Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 10 November 2004

At page load, it was -- T in UTC
(see W3C Date and Time Formats)

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Archives

• One
• Two
• Three
• Four

Jimmy arbitration

hi Dunc - saw your "arbcom committee is just having a coffee" remark - to be fair, they've just been in the process of finishing a couple of grueling arbitrations that involved more prominent articles & more frequent vandalism, so as annoying and repetitive as the JVT case is, I can see how it's not at the top of their list. I did drop a note to Fred Bauder though. ←Hob 17:01, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)

Yes alright mate, I understand they do a difficult job, one that I wouldn't like to do, and I will apologise if anyone gets grumpy with me. I should have put a smiley in. :) Dunc|☺ 17:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

images

Okey I will put the resources of images. Dont worry I am good guy ;) (20:12, 21 Oct 2004 User:Onursendag)

Jimmy VanThach, Tran Van Ba, Carl Lindgren & co.

These people have been causing alot of trouble lately with all of their bizarre and ridiculous claims. I have studied Vietnamese history for years, and still have alot of respect for the traditional beliefs, even when the people in power often failed to live up to them. The really sickening thing is that this collection of nuts, who have been spamming the web like crazy with their silly claims, are always having events that fool decent, naive Vietnamese people out of their money. The only get support by handing out old Vietnamese titles (in English way) like Duke, Count, Baron & such nonsense and pretty medals, all of which were abolished at the end of the colonial era. If you do a web-search you will see they have posted copies of all these pages on every free on-line encyclopedia around and spammed every guestbook, message board and free "press release" site on the web.

I assure you, no one in the Vietnamese community takes these people seriously, most of them are not even Vietnamese but Americans given Vietnamese names & titles. Personally, I don't think it's entirely fair, but the fact is, as any history book will tell you, the Nguyen monarchy was very unpopular because of their long association with the French. Most people either hated them or felt that they simply didn't matter; they were puppets for the French regime.

User:NguyenHue

Dunc, I responded to the RFC on this disputed and have been trying to get my arms around it a bit. I don't know that all the articles they are posting are encyclopedic, but at Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh, it appears to my disinterested eye that User:Jimmyvanthach might be acting in good faith. Tom - Talk 16:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• He responded positively to my request to please confine issue discussion to the article talk page. Tom - Talk
• He has left the Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh article empty of all controversial discussion to the point I was totally clueless why the article even existed. It was certainly not pushing a POV at this point.
• He said he was off doing research. I consider that a good faith gesture. Tom - Talk

Now, User:NguyenHue edited what appeared to be a non-controversial article on Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh recently to add a bunch of inflammatory and biased information. I think I should revert to the boring version, move the recent edits to the talk page, ask the parties to duke it out there, and protect the page until they both request at my user talk. Two questions for you. 1) Do you think that is a wise course? 2) Is that appropriate use of page protection? Tom - Talk 16:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I guess I better not protect yet. I will talk to both parties and see if vanilla article can remain for now until a compromise is reached. Tom - Talk 16:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying User:NguyenHue's latest edits are good to be protected? They seem hasty and inflammatory. The content might ought to stay as an explanation for the article, but you and I don't have the background or the inclination to sort through it all, so I thought the previous version might be better (it was a dry timeline of a guy's life). Those latest edits are pretty rough looking. Tom - Talk 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like your edits. I will try talking to Jimmy. Tom - Talk 20:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dunc, I am ready to give an opinion to the arbitration committe on this. Tom - Talk 15:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. I will support your nomination. Tom - Talk 22:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lets research together

I am not aggressive, only trying to gain knowledge and facts, I have never bullied anyone here on Misplaced Pages.

Nguyen Hue, I have contacted senior member of the Royal Family of Vietnam Prince Nguyen Buu Phuc, and researched his contact information from The International Monarchist League,

VIETNAM

• Association de l'Imperiale Familie du Vietnam Arc-En-Ciel-Bellatrix, rue du Colonel Gassin, F-0600 Nice, France. Tel: +33 4 93851289 Contact: Prince Buu-Phuc

The link is: International Monarchist League Directory

Concerning Prince George Vinh San, can you provide me with his email address, or does he have a official statement online, or contact information, I would like to do some research on this and converse.

There is no holy war, only trying to get information for the biography, of Prince Buu Chanh and the Vientamese Imperial Family.

I just contacted Asian Scholar concerning Prince Buu Chanh and have researched I have researched this issue of the biography with *Dr. My-Van Tran an Asian Vietnamese Professor and confirmed the information please read her Scholar papers

I understand you have conflicting information, please provide some references you have to show that he is not a Prince, or he is Sir Buu Chanh ?

