Jump to content

User talk:YellowMonkey: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bakasuprman (talk | contribs)
19,843 edits
TerryJ-Ho (talk | contribs)
1,035 edits
Line 474: Line 474:


You mean like [[User:Anwar_saadat]]? Also, Netaji has contributed quite a bit to Hinduism related articles, unlike you, who put unsubstantiated garbage on the Rama page, and tried to vandalize the Babri and Ram Janmabhoomi page.[[User:Bakasuprman|Bakaman]] <font color = "blue"><sub>[[User talk:Bakasuprman|Bakatalk]]</sub></font> 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You mean like [[User:Anwar_saadat]]? Also, Netaji has contributed quite a bit to Hinduism related articles, unlike you, who put unsubstantiated garbage on the Rama page, and tried to vandalize the Babri and Ram Janmabhoomi page.[[User:Bakasuprman|Bakaman]] <font color = "blue"><sub>[[User talk:Bakasuprman|Bakatalk]]</sub></font> 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

::Stop calling edits from other users as garbage and yours as the ultinate truth.You again showed your fascist right wing hindu mentality in this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Babri_Mosque&diff=prev&oldid=70284007]. WP is not your advertising medium.[[User:TerryJ-Ho|TerryJ-Ho]]

Revision as of 20:06, 17 August 2006

Survey

Just for my personal interest, and seeing as though User_talk:Blnguyen#All matters relating to religious disputes involving Users Subhash bose, Haphar, WikiSceptic and Anwar saadat involves four editors of four different religions - (Hindu, Sikh, Christian and Muslim) - 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

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

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy

I am disappointed by your decision in the closure of the AFD discussion but more importantly, I am very disappointed that you chose not to explain your reasoning when closing the debate. AFD closures are not mere vote-counts. In this case, I believe there were some substantive issues which made this an ambiguous decision. I think there are also some timing issues that deserved noting. I believe that there is some significance to the fact that no one argued to delete after I added my evidence to the discussion and in fact that several users returned to the discussion to remove their "delete" opinions. That kind of comment pattern is generally an indicator that the discussion needs careful analysis before rendering a closing decision.

I'm not arguing for you to change your mind but I would appreciate it if you would return to the AFD discussion page and document your reasoning more fully. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will do so.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to open a DRV - I assume for this case. The truth is that I'm not yet sure that a Deletion Review is appropriate. Even though I argued strongly in this case to keep the page, I can see the case for deletion. I would like to read your reasoning before deciding whether a DRV is appropriate. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books

Is there a criteria in Wikipedia that differentiates Text Books and Exam Books.Doctor Bruno 01:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that there was, although I think we are evaluating the subject of the article in the sense of his notability as an academic, in which case academic merit should be the criteria for verifying the notability.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When there is NO criteria why you say that I am not notable. How do you define the merit of an author. DO you mean to say that one becomes notable only if he gets post graduationDoctor Bruno 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant that an author's notability as an academic is dependent on his publication of academic research papers or textbooks for university courses. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this Wikipedia's guidelines. I think that they don't differentiate between textbooks for university courses and other books like Self Assessment and Board Review. Any how I feel that most of the users have given a hasty decision and their ego prevents them from going back. It is because of the ego that various reasons have been givenDoctor Bruno 06:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that a five page paper is more notable than a 500 page book Doctor Bruno 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel so, a five page paper is five papers of new results, and with full derivations can be transformed into a 20 page chapter in a textbook with new info. To be honest, most first year textbooks are recycled copies of one another, and would be less of an achievement than to do new research. If you are referring to an exam-cram book then even more so, since, they mostly consist of worked solutions of exam problems.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Wish

YOu should note that My wish regarding my article is immaterial. But as far as I am concerned, as per the current norms which is given in the pages dealing with notability I am notable.

What is worrying me is the fact that users give a hasty judgement and then try to search reasons to justify that and in that process (of justification) slander me. If you see the whole arguments, you will see that I have been able to substantiate my points far better than those opposing it

To summarise

1. Notability of Books. THe books have an ISBN Number. 5 books are published by reputed firms. 4 of those are published by the biggest medical publisher in India. In such a case, one user who gave a knee jerk comment in the first place has choosen the 6th (1 out of 6 minority) and say that it is self publishable. He has ignored 5 because his ego prevents him from going back on his earlier words

Notability (people) 1. Published authors - 6 books is more than enough to satisfy this criteria

