User talk:Nlu/archive17

Thanks

I'm just a Wikifairy, but thanks for the welcome to Wikipedia! Amphytrite 00:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:-) Hope to see you around. --Nlu (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lotsa blocks of User:70.189.120.44

Nlu, I know why my one-month block of 70.189.120.44 didn't stick: it was undone after four minutes by Freakofnurture, who then imposed an indefinite block. Check out the whole drama here. The mystery is why THAT didn't stick. Perhaps indefinite blocks of anons simply don't? They are very much frowned on, after all, and IMO properly so. Thank you for your salomonic three-month block, I'm very pleased with it, and I should think Slim is, too (see her responding on my page to my extension of her original 24-hour block). Best, Bishonen | talk 12:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Well, Freakofnurture imposed a block with an expiration of "2050," but perhaps the parser misinterpreted that as a 2050 second block. I think let's do three months... Thanks.  :-) --Nlu (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

talk page cleanup re:mortarism

Thanks for cleaning up my talk page. I wouldn't necessarily consider those messages vandalism, but I appreciate your good will. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Nlu (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

vandal

please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=146.87.255.18 and see if a block should be warranted--Bonafide.hustla 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's a shared IP that hasn't really been sufficiently warned. I wouldn't have been comfortable blocking the person even if it weren't a shared IP, but given that it is, there's also not sufficient evidence that prior vandalisms were done by the same person. I added a new {{test4-n}}. Please re-report (to WP:AIV) if the person vandalizes after this. Thanks for the report. However, when you get a chance, take a look at the {{test}} and {{test-n}} series of warning templates. --Nlu (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

why did you revert my addition to talk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.140.115 (talk • contribs) .

I found it inappropriate. --Nlu (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

{{plainlink}}

Thanks, I didn't know how much was invloved in repairing that template. I'll leave it in the hands of professionals. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  17:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I myself don't know much about template design, but it seems like that if something is broke, fix it to the last workable state :-) Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the welcome to Wikipedia. I am not good at English. However I was very glad to receive your greeting. --Koffie 08:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to see you around. --Nlu (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another Thank You

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user and talk pages. Much appreciated. Sincerely Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 00:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Also no problem. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

yo, thanks for the message. i have an account, but i forgot to log in to fix some minor vandalism. I'm gonna go play in the sandbox <3 -tom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom12384 (talk • contribs) .

Regarding IP 65.120.80.8

A friend of mine told me that he had put an {{unblock}} tag on this IP becuse our school, Glen Burnie High School, has been blocked for persitant vandalism (a decision I do not disagree with). In This message, you suggest that the anonymous user should register so that the good edits can be traced. However, even when I am logged in, when I attempt to edit anything on Wikipedia I am given a block message ("Your IP, 65.120.80.8, had been blocked by Nlu..."). This may be caused by the school's tight (and somewhat overbearing) security, but is this normal? And will I have to edit only from home (like now), and not be able to edit at school at all, even when logged in? P.H. - Kyoukan, UASC 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'd suggest is this -- e-mail the blocking admin. (That's part of the reason for my suggestion to register, since only registered users can use Wikipedia e-mail.) The blocking admin should lift the block because of collateral damage. If he/she won't do it, let me know. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

207.80.142.5

Speaking on behalf of 207.80.142.5,

Please understand that this IP address belongs to a school, and disciplanary action is being taken against the vandals in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.80.142.5 (talk • contribs) .

Thank you. Unfortunately, blocking the IP may still be necessary at times, but please also have anyone who is collaterally affected e-mail the blocking admin so that the block can be lifted when a legitimate user needs to edit. --Nlu (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Sorry about all the trouble. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.80.142.5 (talk • contribs) .

Vandalism

Nice work on the AIV. I've been here since late 2004 but only recently I started reverting vandalism, so, I'm not very experienced yet. Can you tell me what's the most appropriate edit summary to use when reverting? If you just don't have the time, don't bother. Thanks! Afonso Silva 14:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "rvv" is fine as a shorthand. But really, anything that conveys the message is fine. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Athens My edit of the Athens page was not intended as vandalism. It is an error to label Cork the Athens of Ireland. A google search for "The Athens of Ireland" turns up more hits for Belfast then Cork which is farcical in itself.Perhaps I am wrong, im new to editing on wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.226.1.136 (talk • contribs) .

I thought it was vandalism because it also disabled another link. Thanks for trying to help, but also please be careful. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bonds

The additions I made were indeed editorial neutral. In fact, they promoted a fair and neutral presentation, something sorely lacking elsewhere in the public domain. And the details I added--as for example, Bonds' HR # 713 in Philadelphia--are those I myself observed. You reversal of my contribution is rather disrespectful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.139.15 (talk • contribs) .

I disagree:

1. The point about walking Bonds "backfiring" is a POV. It might be a correct POV, but it's still a POV unless factually proven.
2. The point about the jeers to cheers is unencyclopedic and at least mildly POV.

