User talk:Nlu: Difference between revisions

Archives:

• archive1 (archived 22 Oct 2005, covering 4 Oct 2005 to 17 Oct 2005)
• archive2 (archived 1 Nov 2005, covering 18 Oct 2005 to 31 Oct 2005)
• archive3 (archived 11 Nov 2005, covering 1 Nov 2005 to 9 Nov 2005)
• archive4 (archived 19 Nov 2005, covering 10 Nov 2005 to 18 Nov 2005)
• archive5 (archived 26 Nov 2005, covering 19 Nov 2005 to 25 Nov 2005)
• archive6 (archived 3 Dec 2005, covering 26 Nov 2005 to 2 Dec 2005)
• archive7 (archived 11 Dec 2005, covering 2 Dec 2005 to 9 Dec 2005)
• archive8 (archived 22 Dec 2005, covering 9 Dec 2005 to 20 Dec 2005)
• archive9 (archived 28 Jan 2006, covering 21 Dec 2005 to 26 Jan 2006)
• archive10 (archived 12 Feb 2006, covering 27 Jan 2006 to 10 Feb 2006)
• archive11 (archived 20 Feb 2006, covering 11 Feb 2006 to 17 Feb 2006)
• archive12 (archived 22 Feb 2006, covering 18 Feb 2006 to 20 Feb 2006)
• archive13 (archived 20 Mar 2006, covering 21 Feb 2006 to 19 Mar 2006)
• archive14 (archived 31 Mar 2006, covering 20 Mar 2006 to 30 Mar 2006)

Has been started. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration: failed. okay fine I lose, too much chinese influence on wiki, i can't help it. but anyway it might sound weird but jiang's imagez. man i'm like wateva. i don't give, man. kno what i'm sayin?? anyway tyme to stop thinkin about me as a vandal 'cause that is absolutely not tru. we can just start over, deal??? oh and if u need help on articles and stuff, you can ask me on my talkpage--Freestyle.king 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] is an indication that you have no real intention to contribute. --Nlu (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this reversion? I didn't check out all of the links, but they look like a pretty good bibliography on the topic. One was an online link to an article we already reference. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was adding a bundle of vandalism at the very same time, and I had no confidence in the integrity of the edits, even if it looked proper at first blush. It could have been subtle introduction of inappropriate sites. --Nlu (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this user. He has been removing warnings from his talk page. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoldToeMarionette had just 120 edits before you protected their User Talk page preventing the account from any further communication. 83 of those were posts regarding an AfD with 17 a duplicate post to correct a wiki error, so just 66 actual posts, just over five dozen. Those posts were all to different pages, and none reverts, so there was no 3RR violation with those.

16 of the remaining 37 were posts to GoldToeMarionette's User and User Talk pages adding, moving, and correcting content. None reverts, so there was no 3RR violation with those.

Of the 21 remaining posts 13 were posts commenting on the Check User that was initiated or making inquiries with Admins with Check User authority. None reverts, so there was no 3RR violation with those.

Of the 8 remaining posts one was fixing a typo on a user talk page, and one was thanking an Admin for the nice welcome to Wikipedia. None reverts, so there was no 3RR violation with those.

Of the 6 remaining posts with which there could be a 3RR violation, they were on 5 different User Talk pages and all were adding content. There were no reverts.

There was no 3RR violation. Your blocking and page protection based on 3RR violations claim is not valid. This is the basis for concern with your administrative action. You have taken it without policy violation. Please unblock and unprotect, or at least have the courtesy to show where you saw a policy violation. InterestingSituation 04:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]