User talk:Jimmyvanthach/Archive01

sockpuppetry
Sorry, I don't trust you, and I think you are a sockpuppet of User:Tran Van Ba. Let the comment process take its course, we'll determine the truth, there appears to be some good resources on usenet, and then go from there. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 23:09, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Flag of South Vietnam
Hello Jimmy, or should that be Professor Lindgren? The Law student-cum university professor-cum-Vietnamese bodyguard? Wow you're doing a good job of moonlighting. The page that you the created was a duplicate of the Flag of Vietnam article; therefore I redirected it. Feel free to further try to defend yourself on requests for comment/Tran Van Ba the Wiki feature is useful to change your earlier comments. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 22:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

your behaviour (again)
I have advanced your case to the arbitration committee. See Requests for arbitration. I suggest that you explain your behaviour or you will be banned. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 18:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have the knowledge on the subject, however, IMHO you have shown that you are inherently untrustworthy. If you are to remain a Wikipedian, you must convince us (particularly the arbitration committee) that you can be trusted. I would suggest firstly that you apologise for the impersonation of Mr Tran Van Ba and Prof. Lindgren, personally to those persons (the latter's phone number is here). An apology to User:Jimbo and the village pump might also be appropriate.

I would also like a of what the heck is going on here? It is awfully confusing this seems to be a systematic plan, but I do not understand your motivation. Why try to make yourself a member of a long-dead Vietnamese order? And why then impersonate two other people? Personally, I think you can't be trusted whatever, but that is for the rest of the community to decide. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 21:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

naming conventions
Be careful of reverting others edits. Use Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom rather than Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 15:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That was an example. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 15:38, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

how to use edit summaries and history
Your latest edit to Bao Dai (restoring the "Prince Regent" title again) has the following edit summary: "re-stated Hob see please see Talk page before repeating edits for validation". I have no idea what this means. Are you asking me to see the Talk page "before repeating edits"? I haven't made any edits to that article, except to add the "disputed" tag. If you click on "history" you will see a complete list of who has been changing what. The user you have been engaging in an edit war with is the one who does not have a user name, just a number starting with 216.

Furthermore, you should only say "please see Talk page" in your edit summary if you are actually going to add a note explaining that change on the Talk page. You posted an argument there yesterday, to which the anonymous user has already responded; you haven't added any further rebuttal. Rather than just repeating your edits again, I suggest that you address the arguments that are on the Talk page now (i.e., reasons that the web sites you cited are not neutral sources). As I've said elsewhere, it is very hard for me to believe that you're a lawyer when you have such a sloppy approach toward evidence and do not appear to pay attention to the questions that are asked. &#8592;Hob 15:52, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

I will repeat what I already said above: the 216.etc. user has already responded to your comments on the Talk page (in the section "Nothing New"), saying why those web pages are not real proof of the "Prince" claims. Furthermore, as I said on the Talk page, a website using the word "Prince" is not evidence for your other claims: (1) "On December 22, 1993, Bao Dai held a Imperial Audience" etc., and (2) the Nguyen Dynasty "coat of arms". You have not offered any further explanation, so it makes no sense for you to keep repeating "see Talk page". We have already seen it, and responded! &#8592;Hob 18:05, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

understood
I will gather further references of the (1) "On December 22, 1993, Bao Dai held a Imperial Audience" etc., and (2) the Nguyen Dynasty "coat of arms".

I have shown third party references to the title Prince of Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam.

If you look at Third-Party Reference Annam Kingdom and scroll down to the bottom you will see the title Prince for Prince Buu Chanh.

link: http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/states/asia/annam.html

The Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts lists Prince Buu Chanh and Princess Phan Lien as Honorary Fellows.

Scroll down to bottom of the screen to view.Jimmyvanthach

link 1: http://www.aemma.org/aboutAEMMA_top.htm

Link 2: http://www.aemma.org/aboutAEMMA_top.htm

If you goto The International Monarchist League on Monarchy.net a Third Party organization please scroll down to VIETNAM and you will see that Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh is listed as well as Prince Buu Phuc who assigned Prince Buu Chanh as the Regent of the Nguyen Dynasty.

