User talk:YellowMonkey

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Template:Long wikibreak User:Blnguyen/CWC Advert User:Blnguyen/Recent

You are welcome to leave me a message or request admin action.

Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since 29 May 2006 and an arbitrator since January 1, 2007.

FOR ANONS, I WILL DEFINITELY REPLY HERE. FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS MAY BE HERE OR AT YOUR TALK PAGE. IF IT IS A MULTI-PARTY DISCUSSION, THEN DEFINITELY HERE

Archives

Banana Bucket

Sir, I live in RSA and at my place the expression means offensive slang for vagina. I request you to change it.

Can you give a citation for this. I would be happy to change it if necessary. However, I do note that your IP appears to be in Turkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I don't know why mention Turkey. Were you joking? please see the article and search for words bucket, banana etc. in it. http://www.bortsportal.com/2005/11/02/vagina/

At risk to my stomach churning, I checked the list. I specifically does not include the term "banana bucket". Yes, it includes "banana" and "bucket", but many other otherwise innocent words are also in there - do you propose to censor any and all such combinations? --Dweller 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I looked as well, and I see that "box" is also something which is caught in this net. However, I don't think that is what comes to a user's mind in that context. With respect, I do not see how the merging of the two words constitute a slang for an obscene term. I wasn't joking either, the WHOIS tool seems to say Ankara, Turkey. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This term is usually used by non-indigenous males in respect of indigenous females in "colonial" situations. As such it does not find its way into print. That is whilst there are dictionaries of English slang etc. and the slang finds its way into other books and articles and can be cited, this term is used in circumstances which are not well documented. I myself have heard it used in Papua New Guinea in the 60s and 70s referring to unmarried indigenous females who were suspected of being promiscuous although such usage might have been quite localised. Would it not be better to err on the side of caution in this regard? Albatross2147 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way don't rely on IP whois locations being accurate. Several web sites I work on try to restrict or direct visitors based on their IP involving lookups on massive databases. It's largely pointless. Albatross2147 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone to WP:RFCN and started a feedback session. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, I reserve the right to continue using this signature. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cricket stuff

Actually, I've never tried to make a bowling graph. I'm just not sure how I would best go about it. Obviously the wickets would be easy to do, but I'm not sure how to work the bowling average into the graph. Doing it just like the batting graphs wouldn't look all that great, as a bowler can of course never take more than 10 wickets in an innings but the bowling average might frequently be up around 30 or more. I don't know how I could get that looking good, but I'm happy to fiddle around and see if I can come up with something.

Thanks for telling me about Stan McCabe too, but I can't really take any of the credit. If I didn't start it someone else would have eventually, and it's looking a lot different now from my first version... Raven4x4x 06:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well maybe wickets as the vertical bars and an average line, although that would mean that the worm bends down when the wickets go up (generally speaking, although you could take many wickets for many many runs in some cases....). How does that work? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cristan Williams

When I lecture, some want bio info and I have generally referred folks to the wiki article what was listed here. I was going to do a lecture at the University of Houston on gender issues and the professor informed me that the article wasn't there. I checked tonight and sure enough, I found that you chose to remove it. So, I have to ask why? Was it that I lecture on gender issues? Was it that I run most of the medical and social services for transgendered people in Houston, TX area? Did you feel that being the first person in America to open a shelter for homeless gender variant individuals wasn't noteworthy? Was it the whole transgender thing that pushed your button? I noticed some folk had vandalized it in the past, so were you just taking down an article that had been vandalized? Just curious about your motive.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.5.181 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, not at all. As noted in the deletion summary, it was due to WP:PROD. Someone tagged it with {{prod}}, asking that it be deleted, and since nobody objected in 5 days, it was deleted under the policy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dont touch thalas article again thotta soorthy varai adipain!!

Barnstar, awarded by 86.144.182.50 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC) to Blingen for countless useless hours of work on Thala article.[reply]

Leave it alone, ellaty oothapen, thala thaan naan!!

???? Huh?? Very well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK question

Hi. Is it ok to nominate for DYK an article pertaining to a "King" whose "empire article" has already become a FA.? For example. King Vishnuvardhana of Hoysala Empire. ThanksDineshkannambadi 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is. There are no restrictions on its relation to pre-existing articles. However in this case the article is not new, and the majority is not new (80%), so it is not eligible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite ...

