User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive186

= Requests =

Hello, the 'youth alive' wiki page has been semi-protected by yourself due to "vandalism". A moderate section on controversy would add to the page with the following: "Youth Alive attracts opposition from conservative Christians in both Brisbane [Source: http://josh-williamson.xanga.com/562587796/battlefied-report/] and South Australia [Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOPZsZklqcI]." If this could be added in a controversy section? Kind Regards Truthforme (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Youth Alive Controversy

Hello, please remove your revision here: which states "Protected Edge Church: vandalism" and renew this revision  which was undone by 'Ozdaren' here. 'Ozdaren' stated on the same reference just stated that the reason for undoing revision number 393958939 was due to "Vandalism. Pseudo reference to magistrate's court." Correctly, Ozdaren observed the reference was wrong - however the correct reference for the specific transcript of the court case in question which was included in revision number 393958939 is "AMC-09-4608", or the penalty number for the defendant who won the case is "AMC-09-4608/1". Please contact the Adelaide Magistrate's court on (08) 8204 2444 to confirm the validity of these references, and please allow revision number 393958939 to be restored in relation to the 'controversy' section, second paragraph, with the now updated and correct reference to court case number. Sincere Regards, have a nice day. Truthforme (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Edge Church Controversy

Hello, Please renew the semi protection of this article.semiprotected Humaliwalay (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hallaur

Hello, Please renew the protection semiprotected - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Hope this message finds you good, please help me protecting article Hallaur from repeated vandalism by semi protection. semiprotectedHumaliwalay (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Shia Islam, Shia Islam in India and Shia Islam in Pakistan - Hello, hope this message finds you in good health, help preventing vandalism by semi-protection of these 2 articles, Many Thanks. semiprotected Humaliwalay (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, May I know the status of this request? - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Criticism of Sunni Islam - Please help prevent Vandalism by Semi protection I have been suggested to ask for protection as its leading to edit war otherwise.semiprotected - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sindhis - Please help prevent vandalism
 * Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park -
 * Economy of the Republic of Vietnam -
 * Michigan State University Group -
 * Nguyen Tri Phuong -
 * Phan Thanh Gian -
 * Vietnam War -
 * Sikh and Sikhism - help preventing vandalism -- Migelot  Talk to me!  13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you take another look at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John S. Loisel? Thanks, (GregJackP (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Could you please help to protect List of Pakistanis by net worth. It has undergone a fair amount vandalism since creation, with IP users adding their own names to the page. I would be most greatfull if only registered users could edit the article. Thanks Sansonic (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I need to send you a confidential email, preferably on the secure portal. Kindly please advice. --Zwinglio (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to get permission to do some work on Terrorism_in_australia which is semi-protected? The article needs a lot of work to cover australias history of Neo-Nazi terrorism (The ANM/NA bombings) and incidents like the recent Combat-18 mosque attacks? Thankyou in advance Duck Monster (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo poll
The images are of the Australia national women's cricket team and New Zealand national women's cricket team. The results will be used to choose which images go into the respective articles. Vote at /photo poll.

Thich Quang Duc's statue
Hi YellowMonkey, FYI, the statue of Thich Quang Duc is completed and it has just been opened for public (the official only removed all barrier last month). You may go to Vietnamese Wikipedia to request some pictures. This statue is on my way to school but I have no camera to take photo :P. I think these picture might be a good addition to the article Thich Quang Duc.--AM (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, have to track this down!  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked editor seeks explanation and justification of this administrator's actions
Please discuss your actions in blocking this editor hastily. Please give your justification. Simply deleting the contents of the discussion won't solve the problem, it simply exacerbates it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yellowmonkey you have allegations against you of abuse of editors, too, while you have also allegedly mis-used your privileges as an administrator. Please justify your actions. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrator this discussion is the first step that this editor has taken about his block. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue won't go away unless it is addressed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

South Vietnam in OTD
Hi. I was actually about to make a number of edits of this type, but I see that you functionally reverted me with this edit. Here's the thing: there is way, way, way too much South Vietnam in all the "On This Day" anniversaries. It's great that you've improved many of these articles, but it's bizarre that, say, the Buddhist crisis gets such an intense coverage in "On This Day." South Vietnam was only around ~20 years and was ultimately a rather minor country, yet facts on it appear more on OTD than, say, Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire, both great powers that ruled for centuries. Talk:Main Page brings up this point; there's no need to have Diem-related facts on October 26, November 1, November 2, November 6, and November 11. Lots of these events are things that are ultimately pretty minor and commonplace, like failed assassination attempts or state visits.

Again, it's great that these articles have all been improved, but I definitely think that the coverage is unbalanced here. SnowFire (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for improving the main page by replacing sourced articles with unsourced articles  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ...sigh. For the casual reader who reads YM's pithy riposte but doesn't check the edit history, the articles I stuck in I checked, as per policy, to make sure they were not tagged for cleanup.  None of them were.  All of them had inline sources.  In fact, I moved some commented-out articles from the "ready" section to the "don't use" section and noted the problems with them when they were tagged.


 * I was doing my part to improve Wikipedia, and I've done plenty of work on adding sourced articles to Wikipedia as well, thank you very much. If you think that all articles on "OTD" should be GAs or better, you're free to suggest so. SnowFire (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, most articles on Wikipedia generally aren't tagged because most of them are lacking in most basic facets. You added articles that are 50% unsourced or more, and improved the quality of the articles on display. While articles that go up are nominally untagged, half of them cop a tag when they are OTD, because they were undersourced. Yes Quasi-War and Algerian War of Independence would not last a day without being tagged for cleanup. And yes, the OTD criteria say the article quality is the main determinant. But of course, Wikipedia needs more dishevelled stuff like the Algerian war article on teh front page. And I have never insisted on any strict grading on OTD, the current policy, not established by me, is sufficeint  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Burning of Washington was already tagged multiple times when you added it  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) Tags added by an IP address within the past few days, I'd point out. That was the sole one I didn't check, though, as it had been removed due to Picture of the Day concerns - so therefore it'd obviously already been set before, thus no need to check, right?

The Quasi-War and Algerian War articles look fine, though I see you've since tagged up the Algerian War article. Again, I'd expect a good article level article (never mind strict requirements) to have references in each of its sections. The current standard is "doesn't have cleanup tags and is decent." I'd say the Algerian War article looks decent to me. Quasi-War could be longer but also seems basically on-point.

Moreover, all this is irrelevant to my original point, that of balance. If we can find well-done replacement articles that balance the topics, then great, we should both be happy. But I'd definitely say that acceptable articles - ones that meet the minimum standards we set for OTD - should take precedence over even featured-quality articles on topics which are both overrepresented and obscure. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those articles do qualify for cleanup tags, it's just that nobody would bother else most of Wikipedia would be tagged, and standards on the front page are different to everyday Wikipedia standards. And when these "unstamped" articles end up there, they get tagged. It's only on OTD that people passed half-sourced articles that are unformatted. And finally, everywhere on the front page, the primary determinant is the article, as long as it is about a serious and non-obsecne topic  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If the day came when Wikipedia had enough GA-level articles that it could support having a strict rule that OTD bolded articles should be GA-quality or better, I'd be for it. However, it's not here yet.  You seem to be using "a section doesn't have references" as criteria for a cleanup tag, which as you note would imply 99% of Wikipedia should have cleanup tags.  This would be ridiculous and counterproductive.  Wikipedia is a work in progress; people know and accept this.  Obviously, we didn't just have an empty "on this day" back in 2005 when the average article was far, far worse.


 * The "Background" section of the Quasi-War article, while it needs cites on the quotes, is correct from what I've read and does have some references, so it's a darn sight better than yon average article. I removed it anyway since I feel it should probably be longer, though.  Algeria War, however, looks B-class to me, which is basically the requirement, whether that one section is referenced or not; and it's an interesting and important event (which does matter for OTD).  I moved Burning of Washington back to the comments (no replacement), though again, I'm not convinced that it's notably worse than many other OTD entries. SnowFire (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Some laundry
Can you take a look at: Will come back for more soon, once I've had time to go through all the other stuff apparently on only my watchlist. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Kochi, the socks that were blocked a few months back are now active again.
 * 2) List of most populous cities in India and List of most populous metropolitan areas in India - needs some semi-pp, with nothing but bad edits of the "my city is bigger than yours" variety.
 * Nothing on the first mob, otherwise done.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I definitely see behavioral overlap between the current lot and the two that we blocked a few months ago, just before the FAR, maybe new jobs. BTW, I think you're aware of a Pathan sockmaster who goes around adding Afghan to all the Khan articles? Chap's active as an IP now (from Qatar I believe). &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw something on Zayed Khan. Have you seen all teh fluff about Wikipedia coming to India? lol  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  05:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he did on Saif, Aamir, Zayed etc. Didn't see the WP in India stuff, but I thought India articles couldn't get any worse in terms of POV, copyvios, plain nonsense etc., apparently I was wrong, it's possible. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How the WMF sees India as the new goldmine and is making a big din there with speaking tours and likes. More like a goldmine of copyvio, ethnic and religious fundamentalist POV. There will be a flood of dudes like if their initiative works, which'll be funny. As you can see on the mailing list, which is public, all these leaders are queueing, IPL-style feeding frenzy. Yogesh is after me, lol  YellowMonkey   ( new photo poll )  06:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Block evasion by using ? Also, is the range too busy? We have a busy copyright violator who also adds a lot of other POV into articles. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * a returned version of just after the latter was blocked (short term block)? Definitely a WP:SCRUTINY issue. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bingo both. Is Narendra Modi on your watchlist? I think his cadres are afoot, especially today's man  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll add NM to my list, it wasn't on mine. Can you handle the above? I've had some interaction with Lindamd90 before. BTW, looks like Bhajji will be man of series for his batting.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  05:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Has he done anything particularly wrong as a new user? Well Bhajji is a batting allrounder, Pathan style nowadays. But do the MoS judges give him a deduction for his horrible bowling? It just shows how bad Australia were ... North made two centruies in a row against NZ at a slower pace, and it proved that he was genuine international quality, said the selectors. Sehwag should have refused to call off the match early and scored a century, SRT style, hahaha  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's the same problem as before, WP:SYNTH in addition to WP:SCRUTINY. I've asked Dab to take a look at the two main articles that are affected, and then there was this bit of creating a similar article with a "1" at the end to present a different POV (I deleted that) -- Upper cloth controversy 1. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

LOLZ!
Hi - for the second time in wikiworld I find an admin that makes me laugh and with such honest down to earth replies that I feel my Wiki-love-ometer rising again :¬)

I think we could keep a good dialogue going on that page for the next two weeks and nothing would happen - ah well I am about to watch the latest episode of outsourced (which is basically a rip off of Mumbai Calling which British TV axed as they are morons)

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC) (PS this was moved from your archive as I was an idiot)
 * See SpacemanSpiff's comments right above, or just his comments generally, or talk to Abecedare and SS. Or look at guys like . Things like AAA and driveby spamdumps are the norm. Just go to the list of states or large cities, universities, etc, large % ==> prosespam dump. I thought I was being rather gentlemanly and diplomatic  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 03:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

re: Robinson's Arch and Joseph's Tomb on WP:SA
The association of the tomb with the Patriarch Joseph is an old tradition, so there was no datable discovery. The traditional date for Joseph's birth is 1 Tammuz, which in 2011 will fall on 3 July (the traditional calendar is lunar, so the date varies from year to year). The date for his death is variously assigned to 1 or 28th Tammuz. Unfortunately, those are the only dates that I can think of which might apply.

