Misplaced Pages

User talk:YellowMonkey: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:50, 15 February 2007 view sourceBakasuprman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,844 edits →Thank you← Previous edit Revision as of 02:39, 15 February 2007 view source Bosniak (talk | contribs)3,038 edits How come only arbitrators can vote?Next edit →
Line 319: Line 319:
==]== ==]==
I highly doubt he is a sock of ]. Cardreader speaks fluent Hindi and does not seem to know any spanish. He primarily edited india-related pages as well. Can you look into this?<b>]]</b> 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC) I highly doubt he is a sock of ]. Cardreader speaks fluent Hindi and does not seem to know any spanish. He primarily edited india-related pages as well. Can you look into this?<b>]]</b> 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

== How come only arbitrators can vote? ==

Hi Blnguyen. How come I can't vote on Osli73's case? Who are arbitrators? How can I become one? I am refering to this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Osli73 Thanks. ] 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:39, 15 February 2007

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

Blnguyen is very happy, humbled, honoured to have received such levels of support and endorsing comments for the Arbitration Committee. He is looking forward to serving the community to achieve its goals of making decisions which further the encyclopedia. He is also relieved after the turbulent and rocky ride of the election period. He is first and foremost an editor at heart and also intends to continue his work as a humble editor! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Archives  

Archives roughly divided into 40kb chunks

Movie

Did you at least watch the video?--209.137.175.59 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sarah Hanson-Young page

Main page: User_talk:Blnguyen/Archive41
Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_8#Sarah_Hanson-Young there is an appeal in progress. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin

I would have thought, simply, that I'm too much of an aggressive cunt to be an admin. But that's just my humble opinion. michael 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. chin up. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Frater Xyzzy

He's still causing problems, not only is he engaging in personal attacks here, he's got a sympathizer jumping on board something she has no clue about. He doesn't understand that I wanted to note that the IP was Frater, and that the IP was used when he was blocked - it's one less way Xyzzy can use a sock on WP. Anyhow, since Xyzzy was the IP, that means he rm'ed the prod off the article he started in the first place w/o disclosure (He edited as an anon user, and clearly had a vested interest). He then tried to create a problem on the AfD of said article as the anon by claiming COI because Masons were voting and not disclosing (we all have userboxes, BTW). He has since gone back to the AfD and changed the IP edit comments to his username (thus obliterating the dates), and has disclosed he is the author, as well as voting on said AfD. In the latest edit summary, he again accuses the Masonic editors of lack of disclosure see the history). I'm really not sure how much more disruptive he needs to be to be bliocked, but he's certainly toeing a lot of lines as far as I'm concerned. MSJapan 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't work out what is going on here. Why have you reblocked this user? User:Theresa knott 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, he was originally blocked after Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You missed the fact that his original block was invalid, since a RFCU proved that he was not a sock, which was the reason for his unblock. You should unban him again, MSJ mislead you by leaving out the reason the Xyzzy account was unbanned, and presented it as a simply block evasion. Seraphim 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
More info. MSJ went admin shopping for this re-block on the morning of the 4th, as you can see by his posts on various admin talk pages, here, here, and here, then after 11hrs passed and none of those admins agreed to re-block him he posted here asking you for a reblock. The fact that 3 admins, including WMC who is known for his agressive policy on blocks decided not to block him, and another admin Theresa knott came here asking for reasoning as to why you reblocked him, should be a red flag. Also i'd like to point out that his anon ip editing consisted of him asking quite a few times for someone to RFCU him to get his main account cleared, someone evading a block wouldn't go back and re-sign all their old stuff especially when in a massive content dispute with an obsessive wikilawyer like MSJ. Please re-evaluate your block on him. Seraphim 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware he was cleared, but my first block occurred after I asked UninvitedCompany and Dmcdevit to RFCU him with JA and a link was discovered. So my block was technically merited when I encated it. It is one thing to appeal properly, but to circumvent the system vigilante style is not acceptable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
My only real problem is the fact that MSJ admin shopped around to find someone to re-block him. After 3 admins (including WMC) declined to block him you decided to. That's what bugs me. Seraphim 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the other admins aren't really aware of his history. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I was looking at Category:Requests for unblock on a lazy Friday afternoon and noticed Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs). You blocked him/her twice - once as a sock and once for block evasion. The RFCU cited cited on the talk page states that the two users are unrelated. Could you examine the block and, if you still believe it to be proper, for my edification, help me to understand it? Thank you. --BigDT 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Whilst he was waiting for a follow-up check, he evaded the original block. At the time, the original block was based on CU info from Dmcdevit and UC. That's why I reblocked him. There's a bigger chunk right above you. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks enormously for that wonderful co-nom. I hope the RFA passes, it would be a pity for you to have wasted such a great nom on a failed RFA. Ah well. Cheers, Moreschi 09:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a bit light for my standards. Check out User:Blnguyen/RfA. I nearly freaked out when I saw this message as it sounded as though the RfA might be derailed.... Things are looking up I hope. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said to Jaranda, I'm sorry if it feels as though I wasted your time by closing the RFA early, but I felt as though the RFA was on the downward spiral, in a big way. There are several things I think I need to to discuss with people about matters external, yourself included, but that can wait a bit. Cheers, Moreschi