I am sorry if you felt disrespected, but I had to make a judgment call myself, and I felt that those edits should be reverted. If you disagree, feel free to take it up in Talk:Barry Bonds. --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The intentional walk issue is statistically proven. Even during 2004, when there was no Moises Alou to protect Bonds, the Giants scored over 30% of the time after a free pass to Bonds. During this season and until Alou's injury the other night, the Giants are scoring greater than one run each inning Bonds has been walked intentionally. The larger the sample, the greater the proof will be.

Regarding crowd reaction at Citizens Bank Park on Sunday night, I was there. The reversal was dramatic and undeniable, and it was reported in Monday's Philadelphia Inquirer in a sports news story on the game, not an opinion column.

That said, please let me retract the 'disrespectful' call. I think you are well-intentioned, honorable, generally knowledgeable, but just wrong about Bonds. I myself promise to be more careful in how I edit, particularly about a subject who arouses passions. This was my first attempt. And I admit that I do resent the unfairness surrounding the whole Bonds phenomenon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.139.15 (talk • contribs) .

OK, understood.

But as to your first point; the fact that Bonds scores more than 30% of the time that he is intentionally walked doesn't mean that the strategy didn't work; the question is whether the opposing team gave up more runs by wallking Bonds intentionally (or semi-intentionally when they "pitch around" him) or gave up more runs by not doing so. There is simply insufficient evidence both ways. Intuitively, it makes sense that giving him a free pass doesn't work, since these are major leaguers that we're talking about, but without sufficient proof, it's simply POV. --Nlu (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the proof may be complex and elusive, but it can be done and is probably out there. If I dig up a more convincing statistical demonstration along the lines you seek, I'll pass it along. But the question is not whether Bonds himself scores, but whether the team scores more following an intentional walk to him as opposed to pitching to him cleanly. Another helpful and not merely intuitive way to look at this and arrive at a similar conclusion is by way of accepted baseball adages: 1] allowing runners is bad; 2] getting outs is good, particularly since baseball time is determined by outs rather than the clock. No baseball aficionado or strategist would disagree with these precepts. Therefore it makes no statistical or fundamental baseball sense to walk someone batting .237 to face someone batting .378, placing a runner on base with a 14% lesser chance of achieving an out, as Charlie Manuel did on Friday night, or in the 1st inning, as he did on Sunday night with somewhat better odds of succeeding since Steve Finley was now batting, not Moises Alou. Proving that this sort of strategy backfires by allowing more opportunity to score might be easier to accomplish than the other demonstration. Unfortunately for Giants fans, in this series, neither game was a win, though the strategy did patently backfire the first time, and except for David Bell's unusual but fortuitous positioning in the field, would even have been disastrous to the Phillies:

Top 3RD B:0 S:1 O:0 Randy Winn homers (2) on a fly ball to right field.

Top 3RD B:1 S:0 O:0 Omar Vizquel singles on a soft line drive to right fielder Bobby Abreu.

Top 3RD B:2 S:0 O:1 Mark Sweeney grounds out, third baseman David Bell to first baseman Ryan Howard. Omar Vizquel to 2nd.

Top 3RD B:4 S:0 O:1 Gavin Floyd intentionally walks Barry Bonds.

Top 3RD B:0 S:0 O:1 Moises Alou singles on a ground ball to left fielder Pat Burrell. Omar Vizquel scores. Barry Bonds to 2nd.

Top 3RD B:3 S:2 O:3 Pedro Feliz grounds into double play, third baseman David Bell (playing way off the line) to second baseman Chase Utley to first baseman Ryan Howard. Moises Alou out at 2nd.

Statistics and questionable strategy aside, this prevailing practice vis-à-vis Bonds is unsportsman-like and deplorable. It is insulting to Bonds, to his teammate who bats next, to the opposing pitcher who is asked to execute the intentional walk instead of using his own skills to face a challenge, and to the fans who pay to see a performance and a game and not a cop-out. Don't you agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.78.139.15 (talk • contribs) .

But my point still stands; it's POV. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I can grant you that, but ascertainable fact still allows for various POVs, which is an objective vantage point issue, as well as, of course, a multiplicity of quite valid, though by definition, subjective opinions. And it would certainly be an objective entry to write that many qualified observers of the game of baseball would find the strategy of walking Bonds in the majority of situations he is walked in, foolish and prone to backfire. That Bonds is walked as often as he is implicitly admits the existence of alternative points of view and opinions, but as long as many people agree that these walks are dumb strategy, their considered opinions are an objective and factual part of the whole Barry Bonds story. I would love to see you add something to the entry that incorporates that fact in language you find acceptable, because to represent reality, one needs to reconcile many points of view and at least acknowledge thoughtful differences of opinion. The case of Barry Bonds is a wonderful arena for attempting to do just that.

