Jump to content

User talk:YellowMonkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PurpleView (talk | contribs) at 11:13, 9 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Survey

Just for my personal interest, and seeing as though User_talk:Blnguyen#All matters relating to religious disputes involving Users Subhash bose, Haphar, WikiSceptic and Anwar saadat involves four editors of four different religions - (Hindu, Sikh, Christian and Muslim) - I was wondering if people thought I was running a personal attack policy in a biased way due to religious POV. So I'm holding a survey to see if I am indulging in religious bias.
What is my religious affiliation?
Very serious comments about possible bias in my actions are welcomed

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

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

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


File:Blnguyen.JPG
Blnguyen in action

Archives

Thank you

Blnguyen
Enjoy this tasty shortcake and thank you for the nice message while I was on vacation. Dakota ~

Note that after receiving this cake, I fell ill and took an enforced wikibreak for a week due to illness. I'm sure that there was nothing more tha a coincidence. :D Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zazz on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Zazz. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Feedyourfeet 08:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible revert war brewing on 2002 Gujarat Violence

User Hornplease is trying to make POV edits aggressively. It's not a problem yet but could degenerate into a revert war. I have provided reasons for my previous edits (to which I have reverted) on his talk page [1], but I believe that he will refuse to listen. For the record, I state that my edits are completely impartial and are meant to balance the POV of users Hornplease and LKAdvani.Netaji 19:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that message was helpful. Please note that my responses are never to revert, but to attempt to meet some of Subhash Bose's more reasonable concerns. But of course you know that. BL, if you have time, could you hop over to M. Karunanidhi, have a look at the history, and tell me if I'm doing anything wrong? Hornplease 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article search failed

I have created an article for King Georges Road in Sydney but it only shows up in my contributions. When I search on Wikipedia I am told there is still no article under that name. I am new to this. Is there a delay before new articles appear?

Yes, there is a delay for new articles. The search database only updates every few hours. I am not sure of th exact time but it could be up to 24 hours before your article makes it into the search database. It isn't a problem. Ansell 04:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Converts to Hinduism

User:Bakasuprman has been making a few edits repeatedly that are very difficult. In particular, he has edited the 'converts to Hinduism' category to include Andre Beteille, which he has repeatedly reinsterted without citation; and Tillakaratne Dilshan, who converted to Buddhism. When I have pointed out that conversion to Buddhism is not the same as conversion to Hinduism, and that he should justify his edits on the talk page before he reinserts them, he continues to revert without further explanation. Can something be done? Hornplease 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of abusive terminology Paki variant Pak

User Subhash Bose has been testing the limits of civility.In the section below he uses the word Pak very similar to the derogatory word Paki to name some users including me.[2] You might want to see what Paki means [3] His contention would be to say that he wrote Pak and not Paki but the way it has been used repeatedly is clear.Secondly, I dont belong to that nationality - to be ascribed one , this is a racist slur and in the UK could possibly land one into prison.I condemn the leeway accorded to him to continually harass other editors . Also, I have strong reasons to suspect Bakasuprman and Subhash Bose to be sock Puppets or acting in concert. Lkadvani 15:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're on Wikibreak?

You haven't edited since 25 July (Tuesday), and I thought this is a bit unusual since you're always around on weekdays. Hope all is well and you'll be back soon. Regards, Kimchi.sg 05:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from Yanksox

 Hey, YellowMonkey, thanks for supporting my RfA, with a tally of 104/4/7...


I am now an admin!!!


I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Yanksox 07:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Dear Sir, I never made any changes in the article regarding Indian state of Meghalaya. I never even read a Wiki! article regarding it. Please look into the matter.

Yay! So great to see you again, dear B!

Eat it slowly! :)

My beloved B is back!!! This is by far the BEST news I've had in the whole week!!! :) Look what I've kept for you, dear - a piece of cake from my birthday! It's so great to see you again, you were ill, I see, how are you now? *incredible hugs* Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 01:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for your kind note regarding my admin promotion anniversary, dear Blnguyen! I hope this message finds you well again; I was starting to wonder where you'd gone. :) Kind regards, Sango123 03:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedies

Hey, can you help me process/delete these articles that i tagged as speedies?

Thanks, JianLi 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got some more:
JianLi 01:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi there, it's great to see you back on Wikipedia again. :) While your contribs on the BSB mainpage will of course be missed, one does not of course have to be a member to hand out the awards. You are still a very kind wikipedian who hands out plenty of awards, and wether or not you are a member of some project, the result is the same. Again, welcome back! See you around -- Banes 08:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Many thanks for the link, since random page wasn't turning out enough results, I'll give that a try. :)

assistance needed

take a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine#ODA

No matter what links you post, SPike immediatedly removes them,citing bias or whatever he wants to say.