Adminship

I can't say that I am interested in becoming admin. It seems that admins just spend their time getting abused by vandals. I'm content to just work on whatever interests me and revert vandalism where I see it. Cheers. --Roisterer 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't get much abuse. It's handy though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RE:Semi-Protected Carnatic music page

Hi, with all due respect, I have posted the Dravidian topics template on that page. It seems that this is a POV tag team effort to keep removing it. Wiki Raja 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Normally talk pages aren't locked, but since people are warring on the talk pages over the template, it has been locked, so that you can discuss the merit on a talk page.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

on the darrell hair change

hi there Blnguyen -- I made a change to the Darrell Hair post this morning which I think accurately describes the umpire. I am a cricket lover based in South Africa and often change wikipedia posts. I do it via a mobile 3G card so it assigns a new IP or a generic IP so I am often identified as other users... so I have registered this time. I'd just like to take issue with you regarding your change, as I think he is a controversial man and has brought cricket into disrepute and also sowed division, whereas the wikipedia entry does not reflect this. So I do think we need to ackowledge this. I'll edit it again but perhaps I'll tone it down a little... I'd love to hear your reasons why you diagree with me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattattakk (talk • contribs) 07:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello. I'm well aware of the fact that everybody considers him to be "controversial", but under the policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL, we are told to not use words like that, but rather, simply describe the incidents that they were involved in, and who complained about it, what the results of the review were, etc. to simply state the Muralitharan incidents, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. The same would apply to the likes of Ranatunga, Murali, Shane Warne, Steve Randell, etc. Nobody says that Osama bin Laden, etc are controversial, even though they are because it is not in line with the encyclopedic protocol. If you are interested in participating WikiProject Cricket is looking out for new members, and a Quiz exists for a spot of fun. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Been an interesting week, trying (failing) to get a GA, trying (failing) to stop LightCurrent from earning himself an indef block and trying (probably failing) to settle User:Cricketguru in, but hey ho. Now that the dust has settled, I wondered what your plans were with regard to feeding back on my editor review? Cheers, --Dweller 13:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I should really get off my butt....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
lol --Dweller 09:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for unprotection of all Falun Gong articles

Hello BInguyen, I would ask you to unprotect the following articles: Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, Teachings of Falun Gong, and Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong. The most important reason behind the disputes that eventually lead to their protection was inadequate familiarity with the three Misplaced Pages policies, WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV. The involved editors didn't understand the genuine yardstick for measuring what is acceptable and what is not. These issues have now been clarified on Talk:Falun Gong. From this day forward, we will strictly adhere to Misplaced Pages policies, penalize the vandals, and start constructing articles that comply with encyclopedic standards. We intend to tag all the original research and request admissible sources to back up the controversial statements. At the same time, we'll start introducing content from peer-reviewed journals and other verifiable secondary sources. The article on Li Hongzhi will be measured against WP:Biographies of living persons, and necessary changes will be made. Thanks for your help! ---Olaf Stephanos 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite a pro-FG view being aired currently on at least two of those four pages, I disagree with unblocking until Olaf vows not to abuse Wiki policies for his or his own views' benefit. Unfortunately his recent insistence on additional rules including his interpretation that all criticisms of FG are necessarily opinionated and violate both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are worrying. This will lead to another edit war. Until Olaf recognizes that even WPs can be misinterpreted and abused for one's own benefit and promises not to do this, there is little justification for unblocking the articles. Jsw663 21:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, periodic outbursts of edit-warring and locking seem inevitable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Raja's images

