User talk:Nlu/archive1

Three Kingdoms

i thought it might be appropriate to place the birth and death years of even fictional characters in their repective categories, especially for famous characters like Sherlock Holmes. However, i have no strong opinion over this issue (neither has Mr Holmes been categorized as such) so i'd leave it at that.

However, i do wish to dissuade you from removing fictional characters from Category:People of the Three Kingdoms, too. An introduction has been given at the abovesaid category announcing the inclusion of fictional characters as they may be strong influences in popular culture and the laymen's view of history. --Plastictv 14:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, understood. --Nlu 15:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.113.223.195

It was an overlapping block. I do think that blocking an IP for a full week on its first block is excessive, though. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.100.168.41

I note you gave this anon a final warning. If you are OK with it, I'll remove the alert for now, but if they do it again today, ask and I'll block. After 14:00, place another alert and someone else will. Is this OK? Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Thanks. --Nlu 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam?

Hi there. If you are encountering re-occuring issues with a spammer, perhaps you might consider forwarding the information to Jdavidb. He's an administrator here who has a project to deal with spam, and might be able to help you. --HappyCamper 14:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

Thanks for reverting the junk on my talk page, I noticed at the time but didn't think it worth fighting with him, meant to revert later and forgot! Thanks again. --pgk^(talk) 06:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. --Nlu 06:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.116.9.252

Hi,
Usually you don't have to escalate the warnings quite so quickly. Lots of this type of behavior stops when they realize that someone is watching and a simply, "Oy! Stop it!" Is enough. Keep up the good work, though!
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks. --Nlu 06:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:131.109.101.4

I've decided not to block this user, as the most recent edits from this IP appear to be legitimate (or at least I can see no reason to assume they are bad-faith, beyond the IP's other contributions). I'm going to revert your reversions on WLWC and WJAR – under similar circumstances, I might have made the same call. Also, I'll be using the "rollback" function, as Wiki is moving really slow for me today – one click is much easier than Click. Wait. Click. Wait. Click. Wait. Some users take offense to rollback usage for non-vandalism reverts, so please don't be offended. :-) android 79 16:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) (By the way, can you explain how rollback works? I've never been able to find it.) --Nlu 16:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback is only available to administrators unless you configure your account to use some JavaScript – there are a few scripts out there that will emulate it for you. I think Sam Hocevar has such a script, but I can't find it. I also know Lupin has one somewhere; I use his admin-script. Bug me again later and I'll try to track it down, I don't have the time right now, unfortunately. android 79 17:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocks

Greetings!

203.166.96.224/27 blocks all the users between 203.166.96.224 and 203.166.96.255. You can use the netmask calculator here [1] to figure these out. That's the smallest single range that will block all the vandals 203.166.96.234,235,236,237,238,239,240. Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu 06:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jakewater

okay, but I made the page Jakewater, so how is that vandalizing my own page? (Apparently comment from 24.15.73.202)

If you are Jakewater, log in as Jakewater. Otherwise, edits will be presumed to be vandalism -- particularly given the nature of how you edited it to be. It's rare that users will call themselves by those words. --Nlu 07:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing my page isn't going to convince me that you didn't vandalize User:Jakewater. --Nlu 07:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hockey player etc

hi

surely with a name as generic as his, you could end up having hundreds of links at the top of the page. can they be moved lower?

Michelle1 16:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle, as I've pointed to, that's not the Wikipedia policy. (For examples of how it is handled on other pages, for example, see Billy Beane and Wu Han.) This is not a policy that's intended to cause confusion on Bryan and Bryan alone; it's a Wikipedia-universal policy. --Nlu 17:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi Nlu, have you seen how they handle this at IMDB.com? it's interesting and perhaps tidier than what wikipedia do. as you log into a name, you get the choices before hand on who or what you want to choose, as many names are similar. for example, when you log in on bryan adams, i think there are three or four choices food for thought anyway. Michelle1 20:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen how they do it, but Wikipedia is not IMDB. IMDB is a commercial site (a very useful and helpful one, for sure, but it is commercial), whereas implicitly, if you are asking to "demote" the hockey player's disambiguation notice below where it is customarily by Wikipedia standards, you are not only making a value judgment with regard to that person's importance as to Bryan, but you are also making a value judgment that Bryan is so much more important than other people in similar situations that he needs to be specially treated. That's not how Wikipedia works. --Nlu 21:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription in Australia

Ah, the joys of edit conflicts... sorry for semi-reverting then re-reverting the article; when I started reverting it (sigh, there needs to be a single button for reverts!), yours wasn't up yet, and I didn't catch there was still one word of vandalism left in the one I reverted to... reverted back even further to fix it. And then I managed to get an edit conflict trying to save test2s for the 3 (ab)users. :) Bushytails 05:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Thanks. --Nlu 05:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poo to you

Finding Pooh Sticks bridge is most certainly not nonsense - unencyclopedic, I agree, but not nonsense. RHaworth 14:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]