User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive119

Barnstar

 * Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Over 60,000 edits, gasp!  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 08:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Chedorlaomer
Hello YellowMonkey. , whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein   20:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'd appreciate it if you could share the background of this block with me, because I don't see any immediately problematic recent edits by Chedorlaomer.  Sandstein  20:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Long Tan page has been hijacked since u stopped keeping an eye
The Battle of Long Tan page has been hijacked, information distorted apparently by kids, since you stopped keeping an eye on it. They are now claiming in the information box that the Australian counted 245 Vietnamese dead, when the footnote states an Australian veteran counted only 50 fallen enemy. They've also presented the following as fact:

"There have been accusations that the Australians exaggerated VC and NVA casualties, but in 2006 the former enemy reavealed their casulties were some 1500killed or died from wounds and another 1000 wounded."(Lovechangeseverything (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I would have thought that was still keeping a close eye on the proceedings, he has a lot more knoweldge of this than me.  YellowMonkey   ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR Point violation
This nomination is part of an ongoing dispute between Hurricanehink and JulianColton. Julian wrote three articles that were GA, but kept Hink from meeting the "more than 33% GA" requirement for a Featured Topic. This has resulted in Hink attacking all of Julian's articles. As you can see from the request, it is based on a false understanding of notability. The whole nomination is part of a dispute, and it is disruptive. I think this needs the immediate attention of the FAR directors. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've repluied to them  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/List of Swimming World Swimmers of the Year/archive1
Hi, are you still keeping up with this? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sort of, I thought everyone was mostly happy with where the general direction was heading....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Category
Hello, YellowMonkey. Why should we have two equal categories Vietnamese kings and Vietnamese emperors. Could I merge them?--Amore Mio (talk) 02:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What should we keep? Vietnamese kings or Vietnamese emperors. Early Vietnamese nations (Hung Vuong, Thuc Dynasty, Trieu Dynasty, Ngo Dynasty, Early Le Dynasty, Ly Dynasty) were too small to be called empires, but later Vietnamese nations have grown to a size of an empire (Tran Dynasty, Ho Dynasty, Later Le Dynasty, Tay Son Dynasty, Nguyen Dynasty). I'm not familiar with the usage of the word emperor and king in English, so could I have your opinion?
 * P/S:The books haven't arrived yet.--Amore Mio (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it matters actually  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 06:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will create more specific categories such as Nguyen Dynasty emperors, Tay Son Dynasty emperors, Le Dynasty emperors... to categorize the articles of Vietnamese monarchs.
 * BTW, thank you very much for the books :-).--Amore Mio (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure I have more. One about Le Thanh Tong and another about the Cochinchina campaign  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The Guidance Barnstar Thanks again. I have emailed both the LTT, the Cochinchina one, and a few others. I have a lot of journal papers as well, although most were contemporary at teh time and have been superseded by books.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I recieved all. Thanks again YellowMonkey.--Amore Mio (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User Page
Hi there. Umm... not to be rude or anything, but your talk page is really confusing. Wouldn't it be easier to put all this stuff on your user page and use this page just for...um...talking? Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, no I don't think so as the user talk gets more traffic. You're invited too of course...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A request
Hi! Could you please remove this edit to my userpage and the ones made before that? They contain personal information which, I feel, could be potentially dangerous. Thanks!- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 05:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Done. Oversight? Technically it's forbidden to OS self added material but people oversight it anyway. Still, you know what the AC thinks of me....  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Four award
You may be eligible for this new award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob block
Hi, you blocked this user 3 days without warning him, and I don't see any interaction between you and them. Why is this person blocked 3 days for "Disruptive editing: pov pushing, marketing edits, etc"? I don't see any on-wiki evidence of disruptive editing. They are asking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Off2riorob#I_have_been_blocked_for_72_hours_without_warning. here]. rootology ( C )( T ) 01:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this is already on ANI, here. rootology ( C )( T ) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, this looks resolved now, but yes the guys had been blocked before and received quite a few talk page messages from lots of people.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Spammers
LOL!!! "enough of these unofficial sites...when is mine going to get a run lol" - hahaha!!!! Shahid •  Talk 2 me  07:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA what a lovely comment!!! Hehe!!!
 * Hey when will you restore your UP? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  14:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
I am extremely sorry! I wanted to catch you online but it seems I missed you today, too. Yeah, I saw it. You've removed all the edits made to my userpage. Thanks a lot! :-) I could understand how difficult it is to spot particular edits and delete them. And I am extremely sorry for all the trouble I had caused you. Cheers.- The Enforcer Office of the secret service 11:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's ok.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient sources
I am honestly scared by the ignorance expressed by some editors in this discussion. One person managed to write the following: "So if modern scholarship disagrees with ancient sources, we do need to make note of that fact. And we should do this in a way that does not imply that one is more "correct" than the other. The key word in WP:NPOV after all is Neutral." I almost fell off my chair. I wonder if he would have said the same about science, say if Aristotle and Einstein disagreed about gravity, should we give equal weight to both views in the article about gravity? Or is it just that history is not a real academic exercise, without any progress or development of methodology, where people just write what they feel like? Good grief... Lampman (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's worse, when a group of editors from the same ethnic group get a majority in a dispute and vote all their nationalist sources in as RS, eg Tamilnet; yes it sucks, but the rules only apply at FAC. After all, when WP:WIAFA was changed, about 50 people debated it even though only 0.1% of articles are FA and maybe only 1% of articles are gunning for it. Whereas when OR was tweaked recently, only a handful of people noticed, even though OR affects 100% of articles. Obviously they know that the policy isn't actually all that relevant, whatever it says.  YellowMonkey   ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw FARC
I am afraid I don't have time to improve this article that much, and I am also concentrating on Featured article review/Witold Pilecki - perhaps you could comment there (I replied to you). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the new alteration to WP:WIAFA 1c. My understanding is that "high quality" means that the WP:RS should be followed more rigourously, which means that most of the stuff should follow the recommendation that secondary sources are the most used sources. As far as I can tell, the IPN bio is a brief summary, like an encyclopedia bio (#3 source), and it is the most cited thing, so I think RelHistBuff's concerns are still valid.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, about 75% of the cites are to IPN, which is a tertiary source.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Re:??. I've no idea what article you are talking about :( Also, I don't check other user talk pages for replies (as I indicate in the big floating box on my talk page), so if you don't copy your replies to my talkpage, I am afraid I may miss your replies to me. Yes, tertiary source is used here, but there is little I can do about it. I still think it is reliable enough. Btw, I've reread 1c and there's nothing I can see that would indicate that tertiary sources are not applicable. Here's a crucial question: is Polski Słownik Biograficzny a secondary of a tertiary source? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I say that is because 1c says "high wuality RS" and RS recommends a majority on #2 sources. Yes a few of guys have cited this in FAC/FAR in the last month  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Warsaw - to be honest, that article requires a treatment (rewrite) that I currently cannot do (alone...). Very tentatively, I'd like to see this refeatured for the battle 90th anniversary in a year :) Currently I am trying my best to prepare a series of articles related to the coming soon 70th anniversary of WWII... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Graeme Cremer
Hi, please can we discuss Graeme Cremer's inclusion on the notable legspinners list? He is clearly one of Zimbabwe's most (if not the most) notable legspinners for the reasons I have outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leg_spin Battye (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Nlu (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
 * Noted  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 27 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
 * News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 05:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

