Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:43, 16 February 2009

This user is a cricket pundit for the Times of India, the world's largest distribution daily English language newspaper. Details/disclaimer

This user is a cricket pundit for the Mint Wall Street Journal - [ http://www.livemint.com/articles/2008/12/05231402/A-captain8217s-legacy.html]

User:Blnguyen/UB

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

Requests

Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park - Genghiskhanviet (talk · contribs)
Economy of the Republic of Vietnam - Genghiskhanviet (talk · contribs)
Michigan State University Group - Kevin Forsyth (talk · contribs)
Nguyen Tri Phuong - Magnifier (talk · contribs)
Phan Thanh Gian - Magnifier (talk · contribs)
Vietnam War - Wandalstouring (talk · contribs)
Cyril de Zoysa - Pectore (talk · contribs)
User:Garden/WikiCup

Checkuser and sockpuppetry

File:Blnguyen banana.JPG

Deposit banana here to rouse the checkuser attendant!

Hey there! Can you tell whether or not 86.69.135.61 is Ekky or this Frampton fellow? (Hm, forgot to sign!) Dan (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP traces to France. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banana deposited. A related one on this: User:Will_in_China looks to have the same editing behaviour, and existing knowledge of Wikipedia, as Ekky. Would it be possible for you to check if this is another sock? Coldmachine^Talk 08:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is technically no, I think, since WC used Tor. Dan (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIC is also stale from ages ago. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll for selecting photos of cyclists at the 2009 Tour Down Under

Photos were taken at the team parade at the start of the 2009 Tour Down Under, January 18, 2008.

They were all very gentlemanly. Very dignified and genial. So were the crowd. Apart from the middle-aged man who stood net to the YellowMonkey and intentionally jabbed him in the ribs for about an hour. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crowd favourites, judged by the decibel level of the applause, were in no particular order, Armstrong, Hincapie, Pereiro, Greipel, Voigt, O'Grady, Michael Rogers, McEwen, Baden Cooke, Bobridge (local boy). YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting section

Simply vote and comment as follows below the individual sections.

Comment (numbering pictures from 1, 2, 3 etc, left to right) and ~~~~

Poll: Aaron Kemps

versus

No. 1 background less distracting. Could use slight cropping at right to eliminate red. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 -- Samir 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Giggy (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. *1. (per Durova.) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) re Brewcrewer. LOL! Yes, now that you mention it ... Pdfpdf (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Looks a little less constipated. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) - Agree with Durova that some minor cropping might be in order though. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Bastique ^demandez 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 is better -- Tinu Cherian - 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 because of the full face shot but the red is a bit distracting.—Sandahl (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. - Bilby (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The blue background looks less distracting to me. Sarvagnya 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is 3 a new one? - I don't think it was here first time I looked - but it's the go for me :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "is 3 a new one" - That depends on what your definition of "new" is. "I don't think it was here first time I looked" - No, it wasn't - it's the picture (from 2007) that is on the target page.
3. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3, but consider cropping to make his head larger. Right now he looks like a skeleton. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 - the crazy background on 1 and 2 are too distracting. Also 3 gives greater clarity to his features. Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Aitor Hernandez

versus

Number 2 -- Samir 07:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2. Better lighting and contrast, more active pose. Durova^Charge! 07:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Giggy (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Durova Pdfpdf (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Raised hand looks awkward. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - Though it is a bit tall of an image, I like the activity in it. Cirt (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~~1 - Dimensions of 2 are distracting~~ is a good crop of 2 and works for me. Bastique
2 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~2, but, because of the proportions, I would cut it a little bit at the top (until the hand) and at the bottom. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
4 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unai Fdz. de Betoño: Is 3. anything like what you are suggesting? (I think, perhaps, I may have cropped too much ... )
4? ~~3? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)~~ Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the 4th one. That's what I said. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is indeed what you said. And I agree that 4 is better than 2. For me, it's 3 or 4 - probably 3; like brewcrewer, I find the raised hand awkward. Perhaps something between 3 ond 4 would be better again? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, if you cut the hand it seems that you want to hide somethig (maybe, he was doing this)... ;-) --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a good point. (And your example is an excellent illustration of it!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 Sarvagnya 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 for me Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3, but I can live with 4. (I like tight crops, but the missing had in 3 isn't quite perfect, so 4 is still fine). 2 is a tad too revealing. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Alexandre Usov

aka Aliaksandr Usau, Aliaksandre Usau, Alexander Usov, but NOT Aleksandr Usov

(no previous picture)

