User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive72

I have no motivation to file a WP:RFAR, I simply post here on behalf of blocked IP 68.224.117.152. Please see the post here. Best regards! --omtay38 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Moreover your input alerted me to your understandable concerns about falling back on revert too often. I will take heed and address them. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion would you mind if I unblocked and then lengthened your block to indefinite?
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, I just wanted to make sure before anything is done that you wouldnt mind it being lengthened. Thanks again. Cheers!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blnguyen, regarding Bless Sins' block, would you consider shortening the duration? Bless Sins has recently acknowledged that his editing pattern was disruptive, and I'm slightly concerned that Arrow740 was engaging in similar conduct. Addhoc (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, How come you didn't block Arrow when he stalked me on psychology related article (out of his watchlist). Here is what Arrow said in justifying it:"There's nothing wrong with checking contributions and looking at one diff"--Be happy!! (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one would disagree with that, Aminz. Because you have unfortunately refused to present the whole story (and my response to your frivolous claim), I will copy what I said to you here. "I saw you calling polytheistic beliefs "naive" with no edit summary and got a little suspicious." It's a far cry from what BS did, as you would know if you had looked at the edits he has made at Buddha-nature and its talk page. Arrow740 (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you didn't have time to read my edits when you were stalking me and blindly reverting me. But it surprises me that you haven't still read the sentence. The sentence is about primitive(not polytheistic) people:

"Primitive people held that gods were subject to anger and revenge in naive anthropomorphic fashion"

The naive anthropomorphic fashion is exactly what the source says and an anon removed "naive" from it. It does not call polytheistic beliefs (or any belief) as "naive". It is a type of conception. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you calling polytheistic beliefs "naive" with no edit summary and got a little suspicious. Please don't compare this to BS's multiple disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT violations. Arrow740 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Multiple". Now that's false. I reverted Arrow740 on only one "Buddhism" related article, only one.

Infact, Blnguyen, Arrow740 stalked me here and reverted my edits with no edit summary or explanation. He had not edited the article ever before.Bless sins (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You acted as if you hadn't read my edit summaries ([1], [2], [3]) which is a habit of yours, and a violation of WP:POINT, specifically WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Regarding the Islam-related article you mentioned, I call ethnic cleansing and coordinated campaigns of rape "terrorism" so I changed the wording back. I also restored the material in question [4] then tagged the unsourced sentences [5] so that they could be verified. It is common practice to do this if an editor believes that material can be verified. These motives were quite clear from the edit, and if you didn't understand you could have asked for clarification. Despite the fact that your actions were obviously motivated by bad faith, I did ask you for such clarification after your second blind revert at Buddha-nature: [6]. In your subsequent talk page post, however, you continued to ignore my stated reasons for my edits: [7]. Arrow740 (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Arrow stalks others. But what is more problematic is that he actively seeks to get others blocked in whatever way he can. P.S. Can I count Arrow's attribution of "calling polytheistic beliefs "naive"" to me as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Common, you are expected to do what you preach. In case you didn't hear it, I said the sentence was about primitive(not polytheistic) people and FYI scholars think primitive people were originally monotheist in some sense and polytheist in another (I can not go into details here) --Be happy!! (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That these "primitive" people believed in "gods" (plural) implies that they were "polytheistic," Aminz. Arrow740 (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, primitive people claimed only one god for their tribe. That god was viewed as the biological ancestor of their tribe(biological father of the tribe). Polytheism is a later development when larger social structures were formed. These issues have no bearing on what you did and your refusal to accept your stalking. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never denied that that article wasn't on my watchlist, Aminz. You should have justified your criticism of opposing religious beliefs with an edit summary, that's all. And where are you getting this idea that all "primitive" people were monotheists? This is quite a bizarre claim. Arrow740 (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow, didn't you argue:"There's nothing wrong with checking contributions and looking at one diff"? You never made a single contribution to that article or its talk page but jumped in to revert me. Checking one's contribution and looking at the diffs and blindly reverting is called "stalking" by definition. If you happen to had that psychology page in your watchlist, then how come you found it when checking my contribution list? If you expect others to have random articles on their watchlist, Bless sins could very well had those articles on his watchlist. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading it again. Arrow740 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In case you didn't hear me, I didn't say that "all "primitive" people were monotheists", I said: "primitive people were originally monotheist in some sense and polytheist in another" (again coming back to the "I DIDNT HEAR THAT")--Be happy!! (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did they believe that there was more than one "naive anthropomorphic god" inexistence, or not? Arrow740 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They believed in only one god for their people. Other people had their own one god protecting those people. Polytheism was created later when several people formed social and political ties meaning that they now had to worship multiple gods at the same time. This is the theory I have read. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the question, which is: did they believe that there was more than one "naive anthropomorphic god" in existence, or not? Also, whose theory is this? Arrow740 (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow740, your understanding of sources is not in accordance with wikipolicy WP:V. According to it, Jimbo has declared "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Thus introducing very contentious unsourced material without sources, while stalking another user, is highly inappropriate.Bless sins (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have addressed half of the diff, BS. I'll assume you are admitting that coordinated campaigns of ethnic cleansing at the threat of murder and rape can safely be called "terrorism" now? The reason I restored the information is that I believe it could be easily sourced. This is a not uncommon practice, as itaqallah recently demonstrated: [8]. Arrow740 (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, Arrow. If the information can be easily sourced, then why haven't you done so? Secondly, Itaqallah wasn't stalking anyone. You were stalking me (since you never edited the article before). Are you denying what Jimbo has said?

