.237.104.94 still unrepentant

He claimed that he "blocked you for a lifetime" for "annoying him" and stated his intention to form an "anti-Misplaced Pages" . Should he be reblocked? --TML1988 04:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Nlu (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sufficiently serious to warrant a block at the moment -- and I don't think it's even worth a warning at the moment. But thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

I believe this would be a very bad idea. In fact, it's a little hard for me to believe the suggestion was made in good faith, unless you were going by edit-count alone. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he's a little frivolous, but aren't we all? He's been fairly vigilant at finding vandalous activities, and he's shown good propensity in seeking advice and in counseling others. While sometimes his judgment can be questionable, again, that can be true for all of us. --Nlu (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This conversation is surreal to me, sorry :-) Have you looked through his edit history? () Of his 5000 edits, only 669 have been to article space, and a brief perusal of those shows little or no vandalism reverting. Instead, all his time is spent in talk pages, alerting people to real or perceived problems. Have you ever looked at his contributions to Talk:Bigfoot? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I have, but a lot of what he does is bringing problems to the attentions of administrators. Maybe it is a bad idea, but I'll see how he responds. Perhaps a RfA process will show him that he needs to contribute more. --Nlu (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bad idea. And he's far from frivolous, he's a very earnest contributor; his unsuitability for adminship is other, and, from your responses to Bunchofgrapes above, I think you must have missed something. Is it really your opinion that, since everybody's judgement is questionable sometimes, there is no difference between people as regards their share of judgement...? Please think about that one. Please don't do this. Nominating him for adminship can only hurt an editor who's doing his best, by forcing many people to object. RFA can be a lacerating process, and in this case I'm sure it would be. "See how he responds"? I do realize that the way he has now responded makes it a bit difficult for you to change your mind (I really wish you had sought some advice before asking), but please do all the same, because that RFA would be far more painful. Bishonen | ノート 17:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC).

I have to echo Bish here. This was not a good idea, but unfortunately, the cat's out of the bag. I think this will only serve to confuse ML more. I am particularly baffled at your praise for his handling of the Beckjord situation; at best, he was a distraction. android79 03:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought he made a good effort to try to calm Beckjord down, and while that was ultimately unsuccessful, a good attempt was made. --Nlu (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gross misinterpretations

I resent your assertion that I've grossly misinterpreted the law in any way, shape, or form. Brian Peppers was convicted of two felonies in the state of Ohio, and I have quoted the definition of gross sexual imposition in that state. Silensor 23:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Except, as I've pointed out before, he wasn't convicted of gross sexual imposition; he was convicted of attempted gross sexual imposition.

Further, your statement of the law is a misleading one, because there are many other ways that the statute can be violated by. See the statute itself ; the statute can be violated in far less serious ways than you implied that the only way in which Peppers could have violated the statute in, since the statute has so many alternatives in which a person can be found in violation thereof. As I pointed out, theoretically, Peppers's crime could have been as minor as giving two teenagers some money and asking them to have sex. --Nlu (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Rfa fouled ?

Did as indicated, got a red link on the MAIN page of the Rfa page. Hope this does'nt foul up things. Martial Law 03:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :)

It was straightened out. Who is the "boss' on that page ? Martial Law 03:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC) :)

The bureaucrats close out the RfA process when time elapses, if that's what you mean. --Nlu (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

List of University of North Texas people

Many thanks for putting protection on the page! Unfortunately, I don't think it's ready for unprotection yet. Since the vandal in question can't re-add his name again, he is now using the Talk page to essentially argue that since *he's* not notable, most of the people on it aren't notable either — including a number of names drawn from UNT's official list. (Even added a comment to a discussion on the UNT page from when the list was there.) Assuming good faith is just not working, and he flat out refuses to acknowledge that he might be wrong.

Considering that he generally hasn't edited on weekends, Friday was his only quiet day ... a pity it couldn't last. Thanks again for your help. — Hedgey42 07:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Another admin's removed the protect, and as I expected, he's ba-a-ck. I'll post to AIAV in a sec. - Hedgey42 19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My talk page

It would seem VinnyCee has calmed down. Maybe we can try unprotecting my page and see what happens. Nomen Nescio 08:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for contacting me. --Nlu (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Fingers crossed! Nomen Nescio 17:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/East Sea (disambiguation)

I'm offering to take on this mediation. Please note that I am not yet a member of the mediation committee and am under trial. If you are happy for me to mediate please email me using Subject:"East sea mediation", a summary of your view of the issue. MyNameIsNotBob 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sent. Thanks! --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for asking, but i'd really like to keep my position simple for an outsider to read. this thing's already overgrown, & i'm feeling queasy just recalling the interminable & pointless "discussion" various people had on various talk pages. feel free to make your own subpage, though, or otherwise alert me of any points you want me to address. Appleby 08:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