I read your edits on bonds and they are clearly not NPOV. Bonds use steroids is a fact (that's what he claimed in his testimony, that his trainer provided him with steroids and he used them unknowingly).wiki is a encyclopedia, not a place to spread your belief.don't be a dick and register if you're man enough. --Bonafide.hustla 07:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC) oh yeah and Nlu, you forgot to name the guy who posted an unsigned comment. just a note--Bonafide.hustla 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that I made any substantive edits to Bonds, other than reverting what I see as POV, so I am not sure what belief you believe I am spreading. --Nlu (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I was not referring to you Nlu. I was referring to that guy who is not registered.--Bonafide.hustla 00:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reversion thanks

Thanks for saving my userpage and blocking the vandal I was repeatedly reverting :) --Xyrael ^T 18:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Southern Qi and Liu Song

The so called Southern Qi or Liu Song are very much a modern interpret, back in those days they could simply called themselves by their representative name such as Song or Qi, as the matter of fact they were more than just one or two states called Qi or Song in those days. Eiorgiomugini 08:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point. That's why they need to be disambiguated. "Qi Dynasty" isn't going to do it. --Nlu (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously naming it Qi under the article of Southern Dynasties and etc. (when the timeline is right, and is clear for the reader), won't be as indistinguishable as it should be. Eiorgiomugini 08:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it still needs to be properly disambiguated in order to be encyclopedic, in my opinion. "University of Miami" may be perfectly understandable to us without disambiguation, depending on context of whether you're talking about the university in Florida or the university in Ohio, but in an encyclopedia it does have to be disambiguated, in my opinion -- because your context has to be crystal clear. How many casual users of Wikipedia knows that there were multiple Qi Dynasties in Chinese history, you think? --Nlu (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is you seem to specified in every articles with Liu Song and Southern Qi, Southern Qi can be Xiao Qi as well, infact there's more than just one naming, what about the Northern Qi and the Qi of Warring states, or the Qi vassal under the Western Han and Western Jin. Eiorgiomugini 08:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we have to use one. I'd have preferred "Southern Song" to "Liu Song" myself, but I accepted the point that it creates ambiguity of its own (with the later Song Dynasty). In Chinese historical literature, "Southern Qi" is far more used than "Xiao Qi." --Nlu (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And how do you explain about the Liu Song? I don't see any naming of Liu Song under any historical literature. Eiorgiomugini 08:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Already explained. Again, I prefer "Southern Song" but for the fact that it creates ambiguity with the later Song Dynasty (after its capital moved to Lin'an). --Nlu (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Southern Qi appear only after the Song Dynasty, prior to that, nobodys even cares about naming it as to distinguish with Northern Qi. Eiorgiomugini 09:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And we are after the Song Dynasty. The reason for disambiguation is not to praise or insult the ancients; it's to avoid ambiguity for the readers. I still don't get what you are proposing in alternative, if anything. --Nlu (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The facts that I'm not proposing an alternative or anything, just to inform you to keep those articles in its original version instead of making wholesale edition with your opinion. Eiorgiomugini 09:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And the state that they were in (and note I was not the one who made the move away from Song Dynasty with a year mark; I moved it from "Liu-Song" to "Liu Song") was way too ambiguous -- as the Wikilinks themselves show, as there were links intented for both Southern Qi and Northern Qi that were linked to Qi Dynasty. That's prima facie evidence that the way that it was caused confusion. If you believe my move to be improper, go ahead and bring it up on an RfC. I still can't believe that you didn't see the inherent problem in the ambiguity. --Nlu (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

For an analogous issue that was discussed, also see Talk:Cao Wei. --Nlu (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the moving of Liu-Song, but the whole of it, take a look at what you did in List of state leaders Eiorgiomugini 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

And what's wrong with that? You don't see any problems with just having a "Qi Dynasty" stand there, when there are two Qi Dynasties in Chinese history? If anything, those are the most problematic pages with regard to ambiguation, since those yearlyl-slices cut out the context that would have otherwise helped with disambiguation. --Nlu (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage

Hi, could you please take a look at this IP block? I completely understand your reasoning behind the block, but it's apparently a college, and we (via OTRS) received an email about collateral damage. Could you please consider shortening it? Thanks! --JoanneB 13:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me who's the user who's collaterally damaged, so that it can be logged? (Or, feel free to go ahead and unblock, but I'd still like to know if there's actually a user who's collaterally damaged.) Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The e-mail didn't say, I got the impression that they didn't have a username yet. I didn't see many good faith contribs so far, but if you unblock I'll keep an eye on it and reblock if the vandalism continues or is not far outnumbered by good edits. --JoanneB 15:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I unblocked. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam Memorial linkspammer