About the "terrorism". At the time of my revert, and your stalking, WP:WTA discouraged the use of the term. Tus, I was acting in accordance with wiki policy and you were acting against wiki policy.Bless sins (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to criticize my edit, but there is obviously no comparison to your disruption. Arrow740 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To get the input of admins (as Blnguyen hasn't responded back yet), I have posted something here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:STALK.Bless sins (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 5	28 January 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: New feature
Special: 2007 in Review, Part III	Signpost interview: John Broughton
New parser preprocessor introduced	Best of WikiWorld: "Truthiness"
News and notes: Estonian Wikipedia, Picture of the Year, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Tutorial: Reporting and dealing with vandals	WikiProject Report: Molecular and Cellular Biology
Wikipedia Dispatches: Banner year for Featured articles	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal in italics to the editor's reasons for suggessting deletion.

Comment 1. I hope you don't mind me voicing my suspicions, and making my requests here. I believe Reallindian is a sock-puppet of Knataka. Is there any way of checking this? Perhaps the information in the next paragraph may help a little.

'Karnatatic/Carnatic music’ site is nothing to do with this.

Comment 2 The Karnataka AKA Carnatic music article is a failed attempt to rename the Carnatic music article.

It is for renaming ‘Karnataka/Carnatic music’ site, not an attempt to rename’ Carnatic Music’ site.

Comment 3 After briefly looking at the history and the page itself, clearly, the latter is the most current and updated version.

It is arguable. ‘Carnatic Music’ site contains speculative information about what existed before mid 14th century. Current information about artists is incomplete.

Comment 4 I however cannot delete the attempt at a duplicate article, so am appealing to you.

Appeal is not justified with objective evidence.

Comment 5 Certain new and less-experienced editors (namely, the ones I mentioned in my previous para above, as well as Naadapriya, who refuse to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) are persistently trying to push their POV that the Carnatic music article should be named Karnataka AKA Carnatic music.

Naadapriya is not pushing any POV. He is making a statement based on fact that the original name for South Indian classical music is 'Karnataka Sangeetha' since about 500 years. The parallel name 'Carnatic music' came only about 100 years back and its use by some started only in about 1960s. Please note there are unwarranted uses of 'POV', 'Vandalism', 'Spam' by editors critisizing 'Karnataka/Carnatic Music article'.

Comment 6 The form of music is most commonly referred to as Carnatic music, both in published reliable sources, as well as by modern day artists of this genre of music.

It is not true. There is no authentic reference to say that name ‘Carnatic music ’ existed before ‘Karnataka Sangeeta’ came to existence. Modern day artists including the senior most legendary musician use ‘Karnataka Music’. There are evidences. ‘Carnatic’ is an anglized version of word ‘Karnataka’ does not represent real history.

Comment 7 It is also referred to as karnataka sangitham, which we have mentioned at the beginning of the article, however, this has not stopped these editors from making disruptive edits to this Carnatic music article that some of us editors (myself included) have worked so tirelessly on to bring up to the level it is at.