= Other stuff =

Ping
On these, don't forget WP:FA and WP:FFA :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Bradman quotes

 * sportsillustrated.cnn.com Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Chedorlaomer
Could you take another look at this block? You blocked his main account for being used mainly (at least, lately) for undoing other users' edits. On close inspection, though, he was undoing edits of blocked Hkelkar socks: in other words, reverting edits made by a banned user. If this is the whole story I would be inclined to simply unblock; is there more to it? Mango juice talk 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He has two accounts. He cannot use one to revert, and another for normal editing in the same zone. Teh other account is not longer blocked. Not all the edits reverted are by Hkelkar.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still reviewing this block, via email. Why did you run a checkuser on this user?  I'm trying hard to understand this, I don't see any inappropriate edits on either of the accounts but I haven't examined every one of them.  Mango juice talk 03:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it was obviously not a new user and mainly used for reverting, leading to a suspicion of a banned user etc  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course he's not new, his first edits were from August 2008. He didn't start out mainly reverting.  I don't understand.  I thought Checkuser was not for fishing?  What about his reverting was suspicious?  Mango juice talk 17:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit summaries right away, straight into disputes. Last set of edits for the last few days are only reverts.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Into disputes but not in a problematic way; no edit warring, no tendentious editing, no abuse of any kind. Lots of reverts lately but most were openly declared to be reverts of a banned user, and were done correctly.  So I think it's fair to say you did not follow the Checkuser policy in making this check.  Maybe that's an honest mistake.  But then you compounded that mistake by issuing a block when the use of multiple accounts was legitimate and specifically supported by policy.  The reason the user did this was to protect linking his IP to his main account; that is a legitimate security purpose.  And even had you not realized that, I still fail to see how you can call this a "bad hand" account when you are unable to point to any abuse at all.  This action of yours does not prevent even any perceived damage; its effect is only to discourage a user for reverting the edits of User:Hkelkar's sockpuppets.  Mango juice talk 16:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FA Review for Turkey !!!
hi yellowmonkey, the article of Turkey needs definite review of its FA status, because much of it is biased for example no information about recent developments in politics such as the role of Islam in state or headscarf the trouble between the Islamist-rooted government and the secular institutions which the ruling party nearly ended up being banned, there is nothing of these informations and when entered it is always removed by secularist supporting users, therefore i think it is really necessary to review the article. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.185.91 (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you User:Tangomaan who wrote British Bangladeshi? there's nothing stopping you from nominating it yourself  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mumbai protection
Mumbai needs to be unprotected. It's on FAR, and cannot be worked on if it stays protected. I understand the rather immature edit-war and fight over images might have prompted you for protection of the article, but for larger interest it should be unprotected. Can you please do so? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * already been done.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Health issues
World Health Organisation said about 49% of the world’s underweight children, 34% of the world’s stunted children and 46 per cent of the world’s wasted children, live in India please feed your children back home instead of abroad :-) 81.151.100.127 (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Nangparbat) Maybe that's becuase they have 20% of the world's population  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * this was the article that I think you were talking about on Nishkids page 'Inbred Muslims deforming births' - MPWikireader41 (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was by the ABC, but it was the same thing about a minister making some comments that offended some people.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * this issue is being discussed all over ( except wikipedia). do you think this merits a proper article ? ofcourse probably not by me.  here are links to a BBC program on the matter