No. 2. 3 has the best lighting overall, but this shows his eyes a little better and I prefer the pose. Durova^Charge! 07:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 4 -- Samir 07:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Giggy (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Less blurry then 4. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - Best expression. Cirt (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Bastique ^demandez 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 Sarvagnya 21:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Allan Davis

versus File:Daviswins.jpg

No. 3 Might want to crop the bottom a little to reduce the prominence of blown whites. Durova^Charge! 07:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 2 -- Samir 07:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Durova Pdfpdf (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Close second place to #2. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Third place to #5 Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. No way 3. What the hell is so funny? 1 is a frontal so it edges out 2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 - 1 has some minor obscuring w/ the microphone. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Bastique ^demandez 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Sarvagnya 21:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 - hoooray! Privatemusings (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 for main pic, 5 is a great action shot for a captioned photo. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5, 1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 for an infobox - everyone looks better happy. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 as first choice, 2 as second choice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Anders Lund

versus

Number 1, better contrast -- Samir 07:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 but needs tighter cropping to eliminate the flanking figures. Durova^Charge! 07:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. It's an inferior picture but his smile is far better in this one. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 - The other one is a bit bright. Cirt (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - too much obstruction on 1 Bastique ^demandez 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -better face.—Sandahl (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Just fix the brightness, contrast... Sarvagnya 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 right now, maybe 2 if you can fix per above? Privatemusings (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 w/ some lighting fixes? Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3, as per comments about #1 Pdfpdf (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2, but please fix the lighting. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2, if the lighting can be fixed. A close crop of the face on 1 or 3, otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Andre Greipel

versus

No. 4 best view of the face. Durova^Charge! 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. better pose & expression. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Pdfpdf.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Brewcrewer (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Bastique ^demandez 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3--nicer pose.—Sandahl (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 -- Samir 07:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Looks more NPOV. Sarvagnya 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 - though I'm amused to see 'NPOV' abused in this context! ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 makes him looked the coolest. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3, for the coolness factor. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice 3, second choice 4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Cameron Meyer

(no previous picture)

No. 2 tossup; not crazy about either. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not crazy about either but have a strong aversion to semi-constipated looks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - 2 is the better of these. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 --—Sandahl (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No preference. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Lesser of two evils. Sarvagnya 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - but it's close. Privatemusings (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1, but cut off the bottom part. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 06:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1, with tighter cropping. - Bilby (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Christian Knees

versus

No. 2, better view of the face. Suggest cropping the sunlight out of the bottom and doing an auto levels. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Looks weird in the other one.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 - Better expression. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 per above. Durova^Charge!
1 —Sandahl (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Superior image quality. Sarvagnya 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3, except consider cutting off the bottom half of his body. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 06:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 - Bilby (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Daniele Nardello

versus

2. or 4. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neither of 1 or 2; he's better looking than both pics. How about this one?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "this one" now appearing as #4.
2 is the best. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 better facial expression. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Closer shot of face. Sarvagnya 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 Privatemusings (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4, absolutely. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 -- Samir 06:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: David Loosli

versus

2 - Best expression of the three. Cirt (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toss up between 2 and 3. The latter is a better pic but he looks better in the former. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 best view of the eyes. Durova^Charge! 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 —Sandahl (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lesser of three evils. Sarvagnya 21:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 w/ some lighting fixes. Khoikhoi 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Davide Malacarne

(no previous picture)

2. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - Best framing of the bunch. Cirt (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. don't like the smile in 2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 4 eyes open, less harsh profile than 1 or 2. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 4 is best.—Sandahl (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Less grainy. Sarvagnya 21:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 -- Samir 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice 2, second choice 4, third choice 1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Davide Vigano

versus

4 - Best full expression and view of face. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 4 per above. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 —Sandahl (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Clearer, sharper and frontal enough. Sarvagnya 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 is the best. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 -- Samir 06:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Dries Devenyns

(no previous picture)