Notability (doctor) May be there is nothing called as exam preparation in western world, but here it is a budding field. I did not give these links it that page as it will amount to "self-glory", but since you seem to understand, I am giving you few links. You can search at www.rxpgonline.com [1] www.aippg.net/forum[2] and www.netmedicos.com [3] You may think me of some one obsessed with self glory, but the point to prove is that, unless some one is regarded as an expert in that area, you will not see students from the length and breath of a country with 1000 million population to ask for my help

Then

Regarding the counter points

1. The article was not written by me. When this controversy erupted, I read the guidelines regarding autobiography and has followed what is given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you Even without going through the debate, when users accuse of vanity (as if I have created the article) it hurts a lot

2. WP:BIO clearly says that you can have articles on published authors. There is no talk about Junior/Senior, Undergraduation/Post Graduation, Fiction/Nonfiction etc.

My main concern is that all these points come out only after I put a counter question. They are not the real facts, but are made up as the users ego prevent them from stepping back. In order to substantiate the hasty vote, they invent new guideline. Wounded by these new "self invented" guidelines, I even deleted the article my self, but that has been restoredDoctor Bruno 07:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand

Dear Blnguyen

You have explained well. Now I understand that even though my books have been published, I may still fall short of the notability criteria as the books are not "textboks" or well known (throughout the world) If some one had said this on day one, it would have been nice. Instead, I had comments like Junior doctor/ limited shelf life etc and quoting one book while ignoring the other 5 that made be irritated. Thanks for your patienceDoctor Bruno 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I hope that there are no hard feelings. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble

(This will seem trivial compared to the stuff above this section. :) )

I notice you have updated your popularity graph on your user page as Image:edit.jpg. However, please consider uploading it as a new version of the old file, Image:Blnguyencount.jpg instead, and delete the edit.jpg. This is because edit.jpg sounds quite generic and your file could easily be overwritten. Thanks! Kimchi.sg 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I'll get around to this, perhaps next week, or maybe the week after, maybe a new graph for the latest spike...although I don't think that getting a lot of messages means that I am necessarily popular. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit revert war scorekeeping

Hey, Blnguyen, I was looking into the revert war on Sanskrit, before I knew you has looked at it, and I see you are saying Crculver had 5 reverts? Can that be right? Are you counting [4], edit summary "rvv"? If so, is that fair? That wasn't precisely exactly vandalism being reverted, as it looks good-faith perhaps, but it is so close as to make no difference: it included a link to [[Media:Example.ogg]] for example. Or am I misunderstanding? (I agree he made four reverts, by the way, but I had to think long and hard about that one before making up my mind.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the 18.31 on the 7th that I'm worried about. I think he should get a free pass for that one. Look at the anon edit he was reverting. It had a link to [[Media:Example.ogg]] followed by text inside the infobox code, turning the article into this. Please take a look! Reverting that sort of damage shouldn't count. Right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Half a revert for that one? Yeah, that sounds like a good call to me. I'll adjust the block and leave a note. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's fine, a 27 hour block. You're most welcome. a good dialogue.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for the first edit day wish my friend. --Dakota 03:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template: India collaborations

Hello. You reinstated the RfA section in the above template when it was removed by Crzrussian. He has again removed the section with the summary: "once again, and for the final time, I have rmved the inappropriate RfA section. Such electioneering is beneath you, Wikipedians". I find this charge to be baseless as that template was never intended to be an electioneering tool. So should the section be reintated again or should we leave it that way? - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aksi. I dont know how that is an electioneering tool. There is enough evidence on your talk page that all Indians dont see eye to eye with each other. The information on the template only helps all concerned people to voice their opinions -- Lost(talk) 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask him to discuss this. Obviously you can see from the contents above and in the previous archive you that there are many Indian editors who are on extremely bad terms with one another, so putting the template would likely lead to more scrutiny of below-the-belt behaviour on a plethora of religious and historical related articles. Also there is a the same thing at the Australian noticeboard and they are of the opinion that the RfA notice provides an opportunity for more informative comments, as I know that the Australian editors never chack RfA and only look at the noticeboard for Australian discussions, and strongly rebuffed calls to remove the section from the AUS board. It's likely the same here, as most Indian editors focus on the Indian RfAs and could do with a notice. For example I can recall that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sukh did get an opposition from Nobleeagle, because of his activity on the Khalistan page I think, and I don't think the non-Indian editors paid attention to this, for example. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply. Obviously discussing the issue with him would be better than revert warring. Wanted to say that you are doing a great job. I have been following these debates (pro-Hindu vs. anti-Hindu) for 2-3 days now and it really amazes me to see this these people bickering on so many talk pages at the same time. All the best in your mediation efforts. I would like to point you to Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. A mediator has stepped in to control the situation. Maybe something of the same sort is required over all these disputed and controversial religious pages. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 06:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something?

You blocked VandalBot indefinitely. Um. They haven't contributed since late 2004. :) Am I missing something? --Woohookitty(meow) 08:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the username a problem? Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed links - why?

Could you please tell me why you removed (without any comment) the external links I added to a few country pages? In what way do they not qualify? They point to non-commercial, relevant and up to date information about the countries. Petrux 10:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on your talk page. I think you are correct. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voter Fraud

I believe that you are mistaken in accusing me of voter fraud during a posting of a recent random article and thus having me blocked for 24 hours. Im not sure whether this is an indication of a simple mistake on your part or a reflection of your disdain for people who post pointless articles, however I would like you to know that I personally would never do something stupid just to keep a dumb article on wikipedia and I am sure that you will give me the benefit of the doubt in the future. I wish you all the best and a plesant day. Go play a game of Naked Robber i think it might do you good. :-) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanstout (talk • contribs) .

This edit shows you clearly switching Gogo Dodo's "vote" on the Naked Robber AfD. The block is justified in my opinon. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MEDCAB - Democracy dab page

Hey there Blnguyen, it will be nice to work with you again. Good luck with us as your first case, hopefully we won't prove too difficult. :) -- Natalya 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way, should it be difficult. See what's above you :o .Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. Yeah. Maybe it will even be like a vacation..? -- Natalya 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And below you....Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be done - thanks for being willing to take it anyway! -- Natalya 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Gilbert

Your help please with Ohnoitsjamie and the review process in general. I want to continue improving the articles I was planning on doing, but this stupid argument is holding me up. He asked me to go to that link and dispute my case on that link but I don't understand how to do so. I just want the article as it is, it does not quality for speedy deletion. Can you help me out with this? Timeshift 06:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable behaviour

Can you please give your opinion regarding the behaviour of User EyeMD. Please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FK._R._Kaushik&diff=68742235&oldid=68722846 Also see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctorbruno/Archive_6#Published_MCQ_books He seems to drag my name into each and every controversyDoctor Bruno 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about his exam credential because he said that he is "a doctor with extensive education and major contributions to two international textbooks." and "never read this particular author's "books" to prepare for my PG entrance exams in Delhi, nor heard about him from my extended group of doctor/medical student/PG friends all over North India." When he is using his education to argue a point against me, I feel that it is appropriate for me to ask about his academic qualifications. Please note that I did not ask whether he is a MBBS or not. I just asked his rank for which he has not answered, but is going around talk pages discrediting me.
About the copyvio thing, unlike the previous years, they do not get the question papers back after the exams(they used to do this before 2002). The question papers are released after the exam. Hence there is no problem at all. This has been very well verified by the publisher before coming out with the book By the way, please see what he himself says "doctors like Salgunan, Bhatia et al could claim to be much more widely read authors of such "best-sellers", with an evidently much wider circulation." Both of these doctors (as well as a host of others) have done the same thing as me. In fact they even did that prior to the era when the question papers have to be returned along with the answer sheets and were not released after the exam. They publish a guide with the questions and answers (only answers) where as I give references and explanation etc. The very fact that he does not care to question Bhatia and Salgunan (I don't say that he should do that !!!) but is worried about the copyright vio only with me substantiates the fact that this user has malicious intention against me. Doctor Bruno 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is very simple. Let me explain a bit. He says that my books violate the Copy Right. It is not at all related to Wikipedia. It is about the 3 books I have published. One more thing you have to note is the fact that it is not mentioned anywhere that I have written a book for AIIMS. I have so far written only for ALl India. THe AIIMS book is not yet released. But he has also included that in his message. That means the guy has some personal agenda (in real world - may be another author) against me. Initially he said that there are no books at all authored by me. After the existence of books were proved, it was the Notability Issue. Now since it has been proved that the books are notable he has stepped further and says that my books may violate the copyright and hence should not be included. The bottom line is clear. He (and few others) want my article to be deleted for reasons other than Wikipedia. This proves the fact that he has some personal malicious intention against me. I wish you (and other Genuine Wikipedians) understand the issue and revise your opinion accordingly.Doctor Bruno 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I am telling from day 1. The main aim of nominating the AFD is to slander me in the debate. If they write something wrong or defaming in the article, it can be deleted citing WP:V Instead they have choosed to defame me in the AFD.
They did not expect me to take the bull by the horns and reply myself. Once I did that, they kept changing the stands and others like you were also misguided. You can now see a opinion from an anonymous account. How many AFD pages do you see an anonymous account giving such a lengthy explanation for "spirit of the rules"
I expect Wikipedians like you to understand the issue and revise your stand and take the necessary actionDoctor Bruno 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied at the AfD and left a comment for EyeMD.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed reply - I was busy in real life. Well, the question on copyvio was made to ascertain facts in relation to the AfD on his biography, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas, which was an ongoing activity at the time of asking my question. Anyway, his labelling my query as questionable behavior is akin to his ongoing rule lawyering as pointed out by multiple editors on the AfD and I don't want to inflame the issue any further, since I have no personal interest in this issue. That preserved page on AfD is a stark reminder of challenges of countering an editor with a subjective point of view along with major ego issues, using rule lawyering as an iron rod to try and browbeat fellow editors leaving their comments on AfD. EyeMD 10:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced rumour

Thanks for fixing that. I did a bit of googling and found that the person mentioned has indeed done freestyle skiing, but she doesn't seem to be notable yet, nor is she the same age as him. Andjam 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Never mind. Add it to the list of stories to tell your grandchildren in your dotage. Snottygobble 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll survive. Hopefully. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend

It was a new sensation indeed. No problem. --Dakota 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a good Wikipedian, and an excellent admin and I will be the first to say so.--Dakota 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you come to irc.--Dakota 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the access atm, sorry again. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Bruno

Thank you for reinstating my comments -- I'm not quite sure why Srikeit removed them! 193.129.65.37 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a mouse error or something.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be also that he has Firefox with Google Toolbar http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5643 Doctor Bruno 07:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good photo

File:Blnguyen.JPG

Who's in the suit? Who took the picture? Where'd you get the suit? Has the desk been cleaned up since? I must know.--Andeh 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's not a suit -It's a doll. It's only about 60cm tall and has 10cm feet! I took the picture with a digital camera. No, the desk isn't much cleaner, still filled with research papers that I need to read and laboratory notebooks that I need to mark, and textbooks.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I get this doll?--Andeh 00:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, it came from a chook raffle. It wasn't bought. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

It most definitely was not serious...perhaps a ;) at the end might have cleared that up... Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorney Court

This article was deleted against policy by User:Redvers as he admitted Whether or not he considers a Grade 1 Listed building as non-notable is irrelevant, as an Admin he should follow deletion policy. I ask can you please restore this article. He is also accusing me of calling him a vandal, which I certainly did not as I explained on my talk page --RMHED 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been fixed.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup on 24th August 2006

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but the Inaugural Adelaide Meetup will take place on Thursday 24th of August at Brougham Place Uniting Church, thanks to Alex Sims. Please indicate if you will attend or not.

This message left by May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) on behalf of [ælfəks], 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRV for Frank Lloyd

G'day Blnguyen,

just a quick note to let you know I've nominated Frank Lloyd (Australian actor) for deletion review. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holywarrior again

Holywarrior and Yeditor have been harrassing me on wiki again. (Yes the same "blatant Hindu vandal" calling Yeditor). He left 4 warnings for no reason. I removed the criticism of Upanishads because as per wiki nom, there is not a criticsm section on the main article of a major religious text. I removed the tags citing harrassment, because it looks like a leopard does not change its spots. As for BhaiSaab, w/e, don't really care about him now, got worse problems. Here are the warnings for vandalism. [5], [6], [7],[8]. I cited reasons for removing the text I supposedly "vandalized". Bakaman Bakatalk 14:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared this up yesterday I think. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One "defamamtion" of Holywarrior was when I told a user who attacked him on the textbook talk page, to keep the moral upper hand in a debate with him. I told the IP address not to make personal attacks (even though I agree with what the IP said) then holywarrior acted in bad faith and said [9]. I accused dab of making personal attacks (he's known to do that) but when I tried to assist a user, Holywarrior bacame hostile. He is using his sparring partner Yeditor to vandalize Hinduism pages, and putting strings of unwarranted warnings on talk pages of at least 3 people (me, Bharatveer, Netaji) probably more when "blatant Hindu vandals" see the crap they put on Hinduism pages. Bakaman Bakatalk 15:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply about RfA

I guess I am ready; why don't we give it a shot? Again, I'm very honored that you are considering this. To be honest, I know how the RfA process works on the voting end, but I have to admit I don't know what I am supposed to do to get it started.