He refuses to allow govt agency links to be added to the post.

any ideas on how to get him to allow views he doesn't agree with?--Azskeptic 00:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azskeptic is a self proclaimed consumer advocate for nothing less than Medical Education and has tried to sabotage as you can see by negative postings here and on valuemd.com, the college of SCIMD, for some unknown reason. However, Azskeptic has no known affiliation with a health education/services association and doesn't have any known medical, health or even sciences education or professional background. He is as i said before a self proclaimed consumer advocate, (I wish to be explained what this bakwas means once)... I hope you understand and get to the heart of the matter before assisting him. Jai Hind.--Vtak 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

Thank you BL! michael talk 01:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Polemic"

I will do as you ask. Provided:
I am allowed to remove baseless accusations of Islamophobia made by Disinterested made in the following section.

here Since I did not direct anything at him personally. I will delete both from my talk page for now, but ol'Disinterested will try to force-revert. Therefore, I request that you watch my talk page for vandalism on his part. Thanks.Netaji 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mỹ Sơn

Can you translate the Veitnamese[[vi:Thánh địa Mỹ Sơn ]] to English for the my son article? --D-Boy 09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to. I'll possibly need dictionary help for this one....Blnguyen | rant-line 02:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that your name on the Indian wikiprojects. Your userpage said you knew vietnamese. So I thought I'd ask if you could translate since it was sort of Indian and vietnamese related. If there are any other Hindu temples in Vietnam articles, please translate the. If you want, you could also expand Champa. Hinduism in Vietnam could also use an expansion.
Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProject Hinduism — a collaborative effort to improve articles about Hinduism

Discussion board — a page for centralised Hinduism-related discussion

Notice board — contains the latest Hinduism-related announcements

Hindu Wikipedians — Wikipedians who have identified themselves as Hindus

Portal — a portal linking to key Hinduism-related articles, images, and categories

Workgroups — projects with a more specific scopes

For more links, go to the project's navigation template.

--D-Boy 03:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Indian military history task force has been setup if you want to join.--D-Boy 03:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the translation. Interesting stuff!--D-Boy 05:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks Blnguyen ... we're having real problems with the two university IP's at the moment :( -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 05:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plz see to it

Plz follow this link and take appropriate admin action.I think you are already familiar with these people [4].Holy | Warrior 08:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advance notification: Request for later arbitration

Hi,

I'm writing to you because you have been objective and unbiased in many matters on wikipedia in the past and I trust your judgement. I believe that I am being harassed by an admin who is abusing his powers to make POV edits on the articles on Michael Witzel and the California Hindu Textbook Controversy (he has admitted that he is a student researching such issues and so has a partisan bias on this matter). He has threatened me with blocks and bans and, based on his past history, may do so very soon. Right now, he has only made empty threats in my talk page, so i's not a problem. However, if he blocks me, then I request you to arbitrate this issue. I am informing you in advance because I will not be able to contact you if I am blocked by this admin. His name is dbachman and his user page is : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann.

The threats are on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Subhash_bose#Michael_Witzel

His accusations are baseless as all my edits are directly quoted from references I have cited.

If this potentially volatile situation comes to a head, I request you to be a neutral third party arbitrator on this matter. Thank you.Netaji 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update. He has made another veiled threat as of this time on the Michael Witzel talk page.Netaji 07:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar

The heading says it all, really. I try my best. Stifle (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks for the star. I haven't been doing it for a while because it's not the most fun job on Wikipedia but I may return to it now. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Eldridge

Thank you for the notice. That's all I ask for. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting stars!

I'm quite curious to know which edits you noticed, but I must admit - that was a very nice surprise - thank you! :-) --HappyCamper 03:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used the deletion log to find people and then searched their personal records. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage reversion

Ay, thanks for the fix. I didn't even see it :) Teke 04:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar thanks

Many thanks for the barnstar—only the second I've received with respect to actual Wiki work!

I was especially happy to create the golf, ice hockey, and tennis portals, inasmuch as they permitted me blank slates on which to foist my obsessive and perfectionist tendencies, which tendencies don't auger well a Wikipedian in any case—how else to explain that, instead of going to the gym as I ought, I edit portals for hours and hours (which editing, incidentally, does not improve one's abs; who knew?)? Thanks once more, and, as should go without saying, many compliments on your continued work at Portal:Swimming.  :) Joe 05:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message

Re your message: You're welcome. I'm always happy to help out a busy admin who always seems to be there when a user block is needed. By the way, your user page photo is one of my favorites. -- Gogo Dodo 06:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another barnstar "thank you"

Thank you for this Editor's Barnstar. Conscious 07:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for mine, too; it's much appreciated. ×Meegs 11:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Try433

I think there's been a mistake: this guy was simply correcting a mislabelled image on my user page -- when I changed the image this morning, I forgot to change the caption. A mistake on my part, and a good-faith attempt to fix it on his. Please lift the block, as he didn't do anything wrong here. --Calton | Talk 07:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

