User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive123

User talk:Xaghan
This user is requesting unblocking. Did you run a checkuser and find other registered accounts? The user says they simply used an IP address and then registered this account and it's the only one. Not that Xaghan got off to a good start, but it's worth clarifying. Mango juice talk 23:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I was not able to find any other accounts, but I still regard it as a throwaway account. Only article edits and reverts, only talk edits are confrontational.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've undone the block then. I've reblocked for the POV edit warring... the difference being that if he adjusts that behavior it may be appropriate to eventually unblock.  I really wish you wouldn't block anyone for abuse of multiple accounts when even with Checkuser use you only have suspicions.  If the user is being disruptive, block them for the disruption.  Mango juice talk 14:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Shugden
Yellow Monkey Please see new Kadampa Tradition talk page-many thanksYonteng (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

130th Engineer Brigade
I have responded to your comments on the A-class review of this article. Please let me know what, if anything else, can be done. Thanks! - Ed! (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't agree that A-class articles should be allowed to use primary sources written by members of the military unit in question  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Athletics
Hi! I noticed that you have a wide interest in sports in general, would you like to sign up for the WikiProject Athletics proposal? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!  12:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am trying to just finish off my half-done articles, so it wouldn't be right for me to sign up and not help and deflate everyone. I believe I haven't written a single track and field article.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good enough reason for me! Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!  07:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST peer review update
I've revised Military career of L. Ron Hubbard as you suggested in WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military career of L. Ron Hubbard and added a new section to provide further context. Please let me know what you think. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Decrat
Couple of weeks ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pity. My opinino hasnt changed  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
Umm, the article is still using the two images (PD in Australia, but not in US). Jappalang (talk) 03:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be removing it in five minutes once I switch accounts.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the new Hamence image does not quite work out either. This is a tough subject to obtain "free" photos for (if this is au.wikipedia.org, I do not think there would be such issues).  Could there be a WikiProject Australia editor who is living in the same district as Hamence, and might be able to take a free photo of the old legend?  Jappalang (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed but anyway can you read PD-Australia again? I think it does actually say "created in Australia"; I presume that means photo taken and not where the picture was exposed to silver bromide and all that  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The case is confusing enough (I ran into Brianboulton's case of an Australian photographer who published a book in both UK and US; thankfully the US book is considered to be published first. If it had to contend with UK laws, there would be complications), so I brought it up at commons:Commons:Village pump.  Jappalang (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bill Brown (cricketer)
Hi. You might want to check this out. I noticed there's a flagged ref problem for ref name=sched38. Also I couldn't find the details for ref name=o. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