3 - I like the expression the best on this one. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 best lighting and best view of face. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 best expression and lighting.—Sandahl (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sarvagnya 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. 2 makes him look like Golum. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 -- Samir 06:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Francesco Chicchi

versus

1 - Best framing, centering, and expression. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 Only one where his face is visible and not scowling. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 best of the lot.—Sandahl (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. But dim the lights a bit. Sarvagnya 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6 or 1? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 06:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Francesco Reda

(no previous picture)

2 - Face is less scrunchy in this one. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 per above. Durova^Charge! 05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sarvagnya 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Daniel (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Francis van Londersele

2 - But might want to crop to just the head/shoulders, the hand is a bit bright/blurry. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 Less open expression, but better lighting and focus. Durova^Charge! 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova.—Sandahl (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Lesser of two evils. Sarvagnya 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1, I guess. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Frank Hoj

versus

2 - Looks confident in this one. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Frontal.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 per above. Durova^Charge! 05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Frederick Willems

1. Although 3 is a better pic, he looks better in 1. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 the only one with tolerably even lighting. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 because of best lighting.—Sandahl (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 is the lesser of 3 evils. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: George Hincapie

versus

4. Although there's a hint of a smile in 3, 4 is brighter. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 more dynamic composition, better facial expression. Durova^Charge! 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 brighter —Sandahl (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 for the profile pic, but you might consider including the last one in the article as well. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 -- Samir 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First choice 5, second choice 4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Gert Steegmans

versus

2. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. frontal.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 best view of face. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 best angle on face.—Sandahl (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Khoikhoi 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 sorry dude -- Samir 06:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Luis Leon Sanchez

2 and 3 were the same - 2 replaced with new photo.

3 is wee clearer then 2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Maciej Bodnar

1 Bastique ^demandez
1. The other at Traffic Cops.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Mario Aerts

2. (However, the lass in #1 has a nice smile ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bastique ^demandez
1. Hello! Are you guys blind? Did you not notice the person behind him?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon? What did you think "(However, the lass in #1 has a nice smile ... )" was about? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't notice. Musta been distracted by sumtin :D --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4, easy -- Samir 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Mark Renshaw

2 better lighting, pose Bastique ^demandez
2 per above. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2—Sandahl (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Markus Eichler

2 better quality Bastique ^demandez
2. The other pic might be placed here.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Martin Elmiger

2 Bastique ^demandez
2 notwithstanding the microphone, it's clearer. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Martin Muller

2 Both are good but the lighting is better in 2 than 1 Bastique ^demandez
2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 it's a bit brighter.—Sandahl (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Mathew Hayman

versus

3 Best expression Bastique ^demandez 03:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I actually suspect his expression doesn't really change. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 is best —Sandahl (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Mathieu Drujon

1 Great smile Bastique ^demandez 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Matteo Bono

2 Obstruction in 1 Bastique ^demandez 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Don't like the teeth-situation in 1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 01:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Matteo Tosatto

3. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Great shot --Bastique ^demandez 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Looks better in this one.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Matthew Goss

2 1 is better quality but that tongue ruins it. Bastique ^demandez 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above. 1 might be more a good pic for this article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per Bastique —Sandahl (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 despite tongue -- Samir 05:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Matt White (cyclist)

1 Dimensions are terrible on 2. Bastique ^demandez 03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This guy obviously does not like yellow monkeys.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0 as per brewcrewer Pdfpdf (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Maxim Iglinskiy

2 Bastique ^demandez 03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. The other is too in-your-face.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 looks a little like a mugshot but it's OK.—Sandahl (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Michael Rogers

1. It is a different pose from nearly all the others. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. This is a wonderful shot. Bastique ^demandez 03:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 nice shot of profile.—Sandahl (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Mickael Buffaz

1 Best expression. Bastique ^demandez 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Nicki Sorensen

3 best expression Bastique ^demandez 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Nicolas Portal

3. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Best face shot. Bastique ^demandez 03:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toss up. Looks better in 1 but 3 is a better pic.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Nicolas Roche

1 better lighting of the two Bastique ^demandez 03:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Baseball cap hides too much of the other one.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 00:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Nikolay Trusov

2 Eyes are closed in 1 Bastique ^demandez 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Cirt (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Oscar Pereiro