What is the "temporary measure" and when will it end? I don't think it's appropriate for an ArbCom member to have a redlinked signature. Why not just make it a protected redirect to your talk page? At least then it has some utility. --Cyde Weys 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in late September- late October I was on a wikibreak/go slow (for my standards anyway), and I find deleting my userpage to be something of a psychological process of relaxing a little. It might sound a little idosyncratic, but I feel that it is somewhat useful to myself, that's all. It was there from before the issue was brought up on ANI as well. It should be gone by next week at the latest. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of sexual slurs

Hello. You deleted Glossary of sexual slurs in October because it had "already been transwikied." However, the list was deleted on January 3 by Connel MacKenzie. What are your thoughts on that?--ЦпғогуетаЫе 07:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the fact that it was determined to be inappropriate in a dictionary, which was a more appropriate place for it than an encyclopedia, says something about its merit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hope you won't recant your support if I tell you I've only lived in Adelaide for a little over a year now :) – riana_dzasta 07:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh not at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

michael has gone

This is rediculous, I can't believe how far this has gone and how quickly this has developed over such a small thing. What's happening in regards to his unblock? Timeshift 14:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two other admins did email Sarah to ask her to reconsider, but as she did not reply in time and there seemed to be a consensus that the situation would be best rectified by not having the block, I removed it, without intending any contempt or disrespect towards her as an administrator. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's PA on Sarah

Hi Blnguyen. You said that you unblocked Michael by consensus. Can I ask where this consensus to override Sarah was reached? Sorry to be a pain. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, myself and Daniel Bryant sent emails to Sarah as well as the other guys on that talk page. I waited overnight Australian time to see if she was away or not, and I thought that she was away, by not replying, so I unblocked Michael because I thought there was a consensus that the removing the block might be the best way of moving on. I do not mean it to be a condoning of Michael's comments, or that I felt that Sarah to be a bad administrator or that the block was improper. I'm saddened to see that my actions have only flamed the discontent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you didn't. But I guess you see why people are interpreteting it that way. Well, not that you think that she is a bad admin, but that you think she made a mistake in blocking him. My preference would have been for her to flag the block at WP:AN, and maybe even let someone else make it. Dito in spades for your unblock. This morning I was of the opinion that Michael ought to serve the remainder of his block. Now, I'm not sure. But I think it is important that he be given the message that his behaviour was unacceptable. Wikipedia works best when various editors hold different view-points, but only if they respect each other's right to hold different view-points, and IMHO, Michael forgot that for a moment. Anyway, it's Friday night. Go out and enjoy yourself! Cheers, Ben Aveling 06:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She did make a mistake in blocking him. We don't block people we're involved in a dispute with, not even when they're treating us like garbage. Yes, I think Sarah is great, and I don't want her to leave, even temporarily, and yes I agree that Michael's treatment of Sarah was not acceptable. But her block on Michael was a minor breach of policy, and Blnguyen did the right thing by overturning it. Hesperian 07:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, she wasn't. She's made a handful of edits to Talk:Pauline Hanson recently and none to the article that I can see. She's supported Michael and Skyring in one of those edits [1]. She's gently warned Michael about NPA a couple of times, eg [2] and [3] to which his response was "I've always skated NPA, [and] I'm well aware that it's our very own OR" and then he really let fly [4]. So no content dispute, at least not on this page. Were you refering to somewhere else, perhaps? The only dispute I see is about acceptable behaviour, and I think that's part of being an Admin? Regards, Ben Aveling 13:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Michael had let fly at anyone else, I'd back Sarah to the hilt. But he let fly at Sarah, so Sarah shouldn't have applied the block. Look, I'm not happy being in the position of dumping on Sarah in what is a difficult time for her. This situation is really not her fault, and we should be supporting her. I just want to point out that Blng's actions are not the problem either. Hesperian 03:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say that my unblock was based on Sarah being engaged in a debate with Michael. I thought that it would alleviate tension but I don't think it did unfortunately. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

Consensus? I'm assuming you took this to ANI or similar as if your statement above is accurate and you simply unblocked after a discussion with one other admin... then I'm simply mortified. This kind of language is outrageous and the block was 100% justified. Please clarify Glen 12:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't for a moment condone what Michael said, but I was hoping that the unblock would make the situation less tense. Evidently it did not. I did not mean the unblock to be a criticism of Sarah's capability as an admin which I find to be excellent, or a sign of contempt, or that the block was illegitimate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the Gun (not the Irish band)

Sorry for self-nominating and having that nomination go to waste (although things may of course become different in 6 days' time). I took the initiative since I knew that this week I was going to be able to answer questions thoroughly and rapidly, which I might not have been able to guarantee at any other time. Plus the fact that you're hibernating on DYK kind of spooked me. Thanks for the support, though. And the making up for my under-selling :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the pats on the back. You deserve it buddy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Collingwood

Thanks for the feedback at FAC. I think Rambling Man addressed your concerns, but please do let us know if we missed something. Thanks for helping us improve the article. --Dweller 18:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, I might even edit it myself. If I know anything about Collingwood. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plan??