Hi Blnguyen, Long time since we met. How have you been? Can you please take a look at all the images uploaded by the above user... I dont yet fully understand copyright issues for images, so I am not sure. But I think that almost all the images he's uploaded are copyvios. Please let me know what tags I should use to tag them. Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they look like copyvios. I will have to talk to him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sarvagnya 01:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, Sarvagnya is on a capmaign against me. Because, I disagree with his POV he is doing everything he can to get me in trouble. As for the Dravidian topics template, there were no problems until Sarvagnya started removing parts of the items off the Dravidian topics template. We then got into a heated debate where he asked for sources to back my claims and in regards to the template. I have provided referenced sources every step of the way. On the other hand, Sarvagnya was not able to even show one source. He has also been engaged in personal attacks against me and against my ethnicity. Another administrator brought to our attention to perhaps change the name of the template from Dravidian topics to Dravidian and South Indian topics. I have agreed to do so. But, the others demanded it be called South Indian topics. Where is there any fair and balanced justice? It was only Sarvagnya and another user Gnanapiti who are against this template. If there are any violations of the template, please work with me and let me know how to go about it. Is it too many listings of topics? Or anything else? The sole purpose of this template is to link users to Dravidian related topics. Also, as an educational tool of interest to topics which are not heard of much or deserve attention. If there is anything I can do to fix this situation, please let me know. I have reported Sarvagnya for his incivility towards me and others here. I am sorry that it had to come to this. Kind regards. Wiki Raja 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There are aspects of the template which are useful in separate pieces, but not in one single piece. For example, separate templates for South Indian dance, South Indian cinema, South Indian martial arts are OK, but to combine them with geography, ethnicity all at once, is pulling too many unrelated things together. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I am still asking you about the legitimacy of those pictures. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to take care of this picture situation. I have used the colored map (blue and yelow), from a book cover. As for the black and white map, I have taken that from one of the pages from a book. I am not an expert in these matters and would like to take care of this situation. Please tell me how to go about reporting where I got the pictures from in a correct format. If I am not allowed to use those pictures, I will be more than happy to draw out the maps. Next, on the Dravidian topics template. I understand the ever growing love amongst the Indian wikipedians for their country. However, there are people that are feeling threatened by that template including the map. That should not be the case. Dravidians are not only in South India, but are also in parts of Central India, parts of Sri Lanka, parts of Pakistan, and parts of Bangladesh. You see, this template is basically a linkage to various sites on various topics of different Dravidian civilizations (Kannadigas, Malayalees, Tamils, Telugus, Gonds, and Brahuis). Tamils are both in India and Sri Lanka, while the Brahuis are in Pakistan, and tha Malto are in Bangladesh. Dravidian is the same in classification structure as that of Malayo-Polynesian (Malays, Javanese, Timorese, Samoans, Tahitians, etc.) I hope you understand my explanation. If there is anything that is going against Misplaced Pages policy, I would like to clear that up. If having a Dravidian topics template goes against Misplaced Pages policy, then please tell me another way of doing this. Perhaps a Dravidian civilizations series template? Kind Regards. Wiki Raja 05:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the template, there are similar groupings for similar dances, similar martial arts, cimilar scripts, similar music, similar language, geography. In a separate form, they may be alright, but together, they connect too many weakly connected materials, and would not stand. Separately, they may stand. Secondly, the maps, they are from books, so they are not permitted in this case, because they are not used to describe the textbook, but rather to use their cartography work for our purposes. So those cannot be allowed. So I would have to delete them. As for the artwork of the people, where did that come from? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So, from what I understand is that this template is too broad? Would you say it would be like having a template on all Southeastasian topics? If so, perhaps can I create several different templates (Dravidian martial arts, Dravidian dance, Dravidian literature, etc.)? Also, I have no problem with you deleting the two maps. Can you explain to me what you mean by "artwork of the people"? Regards. Wiki Raja 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to File:Fireandice2.jpg and the other two similar pictures. Also that Lupin cartoon is definitely copyvio is it not? Unless you are the author of that cartoon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that picture with the people came from a site for the animated motion picture called Fire and Ice, some really good animation for the early 1980s. As for the Lupin III, no, I am not the author of that pic. Sorry, I am not really well acquainted with the policies on uploading pics. You can take those off if you want. In the future, if I upload any pics, can I come to you for advice on how to properly document them? Regards. Wiki Raja 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
May I ask if those dance photographs and animations were photographed or created by you? If they are not, please go back to the image pages and say where you got them from. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you please point out which dance photographs (the bali dancer?) and animations you are talking about? Wiki Raja 06:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, almost all of them, the Bali dancers, other dancers, the animation of the martial arts. If they were not your photography, you have to say where you got them (if they are allowed). Also the scripts - where did you get them from. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There is only one dance animation. All the martial arts, scripts, temples, and empires maps were taken off from Misplaced Pages. except for the bali dancer animation which was taken from the internet outside of Misplaced Pages. You are most welcome to remove the bali dancer too. Regards. Wiki Raja 06:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image