Blnguyen, thank you very much for awarding me the Spoken article barnstar! It was a nice surprise when I woke up this morning! SergeantBolt 09:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for my barnstar too! :D The JPStalk to me 11:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shire of Mundaring Suburbs

Koongamia is a locality in Swan and Mundaring shires (check a Perth Metro map) but is not in this list. And MUndaring Weir is no longer designated as a separate locality from Mundaring, as far as I can tell :) Also Mundaring shire has placed expensive signs last month at the border of each with "Locality of xxx" so the suburb label does not correlate _exactly_ any more. Hope you can help :) SatuSuro 12:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll fix it up.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, It would be appreciated :) SatuSuro 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Barnstar

Thanks for the recognition. It is appreciated. Now - off to delete more undocumented images! -Nv8200p talk 13:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me also! I appreciate it greatly. :) --Fang Aili talk 13:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SRK pictures

Hello, BInguyen, about the SRK pics: the Dilwale-Dulhania-Le-Jayenge-picture was the same one I loaded up (and provided with a fair use rationale), but User:Mana.ustad just turned it around, aka mirrored it. S/he did the same to the Kank picture (you can see it on SRk's tatoo on the arm -> Mana's pictures had the letters Victory mirrored). I have no idea why anyone would do that. I included the un-mirorred pictures again and provided the Kank-picture with a fair use rationale. Also, I added the picture of Khan, smoking, because it illustrates that he didn't keep his promise and, well, it's a free pic. --Plumcouch 16:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's fair to block him?

Hi, regarding your block of Bakasuprman I was wondering whether it may be too hasty. He seems to have offerred an explanation as to his earlier "sockpuppetry" on his talk page. Perhaps a reduced time block would be better. I'll keep an eye on him and discourage him from messing up articles with unsubstantiated POV edits (he has been known to do that, I'll admit). I request you to reconsider the punitive measures against him. Thank you.Netaji 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say that I feel that creating a sockpuppet to launch personal attacks is not a good idea - adn because he didn't use it to team up and "cheat" I only gave 72 hours. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope ...

... to see you in Denmark sometime! Daen 23:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, although I unfortunately missed/failed an opportunity in 2000, I still want to go there.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

...Thank you! Appreciate that: 21,000 vandalism reverts and counting. Rah! (I love your category of deletes, btw!) Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too, dear Blnguyen, for my first Editor's Barnstar... and for the 160th vandalism revert to my userpage earlier! :) Cheers, Sango123 03:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spell Check

Your recent contributions to Wikipedia are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. This is not meant to be a disciplinary message, but merely a friendly request. Thank you!

Feedyourfeet 04:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Feedyourfeet. can you point me to the examples so I can have a look? Most of my article edits in the last week were reverts, aside from Kumar Sangakkara and Brendan Taylor and My Son. forgive me but I am often slack in the WP and talk spaces as these are not the real articles, and there is a lot that need to be done. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've got to be kidding me. Feedyourfeet, this is also a friendly request: {{sofixit}}. Only I doubt there's much to fix -- Samir धर्म 05:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was just in the AFD that i noticed, I was going to fix it but i stoped becouse of this {{Notyours}} Feedyourfeet 07:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to copyedit what Blnguyen wrote in an AfD? (see notice above where it says that it will lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do). -- Samir धर्म 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bit unfair that you took away the links that I had put up, considering that there are tons of links to so-called personal websites that have pictures up of various cities, places, and personalities. I want to *share* my pictures with people. Wikipedia is a good outlet for that, considering that I'm not asking for money. Additionally, I linked the places where I have taken photographs of to Wikipedia's site so that people could get more information on the particular place at hand.

If Wikipedia is going to forbid the use of external links to 'personal websites' then I will make it my mission to go through various pages and delete every single link in accordance with what you had told me about 'spam'. Of course, if I understood you correctly, that is.

Please let me know what you decide, since you feel that I am providing Wikipedia with spam and not content that is useful enough for people who can't actually go out and see the various places and sights in the world.

Dustintau 05:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on userpage.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please tell me this:

Why are there tons of links to personal sites on Wikipedia? You did not answer my question the first time, so I am asking again in regards to external links being put up.

If external links for self-publicizing aren't allowed, that's understandable. However, such links do exist on Wikipedia. Additionally, there are links to commercial websites on cities and other places as well; why are they allowed? Again, why isn't a link to a free gallery allowed?

You try to share something with the world -- something valid, interesting, and useful only to have it shot down.

