User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive61

Don, the
Hi,would you care to have a look at the article? I've cut it down a lot and hope it will be ready for peer review soon. Thanks muchly. Phanto282 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Oh, don't tell me I am an expert or anything.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point that you raised at PR. Perhaps the Fingleton-O'Reilly v Bradman thing is worth a separate article? IMO, the problems between the two factions were in the nature of a personality clash: basically, Bradman had problems relating to a lot of his contemporaries. This analysis that it was sectarian seems to stem from Charles Williams (ie, "they were met by priests in cassocks"), but his evidence is scant. I'm sure that if O'Reilly or Fingleton believed that Bradman discriminated against them on the basis of religion, they would've said so. Do you have a suggestion as to how to make the controversies fork NPOV? Cheers, Phanto282 11:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I am not sure that the O'Reilly-Fingleton-McCabe faction was motivated by Irish nationalism or Catholic feeling, but it is a notable hypothesis. Definitely though, the schism probably could do with a start class article where one could state the facts about the existence of tension, the various political incidents like the board meeting and then discuss the various theories being circulated and different people's ideas about the internal team tension and why it arose. Certainly we should not present it as fact that it was sectarian but there are debates by people saying that it was or it wasn't so this is a notable aspect of presenting the support and criticism of the religion theory.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the controversy thing, the general policy is that things like that should not exist. We should not have a controversy article  fork because in the main article we will have topics A, B, C, D and then we have a criticism/controversy section where we have critA, critB, critC...... The ideal way is to have A (inc controversies of A), B (including controversies of B), ..... etc. eg in Greg Chappell the daughter articles should be stuff like Underarm incident, Greg Chappell in World Series Cricket, Greg Chappell as Indian cricket coach, Chappell Ganguly controversy with the controversies integrated into the sections and duaghter articles rather than have a general biography and at the bottom have Controversies of Greg Chappell as a fork and then lump all the criticism of his coaching and tactics together at the bottom. In general we are supposed to divide sections into different events rather than good/bad.  Blnguyen   ( bananabucket ) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Chalukya
Sir, the massive deletion of cited information by Kumarrao continues. Please lock up this page.Dineshkannambadi 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to have died out at the moment.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Military history contest
Congratulations on taking first place this month! Kirill 20:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1955 State of Vietnam referendum
The article 1955 State of Vietnam referendum you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:1955 State of Vietnam referendum for eventual comments about the article. Well done! T Rex  | talk  01:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Macartney
Sorry I rudely ignored your message. RL is difficult at the moment. Let me know if I can help. --Dweller 11:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I wouldn't mind helping to get Charlie Mac to FA. If you want my help let me know. Phanto282 12:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the offers. Also I have been caught up a bit as well.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Smiley
This cute little smiling brown monkey wishes the Yellow Monkey a happy day. -- Sandahl 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Aww....how cute.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hahaha - I guess this'll be next cab off the rank for you then at FAC? I'll keep an eye out for it :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that wasn't the one I was thinking of, but I could randomly pick one of hte ones from User:Blnguyen/Recent.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Gawd, wouldn't know where to start....ah well, I haven't done much sportingwise on WP due to the challenges of images and referencing...maybe soon thoughcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

About Kumarrao and Altruism
Yes, you have amply proved this time by your comments here, that your admin decisions may definitely be coloured and biased.

Who's wrong about their "RS"es? Which one of my sources is non-RS? Could you point them out? Who has an agenda? Its an open secret that you collude with a bunch of vandals and help them out, by misusing your admin powers. I'm sure every observer can see what all of you are upto.

What do you have to say about your 72 hr. block for 4R in 24 hours 7 minutes!!! Doesn't that sound ludicruous? You are only targetting me. Thanks to some sane admins your block was reversed.-- Altruism T a l k - Contribs. 05:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Altruism, you and Kumarrao kept edit warring with two refs. One of the refs (adluri) was blatant non-RS and you kept bringing it back inspite of multiple editors explaining it to you multiple times.  The other ref though RS was being misinterpreted by you.  And that is the reason it was being removed.  You still dont get it.  Do you?  Keep bringing them back at your own risk. And by the way, you violated 3rr (starting with this one) as recently as couple of days ago on Dravidian civilizations.  Count yourself lucky that I just didnt have the energy to file a report.  I'd have liked to see which 'sane admin' would have let you off on that.  Sarvagnya 05:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All this has been discussed over and over before.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

