Misplaced Pages

Sorry.

Sorry re that, it was a false alarm and I really wasn't paying closer attention. — NathanHP 07:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, no problem. Thanks for being diligent. :-) Better false alarm than no alarm. --Nlu (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thorp_naga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You and I blocked Thorp naga about simultaneously -- I blocked for 24 hours and you indefinitely. I have no quibbles about an indefinite block, but if you want it to stay in place, you may need to unblock and then reblock indefinitely. --Nlu (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I will take care of this. Best regards, Hall Monitor 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

hey man

yo how's it goin??? thnx for revertin my userpage. and as you might know. i filed an arbitration against you guyz. but i mean you're not really such a bad editor. i mean you're a pretty good wikipedian, i respect that. so anyway do you think there's anyway we can settle our difference mayb thru another way??? i mean all i want is for jiang to remove dat image from his userpage (not his talkpage). and uhh...this isn't personal attack so plz don't block me again. i'm juss tryin to communicate. lol i always get scared of being block when i post a comment on ur talkpage. you kno wut?? juss forget it and mayb we can start over. anyway hit me bak okay???--Freestyle.king 07:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I still say: don't mess with his image. He isn't inserting POV into articles, and neither should you. He has already repeatedly told you that he does not agree with the statement that the man in the image was making. Nothing more needs to be said. Further, even if, aguendo, Jiang does agree with the message that the man in the image was depicting -- well, he is allowed to have a negative view of President Chen. --Nlu (talk) 07:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

then maybe i didn't personally endorse the big black image on my userpage and you shouldn't had blocked me for a week. the block wasn't justified.--Freestyle.king 08:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The block was for this; I stand by it. I doubt that many people on the ArbCom will find the block to be unjustified at all. --Nlu (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse me!

User:Spectre

Doh!. Sorry, thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hanging

G'day Nlu,

I appreciate that Hanging is probably a textbook case of the need for fullprotect at the moment, but I was kinda hoping to use it to ferret out more sleeper accounts. Ach, well. G'night, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to move it back to semi-protection? --Nlu (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Nahh, no point. I just wanted to let you know why I hadn't gone for full protection as soon as the socks showed up — and why I'd not recommend it in the future. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam?

Where did i post a span link? --Jordantheking 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion (shared by a few other admins) that this site constitutes spam. If you disagree, feel free to try to bring it up at WP:AN or WP:ANI. --Nlu (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello

The reason I used possible thret was because he was actually creating his vandalism page user talk: Never mind see history and I never knew you liked the han Dynasty. Do you play Dynasty Warriors by the way? Whopper 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Information about SockPuppets

Good Day. I have noticed from your posts to CheckUser that you are interested in chasing down sockpuppets. I wanted to let you know that users having a sockpuppet is not a violation of Misplaced Pages Policy. Please read SockPuppets to learn all about them. I would not want you to waste your time trying to fix something that is, in fact, not wrong. I hope this helps. Good Luck! HereIsFIVE 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi, sorry to see you're not well, and I hope you recover soon. I've just reverted T.S. Eliot after edits and was going to leave a test template on User talk:65.125.82.250, but that editor is a consistent vandal, and has been blocked before etc, so I thought I would bring it to your attention.

Best Tyrenius 15:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In this case, though, 65.125.82.250's edits appear to be good faith edits -- the links that he/she removed are arguably excessive, and there was no content defacement. There was also a poor attempt at sectionalizing -- which, however, actually suggests that it was good faith. Further, this is a shared school IP, so whoever the editor this morning is not necessary the vandal in the past. (I justed added a {{sharedip}} to reflect that.) Therefore, no action will be taken at this time, but thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi! I saw that you've recently reverted some changes on Patrick. This page was modified again today and all its content was deleted. Could you revert it to its previous form or teach me how to do it? Thanks. Lujanjl 17:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a minute -- but if you want to do it yourself, you just go to the page's history (by clicking on the "History" tab) and select the last version before the vandalism, and then select "Edit", but don't actually edit it -- and then put something like "rvv" in the edit summary, and click "Save page." That would get rid of the vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

RE Personal attack

Nlu, that was in no way a personal attack. I said quote " How about - Nlu,Dlyons493,Deville and moreover Golfcam, you sicko - let's create threads for the 468 people in front of Ms. Knatchbull" If you are offended by the sicko comment, that was not to you, it was for golfcam who wanted to see a picture of her. I was highlighting the fact that you, dlyons493 and deville should think about filling up the threads before her instead of deleting her which would defeat the point of having an online encyclopedia. The whole idea is that the material is useful. Let's say someone wanted to find out who she was, they could come here to find out.