‘Karnataka Sangeeta’ name came first followed by 'Karnataka Sangitam' and then about 400 years later it somehow got a parallel name ‘Carnatic Music’. Therefore the title of the site should be ‘Karnataka Sangeetha or Sangetam AKA Carnatic Music’. To make it short on accurate web sites one should keep the original title ‘Karnaataka Sangeeta’ given to Sri Purandara Daasa’s invention and mention the rest in the text.

Comment 8 The sock-puppets/other editors have also created a new page with the title they so desired (i.e. Karnataka/Carnatic music, even though the content is already covered in Carnatic music article, and this latter article contains more information.

It is not true. Please read the history of 'Karnatic/Carnatic music' ariticle. Any topic in encyclopedia should have clear boundaries. ‘Carnatic Music’ site has speculative historical background. Karnataka/Carnatic music has clear boundary conditions as explained several times.

Comment 10 Could you please delete the duplicate article?

Arguments given are not justifiable for deletion.

Comment 11 Thanks heaps - Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:53, 9 Jan Yeah I deleted it. Yes, RealIndian and Knataka are the same person. I checked it. RealIndian is already blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya's edits are nothing to do with other ids mentioned. Comment is mute

Request for Correct Action: The suggestion for deletion is not justified. Sincerely hope that ‘admn’ reconsiders and allows the site. ‘/’ will be removed in the new title.Naadapriya (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't base my deletion of the article because of sock involvement. It was because of WP:POVFORK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing naadapriya from sock involvement. POV of Wikipedia was reviewed again and found that the article 'Karnataka/Carnatic Music' does not contain any POV material. It is all based on authentic references. Please identify specific items that might have led to the conclusion ‘POV’. Research will be conducted and clarifications will be given to Wikipedia readers.Naadapriya (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naadapriya is advised to carefully read the link WP:POVFORK as he/she clearly needs to familiarize himself/herself with Wikipedia policy - Naadapriya is not allowed to create or recreate articles when editors are in consensus against it or against his/her proposed change(s) to it. If Naadapriya continues to violate Wikipedia policy, he/she may be blocked as indicated in other warnings. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ncmvocalist, clarification is requested from the admn who deleted Karnataka/Carnatic music article. Please do not assume WP:OWNERSHIP on Wikipedia. Please stop unwarranted and unrelated use of ' vandalism', ‘disruptive’, ‘spam’, ‘blocked’ etc. in discussions. It will not lead to healthy discussions to post validated facts. It looks like there is an effort to prevent editing from others to protect existing WP:POVFORK particularly on speculative statements about pre-Vijayanagara days related to Karnataka a.k.a Carnatic music. Still an answer from the admn is kindly requested regarding the deletion of ‘Karnataka/Carnatic music’ article.Naadapriya (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naadapriya has been warned of several of the Wikipedia policies that he/she has violated during his/her time at Wikipedia (meaning the use of such words is warranted). If Naadapriya continues to disregard the procedure and policies adopted by Wikipedia, he/she had already been made well-aware of the consequences that he/she will face. I do not assume WP:OWNERSHIP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reply to repeated 'make believe' accusations, vague/abstract comments and unwarranted notices. Naadapriya will stop replying to this editor unless there is a specific rational/logical/technical comment. Goodbye until a meaningful discussion takes place. 'vanakam' (Have a nice time).Naadapriya (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The POV fork rule means that in short, you cannot have "alternative versions" of the same article, so that is why the relevant info needs to all go at Carnatic music or Music of Karnataka. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blnguyen Karnataka/Carnatic article is not an alternative version of other articles. As many users agreed it cannot be part of Music of Karnataka. Also it can not be part of 'Carnatic music' article which has speculative background and incomplete/POV based information as it has been pointed out several times by users. For e.g, title and very 2nd sentence of the article are highly incompatible. As documented evidences clearly show Karnataka Sangeeta (classical Music) started in early 15th century and later it was also called Karnataka Sangeetam (this is not a POV issue). There is no objective evidence to prove that Karnataka Sangeeta/Sangeetam was renamed as Carnatic Music by any well known respected musician with reputation of MS[[9]] or Kalanidhi RKS. If Carnatic music article talks about South Indian Classical music then the title should be Karnataka Classical Music followed by other names that somehow followed later.(this is not a POV it is with good faith based on facts) Since some users are pushing POV and wants to retain ‘Carnatic Music’ article as is, a separate article for Karnataka Classical music is needed to post accurate information.Naadapriya (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ‘admn’ please clarify if this is your own conclusion based on your personal detailed knowledge about Karnataka Sangeetha or an objective judgment based on inputs from some editors which are incorrect. I will follow-up accordingly.Naadapriya (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blnguyen I am waiting for the clarification from you so that I can proceed further based on validated facts with no speculations and consensus received to date. Your early kind response is highly appreciated to post accurate facts on WikipediaNaadapriya (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blnguyen. At this stage unless you have an objection by tomorrow I will proceed with fact-supported conclusion that the information provided to you for deleting the article 'Karnataka/Carnatic music' by other users is not valid. Hope articles will not be deleted as it was done for 'Karnataka/Carnatic music' article without opening for in-depth discussions. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 06:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but I can predict someone else will get rid of it. It's pretty obvious. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With this discussion with admn on this topic is concluded

