Misplaced Pages

User talk:YellowMonkey: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:56, 6 September 2006 view sourceYellowMonkey (talk | contribs)86,443 edits archive and reply← Previous edit Revision as of 00:35, 7 September 2006 view source Doctorbruno (talk | contribs)1,863 edits AFDNext edit →
Line 523: Line 523:
== Mediation move == == Mediation move ==
Yes, with the history of the debate so far, there is no other way to get a resolution. ]]Zach| ] 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Yes, with the history of the debate so far, there is no other way to get a resolution. ]]Zach| ] 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
==]==
Need your attention there. To create an article on the same day of deletion seems "too much" for me. Can that be nominated again for AFD. <font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:black">]</font><font style="background:black"><font color="black"><b>_</b></font></font><font style="background:gold"><font color="black"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font></font> 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:35, 7 September 2006

Survey

Today was my 100th day as an admin
I protected Srebrenica massacre after ~50 reverts in 2 hours....seems to have caused a stir
Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/JPD will hopefully close positively today, my 10th RfA nom
Aside from that, it's been pretty eventful, trying to maintain peace on a few religious articles and escaping an impeachment attempt also

Survey

Just for my personal interest, and seeing as though I have been administrating some many religious battles - I was wondering if people thought I was running a personal attack policy in a biased way due to religious POV. So I'm holding a survey to see if I am indulging in religious bias.
What is my religious affiliation?
Very serious comments about possible bias in my actions are welcomed

  • Full results are here
  • Answer here. ~~~~

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.

The recent semi-protection of the Mahatma Gandhi and full protection of the Military budget of the People's Republic of China and Human rights in the People's Republic of China articles which I enacted here, here and here due to vandalism and edit-warring was reported in the Indian media and the New York Times


File:Blnguyen.JPG
Blnguyen in action

Archives

JPD's RfA

Hi Blnguyen. Sorry to not reply earlier - I had quite a good day nowhere near a computer yesterday. I would be happy to have an RfA. I would be honoured if you would write a nomination up, although I am sure it could not be as flattering as some of the others you have written! JPD (talk) 11:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Coming.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank, Blnguyen. You sure do a lot of research with these nominations, so it's no wonder you're close to clocking up 1000 supports! JPD (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re this. You have far too much time on your hands. You also have email. -- I@n 10:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen. Your 10th RfA nom finished at 94/1/0, which I hope is a fitting conclusion to your first 100 days as admin! I hope I live up to the confidence you have shown in me, especially with such a wonderful nomination convincing a lot of people! JPD (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Analyse my edits

Hello! I hope you are doing fine. I would like to humbly ask you to analyse critically and without any reservations about the edits I made for the past one or two weeks. Please inform me about the areas which I need to improve. Your comments would be deeply appreciated as well. Hope that you can help. You could also refer this message to other admins that you think could help me as well. In this way, I would be having the different opinions from various admins. Thank you for your kind attention! (Note:You can do this whenever you are free or feel like it, so take as much time as you want! No need to rush!) I have also started using image tags as well for a better understanding of image policy on untagged images. --Siva1979 21:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC) In progress. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

user:Netscott

Hi Blnguyen, you blocked User:Netscott recently for one week for persistent 3RR violations. Unfortunately, an editor who was involved in the content dispute on Netscott's side unblocked him and reduced the block to 24 hours. Netscott has spent the last few days doing almost nothing but troll regarding the same issue, and it has now gotten out of hand. I can't take admin action myself as I'm involved in the dispute. Would you please take a look at the situation and consider reinstating your block? WP:AN/I#User:Netscott. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. It's probably best to keep it centralized on AN/I. The only reason I didn't bring up the block shortening before is that the admin who unblocked said he had discussed it with you. This is no longer about the shortening in itself, but about the further trolling that has taken place, which is among the worst I've seen on Misplaced Pages, so it's best to put it on AN/I. Cheers, SlimVirgin 03:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Actually, Bastique discussed it on IRC with Pschemp and a few other admins, unblocked, and then notified me on my talk page, then I went to IRC, was shown the parts of the conversation, and didn't wheel war because I've already had my "serving" so to speak and there was a consensus to not do so, although I am still puzzled that 5++ 3RR blocks only incur 1 day. JoshuaZ and Bakasuprman thought the block was OK though. Unfortunately, it was never disclosed to me that Bastique had himself edited the article in question. Thanks again, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you please look at the situation again and reconsider? SlimVirgin 03:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm a bit confused about the last response. In the previous post I was referring to the fact that I wouldn't wheel-war with the others last Friday over the 3RR block, but regarding this new matter described at ANI I will definitely look into it (if I gave the impression that I wasn't going to). Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate that. It's literally intolerable. SlimVirgin 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Bastique