Hi, you deleted Hammill Silent.jpg on 5 Feb as an orphaned fair use image. But I had already linked it to a couple of articles a few days previously; see here and here. --Richardrj 08:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored it. Sorry. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks. --Richardrj 08:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Moslow

Is it important to use the {{MOSLOW}} tag on filmographies that are not written in chronological order for example a tag that was added on Aishwariya Rai page and by reading the WP:LOW its hard to tell.Cometstyles 15:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:ball tampering contriversy

Okay thanks.I will tell the other users the article has already been written.Thanks for pointing it out.--Nadirali نادرالی

Re:India

Could you please use the talk page to discuss the parts where you are concerned or change them directly on the main article. The article is a featured article which means it is supposed to be one of the best articles on WP, and it is also about a large ticket item, so please clarify the issues so that people can address them. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply added a template,nothing else.No changes.

The whole idea of India being a "liberal democracy" is disputed to editors like me and user:Unre4L.

If users don't agree on one subject,they then add the templte that describes the dispute.The reason I didn't bring it up on the talkpage is because there are too many POV warriors there who will definately not agree.I'm sure you understand.

I'm going now,but I'd appriciate it if the template is left there until some changes are made to reach a more neutral revert can be made.Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی

I can see that you do not like the contents of the page, but unless you make an explanation of which parts you don't agree with, and either make a statement of intent by changing the article or proposing a change on the talk page, then people will generally remove it, as there is no revert on the main page nor, a proposal to revert/change on the talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


where do you get the wikibuttons from?

One question: where do you get the wikibuttons from?Sven the llama 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, by applying at WP:RFA. The guide is at WP:GRFA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Impolitic edit summaries

You are right on all of that; I was not thinking of non-native English speakers at all back then. Having worked on a lot of Filipino, German, etc., bios has corrected me of such behavior. If I need to do a grammar and copy edit, it now reads something like "Typo fix; grammar twiddle." I don't expect or intend this to influence your oppose vote in anyway, it's just an FYI that my Sept. 2006 era edit summary style is a thing of the past. I'm taking oppose votes as constructive criticism, regardless of the RfA outcome, and genuinely appreciate the feedback. PS: I don't seem to have had anything to do with the Isabella V debate at all. Maybe I did somewhere, but the links you put in never mention me, and the article/debate honestly doesn't ring any bells. :-) — SMcCandlish ツ 17:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind! I see that it was in reference to the "bogus" issues that Dakota raised; I'd forgotten that it was the "Isabella V" article at all, since it is long gone. D'oh! — SMcCandlish ツ 18:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request on one of your blocks

Please comment on the unblock request at User talk:Pmanderson, on which you were the blocking admin. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Howdy -- I was going through CAT:RFU and found that you'd blocked this user for a 3RR violation on Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names). Apparently, he only reverted 3 times, not 4 (a 4th edit reverted something different, apparently not controversial). While 3RR is an electric fence, the user had also started engaging in discussion on the talk page, so I don't see an in-spirit violation. Mind overturning? Mangojuice 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I waited several hours for your input, but you've been away from the computer: you must work for a living or something. :) In any event, with concurrence from Mangojuice, I've unblocked, with comments urging the user to continue discussion on that talkpage before making any more reverts. If there are any questions or comments please let me know. Newyorkbrad 21:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Err, that's fine then. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rahul Gandhi "rape allegations"