Blnguyen sir, so far you have not clarified what is 'obvious' from your perspective. Other 'Admns' have acknowledged that it is not a POV issue based on facts provided. Since you did not express your opinion on above 3 enquires it will be concluded that by default, as per Wikipedia guidelines, you have your consent for the statement 'that the information provided to you for deleting the article Karnataka/Carnatic music by other users is not valid'. Sincerely it is hoped that there will not be any ad-hoc deletions in the future by anyone to avoid going to arbitration.Naadapriya (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 6	4 February 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part IV	Tensions in journalistic use of Wikipedia explored
Best of WikiWorld: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Tutorial: Adding citations
Dispatches: New methods to find Featured Article candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XXIII (January 2008)
Project news The project coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! The contest department has completed its tenth month of competition, which saw an unprecedented 44 entries. The top scorer this month is Dreamafter, with 95 points, followed by Cla68, with 42 points, and Ed! and Woody, with 21 points each. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 182 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. A new auxiliary infobox, {{operational plan}}, is now available. A new page for military history essays has been created; project members are encouraged to post their own advice and opinions on matters within the project's purview. New guidelines concerning precision and ship pronouns have been added to the style guide. Featured picture candidates and picture peer reviews are now accessible through the project's review department. An effort to convert deprecated infoboxes has begun; any assistance is welcome!	Articles of note New featured articles: 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident Battle of Musa Qala George Jones (RAAF officer) Italian War of 1542–1546 Jim Bowie Józef Piłsudski Matanikau Offensive Offa of Mercia Suleiman the Magnificent USS Illinois (BB-65) New featured lists: List of Knight's Cross recipients Order of battle at the Glorious First of June New A-Class articles: 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt Cold War Hans-Joachim Marseille Krulak Mendenhall mission
Current proposals and discussions Discussion about top-level operational categories continues. A discussion about non-English operational codenames has begun. A category restructuring workshop is now open; brainstorming regarding the arrangement of the top-level military history categories is currently ongoing.
Awards and honors Bwmoll3 has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his superior contributions to a variety of articles about the United States Air Force, including a great number of those dealing with wings and installations. Bedford has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of the outstanding contribution he has made to the project's organization by going above and beyond the call of duty in tagging, assessing, and classifying a massive number of articles during the 2007 assessment drive.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I seem to be back for a while - can we have a look at unprotecting Taj Mahal? I think it's been about six months since it was protected, and I'm happy to continue reverting vandalism on it until I get bored - I might be back in a fortnight begging for reprotection - but we are supposed to be the 'encylopaedia anyone can edit'. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is just another reminder to please upload a Commons image to the English Wikipedia and tag it with the {{c-uploaded}} template before placing it on the main page. Otherwise,it will not be protected, so a vandal can upload a new Commons version and change what appears. (This occurred with Image:Contracts House (Kiev).jpg, which was replaced with a photograph of a human penis.)
Incidentally, I noticed that your talk page has been semi-protected (by Riana) since August. You might want to try unprotecting it at this point. —David Levy 15:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ducks* I did it again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your hard work, I'd like to remove the request for articles on each of the districts of HCMC at WPVN. However, I see a handful of redlinks at Ho Chi Minh City#Political and administrative system, maybe because of lack of redirects. Can you check these so I can remove that request as "done" from WPVN? Badagnani (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've done it. Badagnani (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you! Crikey, I haven't seen you about for ages. Well Indochina Wars, the first in particular, are rapidly becoming my favourite period of history. I have read (and loved) Martin Windrows The Last Valley and I read Bernard Fall's Street Without Joy which I also enjoyed though I didn't agree with his thesis. I have just purchased a book on the British offences in Burma and Malaysia, I think I will find that equally enjoyable. On the cricket side, pleased that Trescothick became FA, working on Giles though Operation Camargue is taking a front seat at the moment. I don't know what's ahead of me at the moment, we shall soon see. I don't think I'll ever catch up with your huge credentials and FA achievments though!