NB: That nonsense was User:Jimmyvanthach

I'm not going to bother with you. I have better things to do. You're a aggressive pov-pushing crank, bugger off. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Y-chromosomal Aaron

Hi Duncharris, what is POV about the present version of Y-chromosomal Aaron? When writing this up I made quite sure I reported as much serious criticism as possible. JFW | T@lk 14:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the subject is somewhat esoteric, and smells of Bible Codes and other scientific "proofs" for Biblical phenomena. I'm not sure if there is more research going on at present. Thanks for rewriting the intro :-). JFW | T@lk 19:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hi, did you have a worked-through reason for inverting the order? We were using "add to the bottom", the same as WP:RfD, which has been that way for a long time, and works very smoothly; everyone (both there and on WP:RM) seems to like this. If you don't mind, I propose to put it back the way it was. Noel 15:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, actually I had thought of that at some point. I had had to delete that link (earlier) because it wasn't working with the order the other way around. If we leave it this order, we'll have to put it back. Well, let me think about about this ordering issue for a bit - I'm sure my initial dismay was in good part because I do a lot of the admin work on RfD, and I'm so used to the other order used there. That order does have its advantages - it forces me to scroll past earlier entries and deal with them, instead of leaving them down the bottow where I can ignore them! :-) I'd be happy to do a lot of the admin work here too. (I guess you can't - you don't seem to be an admin yet - any particular reason, you have plenty of edits?) Anyway, let me think about the order. Also, I put a number of comments on WT:RM - did you have any reaction to them? Thanks! Noel 21:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Montreal move

I think your comment on WP:RM was humorous, but I'm not certain! Are you OK with the move? If so, I'll go ahead and make it happen. Thanks! Noel 04:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

I noticed that you left a message on 205.188.116.146's talk page politely asking him/her to do experiments in the sandbox (to which he/she replied, "hell no"). Do you have some official status at Misplaced Pages or are you just another one of us common folk? I just corrected vandalism to the article on the iditarod done by 205.188.116.146 at 10:39, 17 Oct 2004. He/she deleted the entire article and replaced it with a monologue on animal rights. I left the monologue there since it is related to the original article but restored the original material, (although I think the monologue should be edited for brevity). I thought that perhaps 205.188.116.146 should get an official warning about vandalizing articles. Rsduhamel 22:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh

Hi, Dunc. Seeing that you recorded what you thought (”horrible, yuk!”) of the John Vanbrugh draft that was earlier nominated on FAC for a few hours, I was wondering if you might be interested in giving an opinion on the finished version that’s there now.--Bishonen 14:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vietnamese Royal Succession

In the past, the throne was passed always to the oldest son as is common in most monarchies, but this was changed during the era of Thieu Tri so that the Emperor could choose a successor from his children; which actually turned out to be a bad idea really as upon his death there was soon an internal war between his oldest son, Crown Prince Hong Bao, and his chosen successor the Emperor Tu Duc. However, all heirs must be descendants of Emperor Minh Mang and usually age is given preference. Actually, through much of the Nguyen reign it was the French who picked the Emperor based on who they thought would be most cooperative.

The problem with Buu Chanh is that the only evidence of his ancestry comes from him himself, he claims to be a descendant of the Duke of Kien Hoa who was the 71st son of the Emperor Minh Mang. Even if this is true, it would only make him a very distant cousin of the last Emperor, Bao Dai, with literally hundreds of the exact same generational rank. Titles, whether of duke or prince or whatever where not inherited endlessly; given the size of the Imperial Family this would have been impossible -almost every Vietnamese alive would have a title. Only the Emperor could give someone a rank title like this and for Buu Chanh this would have been clearly impossible as he was born in 1942 and Emperor Bao Dai abdicated in 1945, after which time he would have no authority to do such, nor is there any evidence that he ever did.

The last Emperor of Vietnam, Bao Dai, reigned from 1926-1945 after which time he handed over his (already nominal) power to President Ho Chi Minh. He had 5 legitimate children, two of them sons, the oldest of which, Bao Long, was invested in the traditional was as Crown Prince of Vietnam in 1934 as an infant. This was not a very common practice but was done to avoid (get ready) any disputes over the succession due to the ugly rumors that Bao Dai had been illegitimate. To avoid this the full ceremony was held making Bao Long crown prince and heir to the throne. His position, which in any event is of purely historical/symbolic significance is accepted by his siblings. Bao Long has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Buu Chanh as has the other children and grandchildren of the past emperors Duy Tan and Ham Nghi.

