User talk:Nlu

Archives:

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]

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]

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]

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! 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]

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]

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]

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]

For your archives, are the archives reading 10/xx/25 or 10/xx/05? Or, is it my computer? Real96 08:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Typo on my part. Thanks for noticing it. --Nlu (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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 (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)

{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]

please protect the comfort women page, because I am on the verge of violating the 3rr rule, and the editwar is getting nowhere. Odst 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little lost. What's the nature of the dispute? I'd advise you to file a RfC, actually, before protection is tried. Unless I'm missing out on something, this doesn't seem to be too bad. --Nlu (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc?????? Odst 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFC. --Nlu (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu, I always respected you as a zealous sockpuppet fighter since the User:PoolGuy incident. Unfortunately, a similar incident has occured. I'll spare you the details [[1]]. It's just that an editor has continued to create ban-evading socks. (even admit that he is a sock)[[2]]. Anyway I am hoping you get block User:LionheartX (preferably as soon as you can before he spam your talkpage) since he is obviously community banned according to his previous block logs under User:Guardian Tiger Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see how BenAveling (talk · contribs) reacts to this. If he doesn't respond within a day or two, let me know. --Nlu (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nlu. I've updated Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Goguryeo edit warriors with some 3RR evidence, and LionheartX is on that list. Also, I've added a section on Comfort women below that, and LionheartX is on that list also. Please check for accuracy and update the RFCU if necessary.--Endroit 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to discourage you from your work, but I don't think that the checkuser users will change their mind and grant the checkuser request. It's good work, however. I tend to think that checkuser is underutilized. --Nlu (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but how Ben reacts to this is totally irrelevant. He has campaigned to have him unblocked ever since they first met. In fact he already voiced his support on User talk:BenAveling This is more of an issue of enforcing policy. I always thought such sockpuppets are blocked on sight. Do we have to go through the same drama everytime?? :(--Certified.Gangsta 23:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu, sorry to bother you. I am an reincarnation of the account User:RevolverOcelotX, but unfortunately I cannot access that account anymore. Contrary to what the above have said, I am not banned The block log on my previous account were wrong. There was no strong consensus for a ban per official policy. Yes, I have used a number of accounts, but never two at the same time [3]. And my original account is not blocked [4]. I am willing to accept the conditions that User:Shimeru stated in the previous ANI threads. I have never denied being a reincarnation of User:RevolverOcelotX and request that Certified.Gangsta stop harassing me on my userpage. I apologize for my previous account-jumping in the past. I want a chance to prove I can contribute.

Here is several threads recently on WP:ANI showing that there isn't strong support for the block or ban per official policy.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive192#User:ApocalypticDestroyer.27s requests a review and a lifting of the permanent_block.
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive207#ApocalypticDestroyer.27s_.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.C2.A0.C2.B7_logs.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_user.C2.A0.C2.B7_block_log.29_request_for_a_lifting_of_the_permanent_block.