I cannot find an exact date for the discovery of Robinson's Arch, only the year 1838. It may be noted in a notebook somewhere, but is not mentioned in the sources I have available. Although the buildings on the Temple platform were destroyed around 29–30 July in the year 70, it is thought that the arch was destroyed prior to that to block an entry point onto the fortified Temple Mount. &bull; Astynax talk 04:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ok thanks.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 04:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries
There are tons of usable FA/GAs out there, except hardly anybody knows to nominate their own FA/GA. I've been harvesting a few from a prolific FA/GA writers on "important" things but it will be rather glacial while hardly anyone cares, or only complains without helping to dig, or only complains about topics they don't like. So we have a few more Brazil and classical music now, but I wonder if you would like to help scan FA writers' userpages. I did suggest to a few to self-serve but they didn't respond in any way  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 03:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, YellowMonkey, I have been contemplating a return to SA work, anyway. Thank you for asking! :-)  My problem is that I no longer have as much free time as I used to.  And frankly, the list of events on the "Days of the Year" wikipages need to be refreshed, too.  So this will be quite a bit of work.  I'll see what I can do.  May I ask what you mean by "scan FA writers' userpages"?  Any suggestions which users I should start with?  --PFHLai (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well WP:WBFAN has a list of people with FAs, and I meant, going through their listed articles, and other GAs on their userpage to see if they have good hooks and date relevancy. I tried encouraging some of them to self-serve/nominate but none of the few I asked ever responded. Maybe I give off a nasty vibe and you're more jolly :) ?  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 04:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's not like I get a response that often. My suggestions for DYK get ignored all the time.  It's okay. ....  I won't be able to start work on the SA templates right away. But I will work on them soon.  I might start with the first contributor on the list at WP:WBFAN, so this poor fellow won't get yelled at again for putting wikilinks to his own work on MainPage. :-D  Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi friend! Long time no see. Please see my talk in Golden Triangle (Southeast Asia) and help me check the information in this article. It’s likely that the map and the list of countries included in this triangle is wrong. Thank you very much.Genghiskhan (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so too. I have access to the McCoy textbook at the bottom of the see also. I was reading it because it investiagated whether Ngo Dinh Nhu and Nguyen Cao Ky were drug dealers  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

New article
Help me check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguy%E1%BB%85n_Minh_Thuy%E1%BA%BFt. TksImpenetrability (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And here is another one Cù Huy Hà Vũ.Thanks.Impenetrability (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for improvements? ok  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate you greatly for that. As you read my contribution, you should know that English is not my mother-tongue.Impenetrability (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh of course. No problem with language  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries
Thank you for your nice message on my talk page. I'm away from home with very limited internet access at the moment, but will certainly follow up what you say about Selected Anniversaries. - Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging
Yes, why? --TIAYN (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Rhodes Scholars
Regarding your edit at Seymour College and your comment "winning a scholarship at uni doesn't give notability", I agree. Even more-so when the quoted-as-notable are red links!

However, taking a different focus, the fact that the school has generated some Rhodes Scholars (particularly female Rhodes Scholars) is notable. What's the best way to address that? A separate section? It's hard to judge - Prince Alfred College are either blue or black. I'm amused to see St Peter's College, Adelaide quietly says: "42 Rhodes Scholars". No doubt others say other things.

Your thoughts?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Diana Laidlaw is a red link? How strange!


 * Odd too, but even some heads of the LC have been empty. I'm not sure how female Rhodes scholars are notable in the current age.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how female Rhodes scholars are notable in the current age, either.
 * Oh dear. You have missed my point. Obviously I was too busy trying to be amusing. Sorry. I'll try again:
 * Yes, the individuals are not notable. (Independent of their gender.)
 * However, the fact that the school has produced three Rhodes Scholars (independent of their gender), is notable.
 * The fact that the school has produced three female Rhodes Scholars is even more notable.
 * Because a) female Rhodes Scholars are a recent event, and b) there is still a male bias in the number awarded.
 * Is that better / clearer / more understandable? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that you didn't suggest to put individuals there, but I thought that female scholarship winners are relatively common these days. The Rhodes does require "community involvement" (in reality just means signing up to 20 odd clubs and doing nothing, like Wikipedia's finest hahaha) and maybe that's where the lack of females comes from. Although I did know one really smart girl who actually went to Redfern and actaully taught indigenous kids there.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 06:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought that female scholarship winners are relatively common these days - Given that they are 50% of the population, they ought to be! What's your definition of "relatively common"? They certainly don't make up 50% of the recipients ...
 * in reality ... - Oh dear. How sad - I completely agree! (And I thought I was cynical!)
 * Although ...  - Sorry, not going there ...
 * Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile ... We seem to have gotten diverted from my original point that: The fact that the school has produced three female Rhodes Scholars is notable., and my original question of: What's the best way to address that? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello?
 * The fact that the school has produced three female Rhodes Scholars is notable. What's the best way to address that? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ping? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI]. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Blnguyen tet.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Blnguyen tet.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * lol  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 06:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Miami State High School
Hello, I recently updated Miami State High School 's wiki page and you removed my edits under Sound & Lighting. I believe that these were legitimate edits as this is how the hall is set-up and all information is correct. I would like to add more and as I am new to wikipedia were wondering how I go about placing everything back where it was.

Jamietech (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, look at your most recent edit that teh bot reverted, for a start  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  01:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops
How did I miss the September 1964 South Vietnamese coup attempt nom? I was actually looking forward to it and watching for you to post it. I'm getting to be a bit of a Vietnamese history buff thanks to you. Well, I plan to take a look within the next day or two. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI
A high quality WP:GA-rated article you had added to Selected anniversaries was removed, please see and, and. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooray for WP:V being optional  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket! ) 06:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sanity prevails
Thank you. Don't forget to make Bwilkins aware of it when you're back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey now
An ANI consensus to unblock, and a "useless block", are two very different things. You seem to have acted without consulting Bwilkins, without regard to or commenting in the ANI discussion, and without assuming good faith about Bwilkins' action.

