User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive138

Advice requested
Hi YellowMonkey,

I accidently ran accross the FA Francis Petre, a lengthy article passed in April 2005. It has only two footnotes (and one dead one), at least two uncited quotations, and rest of article has no inline citations at all and does not pass 1c, even before 1c was beefed up. Would it be considered "disruptive" of me, considering the major author? What is your opinion? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the reaction of the major author would not be hard to guess. In cases where there is a history it might be just easier to wait for someone else to nominate it. If they don't, eventually WP:URFA will be left with only old FAs by a handful of people, which might be interesting.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it would. However, Francis Petre was reviewd⋅at the time Featured article candidates/Francis Petre. Pehhaps you can put it on your "to do" list. Regard, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion. There's a scant couple of dozen FAs left in this Cat. I have a suggestion that a) takes personalities out of the equation b) will stimulate more interest in FA / FAR work and c) might "save" more of these articles.

I propose that you schedule and publish a long-range programme of FAR assessment of old articles, taking them in chronological order (oldest successful nom first). Taking two articles per month (starting on 1st and 15th of the month), properly flagged up in the Signpost and with notices to creators/primary editors/WikiProjects etc, it will give sufficient advance-warning to people who care about them to organise themselves to improve them and maybe we'll save a higher proportion of them. Simple maths tells me it'd take about a year to do the job.

This can run parallel with the normal workings of FARC or in place of them, as you like. I'd suggest the latter, as it's worth concentrating resources on. At the end of the year, you could revert to the way things are now, or you might decide as it goes along that it's worth continuing this basis for FARC, as it improves on the current system in reducing drama and increasing collaborative working to improve old FAs.

As I see it, the big problem with old FAs is that they do not currently espouse the highest standards of Wikipedia and some bring the bronze star into disrepute. This is not just because they didn't then pass the high standards we have now, but far more importantly because of the years of unchecked edits that have taken place since passing.