3 Bastique ^demandez 03:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3, but I would erase that terrible vertical line with Gimp or Photoshop.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Pablo Lastras

1 Bastique ^demandez 03:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, 1 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Cirt (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Paul Sherwen

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Durova^Charge! 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Cirt (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Perrig Quemeneur

Both are same images –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. ~~No, I changed my mind. Now 2~~. Again 1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. Hey Brewcrewer, what about #3?? (They all look constipated to me.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal preference for 3. Durova^Charge! 06:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no preference, all the same. ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 05:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Perrig Quemeneur - take 2

Hmmm. Hard one. Either #0 or #2 Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Durova^Charge! 06:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Cirt (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Pieter Jacobs

3. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Durova^Charge! 06:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Cirt (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 05:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Rein Taaramae

Don't like either, but 2 might be good for Cracking joints.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Phil Liggett

2–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 06:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Remy di Gregorio

2–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The other at overbite.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Crop the bottom third and adjust the levels. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Rene Mandri

2–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 05:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Rick Flens

2 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Ronny Scholz

3 Although the background it too bright, the profile and smile are nicer.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 with levels adjustment. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Cirt (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 05:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Rony Martias

1. Less scrunchy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 better lighting, equally grimaced expression. Durova^Charge! 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Scott Davis (cyclist)

versus

0. Don't like either much, but both are MUCH better the the photo on Scott Davis (cyclist)!! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (And what's he doing using our Scott's name?!) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gun to my head, I would go with 2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the existing photo. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Cirt (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3, sorry -- Samir 05:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Sean Yates

1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Sergey Klimov

3 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Durova^Charge! 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 05:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Sergio de Lis

1, –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Stef Clement

versus

3. The least frowning.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Durova^Charge! 05:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 Cirt (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 -- Samir 05:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Thierry Bricaud

1 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 05:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 ~ BB 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Cirt (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Thomas Rohregger

versus

I think we should stick with the current pic.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current pic. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 Cirt (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sorry dude -- Samir 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Timmy Duggan

Nah.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Timothy Gudsell

1 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Better smile.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 for the lighting. Durova^Charge! 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Tom Leezer

It's really a toss-up. This is the second toughest decision I've ever made (there was this donuts incident), but I guess I'll go with 1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's twins...wait, nevermind. 1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Travis Meyer

0. (Did he come last?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 -- Samir 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Vitaliy Buts

1 (cropped) –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice smile! I like all three. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Durova^Charge! 04:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Cirt (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Samir 05:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Vittorio Algeri

2 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Durova^Charge! 04:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Cirt (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -- Samir 05:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Volodymyr Zagorodniy

3. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 Durova^Charge! 04:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 -- Samir 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Wesley Sulzberger

1 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Cirt (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Samir 05:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Willem Stroetinga

Number 1 -- Samir 07:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 has better expression. Cirt (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Yoann Offredo

Number 2 -- Samir 07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. —97198 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 but crop it to head/shoulders. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Alison Carle

Added at the request of Brewcrewer (talk · contribs) and Pdfpdf (talk · contribs)

1. Obviously. I had some suggestions for the other pic but I'm trying to be a little classy these days.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Given Brewcrewer's new found predilection towards trying to be a little classy, my safest option is to attempt to refrain from putting my foot in my mouth by making no comment. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- P.S. YellowMonkey: Thanks for the additional photos. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 if you can crop it. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uno -- Samir 05:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invincibles issues

Miller biography

Do you have a copy of cricket crossfire? Trying to think of where to get sources to diversify the Refs on Miller's articles. Obviously general criket books can be used in most of the matchplay bits but the war period needs a biog I think. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 06:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. In fact it is sitting right next to me at the moment! Ponsford's biographer mentioned that Ponsford was Miller's childhood idol and I plan to have a look through the book to see what it says about the topic. Rather annoyingly it does not have an index! Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an awkward book. The book is arranged by topic, rather than in any chronological order and has more about Miller's opinions on cricket and cricketers than reflections on his own life. The war section is surprisingly limited, saying very little of his actions other than his close calls, which he blames on himself. Nothing about a Beethoven detour, the section about his CO at Gloucester stops short of the charge and there is little else. I will wade through it over the next day or two. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