Not a good show. The policy that admins are supposed to assume good faith about each others' actions, and talk to each other about unblocks or at least make sure there's a solid noticeboard consensus (unless there's evidence that a block was simply a technical mistake of some sort), isn't there for no reason at all. I think you owe Bwilkins an apology. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I too would like an explanation, not only of the unblock, but of the edit summary. Hobit (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because Bwilkins took the action in good faith does not make the block useful. A block that doesn't prevent anything (but punishes users) is a "useless block" which is a detriment to the project; those assets are driven away from the project. If WP:IAR was applied, it was applied correctly - the blocking admin and the admin who declined the unblock really need to get the message. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are stating a couple of good reasons to unblock. Those do not form any justification to assume bad faith on the part of the blocking administrator, and to ignore the standing, written, and Arbcom-specifically-reminded policy that admins are to consult each other, seek noticeboard consensus, and assume good faith about each others' actions.
 * I was working up to unblock myself, as I posted on ANI. I understand why you sought that.  But I do not understand and am extremely concerned by assumptions of bad faith and a lack of regard for consultations and seeking consensus, which is what seems to have happened here.  IAR does not mean "This is a good outcome, stomp on people to get there".
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, the concept of negligence manifests itself in the concepts of poor judgement, misuse of tools, failure to comply with policy, and disruption; none of them presumes that an administrator intentionally did something to the detriment of the project. However, when a lapse in judgement is sufficiently severe (that the reasons for an unblock come from visible circumstances prior to the block - not beforehand), and there is a real risk that the project will lose an otherwise useful contributor due to this lapse, the substance (including timeliness) becomes far more critical than the form (including process). Mere good intentions are not enough in the role of an admin, nor are they a sufficient justification to prolong the suffering - that too, for the sake of process. If anything, I believe the process and the original actions have stomped on the people and produced a bad outcome at the same time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the unblocking admin's reasoning here. Hobit (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. By unblocking this user without consensus and without regard to the ongoing discussion, it appears to me that you acted both uncollegially and unprofessionally in this instance.  Sandstein   07:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did look at AN and read the discussion, which is how I came to know of the block, rather than from a watchlist. I read the unblock petition and thought that there was a consensus, and also looked at Dr Blofeld's last one hour before the block, which consisted of article writing and trying to justify himself on ANI, not making specific personal comments or the like. So those are the reasons for the unblock. As for the means of communication, I have failed, and should explain properly instead of being snippy.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep.  Enigma msg  15:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. What? You think I'd have been better off blocked today when I've expanded Montevideo. Such disruption... That is partly why Yellow Monkey unblocked me because he knows that is is just a waste of time and there is absoutely nothing that can be achieved by blocking me for two days, that's why. Tis OK now, I've smoothed things over with Sandstein. Its over now so please move on. ♦  Dr. Blofeld  20:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm glad you've smoothed things over with Sandstein, but that has nothing to do with me. I agreed with something Sandstein said. I don't think you're the arbiter of when something is or isn't allowed to be commented upon.  Enigma msg  01:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I was unblocked was plain and simple. I was blocked for "harrassment of Sarek" not for the teeth remark. I had already apologised for the teeth remark and had already but up a wiki break notice to acknolwedge I lost my temper and that it was inappropriate. . By that time I had even invited the original person I was in conflict with to constructively begin working on the Lhasa article. Similarly I was no longer "harssing" Sarek and was actually harassed by them 3 times. Even Sarek of Vulcan said "who said anything about blocking" for that comment so he oviously diagrees with your Sandstein. Your reasons fornot unblocking me Sandstein were wrong. See the history of the ANI page. I had said sorry for that incident hours before hand and had porposed to move forward construcively. Your actions to prove a point and say oh yes everybody must be 100% civil at all times and at all costs at times is hopelessly redundant. The real world does not work like that. If you had blocked by yesterday morning immediately after my comment then I'd not have quesitoned it, it would have been justified. but not after we had patched it up and had begun discussing how to move constuctively forward. There was aboslutely nothing to gain from me being blocked from wikipedia and the work I am putting into wikipedia e.g Montevideo sand later hopefully some Vietnamese rivers to transwiki would not be taking place without me here. Your refusal to unblock looked like you had to prove a point and "do it by the book". As for you accusing Yellow Monkey of acting unprofessionally. really... As for my "swearing" it ws pretty mild, certainly less offensive than the very colorful words I see used on here from time to time. Please do a little background research when faced with similar scenarios in the future. At ANI I said "I'm sorry for what I said, what more can I say?" and then I left a message on 2002's tlak page telling him the correct way to approach the situation and that I'd be happy to write the article with him. And you think it is appropriate to block me hours after for disruption when I had actually started to put it behind me and was actually in the middle of writing an article when I was blocked? Sigh♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have mentioned this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Complaint against you.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Administrator there is a complaint against you. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Kamadhenu...
I will copy edit this article but feel we need a Hindu mythology expert to prevent inadvertent mistakes. Do you know who we can ask? Cheers, Shir-El   too  18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI
YM, it would be greatly appreciated if you could share your thoughts at WP:ANI. The other two admins concerned have done so, but there are questions about at least one of your admin actions. I'm sure you've read WP:ADMIN many more times than I, but allow me to gently remind you of WP:ADMIN, which requires us to respond to concerns raised by the community over our actions. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to give some sort of response there. It's been almost two days. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The ANI thread has turned into a bit of a circus. The wise would probably not want to get involved there.  I believe concerns should be raised here by summarizing.  One or two uninvolved editors should take the lead to minimize the antagonism.  Jehochman Talk 16:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As you know, YM, I have great respect for you and have worked alongside you at FAC for years. I think that this matter could be addressed simply if you would just explain what happened. If you made an error, just say so and I think that will calm things down a lot. Ignoring the thread will just escalate matters. Please reply either here or at AN/I. Thank you for your past and future contributions to Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as was normal and can be verified from my contribution log or one of those edit counters with the the distribution of edits per time of the week, I wasn't online during the weekend, apart from a few handful of minutes due to limited access, and during such limited access, I normally only do things that take a very short amount of time, eg an automated revert, small tweak to FAC query etc, rather than open up large pages such as this, FAR, FAC, ANI etc which can sometimes stall the computer for a few minutes. I just checked my edit log again and haven't seen any edit to a large page on weekends for a while, especially as apart from the long loading it also takes a long time to reply to things, apart from saying "done - sign here" on some FAC punctuation. Recently I have not been on WP much due to some RL paperwork deadlines; last week I see two weekdays with less than 10 edits, and the week before, a day with none; and in the last two weeks, a large chunk of the edits have just been adding tags to various things, which while it might appear I have been reasonably active compared to other months, really, they have been very easy edits with little/no research/preparation needed etc. As for the block, obviously I feel that YK is not and will not be useful for WP, and don't think his edits before he was blocked were anything except an obstruction (nor his subsequent activities), but I can see that most people disagree with me, so that's not a problem. I don't think I'm the sort to chance my arm over and over with things similar to previous things that get rolled back, unlike, eg GWH and some other ANI regulars, who keeps on doing these blocks under similar analogous circumstances that keep on getting rolled back over and over. I'm not a supporter of the British Empire, and haven't edited anything pre-20th century related to the BE/Comm, so it's not as though I should bother when most people and YK's reverters do not care or do not want me to.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I present the articles that have been almost been created by meand I am a major contributor, which have seen over 100000 page views (1) Below Poverty Line (India), (2) Madia Gond, (3) Lok Biradari Prakalp (4)22 June 1897 (5)Chapekar brothers , two others are stubs. Are these examples of obstruction? Is there evidence of edit warring, or of violation of wp:5P or wp:NPOV, wp:OR, wp:V, will you substantiate your comment about me that all I am good at is obstruction? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The moment I was suggested that I was getting tendentious I took an opinion form the editors against whom I was debating the issue, and withdrew from the page, I haven't edited that page since. Is that a sign of obstruction?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think one concern is the length of block, and another the lack of a block template.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You could make your talk page shorter. Alio The Fool 15:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not everyone has the resources to contribute at the level you do. Every editor who learns to follow policies is useful to Wikipedia, some in small ways, some in much larger ways. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom political parties
Personally, I have reservations about having politics tied to the Arbitration Committee, but I can understand that there might be a good purpose to having people as it were announce their stances on certain matters prior to becoming in any way at all "official." User:John Carter/Wikipedia:The Next Generation is a rough essay I have written about a few ideas which might help reduce the amount of time and effort spent in certain areas around here. The disadvantage, of course, is that, as a work, it is disastrously poorly written and organized. If, and I know this is a big if, you were to want to read it, and if you thought it of any value, please feel free to do any of the editing it so clearly needs to help make it a bit more presentable prior to a possible move to main wikipedia space. Thanks for your attention. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FAR
Hi YM - Could you revisit your Technopark, Kerala FAR nom? There's an editor asking for clarification on your comments. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U
YellowMonkey, I'm very sorry to have to do this, but I have opened a Request for Comment on you regarding your block of Yogesh Khandke and your lack of response to community concerns. Please do come to Requests for comment/YellowMonkey and join the discussion. Thank you, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm looking forward to a reunion with some freedom fighter comrades, martyrs, and supreme warriors. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging from that page, there's nothing like a good old-fashioned admin witch-hunt. I particularly like the editors who agree with your blocks but then go on to damn you for not using the various templates to notify the boneheads who were blocked... Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk back
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject India Newsletter Volume V, Issue no. 2 - November 2010
This newsletter is automatically delivered by User:Od Mishehu AWB, operated by עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Question
Can you give any clarificatory response to Requests_for_comment/YellowMonkey? It sounds really bad. Rd232 talk 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Drive – Final push
Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk page
You were recently involved at an RFA where the size and complexity of the user's talk page was an issue. It strikes me that your own talk page has some similar issues, albeit slightly milder. The photo poll is large and old, and should probably have been on a subpage in the first place. I'd suggest that you might do your visitors a service by either archiving or subpaging it - particularly for any who might be newcomers and/or on slower connections. Rd232 talk 17:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've boldly shown you the subpage approach. If you don't want that, you're free to undo it, but if you do that you can expect to be asked why it's better than having it on a subpage. Rd232 talk 09:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Important
Miscellany for deletion/Long user talk headers. ''' Access  Denied  17:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion at MFD has closed as "Keep", with no prejudice against discussions here to reach mutually acceptable solutions. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Financial centre
This article was protected a year ago after a single case of sockpuppetry. As the article had attracted significant positive contributions by an IP editor is it OK for it to be unprotected? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration request notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, signed now. Shows how often I've had occasion to use THAT template.  My apologies. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (Note, the above wasn't posted by me. I don't know who added the notification, or why they didn't sign their post.) You need to start responding punctually and substantially to communications, and you need to start now, unless you want to be desysopped. You are a fantastic contributor, and it'd be a genuine shame to lose you, but you're hardly helping yourself with your present approach. AGK   22:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * either that, or you can ignore it if it's annoying you - it probably won't make much difference...... I'd strongly advise you persuade Ricky to stand down though, and what's up with Michael Clarke? I think dumping Bingle hit him harder than he thought - now that's an issue you really should pile into on-wiki - I'm sure there's a discussion about it somewhere :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 02:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Get rid of your talkheader
Seriously. I don't know what it takes to get you to communicate. I usually edit from a 256k Internet connection. That is only 4 times faster than old fashioned dialup. There are hundreds of images on your talk page. And I just finished waiting eight minutes for your page to load. And then my browser crashed. And I had to turn image loading off. Then I tried to load the page again. It managed to load. And when I had scrolled halfway down my browser started to lag like hell. This is a talk page. It exists to send you messages. It does not exist to vote in some stupid photo poll. It does not exist to advertise your poll either. Start listening to concerns. This is unacceptable for an administrator with your level of experience. Get straight or get shipped out. Or AbrCom will very likely destroy you. ''' Access  Denied  06:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that the only reason you want to edit his talk page is to complain about it (or is there something I am missing ...). It seems to me that it would be less dramaz for you and for YM if you just let it be. Problem solved then. Oh, and gloating about ArbCom "destroying" people (rather naively it seems, I thought ArbCom and DR wasn't about smiting enemies ...) isn't a great look either. Happy trails. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I was about to say 'let it be', but the edit notice on this page, in addition to the rest, is just unhelpful. Talk pages are for talking. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * /me tries talking to Chase me explaining why he likes the header and other stuff......