Thanks for handling the Vietnam Memorial linkspammer. I noticed you reverted one of his edits (to Vietnam War (lists)) - however his last edit was only a change to the wording of the link, so the link is still there. I'd take it out myself, but I've already reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours (and I'm yet to see a definitive answer as to whether linkspam is considered "simple vandalism"). Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User 210.10.116.70

Your threats to this user probably won't do much, as this username is shared by a whole school (Bialik College). It might not be a bad idea if you do decide to block it though, considering there are a lot of pests who will vandalize, and that anyone interested in editing can register their own account. Cheers. Evolver of Borg 08:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Right now, I'm having connection issues, but when those issues are solved, I'll look at it in a closer manner. --Nlu (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Book of Wei

I don't know what are you talking about, if the state of Dai was founded in 310-320, it would be the Eastern Jin that was contemporaneity to them, rather than the Jin Dynasty as a whole, prior before that there was no state called Dai, just bunch of tribes. Eiorgiomugini 00:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tuoba Yilu was created the Duke of Dai during the reign of Emperor Min -- still part of Western Jin by that point, and Tuoba Yilu was nominally a Jin general even before that. To call Dai a vassal of Eastern Jin is misleading, particularly because after Tuoba Yilu's death Dai really no longer was a vassal. --Nlu (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the last three years of Western Jin, they would be so weak to vassalize the state at north, please use your brain, do you have any sources that provided the claims you made? And we're talking about a state here, not general serving the Western Jin.Eiorgiomugini 00:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, Tuoba Yilu was created the Duke of Dai in 310. ([1].) That's during the reign of Emperor Huai. He died in 316, around the time that Emperor Min was captured -- and before Emperor Yuan became emperor; thus, in actuality, he was never an Eastern Jin vassal. I find it distressing that you are not bothering to look up which emperors were reigning at the time before making these statements. This is getting close to being bad faith. If you can't be bothered to look up sources, you shouldn't be changing other people's edits. --Nlu (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Since you provided your sources, so let just changed to Western Jin instead of the Jin as a whole as to avoid any misleading. Eiorgiomugini 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to. I don't particularly agree with the Western/Eastern Jin distinction; it's really all the same regime, but if you want to, go ahead. However, I find it itself misleading to assert that it's misleading to refer to Jin Dynasty itself; what's misleading about it? --Nlu (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the Jin cover a period of about 150 years, and since as you said the Dai was a vassal of Jin, it should be specifically the Western Jin, since Eastern Jin was situated much further away from the state of Dai. Eiorgiomugini 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This statement you made is itself misleading, since at the time Tuoba Yilu died, Jin still held the adjacent Bing (并州, modern Shanxi) and You (幽州, modern Beijing, Tianjin, and northern Hebei) Provinces. Its capital was far away from Dai; its territories were not. I am beginning to be convinced that you have no real knowledge of how Jin territory was situated at that time. --Nlu (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, Bingzhou was really under control of Han-Zhao, whereas You was probably under dominated by the Xianbei. Eiorgiomugini 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. Han Zhao did not take Bing until 317, the year after Tuoba Yilu's death. You Province was under the governance of the ethnic Xianbei Duan Pidi, but Duan Pidi was a Jin official. It's not under direct rule by the Duan tribe, from which Duan Pidi came from but was not the duke of. --Nlu (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the Han state of Liu Yuan, you can't denied that Eiorgiomugini 01:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Han Zhao did not take Bing until 317. Of modern Shanxi, it had just the southern third. I don't know why you are not bothering to look things up. --Nlu (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And we are talking about the vassalage of Dai with the Western Jin, not about the territories of early Eastern Jin. Eiorgiomugini 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? Check your chronology, please. This is getting tiring. You are making points that you yourself should be able to tell are incorrect just by looking at the source. In fact, most of this is on English Wikipedia already. --Nlu (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The main point for my discussion here is to change the statement to Western Jin instead of the Jin as a whole as to avoid any misleading. Eiorgiomugini 01:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, feel free to change it to Western Jin if you wish. I believe that the Western/Eastern Jin distinction is itself misleading because it ignores the actual continuity of the regime and the ruling class, but I don't have objection to using Western Jin in this context. --Nlu (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Help me!

Hello! I'm a Persian Wikipedian and I wanna build a robot, but I like to build a one in English Wikipedia. So Can you help to make a bot step by step??? Thanks a lot! --MehranVB 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do so, and I have never built one myself. Sorry. --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for blocking the IP adress 194.80.32.4 for a week. Might I give you one suggestion. After he's gone through a week of his block, if he blanks his talk page again, I think he should be blocked indeffinetly. Thanks for reverting the vandalisim. ForestH2

No problem, but as a matter of policy, we don't block IPs indefinitely unless they are open proxies, because IP addresses can and do get reassigned from time to time. --Nlu (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection

I have decided to take you up on that offer of semi-protection of my user page, if you don't mind.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 08:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Let me know when you want it unprotected. --Nlu (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar

Many thanks for awarding me with the Resilient Barnstar.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 09:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for talk page semi-protection

The Australian vandal has returned and is vandalising my talk page. Could you please semi-protect it also.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 09:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, Petros471 has semi-protected it for me.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 10:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around earlier. :-) --Nlu (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Tuyuhun

I hope I don't have to tell you that Tuyuhun occupied more area of Sichuan than Gansu at its peak. Eiorgiomugini 00:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't have to either, since it's wrong. Cite me a single primary source that showed Tuyuhun occupying any part of Sichuan, even at its peak. All the sites that Tuyuhun was recorded to have occupied were in either Qinghai or Gansu. --Nlu (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tuyuhun did occupied area of Sichuan, even more so than parts of Gansu. Here is the source I found in Weishu, 吐谷浑遂徙上陇，止于枹罕暨甘松，南界昂城(今四川阿坝)、龙涸(今四川松潘)。Eiorgiomugini 01:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And apparently, you didn't realize that each of the first three cities/regions (上隴 is a region, the other two were cities) you mentioned were in Gansu. And I am not finding any sources that actually puts the latter two in Sichuan, which were then Southern Dynasties territory. In any case, even if those two cities were in extreme northwestern Sichuan, they describe the southern edge of Tuyuhun territory, not the majority of Tuyuhun territory. When Tuyuhun was at its prime, nearly all of southern Gansu was held by it. There is no reasonable reading of the map of Sichuan that would allow you to say that it held more of Sichuan than Gansu. --Nlu (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But to be on the safe side, I am going through this right now and looking at other primary sources as well. Will get back here as soon as I finished looking at them. --Nlu (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The two location can be searched through google if you like, they were placed at nortwestern Sichuan. The area of 枹罕 was later occupied by the Liang states, I don't recall that the Southern dynasties actually occupied northwestern Sichuan, those area belonged to a groups of Chouchi, whose vassalage status was recognised by both Northern and Southern Dynasties. Eiorgiomugini 02:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I see the issue that you were having; you were taking the description of the range that Tuyuhun's founder, Murong Tuyuhun, roved, when his people were still a tribe, not a (semi-)centralized state. That range was not territory that Tuyuhun held, but a grazing/roaming range, and that was only true during Murong Tuyuhun's lifetime, anyway, not his descendants. Both Wei Shu and Song Shu gave nearly identical descriptions:

Song Shu:

渾既上隴，出罕幵、西零。西零，今之西平郡，罕幵，今枹罕縣。自枹罕以東千餘里，暨甘松，西至河南，南界昴城、龍涸。自洮水西南，極白蘭，數千里中，逐水草，廬帳居，以肉酪為糧。西北諸雜種謂之為阿柴虜。 [2]

This passage, I'd translate as: "As Murong Tuyuhun entered the Long region [eastern Gansu], he went to Hanbing and Xiling. Xiling is what is now Xiping Commandery. [Xiping is now Xining, Qinghai.] Hanbing is what is now Fuhan County. [Fuhan is now Linxia, Gansu.] He roamed more than 1,000 li [500 kilometers] from Fuhan east, including Gansong, going as far south as Henan [part of modern Gansu that is directly south of the Yellow River], going as far south as Angcheng and Longgu. [Let's assume for the moment that Angcheng and Longgu are in northwestern Sichuan.] He also went southwest on Tao River [flowing from southeastern Gansu into the Yellow River at Lanzhou], reaching as far as Bailan [southwestern Qinghai]. As he went through these thousands of lli of territory, he followed the waters and the grass, lived in tents, and used meat and cheese as his food. The Northwestern mixed barbarians referred to his people as the Achai Barbarians."

This is not a description of Tuyuhun's territory. For that, you have to look at the various records of Tuyuhun's military activities and see what cities they were actually attacking and actually holding. None was in Sichuan. --Nlu (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just looked up the Bei Shi description. (The Wei Shu chapter dealing with Tuyuhun was already missing by the time of Song Dynasty and was readded from Bei Shi, which was, after I looked at it, clearly taken from Song Shu.) The Bei Shi description is nearly identical. It's still a description of Murong Tuyuhun's grazing range, not the territory that his descendants held. --Nlu (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, if you keep on reading in the Bei Shi ([3]), the context should be clear to you that later on, most of Tuyuhun's activities were in modern Qinghai. They occupied various parts of Gansu from time to time (for example, at the time of Western Qin's destruction), but were not in Sichuan. --Nlu (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have to translate the whole bunch of it, Angcheng and Longgu are in northwestern Sichuan, I don't see why you said none was in Sichuan even by assuming. My main argument is Tuyuhun did occupied more area of northwestern Sichuan, at one time they also occupied southeastern Xinjiang. Linxia was a part of the Liang states, and the Tuyuhun stood not for long, they did however attacked some prefectures on Gansu held by Liang, but they never occupied it, I believe you can search through the map by Tan Qixiang. And we're talking about its territories at its peak not its prime. Eiorgiomugini 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And my point is that they never actually held any part of modern Sichuan. They held parts of Gansu. --Nlu (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do, in fact his son Tuyan was killed by Qiang chief from Angcheng, which further confirm that both Angcheng and Longgu were located at Sichuan, even in most of the google sites I found refered this two places at Sichuan. Gansu wasn't really occupied much long by the Tuyuhun, due to the constantly military activities around the regions. As for Songshu being more reliable, I guess you had forgotten that some of the volumes in Songshu like Weishu were lost too during the Song Dynasty, and many of them are not in the original version, so its pretty much the same. Eiorgiomugini 09:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You did not address my point; it was still as part of the description of what was happening when Murong Tuyuhun was still a roming nomadic chief. One cannot make a serious argument that his entire roaming range could properly be considered the domain of the later Tuyuhun state after it settled down.