But have you seen the crap I have gotten eyeball deep into this evening? Tried to stop a dispute between two established users and got accused of pedophilia! I do not know what is going on... SGGH ^speak! 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, he's banned now....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I've never used a bot and I should have surmised that you'd be doing things that way. Just trying to help, sorry if I made your job more difficult in any way. Badagnani (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly doing it with a bot is much better, I'd say. Badagnani (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bother you, but its been eleven hours since the main page DYK has been updated. If you are still on, could you update? Thanks.--Bedford 02:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. It was me moving the update on my watchlist run a few hours ago and not updating the clock. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for dealing with my "Dodona" request so quickly. Since the user is now making passionate - and, strangely, credible-sounding - professions of innocence, I've asked an additional question for clarification at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dodona. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I think I clarified. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blnguyen. I tried to send an e-mail to the Arbcom mailing list. Do you know if it got through? You're the only arbitrator that I really know which is why I ask. --JayHenry (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes...I was talking about it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FT2 eventually confirmed receipt too. After having not heard back at first I became worried that I'd sent it wrong :) --JayHenry (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I've never heard of this singer, but then again I don't pay much attention to Vietnamese-language variety shows. That user might be a fan, or it might be herself. We had the chief editor of Nguoi Viet Daily News editing here, so I'm not surprised. DHN (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link to the category should stay. These people have been recognised as Australia's first Vietnamese, if forgotten. I think it is of interest to people looking into Australian Vietnamese. ROxBo (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I rescinded myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated in the block that this user was a inappropriate sock puppet. The user has requested several unblocks. I am considering declining his most recent request, and leaving him blocked, simply because he appears to be using the unblock template to coninuously be disruptive (he has left no less than 4 unblock requests in 2 days, each with a different reason) however, I wanted additional input from you, since you blocked him for sockpuppetry. Do you have that evidence so that other admins can make an informed decision on how to handle this guy? Thanks a bunch!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh take it easy, some other people have already locked it up. He hasn't done naything except spam. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted here, for your information. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've been beaten to it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported Ichisada Miyazaki, which you expanded, for {{copy-vio}}. I'm telling you this in case you want to challenge it, or rewrite the article, otherwise the article will be deleted.--Bothnia (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I'll see to it. Or I'll just rework when needed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm (finally) reviewing Jan 15th copyright violations. This article probably needs a bit of reworking, it is pretty close to the obit. Do you want me delete it, move it somewhere, or do you want to rework it?--DO11.10 (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new Request for Mediation has been initiated for the John Howard article regarding the Howard family interests in Copra plantations in New Guinea. Initially, a small number of editors were listed as 'interested parties'. However, the Committee Chair has indicated that a wider group may now be invited to participate. An invitation will now be sent to everyone who has previously commented on the John Howard talk page regarding this subject. If you would like to participate, please place your name at: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/John Howard. There is also a discussion page regarding this RfM. Regards, Lester 22:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found this and thought you may want to take a look at it. Confirmed to me that this is not a reliable source, much worse in my opinion than even some of the Indian tabloids. And the attitude of the comments is also outrageous, wanting to declare the match null and void because one team swung the ball and the others didn't. So can instances of WWOS sources be questioned in articles? Darrowen (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just an opinion piece, which is not good enough for presenting hard facts anyway generally speaking. I would say that WWOS is the TV arm of Cricket Australia anyway. Oh the people's comments don't mean anything since we don't know who they are, it could be a Pakistani calling himself "Indian from Chennai" [like one guy on BBC cricket forum] and making anti-India troll comments, or some Indian could pretend to be an "ashamed Australian or whatever" - and of course, with these things, some random person could just sock. And yes, ToI and Rediff are rubbish. And so are Australian tabloids. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]