Yes, of course User:Bastique was involved in the same edit warring, on the side of Netscott; see this and this for example, and compare them with this earlier edit by Netscott. Yet even after edit-warring on Netscott's side, he still unblocked him and re-blocked him for a shorter period. Jayjg 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny how it's edit-warring when you disagree with Jayjg, but it's "contributions" when you agree with him. Also funny how I notice people are talking about me only by reading Misplaced Pages Review. Thanks for being a friend. Bastique▼ voir 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a big battle has erupted at ANI. I'm rather disappointed you didn't tell me of your conflict of interest.

Parthiv Patel

>> He is a left-handed batsman and is of a very short stature of 160cm.

What is the source for his height ? I had been looking around for this without success. Ramnath Parkar (5' 3") is the shortest Indian cricketer among those who played before 1980, and since then Patel is the only one of a similar height. It is possible that Patel grew up a few centimeters since his debut in 2002 so it is imporant to know when this came out.

I have done a rough article for Polly Umrigar but have been sitting on it for the last three weeks. Tintin (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tintin. Hmm, it was broadcasted by a commentator, so it may not be very accurate.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Voice

Not sure what you meant when you mentioned the source, but the problem is that the paragraph read quite POV. I am especially disturbed by the notion that the Ireland's wins were "out of touch" - I remember that this kind of music was very popular at that time, and Irish flutes were absolutely everywhere. Katrina's winning song in 1997 isn't that different, actually, and Ireland still came strong second.

Secondly, not every country did a televote in 1997, it was a gradual process. I believe there were quite many reasons for the inclusion of televote, so this hypothesis, even sourced, seems quite suspicious to me - perhaps somebody really didn't like the Irish songs (I mean, I don't either, but I don't think it's the right way to pursue one's agenda). I guess the only reliable source would be one officially linked to the ESC or EBU - for example, there are official sources stating that some countries skipped one contest in the 70s because they were dissatisified with the four-way tie. If there is an OFFICIAL source saying that televoting was introduced because of the dissatisfaction with Ireland's fourth win, this can be included (though I believe the song's article is not the right place to do do, it would be better if the general Eurovision article and the 1997 Contest one said that). But by no means should the expression of somebody's dislike of a musical genre have place in any article.

Regards, Bravada, talk - 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I love the Irish ballad. Bring back juries and Johnny Logan. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, how about I publish a book and say that Ruslana won because she was wearing no underwear (this was a very widespread rumor among detractors), as I really hated her winning over the fabulous Lena Philipsson (if you'd ask me, Brian Kennedys and Johnny Logan should perish without a trace but Melodifestivalen artists should be worshipped daily). Even if he calls his book "official history", he is no EBU, or no national broadcaster. I guess as every author he is trying to add "flavor" to his story. I see that the (featured, after all) Eurovision article quotes the same book when saying that the 1997 was the first year of televoting, but all else is skipped. I would say we should follow this good example. Regards, Bravada, talk - 00:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
HOpefully, I have now reworded it in a more concrete manner.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yup, much better, I might have some gripes about the "frivolous" style, it is just as it should be regarding the inclusion of info. Thanks! Bravada, talk - 10:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Hey again. Could you please move Exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey to Population exchange between Greece and Turkey? The reason for the move is only grammar, so I don't think it's controversial enough to go through the whole WP:RM process. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 00:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) —Khoikhoi 00:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 1 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ian Craig, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Woo hoo! Nice article -- Samir धर्म 01:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Blnguyen. I got a DYK tag also but won't be claiming it as mine! -- I@n 01:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I also purchased a cancelled library copy yesterday of the "A-Z of Australian cricketers" which should increase productivity, for 20c (15c US). Also I had to fix the tagline as Samir removed the adjective "Australian" which was necessary as Craig was not the youngest of all countries. Amazingly Brian Booth was unexpanded whilst on the DYK queue and was featured in the stub version without anybody noticing for six hours!Blnguyen | rant-line 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Indian martial arts

Hi Blnguyen - I request that you have a look this article and its talkpage. User:JFD is consistently breaking WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV and now is making false accusations. It baffles me that this fellow dragged my name into the dispute when I've never edited this article or interacted with him.