Further, I never said that Song Shu was more reliable; I said that, in this case, the textual comparison makes it clear that this particular text originated in the Song Shu, was borrowed into the Bei Shi, and then was reinserted into the reconstructed Wei Shu. The text immediately before and after the passage you quoted (which i gave a more complete quotation of) shows that it was about Murong Tuyuhun and Murong Tuyuhun only, not the subsequent rulers of Tuyuhun.

I find it, again, exasperating that you're not bothering to go back to the sources to see where Tuyuhun activities actually were. Other than this description of Murong Tuyuhun's roaming range, there was not a single battle involving Tuyuhun that was anywhere remotely close to modern Sichuan. The closest is southeastern Qinghai, when Tuyuhun battled Western Qin, but even there the main confrontations were in Gansu. --Nlu (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that, by argument analogous to yours, one can claim that Southern Liang was centered around north central Gansu, since Tufa Wugu's father Tufa Sifujian had once based himself around modern Wuwei -- which, of course, would be a ridiculous claim. --Nlu (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what do you meant by the example of centered around north central Gansu. I'm not talking about where they centered, what I meant was parts of the Sichuan were very much a vassal to the Tuyuhun realm, just beacuse there was no military activities doesn't meant no occuption to the region. And where's your evidence that this particular text was borrowed into the Beishu from Songshu. Infact Songshu borrowed a few texts from Nanshi and Gaoshi Xiaoshi too.Eiorgiomugini 09:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Song Shu, having been written during the Southern Qi, could not have borrowed from the Nan Shi.

You seem to be unaware of the chronolgy in which these histories were written; Song Shu was written first (by Shen Yue), then Wei Shu (by Wei Shou, during Northern Qi) and then Bei Shi and Nan Shi (both in Tang Dynasty). Therefore, in this case, when you get a nearly word-by-word correspondence between the Song Shu passage and the Bei Shi, the Bei Shi must have taken from the Song Shu. Since commentators also made it clear that this section of the Wei Shu was lost and reconstructed from the Bei Shi, that's how we get our chain.

In any case, writing "Sichuan" is highly misleading in the lead paragraph, because even if arguendo all of Murong Tuyuhun's roaming range was under his control (a highly dubious claim, as I've argued above), it would only constitute an extremely small part of Sichuan. Let me try a different example -- it would be like claiming that historical Illyricum included what is now Venetia, whereas, at most, Illyricum included a tiny portion of what is now Venetia. I don't know why you are choosing to fixate on Sichuan while ignoring the fact that Tuyuhun controlled fairly substantial parts of modern Gansu for a long period. Check out, for example, volumes 119 to 125 of Zizhi Tongjian, which gives a fairly good account of the messy fighting between Tuyuhun, Western Qin, Xia, Northern Wei, and Northern Liang during those years. That should hopefully show you where Tuyuhun's activities actually were. --Nlu (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a different understanding to my post. What I meant was the Songshu did borrowed texts from other sources during the later period as noted by commentators. The Songshu was once reconstructed during the Northern Song Dynasty, very much the same as Weishu. "when you get a nearly word-by-word correspondence between the Song Shu passage and the Bei Shi, the Bei Shi must have taken from the Song Shu." You seem to be unaware that the only word-by-word correspondence for this passage are the Beishi and Weishu, the fact that this passage from Songshu are very much different from both two of them, the textual comparison makes it further clear, since Beishi get as much information during its times, Songshu wasn't the only choice of demand during of that time. As for Sichuan, I said Tuyuhun only included a tiny portion of modern Gansu, while due to the less military activities in Sichuan they could had occupied longer to the region. Eiorgiomugini 09:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Check out, for example, volumes 119 to 125 of Zizhi Tongjian, which gives a fairly good account of the messy fighting between Tuyuhun, Western Qin, Xia, Northern Wei, and Northern Liang during those years." No, military activities does not necessarily meant take possession of the region, infact it show further more difficulty for the Tuyuhun to occupy the region. Eiorgiomugini 09:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is getting pointless. You're refusing to go back and look at Tuyuhun's activities. I am not sure what else I can say, other than that your interpretation is thoroughly inconsistent with the records of Tuyuhun's activities. --Nlu (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I repeat myself again those activities are by no means a possession to those regions for a long period.Eiorgiomugini 09:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is surreal. Yes, those activites "are by no means a posssession to those regions for a long period," but they certainly show more than the lack of any activities. For example, when Northern Wei invaded Tuyuhun in 444-445, Murong Muliyan temporarily abandoned his territory and fled west, temporarily seizing the territory of Yutian, in modern western Xinjiang -- now, if Murong Muliyan held western Sichuan as his territory, it made absolutely no logical sense that he would flee west and not south, nor would it have been possible for him to continue to hold onto western Sichuan during this ordeal, due to the extreme distance. Your logic is like claiming that Southern Qi held modern Tibet because there's a lack of activities of Southern Qi armies in Tibet, which, under your logic, must mean that it was so securely held that no battles involved Tibet.