Hutton - Bedser trap

"After the day's play, former Australian Test leg spinner Bill O'Reilly and former teammate of Bradman, now a journalist, consulted Bedser on his use of leg theory. O'Reilly had much experience in attacking leg stump in his career and devised a plan to ensnare Bradman.[46]"

Do we have any other source for this that it was O'Reilly who suggested it ? The anthology The Joy of cricket contains a piece from a book by Alec Bedser. I don't remember what book it was but this four page chapter was titled Even Bradman had battles to fight and is about him bowling to Bradman. It does not contain a word about O'Reilly. Bedser said that they had noticed even in the 1946-7 tour that they could keep Bradman in check by bowling on a leg stump line. From what I remember, Bedser seemed to suggest that it was Norman Yardley and himself who planned it. It has been a decade since I last read it, so my memory could be faulty but it may be worth a check (Joy of cricket is a popular book). Tintin 04:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedser book was Cricket Choice. Tintin 04:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a lot, because a lot of them cut and paste Fingleton all over the place, and Roland Perry's book of the tour is basically a rip-off of Fingo and then inflated to 3X the size with inane mumblings. The leg trap one is definitely in there but the article has now been changed to saw that O'Reilly help to refine the plan. Bedser of course already got Bradman with it once in 1946-47. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back again. All books have errors so you're needed. Even the Frith and Haigh book on Cricket Australia's archives published in 2007 has a few. Said that ENG/Aus declared at 8/68 and 8/32 in the Brisbane sticky of 1950-51, and that SRW's men won 7 in a row in WC99, they forgot about the tie....Fingo has a few, saying that Loxton debuted at OT when he played the previous season in Tests and a few others. Fingo seems a bit in the Roebuck mould, not too concerned with specific data. Each time Roebuck talks on radio he likes to be wishy-washy with the stats, especially in ODIs he likes being even more vague about the last game which was only three days ago. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any Australian player Roebuck actually likes? All you here from him is what everyone has done wrong. I thought Neil Manthorp was very good while he was over here commenting on ABC radio.Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 09:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will go through them. But life is tough at the moment and am hardly reading anything cricket these days :-( Tintin 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up some numbers at random. In the fourth Test Australia needed 404 in 345 minutes. When Bradman joined Morris, the target was 347 in 257 - which means they made 57 in 88 minutes. Later it is said that Australia were 1/96 from 90 minutes. So they made 39 runs in two minutes ? (Cricinfo says that Hassett batted for 74 minutes - if that is true, it is the second set of numbers that are wrong).

I'll have a check of that. If there is a conflict then Perry is an idiot. Although Fingo is also a bit airy-fiary on hard facts. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reaching 153, he threw away his wicket with a lofted cover drive. - Don't the sources say that he deliberately chose Bedser to give up his wicket ?

That too, he deliberately started aiming sixes when Bedser was bowling. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much about his captaincy. For eg, it is never mentioned how he used the fast bowlers to the fullest, and underused Toshack & co (wish Phanto were here !) Tintin 04:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, indeed. Phanto was a real scholar. And got upset when no disrepsect was ever intended. Although Toshack broke down....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks again. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have significant concerns with the images used in this article and reflected them in its FAC. I do hope that there could be a ruling that shows otherwise, but it is not apparent to me currently. The main problem is that the URAA qualifies foreign images as PD in US only if they were PD in the country of origin. For Australia, this would narrow down its PD photographs to those taken before 1945. Those 1948 images might have to be deleted off Commons and classified as "fair-use" if my reasoning is correct. Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say, because the {{PD-Australia}} has always been the way it is and I've always used the 1955 rule and so has everyone else and pictures in the 1940s-1955 range have basically always been fine for lots of FACs although I guess you must be interpreting the law in a different way to the template. There had been an argument on the template a while before but the consensus must have been for 1955- I didn't understand the debate, but I've asked other Australian editors to have a look at this legal issue. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me that there was a discussion on the template itself. I have gone through it and basically it seems that the two principal movers behind the template, Physchim62 and Rebecca knew about the policies and their interpretations are similar to mine (PD in Australia, not PD in US), see Template talk:PD-Australia/Image check, and Template talk:PD-Australia/U.S. copyright issues, Template talk:PD-Australia#Restored US copyrights. In my opinion, they view the template as a marking of the image's PD status in Australia, not to qualify it as a US PD. Per Physchim62's comments: "if anyone's favorite image is marked with a red cross on the checklist, they are welcome to change the tag for an appropriate non-free tag with fair-use rationale: one less for the rest of us to do!" However, they did not change the dates as per the Talk. In effect, I would say it causes more confusion for the editors. Jappalang (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, {{PD-Australia}} is ireelevant and might as well be deleted right? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say it is irrelevant. Some images are PD in the US because they are PD in their source country (albeit before 1996). The template does need some re-wording for context in Wikipedia (that is why I am puzzled over the two template editor's non-editing of the dates even after there seems to be some agreement to). Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tet in Inala

