User talk:Nlu/archive33

AFD

That sub-stub on Gokak agitation has changed a bit since your nomination. --Mereda 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you withdraw your AFD-nomination. There is no point in this any longer. -- Petri Krohn 04:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather let it ride out its course. At least it would create an incentive for people to continue to improve the article during the process. --Nlu (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only proper course is to snowball this. You could help by withdrawing. You are now the only one supporting deletion. -- Petri Krohn 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for deletion of articles

Hello. I notice you nominated for deletion two articles I have authored or co-authored, Ensamble Gurrufío and Cheo Hurtado. I ignore your motives or the reasons behind your urge to destroy knowledge (and others' efforts). But I kindly invite you to reconsider. You have based your proposal on just an assumption, not on actual experience. I quote: "Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable". In contrast, I have watched Gurrufío in actual performance, several times. Have you listened to their music? Do you have an inkling about their prestige? I wrote the article (which is still incomplete) on the basis of the extraodinary brilliance and quality of the ensemble in question (and I've been to a lot of cencerts worldwide, I assure you), and as a musician I know what I'm talking about. But don't believe me. Ask instead a celebrated musician, such as Leo Brouwer, or Carlos Barbosa-Lima, or Alirio Díaz, what do they think of the Ensamble Gurrufío. You would be surprised. Also, I hope to have news soon, as I am in contact with the group, and plan to add a wealth of additional information, and will ask their permission to upload sound clippings to Wikimedia Commons. After you have listened to them, I guess you'll change your mind about this article's deletion. The same goes for the article on Cheo Hurtado, a member of Gurrufío. Regards, --AVM 01:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to bring up those points in argument. Personal insults are not well taken. --Nlu (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon. What personal insults? --AVM 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[Y]our urge to destroy knowledge"? How is that not a personal insult? --Nlu (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops! I apologize. I am sorry. I got carried away. No hard feelings. --AVM 13:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy block

Hi, you've blocked 80.42.49.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a suspected open proxy. The other day I had to have an autoblock lifted as a result of this. As far as I understand the term, the IP address in question is not an open proxy. As WHOIS makes clear, the IP address belongs to "Tiscali UK Limited" (A UK home internet provider) and as such will be used by a sizeable number of UK contributors. An indef block of this account (from which there have only been 2 instances of vandalism) seems counterproductive in that it prevents quite a lot of UK internet users from modifying Wikipedia. Could you reconsider the indef block of this IP? WjBscribe 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that open proxies can also exist as a result of user configurations, not just ISP configurations. For example, if a person who uses Tor uses his home IP as a Tor proxy, in effect, it will be an open proxy. The reason why the block was put in place in the first place was that an anonymous IP-hopping vandal used it. I'll lift it, but please send something to the ISP to ask them to track the situation. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that Persian Poet Gal (talk · contribs) had already configured to allow registered users to edit. With that being the case, I don't think a modification is necessary. Again, I'd appreciate it if you contact the ISP. If they'll do something about it I'll consider lifting it. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand enough about open proxies to send something to the ISP that would be coherent, and definitely not to answer any questions they might ask in response, sorry. WjBscribe 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self Defense Editing

You deleted my addition to the self defense article, or more specifically, the section about national defense. I added the fact that a pre-emptive strike is a form of self defense. Why was this deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.208.153.68 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

As I noted on your talk page, it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. --Nlu (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it dosen't. It's not a point of view, it's a fact. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. There are many examples of this being a viable form of self defense. We attacked Iraq because we believed that Saddam had WMD's which could be used against us. Japan attacked us in 1941 because they knew that we would retalliate for their planned conquest of the rich oil fields in the East Indies (which happened on the same day). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.153.68 (talk • contribs)

I think you are proving my point. In any case, please read the NPOV policy. If you violate it, you will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did I prove your point? These are historical facts. Japan was able to expand further out into the pacific to build their empire while we were faced with the task of rebuilding our fleet. It wasn't until June of 1942 that we were able to halt their advance. Initially, it was an excellent form of self defense, because they prevented a retalliation for their plans to capture the oil fields (which they felt was necessary because we suspended oil shipments to them). As for Iraq, we knew that he had WMD's before. He used chemical weapons on his own people. We knew that he was actively pursuing nuclear and biological weapons. We knew that if they fell into the hands of terrorists that it would be very bad for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.153.68 (talk • contribs)

Did you read WP:NPOV? Whether it's a good policy or not, it's official Wikipedia policy. If you can't follow it, don't edit. --Nlu (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it. I didn't say that it was the "best" form of national self defense. I didn't say it was the "worst" either. I simply stated that it is in fact a form of self defense. If someone indicated that they were going to hit me, I'd hit them first. It's a natural reation to a threat of violence. I don't see the nuetrality problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.153.68 (talk • contribs)

Discuss it on Talk:Self defense. If you can persuade the community to agree with you, your edit will be accepted. (Remember to sign your comments, incidentally.) --Nlu (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you! That is my very first barnstar. You have made my day that much brighter. Thank you! --Ozgod 06:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the good work, and keep it up! --Nlu (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