Also, I was planning on adding this comment to the same section in which we last talked about this, but I think that that section has now scrolled about 10 pages back into your archives. Wow... :P -- Deville (Talk) 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, great, I see the RfA page is up. Thanks again! I will accept, of course, so I'll head over there and answer the questions now. I presume that after I'm done with that, I should add it to the RfA page? -- Deville (Talk) 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is up, and it seems to be started anyway, I hope it works out. Anyway, I think I might have to head to bed now. It's pretty late in EST right now....;D -- Deville (Talk) 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the vandal tag

I noticed you told me to stop handing out vandalism tags. I placed the last one on Timothy Ushers page before I saw your message. BhaiSaab provoked me to do that. Also, I believe BhaiSaab's "warning" was unwarranted. Can I remove it? I cited the reason I "vandalized" Netaji's talk page, because netaji did not vandalize the Indian caste system page. Also I will not respond to his bait above the "Proposed findings" section. You are right, he is now involved in a content dispute with myself and Netaji and I'm not going to give a reason for an admin to block me. I have tried to patch up my relationship with Ragib for said reason and am working to build a contributing relationship with Thunderboltz and Rama's arrow (both of whom should be admins).Bakaman Bakatalk 04:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab has not listened to your words [10]. Take action, I have not responded to his baiting, nor have I placed any more tags, but I continue to be hounded for this. Bakaman Bakatalk 05:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's okay for you to remove every single warning from your userpage - that's why I issued it to you. BhaiSaab talk 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the action of issuing both of you with a short 15min block because I felt that your issuing of robot-messages to each other and warning-warring was inappropriate, as I had noted earlier. You were having a productive discussion on article content, so I was concerned that this could be damaged by a possible silly escalation in this warning-warring. I think in future, I'll take the responsibility of deleting the appropriate warnings myself. THanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I removed the warnings I made on his talk page [11] and also removed his and Holywarriors warnings on my talk page.Bakaman Bakatalk 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowclan

I recreated the Shadowclan page about a month ago and it has been up since then. Suddenly it was deleted again. I assumed that you didn't have a problem with that page and that it made an appropriate claim to importance. So why the deletion again after more than a month?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bagginator (talk • contribs) .

You didn't delete the page - I did. I restored it and put it up for AfD. Kimchi.sg 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the only other admin i'm aware of I was hoping you could direct me. Another admin, Kimchi, is deleting a wiki article I created. In the process this admin is using ad hominem attacks against me 'Lastly, there's no need to automatically write something in response to every delete comment - it makes you look silly. calling me silly for no apparant reason. I havn't written a single response (To my knowledge) to any delete comments and yet i'm being called names for trying to provide the evidence this admin asked for. Is there someone I can go to with this complaint?Bagginator 08:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my long experience with Kimchi, I know that he didn't mean that as a slur at all. If you haven't done any comment yet, then Kimchi is in my opinion giving you a friendly piece of personal advice. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

Hey.. This is concerning the editing of the Student Newspapers in Mallya Aditi International School page. Im not sure if you know anything about our school or not, but The Scribbler is infact an official magazine that has been approved by the principal of our school. I've edited the page again and I hope you understand the fact that our school has more than one papers in circulation.

'The Joke' is a satirical paper which unlike ours, was never granted the permission to be circulated or sold in school.

Our paper, The Scribbler, does have the principal's permission, and before it releases, it's proof-read by one of our teachers. So... in the future, please remember that The Scribe isn't the only School Newspaper. =)

Thanx.

- George

PS: What does "rm shenanigans" refer to? and "rv again"?

Ok, thanks for clearing it up.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muralitheran pic

Im not sure whether it is copyrighted ir not, just take it down to be safe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul0991 (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks, I will get rid of it ASAP. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble mate --Paul 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I just sent you an email. Michael 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab

He is now invading the India realted articles. I believe you told him to mind his own business, he forced Netaji to go 3RR and he violated 3RR on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh himself. He asked me if I owned the articles when I cited that you told him to not engage in disputes with me again. I believe in archive 17 you stated that he has not been interfering with my edits. Now you have clear evidence he has. Anyways, I wouldn't care about his edits on the 2002 Gujarat violence/2006 revision but the RSS is a totally Hindu organization. Can you ask him why he is undoing Netaji's edits? I would take amnesty but only if BhaiSaab stops messing with the Hindu/India based articles and sticks to his area of expertise. As per your recommendation, I removed the npa warnings on his page which were a response to his vandalism templates. I would find an indian admin, but Bhadani treated the case like a hot potato and gave it to you, using very vague language for justification. Rama's arrow and deepujoseph are good, but they unfortunately are not admins.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab is "invading the India-related articles"?
"I would take amnesty but only if BhaiSaab stops messing with the Hindu/India based articles and sticks to his area of expertise."
Wikipedia articles do not - rather, should not - "belong" to any one nationality or religion, regardless of subject matter. Such dialogue is a case study in Why Wikipedia Won't Work.Timothy Usher 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you Timothy Usher, backing up your sparring partner. Anyways I used the article as evidence to show Blnguyen that BhaiSaab has been undoing our edits. I don't really care for your views on the matter as you always unconditionally back up BhaiSaab. I'm sure Blnguyen is smart enoguh to see when someone disobeys him.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking into it to see how it develops. If it appears that activity may be motivated by dubious reasons rather than a genuine wish to improve content, then he will get into trouble. Probably it would be smart for him to stay away for a while in the interests of goodwill, instead of taking up this new interest, but there is nothing wrong with it to just begin with. If he just did straight reverts for the hell of it and didn't explain when asked like Anwar did to Nobleeagle then things are clearcut. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BhaiSaab has also been blocked [12] for edit-warring with Netaji and myself and violating 3RR. Bakaman Bakatalk 23:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos Subhash's legal notice on my page

Hi, I was away for a week and just saw your comment in my talk page. It would seem that LkAdvani has changed his userid. When I used the term 'libelous' to describe a personal attack against myself in his talk page I did not mean it in a legal sense.

From Dictionary

Libel \Li"bel\ (l[imac]"b[e^]l), n. [L. libellus a little book, pamphlet, libel, lampoon, dim. of liber the liber or inner bark of a tree; also (because the ancients wrote on this bark), paper, parchment, or a roll of any material used to write upon, and hence, a book or treatise: cf. F. libelle.] [1913 Webster]

1. A brief writing of any kind, esp. a declaration, bill, certificate, request, supplication, etc. [Obs.] --Chaucer. [1913 Webster]

2. Any defamatory writing; a lampoon; a satire. [1913 Webster]

The legal definition:

3. (Law) A malicious publication expressed either in print or in writing, or by pictures, effigies, or other signs, tending to expose another to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.

Was not meant here. Therefore, there is no threat of legal action (I know that this is not allowed on wikipedia). I hope you understand why it was necessary as, at best, it was a blatant personal attack.Netaji 20:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blgnuyen, Even after four days your note to User:Subhash has not been complied with.The legal notice of Libel is still on my userpage and I have had no apologies either.What are the Wikipedia's policies in this regard.I would suggest the user to be penalised for continued violations of WP guidelines and harassment of other users.TerryJ-Ho 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bose already cleared it up. He made no legal threat.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained my claim to blnguyen that it is not a legal threat. If he disagrees, let him tell me and I'll remove the statementNetaji 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at it again and it states that Netaji would report you (Lkadvani) for defaming him? So he is stating that he will report you for committing a legal offense against you? Does that imply a counter-legal threat on the part of Netaji. It seems ambiguous and probably damaging to both of you so perhaps deleting both the irrelevant stuff on Lkadvani's page and that comment by Netaji would be the most convenient, rather than an escalation. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I responded in my talk page.Netaji 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy

Since you must be tired from all the India disputes, I thought you might want to try some gulab jamun.

Enjoy

Bakaman Bakatalk 15:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Blnguyen, thank you.

Right now I am finding it really psychologically difficult to cope, but your message meant a lot to see, and has made me feel a bit better. Thank you so much for your support. I just can't put into words what your message meant. Thank you. Thε Halo Θ 00:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

"I seem to be a rather innocuous, undemonstrative and low-key contributor" - Nice one :) especially the "low-key" part.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I added that in January and haven't changed it since. I probably should. I got 65 talk messages in my first 5000 edits and in my last 5000 I have received something like 1100. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Nadu

You have not detailed why you have removed the link to Great Tamils in Modern era, so reverted back to the previous edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asprakash (talk • contribs)

Unless I am mistaken, my edit [13] only reverted a user who changed "Chennai" to "Madras". I believe someone else changed it and that you are mistaken? Blnguyen | rant-line 04:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page problem

All too often you seem a comfortable voice of sanity around here. Any chance you'd be able to attend to a problem I'm having?