Link 3: http://www.monarchy.net/directory.htm# Jimmyvanthach 18:20, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please don't try to recreate articles that were voted for deletion
Please don't try to recreate articles that have been voted for deletion, such as Tran Van Ba. Such articles are subject to speedy deletion (i.e. without VfD discussion) under Wikipedia policy; see point 5 of Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If you think it was improperly deleted, bring the matter up at Votes for Undeletion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have made an entry on your behalf at Votes for Undeletion quoting the reason you gave me as to why you think it should be undeleted. You will probably want to take a look at it since I may not be representing your case fairly. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:32, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

your references are still not objective
I can't believe that in your most recent edit you actually cited Tran Van Ba as your reference ("recieved confirmation from Chancellor Tran Van Ba, last Colonel-in_chief for Emperor Bao Dai that Coat of Arms is correct"). Tran Van Ba, according to his own statements, is the person you work for. In fact you have been editing from the same computer as Tran Van Ba. And we have no evidence, other than a large number of computer messages from an E-mail address bearing his name, that Tran Van Ba is who he says he is - and if he is, we have no evidence that what he says is true, except that he says it.

How many times do I have to say this? ''Tran Van Ba is not an objective source. He is not a book. He is not a newspaper. He is not a historian. He is one of the subjects of the article. He has a conflict of interest. You also have a conflict of interest, since you are (apparently) employed'' by him and by the family in question. And you expect us to accept your statements as fact simply because you say Tran Van Ba told you so?

This "confirmation" is the same as if I said, "The moon is made of green cheese because my mother, who has been to the moon, told me so." I could provide a million E-mails from my mother and that would still not be evidence.

Your repeated citations of various websites that simply refer to Mr. Nguyen as "Prince" are equally irrelevant. They are simply repeating a claim that he has made, which has nothing to do with proving what Bao Dai said or did, or whether there is a Nguyen coat of arms. What you need is even one book or newspaper or magazine article - NOT a website - that mentions (a) a Nguyen coat of arms, or (b) Bao Dai bestowing an imperial title on anyone, an event that surely would have been recorded by someone at the time.

You say you are a lawyer. If so, you understand the meaning of evidence, citations, and research. If so, you are insulting our intelligence and attempting to deceive people, and I hope you will be banned from Wikipedia soon - if you do not simply give up and leave, since you seem to have no interest in anything other than this propaganda campaign. &#8592;Hob 16:41, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

User HOB
I understand your points and they are going to be taken. I am currently researching as you suggested BOOKS or NEWSPAPER articles.

I do not work for Tran Van Ba, I have graduated from Law School, and before that I was a history graduate from university. I have a love for my culture and my people of Vietnam, and I spoke to Tran Van Ba as a historic person and his statements as facts.

Your Point is correct, and I will find a book that refers to Prince Buu Chanh as Prince and that he is the Regent of the Nguyen Dynasty, and note the citation for the research.Jimmyvanthach 12:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