So you are telling me that Guan Yu was not important for Shu Han? and don't say he died to early because he and zhang fei died at most a couple days apart. --Teniii 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. As I said before, please go read some history. They died far more apart than that -- more than a year apart. In any case, Guan Yu's importance to the foundation of Shu Han is overblown. Have you even read the actual historical accounts? (See, e.g., zh:s:資治通鑑/卷068, zh:s:資治通鑑/卷069.) --Nlu (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well not any real manuscripts or anything, but i have read Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Records of three kingdoms. and he seemed pretty importnat in both. --Teniii 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously tell me that you read the Records of Three Kingdoms and still believe that Guan Yu and Zhang Fei died a few days apart. The Romance of Three Kingdoms is fiction and not to be believed. It should be read for its literary value only, not for its historical value. --Nlu (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i did read most of records, thats the only reason i feel chen shi is in the least important, because his probable son wrote it. and i didn't read all of it but i did read all of romance. and i thought zhang fei was murdered by his men, but whatever this clearly means a lot more to you then it does to me so that alright, sorry for hassling you. --Teniii 12:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic. Things need to be factual. --Nlu (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balhae and Goguryeo

Dear Admistrator Nlu, I would like to thank you for protecting these pages, because pro-Chinese and pro-Korean parties haven't found a compromise therefore i tried to protect that pages last Friday, because NOPV was disputed but some unrespectuous peoples like talk) and talk) (who seems to be the same user who) refuse to adopt a NPOV policy and that was very difficult for me to prevent him to recidivise again. Thank you. I hope that one day i would become an administrator like you. Regards. Whlee 08:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. Hopefully, people will realize that being nationalistic on these articles doesn't accomplish anything. --Nlu (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, as an administrator, I ask that you look at Assault11's contribs on Talk:Gogureyo, his first contribution to Wikipedia in particular.

"Unfortunately, like most barbarian gooks, you do not have the capacity to comprehend normal intellect as do normal people. Along with the consumption of dogs, eating little girls and burying them in backyards is another common ritual that you and your fellow savage compatriots practice. Pot calling the kettle black, oh the irony. Yet you even have the nerve to accuse others of "racism." Nice logic. As well, maybe you should take your own peasant gook advice, such as keeping your Kim Jong-Il on a fucking leash. We may be commies, but in no way do we ever bow down and suck on grand daddy America's cock - something that you and your ancestors do too often. Oh, and Gaogouli is ours, bitch."

Look at all those racial slurs. How can you even consider any claims made by such an individual as "edit war" but not "vandalism"? I'm very disappointed that I had to waste my time on such a low-life. Cydevil 13:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His initial edit was vandalism, but not his subsequent ones. With that being the case (and his being unwarned about it), block is not justified. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're being impartial here? This certain individual reeks of extremist POV, going as far as making racial slurs. That aside, I request that you at least moderate the "discussion" at Goguryeo, because I seriously don't want to waste my time on his bigotry. I doubt any reason will ever convince him otherwise, so if you feel there are any substansive arguments remaining on his part, point them out so I can selectively refute them. Cydevil 23:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEADZ UP

PLEEZ delete the User: dokdo page. i have no exact idea what happened, but there was a big foul-up that occured, probably because of a shared user account. The owner of the account user: younilha has lost his user account, because a kid who knew his password used it to vandalize the user: dokdo page. Please clarify the confusion among us, because i want to know what really happened. Odst 01:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you, please delete the Dokdo page. I shared my account with my friend under the same IP address at school. And because of this, my friend betrayed me and deleted my user page, younilha, accused me many times, and created or eddited (I am not sure) a terrible User page under the same IP address (of our school) called Dokdo. It was a big mistake that I made. Now, I regret from it, so please please please delete the Dokdo page. Orthodoxy 01:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way for me to figure out what happened. In any case, "sharing" an account is not permitted on Wikipedia. I suggest you refer the matter to WP:MFD. --Nlu (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for handling the block on User:67.189.28.208. Whoever it was driving me up a wall with this round. I've always said... you can't keep people froming trying to drive you crazy, but you can it least make it an interesting drive. :-) Waitak 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ode to the helpful admin

I spend a lot of time patrolling Recent Changes,
Looking for destruction that's been wrought on our pages,
There are more silly people than I could possibly handle,
So thank you blocking this annoying vandal. --Dweller 14:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empress of Sui Dynasty

Hi Nlu. I've reverted your change, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Cross-namespace. Redirecting to the category is not appropriate - all cross space redirects are being removed. They are either amended to redirect to an article (as I did here), or they will be deleted. I am trying to save as many as I can by redirecting to the most appropriate article I could find. Proto ► 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, good idea! Is that a stub or a dab page? Could it ever be expanded? Or is it better being labelled as a disambiguation page (at least for now)? Proto ► 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's expandable, and that's why I labelled a stub. One can easily, if one has the time (which I don't right now) write an article about the role of the empress in Sui government, for example. --Nlu (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

!

no problem. I only wish I was just as you. You, despite your Chinese ancestry, maintain a neutral and logical stance, which I can only watch in awe. I respect that. Odst 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assault11 at it again

Assault11 (talk · contribs) (link added by Nlu to help monitor situation)

Please do something about him. Cydevil 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, but I think I can dare to suggest that (not necessarily you) the attitudes of Korean editors to the articles are not helping things. Reasonable non-anti-Chinese positions need to be taken, particularly in light of WP:NPOV. Right now, the article does have an anti-Chinese POV, which should be fixed eventually. --Nlu (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the Modern Politics section, I think the article is quite well in line with other neutral sources of authority. And Modern Politics, as much as it is a recent controversy motivated by politics, is bound to include POV elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cydevil (talk • contribs)

Online petition

{http://www.petitiononline.com/comfortw/petition.html} please sign the online petition to the Japanese government, regarding the comfort women issue. thanks. Odst 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD