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
BhaiSaab (talk | contribs)
6,082 edits
Unblock User:Mahawiki
Line 538: Line 538:


I don't think there was any major edit warring, just some minor quibbles. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there was any major edit warring, just some minor quibbles. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

== Unblock [[User:Mahawiki]] ==

Blnguyen, mahawiki shouldn't have been blocked. If he has been uncivil, then so has been [[User:Vgowda]]. Check out his comments on my page as well as those of Mahawiki's. I suspect that he is a sockpuppet of [[User:Dineshkannambadi]]. Both have been editing pages related to [[Rashtrakuta]] and [[Kannada]] and both have same views and apart from that it is pretty obvious from the talk page of Rashtrakuta that both of them are sockpuppets. I urge you to please review your decision regarding the block on mahawiki as well as check out the other users

--[[User:Arya Rajya Maharashtra|Arya Rajya Maharashtra]] 05:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:22, 11 September 2006

Survey

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

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

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

Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since 29 May 2006.

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


File:Blnguyen party.JPG
Blnguyen in action

Archives


Bosniak comment

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

Hmm...

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


help with problem user: Bormalagurski re: Srebrenica massacre article

Blnguyen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you help?

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

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

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

3RR violation on Srebrenica massacre

User 128.253.56.172 reverted already 4 times [1]this article. And it seems it is puppet of previous anonymous user. Could you block anonymous users to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medule (talk • contribs)

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

User:Kseferovic...

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

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

User:Holywarrior

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

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

Srebrenica Massacre

Hello Blnguyen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK - ???

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

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

Vande Mataram

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

You Are Mistaken

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

Ping pong (band)

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

Diploma mills

I'm back and I plan on doing some cleaning up of the mills including removing the lesser known/unsourced ones. Also another has started a pretty good article on the mills if you want to help.[2] Arbusto 23:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedying against a DRV-mandated XfD

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

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

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

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

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

*sigh*

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

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

DYK

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

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

DYK

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

Request help

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

As you can see, I am not an admin yet, so I can't do it myself. Thank you for your help! --Siva1979Talk to me 01:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for your quick response! --Siva1979Talk to me 01:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at this?

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

Status

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

Acknowledged

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

Thanks for watching my back!

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

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

Not a open proxy

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

It´s my account. Unblock it. 84.114.131.27

User:Indrancroos

I went to the trouble of removing Indrancroos' personal attacks from Talk:Indian martial arts and the first thing he does upon his return from Blocklevania is re-post them.[3]

He also left a message on my Talk Page insinuating racism.[4]

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

Acronym

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

List of critics of Islam

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

Sure.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 22:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Amenra 03:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

DYK

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

requesting a starting point for Srebrenica Massacre

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

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

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

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

Would that be possible?

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

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

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

Sure, I will take a look. These are sticky.
Blnguyen, I understand. I see that the edit warring spread to the Markale massacre also. Question: what is the next step? When or how does an article become unprotected? Fairview360 02:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

khoikhoi

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

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

Thanks

Re:Reletionship

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

Mediation move

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

Vindhyachal House

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

CfD Closing request

There's a consensus here Hindu polits cat that needs closing. At least 10 keeps, Only one delete, and one delete changed to no vote after I helped Akash change his mind.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know. I thought it was just when the issue died down.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bobby Pearce , which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Armed Conflict and Proselitization

Hey, I think I closed an AfD that you were in the middle of userfying. I didn't look carefully at the timestamp, I must have thought you had speedied during the time it was up AfD. Sorry about that, feel free to reclose it properly. --- Deville (Talk) 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've done that in the interim. Again, sorry, my fault --- Deville (Talk) 03:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Of course nobody is contesting that creating articles for Wikipedia is a good thing. Please do not confuse creating new articles with nominating them as DYKs. The former is clearly very beneficial to Wikipedia, but is it such a good thing for the main-page DYKs to be so repetitive in character? Andrew Levine 03:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grapefruit Seed Extract - Copyright Violations - Please Investigate.

Please check links for copyright infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72495019 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grapefruit_seed_extract&oldid=72467578

Compare the info which Judith Sims wrote and the illegal info Devios and Zoe revert to. Putting or reverting to copyright info on wikipedia's website is considered VANDALISM!!! Read carefully. You will find copyrighted info on wikipedia's website. This is against the law.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2603/is_0003/ai_2603000396 < Judith Sims

There is still a lot more info that I think may be copyright violations still left in the article. Devios and Zoe have broken wikipedia's rules. Check the history of GSE article. Then you will have to revert way back to BEFORE Devios put copyrighted material on wikipedia's website. This is an ongoing problem with Devios all over wikipedia. This person is taking copyrighted material and dumping it on wikipedia's website without permission from the copyright holder. Thanks again for all your help. And good luck trying to STOP Devios and this user's VANDALISM.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism

Hi Blnguyen. Thank you for you message. I have sent a message about the vote on the Roman Catholic Church article to members of WikiProject Catholicism for them to review. Anyone not on that list (such as Esperanza) was sent in error.

This is the message:

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it.

--WikiCats 06:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK?

Updated DYK query On 7 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moggaliputta-Tissa, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

(I'm filling in because an admin only managed to half-finish the DYK changeover) --Daniel.Bryant 09:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert/edit warring by User:Holywarrior on Lalu Prasad Yadav

A content/neutrality dispute has taken place between me and Holywarrior. I tried to discuss with him but he threatened me with accusations of policy violation. I am thus filing an RfC. I have put NPOV tags in the article and HW has unilaterally removed them [5], [6]. I have reverted back [7] and hope that a revert war does not begin. Based on his hostile attitude here (which summarizes some of my issues with the article) I believe that another edit/revert war is brewing, though I hope that such a regrettable thing will not happen. I would not like to approach 3RR so I would appreciate your intervention before things escalate, as they have been known to before with cases involving him. Thank you very much. If no further reverts of this nature happen then no problem.Hkelkar 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noted that it should stay. You need to get a second person to say they are having the same problems with Holywarrior. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMG Another DYK!!!

Updated DYK query On 7 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sameyakh, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Srikeit (Talk | Email) 18:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review?

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. I hope I can have your comments on my recent edits on image namespace where I added a few copyright templates (for example, a few of them has the nsd tags. Also review the comments I left on the users who uploaded these images without any copyright labels in them on their respective talkpages. Please correct and tell me if I had wrongly placed any of these tags on the image namespace. I intend to be very proficient in this aspect of Wikipedia, so I need your feedback. Thank you for your time and kind understanding in this matter! --Siva1979Talk to me 22:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another request...

Can you please protect Ashoka and Maurya Empire? Some user keeps removing various sections from the article, but also does it when logged out. Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 23:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I just got 2 DYKs recently on Mahinda, Asoka's son and Moggaliputta-Tissa, his Buddhism advisor. Done, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 23:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, nicely done (for both). Tạm biệt. ;-) —Khoikhoi 00:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Thanks for dropping me a note regarding my RfC. I did not see the rule that said that 2 users are required to initiate an RfC. I'm sorry if that was wrong of me. I was looking at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and I thought that it said that, failing negotiation, a user may request mediation through RfC Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Discuss with third parties and thought that RfC was the way to achieve that. If that is not the way, then should I file a mediation cabal, or is there anything else? Please let me know.Hkelkar 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand. Yes, I would like extra pair of eyes to opine about the dispute which I do not think I will be able to resolve with Holywarrior by myself. Can you endorse the RfC, making it two people, or is there a conflict of interet issue on account of your status as an admin?Hkelkar 00:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So what are the exact criteria for another user to get involved? If a user sees the RfC and wishes to comment, is that enough? Based on what you said it seems to me that the RfC in it's present form is not illegitimate. Can I contact another user and ask him to look at the rfC and, if he agrees that there is a problem, endorse it?What advice can you offer regarding this situation? Thank you.Hkelkar 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I'm presently doing an RfC on the article Laloo Prasad Yadav, Regarding HW's edits there, not HW himself.Sorry for the misunderstanding.Hkelkar 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though if HW persists in his attutude and other users agree then I may consider it. Not all his edits are bad so I'm not prepared to complain against him yet.Hkelkar 03:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

Hello Blnguyen,

Regarding the request to block edits to the mauryan empire page and ashoka. The issue is that individuals are positing side-theories as main-stream opinion. Moreover, they are expounding upon that and making insinuations that are tantamount to sneaky vandalism. I was the user who was making reverts on account of their ignoring my questions and requests. As seen on the discussion page, other users also expressed concerns. I even suggested a compromise such as creating a separate article wherein theories could be posited and the main page spared. These were also ignored--there was not even a response to that. This has been done for origin and ancestry theories before (i.e. Chandragupta Maurya, Vijaynagar empire). If you could please arbitrate, and request that a compromise along such lines be put into place, that would be greatly appreciated. My concern is the historicity of the article and nothing else. Thank you for your understanding.

Regards,

Devanampriya - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanampriya (talk • contribs)

Hello Blnguyen,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I would like for just that section to be deleted because it misinforms wikipedia users. I know you are very busy, but I can go into exactly why historians don't embrace this hypothesis (primary indigenous sources, polygamy in indian monarchies, dating issues, etc), and will do so if you'd like. The contributor, PHG, takes an hypothesis made by two colonial authors and then takes liberties to construct and entire historical construction that no mainstream modern historian embraces, because even the originators state that it is far-fetched. This user has previously taken primary source edits and interpreted them himself on wikipedia pages. My only concern is historical accuracy, which is why I appealed to you on this count. However, in the interest of finding a fair solution to all, and in order to observe wikipedia's aims of community harmony, I suggested a compromise. While I definitely believe those sections should be deleted, I would be just as happy if you could consider this suggestion (as there was a successful precedent for it with the Chandragupta debate). Thanks again for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Devanampriya - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanampriya (talk • contribs)

Blocked

I have been ufairly blocked please unblock me Lordofchaosiori 02:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{currentevent}}

Whilst we do have to be careful when editing articles about living people, I would not say that it is always inherently a current even article. Indeed, most people only rarely have things happen to them notable enough to hit wikipedia. The current event tag is supposed to be used, as far as I can tell, to tag stories which are in the process of breaking. it is intended to warn readers that the material is changing rapidly, and to warn editors to let some dust settle rather than to add in rumours. As such, your removal of the tag from Tony Blair was correct, as from what I can tell, the heat is off for the next few days now that he's made a somewhat stronger commitment. However the tag probably should have been added a few days ago, as people were regularly adding poorly sourced or interpreted statements. That's why it is still useful for articles about living people. LinaMishima 03:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney's block

You changed Courtney's indef block to a 1 month block. From your blocking summary it looks like you were trying to increase the 1 week block to a month. JoshuaZ 03:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woopsies, I went to unblock at the time that only Bishonen was unblocked. Seeing as I was being cautious as I have been complained about for being a hardman, then I only went for 1 month. But if people want indef, then that's fine. fixing now. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Maurya page needs mediation.

I do believe it requires someone(s) who is/are impartial to arbitrate the brewing dispute. PHG and Devanampriya have been at it for a while, but PHG especially seems unwilling to concede on any point. Even when it is apparent to everyone reading that Deva and Vastu have both shown him to be wrong. I have tried rephrasing their arguments and reasoning with him, but to no avail. Even that does not bug me so much though. It is just that he has a penchant for drawing his own conclusions based on information derived from his sources (which are horrendously biased anyway, even by his own admission), and then attributing his conclusions to that source and crying "foul" whenever someone proves it wrong.

On a side note, something needs to be done about Aldux. His comments are wholly inappropriate and border on bullying anyone who disagrees with him.

Pavanapuram 22:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack?

excuse me? i have no idea what you're talking about, reverting vandalism is not a personal attack, insulting someone or calling them or their work is a personal attack. I am assuming you are mistaken. But if you're not, I wonder well, what you're talking about. The link you provided was to the history page of the STD/STI template i created and am working on and a revert i made of vandalism when a uses removed hep C and D Qrc2006 04:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


he did vandalize the page, we talked about it, i asked him not to remove it. he admitted himself that Hepatitis C can be sexually transmittable and the the CDC and Kaiser catalogue it as an STD, wikipedia precedent is in my favor since Hepatitis C is in the STD category, him then removed hepatitis C, and also D which he claimed not to have a problem with is vandalism and if he does it again i will report him for violating the 3RR and i will request semiprotection for the page if i have to.

Moreover you said nothing of my claims of him being a vandal as the motive for you accusing me of personal atacks, you used my revert of his "vandalism" as i called it. What's you're deal? Qrc2006 04:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ohhh i see what you mean know, diff being my edit summary where i stated vandalism... well i was not personally attacking him, i was just stating in the edit summary what i in all honesty thought the previous editor has just done, i think it is vandalism, how can this situation be remediated, perhaps a peer review? Qrc2006 05:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do you really think i should aplogize, i dont think i did anything wrong. we had an edit war is all, i think im right, he thinks hes right. i do have a question, why did u block me? and why did u take C off? i would have not made any further reverts if asked too, plus now i cant add any other stds.Qrc2006 05:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, thank you. But will you unblock me from this page I will let the HepC/D arguement run its course and not do anything to it. Have you blocked Samir as well?


thanks dude, for being so helpful. ill get on it. i aplogized and asked him if i offended him, but he wont talk to me.Qrc2006 05:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey could you add crabs to the list, the talk page has the details, the link and what id like displayed past the | divider line thanks!, by the way the page records seem to show that you blocked me, did you? Qrc2006 05:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 8 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samo Ljubezen, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Updated DYK query On 8 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Merv Wood, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Is 2 DYK's an update becoming the average for Blnguyen? I think you're trying to catch up to Ghirla. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 05:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls:

Hi. I'm just sending out a message for a new study I will be undertaking soon. It will involve surveys & polls to gather information & trends of editors on Wikipedia & other subjects. The data gathering will involve yourself recieving a questionaire on your talk page for you to fill out. I will then collect your questionaire & combine it with data from other editors. If you would like to be a part of this experiment, or know of someone who does, place a "Yes" or "No" below this message. Remember, it's only for fun & you can choose not to fill out all or parts of your questionaire once they arrive. Have a nice day... -- Spawn Man 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC). P.S. I see you have your own poll... :)[reply]

Yes, why not? Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Thanks a bunch! As soon as I get enough people, I'll send out the first questionaire... Spawn Man 06:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC). :)[reply]

FPC

It does do a very good job showing two admins! -- Samir धर्म 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

☆

OK, thanks for the star :) I'm very proud of having the inaugural DYK star and now I have two of them. Wow! Although I don't edit DYK-related pages as often as I used to, it's only because I'm busy with other matters and because I see that DYK is in good hands these days. I shall certainly return to more active editing if/when I have time. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


STD/STI template

Please remove sprotect.

Again, could you please remove the protection?

Wouldn't a temporary block of the people edit warring be more effective? Atom 23:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless there are two guys causing disruption and lots of otehr people trying to do useful edits to it. At that stage, locking is a more preventative meaures. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blnguyen

In reference to your message @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:142.179.66.89&redirect=no , what personal attacks are you refering to? I only stated that Srebrenica Genocide article is about Srebrenica Genocide, not other genocides that were not legally proven in court.

I've referred to your page, it was about your comment onn Bormalagurski on Talk:Markale massacre. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Merv Wood

Hey Blnguyen. Mervyn Wood exists. Merge? -- Samir धर्म 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusatory?

Hi. Are these accusatory comments (in diff below) acceptable as per WP:Civil? Please advise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALalu_Prasad_Yadav&diff=74629303&oldid=74419398

Hkelkar 05:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are mild, but unhlepful. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandal on several articles

I think that some of the recent edits made by an anonymous ip are vandalism.
His contrib history is below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=86.143.175.215

Particularly vandalistic are his edits of Eurabia and Bajrang Dal. He has also vandalized my user page, rehashing the old sockpuppetry accusation which has been closed. I have reported him for vandalism, but he continues to vandalize the articles and my fixing it might get me above 3RR. I feel that these edits are vandalistic and so, in my opinion, 3RR does not apply.However, since users have been banned for violating even the precept of 3RR before I'd like your opinion on the situation, since I'm still quite new to wikipedia. Please advise. Thank you.Hkelkar 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking. I've locked the Bajrang Dal page. The "terrorist" thing is POV - we don't use it even for Osama bin Laden, but generally you don't get blocked unless it is for naked opinion and commentary, which isn't the case. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of genocide

Please look here [8]. As you can see you protected the article after Serb nationalists and vandals removed the main information, which is about the character of massacre (genocide) which is proven by international courte in Den Haag and sourced. So you helped them to destroy all this effort in the past year to source this article by neutral documents. I would like to ask you to return this sourced parts. Tnx. --Emir Arven 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you protected the article after nationalists removed the picture of a Bosniak girl hanged herself after Serb soldiers raped her and her 12-year-old cousin (Photo: AP). I think this is really, but really not human. So you should return this parts because they are valuable information, they are sourced, they are proven and just deniars are removing it.--Emir Arven 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's better for the admin to not tweak the article before locking it unless there is obvious vandalism, else it leads to claims of impropriety. In any case, why is it possible that the Serbia article describes the KLA as "terrorist". that is not NPOV. The Osama bin Laden article only refers to him as militant. I will unlock the page in a day or so. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language used in the Srebrenica massacre talk page

Blnguyen, since you appear to have taken an interest in the Srebrenica article I would very much appreciate if you could take a look at the sometimes very aggressive language used on the Talk page.

The most recent example is that by User:Emir Arven, calling a number of editors "Serb nationalists" (see here) - including myself. I'm not sure whether this constitutes a personal attack (I'm neither Serb nor a nationalist) it was certainly meant as one. Likewise calling persons who don't agree with one's own POV "genocide deniers" does not contribute to an open and good discussion.

If that article is to progress I feel that a first step needs to be a more civil language on the Talk pages. Are you willing to try to enforce this?

Regards Osli73 20:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a civil and human behaviour is to respect the dead people killed in genocide and not to hide the truth. So I ask you to see how this user is removing sourced part of some articles in order "to be a civil": [9]. By the way, Osli, this is really pathetic. --Emir Arven 20:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking. I'm away on weekends. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emir Arven breaking 3RR and personal attacks

Hi, Emir Arven has broken the 3RR (see below) and become quite aggressive in tone (see Personal attack below) and I think some type of corrective action is necessary. I realize blocks and other actions are not meant to be punitive, but in this case I feel that some kind of corrective action is necessary to get this editor to adjust his behavior.

3RR (Naser Oric article):

Personal attack (Srebrenica massacre article Talk):

  • "Serb nationalists: (let's call them the right names, because they are trying to deny genocide proven by international tribunal) KOCOBO, Osli73, Srbijanković, Svetislav Jovanović, and Bormalagurski, are doing what they know the best. Continuing the genocide." [13]

Regards Osli73 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't break 3RR check my edits again. Regards. --Emir Arven 22:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Osli has only reported three diffs, but I may look again. Referring to other users as being involved in genocide is a massive personal attack. Looking into it.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu politicians

Its been more than a week. So its ripe time to remove the ugly CfD sticker. :)Bakaman Bakatalk 01:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Hi. Just saw you archiving your talks. Congratulations on the neat work. . --Bhadani 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

I don't think there was any major edit warring, just some minor quibbles. BhaiSaab talk 02:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock User:Mahawiki

Blnguyen, mahawiki shouldn't have been blocked. If he has been uncivil, then so has been User:Vgowda. Check out his comments on my page as well as those of Mahawiki's. I suspect that he is a sockpuppet of User:Dineshkannambadi. Both have been editing pages related to Rashtrakuta and Kannada and both have same views and apart from that it is pretty obvious from the talk page of Rashtrakuta that both of them are sockpuppets. I urge you to please review your decision regarding the block on mahawiki as well as check out the other users

--Arya Rajya Maharashtra 05:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&oldid=75045082"