He's been warned several times, so I don't think my hollering will do any good. I request that you please keep an eye on this person and the problems on Talk:Indian martial arts. Rama's arrow 18:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he's clarified that his intention was not to attack me. Sorry for the mixup. Cheers, Rama's arrow 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes but sadly Ramas arrow and I are the holders of the leash, and Subhash bose and Freedom skies are still gremlins if we AGF on the comment made here .Bakaman Bakatalk 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel obligated to point out that the use of the word "gremlin" was Freedom skies',, not mine.
JFD 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi blnguyen, user JFD is actually not uncivil... the other user(s) have had a serious issue with POV and a serious issue with being uncivil on the page Indian martial arts... look at the last discussion and the archives and the wonderful headliners... basically, the article before JFD and i intervened stated that India was the birthplace of all martial arts, it stated taht the british were the cause of the downfall of indian martial arts, and it quoted the birth of martial arts from a generic sanskrit term for wrestling... without any citations of any article... i have tried to place disputed tags on the article in the past but user Freedom skies then removes them and denies that the dispute is ongoing... Kennethtennyson 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
regardless, you recently blocked me for 3R on the article indian nationalism... just wanted to explain myself. I was merely attempting to leave disputed tags on an article that was blocked prior to this and remains in dispute... the problem with these tags for disputed articles and POV articles is that the people writing them are POV and thus tend to move the tags off the article... and then deny the existence of the dispute... wikipedia should have a policy where someone who is a member for at least 6 months can place the tag for 12 hours and if it is placed, it cannot be removed for 12 hours by anyone except the person placing the tag. Kennethtennyson 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

IP edits

I just reverted the edits by an IP to your userpage. It seemed he was just blanking a section without reason. I assume there was no reason for this? Michael 01:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Misplaced Pages.

With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you.

(Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp 05:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It goes without saying that any more photos of the computer monkey would be amazing =). Thanks a lot for everything alphaChimp 05:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Image question

Can you point me in the direction of the discussion of whether the thumbnail images from The Hindu's online archive from before 1950 are fair use or not? I cant seem to remember why it was decided they werent. They seem perfectly acceptable to me, legally. Hornplease 08:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on India's copyright laws?Bakaman Bakatalk 14:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure at this stage. Blnguyen | rant-line 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Never mind. I'll ask around elsewhere. Incidentally, I would like to mildly object to the closing of the afd on Vindhyachal House, though, in which you merely said that sockpuppets never prosper or something. There may have been a couple of socks there, but I think a few important points about notability were being raised -by more than one established user, incl myself - and should hsve been addressed by the closing admin or through relisting. Hornplease 07:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


User:Subhash bose

He got blocked for combatting vandals on Atal Behari Vajpayee. All I can say is, the only good admins on wiki are: You, Gizza, and Ragib.21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs)

Hangon, I'll look.Blnguyen | rant-line 22:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Blnguyen, Do we accept such categorisation of Admins on WP.TerryJ-Ho 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I never said specifically anything of other admins. They could be "Semi-good, great, mediocre, Awesome, unknown" etc.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Which warning did you have issue with? Bakaman Bakatalk 23:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You may want to look at the WP:PAIN board for a pending case.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The last warning was issued for this . The warning is totally warranted there.Bakaman Bakatalk 23:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If by "all over" you mean two (issued for the nonsense), NPA then yes. The NPA was because he deleted my comment here then put unwarranted warnings on my user page and here .Bakaman Bakatalk 23:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk About Spyro