Howdy Bl,

RubberS here. I noticed you have been fighting vandals/unsourced rape allegations about Mr. Gandhi. I commend your editing efforts elsewhere on WP, however I am opposed to the removal of this "controversial" section for 3 reasons:

1. The story is now larger than allegations of rape. It involves Government of India censorship, Congress Party legal actions, and the general sense anyone who follows Indian life gets that the big guys get away w/ murder (literally). 2. While its true only "blogs" like Indymedia and the clearly biased HinduUnity site jumpstarted allegations of rape charges on the Net, in a place like India it is extremely difficult for the "truth" (whatever it may be) to get out via traditional media, especially for the son of a popular politician. 3. As a potential "future PM" (which I find highly unlikely btw) Mr. Gandhi will have more than his fair share of controversy. You cannot act like a judge on this matter nor should you act to protect his political career. Act as the messenger of truth that you are, that is it.

For the reasons of plausibility I am against removing these allegations. Let the world make their decision by labelling the section disputed/factual accuracy in question (like I did when I wrote that section). Removing it as if it doesn't exist is not in the spirit of WP. Maybe the form it was in was terrible (I admit I'm not an expert by far). It should at least be mentioned somewhere because "it" happened already, to Mr. Gandhi, and its significant.

Would you agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rubber soul (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

What matters is that you follow the WP:BLP policy. Hindu Unity and blogs do not qualify as WP:RS, so rumours like that, especially defamatory ones, will be removed immediately. I'm sure Gandhi will become controversial in some way, like via his politics, but we would have sources for what his policies, speeches are, but to peddle defamatory rumours is unacceptable. I am not a supporter of the Congress Party. Also see WP:V and WP:OR - Misplaced Pages is about "verifiability" - even if everybody thinks N Korea has nuclear weapons or that someone has been using bribery, it has to be independently verified, not "personal truth/esperience". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

re sarvagnya on ani

The attacking part of my comment was directly aimed at dravidian nationalists not at sarvagnya.Bakaman 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you - the other guys arguing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Tor open proxy trouble-making

Hello. I just stumbled upon a whole series of open proxy edits involved in vote-stacking AfD's, harssing users, etc. Would you mind having a look? Due to the context, I think it is a user you blocked. I started noticing all sorts of them stemming from this diff. I verified all of these are Tor open proxy editors, but there are probably more.

- WeniWidiWiki 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I was writing this another one appeared.

Yes, thanks, I've blocked and sprotected the pages. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) And another:

Here's another one which was involved in some sort of spat on Frater Xyzzy' user page. Diff

Done to both. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Still not your concern, please focus on other bananas in your bucket