I am also quite offended by the fact that you think it was a personal attack. Let's get this straight, I've not got a harmful bone in my body. The suggestion was in my opinion, maybe not yours, not offensive and was never intended that way and has left me rather bemused. how was I attacking you, my job is to stop that article being deleted and I am making an argument. if you have got wound up about it then I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it was offensive. Please e-mail be back because obviously I don't want to be blocked. Thank you and God bless, Jonathan.

• QUOTE - Examples that are not personal attacks

Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Misplaced Pages. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to:

Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack—it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment—if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. UNQUOTE.

Whether it was directed at me or not, the "sicko" comment is a personal attack. Don't do it again. --Nlu (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, since I cannot accuse him of being a 'sicko', I still think he is sick for wanting to see a picture of her. And the arguement for that is it was completely unrelated to the debate about the page, since he said that she should only be kept if she was hot and had a picture of herself.

I understand that you part of the counter-vandalism team but please remember that I am not a vandal by any means. Also you could say 'please, don't do it again.' It's much nicer and I appreciate politeness. Rest assured I will never personally attck anyone. If its a debate, I am entitled to write my arguement acccording to the wikipedia guidelines, posted in my previous attachment. Please remember Nlu that I am not the enemy here. I'm merely doing my job, i.e. protecting a page. And if people want to keep her just for a picture then they are the ones who should be targeted for irrelevance. Thank you, 11:02, 28th March 2006 QwentyJ.

P.S. The sicko comment was in actual fact a joking statement, not a personal attack, though I should remind him that his point was irrelevant.

Request for page protection

Hi Nlu,

Would you please be able to semi-protect the Armenian Genocide page? Some anon continues to remove images and information - he/she was blocked for breaking the 3RR but simply changed their IP and continued. On the talk page, all they have really been making is personal attacks by calling everyone "Turk-haters". I'd really appreciate it if you semi-protect the page for now. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. --Khoikhoi 06:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete lie, read through the changes and you will realize that the new entries have no purpose other than to provoke the other side. This topic is highly contested, if you decide to temporarely block it, thats your perogative, but to actually revert and block it, I am sorry, thats just not fair because it clearly means that you are not neutral and are siding with a particular POV! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs)

See m:The Wrong Version. In any case, I have insufficient knowledge of whose version of the events was correct, nor am I interested in the merits thereof; what I can see is that you've been completely uncivil and unwilling to obey WP:3RR. In that case, reverting to the version you oppose is a perfectly good solution. --Nlu (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but I beg to differ, there have been additions to this topic that are totally unwarranted for and the instigators (Fadix, khoikhoi, Thoth, latinus) have successfully hijacked the topic. By reverting and blocking you are in fact agreeing with thier POV, you therefore cannot claim to be neutral on this issue! The right thing to do would have been to just block it, but you went a step further! I ask you to revert back and keep it blocked. 83.78.105.144 07:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I would have done had you not been acting in this manner. --Nlu (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, I still ask you to revert, these additions are highly POV! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs)

That's not the point of protection. What this would allow you to do is to calm down and rethink your position, and also to rethink your own actions. What I'd say is this: eventually, I, or another admin, will unprotect that page. When that happens, there should not be a reeruption of the edit war. Rather, explain your rationale, in calm, non-attacking language, on the talk page to the article and see if you can persuade others that your proposed edits are correct. If you cannot, consider filing a request for comment in the appropriate area. Edit wars are not good for Misplaced Pages, and what you are proposing is for me to join the edit war as well and to condone your behavior. This I decline. --Nlu (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Again I disagree with you, if you were a bit more attentive you would have noticed that I put this issue into the talk page (see PKE) and non of the instigators bothered even to respond, they were busy with a revert war. This 3rr is highly unfair in this case because the other side is ganging up so you have several contributors reverting, thereby avoiding a violation of the 3rr. I strongly suggest that you reconsider the highly POV revert! 83.78.105.144 07:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I ask you again to reconsider your revert, this point was submitted to the talk page but the vandals decided to ignore it and go into a revert war instead. Unless you give me a valid reason for your revert followed by the block, I cannot consider you as a neutral participant in this matter. Do you really believe that your are going to resolve this issue with this attitude of yours? Think again! 83.78.105.144 07:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me make this clear: I will not consider your request until and unless you get an attitude change. I've already given my position on this. If you believe that I am being unfair about this, you can bring it up in an RfC (as I already mentioned), or bring it to the attention of administrators at large at WP:ANI. However, again, please reexamine your own actions in this. Meanwhile, until that happens, no amount of repeated requests on my talk page will change that. --Nlu (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

