Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 5 February 2007

User:Blnguyen/CWC Advert User:Blnguyen/Recent

You are welcome to leave me a message or request admin action.

Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since 29 May 2006 and an arbitrator since January 1, 2007.

FOR ANONS, I WILL DEFINITELY REPLY HERE. FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS MAY BE HERE OR AT YOUR TALK PAGE. IF IT IS A MULTI-PARTY DISCUSSION, THEN DEFINITELY HERE

Archives roughly divided into 40kb chunks

• /Archive1: October 2005 - 2/3/06 (44kb)
• /Archive2: 3/3 - 23/3 (40kb)
• /Archive3: 23/3 - 7/4 (41kb)
• /Archive4: 7/4 - 2/5 (45kb)
• /Archive5: 2/5 - 18/5 (45kb)
• /Archive6: 19/5 - 26/5 (43kb)
  • /Archive my RfA: separate archive regarding my RfA from 22-31/5
• /Archive7: 26/5 - 6/5 (45kb)
• /Archive8: 7/6 - 16/6 (43kb)
• /Archive9: 17/6 - 29/6 (42kb)
• /Archive10: 30/6 - 8/7 (40kb)
• /Archive11: 9/7 - 13/7 (40kb)
• /Archive12: 13/7 - 18/7 (42kb)
• /Archive13: 18/7 - 22/7 (42kb) (includes most of the Indian religion stuff, which started a while ago)
• /Archive14: 22/7 - 6/8 roughly 2006 (42kb)
• /Archive15: 6/8 - 16/8 (43kb)
  • /Archive16: 7/8 - 10/8 (41kb) (separate for Indian religion hostilities)
  • /Archive17: 10/8 - 17/8 (41kb) (separate for Indian religion hostilities)
• /Archive18: 16/8 - 23/8 (40kb)
  • /Archivesurvey: for the religion survey
  • /Archive19: 17/8 - 1/9(43kb) (separate for Indian religion hostilities + cucumber)
• /Archive20: 23/8 - 1/9 (40kb)
• /Archive21: 1/9 - 6/9 (40kb)
• /Archive22: 6/9 - 14/9 (40kb)
• /Archive23: 4/9 - (Balkan battles) (24kb)
• /Archive24: 4/9 - 22/9 (42kb) (general India disputes)
• /Archive25: 4/9 - 14/9 (52kb)(Karnataka vs Maharashtra)
• /Archive26: 15/9 - (general) (37kb)
• /Archive27: 20/9 - 29/9 (Karnataka vs Maharashtra part 2)
• /Archive28: 29/9 - 19/10 (40kb)
• /Archive29: 19/10 - 30/10 (40kb)
  • /Archive30: 26/10 - 2/11 ?(Karnataka vs Maharashtra part 3)
• /Archive31: 1/11 - 8/11
• /Archive32: November 8
  • /Archive33: November 17 - (India:Bodhidharma and Indian Buddhist Movement
• /Archive34: 21/11 - 28/11
• /Archive35: 28/11 - 12/12
• /Archive36: 12/12 - 28/12
  • /Archive37: (Karnataka vs Maharashtra part 4)
• /Archive38:
• /Archive39:

Ian thorpe

Any news? Have you made up your mind? any input from anyone else? Karacult 09:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Sarah Hanson-Young page

Hi Blnguyen,

I am writing to ask that you reconsider your 'delete & protect' on the entry for Sarah Hanson-Young (Senate candidate for Greens SA) on 23 Oct 2006. She seems no less worthy (in fact, she is probably more worthy) of entry in Misplaced Pages than the many other candidates in Australian elections (see e.g. those listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/Candidates_of_the_South_Australian_legislative_election,_2006).

Unlike many of these people, Sarah has been a prominent community activist for many years. I knew of her when she was involved in pro-refugee causes and, when I heard she had been preselected for the Greens, I went to Misplaced Pages to find out more. I was dismayed to discover that, as a consequence of your actions, she did not have a page. I understand that Misplaced Pages has a policy against 'speculative' entries but I put it to you that her prior activities, and the fact of her candidature, are more than enough to warrant an entry.

I also note that the 'deleted and protected' entry for Sarah is now the top-ranking entry for her name on Google. This suggests to me that there is interest in reading a Misplaced Pages entry about her, that is currently being prevented by your actions.

Could I ask that you lift your 'delete and protect' on her page? I am currently living overseas and have no personal interest in this matter, except that I rely on Misplaced Pages as an information source.

Thanks, JS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.130.213 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

It was deleted because of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young. The only reason I deleted it again, was because it was reposted. If you want to reverse the decision, please see WP:DRV. The reason that the people on the page you cite have articles, is because they are elected. SH-Y is a failed candidate, and has been agreed by other users that she is not at the moment entitled to an article. I am fully aware of her activities, especially outside Baxter Detention Centre, and the asylum seekers running away as well, as I attended the same university and was also canvassed by her for a vote a few years ago. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen, thanks for your reply and the links. I really didn't want to get dragged into this, but your arguments are factually incorrect on several points so I feel obligated to. In particular,

(1) Numerous failed candidates from the SA 2006 state election have bios - that is why I referred you to the link. See Amanda Rishworth, Rosemary Clancy, or Peter Gandolfi, to name just 3. So being a failed candidate does indeed seem to entitle you to an article. Moreover, these people have done far less than Sarah has outside of being party candidates.