Could you give User:Zero1328 some pointers on what to watch out for to take pictures of at the Tet festival tonight at Inala? He asked me but I'm not very familiar with how it is in Australia. DHN (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure did. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Youtube video you linked to appears to be a small one held at the nearby temple, right at the finale; a bit of a speech, and a lion dance coinciding with the firecracker lighting on the bamboo tree. I should be able to grab good, clear shots of this specific scene. Flags are everywhere, so I can only think of snapping one in the form of the entrance, similar to this one. I can probably take a shot of an sugar cane juicer too, since I only found manual-powered ones on Commons. I don't think there are articles on en: of nem nuong or bo la lot or something but I'll take some photos anyway. Thanks for the tips; I'll see if I can spot some politicians. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just came home and reviewed my photos, and realised that I actually did fairly terrible. It was only on a whim but I ended up trying to prep for the second day, but I still had camera problems. I ended up taking photos at 1024x768 and my (quality) batteries kept dying after 10-15 shots, without flash or the active display. I also forgot about personality rights and forgot to make it very clear that I intended to publish the photos. Except for maybe the battery problem, it's been an interesting experience, taking photos in this type of environment, so I'll probably try to learn more about my camera when I find the next interesting photo op. Out of the 102 photos, I think only 5 or so are usable, but I won't place them on Commons, since I could do better next year. Nonetheless, I'm still grateful for your tips. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you should not worry about that. We aren't pros and the people aren't posing for us so that happens. You should see how blurry my portrait of Rohit Sharma or Suresh Raina is and they have been up there for a year. And a lot more, the picture set right above me on my userpage are also rather ridiculous sometimes. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your note to me

Yes, I'll help if I can, but I'm not around much at present and a very long way from my books, which is not helpful. Back properly in the middle of the month. Johnlp (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good to here. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD-Australia again

There seems to be a dispute as to whether PD-Australia does stretch back to 1955 or whether it needs to be pre-1946, juding by the challenge at the following FA - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - help/clarifications needed. Jappalang thinks pictures of Bradman's 1948 team aren't old enough for PD-Australia citing URAA and something I don't understand. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, {{PD-Australia}} is ireelevant and might as well be deleted right? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons discussion is at [1]. It looks like I may be wrong though... At least the AWM has taken to unambiguously labeling its copyright free photos as being 'public domain' which should get around potential problems with using those photos in military history articles - has the AWM is the 'owner' of these photos, this seems to be their way of releasing them into the public domain. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Articles on Sindhis

Hi YellowMonkey,

I hope you remember the recent problem with the article Sindhi people, which you protected after an edit war between me and User:Skatergal. I had hoped that this would bring Skatergal to the discussion table, but that didn't happen. Now, she has created a new article Sindhi ethnicity, which is just a POV fork. I nominated the article for deletion, but the consensus view is to Merge it, which can't be done as long as its protected. I am loath to initiate arbitration, because Skatergal is clearly well-informed on the topics, and it seems too extreme a step. Do you have any suggestions?

Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with it. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jim Baxter/GA1

Hi, YellowMonkey, thanks for the review. I've responded at Talk:Jim Baxter/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Verdun

WW1 is back on the curriculum for the spring term. The school kids are back vandalising Battle of Verdun again. Could you semi-protect it again for a bit? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Nash

Hey, noticed you did a clean up on Laurie Nash; thanks. Obviously it still has a long way to go to FA Quality but I was wondering how you thought it was shaping up. Any particular advice? --Roisterer (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, Nash obviously completely misread Woodfull when he thought Woodfull would be impressed with a barrage of short pitched bowling. However, I wouldn't go as far as Frith, who basically labels Nash as some simple-minded thug. --Roisterer (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am

Yes, I'm Vietnamese, but also 1/4 Chinese. You can spot a photo of me on the WM-AU wiki. I haven't really triple-checked the usable Tet photos, either. I'm only having a literal moment's reprieve right now, since I need to relieve stress and get sleep, even though I can't get either. Hopefully this moment will make me feel better. I'm not sure where else I could be heading, but if you have some suggestions for what photos I could take over here I'd appreciate it; It gives me something to do. Something like the Honda Super Cub riddled streets, or the strange fact that the KFCs here are like restaurants: plates, metal cutlery, glasses, and good service. - Zero1328 _Talk? 16:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally had a chance to do a lot of personal stuff, but only because I got ill and resting at home right now. Thanks for the suggestions again; I've been thinking that you might be doubting me or something, since I haven't shown anything, so I grabbed a sample and stuck it on megaupload: [2]

My hands have been shaky lately, for some reason, and most of these photos were taken from inside the car, whilst driving. We've mostly been going around the areas close to the house. I stuck them on megaupload instead of commons because I've only glanced at them so far and I want to be personally sure of the licensing and blurring of the sensitive things like faces, and I can probably only do that when this is all done. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to describe each photo; here's a quick summary in order of the photo numbers:

bamboo pole at Inala
nem nuong at Inala, mum said that it's red food colouring in the nem mix, not like that in vietnam
Entrance to Tet in INala, at night, the center banner in viet is actually all over the place in vietnam
A performance in Inala Tet, too blurry
This is taken over singapore
Something at a quality vietnamese restaurant
Interior of main saigon post office, has international help, money exchange, phones
power lines, it's like this everywhere
I think it's the emergency side to the hospital, I'll catch the name later
roundabout in front of a shopping center, billboards in center
one of many small streetpost signs
balut with side dishes, I cracked one open and placed it on the tray, this needs cropping
The ones with phone numbers are some sort of advertisement, I don't know what the center text says, I can't read it and didn't ask my mum

A quick file count says 244 photos in my camera so far, and I'll leave the settings as you see the vietnam photos as. I still need to further study my phone's abilities to take better photos. My sister also has a camera and I might use some of the ones she took, but I'd prefer to have her properly aware of the licensing available, which I also haven't properly studied.

After you and DHN download it I'll probably delete it just in case, next time I'm free, or after a few days, since this isn't realy ready for presentation. I have fruit in the fridge and some dried lychee thing, a bit like raisins, which i might take photos of if I grab a plate to properly present it. I've taken alot of street photos, since I've been trying to find a photo of the explicit danger invloved, particularly one with a turning group overtaking someone going straight, or someone crossing a road. It's all from the car though, so there should be a slight window reflection, and right now I can't tak photos at night due to light blurs, I need to work thatout - Zero1328 _Talk? 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

I've passed the above article. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser?

Hi. Truthtell? This is a sockpuppet of mine exactly how? 'Cause I never heard of this user. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Apparently this Truthtell is in the same metro area as am I. There are 5.5 million people in the tri-county metro area. That is the "problem" with checkuser. Actually what is the real problem is running out-of-process checkuser fishing expeditions with no on-Wiki activity indicative of a sock. In other words, if a dormant account had suddenly reappeared to influence consensus alongside myself then perhaps RFCU is justified. For Cirt to email his DYK buddy, Yellow Monkey (who, AFAIK, has absolutely no awareness of who is who in Scn articles or what editing is occurring), to run a check on a random editor in the Scn articles is inappropriate. Comments? --Justallofthem (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's legit. Nishkid agrees. He'll be here soon. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm the findings. It's odd enough that you're on the same ISP and same coordinates, but you're also editing the same group of CoS-related articles? I think that's more than enough of a confirmation of sockpuppetry. The evidence that has brought in for this case was sent to ArbCom-I. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jim_Baxter/GA1

Hi, YellowMonkey, I've responded to all your points at Talk:Jim_Baxter/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More socks

Hi, could you check if User:Vanlla-C00kie is User:23prootie evading the block again. I would go to WP:SPI, but can;t be bothered filling in the forms this morning. Cheers Kevin (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN for Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks, YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hi, as someone who previously commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, you may wish to revisit this page, as the FAC has been restarted and additional content to meet the concerns expressed has been added. JGHowes ^talk 23:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users:Yousaf465 and Strider11

