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

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

User:Blnguyen/UB

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

Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since 29 May 2006 and an arbitrator since January 1, 2007.

FOR ANONS, I WILL DEFINITELY REPLY HERE. FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS MAY BE HERE OR AT YOUR TALK PAGE. IF IT IS A MULTI-PARTY DISCUSSION, THEN DEFINITELY HERE

Archives

Requests

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

Checkuser and sockpuppetry

File:Blnguyen banana.JPG

Deposit banana here to rouse the checkuser attendant!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voting section

Simply vote and comment as follows below the individual sections.

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

Poll: Aaron Kemps

versus

No. 1 background less distracting. Could use slight cropping at right to eliminate red. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 -- Samir 06:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Giggy (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. *1. (per Durova.) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) re Brewcrewer. LOL! Yes, now that you mention it ... Pdfpdf (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Looks a little less constipated. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) - Agree with Durova that some minor cropping might be in order though. Cirt (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Bastique ^demandez 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 is better -- Tinu Cherian - 06:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 because of the full face shot but the red is a bit distracting.—Sandahl (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. - Bilby (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The blue background looks less distracting to me. Sarvagnya 20:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Aitor Hernandez

versus

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

Poll: Andre Greipel

versus

No. 4 best view of the face. Durova^Charge! 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. better pose & expression. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Pdfpdf.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Brewcrewer (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Bastique ^demandez 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3--nicer pose.—Sandahl (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 3 -- Samir 07:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Looks more NPOV. Sarvagnya 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Cameron Meyer

No. 2 tossup; not crazy about either. Durova^Charge! 16:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Not crazy about either but have a strong aversion to semi-constipated looks. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - 2 is the better of these. Cirt (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 --—Sandahl (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No preference. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Lesser of two evils. Sarvagnya 21:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Christian Knees

versus

No. 2, better view of the face. Suggest cropping the sunlight out of the bottom and doing an auto levels. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Looks weird in the other one.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 - Better expression. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 per above. Durova^Charge!
1 —Sandahl (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Superior image quality. Sarvagnya 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Daniele Nardello

versus

2. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. He's better looking then both pics. How about this one?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "this one" now appearing as #4.
2 is the best. Cirt (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 better facial expression. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Closer shot of face. Sarvagnya 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: David Loosli

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

Poll: Davide Malacarne

2. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - Best framing of the bunch. Cirt (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. don't like the smile in 2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 4 eyes open, less harsh profile than 1 or 2. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 4 is best.—Sandahl (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Less grainy. Sarvagnya 21:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Davide Vigano

versus

4 - Best full expression and view of face. Cirt (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 4 per above. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 —Sandahl (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Clearer, sharper and frontal enough. Sarvagnya 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Dries Devenyns

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

Poll: Francesco Chicchi

versus

1 - Best framing, centering, and expression. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 Only one where his face is visible and not scowling. Durova^Charge! 05:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 best of the lot.—Sandahl (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Francesco Reda

2 - Face is less scrunchy in this one. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 per above. Durova^Charge! 05:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Francis van Londersele

2 - But might want to crop to just the head/shoulders, the hand is a bit bright/blurry. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 Less open expression, but better lighting and focus. Durova^Charge! 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova.—Sandahl (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Frank Hoj

versus

2 - Looks confident in this one. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Frontal.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 per above. Durova^Charge! 05:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Frederick Willems

1. Although 3 is a better pic, he looks better in 1. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 the only one with tolerably even lighting. Durova^Charge! 05:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 because of best lighting.—Sandahl (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: George Hincapie

versus

4. Although there's a hint of a smile in 3, 4 is brighter. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 more dynamic composition, better facial expression. Durova^Charge! 05:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 brighter —Sandahl (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Gert Steegmans

versus

2. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. frontal.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 best view of face. Durova^Charge! 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 best angle on face.—Sandahl (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Gianni da Ros

1. Close call, but looks a bit funny in 2 and has too much armor in 3--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 going against the flow here and picking the shot with sunglasses. Although it shows less of the face, the lighting, composition, and color balance is far superior to either alternative. Durova^Charge! 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 could be a little lighter.—Sandahl (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Graeme Brown

2. duh. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 more professional. Durova^Charge! 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Greg Henderson

3. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 3 Wish you had been standing four feet to the right for this shot. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 looks more composed.—Sandahl (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Guillaume Blot

1. Although 2 is a better pic, it looks like he came in last place.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 better composition and brightness. Durova^Charge! 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Henrik Redant

File:Henrik Redant 3.JPG

2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 prefer the composition. Close call between all 3 choices. Durova^Charge! 05:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Hilton Clarke

3? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Best smile. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 best lighting.—Sandahl (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Hubert Schwab

1. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 best.—Sandahl (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Imanol Erviti

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Inaki Isasi

File:Andoni Lafuente 2.jpg

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Ivan Dominquez

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 -Too much distraction around his chin in the first one.—Sandahl (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Jacopo Guarnieri

1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Javier Megias

2? Pdfpdf (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 he looks more comfortable.—Sandahl (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Jeremy Roy

1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Jesus Hernandez

1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Jos van Emden

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Jose Luis Rubiera

0. Strange "hat". Is it some form of helmet? Pdfpdf (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1, I guess.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 or none.—Sandahl (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Jose Rojas

4.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 —Sandahl (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Josu Larrazabal

1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Juan Horrach

1, I guess.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 face less obscured.—Sandahl (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Julian Dean

1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Julien el Fares

1. Nicer smile.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Jussi Veikkanen

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Kai Reus

2. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1, then 4. Don't like 2; too much crotch prominence.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I hadn't noticed - I was looking at the top 2/3 of the picture ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 4 —Sandahl (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Kasper Klostergaard

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Kenny de Hayes

3. Don't like the weird look in 1 and the faraway look in 2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Kym Dillon

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 more relaxed looking.—Sandahl (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Lance Armstrong

2 Not picking anything in his face! Bastique ^demandez
2. First guy here that I heard of.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~1 for sure~~ 2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Laurent Biondi

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 - could be a tighter shot with arm cropped out.—Sandahl (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Laurent Lefevre

2. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. #1 might be placed here.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Luca Barla

1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 —Sandahl (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Luis Leon Sanchez

3 is wee clearer then 2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Maciej Bodnar

1 Bastique ^demandez
1. The other at Traffic Cops.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Mario Aerts

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

Poll: Mark Renshaw

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

Poll: Markus Eichler

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

Poll: Martin Elmiger

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

Poll: Martin Muller

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

Poll: Mathew Hayman

versus

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

Poll: Mathieu Drujon

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

Poll: Matteo Bono

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

Poll: Matteo Tosatto

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

Poll: Matthew Goss

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

Poll: Matt White (cyclist)

1 Dimensions are terrible on 2. Bastique ^demandez 03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This guy obviously does not like yellow monkeys.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Maxim Iglinskiy

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

Poll: Michael Rogers

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

Poll: Mickael Buffaz

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

Poll: Nicki Sorensen

3 best expression Bastique ^demandez 03:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Nicolas Portal

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

Poll: Nicolas Roche

1 better lighting of the two Bastique ^demandez 03:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Baseball cap hides too much of the other one.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Nikolay Trusov

2 Eyes are closed in 1 Bastique ^demandez 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 per above.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Oscar Pereiro

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

Poll: Pablo Lastras

1 Bastique ^demandez 03:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, 1 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Paul Sherwen

2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Durova^Charge! 06:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Perrig Quemeneur

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

Poll: Perrig Quemeneur - take 2

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

Poll: Pieter Jacobs

3. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Durova^Charge! 06:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Rein Taaramae

Don't like either, but 2 might be good for Cracking joints.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 06:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Phil Liggett

2–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 06:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Remy di Gregorio

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

Poll: Rene Mandri

2–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 05:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Rick Flens

2 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Ronny Scholz

3 Although the background it too bright, the profile and smile are nicer.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 with levels adjustment. Durova^Charge! 05:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Rony Martias

1. Less scrunchy.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 better lighting, equally grimaced expression. Durova^Charge! 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Scott Davis (cyclist)

versus

0. Don't like either much, but both are MUCH better the the photo on Scott Davis (cyclist)!! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (And what's he doing using our Scott's name?!) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gun to my head, I would go with 2.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the existing photo. Durova^Charge! 05:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Sean Yates

1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 05:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Sergey Klimov

3 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Durova^Charge! 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Sergio de Lis

1, –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 Durova^Charge! 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Stef Clement

versus

3. The least frowning.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 Durova^Charge! 05:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Thierry Bricaud

1 –Capricorn42 (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 05:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Thomas Rohregger

versus

I think we should stick with the current pic.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current pic. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Timmy Duggan

Nah.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Timothy Gudsell

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

Poll: Tom Leezer

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

Poll: Travis Meyer

0. (Did he come last?) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Vitaliy Buts

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

Poll: Vittorio Algeri

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

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

2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Volodymyr Zagorodniy

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

Poll: Wesley Sulzberger

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

Poll: Willem Stroetinga

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

Poll: Yoann Offredo

Number 2 -- Samir 07:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
0. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 Durova^Charge! 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 —Sandahl (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Alison Carle