 * still talking.....
 * are you listening........?
 * still talking........
 * nah... doesn't seem to work that well ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * YM has a long tradition of running such polls, and his supporters, of whom there are many, are quite happy with the idea and the setup he uses.
 * If you don't like it, well, that's your choice. But DO NOT enforce your opinions on others. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * YM has exactly 1 (one) talk page. By placing a photo poll on it he inhibits communication - this is fact. Insisting on having the poll here may be YM's prerogative (we can discuss that if he turns up to do so), but it is not yours. Rd232 talk 11:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon! You are extremely rude for an admin. Perhaps you should re-read WP:Civil and WP:AGF?
 * By placing a photo poll on it he inhibits communication - this is fact. - No, it is not a fact. It has, in no way inhibited any communication at all. With the exception of one wikipedian, it has had no effect on anybody's ability to communicate, and it most certainly has not inhibited the one person in question - his communication is loud, clear, and unambiguous.
 * but it is not yours. - And neither is it yours. You have made ZERO attempts to determine concensus. You may be an admin, but that does NOT give you the right to act unilaterally without concensus, PARTICULARLY when someone raises the issue. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It not only gives me the right, but it often gives me the duty. The nature of the problem is objective; it's not an issue of consensus (though see also the MFD above, which you don't seem aware of). We don't need to establish exactly who this problem has affected in order to tackle it, particularly as the nature of the problem means that some affected by it may simply be put off from posting here, so we wouldn't be able to identify them. As to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF - I don't know what you're on about (I certainly never said YM's talk page was that way for some bad motivation reason), but I note I'm not the one using allcaps. Rd232 talk 12:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually was originally going to come here to see if any RFC/U discussion was happening here. I did not originally come just to complain about this. ''' Access  Denied  11:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly implemented subpaging of the photo poll. YM isn't around to respect the request or justify why not (apparently he's failed to do either in the past), and user talk pages are still part of the community. They're there for communication, and the photo poll was inhibiting that. Rd232 talk 09:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was really - do you think your final sentence was fact or opinion? (see my talk page for a recent mini-chat about this!) Privatemusings (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC) ps. you missed a poll.
 * I would consider it "inhibiting communication" when it is crashing web browsers. ''' Access  Denied  11:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But the irony is, the crashing of one person's web browser has not inhibited that person from loudly, clearly and unambiguously communicating their opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * After turning images off. And restarting my browser. And waiting for a very long time for it to reload. I'd like to see you try editing from a 2001 computer running on a 256k internet connection and see what you think about that. ''' Access  Denied  12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a royal pain in the neck. And I wouldn't like it. Not one little bit. But that's not the point. The point is: The fact is, it has not inhibited you from expressing your opinion. Yes, it has slowed you down, and yes, it has inconvenienced you, and yes, it is considerably less than desirable. But it hasn't inhibited you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Point of order: it clearly has inhibited him. You mean prevented. Rd232 talk 12:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a note, I meant to type "desysop" not destroy. ''' Access  Denied  12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * yes a very common typo... --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Rd232, that sounds like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Access Denied: You should rather buy a new computer and upgrade his internet connection than condemn YM's talkpage has inhibited your talk. We are living in an industrialized world where high-speed connection and PC parts are cheap and affordable for most of us. Photo polls in talkpage is totally fine for me. I access by using a PIV-era computer and an Internet connection line which is both slow and suck (You could check my IP) but I found these polls are harmless for my communication. If I can not read YM's talkpage, how could I read some heavy page such as Augustus or United States? Because your rude request came after the rude request for deleting YM's talkheader, I can only think that this is one of many offensives in the current witch hunt campaign against YM.--115.76.174.117 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Most not all. access_denied (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This may be the most ridiculous request I have ever seen in wiki since I joined it. Someone got problem and blamed it as others' fault rather than committing himself to solve itPredestination (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Predestination what do you mean? @115.76.174.117, not really... A 2002 PC is basically functional, and why should people spend money (and resources) on things they don't need to upgrade? Maybe they want to spend their limited resources on something else instead. Having it on a subpage doesn't do anyone any harm to anyone who would vote on it, and it keeps it accessible to everyone else. Additionally if people live in the countryside they don't necessarily have broadband - even in Western Europe and the United States. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact is that I have just tested YM's old talkpage on my uni library's Dark-age computer (PIII 800hz, 192mb of DRR, 32Mb TNT2 VGA, Win 2000, IE 5.5 Sp 2) and this page was displayed FLAWLESSLY. The only thing which is different than my laptop is that the load-time is 2 minutes longer. I also tested the old page on 3G network which is limited on 32kB/s (tested on Speedtest.com) and the result is same. So that I think the fault is on how Access Denied had configured his computer (I assumed that my library's computer is the weakest on this industrialized world) or his ISP. I can't believe that YM's old talkpage can affect his Wikipedia browsing experience THAT BAD. AD's argument is not only rude but also is weak and poorly-grounded and I don't know what happen for admin Rd232 above to believe Access Denied that easily.--115.76.174.117 (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * " what happen for admin Rd232 above to believe Access Denied that easily"? WP:AGF happened. Also, other users have subsequently noted problems. And more fundamentally, the content doesn't belong even on a user talk subpage, but subpaging it seemed a simple and non-dramatic solution until YM returns for discussion on where such polls should be held. Note also that YM has archived previous polls in this way, so it isn't a radically novel approach to do so for a poll which has been around a long time. Rd232 talk 13:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you notice that Access Denied is taking chance on somebody's concerns to add fuel to the fire. Let me draw the picture in my mind for you. First of all, AD has never talked with YM and he had never complained about YM's photo polls until recent when somebody unsuccessfully tried to get these polls deleted by using WP:AFD and somebody complained about YM's photo polls in the WP:RFC. After the WP:AFD was closed and while WP:RFC is still under-going, AD suddenly demanded YM to remove these photo polls and he didn't forget to using some threatening phrases such as "Or AbrCom will very likely destroy you", "some stupid photo poll"...(All I see is some stupid pressure which is put on YM unfairly and it made the YM's case more dramatic).  And when the defendant YellowMonkey hasn't replied or explained anything at all you joined in and supported him by resurfacing YM's talkpage and even giving YM an absent ANI court verdict as bellow. You said that "the content doesn't belong even on a user talk subpage" but I note that the talkpage guideline doesn't mention anything about usertalkpage-running polls. If you want to do anything, I think amend the talkpage guideline is the first step you should do. Ain't people free to do anything which the law doesn't prohibit? Back to the YM's  photo polls case, I see nothing but a rude WP:AFD, a rude demand and a rude ANI court verdict!
 * Secondly, I highly doubt AD because AD's internet line can be used for patrolling WP:recent changes and his computer can run some heavy script like WP:TW or WP:FRIENDLY but they cannot help him in rendering a page with full of pictures? And I even doubt AD more after I tested the old talkpage on my uni's out-of-dated PC!. In conclusion, there is so many things make me feel there is an collective attack against YellowMonkey is under-going now and I really don't know why people are so tempered in YM's case.--115.76.174.117 (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well at this point I guess we can take it as read that any comment by YM supporters will include an unwarranted accusation of bad faith, and I tire of complaining about that and it doesn't seem likely to stop, so whatever. On the facts: Rd232 talk 15:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The RFC/U was started on 23 November; at time of writing it still doesn't include the word "photo" or the word "poll", while the talk page only includes it in YM's signature (also inappropriate - somehow that escaped me before, thanks)
 * 2) As a result of the RFC/U I looked at YM more closely, and noticed one thing I commented about at the RFC (alternate account issue), and about the other I left a note to YM, about his talk header here, still visible up the user talk page, on 25 November
 * 3) Miscellany for deletion/Long user talk headers started by AccessDenied a few minutes later; bad move, an attempt to make policy via MFD.
 * 4) MFD closed on 2 December (formally Keep, but because wrong venue)
 * 5) AccessDenied starts ANI thread on 3 December
 * 6) A couple of hours later, since YM isn't around and therefore hasn't responded to my 25 November request and the ANI thread presses the issue, I subpage the photo poll in order to resolve the problem quickly and simply. Policy (User_pages) and common sense supports this.
 * 7) YM supporters turn up undoing the problem resolution, thus requiring further discussion at ANI, where consensus is found for the move made in point 6, general agreement on the basic principle, and others noting experience of problems too. Consensus declared 5 December.
 * 8) Policy amendment (being practice clarification) proposed at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines.
 * 9) YM supporters back away from the dead horse... dd/mm/yyyy
 * Addendum: I omitted an important point 0, being three people commenting on a similar issue at Requests_for_adminship/Redthoreau on 4 November, which is what first brought the issue to my consciousness, and later led to my request to YM, and to discussions with that user involving AccessDenied and myself (User talk:Redthoreau). Rd232 talk 16:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Notice for you: The fact is that you gave ppl on ANI only a little chance to discuss before you started a how-to-deal-with-YM's-photo-polls poll. Wasn't it compatible with the discussion first policy of Wikipedia? I don't think so.
 * I haven't visited Wikipedia for a long time because of some personal reasons (you see, I even forgot my account's password) and YM'a talkpage is the my first visited place and I disagree with the way you resurface his talkpage since Inappropriate content policy doesn't mention anything about userpage-run polls and people are debating about how "inappropriate" these polls are. And then I beat the dead horse to show you my disagreement. So I'm sorry if some of my words are "accusation word".
 * And these words are is my last ones, I don't want to debate with you and make this sector go any further. You already did what you want and all I want now is YM's response. I hope that Yellow will go back and keep contributing for this Wikipedia after this crisis.--115.76.174.117 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy I pointed you to doesn't require any discussion first; I started that poll because people objected to the action. Clearly, the poll was a form of discussion, so I don't understand your objection. As to the validity of the polls - nobody's actively defended having such a poll on a user talk page, and it clearly violates both practice and WP:OWNTALK. I agree with you on waiting for YM's response - it's deeply, deeply annoying to spend so much time and energy at this time on discussing a simple resolution of a small problem, when it's likely to require further discussion when YM returns with his own views on what to do. Rd232 talk 16:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do agree that poll was a form of discussion. But you know because of the forceful nature of voting, it should be considered as the last resort, not the best solution for disputation which can bring more drama for this Wikipedia by making it look like a legislature assembly. And I don't think YM would spend more time on giving his own though since the consensus has been declared on behalf of the community. There are so many kind of pressure already.--115.76.174.117 (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * x2 @115,76,174,117 I suspect that even though you have a slow machine due to you being at a University and living in an important city the computer is probably well maintained and the internet and 3G networks are probably also well developed. Additionally you are using IE 5.5 which while it isn't a very good internet browser was designed to run on your machine so it will probably be more reliable for high bandwidth, but otherwise fairly "simple" pages like this. AccessDenied is probably running a better internet browser, which will enable them to use advanced tools like TW but in other ways their internet experience is probably worse than yours. (Javascript performance in web browsers has improved hugely in recent years, on a modern browser its at least 10x faster, if not considerably more - see for example this)
 * With regards to a lot of allegations coming together at once, this is likely due to people not realising that the issues with YM's administration were as widespread as they appear to be now and due to respect for YM's vast content contributions to the project. I additionally hope that he comes back and contributes to the project in the future. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in my Uni's internet connection line. They are declared a broadband line but the best download speed which I tested on Mediafire is from 5kB to 20kB. My school network administrator said that they give students the basic line (1024kb down/512 kb up) so I am not surprised. The 3G Network is no better, it is very fast for the connection to servers in Vietnam but the ISP limits all connection to servers outside Vietnam to 32kB download and 20kB upload. Therefore, I don't think all of the connection line which I used to test YM's old page are better than Access Denied's line. After all, my doubt about the authenticity of AD's argument is still remained.--115.76.174.117 (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop speculating. At the ANI discussion (linked below), another user said "I've had a PC crash a few times on YM's talk page", and the issue has come up before (not AFAIK from AccessDenied, but I haven't seen the prior discussions; cf Enigmanman's comment here). Also the issue was a bundle of concerns around excessive and inappropriate content creating problems for people with poor connections/hardware, navigability issues for newcomers, and problems for people with smaller screens. Please just drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Rd232 talk 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