Anyway, I leave it to you. --Dweller (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that although I think people might complain about having an automatic death sentence. Still, we'll need about 20 per month automatically to keep even and more to eliminate the backlog already  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the end, you just have to nag and nag. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Dweller's notion of scheduling automatic reassessment of older FAs. There is already of a page of articles that may need review, and that page allows editors to peruse for those most in need, and will take a while to get through.  Further, there are many older FAs that are regularly maintained, so scheduling reviews would be an unnecessary waste of time and resources.  For example, Tourette syndrome was featured in late 2006, and it is better today than when featured.  Similar for autism and Asperger syndrome; running them through FAR on an automated schedule would be a time sink, particularly when we do have a list that already encompasses 10% of our FAs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Having read Geogre's statement, it seems that FAR has been used, or at least is capable of being used for score-settling currently, which is BAD. Some kind of automation of the process would be demonstrably fair and would pick up linkrot etc. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be but I am well aware of everyone's general traits, so if they suddenly voted out of character I would know. It's pretty obvious. I'll ignore it. eg see Featured article review/Kazi Nazrul Islam, is happy with only 50% referencing and all manner of grammar errors and peacock words and POV, then he goes and does Featured article review/Harbhajan Singh and says that every sentence is wrong and bad prose even though it was done by ALoan. I also know which guys always do auto-support votes for their mates. I'm not  shrewd at all but I never take a politics at face value. I've seen too much, even from some admins who sponsored some guys to revert for them and then tried to ban them later, the way secret agents nail people. I think crats should take it into account on RFA too, I can think of some examples where about 50 anomalous bloc-opposes came up and sunk a RFA, especially when the official reason they gave was completely inconsistent with their general patterns, and the real reason was a payback for a criticism by the candidate. If you were referring to Geogre's allegation that Mattisse FARed his article 4 times, I don't see any record of that on the GimmeBot record. I don't see even one FAR. You should also read the FAR archives from 2007 to see the fighting back then, some of the FARs in those days were politicised with 30 voters being mobilised. There is even one WikiProject that has 100% support for all of its FACs/FARs of all time, and all of these were 1-liners, and some others only participate in their friends' FAC/FARs and just auto-support regardless of quality.  YellowMonkey   ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still even with a mechanical trigger you would have to get people to stand up and say "this is not good enough". At FAC or FAR I am sure that even with no overt intimidation, a reviewer may just assume that they will get a payback for opposing a powerful user, whether this fear is well-founded or not.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dweller's statement above about FAR perhaps being used for score settling, and I'm sorry that ArbCom didn't put an end to that. If Giano's articles are so badly in need of FAR, why doesn't Mattisse stand aside and let someone else submit them?
 * Well some of the decisions made by the political elites of Wikipedia are a lot more nepotistic than anything that happens at FAC/FAR by anybody. Sometimes a leading person who should know better, including board members, support their chat buddies at RFA and even say that their mates are "one of the best" of Wikipedia when they have written a few stubs. If they do that as board members, soon they'll pick Eric the Eel in their swimming team ahead of Michael Phelps. A lot of important people are like that. FAC/FAR is relatively clean, regardless of the few debates that cause bad blood. Luckily most political users regard FAC/FAR as a snobbery and stay away, if they came, it could easily descend into ANI style junk and a famous person could get 100-20 support on a one-liner. Even see the Torchic and Bulbasaur passes of old. Hopefully the one liner won't pass. In any case, I think in some cases of FACs, people will not bite if the nominator is a powerful warlord. Easier to just let the odd bad articles pass through FAC than get harassed.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've nominated an FA for review for reasons similar to that of why Giano's are nominated before, and received a pretty bad reception. The attitudes of certain editors toward people nominating "their" articles for FAR are off-putting to any editor. When Mattisse has nominated such articles for FAR in the past, however, that just makes things worse as it turns from a content issue into flame warring over personal issues. All in my humble, rather blunt opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think we should be put off my old-timers who regard any questioning of their articles as vandalism.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your presence has made a huge difference at FAR. And again, I thank you. You set a constructive tone. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

KJ
This suggests he continued in cricket administration at perhaps a local level, unless it's sloppy journalism? --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I trust Haigh, Frith, Derriman and Wisden more. Newspapers are often debunked  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It also called Johnson a [ 69 year old ] sportsman so I am a bit sceptical. Nobody calls Lalit Modi a sportsman!  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shame. I spent quite a bit of time trawling and that was the best I could do. :-( A mutual friend of ours, by the way, suggests the following: "the editor of Wisden 1948 says 'Besides the influence of Bradman, the firm yet happy way of Keith Johnson, the manager, acted as a powerful incentive for all the Australian side to concentrate on the great objective of the tour, to retain The Ashes and to win every match or to avoid defeat. By so doing they increased their obvious enjoyment of playing the game.' - http://www.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/152893.html" Good luck with the FAC. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Interview
Hokay, the interview will take place in my workspace here. I'll be posting a series of questions related to FAR for you to answer. The next two Signpost issues will be published on August 10th and 17th, so we'll try to get a good solid interview ready for one of those two dates. Thanks mate! (sorry for the duplicate post, wasn't sure you would see the other one) --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I notcied but there wasn't a question to answer  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Sentence revise
Hi YellowMonkey, I wanted to know if you could help me revise a sentence, look here at the last four paragraphs, it'll explain the sentence I'm talking about. Thanx! ATC. Talk 03:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I can chalk everything up to us not seeing eye to eye, but...
...12 hours a day? How in the hell are you getting that figure? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