Those ones got through the net. I am willing to nominate them for deletion, as it is clear that those that are nominated, are routinely deleted in a decisive verdict. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(2) Being a prominent community activist is, separately, a legitimate reason for being listed in wikipedia. Check out the bios for Ian Rintoul, Juanita Wheeler, or Felix Eldridge, to name just 3. Of course, you could spend your days going through wikipedia and deleting these people as well. Alternatively you could recognise that different communities use wikipedia to document their stories and histories, and that this is one of the things that makes wikipedia so valuable.

That is true, as Felix Eldridge has survived one AfD. However, these are grey cases, and SHY did not pass her AfD. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For both these reasons the "NN" rule does not apply. Consequently the whole argument about "crystal ball gazing" does not apply in this case, because Sarah is entitled to an article on the basis of her community activism and status as a candidate, not only as a prospective electee.

Furthermore, your electoral analysis on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young is factually incorrect. Political parties do not need a 14% primary vote to be elected to the Senate - they need 14% after preferences. The 2004 Family First candidate in Victoria was elected with about 2% primary vote. So the electoral situation of the Greens in no way justifies the deletion of the article. Similarly, your argument for including Andrea Mason and excluding Sarah is purely arbitrary and stands open to allegations of bias.

Moreover, and I say this respectfully, it really concerns me that (a) you have backed up your actions with spurious electoral analysis despite having an understanding of the Australian political and electoral systems that is incorrect on fundamental points, (b) you have done so little research to ensure that your deletion is consistent with the treatment of bios of people in analogous positions, and (c) you yourself admit to having a personal knowledge of Sarah, which surely should disqualify you from involvement in this case on the basis that you are not an impartial arbitrator. Your comments above, linking Sarah to the escape of refugees from detention, clearly suggests a bias against her.

I don't want to have to take this to a formal undeletion review because (a) I am busy and don't have enough of a personal involvement to engage in endless argument, and (b) it would unavoidably involve public criticism of you, which I have no particular desire to do. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that it is within your power to reverse the deletion yourself. I am asking you to do this. If you are not, I would appreciate it if you could tell me exactly how to initiate an undeletion review.

Sincerely, JS

I'm aware that you don't need 14% primary votes to get into the senate at all, but the preference system is quite complicated and I didn't go to the length of putting a convoluted argument there for people not acquainted with Australia's electoral system. The comparison to Steve Fielding's 2% is irrelevant, since he was elected, and continues to generate considerable media coverage as a sitting senator, while, SHY does not get a comparable amount of publicity. While it's true that Fielding had a lot of luck and on electoral merit is less notable, as a sitting senator, he is far more notable. I'm confident that the community was not fleeced, since the majority of the commenters are Australian and some are involved in politics themselves. User:Cyberjunkie "cj" is an activist at Flinders, User:Roisterer used to be a NUS office bearer, Lankiveil, Andjam, are all Australians. The only people who wanted to keep, Rebecca (is a student activist) and Zzymurgy is involved with the Greens, so the people who have kept have involvement, moreso than myself, I am simply a random student not involved or having a stake in politics at all, aside from being canvassed for a vote. I do not have a conflict of interest. All those things aside, it was not my decision to delete the article : CSCWEM closed the debate as a delete, as the nominator, I cannot adjudicate the verdict. I only deleted the second time because an article had been reposted after a group consensus to delete (see WP:CSD G4 ??) about deleting reposted content. My delete was not dependent on any judgment except that it was to enforce the removal of something which was sanctioned by somebody else, in this case, CSCWEM. So I cannot undelete it myself, since it was the community verdict to delete the article. You would have to go to WP:DRV and start an entry for SHY. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup

blgnguyen can you please do the best to fix those you metioned? I have already addressed the critisims and so im asking you please do a copyedit or get a user who's good at it to do so, also please provide better source if you can. thanks for taking care of it--Thugchildz

Well, I don't fancy my copyediting skills much, so if you revert me, I'll assume my edits were rubbish and won't revert them back. Having said that, I might not bother if I keep on getting reverted, because I don't think I'm contributing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please comment on it's FAC. — NOBLEEAGLE 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I will, I will try to polish it a little first. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Making policy...

I think this is my first attempt at helping make policy and I'd appreciate a careful eye cast on my stumbling efforts. Please will you take a peek at WT:BIO and chime in? --Dweller 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, I think you are doing fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for locking Belgaum

Thank you for locking article and suppressing truth! Even if wikipedia says Belgaum is Belgavi, reality doesnt change. Indian newspapers/media dont call that city by that name. Great groupism and elitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.20.87 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Hello, I know it is you Sarvabhaum. You are blocked. Evading the block will get a longer block and people are allowed to revert sockpuppet edits without limit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with the article content, it is about you evading the block. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey!This shows how ignorants you people are! Imagine we have at least five computers accessible to us and my college has 625 students!! So anyone who does dare to write anything against ur pampered friends u will label it as me. BTW still no explanation about why Kannada script precede Marathi? And what's belgavi!! Dear its non-existent. Also I have citations for other pages also! I mean feel some shame,the way ur end User:Sarvabhaum

You are again evading the block Sarvabhaum, and with this IP you are again reverting all the Kannada empire pages. That's another month -> 4 months. We know it isn't a shared IP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can u do something when ur friends are removing cited info from various pages. I have scans to prove my point. I will send u the scans if u want. Ur friend kannambadi is insulting other states of India by labelling their great empires as kannada. email me at vishuba2007@rediffmail.com and I will send u the scans.