The previous version was under Talk about spyro, which was G3'd. Not sure if it's a repost or not, which is why I placed the tag there. The editor has been reported to ANI for having a history of vandalism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest advice the same to the other users too.Dont ignore his harsh words against me.mahawiki 02:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for blocking that user. Michael 02:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Sure! I'll start in about 10 minutes -- Samir धर्म 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 4 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Voice (song), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Updated DYK query On 4 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mahinda, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for the contributions, as always -- Samir धर्म 04:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think song titles are in quotes by the MOS, sorry for the change -- Samir धर्म 04:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bosniak comment

I apologize for the summary, I was actually pretty tired when I read it and falsely understood it as a death threat. I'm sorry, please forgive me. --Serb 04:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

I've taken a bit of time to think about your block quite carefully, and as a result, I had the inclination to unblock. There's a bit of detail here if you would like to see. Now, there might be a chance that there is something I am not aware of, so if you feel necessary to reblock again, please feel free to do so. --HappyCamper 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to spam

I don't want to spam anybody. Simply I've detected it takes a lot of effort to get an answer from an admin so I'm asking to several of them. Hagiographer 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Indophilia?

You seem to be highly interested in India (as evidenced by your many edits etc.). May I ask, out of interest, why you have such Indophilia? This isn't an attack or anything, just curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.246.96.6 (talk • contribs)

Not sure really...cricket is just cricket really. I just find the diversity of languages and religions quite amazing, especially with so many minority groups being allowed to occupy positions of high power, which is also rather unusual. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am troubled by recent developments

I noticed that both Netaji and Holywarrior have been blocked. While I'll talk about Netaji later, I am troubled by Holywarrior's constant defiance to admin authority. Here, in the diff I provide, he has stated that he will ignore admin warnings and continue to vandalize the articles. I believe that his sentence should be extended for threatening vandalism so that he may have some more time to cool off and contribute meaningfully to wikipedia. Please let me know what you think.

diff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AHolywarrior&diff=73732800&oldid=73729633

Regards,

Hkelkar 11:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll notify the blocking admin. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor Review

I can't quite figure out what the instructions at WP:ER are after - do I create a subpage in Misplaced Pages-space or in User-space to get myself reviewed? BigHaz Schreit mich an 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Requesting clarification of Misplaced Pages defamation policy

Hkelkar construes this comment by me as an act of defamation.

If it is, then I will humbly submit to whatever punishment is appropriate.

If it is not, then please tell Hkelkar to cease from engaging in frivolous harassment.

Thank you.
JFD 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well the tone of the comment is sarcastic and unhelpful whilst discussing touchy topics. I didn't feel that it was defamatory, as these are usually when you make comments which besmirch the integrity or character of a person, or claim that they did something which they didn't etc. Here you are expressing your opinions on the work done by a historian, saying that you think it is non- serious. Also BLP is to prevent slanderous claims being put on the article, rather than people voicing their opinions on the talk page, although to be sure, it's better not to make potentially inflammatory comments on talk pages either. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a cheap joke.
I guess this means I should stay away from the entry on William Crotch.
JFD 23:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Chacor