Dustintau 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for explanation behind Joey Greco lock

Request for explanation behind Joey Greco lock; please head to Talk:Joey Greco 74.132.209.231 06:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this business with Borntorebel on Federation of Tamil Sangams of North America

Does this Borntorebel guy want a mediator? I will be happy to solicit a third party mediation over the content dispute. How's about it Blnguyen? Care to decide what parts stay and what parts go? Being a neutral observer, you check out the refs cited by both versions and decide for yourself. Or shall we go through the formal process of mediation? I'd be willing to do that if he would (I put it up on his discussion page also).Netaji 06:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to make a "decision" on what stays or goes, I can only moderate the forum and make suggestions.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Page

Hi - i noticed that in your revert of peacock terms in the Melbourne page, there appears to be an addition about a "militant fudge packers union". Um - what's the story with that addition? It appears to be yours. If i am mistaken, please explain. Cheers. --Merbabu 07:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry, looks like I reverted to the wrong version, which also so contained some vandalism. Sorry. hopefully I don't get a reputation as a vandal.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ha ha, yes. although i checked the preceding edits, i clearly missed that the "offending edit" was contained in another vandal's edit. As you say you must have reverted to the wrong edit. It did seem a tad out of character. --Merbabu 08:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: my WT:RFA post

Yep, that was definitely humor. szyslak (t, c, e) 08:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla-stalking illusion

My edits of articles Ghirla and I take an interest in are but a fraction of my overall editcount here. I have a dynamic IP address, never really cared to open an account and gather trophies, staying true to the "Anyone Can Edit" concept. Regards. Truthseeker 85.5 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rain74

Not to speak out of turn, since this user's been doing some very useful stuff (adding in information about national finals and things on the song articles), but he also has a tendency to recategorise articles as "[country] Eurovision songs" or "Eurovision songs of [year]", marking the edits as minor. If this is the new project standard - which it may be, although there's no discussion on the project page itself and the user in question doesn't seem to be a member anyway - then I'll adapt. As it is, though, it's serving to muck up my counts of song articles which gets me mightily suspicious that someone might have deleted one or two (in the event, of course, someone had deleted one, but that's neither here nor there). BigHaz 10:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Francis Vozzo

Why was this deleted? this is a legitimate profile of an Adelaide University hypersonic vehicle team member. Vozzo is also one of a select few to attain 45/45 in the IB.

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

I'm sorry I don't agree because his claim to fame is getting a "7" in 6 subjects, which involves ranking in the top 7% roughly in any given subject. For example see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksei Boiko - the only Australian ever to win a gold medal at the Asian Physics Olympiad does not get an article. Also, working on an undergrad project, does not earn you a wikipedia article in my judgement- please read WP:BIO for an guideline. You may want to go to WP:AWNB and see what other Australians think about this. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

You've got a Thank you card!

Open your card!
I'm in full health now, thanks.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spoken barnstar

Thanks a lot for the barnstar! I am greatly honoured; really, I should get around to doing more spoken articles, and probably will in the near future. Once again, thank you very much, and best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu rule of Charsadda?

Please view my comments on the discussion page here:Talk:Charsadda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farzand (talk • contribs)

Replied on talk page.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions towards removing POV in Hindutva

I've given some suggestions on Talk:Hindutva for removing POV and coming to a consensus on the content for this article. Do consider them. Also I've requested a template to be inserted using editprotected. Please look into it. Thanks. --Babub→Talk 07:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Can you delete the "supposed" sockpuppets of mine so Holywarrior doesn't have another reason to get me blocked? Oh, and thanks for protecting the FeTNA article. Bakaman%% 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, the matter has been dealt with - you were proven to have the sockpuppets and it is kept as a record but there is not potential of double-jeopardy.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So Holywarrior can't screw me over again?Bakaman%% 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No he can't, unless you use sockpuppets again. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

uhhh... I'm Animereadabouter2 and I just want to know first hand what is it like to be an administrator 

I'm not requesting I just want to know so mabye I will request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by animereadabouter2 (talk • contribs)
Well, it's up to you what you make of it really. Depends one how you choose to get involved in things. Basically you can delete bad pages and block people and lock articles, but it has more implications than that, if that's how you want to make it.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Again

  • i am constantly being called Anti - hindu by user Subhash.Large removals have been carried by this person again ob[5] without discussions and uncivil threatening language used.

Lkadvani 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books

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

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

My Wish

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

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

To summarise

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

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

Notability (doctor) May be there is nothing called as exam preparation in western world, but here it is a budding field. I did not give these links it that page as it will amount to "self-glory", but since you seem to understand, I am giving you few links. You can search at www.rxpgonline.com [6] www.aippg.net/forum[7] and www.netmedicos.com [8] You may think me of some one obsessed with self glory, but the point to prove is that, unless some one is regarded as an expert in that area, you will not see students from the length and breath of a country with 1000 million population to ask for my help

Then

Regarding the counter points

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

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

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

I understand

Dear Blnguyen

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

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

A smile for you...

MichaelZ526 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

MichaelZ526 01:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild

Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild is a copy of User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch, also under Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch mfd. --Ragib 05:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bhaisaab's comment on my talk page.