Do you people (You, Nobleeagle, and others) have any plan for FAC of Indian cricket team? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Nobleeagle is the main owner of that page, but I think the main issue is to write a comprehensive history section that shows the evolution properly, then fork most of it to the child article. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to convince FAC reviewers to pass it, but to get a comprehensive history complete with all the politics etc, crowd control etc, might be rather difficult. I'd say that Tintin has the best knowledge to be able to do it however, Nobleeagle's and my knowledge of Indian cricket seems to be heavily 1990s centric. Nichalp is also interested in cricket. If you are looking are looking for FAs there is Wikipedia:Peer review/Dinesh Karthik, Wikipedia:Peer review/Irfan Pathan both of whom are going to the WC and are GAs, buy neither have useful free pictures, and Murali Kartik is GA, but now dropped and has no picture. Harbhajan Singh is still the only one with a free pic - I've got it done up to the end of the Wright era (mid 2005). Hopefully that will be ready for FAC early next week. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I have sent you one. michael ^talk 07:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I have received many emails to read though, with the wheel-warring over Daniel Brandt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gokak agitation - DYK

Super! Thank you! Yeah.. you are very much awake. :-) - KNM ^Talk 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your congrats

Note that while I almost played a lone hand in bring the article up to GA status, from then on it was mainly Noble and Thugchildz who pushed it just that little bit further. I still commented on the page fairly regularly. Thanks for your tremedous copyediting which was also integral. Gizza^Chat ^© 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in it too. Hey is it possible to make the FA drive a project cricket thing, where the project gets atleast one article on the main page per month, it would be like a guidline/"ritual"/aim of the project to do it so cricket will get more exposure than ever before on wikipedia.--Thugchildz

I think so. We did have a mothly collab but it didn't seem to keep the momentum up too well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sakis Rouvas.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sakis Rouvas.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –mysid☎ 07:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've removed it and deleted it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket

If you want me to peer review any of those articles (as an uninterested party) give me a prod when they go to PR. Although it could be dangerous, I might end up creating cricket articles and submitting them to DYK. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RE: Ajith

I do not understand why you have reverted back my version of the Ajith articles as I provided many relevant sources for each point made.

Can you pls make me aware of wha else i have to do??

Thank you for your time, happy editting!

King Dracula 12:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can discuss the usage of WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK words in the article which need to be cleaned up. I'm not averse to expansion as long as the content is encyclopedic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Karthik

The bureaucratic fuck finally did something over a article. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might have to revert some of it. :). I find his style of learning cricket in the early years to be interesting. And some other jargon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI AN/I

see here. Your input appreciated. Agathoclea 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove all restraints on me and Gnanapiti - We dont deserve it.

In the light of neverending the hue and cry that Wikiraja has been raising with regards to our(mine and Gnanapiti's) so called 'sockpuppetry' case and also considering this comment by Blnuyen, I'd like to request the following from the admins.

Like it has been proved, I and Gnanapiti are neither sockpuppets nor meatpuppets. We both are independent editors and have our own interests too when it comes to editing articles. It is just a coincidence that we also share some interests. Like Blnguyen notes in that comment, both of us have always edited in good faith and contributed usefully.

I strongly feel that we were punished wrongly and come to think of it, Gnanapiti effectively served an extremely harsh near one month block. Thinking back, I feel that it was an atrocious thing to have subjected him to that. I dont think there is a precedent of this sort anywhere on Wikipedia. A one month block is something that I see handed out in the rarest of cases and only to people who are repeat violators, trolls and vandals.