What is even more troubling is that you are refusing to review the passage that you quoted for support -- because looking at the context of the passage clearly shows that, again, it talks about Murong Tuyuhun's roaming range only, not any of his descendants. Without this passage, there is no connection between Tuyuhun and any part of Sichuan at all. You took that passage out of context and don't admit it -- apparently, even to yourself. --Nlu (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't why you have so much questions if you actually read the source as you claimed, because once again the the book only mentioned one military activites at modern Sichuan, not just roaming parts. Eiorgiomugini 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Your logic is like claiming that Southern Qi held modern Tibet because there's a lack of activities of Southern Qi armies in Tibet, which, under your logic, must mean that it was so securely held that no battles involved Tibet." You've absolutely nothing other than pointing out that they fought more battles in Gansu. Considered the facts that Qiang and Di were the vassal and subjugated by the Tuyuhun and non of them had rose to revolt against them, beside just one I read. And you still haven't answered to this, after if you categorize my claims. Show me your source that Tuyuhun occupied longer in Gansu, a full timeline. Eiorgiomugini 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"What is even more troubling is that you are refusing to review the passage that you quoted for support -- because looking at the context of the passage clearly shows that, again, it talks about Murong Tuyuhun's roaming range only, not any of his descendants. Without this passage, there is no connection between Tuyuhun and any part of Sichuan at all. You took that passage out of context and don't admit it -- apparently, even to yourself." No, there wasn't plenty of enemies in Sichuan, what the hell are you talking about? I did not mentioned just the roaming of the founder of this kingdom, but if someone else rose aginast to revolt his son, there must had some vassalage between them to the regions. Eiorgiomugini 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Read the entire chapter. That's all I'll say further. Since, apparently, you won't do that, and without doing that, you won't be able to see how wrong your position is. --Nlu (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said there's was only one. I did read a lot on this part already thank you, its you who should read them. Eiorgiomugini 03:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but you appear to have the illusion that we are actually having a discussion. There is no place to even begin since you are hopelessly confusing the attitude towards the sources because you haven't read enough to even understand what's the point for other putting disucssion on talk page. But since you had filled full discussion on Talk:Tuyuhun, I would not comments anything Eiorgiomugini 03:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi. Looks like Hetoum is back. Please have a look at actions of this anon, he vandalized two user pages today. [4] Regards, Grandmaster 06:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Could be, but not enough evidence. Added {{test4-n}}, and let's see what happens... --Nlu (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This address was used to edit Hetoum's user page, that's why I thought it was him. But you know better. Thanks for taking measures. Regards, Grandmaster 08:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please have a look at another vandal edit of the same user page: [5] Again, the IP address of the vandal was previously used to edit Hetoum’s user page. Grandmaster 04:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Added {{test4-n}} as well for this one. --Nlu (talk) 06:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Grandmaster 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your diligence. --Nlu (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion vandalism

Why did you delete JOIDES Resolution and Chikyu?!? This is vandalism >:-( --84.131.68.87 23:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

They were created by you when you were using a WP:POINT-violative user name, and I have no confidence in their accuracy or in their non-copyright-violative status. --Nlu (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It is my right to use the username that I want to use. You have no authority to judge about this. If I don't like a policy of Wikipedia I can express this also with a username. The articles were copycreated from another article, so they can't be copyviolation. As admin, you have to verify this before deleting. And you have to put it on WP:AfD, you have no right to delete anything only because you "think" something. --84.131.68.87 00:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have every right and authority to do so. See WP:CSD. If you disagree with Wikipedia policies, you should try to get them changed; not following them means that you are going to be blocked if you don't stop your behavior. --Nlu (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing on WP:POINT about user names, so there's no policy against this. And there's also nothing on WP:CSD that justifies this deletion, in fact it says "Limited content is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough context to allow expansion." You shall read the policy first if yo are an admin. --84.131.68.87 00:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nlu--I left a message on this IP adresses talk page advising him to be very careful about choosing a username. ForestH2