Your allusion to my comments here Let me quote my comments that you have used to assume that I am not Indian " Well for a person who left the nation and sings the American anthem who are you to talk of patriotism ? You worry about the KKK and getting stuck on the wrong end of a cross and let me worry about my country.Haphar 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" In no way refute ( or prove) what my nationality is. And as what my religion is, is not your concern , neither is my nationality. Haphar 10:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My personal information is being given to other users in wikipedia (not even admins) who have no reason to have any information about me, apart from their known hostility towards me. This from someone in the arbcom. Great- just goes to prove how reasonable a person you are. Incidentally who hires an ip does not decide in today's world of international leased lines, where that link goes to or where it is used ,( or who uses it- including vendors servicing the company.). So I would like know from you whether your behaviour is appropriate as per wikipedia's policies ? Haphar 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, it's amusing that you like to hold the high ground and complain about other users all the time. Especially when you try to discredit other users on the basis of their nationality. However, given the fact that you call other users drug addicts, reserve the right to attack other religions while commenting on Hindu and Jewish groups, and trolling, and then claim that you have done nothing wrong, making bogus allegations that I blocked you and not Netaji and then going and claiming - Well I see that Subhash_bose was blocked for 7, 7, 3 and 4 days, and you for one day. Either you cannot count to seven or you are deliberately making false claims. Given your comment about reserving the right to attack other religions but complaining about others doing the same thing, I don't see how you are going to change your mind, it never worked on anybody who claims things like that throughout history, of which there are many current examples. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
While i will respond to all your "allegation" (most relating to incidents 8 months old), you have not answered my question. Let me rephrase it and spell it out in details so that you understand it fully "Is it appropriate for a Arbcom member ( that's you), to target a person who opposed his Arbcom candidacy ( that's me), by giving information about my location to a user known to be hostile to me ?" Please do note that this refers to a post you made yesterday and not to events stretching back to 8 months ago. Haphar 08:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not revealing anything, you posted it on your userpage. Are you still beating your wife? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You are giving some other details there, not what I have on my User page, so what are your intentions in doing so when Bakasupraman was not even involved in the earlier discussion you are referring to ? Are You? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haphar (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Anybody knows that tracing thing. It is redundant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well It’s more an opinion that “Anybody knows that tracking thing” it is not really factual, For instance I did not know of it . However I will assume good faith and move on to more specifics about some fancy words that you are using to dress up my 8 month old discussions.
Mentioning "pipe dreams" does not equate calling someone a drug addict. Like there is a difference in calling a person “not bright” and calling him “stupid" or an "idiot”.
Then you say that I ( in your words ) "reserve the right to attack other religions while commenting on Hindu and Jewish groups" And these comments of mine are what you have put to substantiate the claim :-
"At least they are history professors and not terrorists. Further to quote you "All this, combined with the fact that India is a stinking hellhole of a country compared to America, Israel, or even SAUDI ARABIA (wtf!)". Talk about self hatred, ( after accusing the world of it). You have been claiming that you do not attack islam but protect Hinduism from attacks. The language above is very much attacking Islam. But then you have claimed one thing and ended up saying another before too. To quote in Punjabi- "Khoti chadi khujoor tey, utto suttay umb" Haphar 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)"
Here I am accusing Shiva’s Trident of attacking a religion and there is no "reservation of rights " for me to attack any religion. ? Where have I attacked any religion ? The passage "All this, combined with the fact that India is a stinking hellhole of a country compared to America, Israel, or even SAUDI ARABIA (wtf!)". is a quotation from Shiva’s earlier post that I am quoting back to him.
This is not the kind of interpretation one expects from an admin, much less from an Arbcom admin !. So I would want you to take back your comments on "attacking religion". If you want a translation of the Punjabi couplet recited above and an analysis of it’s meaning, I would do that also, it comments upon the other User’s intelligence and has no religious connotations. If you want exact meanings please let me know and I would oblige.
So can you please take back your claim on my attacking other religions ? Haphar 09:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an idiot like BhaiSaab to even care where he edits from.Bakaman 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your post on my talk page

Hi Blnguyen. I've had a really bad night, so I could just have my stupid head on, but I really didn't understand your post on my talk page! --Dweller 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that I was trying to get too much article writing done, so I am a bit behind on all the paperwork. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request for you to consider

I spotted this () on my watch list. --Dweller 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a very well-mannered guy Tintin 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol. I see the request was speedily denied. I wasn't sure about being called a "retard", but anyone who thinks Stuart Clark is a "carbon copy" of Curtly is... odd. --Dweller 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it was never going to get off the ground. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gautama Buddha

Do you think this page ought to be semi-protected？ Apparently it has been subject to numerous vandal attacks and 90 per cent of unregistered edits are vandalism. The vandalism-to-edits ratio is astonishingly high. My attempts to get User:Nishkid64 to semi-protect it have been in vain. Mandel 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done, since I also edit the article, I guess the vandals would bother me more than him. Actually hardly anything useful at all ever happens there...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK (13 Feb)

Updated DYK query On 13 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murali Kartik, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smurrayinchester (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

RfArb "Pakistani Nationalism"

Hi, I noticed that the title of Rama's arrow's Request for Arbitration had been changed to "Pakistani Nationalism." I think the new title unfairly tilts the balance in favor of the initiator, Rama's arrow. I am not sure if everyone knows that the RfArb was initiated by Rama's arrow at 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC), a full 16 minutes after (and therefore likely in reaction to) an incident at WP:ANI, against Rama's arrow (See here:"Admin abusing his privileges") filed at 16:43, 12 February 2007, by the other editors (Pakistani) now involved in this RfArb. As a neutral editor who has battled both sides in this dispute at different times and occasions, my own view is that nationalism exists on both sides of the Pakistan-India border and both sides are equally prolific in edit-wars on Misplaced Pages. In my perspective, Rama's arrow has been selectively aggressive towards Pakistani editors and, correspondingly, selectively benign towards Indian editors. I think the way that this RfArb is framed, Rama's arrow comes out looking as a concerned, but, perhaps, neutral administrator and his interlocutors as somewhat rabid nationalists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The RfArb was inevitable anyway, and the ANI sideshow was/isn't going to resolve anything in the long run. I also note that Taxman and Dbachmann have also frequently expressed concerns about the concepts expressed on Panini but I have no strong opinion in the naming. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite User:Fowler&fowler's pretensions of being a neutral observer, i must say all i see are some irredentists demarcating 3000 years of shared history based on a 60 year old line ofetn going against the academic consensus. Amey Aryan DaBrood 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