People have gotten off with all sorts of nonsense. Even Wikiraja has. His template was patent nonsense and he kept edit warring with multiple editors on dozens of pages until it got deleted. And he doesnt even get a token punitive block! If Gnanapiti could have been subjected to a one month block on the basis of erroneous checkuser results, Wikiraja ought to serve atleast 6 months for his disruption. If anything, the community owes an apology to Gnanapiti. It is to his eternal credit that he continues to contribute handsomely and in good faith to Wikipedia. How easy it would have been to kill someone's enthusiasm and zeal with such draconian blocks.

And on top of all this, I dont see any reason that we should be suffering this ignominy of having to bear all the nonsense that the likes of Wikiraja have to offer. I request that all constraints on us be lifted. Its difficult to edit articles and contribute usefully if you have to be looking over your shoulder all the time.

I for one, atleast, cannot and will not keep watching my step to see if Gnanapiti is editing an article or not before I get down to edit it. I have always edited in good faith and will continue to do so. And, so has Gnana. Even when it comes to voting, I refuse to be held accountable. If one of our votes was invalid anywhere, it is for the admin to strike it off. I cannot be expected to scroll up and down a page looking for Gnana's name. NO. Sarvagnya 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that sarvagnya has stopped trolling on Hindi language issues it seems fair, even so, I dont trust him that much. Gnanpiti OTOH has proven to be a very helpful user, see his work on Gopalakrishna Adiga, a DYK article I wrote this week.Baka man 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a user who initiated this CU himself and who, admittedly doesnt trust me(like I'd care), I'll just take it. As for 'hindi', 'trolling' and all that hot air, well, I think I was vindicated on two of the three articles I opposed it on(atleast on JGM) and the third is still being 'discussed'. huh. Sarvagnya 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I do not have two user accounts created from the same computer. Furthermore, I do not call people names, put down their ethnicity or religion, and I do not harass people with incivility. And, who on earth are these multiple anonymous IP Address sockpuppets removing these Dravidian templates? This has happened three times so far, with the third incident involving over 38 anonymous IP Addresses simultaneously back to back removing the Dravidian template from each page. So far, I have handled this situation diplomatically. I have provided multiple referenced sources as per demand, and then you and your sidekick are still not satisfied and ask for more references from me when you have not even once provided one source. Furthermore, I have been as neutral as possible as compared to others who have been ultra POV pushers. If it were to be someone being blocked, sorry to say, it should be the two accounts of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti. Wiki Raja 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are u replying to wikiraja? Remember, based on a hunch I initiated the checkuser on Sarvagnya 4 months ago, while he screamed "Hindi nationalist conspiracy". gngnpiti OTOH seems to have changed and become a helpful user.Baka man

Two wrongs do not make a right. Wiki Raja 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will bring this up with Dmcdevit and Aksi_great. Gnanapiti has proved to have a strong interest in contributing in his own right, and it seems pretty clear he is not simply here to revert or vote. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blnguyen here and support the move to lift the restraints put on their editing. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Hi, Blnguyen, I just wanted to thank you for your support on my RfA, which was successful with a final tally of 61/0/2. I was glad to see a strong support coming from you, as I have observed your high standards for RfAs. I hope my conduct as an administrator will justify your trust. If you have any comments about my use of the tools I would be glad to hear from you on my talk page. Thanks again! Heimstern Läufer 08:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYK for Antonieto Cabajog

Please see revision in the suggestion page. Thank you. I centered on his being Paring Bol-anon then ordained bishop at the young age of 43! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help! He deserves it. Bohol already missed out on the Loboc Children's Choir WP:DYK. Bohol needs and deserve this one now. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 12:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can if it isn't too late. Let me see. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

I would invite you to comment on this thread where your activities are mentioned. Dragons flight 20:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Rather interesting that I am ranked #42 in all time deletions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was (47/0/0) upon closure and now phase I is complete. I think the tools will aid both me and the encyclopedia. Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, or if you think I'm misbehaving I'm always open to recall. Thanks, James086^Talk 13:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Thanks for informing me. I do not believe User:Kirill Lokshin is a member of ArbCom who has proposed a host of decisions against a certain group of editors. Szhaider 03:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is the member of ArbCom. Sorry for my voting. Szhaider 03:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Collingwood

Following your feedback and the subsequent changes made, can I ask you to clarify at the FAC page whether you support or object to the article becoming FA? If the latter, I'd welcome the chance to improve it. Cheers. --Dweller 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (PS My editor review...!)[reply]