the deal
Is the deal that you can't archive pages, that Raul has to do it? As the FAR page is quite long. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * YM can't archive FARs that he has nominated or to which he has significantly contributed (on the articles). Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether Raul intends to be away for a while. Normally he only adds in about four new TFAs at a time, but he added in a whole fortnight before disappearing. I suppose I could just go rouge and archive them anyway, and just claim an emergency, but I won't. I don't think there is much of a backlog in most FARs because there is nothing to say (in a lot of them). The "finished" ones are just waiting there for the formalities.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Nishkid could become a good delegate. Also seems interested.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WEll you can comment on WT:FAR  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Could, but I doubt anyone would give a rats about what comes out my peanut gallery. Don't have much to say anyway :P.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has a say  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the rules will be changed. It seems stupid to me. People unfamiliar with the process will add more than one and there are bound to be some who deliberately break the rules.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's going to be a joke anyway, with lots of FAs being worse than GA and all this other nonsense. Lots of people think their stamping ground is really good quality and appear to neglect not so good things in their purview. A lot of projects think that only other projects do votestacking or have lots of bad articles with undeservedly high ratings and whatnot  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maleabroad sock?
User:UkFaith is using the Buddhism article to advance a certain pro-Hindu POV. He then deletes massive amounts of content and makes incoherent excuses. This could be a sock of Maleabroad. Mitsube (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless he's moved across the ocean, it isn't him.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. Mitsube (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

in case you unwatched...
I rephrased on my talk. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed. This is a farce. Half the FAs will be worse than GA soon  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR
Hi YM, i've copyedited FAR instructions to remove some negativity. i'll try and participate in debate. Tom B (talk)

DYK for John Kah

 * You are admirable ;).--AM (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? Good to see you back  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you got so many DYK templates ;). By the way, thank for the greeting.--AM (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 17 August 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
 * Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
 * News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Geelong and cricket
Nah Geelong have had it. Doing an Essendon of 2001. Don't need to worry about Collingwood as the've won one premiership since the 1950's. WB haven't done any better. Next there will be calls for Mark Thompsons head. Aussies won easily although Broad and Swanny had a bit of fun at the end.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also know the ABC article says Ponting is Hilfy's cousin but I'm sceptical as I've never heard that before. You would think I would have heard it, especially down here where anyone who plays international cricket is a cult hero. I'm thinking a Sydney/Melbourne journo has taken 'all Tasmanians are related' literally.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, those short profile type pages are often wrong. I can't find any other lengthy news article agreeing...  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ponting's profile on cricinfo only says he's related to Greg Campbell.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Does cricinfo list cousins. If they do, Majid Khan and Imran Khan shoudl be connected (can't get CI atm). But I can't think of any other confirmed exampels of second cousins to compare  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep cricnfo does list M Khan as Imrans cousin.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on DW Stadium, teh 'Wigan Athletic F.C' and 'Wigan Warriors' logos should be removed from the history text under free-use or something?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you were onto it quickly :) I couldn't find the image in the text... silly me.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No :) Thanks for picking that up. Stats apply from '1987'! lol Also only edited by Richie. But libraries use him as the author so I though I would too.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know if Cricinfo Blogs are an unreliable source?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are reliable because the writers are staff anyway and CI controls it. Although a more scholarly alternative is preferred  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Water
The article has forty one references. I don't know why you say that it isn't.--Launchballer (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, some sections don't have any inline citations directly linking them to a reference. People will complain about it  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ponting etc