About Belgaum,those ignorants are using Belgavi as a heading on a page titled Belgaum ! Belgavi is not used by any newspaper. So let me see if u r of any use!

d with this IP you are again reverting all the Kannada empire pages. That's another month -> 4 months. We know it isn't a shared IP.

What is this>?I didnt understand!! Dont frame fictitious charges on me! its a shared IP!! User:Sarvabhaum

The guy I was referring to actually signed as Sarvabhaum, please stop the mock outrage, you fool nobody. Any more, and you will be banned (not suspended). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong discussion page three-strike proposal regarding FG editors' behavior

Hi Blnguyen. I've noticed you protected the Falun Gong wikipedia entry and thus are probably the most suitable to approve / enforce / disapprove this matter, not to talk about your position on the ArbCom. There is a three-strike proposal regarding editors' behavior which they must conform to, and has been agreed by persons from all three camps (the pro-FG, the anti-FG and the third-parties). I'll reproduce the rules here that have been adopted:

The rules are:

• 1. If you propose an edit to Misplaced Pages's Falun Gong entry, it MUST be posted in the discussion board of the Falun Gong Wiki entry or one of the special and related talk pages (e.g. the FG introduction discussion page). Exceptions only apply to administrators or sysops when playing their admin / sysop function.
• 2(a) An edit by any editor here is defined as the alteration - addition or deletion - of content of the Falun Gong Misplaced Pages entry.
• 2(b) Alterations of format, settings, including font size, etc., will be subject to direct approval by an administrator-level editor or above.
• 2(c) The inclusion of pictures is subject to Misplaced Pages copyright rules, the approval of editors AND the direct approval of an administrator.
• 3(a)(i). This proposal has to be on there for a minimum of FIVE FULL DAYS (120 hours) without disagreement from any other editor, except those editors blocked by Misplaced Pages during that time for violation of this rule IN RELATION to this proposal.
  • 3(a)(ii). To prevent abuse of the term "five full days", aka 120 hours, the time that Misplaced Pages is down or not accessible (if more than 1 hour at any one time during those 120 hours), then the time that Misplaced Pages was down will NOT count to those 120 hours.
  • 3(b) If, during those five full days any other editor disagrees with the proposal, the five full day time clock is reset. A reset time clock applies to any edit of the main Falun Gong Wiki entry of the proposal's section(s).
  • 3(c) If, after five full days, there is no disagreement from any user, then the main Falun Gong Wiki page will be edited accordingly. Reversion of such an edit is not permitted unless another proposal is made, which must then adhere to the above rules.
• 4. Any deletion or addition of content of more than 25% by any editor who is not a non-involved (in content) administrator or sysop of any one section will constitute as vandalism, except -
  • a) The addition of more than 25% is to revert a deletion of more than 25% of the same content
  • b) Violation of the above rule shall be deemed in violation of WP:Vandalism and thus incur the same action(s) / penalty(ies).
• 5. If a user edits in violation of this, then they will be given a warning ('first strike'). Similar action will be taken if they do it a second time.
• 6(a) If the user edits the main Falun Gong page without discussion, or with discussion but with less than 120 hours for disagreement, or in violation of any of the above rules, and they do it three times, then BOTH sides will HAVE to agree to take action against this user.
  • 6(b) Actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have them temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If these short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Misplaced Pages will be considered.
• 7. This proposal will apply only to Misplaced Pages's Falun Gong entry, and not to any other related entry.
• 8. Any change of these rules is subject to a proposal in a similar fashion to the above.

I hope you can give your opinion / approve / enforce the above rules for the Falun Gong Misplaced Pages entry. This way, permanent protection of that entry will not be necessary. Preferably, a reply can be given on the Falun Gong discussion page here as well as anywhere else you deem appropriate. Thanks for your time. Jsw663 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading through it yes. Thanks for the notice. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On February 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. C. Kumarappa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks again Szvest for your contributions. This article kindly nominated by Rama's Arrow. Many thanks and feel free to self nominate in the future. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Blnguyen and welkies. The article's become a pretty good one since i started it. Rama's done a good job as well. -- Szvest - 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of 999

Hi, I'm just wondering about your blocking of 999 as a sockpuppet of Ekajati. How was this decision arrived at? Are there any relevant pages I can look at for information on how your decision was arrived at, such as a page on WP:SSP? Thanks. --Jackhorkheimer 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a bit more in Archive 40 of my talk page - User_talk:Blnguyen/Archive40 and also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence under my postings and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)