They have absolutely no legitimacy to be doing any of the things they have been doing. They have produced no evidence that Bao Dai bypassed his son in favor of this group, nor would it be possible to as Bao Dai had no authority to pass on to anyone, he had abdicated decades before and was in every way a common French citizen after that. NguyenHue 02:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue

Re: Sorting wiki syntax errors with bots:

Re: Sorting wiki syntax errors with bots:

I don't think it's particularly feasible, simply because a bot doesn't understand context, whereas a human does. For example, if a bot sees this "in ] was invented", what should it do? Should it make the whole thing a link by adding the missing bracket? I.e. "in ] was invented"? Or should it remove them all together? What about if it encounters "The integral of this equation is ] the first steam and ] was invented", but that the equation is right, and should just be enclosed in 'nowiki' tags ... humans on the other hand can work these out quite easily, as well as how to fix them. In short, humans do some things well, and software does some things well, and this is something that humans simply do better than software. All the best, -- Nickj 06:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The point is anyway to ask one of the better skilled programmers around here to see what they can do." For sure, let me know how you go! I'd be very interested to see how this problem is solved. All the best, -- Nickj 22:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

forgot about the orders

The only order (so far) that this Buu Chanh has deemed himself worthy to give out is the "Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam", which is, to say the least, a bizzare choice for someone claiming to be a Vietnamese patriot. This was a French colonial order given out during the later half of the Nguyen reign when the Emperors were mere French puppets. It was and is regarded as a merit badge for French colonizers and their Vietnamese collaborators. Needless to say, Buu Chanh has no authority to award it at all. The Viet Emperor could, with the permission of the French President, but the order was abolished at the end of the colonial era and was replaced by the National Order of Vietnam which the former Emperor instituted when he returned to power as "Head of State" (Quoc Truong) of the French sponsored "State of Vietnam" (Quoc Gia Viet Nam) which existed from 1948-1955. The National Order was retained throughout the era of the American War by their client regime, the Republic of Vietnam (Viet Nam Cong Hoa).

If you can find some cached images old enough you can see on Buu Chanh's website that the first thing done after "restoring" this order was to hand them out like candy to some of his American sycophants who then tried to arrange order exchanges with some unsuspecting African ex-royals. It all stinks of a scam of "order collectors". NguyenHue 07:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue

2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi. I'm trying to figure out why you moved 2003 invasion of Iraq to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. I can't think of any reason to capitalize the I, very few Misplaced Pages articles use that form (the vast majority use the former, although there are many other variations, as well), and looking at google hits, lowercase seems to be far more commonly used on other sites/media. I also didn't see any proposal or discussion on the move at Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Naming or Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war). Also, the first talk page points out that the l/c version is more consistent with U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Niteowlneils 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. I can see that point, after all it is the Vietnam War, not "Vietnam war". And I certainly agree that we (I'm a life-long US citizen) shouldn't have attacked Iraq. All that said, I guess I'm mostly wondering if you would be troubled if I moved it back to the lowercase version (to be consistent with the Afghanistan article, if nothing else), at least until a 'formal' name for the invasion is established. Niteowlneils 17:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a question

Did you get my message? ---Rednblu | Talk 06:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfA

What the heck is up with people thinking a body can't be an admin if he or she has ever gotten exasperated? Not that I've been pushed hard enough, yet, to call someone a name, but that's because I'm chicken and don't correct the bad stuff that would lead me there. I suspect that's true of most of the people who are shocked -- just shocked! -- that you got put out enough with the king of Vietnam's retainers to use a naughty word. I know at least one person who keeps turning down RfA nomination attempts because he or she doesn't like the abasement of it. Not, of course, that one should be rude even to the rude and persistently destructive authors, but I worry about patterns rather than having a run-in too far. Geogre 19:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. I vote for everything that Geogre said. ---Rednblu | Talk 22:50, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

/Admin enforcement requested

Effective 6 November 2004

"Edits by User Jimmyvanthach, User Celindgrenand and User Tran Van Ba and obvious sockpuppets to articles which relate to the former royal family of Vietnam or to the recent history and politics of Vietnam may be removed by any user."

Thought you'd like to know if you didn't already. There's a bit more as well. Cross-spammed to User talk:Hob. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew that was coming. The slightly annoying thing is that he's started behaving himself now, though I do not trust him and I do doubt the notabilty of some of his entries on advocacy groups, and there is something very dodgy going on with Buu Chanh. Dunc|☺ 12:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)