Please don't interfere with an ongoing user conflict. That was exactly what Chacor did. He, unfortunately, interfered with another ongoing user conflict with Ral315. What I did to him I could do to you.--Ed 15:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat to niggle me? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't act angry in response to comments left on your talk page. It is very important to keep a cool head.--Ed 23:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

~~~ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding, {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile2}} or {{subst:User:Cowman109/Smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Enjoy!--Ed 00:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

help with problem user: Bormalagurski re: Srebrenica massacre article

Blnguyen,

This is Fairview360. I work on the Srebrenica Massacre article. We have a problem with repeated disruptions at the article by editors who do not, I believe, want to improve the article but rather have an agenda of denial and obfuscation.

Every now and then, there is relative peace and then editors who do not all agree but have a common goal of improving the article begin constructive discussion and edits. If you look at topics #47 through #54 on the discussion page, you will see that indeed we do get down to constructive discussions when it is peaceful.

Currently, we have a problem with Bormalagurski and two of his associates Svetislav Jovanović and KOCOBO who are deleting sections of the article without good reason. This has happened before. Then we descend into an edit war. And then it takes a week to repair the damage and get back to constructive discussion.

The article definitely needs help, but we can't improve it when all of our time is spent thwarting users whose actual purpose is denial and obfuscation.

Given Bormalagurski's track record well researched by user:Kseferovic http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Just_so_you_know , would it be possible to block Bormalagurski editing the Srebrenica article? There is no place for his belligerence towards editors and outright denial of genocide. Nothing good will come from his being at the Srebrenica article.

Given the recent onslaught, my guess is that Bormalagurski, KOCOBO, Svetislav, and others of their ilk have decided to attack the article.

Can you help?

I welcome constructive disagreements but not false arguments that are only meant to distract people.

Thank you. Fairview360 18:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of Bormalagurski's track record and his political opinions. For example, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Bormalagurski and his highly flamboyant style of jousting with Croatian editors and probably also Bosnian and Albanian editors as well. Usually article-spefic bans tend only to be done by the WP:ARBCOM by WP:RFARB if requested. I could lock the page if necessary though. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Blnguyen, the Srebrenica massacre article is a very charged and politicized article. I feel that in its present form the article does not comply with NPOV (tone of voice, how arguements are presented, which facts are presented and how, etc.) and that either the article needs to be rewritten/adjusted or, at least, that a POV tag should be placed to state that there is a POV dispute. I would appreciate if you could take a look at the article and suggest next steps.Cheers Osli73 23:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I can.
Blnguyen , thank you for protecting the Srebrenica Massacre article. It was very needed. I have a suggestion though it may be too late now that the article has been locked. If you look at topic #47, you'll see that we were very carefully proceeding with a step by step approach with the introduction. During today's edit firestorm that introduction had half deleted with no explanation thus rendering the topic #47 discussion useless. It appears the main thrust of those challenging the article is that it should have a POV. Here is my request/suggestion as a starting point. Could you restore the bottom half of the intro that was deleted while keeping the POV tag? That would be a good compromise starting position. And then the topic #47 discussion could continue and we would not lose the progress that we had made based on substantive constructive conversation. This is the first time I have been part of an article that has been protected so I am not familiar with what happens next. The worst thing would be a resumption of the edit wars. Again, thank you for the needed intervention. Fairview360 03:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation on Srebrenica massacre

User 128.253.56.172 reverted already 4 times this article. And it seems it is puppet of previous anonymous user. Could you block anonymous users to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medule (talk • contribs)

He has been blocked for 24 hours. The other Ip and Osli have got 96 hours for about 10 reverts.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture

I'm sorry I had to curse, but a man died! A man died! And this Freakofnurture comes along and disrespects the dead and his grieving family. --66.218.23.122 23:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I did? Diffs please. —freak(talk) 04:24, Sep. 5, 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Bint Jbeil

Thanks for the protection. Soon you'll probably get yelled at by one of the involved. Ah, such is the life of an admin :) . RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good start to the 100th day of sysop.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kseferovic...

...is stalking me, analyzing my moves. I believe he admitted it here. I'm pretty sure this is in violation of WP:STALK and would appreciate something to be done about this problem. Thank you. --Serb 01:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like stalking to me - everybody who edits has their contribs put on a list and will be held to account for their edits. Heaps of people are keeping an eye on me and I know that and there is nothing wrong, unless they follow me around excessively scrutinising my edits across all fields. Unless you can show he is targeting your edits, then there is no violation.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Admin decision on France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006