 * ... that if it wasn't for people like you then people like me wouldn't get to propose articles for the main page? Well done. Victuallers 07:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. Tyrenius 07:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Imperial triple crown jewels


Your Imperial Majesty, these triple crown jewels are well earned. May you wear them well. Durova Charge! 14:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi
You have mail.-- Sandahl 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hanson takes credit for John Howard win
Is that the real reason you deleted the Hanson response? Or are you trying to bate me for 3RR? There are plenty more references that can support Hanson's viewpoint, but if I add more references you are going to delete it again, which defeats the point. Or if those references are provided, are you going to allow the quote to stay? --Lester2 05:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes that is the real reason. With only Hanson there, that would imply that she is a general and neutral and notable commentator with a mainstream opinion which is not the case. The political consensus was not that Howard had won by adopting One Nation policies. I certainly don't recall him have net zero immigration, no Asian immigration, or more tariffs or an isolationalist foreign policy. No I am not baiting you.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Howard himself attributed his win to Tampa/Border Protection, which involved many policies that Hanson previously had. Temporary Visas etc etc. There are other commentators who agree, but you are basically sending me off to do the hard work of finding more references, but when I come back with more citations you will probably delete it again anyway.--Lester2 05:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually when the ALP blamed the loss on what they felt was a stunt by JH on Tampa etc, the Coalition also cited their own economic record and so forth, and so did many commentators (at least the centre right ones). Unless Howard says he is copying ONP or the commentators say he is copying, you cannot equate the policies yourself and use that as a justification for PH's quote. Her comment would be there on the merits of the notablity of the comment, not because a WP editor cna do some personal analysis to conclude that they are related.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there actually was significant commentary on this. It takes a lot of work to research every sentence, and if I find and reference it (as you say such a statement would need), it would be sad to see it deleted 30 seconds later.Lester2 07:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, why is what Hanson said...important or more important than...say the then Opposition Leader...or any other commentator? Why just Hanson?   Shot info  05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, Shot Info, you're following me around. Occasionally you get one leader accuse the other of stealing one particular policy. But Hanson claimed that the Howard government adopted all her main policies. Did any of the other leaders attribute the election win to the adoption of all their main policies? There is a long list of Hanson's previously stated policies that were adopted by the Howard government at that time. Lester2 05:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well I will refrain from asking you a question here in an area that it seemed to be appropriate to ask :-)  Shot info  05:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to keep talking.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, politicians will often claim credit for laying the foundation for good times enjoyed by their successor. Conversely some will blame chaos on inherited mismanagement. Yes Hanson claimed that JH copied her policies. But this is her opinion and is not seen as the main thing of the 2001 election. If there is substantial disccusion by 3rd parties about JH copying PH policies, then please source this to 3rd parties. As I pointed out above, one of the main issues after border security in 2001 was response to 9/11. eg, PH in that case called for isolationism on the part of Australia and complained about US/UK/AUS "bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age" or something like that.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of AKA on John Howard page
On what policy do you base your decision to remove the acronym "aka" from the John Howard -> Early Life section? Also, please refrain from deleting other content and references that had nothing to do with the Edit Summary reason you gave. Please engage with ongoing talkpage discussions if you disagee with content. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That second part was due to the edits coinciding. At the time I opened up the window, the second edit had not gone through and it went back to the version preceding your first edit.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK Update
It looks like it needs an update. If you are around and free, it would be appreciated. T i a m u t  14:28, 15 September 2000.
 * Unfortunately I was not around at the time. We always need more admins about on weekends.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
 


 * Thanks to both of you for helping to raise the profile of GAC and in stature I think. The consistnecy of GAC has risen and it seems to be respected more these days.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
Hi Blnguyen. With the exception of this, you haven't made any arbitration-related edits in more than a fortnight. Would you like me to move you to inactive at Arbitration Committee and reduce the majorities for the time being, or would you like to remain under the active heading? If you intend to stay active, could you have a peek at Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Proposed decision? Thank you. Picaroon (t) 01:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah not yet, but I may need to go inactive tomorrow.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Middletown High School DYK
You're welcome. Thanks for running it in the wee hours of the US EST morning ... this one has "vandalism target" written all over it, and I'm sure we'll see some from the UK before its run is over. Daniel Case 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a lot. That was my 60th DYK. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi 05:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Erik Eastaugh
I notice you voted against this being kept last time. I have renominated it. Currently the vote is in favour of delete anyway, but not enough people have voted, so if you could ask objective people to look this over and give their thoughts, this page can be decided on sooner rather than later.

Cheers, JJJ999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it certainly needs to be deleted from Wikipedia.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Australian rules football
If you want to write the notabilty guidelines fot the sport, for WP:SPORTS, go right ahead. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oohh, I can shape the fate of many articles!!!!  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FAs
Thankyou. You're too kind - your collection of icons looks far more impressive than mine. :-) Hesperian 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Re: Hi
Thank you, Blnguyen! It's good to see you too, and I'm glad that you're still editing here. I hope the encyclopedia has been treating you well! -- Nataly a 11:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

100 DYK
Thanks, 100 was alot, now for the next 100, the scary thing is, I didn't even submit every article I created for awhile. :) IvoShandor 02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam
  Click there to open your card! → → →  Dear , Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to WaltonOne and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me. iride scent  (talk to me!)   20:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Credits
This design was brazenly stolen from inspired by Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 's RFA Thanks, which in turn was inspired by  Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

RFA Thanks!
Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK Hülya Şahin
Thank you again! CeeGee 17:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Indo greek Kingdom
Dear Blnguyen,

I am requesting your assistance on the Indo greek kingdom page Indo Greek Kingdom For two years 4 editors (myself, Windy city Dude, Pavanapuram, and Vastu) have attempted to compromise with user phg's heavily slanted, eurocentric view of the indo greeks. PHG insists on imposing a single map showing the Indo greeks ruling over half the indian subcontinent (he claims he just combining 3 maps, but it just looks like indo greek territory over varying periods). This was the colonial view in India during the height of British empire (PHG's main resource is W.W.Tarn--an avowed hellenophile). Tarn's theories have been overturned (can provide references if desired) and indo greek territory can only be confirmed to have extended as far as Pakistan, and certainly not into Peninsular India as displayed in the article (see discussion, reference: E. Seldeslachts, "End of the Road for the Indo Greeks".); however, PHG insists on unilateralism and will not allow for the 3 maps to be separated so that readers can see all perspectives (he insists only on his discredited, eurocentric view).

The other three editors and I only want objectivity. Although Tarn's theories are discredited, we are willing to let PHG display his coveted version if we can show our objective, npov one. But he won't allow us, and admin aldux enables him, doesn't consider our requests, and steamrolls our dissent.

If you take a look at the discussion page, Vastu negotiated a fair compromise in good faith with PHG, but PHG violated it afterwards because Vastu was temporarily inactive. Please arbitrate as it appears you have a genuine track record for fair dealing. User aldux is a countryman of PHG's and they routinely cooperate with each other in numerous endeavors (hardly impartial). Please help. Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Devanampriya 03:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. It's been a year basically since you brought up this article. Since then I have written 3 featured articles so I am now well acquainted with the criteria. At the same time last year I had never done any featured articles so I did not know how to analyse whether this article deserves to keep its FA status.


 * (1a) - ""Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." At the moment I think that the article is struggling to meet this criteria, there are some really long sentences and some paragraphs with only one sentence. Some sentences use words like "even" "seem to" "seemingly" and "allegedly" which should be ironed out.
 * (1c) does not have really enough citations for such a long, long article. Some paragraphs are uncited.
 * (1e) "stability" - well atm there are edit wars from time to time.
 * (2b) Four levels of headings may be too much.
 * (2c) Citations are at times inconsistent and incomplete
 * (4) A long article, might be too long


 * In addition to these problems, you have asserted that


 * The article is heavily dependent on one author that you claim is far from representinng a centrist equilibirum NPOV of scholarly thought. If that is the case, then the article also fails criteria 2c/d. This is a serious issue. If you are serious about this, then nominating this article for Featured article review is probably necesary if the article is POV and based on someone who is discredited.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At the moment I am quite busy and secondly I do not have enough knowledge to understand this topic well. But if these NPOV problems are as serious as you say they are, the article should be sent to WP:FAR. Perhaps it will resolve the issues once and for all. Aldux hasn't used any admin authority at the moment, he is simply participating as an ordinatry editor. And also IIRC, Aldux is Italian and PHG is French. In my experience they are fair and genuine editors, so even if they disagree, I think they are honestly motivated. So I don't think there is anything to worry there.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen,

Thank you for your response and candor. I do stand by my above-stated remarks, and respect your opinion. Regarding PHG and Aldux, I appreciate the fact that you've had fair experiences with them, but as you can see from their conduct on the discussion page, everything is nice and dandy only if people agree with their positions. That's precisely the problem: they are so highly motivated that they continue to edit war with anyone who raises legitimate questions and even brings up overwhelming evidence to counter their position.