 * Thanks for your edits. I was intending to expand this morning but got caught of with other stuff. Started writing about his early career on Saturday and was going to go over it this weekend.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding off teh top of my head, so you should check sources. It's one of the few things I can do without a source in front of me  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will but his career is so long it will take a while to go through it. The Gilly art for example isn't very comprehensive and misses key info.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I should have maintained my oppose on the Gilly FAC, and commented on this at WT:FAR to say that 2007 FAs can fail modern standards already.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh you did oppose it. Don't know anything on here about 07. I was surprised it was FA when I read it. Even missed obvious points but didn't feel comfortable changing it back then.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But then I withdrew, especially the 01-03 period was very skinny, and he was at his peak then.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just checked out the review. Looks like before you commented it was even worse.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The info about the breakup of the ODI partnership with MEW is still not there. Very important IMO as the rotation of ACG, MLH and MEW in 2001-02 was one of the reasons the team stuffed up.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 09:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ponting might be very long with all his controversial captaincy decisions. There is now a lot of stuff about Ponting v Harbhajan and Ponting supporting Symonds among other things. Might Will need a fork Bradman style.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep agree. Might need to start a Ponting v Harbhajan article. Once Ponting retires and writes his auto there will be enough to write about his early life to start a new article. Although then some American folk will get on their high horses. I don't know of any player V player articles on cricket players although there are some on Tennis rivals.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We could use the Miller and Lindwall articles to farm a pile about M/L v Compton/Hutton. Or Bedser v Morris. The McHarg book on Morris has about 10 pages devoted to analysing the stats and personalities of Bedser/Morris, not to mention the other descriptions of the individual matches. Some bowling combos like Harbhajan/Kumble, McGrath/Warne, Laker/Lock, Miller/Lindwall, Davidson/Benaud, Grimmett/O'Reilly could do with their own. The Indian spin quartet and Bodyline are the only ones on cricket. There are a few of them around on some US football combos.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 09:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof he actually wrote the later ones? Lehmann's autobio doesn't list a ghostwriter as a coauthor "with" etc, but on the preface, he does profusely thank a certain journalist for spending a lot of time helping him, which might be a tacit admission of ghostwriting. Do the later Ponting ones with no explicit coauthor have any hints in the thankyous that someone else wrote it? Keith Miller's autobio only credited himself explicitly, but it was ghostwritten,  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes just checked in 07 and 08 where it just says Ponting on the cover, Geoff Armstrong got a thankyou.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Armstrong wrote it....I remember in an ABC Grandstand interview maybe after the 2007 WC he did he say that he "jotted down" a few dot points and worked with a helper.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 09:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine Ponting being smart enough. Unlike Waugh and co.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 09:10, 13 August 2009

(UTC) Go ahead with Gilly an O'Reilly.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, still got Bradman to do, and revive The Ashes (delisted FA) and a whole truckload User:YellowMonkey/FAR preemption  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And then the Australian one's: Australia, Canberra and Central Coast Mariners (didn't know it was a FA). List goes on. :)  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just like F1 really. A Ferrari model of car that wins in one year (and costs 800 million) will already be slower than the Minardi (60 million) 18 months later....  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 07:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bet you thorpey wouldn't have been as good as your last FA.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thorpey and Bhajji were pretty amateurish, although they were fully cited everywhere  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seem good now. Haven't read Bhajji btw. I know where you're coming from as I'm at that stage now. Slowly improving, and I'm not one to know MOS like the back of my hand.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pakistani bowlers would also probably need an article in the future. No point creating stubs though. As the editors at AFD will have a field day. Even Langer/Hayden but let's go one at a time.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * are you talking about W/W combo articles?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes,  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 04:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Geelong are the only team with exceptable articles. 05:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Collingwood articles seem really bad and really crufty. I have a look at them (on TV) sometimes because I went to school with Cameron Wood and used to play (no rules) tennis-ball soccer with him at lunchtimes with a few other friends.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wood's rucking now Fraser's out. WP AFL is really a mess. I suppose there are so many articles but still..  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi YellowMonkey, I'm sorry to disturb you again, but could help me revise one more sentence in the plot section for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie:

