User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive152

state sponsored terrorism
Pakistan section -this part of the section  does the this WP:POVFORK ? -honestly don't know can u tell me? . is taliban terrorist organistaion ?- if not why is it in section

when i am referring to section i mean the section below from the Pakistan Section

Pakistan is accused of sheltering and training the Taliban in operations "which include soliciting funding for the Taliban, bankrolling Taliban operations, providing diplomatic support as the Taliban's virtual emissaries abroad, arranging training for Taliban fighters, recruiting skilled and unskilled manpower to serve in Taliban armies, planning and directing offensives, providing and facilitating shipments of ammunition and fuel, and on several occasions apparently directly providing combat support," as reported by Human Rights Watch.[49]Mughalnz (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

pakistan section- i agree with the overall section but just some pov bit in the section and it has said to be execesive by regent parksMughalnz (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Mughalnz (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)please reply soon

i have notice u hav not revert changes to this section of pakistan but have done many in india section.

if excessive WP:POVFORK bits ( not entire article )are contnues in the Pakistan then other editors would believe the same can go for the Indian section .U have to be more vigilant in the Pakistan section especially to excessive editors ,i know in the past i been one those editors.

Mughalnz (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Terry Buck

 * Replied  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 01:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

why did you remove israel section and UK section
they were npov( i think )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mughalnz (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were lucky it stayed as long as it did  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

so why were they removed Mughalnz (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat
A new one just popped up. Elockid ( Talk·Contribs ) 22:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo!  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He almost awarded a barnstar to RP today, just before I could revert his post. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  00:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Congrats and Thanks!

 * Thanks for that, and reminding me to keep my formalisms consistent  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pagodas
He just put a suggestion by in Trần Dynasty that "temple" should be used to denote "chùa" instead of "pagoda" while in my opinion, it isn't necessary because almost all documents that I read use the translation "pagoda". That's all. Grenouille vert (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Harbhajan hair.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Harbhajan hair.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Discarded it myself  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Last Invincibles GA
Bumping over the length of the summary style of the Test Matches, and if you've had a chance to fix all the points (you seemed to be responding by section, which I took to indicate you'd fixed all points above the done). Fifelfoo (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm almost done except af ew things I am reluctant to change, eg chopping  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 09:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't agree with chopping.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 09:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like articles fat like Sehwag's Test 100s  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 09:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He's a freak!  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 09:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A ball change lol. Too much hitting  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 09:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm amenable to reasonable argument on lengths. Hell, I'm not a specialist, and it was good reading.  I just found it long as a non-specialist.  And I only asked for discussion not chops :). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied at teh talk page  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 12:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh.. has taking a battering! Won't be surprised if Murali retires ahead of schedule.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 09:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, SL wasted a lot of time with the overrates. Sehwag might have passed Bradman's 309 in a day, although he also seemed to be shutting up shop for another 200 tomorrow maybe  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 12:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of (information) could something like (in England, 1948), (on tour), (Ashes 1948) be used? I forgot to check the score for the game today, and just checked. Sehwag! cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  12:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed out then.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 13:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much to follow really. As Sehwag said, "I just wanted to see the ball and hit the ball." Well, he just did that. Abecedare (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