it seems you have not even bothered to read the contents of my posting above. Let me repeat myself, I RAISED THE ISSUE ON THE TALK PAGE before this became a revert war. If you wish to ignore that point, thats your perogative, but if you decide to revert and then block the site, I am afraid thats far from being considered a neutral stance. I dont know if you realize this but with your arrogant attitude and actions you have succeeded in making this matter a whole lot worse. If you were truly neutral on this matter you would have raised the issue with me and warned me regarding blocking the site. You did none of that, a bit like shooting the prisoner and then asking questions. In light of the above, I again ask you to reconsider! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs)

I really don't appreciate comments like these, just made by the anon a few seconds ago. I am not a "racist Turk hater" nor am I Greek or Armenian. --Khoikhoi 08:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you actually skipped the "friends" part and I insist from the pattern of your posts that you are very much a Turk hater! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs)

OK, it is clear that you're not getting my point. WP:NPA is just that, no personal attacks, period, and since you're not listening, you are getting a 24-hour block in just a minute. I hope, again, that you use this time to cool down and reconsider your actions. --Nlu (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I really don't think that you are being impartial here, the anon despite being disruptive has a clear point: he raised the issue in the talk page and you are ignoring this. The conspiracy allegations might be a bit far fetched but its true that several of the users band together. Lutherian 11:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This anon was clearly someones sockpuppet, so is Lutherian. --Eupator 13:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am nobodys sockpuppet, stop attacking me just because I subscribe to a particular POV. Lutherian 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Attacking you? I entirly agree with Eupator, and that you agree with the anon user that has been hijacking other articles like Adana and slandering a number of many users is much telling who the trouble maker is. You even supported him for the inclusion of a racist site which specifically has a text which says Armenians to be the lowest forms of life. You can start registering under no matter what alias you want, even the 'Englishman,' you will only decieve yourself. Talking of Hijacking, one has to pay attention to what happened to the Armenian genocide page starting with mid February with the huge amount of new aliases and so-called neutral people like you landing there, starting with Shelby28. Or another member who still denies having used two other socks when the evidences are clear. cut. http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fadix/evidencepage This is what hijacking means. Fad (ix) 16:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please take the underlying discussion elsewhere. Meanwhile, I don't really care about whether the anon's edits were right; his/her actions were unacceptable (particularly personal attacks), and that's what I blocked him/her for. I stand by the block. --Nlu (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if you don't mind I have added other IPs to your checkusers. There are other, many other, cases to submit, since since mid Feb., many suspicious users have all appeared all together. One members two other socks have been exposed recently during a poll. Fad (ix) 17:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I don't mind, but what would be more helpful would be to add registered users that you suspect of being sockpuppets, since IPs are, naturally, going to come back as not of the same IPs themselves.  :-) --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that a registered user should go against the policies for me to be able to add it for a checkusers, some of them I suspect to be socks, but have behaved OK, only when they vote for an Rfa or a Poll can I request a checkuser if beside that they are behaving. It is still a possibility that my other submitted checkuser with user Tommiks, Karabekir and OttomanReference could have a link with yours, but I doubt, since Tommiks doing is a professional one, while this anonymous beside knowing how to use proxies is ammatorish and is only good at slandering. Fad (ix) 17:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage (and blocking the vandal). It is greatly appreciated. --TeaDrinker 23:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

croation historian

Hey, can you space my NPA warning at the bottom out of Rory's warning deletion warning? Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 15:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm kind of hesistant to do so right now after what I just wrote, and I think it's clear enough that they are distinctive warnings. --Nlu (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I couldn't tell where one started and the other ended.
2. They're both inappropriate and heavy handed, so far as I can tell. I may have missed some, but which genuine warnings (not placed mischievously by editors who are in conflict with him) did he remove? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Rory096's warning was mischievious. Whether you felt it was appropriate or not, it was not mischevious, and therefore should not have been removed. --Nlu (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit a protected page

Do not edit a protected page. Editing a protected page may lead to your admin privileges being withdrawn. Croatian historian ( ) 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)