User talk:Jimmyvanthach/Archive02

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)

Thank you for not adding more evidence to my user talk page :-D Tom - Talk 04:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you are willing to learn more about the Wikipedia to the point that you can clean up some of the unpalatable things you have done, I am willing to advocate for you. One of the biggest things you can do to get out of hot Wikiwater is to try to learn about basic rules and then start to clean up your own messes. That would be very respectful to the community. You seem to do well already with wikilove and wikiquette, which are essentials we can use a lot more of around here. But where you are having the biggest trouble is with our "absolute and non-negotiable" non-bias policy. I hope I am not being presumptuous when I suggest that you read carefully Neutral Point of View. With time and patience and caution, I know you can develop respect here so that you won't have to defend every move and so that you, with your civility and Wikiquette, can be an administrator. Tom - Talk 07:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

p.s. Jimmy, it would also probably help a lot if you would add a little about yourself to your User Page User:Jimmyvanthach "in front" of this talk page. I'm sure you can imagine how it is a little uncomfortable to come upon a user who doesn't even have a user page. Feel free to copy mine and change it as you see fit. Tom - Talk 16:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I took the great liberty of jotting down on your user page a few items that I think will be helpful to people. If I did badly, please promptly fix or delete my presumtuous work. Tom - Talk 17:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy, I am bound to support the arbitration committee in their decisions. Other than that, I am not aware of anything negative. HueNguyen asserted several things about the images you mentioned to me. And you have asserted an opposing conclusion. I don't know how to tell what needs to be changed. But I think it would help if we could keep all the factual and issue talk on the article talk pages. I am going to move your comments. Tom - Talk 15:15, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy, I appreciate your positive contributions to Wikipedia. I see that you are progressing in your ability to follow Wikipedia policy. It is urgently important that you refrain from violating the terms of the arbitration committee's decision regarding your behavior. Please avoid editing (please remove from your watchlist and do not visit) any articles that fall within your special interest as one who follows the actions of the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League. That means any articles. John Wayne yes, Mars yes, rabbits yes. But any royalty or related pages no. This is very serious. Tom - Talk 23:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

references concerning Prince Buu Chanh
Prince Buu Chanh does not claim the throne of Vietnam, this is incorrect where is the reference that he is using that supports this statement by.

Where is he getting the information of Book or newspaper reference that Boa Die died in 1997, and afterwards Buu Chanh took various titles of Sir, "Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chan", "H.I.H. Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh" and "H.I.H. Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh, Duke of Kien Hoa". The basis of his claims to these titles is dubious since according to Vietnamese traditions, the title of prince is not hereditary beyond the first generation (the sons of the Emperor). Beyond that, titles have to be conferred by the Emperor, indeed there would be several other princes of similar rank were it conferred in this way. Titles were also conferred on his wife and children, which also violates tradition. ?

This is undocumented references. Jimmyvanthach 22:16, 2 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)

apology
I apologise for being a little forthright with you before, I should have kept my cool. There is a lot of wikiquette that should be observed (for example not marking minor edits minor, providing edit summaries), but which include no personal attacks as well and I overstepped the mark.

My knowledge of the history of Vietnam has I think improved and in a slightly perverse way I thank you for that. I still do not like you, I know you are a liar, and I don't think that you are here for the spread of knowledge and the comradeship the wiki community has. But I do believe in the power of the community here to get to grips with any user who causes inconvenience, however great or small. As someone who lives in a constitutional monarchy I shan't say I'm totally opposed to the principle, I can't see its relevance to Vietnam. I do recognise the need for human rights and admire those that campaign for human rights.

I see we have several red links on the Nguyen Dynasty's emperors that could be written. Those I think should be the priority. Dunc|&#9786; 18:58, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I accept your apology and respect your opinion we dont have to like each other, but we will maintain our professionalism at all times.

I have noticed that and I feel that the present topic on them are not very neutral at all I will be working on former Emperor's of Vietnam. I have recived some old photos from my grandmother of her history notes and collection and will use them and her notes for the Nguyen Dynasty.

I share your views on Human Rights, I would also like to know, do you think that a Constitutional Monarchy helped in Cambodia since 1991?