It has been a year since I raised the issue with you, but there has been almost a constant debate on that page. Myself, Vastu, Windy City Dude, and Pavs have at various times proposed fair compromises, only to have them reneged upon or outrightly rejected without discussion. So as you can see, we need an objective arbitrator. In any event thank you for your counsel.

Regards,

Devanampriya 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Linh Dinh
While trying to expand the article on John Balaban and reading about ca dao, I found out that you had deleted the article on Linh Dinh. I have removed most of the links added by [[User:Linhdinh99 to Ca dao. I don't know much about the topic and only expanded Balaban's article because I thought it deserved better than what was there before. Just letting you know in case other self-promotion should be removed - I need to get offline now and I'll be in and out for most of this morning. Graham 87 01:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thnakns,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ghurni
It needs a small correction - the products of Ghurni were ... please add products of. Thanks a lot. - P.K.Niyogi 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On second reading, it is okay. Sorry to disturb you. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the Epic Barnstar. It's really appreciated and quite an honor. JKBrooks85 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 RfA Thanks
Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully with unanimous support. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and vote and I can't wait to learn the new tools and further immerse myself into Wikipedia! Please don't hesitate to point out any errors I make so I can prevent them from occurring again. I'm always here to help, so if you ever need anything, just let me know. Also, thanks to Wizardman for nominating me and for guiding many other editors to become admins. Again, thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alleged POV on Children Overboard Affair
Hi. Your edit here was summarised as a revert of POV when you actually reverted a well-publicised and basic fact. Can you please explain this on the article talkpage? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 08:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
I think it may have been you who failed to award me a DYK sticker! Obviously I'm mortally offended and intend to never again contribute (or breathe air). This is poor humour... /I made my own... I just thought I'd tell me out of manners. Thanks for all your efforts and pleased to see you are human ie fallible. Cheers Victuallers 12:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:GAR
I have noticed that you are a frequent reviewer at that Good Articles project. good article reassessment is experiencing a considerable backlog problem. There are several articles dating from August that still have not generated enough discussion to close. Could you please take a look at the oldest articles and make some fresh comments on them? Please note that some of these have undergone signigicant changes since they first came to GA/R; please judge the article only on its merits as of its current version. If you reviewed an earlier version of any of these articles, please also consider re-reading them and either revise or endorse any earluer comments you have made. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32| talk | contribs 02:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

2006 UEFA Champions League Final
I would have actually placed the article on hold. For the same reasons you failed it, but generally I hold articles if there is any change of salvaging it within seven days. Didn't read your message until after I'd reviewed the whole thing! - <font color="Blue">Shudde <font color="Blue">talk  04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI
Several editors have objected to your GA review of Santorum (sexual neologism). Van Tucky  Talk 05:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

José Juan Barea
Hey, I'm working with this article's nomination, among the work done by me has been grammar fixes and some referencing but there are some aspects of the review that I don't understand entirely, please see my question on Talk:José Juan Barea for the doubts per se,and thanks again for the review. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  23:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

John Howard & Hawke race motion
I'll soon be adding a couple of paragraphs into the John Howard article, which details the motion that Bob Hawke introduced into parliament in 1988, about race and immigration. I'm rewording it, using conservative commentator Paul Kelly's writings as a source. There are many prominent commentaries which cite the divisions within the Liberal Party over Asian immigration as the reason for Howard's downfall as leader at that time. These include commentators from both left and right. I chose to work with Kelly's text as a base, because his conservative credentials would satisfy other editors who may take exception to commentators from the left. I think you will agree it is written in a way that is not an "attack piece". If you have any problems with the wording, I trust you will discuss on the talk page, rather than use the revert button (which according to Wikipedia texts is to be used only in cases of blatant vandalism.) Thanks, Lester2 01:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok,  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 04:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration activity
Hi again Blnguyen. You've made no arbitration-related edits since September 19. Would you like to be moved to inactive on cases you have not voted on? Picaroon (t) 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm moving you to inactive on all cases except allegations of apartheid, which is the only one where you voted. We'll reactivate whenever you want. Picaroon (t) 19:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)
Delivered by grafikbot 13:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)