Should I report it? I found it very harassing. he's been stalking my user edits not to mention a couple other users.--D-Boy 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My jihad comment was absolutely correct. Bhaisaab states on his user page that he is a muslim wikipedian. Using crusade would been incorrect since he is not an xtian. I should have been more specific stated that he was pursuing jihad bil lisan which means Jihad by the tongue instead of jihad. the ignorance at the time for not being accurate enough was on my part.--D-Boy 06:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is correct is wholly the point. See WP:NPA.Timothy Usher 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, but it was not a personal attack in my opinion.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can one be awarded Barnster through his own Sock

Plz see the case of User:Bakasuprman and user:TrueBaka;truebaka awards barnster to Bakasuprman,apart from this truebaka have very little contribution history.Does he arrive on wikipedia to award barnster to bakasuprman only???? Is it legal.Can I go to WP:RFCU to report it.Holy | Warrior 09:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude Truebaka is my friend in real life. He only edits videogame articles. And Blnguyen he's your Vietnamese brother, so you wouldn't put a brother down would you? Tell Holywarroir to lay off. Holywarrior is on an anti-Baka crusade. User:Truebaka is NOT my sock. Bakaman%% 15:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can Holywarrior's persistent attacks be classified as WP:NPA?Bakaman%% 15:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here, since both of you seem to be looking around. There is nothing in WP:BARN that prohibits the self-awarding of barnstars, and as far as I can tell, there is nothing that stops you from creating a sockpuppet to award yourself barnstars either, since self-awarded barnstars are not prohibited. For example User:Anwar saadat tried to remove "fake" barnstars from User:Prin and User:The Man's Plans, but this was reverted. In general, it doesn't really matter, because barnstars are not the most accurate measure of one's contributions to the site, as some editors quietly contribute a lot, while others seem to get barnstars from their friends for things which may seem a little soft. However, barnstars are usually held in higher regard when "acknowledged" by more experienced and established editors. Of course, this is based on the assumption that Bakasuprman is being vain, which isn't a very good idea, eg see WP:AGF. So no, there is no grounds for an WP:RFCU, and persistently doing so may give you a poor reputation or a perception that you may be harassing other editors over frivolous matters.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in case Holy is watching TrueBaka is NOT my sockpuppet. He's just my best bud and Baka was our clan name in videogames, which we transferred to Wikipedia. You don't have to respond to this, I'm just stating thr facts. Thanks for listening to my rants (keeps you busy since Netaji is on break).Bakaman%% 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying to both of you.Infact I was just seeking advice from a senior wikipedian---nothing wrong with that I suppose.Had it been illegal I had reasons to suspect.Thanks a lot to both of you.Holy | Warrior 09:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Theres nothing illegal (even to suspect) and I would advise HolyWarrior to keep his conspiracy theories and lies to himself. As you can see [9] he is harrassing me and also I unhatched a conspiracy by him and BhaiSaab to get me blocked [10]. Rama's Arrow said they have no case but I don't think he is an admin, so I'm asking you to check it out.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately Rama's Arrow is not an administrator, his RfA went a bit awry in an unnecessary way. As I said before, to investigate another user over barnstars may lead to a poor reputation for pettiness. I'll reply to the RfC thing below. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Thanks for the message! I'm not in Mumbai at the moment, so internet connection is a bit sporadic. Will resume later this week. Regards, --Nichalp 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to see that you are well.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantique Incident

Pls see Atlantique Incident. Bharatveer 14:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's now protected. Please have a discussion on the talk page. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page (User:BhaiSaab but this is has turned into debate about Bakasuprman and HolyWarrior also)