I actually haven't really read the article carefully and inspected all the language one by one. The detail of the international career looks as though it covers every Test series in detail, (seems like each of the 20 Tests are accounted for) And it appears that it summarises each ODI tournament, but I'll probably stop and take a look at the statsguru series summary to compare that a summary of each tournament is there. I guess I'll have to research the county stuff to see if anything really big happened there,....and test out each of the qualitative claims as well. I just tweaked one of the claims in the lead about the fielding which seemed to be a bit overoptimistic. Perhaps I must be a dire kind of guy or have a morbid fascination with badness, because Harbhajan Singh is one of my favourite bowlers and the article seems to mention all manner of calamities! Aside from that, I have an ideological objection to including punditry from tabloid sources, so I am inclined to object to quotes by idiot tabloid commentators. That includes The Sunday Times (Western Australia) which is a Murdoch tabloid which has a certain writer Robert Craddock known for posting sensationalist drivel. After the 2004/05 Aus ODI season in which Australia defeated Pakistan 2-0 (both were closely contested 30 run wins in which Australia had a few umpiring benefits) he posted an article "can anybody give us a decent game" - After Lord's 2005 "Vaughan again losers" - After Ashes 2005 he described Australia as "flat-track bullies" and "pie-hitters" and said that it would take "10 years" to recover from "the depths" - and then two months later is going on about "the world" being "no match for Australia" and then after Ashes 06/07 and midway trhough the CB Series posted more drivel about how Australia were the "greatest ever team" going on about how Australia has plenty of quicks to replace McGrath, and then two weeks later said "Australia's WC campaign in disarray" and today as I speak moaning about Australia's death-bowling about how bad it was that Australia had 3 of the 10 most expensive death bowlers in ODIs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's nothing to complain about the standard of the article, just a polemic against tabloid journos and why they should not be quoted on WP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks. Not wishing to sound like a broken record, but my editor review has moved on and I'd really welcome your input, as by far the most experienced user of those who've posted there so far. Cheers, --Dweller 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should both avoid adminnery for a while. It detracts from our article writing! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Pathan

I think you undid all the changes that I made, and that include improvements in the language which was used. The article read more like fancruft than anything. But that is why we have the policy of neutrality on Wikipedia. I tried to improve the article. Could you revert yourself back and manually remove the errors that I made, in order to keep the language in order? Thanks. Zamkudi 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the article can be made less dramatic, I have no objection, but I do not think some of your phrasing style makes the article smoother, and you divided one of the sentences into two, including a very short one about his father being the muezzin, which makes the prose less flowing. I retained the "mockingly applauded" because Pathan not only mocked Martyn, but sardonically clapped him. I just felt that "rose to gain selection" is smoother, but perhaps I am missing something. Complaints about hagioigraphy are welcome though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that by this edit, you reverted each and every change that I made to the article. I am going to fix what you have pointed out here, though. I am relatively a newcomer to this site, and I could use your guidance a bit. :) Zamkudi 11:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse Rfa

Thanks for the rfa support. Glad we can work together. Rlevse 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan-India arbcomm case

Well..Its pretty much over. My contributions have been overlooked and my mistakes from last December have been magnified
I just wanted to ask you if you could point out to the committee that I am on a shared Ip used by many people. If my account only could be banned, and if anyone discovers I am editing again, they can ban the IP. Thank you for reading. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s Let me know what you think of this Proposal [5]. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 01:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb for Falun Gong