User Shshshsh
Hi. Of late I've been trying my best to improve the Kareena Kapoor article. However it seems User:Shshshsh cannot accept an inuse tag and will continue to revert my attempts to improve the article by his condescending manner that "he knows for about her than I do". It seems my concerns about this user which I discussed with you several months ago I am now directly faced with myself, the serious problem for Indian cinema articles on here which will never improve while this editor is around spending every day of his life guarding them and preventing development. I'll admit that he does a lot of good work reverting bad unreferenced material, my concern is that he reverts even referenced edits which try to fill in why a performance was bad etc. I don't know what to do with him, I once considered him a friend and have spent many hours helping him, nowadays I just don't know what to do with him. He makes life incredibly tough for anybody wanting to gneuinely improve articles and biether allows them five minutes alone to try to expand them before he is reverting them in the middle of beuing edited. Discussion with this individual is impossible given that he ALWAYS addresses Bollywood articles on here from his own viewpoint and what or what he considers important or non-important in an article. He professes that his main goal on here is to treat articles neutrally but the fact is a lot of the decisions he makes is based on his own view of what is acceptable, rather than the interest and view of people from other parts of the world and from a neutral encyclopedia view on the topic. How can I even try to improve an article when this disruptive editor who believes he is acting in good faith spends his life guarding these articles with lock and bolt?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think inuse is worth worrying about. It is just a housekeeping thing, not a something to be interpreted as welcome/not welcome. I see he removed the bit about a bad film and then there were a few rollbacks back and forth. That is nota good idea as rollback is universally interpreted as being a sign of contempt. It is supposed to be used agaomst vandals/spam and on mass reversions of errors/mishaps across many articles but people also use it against people they consider to be troublemakers, SPA pov-pushers, pov-pushing supporters of cults and terrorists etc. So I don't think using against other people is a good idea unless you want to convey your anger to them.  YellowMonkey   ( cricket calendar poll! '') 05:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Bln, I did not revert him at all. I modified his additions (please check the revisions. I just removed one thing he added: too detailed mention of Yaadein, which was a very non-notable film. I called Blofeld to discuss this on the talk page, but he was just rollbacking me as if I was a vandal. Even the message I wrote him was rollbacked. And that's Blofeld who calls me now POV-pusher, while he was the one to praise and award me for my neutrality. I'm gone, wish you all the best. I can't tolerate this any longer. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  16:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well you removed the criticism of the film and then there were a few reverts in/out over the info. Yes I noticed he used rollback first, but sometimes small things can unnecessarily develop into a sequence of rollbacks and it will annoy/insult people. I'm sure he knows the rules so telling him about them isn't usually appreciated by the recipient and is seen as finger-wagging usually. I suppose he didn't appreciate that piece of info being deleted and perhaps he took it as a criticism of his judgment over whether the info was notable, but I think an inquiry about whether its status or a manual rv with rationale was better; otherwise people will interpret the lack of rationale as regarding the edits as deliberate pov-pushing, rather than good-faith differences over the appropriateness of the info.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As for some of the comments here, I think people are saying too many things in anger needlessly and taking it seriously, about being POV-pushers and disrupters, I think a survey of the other Indians will show otherwise. You've had too many good times together. This is silly.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! '') 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that Shahid is violating WP:OWN on a daily basis, this is his daily course of editing in a nutshell I'm sorry to say. Note the patronising tone on "OK I'll add it for you. When Rahul comes back we'll discuss." this would seemingly go against the very spirit of wikipedia and freedom to edit. This would seem to demonstrate ownership profoundly. I rollbacked as I had placed a Template:Inuse tag on the article but you went ahead and edited it anyway when it explicitly states not to. I know you are doing your best to keep the article neutral Shahid I'm not disputing this, rather it is the way you make quick judgements about even the most minor of edits which don't violate any of our policies and don't stop to consider how the new content may be useful to anybody else. Whther you only modifed the additions or not you guard these article so closely that I hardly had a few minutes to edit the article (and condense the section I was writing). Two minutes after I added the inuse tag I was reverted. I wasn't permitted two minutes to write and work on anything. Far too close for comfort. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Me? Own? On a daily basis? What a cruel and unjustified accusation. Please go and see what I do on a daily basis. See what I did for the last few days: I reverted vandalism and expanded some award page. Is it a sign of ownership? Maybe this or this or this, and if we come to the Kareena Kapoor (which I edit for Rahul, I'm not at all a fan of the subject), maybe this is a sign of ownership????
 * Now go and see the changes from the time I came till the last edit and how much it changed.
 * I did not revert even one edit of yours. If you say it again, then add diffs. I modified. If you can cite a full revert, then I'll apologise. I was editing according to what I know of the subject and trust me, I'm quite familiar with the subject. I asked you to discuss it with me and I was reverted on your talk page.
 * Blofeld's work is great, and I always acknoledged his willingness to work on Bollywood pages, but he often looks for sources and then adds huge blocks of quotes and information, most of which is unnecessary and irrlevant. My modifications, which are not major, were intended to help him.
 * I'm gone, wish you all the best. I can't tolerate this any longer. Chao Wikipedia! Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Which I edit for Rahul," this is exactly what I am referring to. As if the article is "his".Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think people are saying too much in anger, as above, and reading too much because there is a dispute. Everyone says "my FA" or "I wrote 15 FAs" because they wrote the content to it, most FAs/any articles are basically written by one person, not that they are telling articles to ward off.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If Shshshsh aka Shahid really has left Wikipedia it is irrelevant, but I cannot resist giving the following quotes, which are edit summaries written by Shshshsh: (1) Reverted edits by Dr. Blofeld (talk) to last version by DYKadminBot (2) Reverted edits by Dr. Blofeld (talk) to last version by Shshshsh. After that Shshshsh can write "I did not revert even one edit of yours"????(JamesBWatson)