115.76.174.117 perhaps you could take some photographs of Ho Chi Minh city while you're there for me to write some articles. Can you take some photos of hotels and markets and streets?♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't but I don't have any camera right now. I will do as soon as I get one. This is my promise.--115.76.174.117 (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Notice to YellowMonkey As per consensus from this dicussion, your photo poll has been moved to a subpage. -- Dorsal  Axe  11:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion to YellowMonkey - ignore all the song and dance about this (as if someone had boiled your pet rabbit...) and set an example for your many supporters by gracefully accepting the subpaging of the current poll, and finding an appropriate WikiProject to house a subpage for future polls. regards, Rd232 talk 10:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

a little dance
sometimes it's glorious being a pom in australia :-) !!! I saw some of the broo ha ha surrounding your wiki stuff, though I'm sure it's nothing compared to the aussie dressing room! I'm hoping to score a spot at the SCG in Jan. again, so will no doubt take the camera along to record every glorious moment - hope the silly season isn't stressful for you, and hope all is well :-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Nguyễn Văn Thiệu
The protection of this article seems excessive. Per a request on WP:RUP do you have any comments? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its been unprotected. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) I unprotected it. YM can reprotect if necessary on his return. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 15, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 15, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 06:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 

The 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing in Saigon was an aerial attack on February 27, 1962 by two dissident Vietnam Air Force pilots, Second Lieutenant Nguyễn Văn Cử and First Lieutenant Phạm Phú Quốc. The pilots targeted the Independence Palace, the official residence of the President of South Vietnam, with the aim of assassinating President Ngô Đình Diệm and his immediate family, who acted as his political advisors. The pilots stated later that their assassination attempt was in response to Diệm's autocratic rule, in which he focused more on remaining in power than on confronting the Vietcong. Cử and Quốc hoped that the airstrike would expose Diem's vulnerability and trigger a general uprising, but this failed to materialise. One bomb penetrated a room in the western wing where Diệm was reading but it failed to detonate, leading the president to claim that he had "divine protection". With the exception of Diệm's sister-in-law Madame Ngo Dinh Nhu, who escaped with minor injuries, the Ngo family were unscathed; however, three palace staff died and another 30 were injured. Afterwards, Cử managed to escape to Cambodia, but Quốc was arrested and imprisoned. In the wake of the airstrike, Diệm became hostile towards the American presence in South Vietnam. Diệm claimed that the American media was seeking to bring him down and he introduced new restrictions on press freedom and political association. Domestically, the incident was reported to have increased plotting against Diem by his officers. (more...)

Invincibles advert
[This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Invincibles_Advert&curid=14537789&diff=400921944&oldid=350191836] pinged up on my watchlist.

If your userspace page has gone, any reason not to speedy this too? It served its purpose. --Dweller (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 20, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 20, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. --Dweller (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 

Bill O'Reilly (1905–1992) was an Australian cricketer, rated as one of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game. Following his retirement from playing, he became a well-respected cricket writer and broadcaster. O'Reilly was a spin bowler, who delivered the ball from a two-fingered grip at close to medium pace with great accuracy, and could produce leg breaks, googlies, and top spinners, with no discernible change in his action. When O'Reilly died, Sir Donald Bradman said "he was the greatest bowler he had ever faced or watched". O'Reilly's citation as a Wisden Cricketer of the Year for 1935 said of his batting: "He had no pretensions to grace of style or any particular merit, but he could hit tremendously hard and was always a menace to tired bowlers." O'Reilly was also known for his competitiveness: he bowled with the aggression of a paceman. In a biographical essay on O'Reilly, his contemporary, the England cricketer Ian Peebles, wrote "any scoring-stroke was greeted by a testy demand for the immediate return of the ball rather than a congratulatory word. Full well did he deserve his sobriquet of 'Tiger'." (more...)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Send to yellow Monkey
Hello yellowmonkey. I believe you kown Vietnam language. I don’t know many English but I would like say this fact. In text nguyen van thieu at wiki Vietnamese to have very many member want speak ill he ( Nguyen van thieu), so I have to hope you participate write text nguyen van thieu(if you can) at wiki Vietnamese. Sorry to bother you.

Vietnam language

Chào khỉ vàng. tôi nghĩ bạn biết tiếng việt. Tôi không biết nghiều tiếng anh nhưng tôi muốn nói điều này. Trong bài nguyễn văn Thiệu ở wiki tiếng việt có nhiều thành viên muốn nói xấu ông ta, vì vậy tôi hy vọng bạn có thể tham gia viết nó(nếu bạn có thể). Xin lỗi vì làm phiền. 1.55.42.83 (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.55.42.83 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hill 303 massacre
Hello. Last month you contributed to the FAC for Hill 303 massacre. I just wanted to let you know I have reopened the article for FAC, if you wouldn't mind taking another look at the article and seeing if you have more comments. Here is the link: Featured article candidates/Hill 303 massacre/archive2. Thanks! — Ed! (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding a case request about User:YellowMonkey
Passed by a vote of 8-2 at Arbitration/Requests/Case:

"The Arbitration Committee has considered the request for arbitration (filed 30 November 2010) concerning administrator actions by YellowMonkey, which followed a request for comment on similar issues (certified 23 November). Although YellowMonkey responded to the original issues raised in the request for comment, he has not edited since 24 November 2010 (six days before the arbitration request was filed) and has not yet been afforded the opportunity to address the new issues raised in the request for comment or in this arbitration request. Accordingly, the arbitration request is declined as premature, and those wishing to engage in dispute resolution on this matter (including YellowMonkey) are directed to the request for comment or other appropriate venues."

For the Arbitration Committee, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Well, YellowMonkey, I hope you are enjoying your time away from Wiki. When you get back, would you drop a note at the RfC if still open, or on my talk page, and HJMitchell's as well, saying how you propose to address the concerns. Do please take your time to gear up on your return but some early indication of your intent would be a good thing. Many thanks and Happy Holidays.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Ngo Dinh Diem
Indefinite protection seems excessive. Do you have any comments? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This has now been unprotected. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
I hope you are getting seriously stuck into the Christmas cheer during the festive season - have one for me. Here in sunny Cambodia, we've had a traditional Christmas dinner for the whole family. Watching my Khmer Grandma-in-law (86 and a Yeay Chi) wrapping herself around some stuffed chook, ham and roast veggies is truly a sight for sore eyes. So from one editor who knows the joys of cross cultural family to another - hope you're having a great one mate. I also hope you'll come back sometime in the New Year, stand up to your detractors and get active around the SE Asian articles again. Nil Carborundum and Cheers, Paxse (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ashoka
Hi YM, I have unprotected the above article. Feel free to reverse my action if you feel it is necessary. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Interview request
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Cricket for an article for The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Thanks and I take this opportunity to wish you a very Happy New Year! – SMasters (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your RFC
Hello. The RFC/U regarding you has been put on hold until you have had a chance to respond to the concerns. Hey Mid  (contribs) 12:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Empire of Brazil FAC is now open!
Empire of Brazil is now a Featured Article candidate. Your opinion (either as support or oppose) is welcome. Here is the page: Featured article candidates/Empire of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you gone?
Please don't...--115.75.159.238 (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Quigley Ideogram?
User: Quigley posted on my talkpage to delete a redirect, which proved to be successful because I didn't respond in time (i have been away from the project pretty much the last 3 years). He seems to have some extensive problems on the project and a long history of POV pushing and I noticed you blocked him indef twice. That's all pretty standard, but the bigger problem is that I have strong suspicion that he is the community-banned user Ideogram. Can you please fill me in on what you know about this under the radar POV pusher?NWA.Rep (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given this RFC (and related pages) where Quigley has been discussed in detail that seems unlikely that something like that wouldn't have been picked up. If you have suspicions can you take them to the appropriate noticeboard? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protections without just cause
Hello,

Could you please rein in your semi-protections?

Articles like Cricket World Cup do not warrant a 4-months semi-protection according to site policy just because, in your judgement only, there has been "not much except vandalism". You have to have a better reason for such a long semi-protection, and in fact for any semi-protection.

It sounds like you would benefit from reading WP:HUMAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.100.13.31 (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * YellowMonkey has not edited since November; if you have a particular page you want to see unprotected I would recommend taking it to Wikipedia:Requests for unprotection.  — Soap  —  12:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Open letter to YellowMonkey
It appears that you are on an extended wikibreak.