Thanks, LionheartX 01:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reappearing by being a sockpuppet is still improper. You should go back to your original account to the extent that you can. I don't know why you say that you "don't have access" to it; you can always have your password e-mailed to you. --Nlu (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for losing access to my original account due to a loss password, but unfortunately I had never set an email for my original account. In the spirit of forgive and forget and ignore all rules, I want a chance to prove I can contribute positively to wikipedia. LionheartX 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a rule-violator to invoke WP:IAR is a point that is not well taken, at least by this admin. You are given another chance to prove that you can contribute positively. Use that chance. Meanwhile, I trust that you've learned your lessons over the password that you've set your current account so that in case you lose your password again, you'll have your password e-mailed to you. If this happens again, it will be very difficult for me, or any other admin, to believe you. I am giving you this one chance. Don't make me look foolish for doing it. --Nlu (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've set up an email with my current account. I promise this won't happen again. LionheartX 02:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, can you block him ASAP?? please??--Certified.Gangsta 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still considering it. Since RevolverOcelotX (talk · contribs) hasn't edited for months, I am inclined to block that account regardless. I will probably have a decision tonight. It's more complicated than it appears at first, but still, I am not thrilled with the use of multiple accounts, for sure. --Nlu (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made my decision: I blocked RevolverOcelotX indefinitely. As for LionheartX, I am not going to block that account at the time being. However, LionheartX, please be aware that you will be on a very short leash; any further improper behavior -- including any sockpuppetry -- will draw an indefinite block, and I will personally request that a lengthy block be placed on your IP as well. --Nlu (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. I promise not to use multiple accounts again from now onwards. LionheartX 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nlu, I don't know what you're doing. Obviously this user will not go back to the Revolver account, he'll just create new ban-evading socks once he is blocked. so blocking that account seems rather irrelevant (that is the reason why it wasnt blocked before) As for a decision by admins, a decision was already made a few months ago and that was community ban which means this user will be block on sight under any account. Many unblock requests were turned down on User talk:Guardian Tiger and the page was protected. Please refer to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive177#Guardian_Tiger_and_the_unblock_template. So the only remaining issue now is policy enforcement, so that's why I want someone with admins tool (like you) to enforce this policy. Please block LionheartX accordingly. Thanks--Certified.Gangsta 02:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, I was not community ban. The threads on WP:ANI does not show strong consensus for a ban per official policy. Thanks. LionheartX 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was. Please stop wikilawyering.--Certified.Gangsta 03:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't. Please refrain from personal attacks. LionheartX 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Dmcdevit (talk · contribs) for his input as well. Meanwhile, both of you, please stop this tit-for-tat. --Nlu (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same situation every single time. I'm tired of this. He'll stalk me and spam admins talkpages then admins think I'm the vandal. That is why I said block on sight so we won't have all these useless dramas.--Certified.Gangsta 05:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your statement with evidence. Nlu, please see this ANI thread and post your comments there: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban-Evasion. Thanks. LionheartX 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment made there. I think I make myself plenty of clear now. LionheartX, you are not the victim here. You are being given one last chance. Use it wisely. --Nlu (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry about spamming of admins' talk pages. It won't happen again. LionheartX 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lion could've utilize the e-mail function when the previous account's talkpage was protected instead of continue sockpuppet abuse.--Certified.Gangsta 07:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already raised that, and he already stated that he did not register his e-mail with that last account. I am going to believe him -- once. If it happens again, there will be no further justifications. --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's real. Hooker is my last name, taken from my step father, while Dick = Richard, used for disctinction between the other guys named Richard in the military and work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dickhooker (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

All right. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please delete my talk page and block me for a year (preferably block me indefinitely) with the block log saying 'per user request'. I know about the Right to Vanish, I also know about Wikibreaks. I have made my decision, please do this if possible, or else I'll ask another admin. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not normal to block per request. If you want to enforce a wiki-break the recommended way is to set up your monobook to log you out as soon as you login. I don't have the reference at hand, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent summary: [5] I can neither add to it, nor take anything away from it. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Meanwhile, I already blocked Nobleeagle before your note, but I suppose he/she can always e-mail me if he/she wants to return. --Nlu (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess it's the equivalent of putting a lock on the fridge door.  :-) Thanks again for your input, much appreciated. Cheers, Ben Aveling 07:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user's last addition was Lankybugger and as you can see (now that you know the article) it was after his/her final warning. I deleted the article and neglected to notice Noobett was on AIV but have now blocked the account. auburnpilot talk 10:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nlu - I saw that you had put up a "Last Warning" note on the talk page for 24.38.15.122. This person has vandalised the Buffalo page several times since then (continuing to do so all day), and I was wondering if you could do anything about it (or point me in the right direction to ask someone). Perhaps a block or some kind of protection on the article page? Thanks in advance! -- Oaxaca dan 19:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him/her for 24 hours. Thanks for letting me know. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged!! --Oaxaca dan 19:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nlu, I think I have now understand where we disagree for the map. That was out of my mind that Goguryeo was vassal of Tang's China from 619 to 642, and I was just looking on the fact that Goguryeo was not vassal in 649.

Now we have a way to find a solution for this map.

Moreover, I think I will have to delete and rename the maps relate to Tang Taizong. Most of this maps just say "Tang.png" or "Tang dynasty.png" which haven't any sense. With such big periods (618-907) we will have again and again edition wars for those maps if we keep those names.

On commons, I want to rename :

• the map without Gogureyo into => Image:Tang dynasty 649.png
• the map with Gogureyo + Western turks => I think it should be deleted. Or Image:Tang dynasty 642.png (but I don't think it's accurate to say that Western turks and Tarim kingdoms where down in 642)
• A map with Gogureyo(from 619), Eastern Turcks (from 630), Tibet (from 641) => Image:Tang dynasty 641.png

But I think I should recreate a map, that will be better.

I will probably do thins within 2 weeks. Yug 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]