You admin decision for the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/France in the Eurovision Song Contest 2006 appears at first glance to be a conflict. I am coming first for you to explain here to be courteous. You are a member of the WikiProject Eurovision. You are in a group that does almost daily Eurovision nominations on WP:DYK. You made this decision just days after receiving your adminship. Please reply this situation here on your talk page. I am not challenging the decision/outcome/your counting ability, but something procedural seems wrong at first glance. Royalbroil 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was a conflict of interest there although I did not create those things myself. However the RfA started before the AfD and I was approached by about 10 different editors to run in the month before that as well. I have since undertaken a policy of not closing any Eurovision AfDs - I could have blocked User:Stanfordandson on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Du Bist, but chose not to. Having said that, if you see my userpage for my contrib list, I have written some 100+ articles on swimming, and maybe 20 on cricket, but I am still relentless in deleting nn cricket and swim clubs - pls see User:Blnguyen/AfD. So there is an issue there, yes, although I see people closing AfDs on religious/political things when they have edited analogous stuff also. Since the songs are at the same level as the xxx in ESC year, then it isn't obvious so I would abstain from doing so. In this case, seeing as the deletion was clearly in the minority, I don't think it remotely came close to being a factor, but I've avoided doing as such ever since. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I read your comments several times, and I don't completely understand. I'll paraphrase what I'm guessing that you mean. I think you mean that you are refraining from making admin decisions on article types that you have been a contributor on (such as Eurovision, cricket, and swim clubs)? And that it was a single decision that you have avoided since? If so, then I think "Let bygones be bygones". Royalbroil 03:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Holywarrior

As per your request, I have decided to never say a word to him again. I also want you to ask Shell Kinney where I have been incivil; I think he robot-wrote our blocks. You might want to look at his talk page for a nice treat.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that - just not to use templated warnings. You'll have to talk to him if you want to revert his edits....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Shell said I was "wearing community patience thin" so I did not take his words lightly, I'm doing just as he probably wanted.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Help

Hey can you help? I seem to have messed up this disambiguation page. Ron Smith (coach) Thanks --Hack 04:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)--Hack 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that... Found you on the Australian administrators template - you had the most recent edit so I figured you were online...--Hack 04:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Australian administrators --Hack 04:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant category... --Hack 04:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could do me another favor...

This user, Jakov.miljak, keeps coming to me because new users keep harassing him on his talk page. I just reverted another one of them a few minutes ago. Could you please semi-protect his talk page? He seems to be getting tired of it. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 04:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 04:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You opinion on sourcing RE: David Jeremiah

Could you visit the David Jeremiah article and give me your opinion on something? I'm looking for an unbiased 3rd party opinion about sourcing. Please see the talk on the AfD page and the discussion on the David Jeremiah page. Thank you Bagginator 07:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Srebrenica Massacre

Hello Blnguyen

Thanks for stepping in and protecting the Srebrenica Massacre article. From your involvement with China articles I suspect that you're familiar with the sort of destructive activity going on there. I don't know how much background familiarity you have with the Bosnian War generally and Srebrenica in particular, but events at the article will have given you an idea of the propaganda war that accompanied the war on the ground. What is going on now at the article is part of the continuation of that propaganda war.

I'm from the UK and a complete outsider, except that I have done translations for a German human rights organisation that has done a lot of work in relation to Bosnia and Kosovo/a and am a supporter of an aid agency that was heavily involved in relief work in both places.

I try to be objective, but I don't have a neutral attitude. My overall view is obviously shaped by information received through the media, other channels and contact with individuals who had direct experience of the war and associated events. However I find my personal impressions confimed by the findings of authorities such as Cherif Bassiouni, who was responsible for the United Nations Security Council's Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations in the Former Yugoslavia (1992-1994).

Bassiouni found that all of the parties in the wars in the Former Yugoslavia had committed grave breaches and all had been victims, but nevertheless there was no factual basis for arguing that there was a 'moral equivalence' between the warring factions. As media coverage had suggested Serbs had been responsible for the mass of breaches of international humanitarian law and the victims had been predominantly Muslims.

The Bassiouni Commission report predated the massacre at Srebrenica but Srebrenica is part of the pattern established very early in the war, of atrocities conducted as part of a strategic programme of territorial control that was given the name of ethnic cleansing and has been found by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia sitting at The Hague to involve the perpetration of crimes of genocide.