Your contributions as an editor have been appreciated, but I for one am not missing you, and although I wish you all the best in life I hope that you won't come back to this project.

Many of your actions as an administrator have been questionable, flying in the face of site policy. I am referring primarily to your unwarranted long-term (often indefinite) semi-protections, but also user blocks and basic etiquette like assuming good faith and welcoming newcomers.

You seldom engaged in dialogue and tended to tar editors that simply had a different point of view from yours with the same brush as genuine vandals, or "Nangparbat"s, not realising that such actions alienate newcomers from the project and, ironically, turn them into vandals.

When confronted with your actions, you brushed off criticism with arguments hovering around "Ignore All Rules", not understanding that IAR is essentially there to remind us that our rules are descriptive and not prescrictive, and not as a blanket justification for any abuse of power done in utter ignorance or deliberate and unwarranted disrespect of our policies.

Our semi-protection policy in particular has been carefully designed over the years to strike a balance between fighting vandalism and keeping Wikipedia open to the millions of readers who do not have an account, by default or by choice. Assuming, as I believe, that the policy has evolved based on consensus, it follows that your actions, so often irreconcilably distant from it, are seen by most of us as damaging, not helping, our project.

Even worse, your behavior has sometimes been seen as biased (an interesting analysis here) - openly pro-India and pro-Vietnam, and anti-whatever-is-against-that. This is shameful of anyone in Wikipedia, but even more so of an admin, and especially one exercising their powers so liberally, in an evident conflict of interest.

At one point last year you were found responsible for one out of eight indefinite semiprotections in the whole of Wikipedia. I invite anyone who cares about our project to request a review of the most blatantly unjustified protections, especially the indefinite ones. 121.102.41.166 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How about you log in and post this? It's obvious that you're not a new editor from this post, and you should be prepared to put your name to criticisms of other editors - particularly if you want to be taken seriously. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:HUMAN the IP above doesn't have to have an account, they have been civil, provided diffs and frankly made a reasonable point and so you should take it in that spirit.
 * The IP's criticism of YellowMonkey is fairly similar to the criticisms of Wikipedia brought up on the letters page of this weeks Economist, I found reading those letters very humbling. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And frankly if they were a regular user, rather than someone whose been around occasionally in the past, why wouldn't they have posted this in the RFC or the ARBCOM request? Certainly that seems plausible, and so we should assume good faith. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I think Nick's point, and it is one that I agree with, is that this person should edit under the account that they quite obviously hold and not under an anonymous IP address. I'm not saying that they should create an account solely to post this criticism, as I strongly believe they have an account already. I would be a lot more likely to take onboard criticisms from people who have the courage and strength of their convictions to not sign out. Woody (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nick and Aaron (and now Woody) on this -- anonymity does nothing for credibility. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if they do have an account while using it would be ideal not using it is really a minor detail compared to the substance of the above comment.
 * No administrator who is behaving appropriately would have made only 3 edits to IP and new user talk pages while making 100 blocks over the same period. I must give at least 20 warnings/comments to new users for every block I request - that's getting on for 1000 times more warnings per block request than YellowMonkey has made recently.
 * No administrator who is behaving appropriately would have had the what must be 30 successful challenges of their protections at WP:RUP either in the last year.
 * I hope that YellowMonkey can return and make further excellent contributions to the project, but his adminship (and the edits pointed out above, which I had completely forgotten about until today) leave quite a lot to be desired. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not have an account, because I don't have to have an account, and no bully is going to make me create one. My arguments are not weakened by your complaints about my "anonymity". If anything, the fact itself that you would pick on that detail actually makes my case stronger. 121.102.41.166 (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you edited a Wiki before? Just seems that you know how to edit (just an observation) and that fact that you use "our", which is what is leading me to think that other editors feel that you have an account here. I think YellowMonkey has made mistakes but making comments on his past which was discussed at a few places seemed rather mixed, though if you think YM's actions were poor then makes YM's action look minor. Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have edited a wiki before. I know how to edit. I also strongly believe that Wikipedia, both as a resource and as a project, belongs to the whole of humanity, hence my use of "our". Humanity includes unregistered users, who represent in fact the vast majority. I tend not to distinguish between registered and unregistered users, and neither should the editors above. Not only because our guidelines say so, but also because it is completely irrelevant to the points I am making. 121.102.41.166 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @Bidgee I've taken a look through his log and it doesn't look like he's done anything particularly bad. I can see he blocked you for 24 hours, but given that's his only user block going back to 2009 it hardly seems like a pattern. Even assuming it was totally inappropriate it isn't anywhere remotely comparable to the sheer number of poor admin actions mentioned above on this page. And I haven't even mentioned the multiple long term blocks of users by YellowMonkey which were overturned at ANI and which were discussed in the RFC/ARBCOM request. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the intended point above was not that IP's opinions are worth less, but that if you want your complaints to be taken seriously in the RfC (assuming it ever gets back in gear) it would be nice to reveal the extent of your history with YellowMonkey whether that be on another IP or another account. That is, after all, what everyone else there has done.     —  Soap  —  14:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear (without beating a WP:DEADHORSE too much :p) that if YellowMonkey returns and generally improves his admin actions then if he makes a mistake with his admin actions at some point down the line that I'll be the first to defend him, we are all human after all. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yellow Monkey was above the vast majority of editors on wikipedia in all respects. He was not only a top article contributor but he cut the BS which plagues this site. Unfortunately he did this for so long he ended up being a target of BS himself becaus ehe did what he thought was right and cut the crap. He is also above this sort of treatment and people trying to control even what he does with his talk page! Come to accept we've lost a great editor and he surely has more dignity than to return and be grilled by you lot (Eraserhead aside). I never thought Yellow Monkey would ever leave wikipedia and saw him as one of the strongest admins on here. The fact that even he has gone sheds little hope.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * @Soap, I wish I could share your optimism. To me it's pretty clear what the above comments mean: "Since you are well-versed in Wikipedia's internals, you must have an account. IP = newbie. Therefore, you are lying, you are hiding behind anonymity, and although your comments are supported by hard evidence they are not credible and deserve to be ignored."
 * Look, I've seen this all before. Given a case of one IP against one admin, fellow admins naturally side with the admin (again, with few exceptions). "No matter what they did, they must have had a darn good reason to do it. IAR. Lalalalalaaa." Here's another example of the same kind of irrelevance thrown at these cases. I'm sorry to say that, but in my experience IPs (especially dynamic IPs) are indeed worth less at Wikipedia, because the wiki-elitists cannot (ab)use their superpowers on them, and they are forced to actually consider (or ignore, as may be the case) opinions they disagree with.
 * Even you, I'm sure in good faith, seem to make another very common assumption, that I have a personal problem with YM because of some episode that I am failing to report, e.g. edit war or block. That is incorrect, and in fact I have had next to no interaction with YM directly - apart from some civil questions and requests in their talk page that they completely ignored. My motive is different and completely selfless. I think admins who have a cavalier attitude towards handling IPs are disrespecting our consensus, and ultimately harming Wikipedia. Admins have special powers, so I think it's only fair that they should be held accountable if they abuse them as a matter of course. 220.100.118.132 (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr Blofeld, I accept that in general admins get harassed on ANI after making one-off mistakes and that is one of the worst things about Wikipedia. However in this case that doesn't really apply as its far beyond being a "one-off" issue. Even if as you claim YellowMonkey was just avoiding red tape, then while I may well have been able to successfully challenge articles at WP:RUP they wouldn't afterwards have almost always stayed unprotected, and by now the issue would have essentially blown up in my face as a significant minority would have been re-protected with great hassle and I essentially wouldn't have been able to successfully challenge further articles.
 * While I don't want to blame anyone for this, and really this is just a 20:20 hindsight solution, what we really should have done was to look into YellowMonkey's adminship in more detail last April when I originally went to ANI (after 10 unprotection requests) we wouldn't be in this mess, where even if he returns, due to his now very poor record, even though he's a former arbitrator he essentially has less power on the project than I do - as people are more likely to take my side in borderline cases.
 * And if we also look at IP vandalism, even for someone like me who has made 1000x more warnings than YellowMonkey I actually have found in at least two very recent cases that IP editors have challenged my warnings correctly and got their "version" of the content into the article, given my recent record I think it seems extremely likely that at least some of the IP editors blocked by YellowMonkey prematurely, were either right in that case, or would have made significant positive contributions in the future.
 * All in all YellowMonkeys adminship has become a definite issue, and we should avoid being too rude, but we should accept that not everyone is as balanced as I am (not that I'm perfect by any means) and that people may come across less clearly or politely than they should and we shouldn't get too upset about that.
 * I should also clarify that personally YellowMonkey has been perfectly civil to me on all occasions which we have interacted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Close letter to everyone, friend or enemy of YM
Hello my fellow Wikipedians.

It's almost lunar new year in my country.

According to the traditional customs, I should not talk any bad thing this day. But I could not follow customs right now when I accidentally read these above conversations.

It make me feel bad. Very bad.

It appears some of you guy are very determined to make Yellow Monkey leave. I don't know what made you hate YM that much. But after all, I feel very sorry for yous!

I see that you have done so many things to achieve your objective. I can see that. From the beginning of this crisis I see many accusations, bad words, good words etc. and now I see an IP's open letter and it has got applause?

And it also appears many of your guy are very determined to make Yellow Monkey give up his admin tools

For you, Yellow Monkey is a pain in the ass of Wikipedia. And no matter what he has tried, promised or done; you just want him to give up his admin tools. Even now, when YM has been silent for a long time, you can't even refrain yourself from putting more and more pressure on him.

I think this is very unreasonable. We are all human, and we all must commit mistakes in our earthly life like other beings. The only thing differentiate us from other animals is that we all can change ourselves for that we will avoid committing same mistakes over again. YM has made his promises to change, why don't you guy give him some time to keep these promise.

Why should many of you keep asking him "to not come back to this project"? Why should many of you keep asking others to "desire [YM]'s adminship"?. What is the point for that? If you need the removal that much, why don't come straight to WP:ARBCOM or Jimbo Wales and make some new requests?