If that was a personal attack, I apologize. BhaiSaab talk 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you haven't said something similar at User talk:Bakasuprman considering the amount of similar statements he has made on the same page. BhaiSaab talk 17:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Bhaisaab did not see this quote, "it may not be the best idea to complain too much in case you do not want others to complain about yourself." By complaining about D-boy and Netaji, he invited us to scrutinize everything he says. D-boy told BhaiSaab to lay off and Netaji isn't here (wikibreak) so he asked me to represent our interests. I am merely putting everything in context (espicially with dab and Holywarrior). Bakaman%% 20:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into it. As you can see, I seem to get more messages about Indian disputes than the Indian administrators here, and it would be more convenient if you were to provide diffs for quick service. I seem to spend a lot (most) of time trawling through the contribs list of certain controversial contributors rather than editing in the last month. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here are some diffs: [11], [12], [13], [14].
I found the first diff pretty funny. He says "there is no need for personal attacks on D-Boy" while simultaneously attacking two other users. BhaiSaab talk 02:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, coming from a person that violated 3RR [15]. Yes I know he did not get blocked, but I got blocked by an admin (unfairly, BhaiSaab never notified me of the copyright case) for "copyright vandalism" before I could make my case. He was confronted by three users on the Indian caste system page. At first he stated [16] "this is all copyvio from http://www.boloji.com/history/018.htm". Then in the talk page he starts to unravel [17] when he starts spitting out the other pages it is sourced from. User:Pecher stated that there was "no reason given to delete well-sourced and relevant material" while D-boy reverted it. BhaiSaab vandalized the page while stating in the talk section [18] "I am under no obligation to rewrite the material" after being confronted by myself and Pecher. Just yesterday, User:Krsont and I almost went into an edit war but managed to discuss the issue in a constructive manner [19] and [20]. Unlike Krsont who contributed to the page, BhaiSaab did nothing but VANDALIZE it, then sneakily get me blocked for "vandalism" while he made 5 reverts and took off the whole section on the Muslim caste system (something I doubt even the "pak" would do). Bakaman Bakatalk 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I enjoy the last diff [21], which did not qualify as any sort of violation. In fact it was a CONTRIBUTION.Bakaman Bakatalk 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rr issue is already settled. Admin Stifle excused me because I was removing copyrighted material, and you were blocked by for continually inserting it by admin (aeropagitica). Don't involve Blnguyen needlessly when other admins have already reviewed this problem (as Blnguyen seems to have enough on his/her plate to deal with). The last diff shows you attacking Holywarrior. And who is "the pak"? BhaiSaab talk 04:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first four diffs cited by BhaiSaab, I can see that there is an inappropriate attempt to discredit other user's arguments based on their perceived religious bias or editing bias (which may or may not be true). Regardless of whether it is true, it is inappropriate to use a person's personal attack habits to create a diversion from the debate on whether content of the Fundy Watch page is appropriate or not. If you have a problem with someone's conduct please report it in the appropriate forum for dealing with personal attacks rather than as a leverage in a content debate. Secondly, the last diff, has one comment which is informative about Hindu politics, but the second shows you claiming that HolyWarrior likes to attack people. That is irrelevant to the content debate and if you would like me to deal with HolyWarrior please cite the diffs here or on WP:PAIN. Definitely referring to someone as the "pak" is not a good idea, as I told Netaji before, User:bormalagurski, a Serb-nationalist, was given 14 days for creating a list on his userpage of those he considered to be "fake" Serbs. The blocks over WP:3RR and vandalism seems rather sticky, so I will seek a briefing from User:Stifle and User:(aeropagitica) about them, as I certainly didn't see any vandalism on the part of either user, as it is a content dispute, so I need some info on the reasoning behind Bakasuprman's block and as for the civility cited by (aeropagitica), it would seem that the testy nature of the allegations would be about a par for the course in this sphere of editing. I haven't looked at the copyvio thing yet either. Regards, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I was blocked for no good reason by an admin who had no knowledge of the situation and became hostile when confronted. Stifle himself stated the whole thing was not copyrighted. I was blocked (unfairly) before I could present a response (infact I was typing it) and then you got let off the hook. Anyways, removing the WHOLE section on the MUSLIM CASTE SYSTEM was unwarranted, infact you stamped your POV on the page with your lies as Pecher, myself and D-boy pointed out.Bakaman Bakatalk 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea to accuse other people of lying. It may be an honest mistake, eg, have you seen how difficult it is to prove that people have lied in court, senate inquiries, rather than give incorrect info out of ignorance. It is quite difficult to prove that someone has provided knowingly false info, and constitutes a personal attack. If someone does give dubious information on a recurring basis, people will automatically distrust them....Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(also posted at Talk:Indian caste system) I looked at the the 3RR report, added my comments, and although it is quite complex, (took about 30m to analyse), I can tell you that the whole text of the section was a subset of the websites given. Some of the sentences of the website aren't used, and some are used with half the sentence cut off, but definitely, everything that was in the article, was in the other website. Yes, the material should be rewritten, but copyvios need to be removed, so it is the correct thing to remove the copyvio pending a rewrite, rather than keep the copyvio pending a rewrite. Regardless of who is willing or unwilling to do the rewrite, the copyvio should be removed in the meantime. And please stop carrying on saying the other party is engaging in vandalism when there is none, that is a form of personal attack. As for my comments to User:(aeropagitica) that there was no vandalism by Bakasuprman, this still holds, there wasn't vandalous material - there is no contradiction, as it was sourced, but it is also a copyvio.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bakaman has claimed many times that I have done some policy violation.Even I don't know where??? I too would like to see some diffs.Infact what I could read from behaviour of Netaji, Baka and others they are indeed a kind of union whose actions cannot be appreciated, many newcommers too are falling into their fold which is equally unfortunate.Holy|Warrior 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Making racist reamrks like Holywarrior has ([22]