During the Yugoslav wars and subsequently the Serbian government side, the Bosnian Serb government and many Serbs abroad have sought to influence international public opinion by initially denying that crimes or atrocities took place and then when substantive evidence emerged by challenging the details. This has been time and energy consuming and extremely distressing to those who have had to fight the establish the reality of terrible events which they may have experienced either at first hand or through the involvement of relatives and friends.

I apologise if I've gone over ground with which you're already familiar but I think it's important to place the dispute over the article in its context so that you can understand the tone of anger and desperation that colours the arguments going on here. I am fortunate to be able to be rather cooler in my use of language as I have not had the face to face experience of the realities that other less temperate voices, tested beyond patience, have.

Obviously Wikipaedia has to have rules of conduct which have to be applied dispassionately. But is essential that any moderator dealing with issues that involve the wars of Former Yugoslavia does not mistake even-handedness for objectivity. This really is not a situation of moral equivalence.

I understand why you felt you had to suspend Bosniak. My disagreement with that decision was based partly on my understanding of what underlies the impatience and anger with which he expresses himself. More importantly, though, his suspension left the article vulnerable and placed even more of a burden on Fairview360 to defend what is, no bones about it, the truth that people are trying to deny and distort. It's important to remember that "fairness" can nevertheless be unfair in its results.

Anyway I'm grateful that you've now protected the article for the time being. It's a very important article - all the more so in the light of this week's developments in relation to the situation in Darfur - and Bosniak and Fairview360 and others need to be able to work on it in an atmosphere in which issues and details can be discussed calmly.

--Opbeith 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK - ???

Blnguyen, are you sure this is what you wanted to do? You have just selected two closely related ones on McPherson and then one on the German actress you have left on the talk page with comments. Cheers, Bravada, talk - 08:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yup, but I am still concerned about the McPherson Robertson thingies - those are two DYKes about the very same person! Bravada, talk - 08:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vande Mataram

Pls see Vande mataram . User Sarvagnya is deleting referenced information. He has already deleted it 3 times now.Bharatveer 09:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You Are Mistaken

Sorry, but I did not edit anything to do with Knox Grammer School. So before you acuse anyone of vandalism, get your facts right. Thankyou

Ping pong (band)

I've moved this page to PingPong (band), which is in line with the Diggiloo Thrush spelling of the name (unusual capitalisation, but one of the more unusual bands to grace the stage anyway). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Diploma mills

I'm back and I plan on doing some cleaning up of the mills including removing the lesser known/unsourced ones. Also another has started a pretty good article on the mills if you want to help. Arbusto 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedying against a DRV-mandated XfD

I realize that the page will be deleted anyway, but would you please undelete Misplaced Pages:Blocked users with bizarre usernames for the sake of process?

When something was just undeleted by the DRV to be run through an XfD, re-speedying it is a direct violation of consensus that it go through full process. Needless to say, violations of consensus should be avoided by admins. --tjstrf 00:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Expediting an proposed policy is not a valid reason to overturn consensus that a page be put through the standard procedures. The idea that a proposed policy could override consensus is absurd. --tjstrf 00:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, there was a consensus to have a debate, and it appears that people want it deleted, and it has been done so. It appears that those who were at DRV don't appear to want it kept either. The quicker this vandal monument is gone, the better. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There was consensus to have the debate. Which you just overruled by deleting the article out of process. Additionally, since when are proposed guidelines CSD's? --tjstrf 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I haven't deleted it out of process, I stated my reasoning on the page in public with reference to a deletion debate. If 20 people have time to argue then it isn't that quick? I feel that the negatives are far smaller than having a vandal monument perserved for a few days. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh*

I know I ask you for help a lot, but can you please do something about this? :( Thanks... —Khoikhoi 01:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. While you're at it, perhaps you could protect the Justin McCarthy (American historian) article? It keeps popping up on my watchlist... —Khoikhoi 01:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You are the man. :) —Khoikhoi 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

I finished an update, just as you started.--Peta 01:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I saw an update in progress notice as I was previewing it to change the update time, but there was no edit conflict, si I guess there is no problem.--Peta 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 6 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tom Veivers, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Request help

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I have to ask for your favour here. Could you please delete these redundant and empty sub-userpages from Misplaced Pages for me? Here are these pages:

As you can see, I am not an admin yet, so I can't do it myself. Thank you for your help! --Siva1979 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your quick response! --Siva1979 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you take a look at this?