Binguyen, I am troubled by your comment on the arbitration page here. You point out the problematic edit-wars on FLG pages and then encourage the committee to accept the case against me. Your comment seems to imply that I am the trouble maker. Do you really mean that? --Samuel Luo 19:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the case would automatically involve all those who are arguing on the FLG pages, which is why the name should be changed to FLG. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you changed the ArbCom case against Samuel Luo to "Falun Gong", stating that "this case is a battle between a group of users who are single-issue editors who are either proponents or critics of FLG in real life". In my opinion, that reflects a misunderstanding of the meaning of the request. We've had real content disputes on the Falun Gong pages, but they're not to be mixed with this case. These articles have suffered from serious policy violations, and this question must be resolved before any further progress can be made. It is no accident that Samuel Luo has been banned five times already, whereas none of the other involved editors have received such penalties to my knowledge. Even though I don't completely oppose to extending the case, we must make sure that it focuses on these policy violations instead of any content disputes, and that the ArbCom clarifies this principle to all involved parties. Falun Gong arbitration has been refused once because the editors hadn't understood what the ArbCom is all about. ---Olaf Stephanos 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out the the clerks to consider changing the title, not because Samuel is the problem or not the problem, since I have not looked at the issues enough, but merely to maintain a sense of not prejudging who the problem is. Do see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Proposed decision where it seems that four Pakistani editors will be banned; the naming was changed from "Pakistani nationalism" so as to not pre-empt or pre-judge what the result may be. That is all. The first arbitration was refused because the parties did not spell out policy violations beyond a standard conflict over what content should be in the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my interjecting, but speaking as one of the clerks who help maintain these cases under the arbitrators' direction, we probably would have changed the casename anyway if the case was accepted. In fact, I had raised the question yesterday. There is a preference for casenames based on article titles or other things other than individual users whenever possible. This doesn't in any way restrict the arbitrators from examining all the evidence presented and making whatever decisions are appropriate. And you are right that ArbCom generally focuses on user conduct rather than content issues, but that also has nothing to do with the casename. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to interject too. I think that there is certainly a case for changing the name of the article and expanding the range of investigation, but I think Blnguyen's comment was a little off the mark. I think the mentality of characterising the problems raised in the request as a battle between two sides is exactly the mentality that we need to get away from. There is only one battle here, and it is between editors who conform to wikipedia policies and those who flaunt them -- that should be our criteria for evaluating this case, nothing else. If the case is accepted and the range of investigations expands from Samuel to every editor involved in the article I think that would also be useful. Whoever has been really breaking the rules in a bad way and refuses to change should be dealt with. It should be clear that this is about: constant and unrepentant blanking of legitimate and sourced info with no discussion, inserting unsourced material and weasel words consistently, reverting deletions of these kinds of edits, refusal to discuss productively, consistently leaving misleading edit summaries, etc. etc. This is what we are talking about here, and for whoever was doing that, including if it was meant to advocate for Falun Gong somehow, I too would want them to change their behaviour ot get booted off this project if they couldn't get up to speed. That kind of thing helps no one and needs to be unequivocally stamped out. The terms of discourse need to be very clear in dealing with this, and particularly in this ArbCom case, they need to be super clear. The users responsible for this kind of thing are doing all they can to smudge them, so it does not help to go along with it. It would be enough for Samuel simply to undo his latest series of edits and state clearly that he promises not to do those things again. Why doesn't he do it? --Asdfg12345 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the question should be, IF Samuel promises to do the above and does it, will the pro-FG editors be willing to take on a similar strict oath? And more importantly, IF Samuel does it, will Olaf drop the Arbitration case?

P.S. Your attempt to spread the pro-FG view as the 'indisputable truth' on uninvolved users like Penwhale, Asdfg, makes me doubt that despite you promising to be neutral, how committed to that you really are yourself. If so, then why demand Samuel do something you can't even adhere to yourself? Jsw663 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to Olaf. I am stating my personal attitude toward this. I have never engaged in the behaviour cited above and never will. There's not really a question here. Of course I won't do those things. --Asdfg12345 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Jsw, what are you talking about? I am quite within my rights to explain my understanding of whatever I like to whomever I like. This has nothing to do with anything. By the way, we shouldn't use Blngyun's talk page for this so if you want to continue you are welcome to drop me a friendly message.--Asdfg12345 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen: here's the question that you should know the answer to regarding your involvement: Did you block/lock the editors on the grounds of edit warring, etc? If that is the only reason, then I see no reason for you to recuse from the case. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the blocks were for edit-warring and that's why I locked the page as well. That is usually enough to recuse - and is generally the standard used by arbitrators. I might also note that once after I unlocked the pages, I removed the word "controversial" from the lead, as I feel that they violate WP:WEASEL - a check of Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jean Marie Le Pen etc, indicate that it was the "right" thing to do, but it is safest to not participate in this issue. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India-Pakistan RfAr

You inadvertently voted twice in favor of finding #3. I mention this instead of just fixing because you might have intended that second vote for another paragraph and I can't be sure which one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge misunderstanding

