User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive133

GA review

Are you still reviewing this article for GA? It has been on "under review" status (but not hold) for quite some time. Thanks. 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, back on it YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23prootie

Hi Yellowmonkey, 23prootie (talk · contribs), who you blocked for edit warring back in February has returned to their bad old ways. I've reported this at ANI, but it has been unactioned for over 24 hours and the edit warring is, if anything, accelerating. If you have time, could you please look into this? The ANI thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:23prootie edit warring again. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had forgotten him about. He made some comments just a few days ago on my page here but I didn't recognise him. 1 week. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia

Usually, when one tries to fix the article, they get reverted with claims of racism. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On ethnic articles that can happen, but do you mean articles that can stoke nationalistic pride as well. As for the neglect for recent changes, that applies to anything. It isn't obstruction it's mostly apathy. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that just about any article in the South Asia sphere is politically charged. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No not really, in theory a few can be but due to sparseness, a controversial topic can be subjected to unchallenged ownership with ease YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ching Hai

Would it be a good guess that Icleao and Truthexplorer share the same IP address? 59.167.50.32 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, I've been told YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State sponsored terrorism

Not sure if you'll even aware of this - prob need to say your piece on the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Admin_pushing_POV...

--Jaymax (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

there are a bunch of anon IPs on this article likely Pakistani POV pushers pushing a Khalistani POV. you might want to take a look.Wikireader41 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikireader41's violation of wp:3rr in Kanwar Pal Singh Gill

User:Wikireader41 has violated wp:3rr by reverting Kanwar Pal Singh Gill four times in one single day. Please see revert 1, revert 2, revert 3 and revert 4.

Please note that the text in question (which is several rows long) was NEVER deleted, initially it was flagged by editors and finally some other editor duly preserved in the Talk: Kanwar Pal Singh Gill to discuss its notability and to reach wp:consensus.
4 Editors opposed this text User Talk:135.214.150.104-a Paramus-New Jersey based IP, User:209.183.55.111-a Dallas texas based editor, User Talk:99.51.223.161-myself and a User Talk:144.160.130.16-a San Jose- California based editor. Editors have participated in the discussion as well.
July 9th - User: Wikireader41 asked for some reference from editors (ideally to accept their logic)
July 11th-He was provided what he had asked.
But he DID NOT agree with what he had originally asked and now he has started asking for 10,000 references from the opposing editors. wp:pov
User:Wikireader41 did not care for the ongoing discussion between july 9th (the 1st day he asked for reference) and today, i.e. July 16th 2009 (he was already done with several reverts). Initially he deleted the related wiki tages several times in a row and then he started reverting the article to forcefully add the text into the article. wp:pov, wp:consensus
Further, Please note that User: Wikireader41 was previouslyblocked] because of his known POV pushing history. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblocks

Please use {{Anonblock}} when range-blocking. Using just the name of the sockpuppeteer as your block reason only confuses the hell of out innocent bystanders using the same ISP and needlessly increases our workload at unblock-en-l. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 15:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was really weird, I was just about to edit some spelling to be told I was banned because "Nangparbat" or something. Note you are blocking a section of British Telecoms dynamic ADSL IP address space, which covers millions of users, so not sure it will help much in stopping the problems from whoever is doing it. It has got me to bother to log in for the first time in 18 months I guess. --Sfnhltb (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop using six-month long blocks on dynamic IP addresses -- there's no point to blocking that long if that IP address is just going to be reassigned to someone else within days or in some cases whenever someone power cycles their modem. You really need to start considering the implications of long and wide IP blocks and imagine how you'd feel if you were a first time Wikipedia contributer caught up in a very perplexing and frustrating block through no fault of you own. When you have some time, please go through all your current rangeblocks and fix up the reasoning. PS: you can also use HTML  within your block reasons. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 01:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Sorry about the move of your userpage D: -_-78.46.255.91 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Tapuz

Hi,

I wrote the article on "Tapuz". It's one of the biggest web portals in Israel - in Israel this is similar to "Yahoo". It is a very important portal in Israeli web media.

what do you say we put it back?

--Midrashah (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to Midrashah's identical message on my talk page. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JPS for dealing with this YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IB pages

Awhile back you were asked by TruthKeeper to take a look at the International Baccalaureate pages and I also noticed your name on a list of administrators at oversight, so I was hoping you could help me out. I sent them an email a week ago with the following information and still have not received a response. Could you please look into it and at least remove the IP address from the talk history? Thanks. La mome

Never mind. Another editor took care of it. Issue resolved for the moment. Thanks anyway. Cheers La mome (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

23Prootie, again

Hi YellowMonkey, 23prootie (talk · contribs)'s block appears to have recently expired, and they're back to the same edit warring over the status of the Philippines which led to you blocking them last week (eg, [1], [2], etc). Could you please look into this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please keep an eye on World War II Casualties. I had to revert unsourced material that 23prootie posted. I sent him a message reminding him about Wikipedia policy re: Reliable Sources. I hope this does not turn into an edit war. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've reported this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: ). Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the biased Australian would have been softer than WMC. LOL. So much for preferential treatment, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VIETNAM

I'll try to get back into that in the coming weeks. Main problem was lack of info for communes. I'll probably take it that they will all be started on viet wkipedia sometime and that info will become available. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you drew up some missing lists of articles to be started for any Vietnamese topic I'm gladly get them started. The bigger the missing list the more likely I am to be motivated. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About Brazilian military articles

Hello! I would like to thank you for your help on the article about the Platine War and the Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil. I really appreciate your help. thank you once more. P.S.: Do you someone who could check grammar and spelling errors? - --Lecen (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, checking for grammar and remoulding the prose into an elegant form can take a while, so people generally wait until all the content is in order before doing that, otherwise if new content is added it might have to be redone again, so I think waiting until the others are happy with the content. Iw ould say Jappalang (talk · contribs) and Jackyd101 (talk · contribs) are outstanding YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cane toads and Eurovision

Can the two go together? Perhaps not. Anyway, I missed those recent comments regarding Cane Toad, so my apologies for being behind on the FAR. Great work on copyediting, though - I'm unable to ce anything I've written until a few weeks have passed, as otherwise I don't really read it as such, so I tend to miss my own stupid mistakes and questionable writing. :) Still, that's why I love Wikipedia - it's much more fun to work with others.