, [23], & [24] ) gives him the authority to decide whose actions can be appreciated? Bakaman Bakatalk 15:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how these are racist? I think they are about religious wind-ups and are quite imflammatory and unnecessary, although it seems a two-way street also. Can you guys explain how this is related to the Californian Hindu textbook controversy, because it seems like there is a Christian misionary vs Hindu argument which raised the relgious ideologies quite a lot. I'm having a think about this kind of behaviour.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps personal attacks [25]? HolyWarrior is an anti-Hindu wikipedian. He chalenged a Brahmin user (caste doesn't matter, but User:Babub is WELL versed in the Vedas) on the MfD page. If there was a fundywatch page, HolyWarrior would be up top.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. This is quite incivil, and is out of order, suggesting that another user needs help. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not even aware about caste of Babub,and don't care even.The situation and article's POV (which reflect only one side of Brahmin,but actually it has got many meanings)demanded such a reaction from my side.I just intended to bring out true meaning of Brahmin.The sentence which follows thereafter from Babub as reaction is intended to mislead the readers,who knows little about the affair,I just didn't want to induldge in mudslinging there ,hence refrained from answering following questions raised,which were merely aimed at misleading others.He tried to build similar situation in a another afd (Hindu politics) where I did answer.Baka is using the comments in similar vein.It would be better for a person to actually venture into those disambiguation links which shall expose the truth behind the reaction of these people.Holy|Warrior 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bakaman states that "Stifle himself stated the whole thing was not copyrighted." That's right he did (initially), but I was able to show that the parts that he thought were not copyrighted were indeed copied from those two websites as you can see from Stifle's talkpage. Bakaman continues to assume bad faith branding my statements as lies. BhaiSaab talk 16:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still have no justification for vandalizing the page. You have not CONTRIBUTED in any way, at first you said the whole thing was from one page, then when questioned you say "oh I found other sources". The material was sourced. "Assuming bad faith" - Well a vandal that gets me blocked (by sneaky underhanded tactics) doesn't deserve good faith.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you, please refrain from adding bogus allegations of "vandalism". It constitutes a personal attack. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have justification for "vandalizing" the page. It was all copyrighted. "The material was sourced." So what? I don't care if copyrighted material is sourced and neither does Wikipedia policy. Blnguyen, you can leave this issue alone if you want to, as it seems you have a lot to deal with. If it goes further, then I may proceed to RfC. Thanks for your help though. BhaiSaab talk 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced, and as I said before, not a work of vandalism. Although, it is copyrighted, so the removal was appropriate. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See he just threatens me with RfC when I CONTRIBUTE to the page, and he vandalizes it "stating copyright". I have better things to do on wiki (like CONTRIBUTE) than waste my time RfC , RfA or being trigger happy with WikiCitations.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I may file an RfC is not a threat so please stop complaining as if it is. Especially if you've done nothing wrong, what have you got to fear? At this point, WP:DFTT comes to mind. Thank you and have a nice day. BhaiSaab talk 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen you mightwant to check this out. I feel the word "pack" may be in order [26]. Looks like they want to gang up on me. It is a threat because BhaiSaab wants me banned, just for voting support on the MfA and contributing to the caste page. In holywarrior's case I'm guessing because Netaji is gone, he found his opportunity to get at Hindu wikipedians, because Netaji makes a lot of noise, and would crush him. Bakaman Bakatalk 20:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC doesn't lead to a ban, the WP:ARBCOM can ban you with a simple majority, or an overwhelming consensus of the community can be used to ban you (probably 70-80%).Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot to Blnguyen for adressing RFC.I had very few comments on california textbook controversy after which I was added into the HIT LIst by Fundywatch brigade,Some of whom are still pursuing their, now infamous and Widely condemned Agenda, and labelling allegations against me in RFC without any proofs.I have full faith in Blnguyen for his proven record of neutrality and would like to see outcome of entire debate here.I am yet to see any proof of allegations made on me,here or anywhere.I would be rather grateful to anyone who can bring it to my notice that I have done any kind of policy violation.Rather I have remained cool against continual bickering from this brigade. Holy|Warrior 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Charlton and Talk:Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming

Nice article - I can see a fair bit of work in that. I'll see if I can find a PD photo unless you add one first. -- I@n ≡ talk 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat over it - it was only an idle thought (which most of mine are BTW). Whenever you're ready. -- I@n 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, I wondered what you thought of my suggestion above. Be honest. -- I@n 09:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into it. Sorry, seems like I've caught myself into a moderation of a messy personal attack campaign on some Indian religious articles, I was mentioned in a bogus arbitration case (though not named as a party), and also had to resign from Esperanza, and reply to a complaint as to my comment on an RfA. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, Long time-no speak. Its good to hear from you again. That's quite OK, I don't have a strong view on it at all, merely a suggestion. Like you, my to-do list just seems to get longer. personally, I find that I need to occasionally refocus on straight article editing and totally avoid admin chores, else it just doesn't happen. Its a matter of finding a balance. Is that being selfish? -- I@n 05:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably there is price to pay for all the Indian support on my RfA, I got more than even the Indian RfAs like Ganeshk and Srikeit perhaps..Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for blocking Alanstout (talk · contribs) regarding his alteration of my vote. -- Gogo Dodo 08:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab and Bakaman