Also I have been thinking why didn't the Constitutional Monarchy of Thailand fall to the Communist, after monarchies of Cambodia (1973) and Laos in 1975.--Jimmyvanthach 19:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam
I've just seen your addition of a large number of external links to this article. IMHO in this case the number of links is excessive, Wikipedia isn't targetted as a web directory. If you perhaps can select a subset of the most significant links? --Pjacobi 21:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) ---

ok, no problem, I just put them there as a reference to refer to them to make the biography of the Tamil Eelam large from the reading material and then denote the links when important information was taken out.--Jimmyvanthach 21:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Final decision in arbitration case
5 arbitrators, which is enough to make it binding, have voted for the following decision in Requests for arbitration/Jimmyvanthach. I know this decision may cause some hardship for you, but please feel welcome to participate in other areas of Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 23:43, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC) -

I understand, and I will only contribute to influential Vientamese-Americans located in the United States and the Laos Royal Family.--Jimmyvanthach 14:38, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Principles
1) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, see What Wikipedia is not


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:24, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Findings of Fact
1) User:Jimmyvanthach has edited a number of articles (user contributions) which relate to the former royal family of Vietnam in a manner which is associated with the viewpoint advocated by the website of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty and The Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League and has advocated that viewpoint although his exact identity and connection with that group is uncertain.
 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 21:46, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

2) User:Jimmyvanthach or someone with the same point of view and history of advocacy has also used the accounts Contributions Celindgren (the actual C.E.M. Lindgren has no connection with this account, see Requests_for_comment/Tran_Van_Ba), and Contributions Tran Van Ba as well as the anonymous ip 198.26.120.13
 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:03, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 22:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Remedies
1) User Jimmyvanthach, User Celindgrenand and User Tran Van Ba are banned from editing articles which relate to the royal family of Vietnam and articles which relate to the recent history and politics of Vietnam.


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:46, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 21:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) (Do we need to bother specifying that simply changing usernames doesn't avoid this decree? I don't know, the wording seems to imply that to me, but maybe I'm being overly picky.)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC) (the people/person, not the accounts, of course)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement
1) Edits by User Jimmyvanthach, User Celindgrenand and User Tran Van Ba to articles which relate to the former royal family of Vietnam or to the recent history and politics of Vietnam may be removed by any user. In the event the banned users attempt to restore removed edits they may be banned by any administrator for a brief period (a day or less but up to a week in the event of repeat offenses).


 * Aye:
 * Fred Bauder 22:50, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 01:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Jwrosenzweig 21:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * the Epopt 04:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Martin 16:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Nay:


 * Abstain:

Notable Vietnamese Americans ?
It's not appropriate to add a list of notable Vietnamese Americans to articles about one specific Vietnamese American. CryptoDerk 18:53, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've removed these lists from each article. I noticed you have the list in the article on Vietnamese Americans -- that is fine.  What you should do is add a "See also: Vietnamese Americans" link to individual biographies -- or better yet, just link it when describing the person in the first place (i.e. "Bao Pham is a Vietnamese American who was born in 1975.".  That would be fine as it's inobtrusive.  CryptoDerk 19:06, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Vietnamese Americans/Asian Americans Category Doublelisting
I'm going to remove the Vietnamese Americans you listed under Category:Asian Americans because there is already a category for Category:Vietnamese Americans under the Asian Americans category. If we were to double-list all the other people in under the categories Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, etc., it would needlessly clutter the Asian Americans category.

Keep up the good work. I'm always interested to find out about notable Asian Americans. If you have any questions/comments please reply to me on my talk page.

-- J3ff 03:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The people listed directly under Category:Asian Americans are not listed in underlying categories such as Category:Chinese Americans -- J3ff 03:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tila Nguyen
Are you sure Tila Nguyen is an actress? I'm pretty sure she is only a model. Reply to me on my talk page. -- J3ff 21:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * She wasn't in 2 Fast 2 Furious; the article is just describing what the "import scene" is by mentioning that movie. -- J3ff 18:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I removed references of her as an actress and I clarified the sentence in the article Tila Nguyen that mentions 2 Fast 2 Furious. -- J3ff 18:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)