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

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

Invincibles issues

Other stuff

Islamic Inventions

Hello. Sorry, saw your entry on my talk page just now. Do not know about any other articles such as these two, but I have seen that user now for over a year copying and pasting badly researched and consistently one-sided material in all kinds of articles. He has over 40,000 edits, so you know...I think his consistent misquotation and overinterpretation of sources has brought POV to a new level in Wikipedia, because people tend to believe in assertions more if thez are backed up by a footnote. They are less prone to assume that the information is taken out of context or subtly modified to suit fix preconceptions. Thats why it has been so hard to come this new method. It needs hundreds of footnotes to be checked and most third party observers do not have the time, nor the interest to completely rewrite articles which were written wrongly from the scratch. A case in point is Talk:Inventions of the Islamic Golden Age. The net result is that, while many believe the article to be POV and have tried to improve it, many dubious assertions are still there and spread their message.

PS: Just checked again Timeline of historic inventions. It is hard to find a single uncontested invention there. Too many lists just lack information to the contrary. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. The only feasible way of stopping "devotee" POV is to have some guy tagging them all day, and the number of "devotees" of anything far outweighs the number of any would-be obssessive opponent. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thoughts - and my experience. It is very difficult to come by this mass production of NPOV articles and entries. I feel this begins to affect Wikipedia. A more rigorous application of deleting policy may have a deterring effect. I find it frustating when people vote for keep, but then nothing ever happens in improving these articles, what needs a HUGE amount of time and patience. Better delete and give somebody other a new chance to do it better from the outset. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YellowMonkey, I picked up on this discussion through the two related afds. I'm currently looking into one particular source used in one of the islamic science afd articles, and over 100 other articles, which seems to follow this same trend of non-neutral/revisionist history of invention: "Rocket Technology in Turkish history". I've posted it on the sources discussion board (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rocket_Technology_in_Turkish_history) and wonder how to approach cleaning up an unreliable source that has been used in so many articles. Dialectric (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll have a look. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spinnaker Gybe

Good idea. I would have been harsher, but I'd been following what he was doing for a while now; if he made some excuse I was going to get harsher. But, fortunately, that's all dealt with now. Back to being productive! Skinny87 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for blocking him. I will definitely know to be more "hardline" in the future. Cam ^(Chat) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - America did "lose" the Vietnam War, that sounds like a weird dispute already ;)

Re: ownership of article Sindhi people

Hey, you had stopped by this article after a Rfc I posted. I'm dealing with at least one stubborn editor who is not only jealously guarding the article against edits by non-Sindhis (her words), refuses to respond to requests for discussion. I don't want to move arbitration just yet, but I can't find any precedent for a situation where one party refuses to talk. Any help would be appreciated.

Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ask at WT:INB to get more input for yourself? The reverts are very large and seem hard to follow. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Mysore

Sir, I just want you to be aware that lots of tags are being thrown around by PManderson and Fowler, and edits are being proposed by Fowler without prior discussion, after loosing their case at FAR. If this continues, please do lock up the article to help these users come to the discussion board. Some of the discussions on theri talk pages, after the FAR closed, seemed to be inclined toward their taking an aggressive stand and making edits without discussions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket edits

Are there any articles you recommend i do some editing to? Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 12:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Invincibles Advert}} has quite a few. Some of the articles still have big holes in them. Hassett, Loxton and the main article in my opinion. I guess that's the main one because we are doing OK on the progress. Maybe we should rally the troops for another push. Also I went to the nets on Sunday. Got some photos. Should be uploading them soon. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't wait to see the photos, and thanks for the edits on York Park. Many (Most!) of the photos on cricket players have been taken by you! Sorry couldn't haven't been able to reply on your talk page, because the internet here has gone slow and your talk page won't fully load. =) Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 08:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, too many cycling photos. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loads after about 30 seconds! ;) Will be fine at the start of next month when we get more internet usage (Slow as dial up now). Aaroncrick (Tassie Talk) 04:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Soapboxing account"

I was wondering what you meant by this in your block of User:Spinnaker gybe. I am not familiar with that as a valid blocking reason and I am unclear as to how this user was being disruptive. I am not going to unblock without consulting with you, but my current feeling is that this user should be unblocked. Please let me know. Andre (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a few other examples of this block reason in your recent contribution history. It seems that in several instances you have blocked users who have only ever edited talk pages. How this is disruptive I fail to understand, and certainly an indefinite block with no warnings is a gross abuse of admin powers and an example of newbie biting. Andre (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Andre (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the comments right above on this page and also my posts to Nick-D (talk · contribs) Skinny87 (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) and WT:MHCOORD following a request for people to look at the WWI article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some others seem to agree with you doesn't mean that you don't have to cite an appropriate part of the blocking policy. I don't think seeming to know too much about past and policy is a fair reason to block someone indefinitely. "I think you should be more cynical with some folks" -- this is the very opposite of AGF. Andre (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that's does pass AGF, which doesn't extend to ten days of ranting. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is ranting or extensive discussion a block reason? Andre (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews

One of your pictures appears in an (as yet unpublished) Wikinews article: ~~Wikinews Shorts: January 26~~ Sprinter Allan Davis wins the Tour Down Under --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that. You might have noticed the stack of photos that I took that are listed right on my talk page and on commons that I took at the start of the TDU. They might be of some use to you. I don't know if you write WNews articles but South Africa beat Australia in their ODI series yesterday and that was on Australia Day. I went to the training session on Jan 25 and took some photos to upload. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally leave talkback messages, but since you are new to Wikinews and I love your gallery so much: I replied at n:User talk:InfantGorilla#Wikinews. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, uploaded. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I picked Hashim Amla as he scored 80. However the article has reached a road block before publication (see n:Talk:Australia celebrates Australia Day 2009). I am busy in real life, but anyone can help. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal 202.37.68.x

Thanks for range-blocking this character. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idiot is back and editing from 118.92.x addresses. Would it be possible to implement a similar anon-only block for 118.92.x for a week or so to send a message, or is this too broad? The 118.92.x addresses they've used are:

118.92.128.91 (talk · contribs) (today)
118.92.131.134 (talk · contribs) (18 January)
118.92.194.238 (talk · contribs) (December)
118.92.131.226 (talk · contribs) (3 November)
118.92.225.165 (talk · contribs) (17 September)
118.92.131.99 (talk · contribs) (13 September)
118.92.176.95 (talk · contribs) (29 August)
118.92.139.74 (talk · contribs) (22 August)
118.92.160.13 (talk · contribs) (2 July - admitted posting incorrect info at: [1])

There are also some 118.93 addresses, but these are much less frequent. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Young

Cheers for the photo, I didn't have a free one of him. When did you get it? JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 08:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Checkuser and sockpuppetry

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

Voting section

Poll: Aaron Kemps

Poll: Aitor Hernandez

Poll: Alexandre Usov

Poll: Allan Davis

Poll: Anders Lund

Poll: Andre Greipel

Poll: Cameron Meyer

Poll: Christian Knees

Poll: Daniele Nardello

Poll: David Loosli

Poll: Davide Malacarne

Poll: Davide Vigano

Poll: Dries Devenyns

Poll: Francesco Chicchi

Poll: Francesco Reda

Poll: Francis van Londersele

Poll: Frank Hoj

Poll: Frederick Willems

Poll: George Hincapie

Poll: Gert Steegmans

Poll: Gianni da Ros

Poll: Graeme Brown

Poll: Greg Henderson

Poll: Guillaume Blot

Poll: Henrik Redant

Poll: Hilton Clarke

Poll: Hubert Schwab

Poll: Imanol Erviti

Poll: Inaki Isasi

Poll: Ivan Dominquez

Poll: Jacopo Guarnieri

Poll: Javier Megias

Poll: Jeremy Roy

Poll: Jesus Hernandez

Poll: Jos van Emden

Poll: Jose Luis Rubiera

Poll: Jose Rojas

Poll: Josu Larrazabal

Poll: Juan Horrach

Poll: Julian Dean

Poll: Julien el Fares

Poll: Jussi Veikkanen

Poll: Kai Reus

Poll: Kasper Klostergaard

Poll: Kenny de Hayes

Poll: Kym Dillon

Poll: Lance Armstrong

Poll: Laurent Biondi

Poll: Laurent Lefevre

Poll: Luca Barla

Poll: Luis Leon Sanchez

Poll: Maciej Bodnar

Poll: Mario Aerts

Poll: Mark Renshaw

Poll: Markus Eichler

Poll: Martin Elmiger

Poll: Martin Muller

Poll: Mathew Hayman

Poll: Mathieu Drujon

Poll: Matteo Bono

Poll: Matteo Tosatto

Poll: Matthew Goss

Poll: Matt White (cyclist)

Poll: Maxim Iglinskiy

Poll: Michael Rogers

Poll: Mickael Buffaz

Poll: Nicki Sorensen

Poll: Nicolas Portal

Poll: Nicolas Roche

Poll: Nikolay Trusov

Poll: Oscar Pereiro

Poll: Pablo Lastras

Poll: Paul Sherwen

Poll: Perrig Quemeneur

Poll: Perrig Quemeneur - take 2

Poll: Pieter Jacobs