 * I can see, I'm not blind. Stop piling on in this negative manner  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! )

OK this is a rather long paragraph testament to how much I care about Shshshsh. It's not so much the revert of the award table I added (he completely removed it) and the others, it was the removal of the entire sentences I was working on withint two minutes after I added the inuse tag that he reverted me several times whilst this tag was being displayed. Now correct me if I am wrong but when an editor adds a Template:Inuse to an article as a courtesy and respect to other editors you leave the editor working on the article to finish working on it before you edit it. I clearly added the note that I was in the middle of fixing that new part I added to read more concisely yet he could not bear for the article to be slightly altered for two minutes. This is exactly why we have this tag in addition to Template:Underconstruction. If you check the eediting history of User:Shshshsh breaching of WP:OWN is clearly existant on a daily basis evne if a lot of his edits are good ones and some of his reverts are greatly needs, especially anon vandalism. But anytime anybody tries to discuss this with him he snaps or takes rash action such as reporting an editor to ANI or says "I'm leaving wikipedia". His reference to "which I edit for Rahul" again illustrates to me that he is under the belief that the article is somehow Rahul's and not public property for the world to share (and try to improve). This is completely against the spirit of wikipedia with the freedom of anybody to edit. this is is not in the spirit of wikipedia, patronising, bossy and self-righteous "I think I know of the subject much more than you do." means I'm not qualified to even try to edit this article and therefore his reverts are justified, now look at WPOWN and tell me this isn't exactly what he does. "An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the article necessary to edit it."

As a neutral "westerner" who is not as knowledgeable about Bollywood as Shahid, to me it looks as if a lot of these Bollywood articles are very selective in what they include. For instance if a film of an actress didn't fare too well at the box office or it was a shoddy performance this is somehow considered "non notable film not worthy of saying why it did badly". The fact is that this was STILL a mainstream film or two that the actress appeared in and given that it was her first real failure to me the casual reader I want to know why. Yet the two films were dismissed as non notable and shouldn't be discusedd yet her later performances which are a great success are covered in detail. This is what I mean about seeing things from a neutral perspective it really does look like cherry picking. OK the film was a disater and her role wasn't that "prominent" but for comprehension sake and neutrality I don't see why having a sentence or two to discuss this failure in the content is completely irrelevant. It wasn't a cameo role or something. I agree that is doesn't need discussing in detail but I thought by working on it I would help improve the overall balance of the article, avoid short sentences and help the article on its way. However much Shahid claims to have retired both he and I know that neither of us have any bad faith towards this article or any, rather a conflict in how it is edited and it is a very peculiar way for Shahid to deal with the situation and throw his whole editing presence on here away over this. I am still very fond of this editor even though it is obviously not apparent to himself. I just think its time this constant guarding of these Bollywood articles by ANY editor has to stop and I'm not afraid to make this clear.

However much Shahid is doing a good job with protecting them it is still seriously preventing some of them from becoming any better. Wikipedia has got to where it is now by people being given a chance to edit. I remember I had the same trouble over the Casino Royale FA. When I started to work on the article I had practically every edit reverted by Alientraveller who was guilty of the same WP:OWN. Only when he backed off did the article begin to improve and eventually it was promoted to FA. Often one may add bad things in way to making something better. It is all on the path towards improvement if done in good faith. The articles need to be open to editors who are genuinely trying to improved them with referenced material that's all I'm saying. Later then they can be copy edited and cut down. All I ask for is a good two weeks on it, not two minutes. This conflict and rather rash decision by Shahid could have been completely avoided him he had left it until later to "review" the additions and then pointed out to me I wish he could work together with people as a team rather than seemingly opposing virtually all edits people make to these articles.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I know how much the two editors respect one another. Hopefully, this will blow over, but at the moment tempers are a bit frayed over something that was a small thing and people are microanalysing everything for hints of bad attitude as though they are reading Nostradamus to see if some disaster will happen tomoroow  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Solar System FA
Hi, I nominated Solar System FA. Does your alternate, YellowAssesmentMonkey, assess or just do a head count? As you may surmise, I think it still falls short of FA status :) Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it checks the article. I can see one article with a majority of keeps that is not up to standrad  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you have a different idea of what a summary of the important aspects of the subject is for WP:Lead! I think it clearly fails on:

I made many points to support this view, none of which was answered in the FA, except to nay say them without reason. I am very surprised you do not see these faults with the lead. This is obviously not the place to have another discussion on this, but I would appreciate an elucidation of your thinking, on these two points only, to help me understand your estimation of this article. Cheers :) HarryAlffa (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Over specific detail - the lead practically list the grains of dust in orbit!
 * in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text - comets are well described in the article but are as prominent in the lead as the ecliptic plane which is only two short sentences in the article - a fault in itself.
 * Your first point is very misleading  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And my second point?
 * I was certainly exaggerating for emphasis, the exclamation mark was there to indicate this. I also wanted to be brief, but if you need exacting descriptions ... The lead names the terrestrial planets and what they are made of, it names the Gas Giant planets and what they are made of, it names the five dwarf planets and describes them as individual objects rounded by their own gravity. It describes; the asteroid belt and what asteroids are made of; Kuiper belt and scattered disc (unsupportedly claimed as a sub-population of the Kuiper belt) and even lists the different ices they are composed of. It names the Oort cloud for long-period comets, then lists comets, centaurs and interplanetary dust (so my exclamation mark wasn't indicating much of an exaggeration) as orbiting the Sun. Then indicates plasma, solar wind and the bubble in the interstellar medium called the heliosphere. Finally it mentions moons and the rings of dust around the outer planets. Off the top of my head I don't think it misses out a single ingredient of the Solar System, except Jupiter Trojans.
 * If none of this is over specific detail, I'd hate to see someone write a lead that was overspecific! I mean planetary rings in the lead!!?! HarryAlffa (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Request
Bln, please delete my userpage and talk page. Thanks for everything. Bye, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I've tried to reason with him here but I had my message removed. Are you here today Yellow Monkey?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to intrude but I honestly don't know what result you're expecting from carrying this dispute onto YM's talk page. The last time I worked with you two, you were working harmoniously and I recall your bringing an article up to FA status. Perhaps my memory fails me. If the user is retiring, it's all a moot point. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Which I'd hoped to do again but in a way we can work together without stepping on each other's toes. Discussing it here brings the issue to light over the reverting on many articles to light, given that Yellow Monkey also watches a lot of these articles even if he is neutral or unwilling to comment in this discussion which I understand. Thats exactly how I'd rather edit, harmoniously and still remain on good terms with Shahid (and) work with him to promote the article on Kareena Kapoor but to be able to do so in a situation where one can edit an article for a few hours and then discuss changes afterwards to avoid editing conflicts and edit warring.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC).


 * I think people are reading too much into a dispute over a pieice of content and a convenience tag, which is not even at the level of pov/OR tags which malign an article. I think perhaps a look over at Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar and Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2 might be useful to keep a bit of perspective; I chose that as it pertains to Indian content matter, it was mostly about ethnic/religious riots and all that.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. All I ask for is for him to back off when another editor is at work thats all. It is not just a concern over that one article it is a concern over the way he seems to indicate he owns these articles. Sorry but when an editor adds an inuse tag it is more than just housekeeping YM. Other editors I know respect it and leave the article until the other editor has finished. What prompted me to use rollback because it was extremely annoying to have added the inuse tag and in the middle of writing the article and having what I was trying to do removed back to square one by Shahid and geting me confused over where I was. The ball is on his court, none of us want him to leave. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