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I left a second message.--ForestH2 00:17 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think that the user will listen. --Nlu (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to don't understand.....There have been plenty of users blocked for bad choice of username. ForestH2

Nlu-you are an admin....Could you get the list out of banned users because of user name. I know where to get it....I just forgot. Do you know. I'm sure this whining user would love to see it.ForestH2

I actually don't know of such a list, but look at the block log -- they show up there all the time. --Nlu (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I put it on 84.131.68.87's talk page. You can view it for yourself. Forest

I sign my name sometimes as Into the Wilderness. Nlu-check this out. [6] Into the Wilderness

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Beware, beware

Checking for vandalism before tagging for spam cleanup is a good thing. [7] ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:-( Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:206.158.123.8

I love it when I'm edit-conflicted by someone making the identical post ({{sharedip}}) :D RadioKirk talk to me 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

:-) --Nlu (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Commercial links and adding content

Dear Nlu,

Please clarify what is considered a commercial link? I added a link to a website that shared information about Air Jordan shoes as well as added anchor text to another site. You reversed this and said that the link to nicekicks.com was commercial, but that website does not sell anything. They just provide information about Air Jordan sneakers (alot more info than is currently here). I then added text from that site and it was again deleted and all the links were removed.

Please contact me via "my talk" and clarify this with me. If you are able to view my email address, please email me so I can better understand the procedures of Wiki.

Great thanks

HalfyHalf

Clarification part 2

"The first part of my warning has to do with copyright violation. By taking text off another Web site without express authorized permission to do so, your edit was copyright violative, and Wikipedia cannot accept it."

If I get written consent from the website in question, can this information be posted? The write up on NiceKicks.com has FAR more information on many models of the Air Jordans than are posted on Wiki.

Yes, but it has to be written consent. The person granting the written consent should e-mail or physiccally mail a letter to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission for more details. --Nlu (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"The second part of my warning has to do with the insertion of a link that I felt was inappropriate (and I admit that part of this is subjective)."

Can you please elaborate how [8] is inappropriate? You said it is subjective, so please let me know what about it offends you so that I do not post any more inappropriate links.

"Under WP:SPAM and WP:EL, a Web site does not have to be selling things to be considered inappropriate for an external link. In this case, what the site gives does not comply with those suggested guidelines, and that's why I believe that the link should not be included. --Nlu (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC) "

I viewed both of these pages and am still lost as to how you find the information on this page any more inappropriate than the information linked from the other sites at the bottom of the page.

Thanks again!

HalfyHalf

P.S. Do you have MSN or email that I could contact you on?

Thanks for getting back to me.

Last thing first: to e-mail a Wikipedia user (one who provided his/her e-mail to Wikipedia, at least, as I did), you click on "E-mail this user" in the toolbox part of the navigation pane to the left (or to the top or right, depending on your Wikipedia settings).

Second to last thing: that there are other inappropriate links in the article (or in other articles) is not a good reason to insert an inappropriate link. I (and other editors) don't have infinite time to hunt down every single inappropriate link, and we often delete them as we see them.

As for what I find inappropriate: It's effectively a bare link. (WP:SPAM no-no #2.) The site also arguably contains unverified original research. (WP:EL#Links to normally avoid #1.) It is also arguably a blog. (#10.) As WP:SPAM suggests, if you disagree with me, perhaps put the discussion on the talk page and see if others agree with me or not. --Nlu (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blakes 7

Its probably my inexperience with Wiki but I was just wondering why my Blakes 7 external links entry was removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmm commentaries (talk • contribs) .

It doesn't fit, in my judgment, the external link guidelines at WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Nlu (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The first link didn't work by the way. I understand what you mean after reading the spam link - but surely that is there to stop commercial sites linking and gaining exposure/profit/page rank from such links? MMM Commentaries is a fan site. What makes my link not valid, but the other external site links on that page valid?

That there are other spam links on the page is not a valid ground to add the link. I can't track down every site and delete them all over Wikipedia; I can only deal with what I see immediately. --Nlu (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism leading to the block of 64.235.102.2

Thanks for helping me deal with the school board's request. I'll keep an eye on the block to ensure someone who doesn't know the history doesn't accidently unblock. I've spent quite a lot of time on this over the past month trying to get a hold of someone at the school board to help us out.  :) --Stephane Charette 18:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism from 195.194.185.41 (St Francis Xavier's College.)

Hello. I just thought I'd give you an update on the situation. I've spent about half an hour sifting through all the vandalism and I've found a few names of probable purportrators. I recognise two names on the list as definate students at the college as well. Anyway, it's all at the bottom of User talk:195.194.185.41. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beno1000 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)