Hi Stifle. Could you point me to the info for this 3RR issue please? Bakasuprman and BhaiSaab have been sparring for a while now, the subcontinental religious stuff has flared up lately and I have a lot of notices on my talk page (from around 10 people) to intervene in a range of disputes and it gets hectic trawling through the edits of a dozen editors every day for possible misdemaenours. Its good to be careful since in this region of editing, there have been a lot of bogus reports like "vandalism" against "opposition" editors in an attempt to discredit them (one person even asked me to do a checkuser to see if another had been using socks to award themselves barnstars !?!?!). I'm just wondering because the two guys were arguing about their blocks for each other and they didn't seem to show that either of them were correct. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a reply on my talk page would be good, as there is also a lot of related, overlapping stuff being discussed there already. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be at WP:AN3#User:BhaiSaab_reported_by_User:Bakaman.25.25_.28Result:_No_block.29. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I made a comment there and at Talk:Indian caste system. The text is all copyvio, it was a subset of the webiste, with some sentences omitted and truncated. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! It's very late here in the UK and I have had a long day, complete with needing to be in two places simultaneously and a three-hour trip to ER/ Casualty (no breaks or fractures to the metatarsals, just a lot of bruising that should disappear in a week). My Talk page seems to have turned in to a debating chamber for a couple of Indian editors, so I will give a comprehensive reply tomorrow afternoon UK time after work. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)    22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wind ups again

"Yes, and there are no such problems in your beloved country Paapistan, right? (Separatist movements in Balochistan, Osama in Waziristan, mad mullahs everywhere). Go ahead. Root for Pakistan. Then I'll be there to watch when you are forced into Dhimmitude and Ajraf-hood and get shot at by LeT.Netaji 09:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC) "- And this is not offensive and a wind up ? Haphar 16:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these are definitely not acceptable, and I have told him before many times to stop insinuating that other Indian users are "pak". Does "Paapistan" have any meaning or just something he made up. Also, it would be helpful to explain to me what "Dhimmitude" and "ajraf-hood" means. I think LEt is refrence to Laskar-e-Toiba, is this correct? Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky & Underhanded (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bakasuprman)

Without notifying me, Holywarrior and Bhaisaab have created two pages to malign me [27] & [28]. I resent these sneaky tactics to discredit me.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be a notification of when the RfC is posted, did he do this? The RfC needs to have two people trying to solve the same problem with you. There is no evidence that two people have the same problem with you. In any case, the RfC isn't formatted properly and definitely the first two entries aren't even diffs and also, the first is a resolved content dispute, not a personal attack, the second is personal attacks by User:Subhash bose,and are formatted as sections not diffs. Also, as I pointed out in the Talk:Californian Hindu textbook controversy above, throwing stones at another may lead to his own record being scrutinised, which is not the best. I think perhaps a ceasefire would be in order and perhaps I get a few other Indian admins to look at the stuff on that talk page for a second opinon. And after your own testy dialogue it is not the best way to respond to another person's claims of impropreity by launching into more hostilities, which may prove their point. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was notified of Third party arbitration on my talk page,where he pasted npa warning---I had tried to get other user to file the RFC,after which he would have been notified properly.But because nobody cosigned it---It was incomplete---and let us see if someone joins it in 48 hours---after which it automatically dies out.Regarding issue resolution ,this person was told many times at many ocassions to mend his ways.At Cal.TExt by Dab,In Afd by Rajib(where he abused everyone who voted against his will),here too you are almost daily feeding him.With so many people who had disputes against him and so many people trying to resolve with him,I thought it was proper to go for RFC,when he started testing the limits of my patience.Holy|Warrior 09:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor quibble

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

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

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

Sanskrit revert war scorekeeping

Hey, Blnguyen, I was looking into the revert war on Sanskrit, before I knew you has looked at it, and I see you are saying Crculver had 5 reverts? Can that be right? Are you counting [29], edit summary "rvv"? If so, is that fair? That wasn't precisely exactly vandalism being reverted, as it looks good-faith perhaps, but it is so close as to make no difference: it included a link to Media:Example.ogg for example. Or am I misunderstanding? (I agree he made four reverts, by the way, but I had to think long and hard about that one before making up my mind.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks!

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

Template: India collaborations

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

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

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

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

Please help

Hey again. Can you do me a favor and protect the Adnan Oktar article? It appears that multiple sockpuppets are trying to remove material critical of Oktar. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. :) —Khoikhoi 06:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks

I've not interacted with any of them. --Babub→Talk 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something?

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

Removed links - why?

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

That controversy

Hello and thanks for your recent message. Perhaps I shall not be able to do anything as I am not aware of the matters in-depth. In case, I find some information, I would surely come back. As regards you, I have full faith in your ability to handle such issues. --Bhadani 10:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW could you resove this issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Image:Star_Collection.jpg Thanks. --Bhadani 10:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&oldid=68587128"