At Australian cricket team in England in 1948 could have: Donald Bradman (5T, 23FC), with a key explaining whatever abbreviations you pick. This will avoid the need for repeating the same parenthetical term 18 times. Abecedare (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually this makes more sense since they're series articles, the no of games played provides context. I think the youtube highlights for Sehwag's innings should be up soon. But it might be worth getting the real package to just watch him go past Lara! cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  15:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I read that we spell out No. 3 now. This particularly affected tennis and music articles, who just used #3 or #5 instead of number three or number five.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 21:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo started the review on teh first day of the cricket season, maybe he is waiting for a Viru WR to close it??? :)  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe :) He'll get out however. Got his double (I think, maybe 250) by slogging across the line to mid-wicket, courageous.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 22:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your header is incorrect. It lacks a GA icon. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Alt
Too lazy to do my own :P  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the natural thing to do to cut and paste repeated full book citations and alt captions. only problem is if an error is propagated, which happens quite often, as per me somehow concluding that Andre Deutsch publishes the Penguin History of Australian Cricket, or when I copied the ISBM off the Encyclopedia of the VN War wrong....  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not going to the cricket?  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 23:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the WI are too depressing, and there's a giant hole in the ground with gravel etc as well. Well Fifelfoo passed without waiting for Viru. Off to FTC! Featured topic candidates/The Invincibles/archive1  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Got an urge to add bits about Sehwag! Might be going to the opening day of the Boxing day Test but Pakistan not exciting me too much at the moment. Then I'll probably watch the Test in Hobart if I'm not too depressed. Will watch Tas V NSW tomorrow at NTCA Ground. Predicting 300 par score despite the average being 200 there - go figure. Warner and Hughes opening will be interesting.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another List A. I thought they already had the NSW-TAS List As  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This is their last contest.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 00:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the last hurdle is still to be cleared though. Never done a FTC before. Wonder how it will go and if it is just like 1*42=42.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hopefully its only as bad as 1 FA. It could be as bad as 42 FAs.  Or 42x42 FAs, or 4242 FAs.  Think of all the combinatorial possibilities. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Will there be complaints about the main article not being FA?  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:FT shows a lot of FTs where the main article is not FA  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Will Obviously pass. Going to nominate another FAC soon?  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me!
 * Oh see you have Xa Loi Pagoda raids - never noticed.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 07:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's good to get something where you don't have to wait 21-30 days for 3 supports  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Brett Geeves opened the batting and bowling for Tasmania. Warner was getting heaps of shit from the bogans on the fence. Offering him beer and a getting him to wear a pink cap and do dances - I don't think Stuart Clark was too impressed.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 20:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sid_Barnes
Can anything be done to fix the huge patch of whitespace in there? --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting a problem  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Aus
Not even going for the runs.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 03:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 230 from 45 with eight in hand. They could just be doing it ODI style. This should be an easy target really, against this attack, and the Adelaide Oval never deteriorates. Still, Australia don't have anything to lose by taking it easy as they won't get ratings points for winning as hte WI are so bad, but will lose big if they lose.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope :( York Park got 5 supports :)  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 05:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/York Park/archive4. What's a byline and a wireline? Surely we don't have to have the authors for each article? I don't know some of the examiner ones as I don't have a subscription.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 09:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We always have, where available. I presumed you always did, I didn't notice you didn't bother to put in the journo's name on those web articles, like Roger Vaughan, same as for Roebuck and Aggers' column and whoever . I don't know them specifically, is he saying we put the author as AAP/Reuters if they are teh feed of the article printed on Age? Theoretically, if the infromation on the Examiner is available and you haven't filled it out, then it is incomplete :(. That's the life on new FAs... you could always FAR some unreffed old ones... YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 21:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This stuffs up appearance for all the other refs. Is this ok? Basically not sure what to do :S  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine. If the rest don't have that field, then leave those empty, not cut done the rest  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Will finish later :) Also for expample if the article doesn't have a specific author such as "cricinfo staff" do we just leave the field empty?  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as I an tell  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And ... can you keep a close eye on please.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 10:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wilfred Rhodes has been expanded nicely by who has made less than 40 edits. Not a bad effort!  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh I did. I do wonder if he is a reincarnated friend  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 01:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Was thinking the too. Maybe a WP:Cric original?  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 01:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This ref correct? Ricky Ponting  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 08:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wonder when Wizardman is planning on reviewing Ponting? I noticed he hasn't started the other article he plans to review either.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you could do other stuff in the meantime. I shouldve started making all the Invinicbles consistent while I was waiting  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should have. I've been doing bits on the main article.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