help
well i find you to be member of wiki-military project and you yourself says that articals about military in subcontinent are joke.so why dont you try to correct them because when i try to correct those some stupid wiki-adminstrator doesnt allow me to by saying those lines carry referances it doesnt matter to them wheather those referances are neutral or from enemy nation's based websites. I believe you can help in this because its not those articals which are joke but its whole wikipedia which is a joke by allow such things(allowing non-neutral referances) to happen.(Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Firstly, most of the leaders of the wikiproject aren't too bothered by POV, nor the self-proclaimed leadership of Wikipedia, they don't care about anything really except publicity stunts. Firstly I don't know about these events in Indian history in specific detail but enough to know of specific editors who do nothing except post rubbish. If you want help then you can ask me here. Yes Wikipedia history articles are a joke. I would not believe any Wikipedia history article written by an Asian, frankly.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know some arbitrators who think that LTTE mouthpieces are RS. It's a farce really. All you have to do is wiki-procreate and get the more people on your ethnic side and you can put any old thing in there. There are a lot of LTTE guys out there training up their friends to come here and push POV. Sometimes there are 10 guys from teh same city and they all know the rules and how to bend and selectively quote them as soon as they arrive.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 00:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GAs
You delisted Attacks at Fort Blue Mounds and Australia and the American Civil War, but I can't see any evidence that either has been reviewd lately.--Grahame (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry a mistake. Corrected  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. Your delisting of Talk:Joseph Maxwell and Talk:Military history of Australia during World War II were wrong. Please check your edits.--Oneiros (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't delisted it. At WP:AWNB we had an agreement that WP:AUS would accept As from WP:MILHIST on Australian MILHIST articles.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 06:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. Military history of Australia during World War II passed a GA review - why doesn't WP:MILHIST accept that?--Oneiros (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They do accept it, so does AUS. I haven't removed the list as a GA, that is independent of wikiprojects. All I'm saying is that is AUS is happy to accept MILHIST ACRs in its grading scheme. A-class articles can also be GA, nothing has changed  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 07:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All right - I'm thoroughly confused. I though A is "lower" than GA, while it's "higher". Sorry for the noise. :-)--Oneiros (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I did reconsider. I think it's not worth it. I may still be shocked that someone came to "report" me with this big "user shshshsh" title, but I'm happy with what I did and achieved, and several people hava appreciated my work. The fact that some individual accuses me of something cannot really affect me. I read the article now. It reminds me at times a magazine, at times a good article. There are many redundancies, many irrelevant details, though I'd be a hypocrite if I said I don't appreciate the efforst of the editor. I presented my concern regarding the addition of several redundant details. There are many more, but anyway. I thank you for the message and for the help you've always given. Best regards, Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  17:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume you are back. That's good  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh so it's out now, OK. Yes the Wadia article was deleted and I tried to expand it, and Dr.Blofeld added more details and sent it to DYK. I've heard Zinta and Wadia are no longer dating. Quite a gossip but I'm waiting for her to confirm this. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  11:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Confirm it to you personally???? hmmm how will that go with two split up people co-owning and trying to run a cricket team, especially if they argue over who to buy?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what they say. "Never mix business with pleasure". Dr. Blofeld       White cat 12:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you semi-protect Battle of the Somme again?
Could you semi-protect Battle of the Somme again? Someone unprotected it a while back. It must be that time of year when the school kids study it with the inevitable consequences. It's getting to the point where nearly all the edits are vandalism and reverts. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
Ah, just noticed that there was a copyvio of Amla competing! now DSQed! Oh and a few NE Adelaid suburbs have a crappy monkey photos in them now  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Twas a shame - was a nice copyvio picture. I saw those NE photos...they're not so crappy - looks like you took photos out of a car window on a drive through the suburbs. I think that the time on your camera is set wrongly ! - Peripitus (Talk) 02:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A pile from Cricinfo. I guess that means there is now 100% chance that my photo will stay. Yes they were all car photos on a drive across GJ Road up to Gumeracha. A bit ridiculous really, mostly just some visual verbiage to liven things up.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 03:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A kind note
I just wanted to send you a kind note that I have appreciated all that you have done for Wikipedia editorially, internally (arb... et al), and in times as a public face for our project. You did me the benefit of nominating me for adminship nearly three years ago, as well as many others, and I have grown as a person from experience here in knowledge of things, law, interpersonal communication skills, politics, and many other relevant things. These are things that have helped me in advancing my career and my relationship with people. You are a direct participant in that. And you still have a nice signature.

Keegan talk 04:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 01:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)