If you've got a sec, could you chip in on the talk page of circus, an anon is arguing that it is not POV to label a section on animals as "animal acts and abuse". They are pushing their POV and I'm over it. Thanks. --Peta 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, definitely. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Various

Thanks for the sean mc sean block - it seems there is an obsessive compulsive pathological issue there - I had tried to venture to deaf ears there - you might be amused (or not) by the current John Forrest talk regarding methods of deceasement (my term) which some of our friends are battling out SatuSuro 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh indeed, I guess the administrators will be seeing from him as soon as the block expires. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
From experience to date so far... SatuSuro 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sooner than we thought on his talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sean_mc_sean&action=edit&section=42SatuSuro 01:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And apparently is abusing another user from an isp...I think it was the late douglas adams vogons who had some innocuous quotable quote about life... SatuSuro 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Valentine's Day Assult!

Bwahahahaha!--§hanel 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Gundam AfD

"The result was delete - the fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances."

I don't really care that much if the articles are deleted or not, but that's a fucked up thing to say. Why on Earth would you say something like that when it's just going to piss people off? I can understand if there are deletion rationales that extend beyond your comments, but what you said was rude. -- Ned Scott 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi you deleted some external links i put on the Bill Clinton page, blocked my account and labled me a spammer. i understand why--i violated the rule of not posting links to a site you are affiliated with. However, i did not violate the spirit of the rule. I run the library at the Miller Center and make available online literally over 3,000 hours of multimedia resource related to the presidency. One of the links you deleted was to a speech page that makes available to the public complete audio of 10 of Bill Clinton's speeches. This material is not available online anywhere else as far as I know. It is a resource we make avaialble for free. The Miller Center is part of the University of Virginia and is non-partisan. Nobody who visited the page would ever consider it spam and any reasonable person would consider an ideal external link. Here is the link for your reference:

http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/scripps/digitalarchive/speechDetail/34

It has been suggested to me to request that editors of the pages add links via the discussion pages. In theory this sounds fine, however in practice this does not work. I have a wealth of information on all 42 presidents that i would like to make available to the wikipedia audience. I realistically do not have the time to engage in a discussion about every link that i would like to put on these pages (this assumes that editors of pages even respond to my request). Furthermore, links that i have come accross in the past posted by other users are often quite inaccurate in their description. These are honest mistakes but mistakes none the less. according to the posting rules i do not have the right to even fix those mistakes but rather must go back to the discussion board and request that someone fix them for me. The Miller Center is considered the foremost authority on the American Presidency. We have a treasure trove of material that cannot be found anywhere else in the world (e.g. over 150 hours of complete audio of presidential speeches, over 3,000 hours of secretly recorded conversations from presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon; the authoritative oral histories of the Carter and Reagan presidencies, and a number of in depth bibliographies on each president). It would be a shame that these unique and free resources cannot be made available to the wikipedia audience because of a rule that was clearly NOT put in place to stop the type of actions that i am attempting. I would appreciate your suggestions on how to proceed. Many thanks. Michael Greco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.2.163.2 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Thank you

Thanks for chiming in there—I didn't want to have to be in the awkward position of being the only person arguing against the inclusion, given the figure at hand, and the stigma that could possibly result. Again, thank you. michael 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Cardreader

I highly doubt he is a sock of User:Primetime. Cardreader speaks fluent Hindi and does not seem to know any spanish. He primarily edited india-related pages as well. Can you look into this?Bakaman 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How come only arbitrators can vote?

Hi Blnguyen. How come I can't vote on Osli73's case? Who are arbitrators? How can I become one? I am refering to this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Osli73 Thanks. Bosniak 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk:YellowMonkey: Difference between revisions Add topic