please bugger off
Please don't paste drivel onto my talk page. I'm just going to ignore you. I have better things to do. You're a aggressive pov-pushing crank. I'll make it easy for you, bugger off and don't come back. Dunc|&#9786; 10:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Removing evidence
I was sending a message adding it to the statement, for any questions concerning the end of the arbitration, I thought I had just added it, not remove anythingJimmyvanthach 21:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:Hawstom
I am willing to assist you with the article Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh, but I respectfully request that you confine the discussion to the talk page of that article, and that you answer my questions by improving the article. See the Talk:Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh for more. Tom - Talk 17:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your good faith gestures at Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh and its talk page. User:Dunch did his best to tone down and pretty up the additions recently made. If you can keep all your discussions at the talk pages and avoid editing the articles until there are consensuses, I think things will be okay. If you have heartburn over what Dunch left there, please explain at the talk page. Tom - Talk 20:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blocked ip
I have blocked users Celindgren and Tran Van Ba as they are real people who are different from you. If this has resulted in a block of your ip address, please contact me or any sysop and they can unblock the ip. I'll try to watch for it to come up. Fred Bauder 18:05, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Republican medal of honour
Can you tell me the date on which Nguyen Phuc Buu Chan was awarded this medal? It appears that his bogus claim to the throne has only been from the death of Boa Dai in 1997? Dunc|&#9786; 12:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have read over the information and in his biography, on wikipedia he is not claiming the throne of vietnam, this has been written in by NguyenHue. Bao Long is the Crown Prince that is the postion of the Vietnamese Imperial Family Council. I am reading this from their website http://users.panola.com/vietnam/crown.html I do not see any reference in any newspaper concerning he is the Crown Prince. Only Bao Long is the Crown Prince, and I myself wrote set up a biography on him here on wikipedia.

The dis-aggreement is wheather the Vietnamese Imperial Family Council has the authority to assign Prince Buu Chanh to act as Regent. The documents that Emperor Bao Dia appointed Prince Buu Phuc as Chairman and to take care and all Family members of Nguyen-Phuoc must organize in unity, have been viewed by third parties and was concieved authentic, I am researching a book reference for this.

NguyenHue statements of Crown Prince is false, I myself, if you look at the history of Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh never stated, he was the Crown Prince heir to the throne. I only wrote he was the Regent.

I am looking through the official Republican site for the date and will reply here for you.Jimmyvanthach 12:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, so what you're saying is that Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh does not claim to be the Crown Prince, and recognises Bao Long as Crown Prince but he does claim to act as some kind of spokesperson for the family, or claim to be head of the family? He seems from the outside that his family do not recognise his attempts to unify them and they also question whether he is part of their family.  I have an email correspondent who says the Family Organisation is likely an invention of Buu Chanh and even if it did exist it would have very dubious legal basis, and that Bao Long who I believe lives in France has ignored him.  He is also not entitled to call himself Prince, or dish out Dragons of Ammam.  If that is the case, then I seriously doubt his notability and merit of inclusion in the Wikipedia. Dunc|&#9786; 16:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh does not claim the throne, we are on the same page. NguyenHue wrote that he claims the throne.

If you look at my past history of Prince Buu Chanh I never wrote Crown Prince Buu Chanh. I only stated Regent Prince Buu Chanh. I have contacted the Vietnamese Imperial Family Council, Prince Buu Phuc. His contact information is

Association de l'Imperiale Familie du Vietnam Arc-En-Ciel-Bellatrix, rue du Colonel Gassin, F-0600 Nice, France. Tel: +33 4 93851289 Contact: Prince Buu-Phuc

I found this in the Monarchy.net directory http://www.monarchy.net/directory.htm#

I know if you write him, or converse he can give you an official statement.

I am not aware of your contact since you did not release the name, but it would be good to know and put Prine Buu Phuc to find out if your contact is viable or even is aware of Prince Buu Phuc.

He is the Chairman assigned by Emperor Bao Dai in 1982. There are documents that he has availble of the Assignment as Chairman of the Nguyen Phuoc in the capacity that was given to him by Emperor Bao Dai to handle the affairs of the Nguyen Phuoc Imperial Family. Prince Buu Chanh was assigned to be the Regent in Feburary 2004 by Prince Buu Phuc.

Prince Buu Chanh was NOT assigned Crown Prince, the Crown Prince is Bao Long.

Bao Long has never ingnored Prince Buu Chanh, I have never read a newspaper document or book interview concerning that issue.

Prince Buu Chanh lineage is entitled to by birth a Prince and I am researching books at the moment that show this, that is why I am not pressing the issue, because you and User HOB state that there needs to be a newspaper article or book that is used as a referenced, and I fully support it.Jimmyvanthach 17:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)