I wrote a message on User:Aranherunar's talk page regarding the spelling of 'civilisation' He took offence to what was blunt, but not offensive and subsequently placed a WP:CIVIL warning on my talk page. I removed this warning (considered by me to be an insult, and a waste) with the edit summary 'rmv crap'. Aranherunar then placed the warning back, stated that he was going to remove the original warning anyway, but was now going to continue to insist on it being placed there due to my edit summary of 'rmv crap' which he considered offensive. A tit-for-tat revert war is now taking place on my talk page. I stated that "All you're doing is playing tit-for-tat. A endless shit-slinging match goes nowhere. Spend your time contributing to Wikipedia instead." and got:

"Yes, I was going to remove that NPA warning, which I deemed unnecessary until then. However, an abusive edit summary, under any circumstances, no matter you are right or not, is completely unacceptable. I would have thought you had more sense than that. Your removal of warnings is completely childish. Rather than telling me to spend my time contributing to Wikipedia, why don't you? The removal of warnings is completely unnecessary. They do not in any way hinder your ability to contribute. Instead, you have decided to start an edit war on the warnings. This is completely immature, forgive my frankness, and I would suggest you to stop it right away before an admin has to come to solve this dispute which isn't needed at all."

Can you please offer an outcome? I really am quite fed up with this. michael talk 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you deleted this, but since it was deleted whilst I was posting something to Aranherunar's page, I just resuscitated it anyway so that I could make a note that I had made my observations. Thanks and you're welcome. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ER

Thanks for those comments. I am in no hurry for an RfA. I was looking at September/October. I would be on a break for 1 week each in August, Semptember and 2 weeks in November (due to college projects and exams). I will be increasing participation in XfDs (have already started doing so) and RfA. I am always on a look-out for DYK worthy topics. Just yesterday I wrote an article on Vishnu Digambar Paluskar (already submitted at DYK). Thanks once again. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should baka not be warned for this

I had issued defwarn to Baka for [14] and similar edits.he promptly removed it.Plz look into the matter.Holy|Warrior 08:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merely told the IP guy not to make personal attacks. Then in a vio of AGF Holywarrior went on a rant on how I accused dab of making personal attacks [15]. trying to discredit me. I told him to watch out just because the IP seemed to be a newbie and therefore, I dind't want Holywarrior taking advantage of a newbie to get him blocked for an exorbitant amount of time, especially when the newbie spoke the truth. Bakaman Bakatalk 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blatant personal slur and it is not acceptable. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove it. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baka need to explain why he is following and reverting my edits to the version written by Blatant Vandal.Holy|Warrior 08:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty, and the cricket project

Hi there! Thank you very much for your comments regarding the Panesar entry. It was getting a touch silly as an article, and i had noticed more and more conjecture and supposition creeping in. I'd be delighted to get involved in the wikiproject you speak of. How do i do that? I'm very much a newbie to wikipedia, but i believe in it as a concept and would be happy to be involved. I noted also that you have 111 members. It would be my pleasure to take the score past nelson...

) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinwillott (talk • contribs)
I see that you have enlisted to the participants list. Great! WT:CRIC is the discussion area and WP:CRIC is the noticeboard. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some cake for you!

Hi Blnguyen, thanks for the birthday greetings! Please have some of my real life brithday cake (which doesn't exist anymore *sob*) :P Cheers!! --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 11:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hate attack

Please see Bharatveers [edit sumry]. Is this not personal attack?Yeditor 14:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate, I'll talk to him. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Yeditor wasn't listening when I told him to take rants like these [16] to Chowk.com. Chowk is a better place for Yeditor. He will be welcomed with open arms at that site.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Infact I don't appreciate his hatred of Brahmins, being one myself and fail to see how a community that was 3.5% of the population (in the best times) could have oppressed the majority of people for 4000 years. Bakaman Bakatalk 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

snotty

snottygobble the admin has had a message (number 1 on his talk) from what i think is a s-poppet wondering if you could have a look if youre not too busy. thanks SatuSuro 14:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SatuSuro. I noted that Bpazolli the puppetmaster posted the contents of his failed RfA on his userpage, with his own commentary, in which he labels User:Aksi great a terrorist. So I took the liberty of extending the block indefinitely, as I can't see anything remotely serious about his article contribs or his debating on AfDs. I also blocked the other gentleman you referred me to on Snottygobble's page. From his contribs he can only he a scok, a meatpuppet real-life friend from high school or a spoofer. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Clearly this guy is here for a bit of a lark - writing hoax articles, making tongue-in-cheek AfDs, running sockpuppets, attacking people. My patience was wearing a bit thin. I hadn't blocked indefinitely because of a few good faith edits. But I agree that on balance this guy was detrimental to the encyclopaedia, and support your block. Thanks, it's good to have some fresh eyes on the situation. Snottygobble 01:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While you're doing me favours, I've had to walk away from the edit-warring at Psephos, having become too involved (and angry) to be constructive. Review and considered action by an uninvolved admin is desperately needed. Snottygobble 02:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Snottygobble 03:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, it is appreciated SatuSuro 07:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suma Ching Hai