COuld you look into their overall user conduct and coorinated disruption of articles and talk pages with anti-India racism and conspiracy theories?[][3][4] [5] [6] [7]Clerkarrive (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Hkelkar sock has been blocked. Strider dows have a few socks, although not Yousaf. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Hi. I was wondering if you could provide some input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force#Reliable sources in Bollywood films articles as there is a disagreement over the reliability and intergrity of this sources. We need to come to a consensus on whether the sites mentioned are valid sources. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, thanks. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection

Ok, if I unprotect per User_talk:MBisanz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FSindhi_ethnicity ? MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok I guess. I'lll just block SKatergal if there are any more stunts. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,309: / Line 1,309: @@
 No, it's legit. Nishkid agrees. He'll be here soon. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]'''  (''[[User_talk:YellowMonkey#Straw_poll_for_selecting_photos_of_cyclists_at_the_2009_Tour_Down_Under|<font color="#FA8605">click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!</font>]]'') 02:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
+:I confirm the findings. It's odd enough that you're on the same ISP and same coordinates, but you're also editing the same group of CoS-related articles? I think that's more than enough of a confirmation of sockpuppetry. The evidence that has brought in for this case was sent to ArbCom-I. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">[[User:Nishkid64|Nishkid64]] </span><sub>([[User talk:Nishkid64|Make articles, not wikidrama]])</sub> 03:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 ==[[Talk:Jim_Baxter/GA1]]==

Revision as of 03:43, 16 February 2009

Requests

Checkuser and sockpuppetry

Straw poll for selecting photos of cyclists at the 2009 Tour Down Under

Voting section

Poll: Aaron Kemps

Poll: Aitor Hernandez

Poll: Alexandre Usov

Poll: Allan Davis

Poll: Anders Lund

Poll: Andre Greipel

Poll: Cameron Meyer

Poll: Christian Knees

Poll: Daniele Nardello

Poll: David Loosli

Poll: Davide Malacarne

Poll: Davide Vigano

Poll: Dries Devenyns

Poll: Francesco Chicchi

Poll: Francesco Reda

Poll: Francis van Londersele

Poll: Frank Hoj

Poll: Frederick Willems

Poll: George Hincapie

Poll: Gert Steegmans

Poll: Gianni da Ros

Poll: Graeme Brown

Poll: Greg Henderson

Poll: Guillaume Blot

Poll: Henrik Redant

Poll: Hilton Clarke

Poll: Hubert Schwab

Poll: Imanol Erviti

Poll: Inaki Isasi

Poll: Ivan Dominquez

Poll: Jacopo Guarnieri

Poll: Javier Megias

Poll: Jeremy Roy

Poll: Jesus Hernandez

Poll: Jos van Emden

Poll: Jose Luis Rubiera

Poll: Jose Rojas

Poll: Josu Larrazabal

Poll: Juan Horrach

Poll: Julian Dean

Poll: Julien el Fares

Poll: Jussi Veikkanen

Poll: Kai Reus

Poll: Kasper Klostergaard

Poll: Kenny de Hayes

Poll: Kym Dillon

Poll: Lance Armstrong

Poll: Laurent Biondi

Poll: Laurent Lefevre

Poll: Luca Barla

Poll: Luis Leon Sanchez

Poll: Maciej Bodnar

Poll: Mario Aerts

Poll: Mark Renshaw

Poll: Markus Eichler

Poll: Martin Elmiger

Poll: Martin Muller

Poll: Mathew Hayman

Poll: Mathieu Drujon

Poll: Matteo Bono

Poll: Matteo Tosatto

Poll: Matthew Goss

Poll: Matt White (cyclist)

Poll: Maxim Iglinskiy

Poll: Michael Rogers

Poll: Mickael Buffaz

Poll: Nicki Sorensen

Poll: Nicolas Portal

Poll: Nicolas Roche

Poll: Nikolay Trusov

Poll: Oscar Pereiro

Poll: Pablo Lastras

Poll: Paul Sherwen

Poll: Perrig Quemeneur

Poll: Perrig Quemeneur - take 2