I believe you misunderstood me here. [6]. What I meant was, He died in 1948, which is after 1947 (creation of Pakistan), so his nationality is Pakistani. It was the response for referring to him as Indian, even after Pakistan was created in 1947. I just realised why people misunderstood this edit summary, and I can assure you that I am against false edit summaries. Please dont get me wrong here. I have never tried to trick people, and never will do so. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 03:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will try to understand. This was nothing but a stupid mistake on my part, and if you go through my posts on the evidence section, you will see that I hadnt even realised this until now. You should know me. I admit the mistakes I make, I dont deny them. I always back up my edits with sources and facts. Why would I make a change under a false edit summary when I am right about Jinnah being a Pakistani? He died in Karachi in 1948, which was after the creation of Pakistan. Surely it couldnt be more misleading to call him Indian. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 04:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps I should not use that diff, in case it leads to confusion. I did look at the recent contributions of Nadirali and yourself, and was not convinced by {{OR}} tagging History of India and creating a POV fork Pakistani mathematics which appears to list Aryabhata as a Pakistani, when he appears to have lived in Pataliputra, which is now in Bihar. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat myself. I had nothing to do with that article. Blnguyen, I am reasonable guy. I am quite saddened that you feel the need to treat me like this. I dont lie about my views. I dont deny what I did, but when people accuse me of things I didnt do, I am hurt. Mistakes I made when I first joined Wiki are being used against me to ban me for a year, and not only have these mistakes been used to give me weeks worth of block before, but they really do not compare anything to what you are ignoring on the Indian users.
Anyway, I just wanted to ask you about my IP. Can only my account be blocked? I can assure you I am leaving this place. Thank you for reading. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 02:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harbhajan

You are a machine. Well done. —Moondyne 06:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could always do with some help. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Oh wow. And I think they are taken fairly seriously as a newspaper. Have you sent them a note explaining how the GFDL works? JoshuaZ 08:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't as of yet! It's more amusing than anything else. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. What a lovely collection. Maybe someone should send them a note about GFDL reattribution :) Cheers, and nice job, Daniel Bryant 08:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous but congrats all the same ! The Pathan thing is outrageous. They probably don't even read what they copy-paste. As for plagiarism, this piece was copied from a vandalised version of the World Cup article by an idiot journalist who put it in Financial Express (the real BCCI President was NKP Salve). Tintin 08:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If things keep going like this, Wikipedians will become the most powerful people on the Earth. Able to influence societies in total with the click of the "Save page" button. **Shock** — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 09:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean vandals have more power and Wiki may have to resort to an Animal Farm-like response :-) Gizza^Chat ^© 09:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 09:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a time when lousy news sites don't check pages which have "Fuck" scattered thruoghout the page. That will be quite embarrassing for the news source and teach them never to copy Wiki-articles without checking. Gizza^Chat ^© 22:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most shocking thing is that you no longer have a redlink user page! --Dweller 10:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your new career as a journalist! (It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, I am quite sure.) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should drop my dry style of NPOV writing. If I had used hyperbole on Virender Sehwag, they would have plagiarised that too! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yellow

Just stopped by to say hello to the yellow. And, you are most welcome to listen to the real one, that is, me within 2 days: [7]. --Bhadani 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not have audio on this computer. I will upload a visual depiction of the YellowMonkey listening to audio though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DYK

Thanks for your encouragement. --IslesCape^Talk 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsflash

"Contributions deteriorated significantly in recent months." you say. I never contributed more than fixing a few typos until "recent months". And Indian lobby could not tolerate when someone tried to nullify their propaganda by providing solid proofs of their POV and provided neutarl information. I wonder what is your criteria of analyzing my contributions. Szhaider 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, previously you mostly inserted Urdu scripts and enhanced the articles, although since late November, the contributions have not been as impressive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because other unnecessarily confronted me which I do not like in any walk of life. I like to be very peaceful and cannot tolerate any kind of confrontation. I literally avoided Rama's Arrow considering him a kid (a punk if I may)(no offence intended), however, at every step he chose to confront me although I did my best to avoid him. This ArbCom case is a part of a quest to stop any resistence against propaganda edits of his favourites. Szhaider 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT: George Soros requests identity of user

URGENT REQUEST: A statement on Wikipedia has made George Soros and his security staff concerned for his person. A user edited the Family section George Soros' Biography sometime after February 2nd and added the line "He is now married to violinist, Jennifer Chun." This is a red flag for us. For his safety can you please help us retrieve all information about the user who added this comment?

Thank you for you help in this matter,

Garret LoPorto garret@totalconvert.com (978) 369-5070

You may also contact Michael Vachon at Soros.com if you are concerned about my credentials in this matter. His email address is Michael.Vachon@soros.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.219.203 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm afraid that with this type of legal issues, you may want to contact a board member. Try User:Mindspillage or User:Danny, who would handle these sorts of things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]