History of Vietnam
Well, I still want to focus in medieval Vietnam, which means Early Lê, Lý, Trần and maybe Later Lê. Trịnh/Nguyễn period is much more complicated because the opinions from Vietnamese historians about this period are still diverse and change from time to time. But if I have time, I'll try, at least for some prominent figures like Đào Duy Từ. A long and winding road to go :(! PS: I just nominated the article Trần Thủ Độ, he was a very interesting figure in history of Vietnam. Thanks for your copy/editing, it helps me a lot with my English. Grenouille vert (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It made me suprised that "feudal" seems POV, I use that word only to separate the 938-1858 period from other period (Chinese domination, French colonial), thank you for your note, I will use the word "dynastic era" from now on. Grenouille vert (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It can be seen as being disapproving of the time period as backward and nasty, and that the historians were therefore not respectable to the point of barbarism, as teh Communist Party always refers to the Nguyen Dynasty as "feudal" and "reactionary" all the time.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 17:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh no, the term "feudal" is applied for all dynasties from Đinh Tiên Hoàng to Nguyễn Dynasty with no exception. And recently, the "mainstream" opinion in Vietnam about Nguyễn Dynasty changes a lot, they also publish many books and articles dealing with the achievement of Nguyễn Dynasty such as vi:Tạ Chí Đại Trường's works. Things change, you know :). Grenouille vert (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Grenouille vert (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your advice! Last time I was here, Badagnani seemed to be very nice so his comment made me feel a little bit uneasy, he's right, though, I have to improve my writing skill. About Trần Nhân Tông, I haven't finished it yet, there's a lot of document about his Buddhist thought and his role in Vietnamese Zen but I need more time to condense those articles. Spare me some time then. Grenouille vert (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Ponting with the Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09
80% done. haven't ce yet however.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 04:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll have a look at it. So might want to use ti to reuse it in the 2008 BG article. More stars and ticks for your work! YP should be easy now, pity about the treatment dry topics get at FAC. And India at #1, only briefly I suspect, unless they do better than 1-0 against NZ and WI.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For some strange reason SRT was the one covered most for the #1 status on Cricinfo. The ranking is quite funny. - Spaceman  Spiff  05:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's Indian journalists for you. They put the idols ahead of the team really. India can't hold it unless they get a sharper attack.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly, no activity on the India team article yet. I didn't realize that they sacked Prasad as bowling coach. He seemed to have been doing a decent job (for what he was given), looks like it's gone downhill since then. - Spaceman  Spiff  05:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, I was surprised that the comment about India being consistently strong since hte 1970s was entrenched in the article as Gavaskar presided over a winless streak of 31. On the topic of fast bowling, I recently saw the doco about the 1983 WC win on a plane and found it rather amusing that Kapil's partners seemed to bowl at about 115 kph, Balwinder Sadhu and Amarnath... oh Binny as well. Still, they need someone to fix the fast bowling. It's embarrassing to see the likes of R Vinay Kumar, Sarveesh Kumar in IPL 2008; The Sikh seamer that Deccan had in 2009 was really hopeless as well among others. To think that these guys are somehow in the top 25 pacers in India, they looked worse than some of the 19 year olds in Australia that get invited to bowl to touring international batsmen in the nets. Or that VRV Singh was once the 4th best paceman in India. horrible  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 06:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * India only scheduled to play a couple of Test in the next two years.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 06:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * there'll be more, but not much I supsect. Cricinfo shows everything as empty. Everyone theoretically wants to play India the most because of the money, but somehow their total cricket is always less than Australia. As for workload, they can always rest players for series against Bangladesh, although some will not want to miss an opportunity to pad their average; probably every international player except SEhwag and Gilchrist. NZ and WI haven't played Tests in India since late 03 and 02.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 06:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Still have to finish 4th Test and background bits. After copyedit and peer review it should pass GAN. Let me know if anything needs adding or it's too biased towards Ponting.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 06:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bias isn't a problem. I see a big chunk on everyone bagging his Nagpur tactics are in there.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 06:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What's going on with James Constable?  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 06:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, forgot about it. The author seems rather lethargic though,a lthouh I am pretty strcit compared to most other GACs; a lot os sports bios pass without any style section  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 06:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no real strict about the norm. Only cricket arts seem to have a style section. It's hard to ref.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 06:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)