What I want now is NO MORE, just no more pressure here, PLEASE. PLEASE let Yellow Monkey has some space to breath and some reasons to come back to this Wikipedia. Just do it for no sake. Or If you want some reason, you do it as a payment of Wikipedia for YM's long and excellent contributions as up to now he has got nothing for his wasting lifetime here.

A former Wikipedians.

--115.75.150.184 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest someone is WP:BOLD and moves this content to the RFC's talk page. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 00:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm, no. Leave it here.  Unless you'd like to remove all your ridiculous passive-aggressive posturing above, it provides some balance to your rant.  Leave YM alone for Gods sake.  –Moondyne 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Moondyne. II find it interesting that you reverted the removal of a similar open letter (but with a view that agreed with you) but wants this opinion (that, just coincidentally, you don't agree with) removed. Consistency does not appear to be your strong point. Rather than continue to beat your chest over the body of a vanquished enemy, take some comfort in the thought that you, by siding with a bunch of trolls and other assorted malcontents, have managed to drive a dedicated administrator and a tireless contributor of content away from the encyclopedia. You should be proud. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting moving all the content in both the open and close letter sections to the RFC, because they are now much more than just one person making a comment, and because I actually think 115.75.150.184 has a reasonable point when he says What I want now is NO MORE, just no more pressure here, PLEASE. PLEASE let Yellow Monkey has some space to breath and some reasons to come back to this Wikipedia....
 * The only reason I've bothered to comment here is that if people deny that something that is a problem isn't a problem they actually make matters worse, as its always best to solve problems early. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Moondyne and wanted to thank YM for his many years of positive contributions to Wikipedia. Committed editors such as YM have lead to the success of the project and I look forward to his continued involvement. --Hughesdarren (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hughesdarren, everyone, please note it's not YM's editing that is under scrutiny. 220.100.103.162 (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How else can you interpret repugnant and poisonous statements like but I for one am not missing you, and although I wish you all the best in life I hope that you won't come back to this project.? Completely unnecessary and disgusting treatment of an experienced and valued editor. Whoever wrote it should hang there head in shame. --Hughesdarren (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, and I will definitely consider your totally unrepugnant and unpoisonous suggestion of hanging myself, but just to spell it out once again, please note that it's not the editing that we are debating, it's the admin part. 220.100.103.162 (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * just to make sure no-one accuses Darren of a personal attack or threat, to hang your head in shame has nothing to do with hanging, it means to look down at your feet, like you do when you are embarrassed or feel shame. It is a very common English idiom.  Also, unrepugnant and unpoisonous are not real words.The-Pope (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When I wrote the open letter above I was unaware of the RfC. I have now read a few bits and pieces, and all the complaints resonate with what I have observed personally in the past.
 * For what it's worth, I agree with the apparent temporary conclusion that if YM ever comes back, before they do anything, they will have quite a bit to answer for, and will need to take responsibility for their actions - and again in my opinion, given the vast corpus of evidence, the chances of this not resulting in desysopping are quite slim.
 * What really strikes me, however, is that so many people are in denial and trying to defend the indefensible, mostly with the trite and void arguments "IAR" and "YM was an indefatigable editor".
 * Above all, I find it quite disconcerting that Wikipedia's dispute resolution and admin abuse prevention mechanisms failed so miserably and for such a long time. I think it would be well worth analyzing this failure and reviewing the mechanisms, although I suspect it still boils down to a good number of admins tending to meatball on each other and assuming that IPs are up to no good. To the contrary, I strongly believe that IPs are a vital tool to keep our NPOV in check. 220.100.103.162 (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you my point again. If you think YellowMonkey could not be an admin anymore, just log on and request ARBCOM or Jimbo Wales to desysop him. No people here have the power to touch his admin's tools. So you must stop suggesting now because it's absolutely no point to do that here!
 * I don't defend YM, all I just want to tell you and your supporter (the "most balanced" guy above") that YM hasn't come back yet and so that HIS ADMIN TOOLS are useless and mean no harm for this project. So for now, please stop campaigning for the removal of YellowMonkey's tools.
 * I acknowledge YellowMonkey often make swift decisions to block new accounts-appear-to-be-disruptive and IPs. His working style could make you feel bad because it violated WP:BITE, WP:HUMAN and so forth. But think again, how many blocks from YM given are unjustified blocks? Are his blocks really disruptive or a serious violation of Wikipedia principles? I think some of them are but the way you treat him now look like all of them are bad blocks and YellowMonkey have seriously misuse the tool. And for the phrase but I for one am not missing you, and although I wish you all the best in life I hope that you won't come back to this project. I can't stop thinking that you are one of the users who have been blocked by YellowMonkey. Whoever you are, I suggest you putting your head to the blanket of shame and cry, this might be good for the rest of your life.
 * I also acknowledge YellowMonkey often protect light-vandalized page too much. But YM really has the point to do that. You can check his protect log, most of the pages which were protected by YM are unimportant pages with few monitors. In one conversation in ANI, he said he just want to protect them from vandals as noone care much about these pages and vandalism edits can be existed for a long time on them. But above all, the community rejected his point and YM publicly promised to not do this again. So why should you keep questioning a dead horse? And other supporters, what make you so regret to give YM a chance to keep his promises? Is he that bad?--115.75.150.184 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello 115.75.150.184, and happy Tet holiday to you.
 * I confess it's very tempting to ignore your posts and quietly listen to your allcaps pleads to stop this thread, but then you go on and write untruths, throw accusations, make assumptions in bad faith, and also ask questions, so I feel compelled to reply.
 * you must stop suggesting [desysopping YM] now - I am more inclined to stop doing something if I can be convinced that something is wrong rather than if someone orders me to do so. In this case, not only you would be failing in the former, but your premise (that I am calling for desysopping) is unfounded. If you read my post more carefully, you will find that I am satisfied with the arbitration request of not desysopping YM (yet), although I do further speculate that if they ever come back it will be a likely outcome.
 * you and your supporter (the "most balanced" guy above") - You could have said "Eraserhead1", but no, you decided to misquote them instead, and to make it sound like it's only two editors who see something wrong with YM's use of their admin tools. As for your unnecessarily allcaps point that YM's admin tools are useless until they come back, I'm not disagreeing, but then one wonders if it isn't contradictory of you to also insist on not removing something useless.
 * I can't stop thinking that you are one of the users who have been blocked by YellowMonkey. - Not that I really care, but since this is not the case (I am on a dynamic IP, so I would be unaffected by blocks) what you are doing here is to give us further proof of your bad faith.
 * You then try to rewrite history and basically claim that YM doesn't, after all, have a track record of routinely ignoring policy, abusing their powers and acting as if they were above this silly consensus thing. If you did what you suggested and took a look at YM's protection log, you will notice that just a few days before they left, they semiprotected Cricket World Cup for 5 months, and Cannon Hill Anglican College indefinitely, without just cause. Both have been challenged at WP:RUP and were unprotected immediately. 113.197.145.136 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really very inappropriate now. YM is not here, and he has given no indication that he is monitoring this page. This is not a green-screen forum for you to plink away at him when he is not here to respond. If you continue, this page will be locked. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@113.197.145.136: Thank for your New Year's greetings.

First, I should confess that I have a prejudgment against IPs and experienced-newusers. This prejudgment has come from the time I spent in Vietnamese Wikipedia, where IPs and experienced-newusers are corrupting the whole community. They are willing to harass editors, interrupt conversations, vote for what they want, etc. In other words, they can whatever they want as admins can't block them, one get blocked and ten others replace immediately (they are very like you because they keep asking other editors respect their anonymity or "Wikipedia don't forbid IPs and newcomers to contribute"). And since you appear to be very experienced as you made clear points and collect good diffs. You immediately have my prejudgment. Moreover, I am out of temper because the way you nicely insult YM and ask him to not come back. So, please don't be so sad, I will keep to use strong language and assume only a little good faith here. And I think I am not the only one, the only way to avoid further prejudgment is using your account and take responsibility for your words.

The next thing I want to tell you is that I don't cap all texts in my close letter, I only capped the two most important words "NO MORE" and "PLEASE". So would you PLEASE don't make false accusation PLEASE? I don't want to rewrite anything. I acknowledge the characteristics of YM, all I just want to ask you is giving him a chance to fix them. No one born to be perfect, how do you think? As YM have contributed alo to Wikipedia, I believe he is deserved to get some chance, not to get merciless treatments. Wikipedia is not US Congress, we should treat other accordingly. For why mentioned only the two editors you and Erasehead1, it because you made this nicely drafted open letter and Erasehead1, up to now, has been very determined to see YM got removal of his admin tools. I pick you two as an example for the current bad treatment. This is all, I don't mean to manipulate any situation.

YM often make excessive protections, but they are not without causes. As in Cannon Hill Anglican College, he protect it after an unattended vandalism and I think YM think the article could get vandalized again. He have good faith but the way he use his admin tools is wrong. He appear to hate IPs and newcomer who vandal more than contribute as much as I am. And so that the community has warned him and got his promises for not do it again. I couldn't what make you need his quit that much? I found your intention unreasonable for that.