The film is shot in the format of a documentary, with cameras that follow the siblings' through their stage performances and private lives, whilst managing adolescent exploits that consists of having smooth relationships with the other members in the group, such as disputes, crushes, and superstardom. ATC. Talk 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Protection is definitely needed. Thanks for responding so quickly, YM. Regards. --Jack | talk page 06:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pleaseure  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sahlomee
YM, I appreciate your block of, but would it be too much trouble for you to leave a block notice on his talk page and chime in at the ANI thread: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. -MBK004 06:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 08:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Le Van Duyet and Dao Duy Tu
''Can you check the thing going to Phu Quoc in 1777? Thanks for starting the article, he must have been one of the most famous Vietnamese people to not have a biography yet, Dao Duy Tu and Truong Vinh Ky are the other two that come to mind, although there are probably many other famous ones that I can't remember. Unfortunately, English language books are only follow VN from Gia Long onwards, and even then not much until the 1850s. We really need more people from inside VN editing who have info not eh pre-Gia Long days ....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do high school students in VN still have to learn about Dao Duy Tu's poems and such. In my parents' day it was, and they can still memorise the famous poem about trầu where the Trinh used a covert metaphorical song? to try and woo DDT back after he went south and he replied with that poem about betel and marriage so that the Nguyen wouldn't know that he was talking with the enemy.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed it, this was another attack in 1782 (the time of Chau Van Tiep) not the 1777 attack. I misremembered it. The article Le Van Duyet need some additions in the section "#Mandarin of Nguyen dynasty" from the book of Korean historian Wook, this book has so many information which I couldn't summarize well, please do if you have time. I will try my best to write more Vietnam-related biographical articles.
 * Sure. Did I also email you the McLeod book? That is in a cut and pastable format, which makes things easy and there is a lot in there.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will try to use this one. Thank for your direction.--AM (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was in high school, there was no Dao Duy Tu's poems. The reason is that the current government doesn't favor Nguyen lords and Nguyen dynasty (just because they were ancestors of Gia Long) and so do followers of Nguyen lords and mandarins of Nguyen dynasty. This attitude has changed a bit in recent times but has not affected the textbook's contents yet.--AM (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh of course, the VCP is scathing on the Nguyen. On that note there should probably be soemthing about how communist and Catholic historians view Duyet differently. I guess after 1975, all Le Van Duyet Streets everywhere were renamed, like the one in central Saigon. And he isn't on the bank notes anymore.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only Le Van Duyet, all streets which were named after Nguyen Anh's followers (Vo Duy Nguy, Hoang Tu Canh, Chau Van Tiep, Vo Tanh ...) and a lot (no all) of Nguyen mandarins/princes/rulers, were renamed. Recently, some of these name have been restored (lord Nguyen Phuc Tan, Nguyen Phuc Nguyen. And I wonder is there more.--AM (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from Truong Dinh and Phan Dinh Phung probably all gone. Do the people know that the VCP have a grudge against the Nguyen when they read the books?  YellowMonkey  (User_talk:YellowMonkey bananabucket! ) 05:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do but only a few. The first group is people of northernmost rural area where the people still remember Gia Long's and his followers' activities in southern Vietnam and the second group is people who read too much like me ;). I discovered this "prejudice" policy when I read the book Viet Nam Su Luoc of Tran Trong Kim and then I try to read a lot other same-subject book in my university's library. Surprisingly, even recent historians are permitted to write about Gia Long/Nguyens completely differently from the textbook. But, unfortunately, these books are not so popular :|.--AM (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also Badagnani got banned for a month.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 05:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew it. His user contribution page is one of the things I checked right after I signed in.--AM (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Finished with the McLeod bit. wrote most of the Pigneau, Le Van Khoi stuff, so you might want to get him involved with the Gia Long related stuff. I had a disagreement with him in 2007 he probably is still not happy about it.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 06:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will check his articles out.--AM (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And thank you very much for your help. :D--AM (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nine Holy Canons of Gia Long. What are they??  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) After becoming the Emperor of Vietnam, Gia Long had all Tay Son weapons, which Nguyen army captured, melted into bronze and then he made the nine cannons from these bronze. These cannons have never been used for firing :P.--AM (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh ok. Yeah, there are no English sources on historic Vietnamese architecture like the One Pillar Pagoda and the Citadel of Hue, unfortunately  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FA quality