PAKISTANI COUSIN MARRIAGE PAKISTANI COUSIN MARRIAGE PART 2 Wikireader41 (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just see how you go with the main article.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Heres a interesting article about mutant hindu and sikh children http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/07/india lets just hope this aint one of those reincarnations of your idols seems like kali maa to me lol http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/07/india are you related to his poor child ? seems like indians think shes a god lol. India has 20% of the worlds population and 46% of the worlds wasted children thats what the IMF said not me lol not some little bbc article a world organization said that ha ha http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/CFE4D334-6BBD-4DB1-B737-96DBE5FEEA4D/ Seems like Indians are out of the human sex game and into the primate sexual fetish im curious yellowmonkey could that be your mother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.176.40 (talk) 08:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As you know any article created by wikireader41 will be deleted remember your recent one anyways be my guest it will be fun hope we dont bump into a eight limbed indian editor 86.158.176.40 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok lets agree on that muslim inbred thing causing physical and mental disability in muslim kids. But whats your excuse for hindus/sikhs pumping out half the worlds x-men or should i say x-kids with 8 legs and two faces and millions of other defects that you would expect to see in a hollywood sci-fi movie the Thing anyone i got pop corn? http://www.feralchildren.com/en/pager.php?df=kellogg looks like indian mothers are too concerned with raising primates and ignore there bundles of joy oh well monkeys in india seem more than happy to raise indian kids p.s no offence monkey im just responding to wikireader41 86.158.176.40 (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC) P.S i have nothing against disabled or mentally ill children it may seem i have but this whole thing was wikireaders wish he wanted a fight i gave him may god bless all the eight limbed children of india and the world 86.158.176.40 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And no i dont support creating a article about deformed indian children i dont beleive it will do anyone any good but create more pejudice against indians in the world but go ahead with your mutated pakistani children article maybe i could contribute ;-) 86.158.176.40 (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure which I find most depressing: (1) that people think plugging their racist views is a good idea, (2) that people think that reporting a problem particularly affecting a particular group of people is an attack against that group, or (3) that people are so infantile as to think "if you say something bad against a group I belong to I will retaliate by saying something bad against a group you belong to". There are health problems with a high frequency in groups that I belong to: I am glad that the fact is reported, so that I can consider the problem, and possible things to do about it. I do not go round trying to hide the fact, or thinking that anyone who mentions it is evil. What is more, if I did think someone was being unreasonable in comments referring to a group I belong to, I would try to explain why, not start retaliating by making similarly unreasonable comments in return. I am fully aware that pointing this out is probably futile, as racists usually don't want to be reasonable, but I mention it in the hope that someone may take notice and think. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * these comments are by socks of banned editor Nangparbat . no use trying to discuss or debate with him.  he has already made it plenty clear that rules of WP are of no concern to him.  The info about endogamy is hardly racist and is a practice seen in many communities  of different races although probably not to same degree as British Pakistanis.  that it leads to health issues is undeniable & therein lies the importane of bringing it out in the open Wikireader41 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-silly procedural request
I would love to provide my input to the pic polls. But one request please. In the last round of voting you added choices after I voted already. A reader might have been able to discern that the pics were added after the voting, but it was not unambiguous. If you add pics can you please make it clearer that the pics were added after some votes. I'm very sensitive to looking silly :) Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, Pdfpdf added some old existing images already at the start this time!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Entries from WQA
I think I've seen you remove a couple of WQA entries - please don't. They get archived, and may later be usable as evidence of incivility/disruption in its own right. Please re-add any you have recently removed. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In general he's banned so there isn't really any need for evidence and it doesn't get destroyed from teh history anyway.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)