After all, I think you (I mean all YM anti-fans)should be proud. According to my experiences in both English Wikipedia and Vietnamese Wikipedia, I don't think YM would ever come back and if he ever come back, he could never contribute as much as he used to. I think Wikipedia has lost a stupid contributior. Good job, gentlemen.--115.75.150.184 (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. We have instructions from ArbCom about what to do if YM returns. Those instructions do not expire. Go argue with them, please, arguing here is not a good use of time. Many thanks to all who are concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Protection of your article Indian Army
You have indefinitely  semi- protected the article Indian Army.I see no point in granting protection to this article. Not much vandalism to justify protection .Please  clarify your stand on this.Suri 100 (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * YellowMonkey is on a wiki-break - please request on WP:RUP. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In your absence, I've unprotected it. Ged  UK  14:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

He's bloody retired not on a wiki break!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 10:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That does sadly now seem to be the case. I hope that he returns though. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Me three. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Me not. Unless he is forced to clean up the mess he's made, such as this, and then revoked his admin rights, to prevent further abuse. 219.77.7.111 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * YM's return and the provoking of YM's tools has no connection. Don't keep asking people to get off Wikipedia because they abused tools in the past. You reminded me of the guy behind the Japanese IPs who attacked YM all the time. And up to now, there is not a sign of further abuse, so can you stop beat a dead horse, can't you?--115.75.142.9 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not coming back or removal of admin rights, I don't care which one so long as further damage is prevented. 219.77.7.111 (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think all hope is gone now. Probably he will never come back. I understand the reasons of his retirement as I once was much like him before. Oh my bloody Wikipedia community!--115.75.140.137 (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * no point in being sentimental. He was too rigid in his views and would not allow anyone to hold different ones. He used the 3RR sneakily too. And some of the cricket photo polls were at best cheesecake and at worst questionable. Nobody is bigger than Wp. Move on. Silent Billy (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But there are a lot of points to be regretted. YM was badly and ugly over-treated as an evil witch regardless of all thing he has done for this Wp. And there was no policy or guidance dealing with photo polls in YM userpage until a bloody sock successfully drove the community to vote and remove YM's photo polls mercilessly by using some unverifiable complains. Sorry but I still strongly believe that YM won't retire if we chosen a different way to treat him, a way which is less in wiki-pressure and wiki-drama. You could move on as you will, but the fact that we lost an excellent editor will never be ignored.--115.75.140.137 (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That sure is extensive socking. I note that he or she was banned as a result: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive673. That sure puts the comments at Requests for comment/YellowMonkey and elsewhere in an interesting context (from memory, AD was one of the most vocal people in calling for YM to be tarred and feathered). Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So let me get this right. The best defense for YM's proven track record of sustained, long-term Judge Dredd-like abuse of admin tools is that
 * One of the editors who exposed his actions (by no means the only editor who did that) is a sock
 * YM was a good editor - nothing to do with admin tool abuse
 * Witch hunt, wiki-pressure, wiki-drama, blah blah blah. Well, he had a choice to prove that this is all it was and the accusations were unfounded, but he preferred to go away instead. His choice.
 * And agreed, the photo polls and other cruft (including the Mr Kabir Toor above here) were ugly to say the least, bandwidth-hogging for sure. 219.77.7.111 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So let me explain it for you. I didn't defend YM at all. All I want to show is how unfair people treat YM. And things which I mentioned has no defensive value at all:


 * 1) One of the editors who exposed his actions (by no means the only editor who did that) is a sock - no, many other also did sock or SPA too.
 * 2) YM was a good editor - nothing to do with admin tool abuse Agreed but it has a lot to do with the way people, like you or a guy from Japan (I wonder where he is now), run an extensive anti-YM campaign in one of the ugliest ways I have ever seen on Wikimedia projects.
 * 3) "Witch hunt, wiki-pressure, wiki-drama, blah blah blah. Well, he had a choice to prove that this is all it was and the accusations were unfounded, but he preferred to go away instead. His choice." Yes this is his choice and witch hunters' attacks is one of reasons for this sad choice.
 * I have 512kb connection here and the old photo polls caused no problem to my PC. This sock should blame his accident PC instead of crying on Wp. And he also have a choice of staying away YM's talkpage. Why didn't he do that?--115.75.142.9 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * many other also did sock or SPA too - See, you are missing the point. There was abuse, and there are diffs proving it. Who is reporting the abuse is irrelevant to the abuse itself.
 * Let me break it down for you. If a guy has been burglarized and goes to the police to report the crime, and it turns out that the victim of the burglary beat his wife the night before, would you expect the police to drop the burglary case? No, rather they should investigate both.
 * And he also have a choice of staying away YM's talkpage. Why didn't he do that? - How many talk pages does YM have? One. Sock or no sock, why did admins eventually decide to move that rubbish to a separate page? Because that's where it belonged from the start. 219.77.7.111 (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote in WP:CRIC
There has been a issue in WT:CRIC that needs your vote. Thanks -- ashwinikalantri talk 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * YellowMonkey is not currently editing; could someone else fill in? — Soap  —  12:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy Tet holiday
Happy Tet holiday. I wish you and your family a happy and prosperous new year!--115.75.150.184 (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Inzy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Inzy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (Talk) 04:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away
<div style="background-color: #F0FFEC; border: 4px solid #107020; width:100%; -moz-border-radius: 15px; -webkit-border-radius: 15px;" > WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 23:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana (band) FAR
Hi there, all the concerns listed in the Nirvana FAR have now been addressed and all objections struck. I gave Dana a notice about it, but she's on vacation at the moment, so I figured I should give you a shout. Thanks. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Christianity in Pakistan
Hello. Checking the protection log for this article, I see that it was you who protected the article. I'm sure the protection was warranted. I'm just curious because there is no notice on the page that it is semi-protected. Every protected article I've come across here has an appropriately colored lock in the top right corner. Should this one follow suit? Thank you for your time. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been unprotected now, so it doesn't matter, but in the future, go ahead and just add the icon if you think it looks pretty. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that I could do that. (I am not an administrator.) And it wasn't that I thought it "looked pretty". I just thought that was customary. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, screw protocol, some admins just don't have time for that. There will always be some drudge around who cleans up their mess anyway.
 * Please note that lock icons are not a matter of aesthetics, but one of usability. 113.197.209.97 (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not what I was implying. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Australian Feature Articles
We need you back because they are all under threat. Maybe whoever vandalised your talk page has gone away.--Grahame (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Help Please
I'm tryin to unify my user globally on wikipedia, but on this wiki some user have logged whit the same user name. He or she doesn't have eaven a user page, maybe he or she even use it really. I am asking you for help to unify me, my user name is Qban answer me on wiki.es. My native language is spanish, but you should answer me in english(it is medium, please be understandable). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that YellowMonkey is not active on Wikipedia at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See Changing username/Guidelines :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance
Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 7, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/April 7, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director,. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tb hotch * ۩ ۞ 04:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

<div style="background-color: #D4AF37; border: 1px solid #1234aa; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"> <div class="plainlinks" style="background-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: #88a; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding: 1em 1em .5em 1em;">

Phan Dinh Phung (1847–1896) was a Vietnamese revolutionary who led rebel armies against French colonial forces in Vietnam. He was the most prominent of the Confucian court scholars involved in anti-French military campaigns in the 19th century and was cited after his death by 20th-century nationalists as a national hero. Born into a family of mandarins, Phan quickly rose through the ranks under Emperor Tu Duc, gaining a reputation for his integrity and uncompromising stance against corruption. Upon Tu Duc's death, the regent Ton That Thuyet disregarded Tu Duc's will of succession, and three emperors were deposed and killed in just over a year. Along with Thuyet, Phan organised rebel armies as part of the Can Vuong movement, which sought to expel the French. This campaign continued for three years until 1888, when the French captured Ham Nghi and exiled him to Algeria. Phan and his military assistant Cao Thang continued their guerrilla campaign, building a network of spies, bases and small weapons factories. However, Cao Thang was killed in a campaign in late 1893. The decade-long campaign eventually wore Phan down, and he died from dysentery as the French surrounded his forces. (more...)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Weeds (TV series)

 * Hi the article for the Showtime series, Weeds, is too long and is in need of copyediting. I put the construction template up and started worked on the first two paragraphs, and started the third one on the article. I wanted to know if you could help out copyediting. Thanks! ATC . Talk 19:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * YellowMonkey isn't active at the moment I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FAR
Hey YM -- I've been holding out hope that you'd come back to us, but so far that hasn't happened. In the meantime, FAR has become backlogged, so I've appointed Nikkimaria to replace you as FAR delegate. It's not a knock against you -- I still have full confidence in your judgment. If and when you come back and want to resume your work as FAR delegate, chat me up and we'll work something out. Raul654 (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

BOY o BOY where are you when I need you. We miss you greatly. You were one of the tiny proportion of admins who ever brought proper justice to this site and stood up for what was right even if it made your controversial or unpopular with some people.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been hanging out for YM to return due to the valuable contributions they make to the encyclopaedic project. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Group hug -- second/third/whatever the above comments... Your absence is understood, but still very much regretted... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

11th the above. Pup has taken over the captaincy from Punter while you were away. Surely you must want to edit about this?!? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What Ian said. Woody (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Other comments unrelated to FAR have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/YellowMonkey

Returning
Echo all the sentiments above. From reading the arb case it does appear that the case was declined (motion 2). So, as far as I can see, there are no bars against your just coming back and editing away as usual. Some editors prefer that your RfC torture should continue but I suspect, and hope, that wiser counsels will prevail if you do decide to come back. If you can indicate your interest in returning in some way, that would help in figuring out how to make it happen. Regards. --rgpk (comment) 00:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All discussions surrounding rgpk's comment have been relocated to his or her talkpage. This is YellowMonkey's talkpage so that it should only be used to communicate with YellowMonkey. This is not a suitable talkpage to discuss about others' message to YellowMonkey. Please read User pages for relevant guideline.

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Madame Nhu
Madame Nhu's death had been widely reported in the Vietnamese-language media but so far not much in other languages. I've added it as an ITN candidate. Could you make some edits in her article to make clear her influence/notoriety so that other users have a better idea of how influential she was so they can decide whether to put it in the front page? DHN (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Weeds (TV series)
Could you add your opinions here? Thanx, I'd appreciate your input. ATC. Talk 18:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 05:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don Bradman Links
Hi, I would like to add some links to the Don Bradman article, namely changing

1) "With the English team due to arrive for the Ashes series, the media and the public were anxious to know if Bradman would lead Australia."

to "With the English team due to arrive for the 1946–47 Ashes series, the media and the public were anxious to know if Bradman would lead Australia."

2) "Controversy emerged as early as the first day of the series"

to "Controversy emerged on the first day of the First Test at Brisbane"

3) "An appeal for a catch was denied in the umpire's contentious ruling that it was a bump ball."

to "An appeal for a catch was denied in the umpire's contentious ruling that it was a bump ball."

Regards, Philipjelley (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So be bold and go and do it :). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your stalking and assumed ownership of YMs talk page is getting beyond bizarre, Eraserhead1. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)