Hi YellowMonkey. Regarding the discussion on the FAR talk, I have a question. If I'm understanding things right, you're concerned that FA quality is declining (worse than GAs, etc.) and that FAR throughput should increase to offset that. But what is the statistical basis of that concern? Even if we assumed that every unreviewed FA prior to mid-'06 were in bad shape (which isn't actually the case), they still only amount to 10% of the total. Or is that you think the criteria have changed enough that even the '07 and '08 noms also don't make the cut? Marskell (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No I meant that the criteria have either risen, or have been enforced more rigorously in recent times, meaning that a lot of current 2007 FAs would struggle substantially if they were at FAC now. For example, RS was previously not checked before 2008. The high-quality sources thing has been implemented. Also, with more people around, deficiencies might be more readily spotted, Lake Burley Griffin, Cane toad and Australia at the Winter Olympics were recently at FAR and there were a lot of comprehensiveness issues spotted. I don't think the criteria there has ever changed but I think the enforcement or enforcement ability has increased. Also, in the list of the 2006 passes, you can already see that a lot of late articles have been delisted, and a lot of them unanimously and not overseen by me either  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is if the "FA" status can be counted upon to confer a specific level of quality, or is it a loose designation that is, more or less, inherited from the past and does not guarantee anything. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at lot, at the moment, as far as articles from different years go. Most new GAs, as long as they're reasonably comprehensive, are better than 2006 FAs. If anyone thinks that Cane toad or Australia at the Winter Olympics, written in 2006, were better than GA standard before they were at FA, then they are kidding themselves. The spread in GAs is less than in FAs, notwithstanding those ones that already clear WIAFA but haven't been sent there yet, like the Awadewit ones. In any case the promotion system could end up resulting in meaningless things like communist war medals.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen pretty good MilHist GAs, although they also have the benefit of A-class reviews. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, it seems that that GA is more uniform in quality, but they have a much more flexible (and less entrenched editors) than FAC. No "class system" at GAN. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(o/d) If you honestly think that the cut off for problematic FAs is now '07/'08 rather than mid-'06 then I suggest a different process method, such as returning the FARC-style vote. This was something briefly discussed last year. Expecting the current system, which was meant to grant extra time and remain focused on keeps, to process an extra 800 or so is not realistic. But I think we'd need a fuller audit of '07 promotions to see if they are really sub-par. Marskell (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:YellowMonkey/FAR preemption - Here's something I made up. With the cricket articles, I totally overhauled a lot of my own articles that weren't marked, but in some cases that invovle content issues, perhaps only the peopel in the WikiProject would know if it is comprehensive and whether they are being honest with themselves  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:HMAS Sydney (1934)
I think a run at FA is a little premature... waiting for a month or two until the dust starts to settle on the report and a proper summary of the findings (as opposed to my quick, crude summary of the first two news articles published after the report was released) would be a better option. That said, I am not a major contributer; their opinions on the FAC readiness of the article would hold more weight than mine. -- saberwyn 07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think that this is premature - the article needs more work and the nominator hasn't made any significant contributions to the article in at least the last 6 months. The coverage of her time in the Med, for example, is very sketchy and there's only a few sentences on the events of her final battle. Both could, and should, be expanded. I'd suggest that this FA nomination be closed as it has no reasonable chance of passing. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Closed already  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Emailed
Hi, I need you to find something out for me. I've emailed you. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 20:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * NOted  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Le Van Duyet at DYK
Hi there - can you take a look at your text for this - i haven't commented at TTDYK, but it looks to me that the reference for him being a eunuch isn't at the end of the sentence that makes that claim, which it should be per DYK rules. Also, I found the article hard to read, so i may have missed it, but i didn't notice a claim in the body text (or a ref) for him being "the last viceroy of Nguyen Dynasty". See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's one in the bit about the gravestone that he was a eunuch. Also for the last viceroy, there is a statement saying that Minh Mang abolished the post after he died, but I can rework the sentence.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket '') 02:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were down to me, I'd rework it - it's too hard to work out at present. regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done it.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 03:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)