Stop attacking a real Buddha. You are anti-Buddha. Stop worshipping demons. Sumachinghaidisciple 04:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's another thing to be archived to User:Blnguyen#Accusations. I disagree with your characterisation, and I am here to enforce WP:NPOV. If these things didn't happen, then they wouldn't need to be documented. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, there is an edit war going on these articles .Though , I am not personally involved ; my edits too are getting reverted .Pls take a look at that. Bharatveer 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can simply fix that up now that AINiko has been blocked for four days for 5,4 and 5RR for Kerala, Kochi and TVM. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Alniko

Dear Blnguyen, I have seen your comment on Alniko. Please understand that he started vandalising all TVM pages, removing technopark pictures, removing data etc. Now he has started editing the largest city. This discussion already happened in Kerala Talk page, months ago. Please see those discussions.

-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that he doesn't have consensus. Thanks for pointing it outBlnguyen | rant-line 05:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Bpazolli

This is me taking the first step towards resolving the dispute.

1) You deleted me without time for me to respond I was blocked and if I logged into my account my IP is blocked.

2) I was unaware that posting a failed RFA on my user page was not allowed.

3) Someone added an edit warning to my user page, I couldn't edit it I was blocked.

4) User Pages have an allowable level of humour, look at your user page. If you felt I went too far, I would of been happy to change it, but I didn't have the chance.

5) You say that I have made no serious wikipedia edits, but I have look at my contributions. I admit that I am still fairly new but I am making a good amount of edits or at least were.

6) Not a point about the reason you deleted by account, but claims that I started a hoax RFA don't make sense. I started it for me, I thought I had a reasonable chance. As well, the 3RR rule I was not aware of and I had a question about why it kept being taken off, see the RFA discussion page.

7) I want to apologize about my terroist remark, I did not know anything about this user when I made it and it unfortunate that he comes from that part of the world. However, his comments about my beliefs and the queen were inflamentary and unhelpful, if he can't take a bad response when he posts bad comments, then he souldn't say anything. I'm afraid that all of you are taking a bit too seriously. However, I take comments about the Queens very personally.

Finally, please respond, and don't delete this account I will not make any posts unrelated to the reinstatement of my account. One more thing, deleting accounts, mainly Lord Protector and HRH MJW, as sockpuppets of me, just because we agree on a couple of matters isn't fair. HRH MJW was created before bpazolli and Lord Protector was created as a result of his deletion and he has made his own contributions and articles. Though I do enjoy, you thinking that I have such a large influence. -- Bp2000 13:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

For you to block me, after I have restrained and responded a week after Neta's provocation, is not balanced, specially when you did not block the person who is causing the whole issue. Again i have waited for some time to respond so as to not be angry in the response, but it still does not take away from the fact that your attempt to look into details have been extremely one sided. Neta is rude , obnoxious and has on n occaisions made personal remarks about n individuals. If I have done anything it has been in "response" to and the language/ remarks have been as a result of his continued hostility. For you to overlook all his transgressions ( I had posted windups before also, to which you did not even bother to reply) and to block someone who is responding shows a bias as well as a not so balanced side. Your personal issues with me over the religion category may have coloured your opinion but it has shown me that you are not a fair and objective admin Haphar 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Sockpupeteer Box

Can you please let us know under what circumstances this edit is acceptable [17]62.189.60.30

How many times can one be blocked and be warned and get away

Are there any rules on Wikipedis that prohibit such users?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.189.60.30 (talk • contribs) .

You mean like User:Anwar_saadat? Also, Netaji has contributed quite a bit to Hinduism related articles, unlike you, who put unsubstantiated garbage on the Rama page, and tried to vandalize the Babri and Ram Janmabhoomi page.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling edits from other users as garbage and yours as the ultinate truth.You again showed your fascist right wing hindu mentality in this edit [18]. WP is not your advertising medium.TerryJ-Ho
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&oldid=70288492"