Hi Blnguyen... just a couple of things... can you please look at the vandalism of Template:America's Next Top Model by User:66.108.64.87 because at first I was happy simply to revert but its getting out of hand. Also, you may be interested in weighing in at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Susan Barnett. Thanks! -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Status

Rearranged as per your suggestions. The current players (except Ganguly) are now in 'stubs, or 'not stubs, but to be expanded' as they will continue to evolve. Yuvraj and Harbhajan in 'completed' looks like a genuine error as they were hardly ten lines long when they were included there. Sreesanth et. al. hadn't played Test cricket when the list was first compiled. Feel free to update this when you expand articles. Tintin (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged

Thank you for your explanation. I have already 'made peace' with Ragib.Bharatveer 06:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my back!

Gee, I\\\'ve only been back for less than a day and my user page has been hit twice. The vandals still love me!  :) Mucho thanks for reverting that last bit of idiocy. Since I voluntarily resigned as an admin, I can\\\'t block these dummies. Must step more carefully, it seems. VERY nice to hear from you and I\\\'d like to thank you even more for the reversions you did for me while I was away. You da best.  :) - Lucky 6.9 07:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Looks like you fixed a couple of things right after I left. I remember that Muslim thing! One of the things that sent me over the top, as I recall. Anyway, \\\'tis durn late on my side of the planet. Catch you later and thanks again. Nice to be back. - Lucky 6.9 07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a open proxy

Now I´m on a proxy to get this message to you, this is not a proxy: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:84.114.131.27

It´s my account. Unblock it. 84.114.131.27

User:Indrancroos

I went to the trouble of removing Indrancroos' personal attacks from Talk:Indian martial arts and the first thing he does upon his return from Blocklevania is re-post them.

He also left a message on my Talk Page insinuating racism.

Also, he seems to be confusing me with Kennethtennyson, which is of course no excuse, but I thought I'd point it out.
JFD 08:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Acronym

Thanks :-) My new learning for today! --Golden Wattle (formerly known as Arktos) 09:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

List of critics of Islam

Could paste a copy of the page you deleted on my talk page or give me a link, as I want to use the research to develop another article.--Amenra 12:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that you did not just count the votes to make your decision on that article; you determined the strengths of each side's arguments - this is not always done by other admins. Well done. BhaiSaab 16:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised I haven't copped much stick yet. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 6 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Semaphore, South Australia, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

requesting a starting point for Srebrenica Massacre

Blnguyen , I have been reading the wiki policy on protected pages. I understand that after protecting an article you need to be quite cautious about reverting the article and I am relatively new to wikipedia, so I do not know if this is a reasonable request or not:

In the policy it says that you as the administrator may revert the article to a previous form before an edit war if it is clear when the edit war started. From Aug 20 to Sept 1, the Srebrenica Massacre article had only 1 to 3 reverts per day and mostly part of the constructive give and take of editors acting in good faith. On Sept 2, disputes began and clearly, on Sept 3 the revert war ignited spawning over 50 reverts in a 24 hour period which lead to a critical context-providing portion of the introduction deleted from the article without a reason being provided nor discussion.

The wiki protection policy states that an editor may revert the protected article under certain circumstances. Reverting is allowed if "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy."

If the Srebrenica Massacre article were reverted to this pre-revert war Sept 3 version http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=73629738 , it would give both sides of the dispute acknowledgement. It would acknowledge the current dispute with the tag which one side was pushing for and preserve the pre-revert war text thereby providing a starting point for further discussion. It would preserve the progress we had made during the stretch of relative peace.

Would that be possible?

Again, I am not aware of common wiki practice nor the nuances of being an administrator so I do not know if this is a reasonable request or not.

Again, thank you for your intervention. I hope this leads to constructive discussion.

Best Regards, Fairview360 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I will take a look. These are sticky.

khoikhoi

Why is it a personal atack? Communism is just a poliical ideology. As far as dictatorship, Khoikhoi chose authority over legitimacy and I have a natural right to classfy that as a dictatorsip. Please see Use talk:Khoikhoi on Sokhumi issue and talk:Sukhumi. In addition, please do not vandalize my user page. Sosomk 17:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It's an obvious perjorative statement against another user, especailly as he did not identify himself as such. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Re:Reletionship

I thank you for your kind words during my darkest momenets of my association with English wikipedia. I have redefined my relationship, and "they" certainly failed to make me out-of-circulation. Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 18:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation move

Yes, with the history of the debate so far, there is no other way to get a resolution. WikieZach| talk 20:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Vindhyachal House

Need your attention there. To create an article on the same day of deletion seems "too much" for me. Can that be nominated again for AFD. _Doctor Bruno_/E Mail 00:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)