If this isn't vandalism I don't know what is (which is why you reverted). AND it's been occurring after a test4. Please block. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I didn't block is because ChrisO already did. --Nlu (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Question

Whay did you delete the Random Acts Films article? This is a valid article. You had no right to delete it. -- Doo Doo 09:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly non-notable (under WP:CSD). Please do not recreate it. If you do so, it would be viewed as vandalism and be dealt with as such. --Nlu (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is notable. The videos have been featured on an Australian tv show. They are very popular with the Autralian public. Who says its up to you to decide wheter it's notable or not? -- Doo Doo 11:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just me; every admin who has looked at the issue believed it to be non-notable. If you have complaints about it, bring it up on WP:DRV and see if people agree with you. --Nlu (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

User:142.32.208.238

Actually, I was really only fixing Curps's and Hall Monitor's conflicting blocks, but my understanding is that we've been getting a bargeload of vandalism from that school (good God we need an immunity flag on the autoblocker). I've unblocked for now, but if it gets bad again we're going to have to block again. I'll leave a message on CJGB's talk page. Chick Bowen 04:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Chang'an/Wang Mang

Hi Nlu, utterly impressed as I am by the work you've done on Chinese history here, I'd still like to question your rendering in English of Wang Mang/the Xin dynasty's capital's name as "frequent peace". Without having looked up the sources it would seem to make much more sense if Chang'an 常安 was given in English as "everlasting peace". As in the beginning of the Dao De Jing. Or? Berox 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a good interpretation as well, but perhaps I am overly given to the irony that after Wang Mang changed 長安 to 常安 that his dynasty did not last long. Plus, 永安 (yǒng ān) would correspond to "everlasting peace" better. --Nlu (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To my mind, given the way things turned out, the irony is no less with "everlasting" (or any good synonym) …

Plus, it would, I guess, give the reader a better sense of what Wang was hoping for. Looking at the characters I would say that 常 more often than 长 (in Classical Chinese) has the meaning of "everlasting" etc. NTL, I won't do any editing on my own here if you want to keep the joke :) Berox 10:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer it, but if you want to change it, that's fine too. --Nlu (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of IP 24.227.244.237. I was beginnig to wonder if it would stop. Cheers! --Scaife Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 18:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

User:83.221.83.61 and Bestie Boys link

I'm not totally certain that the above user actually threatened anyone here. Reading his removed comment, it looks to me like he said that the website he was removing "hunts people down", not that he intended to do so. This sounds pretty wild and extreeme, and if this is the correct context of his comment, then it's a rather strong attack on the web site, but it's not really an attack or a threat on another WP editor. Just my differing interpretation of the comment... - TexasAndroid 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, threat that another person/entity would do something (without evidence) is still a threat, I think. But let's see if that editor does something else improper... Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page a few days ago. Apparently, you changed it back so quickly that I didn't even notice! Kuru 01:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) No problem. --Nlu (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, for reverting vandalism on my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 07:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) No problem. --Nlu (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Protection not against editorial disputes

Nlu,

As far as my understanding of policy goes, full protection on articles is not to be used except in cases of vandalism. You protected natural selection and gave the reason "3RR violations by sock puppets ". There was one 3RR violation by Marcosantezana, which got him a 24hr block; he circumvented this by editing without logging in, got his IP blocked, then edited again from a different IP address. However, neither did he use sockpuppets (he did not create new user accounts), nor was he vandalising the page (he has genuine concerns about the article, albeit an unfortunate way of expressing them). Can you please confirm that the protection is in keeping with policy?

Thanks,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion (an opinion not completely shared by other admins) that sockpuppetry (particularly sockpuppetry to evade blocks) is a form of vandalism, and should be dealt with as such. Therefore, it was not a simple case of editorial disputes. Further, with his ever-changing IPs, it is not effective to block him. I don't believe that my block violated policy. If you disagree, you can raise it on WP:AN. --Nlu (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

He used exactly two IP addresses as far as I'm aware. That's probably his work and home one. He may well have run out after that, and blocking all unregistered users is no simple matter. In fact, it is one that I have been reprimanded for soliciting in a case where there was vandalism going on, and I must register my reservations about double standards. Let's also not twist the meaning of words. Vandalism is the destroying or defacing of things, not the changing of IP addresses.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the IP2location output for those two IPs, showing that Marcos had not acquired IP addresses outside of Chicago:

69.222.248.161 US UNITED STATES ILLINOIS CHICAGO PPPOX POOL - RBACK6 CHCGIL

128.135.104.220 US UNITED STATES ILLINOIS CHICAGO UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's (presumably) only because the article was semi-protected that we're not seeing additional sock puppets. I still don't see where the double standard is. If you believe that I've employed a double standard, plese show it. In any case, someone, either I or another admin, would lift the semi-protection in a little bit anyway; semi-protections don't stay on a long time. --Nlu (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)