With Eurovision, I was thinking of working on the song contest, as I pretty much live for the show each year. (I've finally managed to bring my children around as well, making it more of a family obsession). However, a cursory glance of the article found some fairly significant problems with sourcing - a couple of sources didn't support the claims in the article, and it isn't always clear that sources will exist for the claims that are currently lacking them. In addition I gather that some sources may have been drawing from Wikipedia, which adds to the complexity. On the plus side, there's been a lot written, so maybe there's enough around. I'll do some digging, as I finally got marking out of the way, so I have a little time for research. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the only Eurovision tragic around. I'm an addict as well and although I revived WP:EURO at the start of 2006 I haven't edited many ESC things since late 2006. Anyway, long live Johnny Logan and old days of the Irish/Francophone domination. Although Balkan folk is good! I might join in the FAR if it gets close...I've a got a few ideas myself YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you catch EuroBeat when it was over here? I ended up going twice - they had just the right balance of respect, humour, kitsch and Julia Zemiro for my tastes. It was like seeing the best of ESC live. :) And yes, Johnny Logan was cool, but I lean towards the Balkin folk myself - it took ages, but I eventually managed to get Drumboy from a Bulgarian CD store after the 2007 content, and I'm still happy about it. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know what it is. I seem to ge t a Wiki article on a music genre. Hmm, I think that The Ark was pretty amusing among 2007 although Serbia deserved to win. Russia can do well no matter what they do with the massive Russian minorities in all the neighbour countries to vote for them. Can't stand Dima Bilan YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EuroBeat was a live musical comedy that recreated the ESC. When you arrived you were given countries to support (I had Iceland the second time, and I think Germany the first) and flags to wave. Then they performed the show, following the ESC format, and with all the usual elements. (Russia had a Boy Band, Iceland some strange piece that made no sense, the French singer sang her shopping list). Then the audience votes, the hosts do a couple of numbers, and they do the whole counting thing, with the winner depending on the audience's voting. It was very funny and a lot of fun.

I liked The Ark as well, but Bulgaria really caught me that year with the drummers. And I agree - Serbia certainly deserved their win. - Bilby (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. Can't say I liked Julia Zemiro or Sam Pang or Des Mangan before them. The BBC have Paddy O'Connell and anotehr woman for the semis before Wogan did the finals they were no good either. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALT in Ring in 48

The alt text for Image:Doug Ring graph 1948.png should give a textual version of the gist of the data that the graph represents. This information is currently not available to a visually-impaired reader, which is why the alt text needs to summarize it. Here's an example graph and alt text for it, to give you an idea:

Alt text is "Bar chart versus time. The graph rises steadily from 1996 to 2007, from about 0.7 to about 5.3. The trend curves slightly upward."

More generally, W3C guidelines say that some alt text is always needed in functional images like Wikipedia thumbnails, to avoid confusing screen readers and the like. For Wikipedia thumbnails one typically wants to minimize the overlap between alt text and caption. If the caption is merely repeating what is obvious from the image, that suggests the caption needs rewording anyway (regardless of alt text). Conversely, if the alt text is saying something that is not obvious from the image, then the alt text needs work. If these two rules are followed, overlap should be rare. (Sometimes overlap is hard to avoid, as in the "1996 to 2007" above; these are all just guidelines of course.)

Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FFA

YM, did you get these two at WP:FA and WP:FFA? [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of it for you. Hope I didn't screw anything up. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb, you never miss a thing! Thanks so much, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI report

Can you take a look at this SPI report ? I had filed it a day back, but it hasn't even been reviewed by a bot or clerk yet. Wondering if I missed some secret ingredient, or if SPI is that severely backlogged. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also Kalarimaster (talk · contribs). I never check SPI YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended his block YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I looked to see if his block had been extended from 24 hrs, and I didn't see that, so I came here. Did I miss something? Priyanath ^talk 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks YM! I guess we'll be seeing more of this user in the future, but at least now I am aware of his signature (I was on a wiki-hiatus when Kalarimaster was active). Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added thanks for the longer block. He wasn't familiar to me either. Too many puppetmasters to keep track of around here.... Priyanath ^talk 15:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about FAR

Hi YM, I have a question about your move of Bernard Williams from FAR to FARC. I believe all the issues had been addressed in the FA review, and I also thought that when that happens there is no need to move to FARC, per the description here. Have I misunderstood something? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, normally when it gest closed in the first stage either the FAR was illegitimate (started by a sock, immediately after it passed FAC or while on the front page, or a quixotic FAR due to a content dispute) or when there is strong and explicit agreement that everything is great. In this case, it sort of just petered out so I moved it to ask people to confirm their opinion. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two people made most of the comments during the FAR (Cirt and Dabomb) and they both said it was FA level. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Well, City of Manchester Stadium is poorly referenced and I would be happy to help out with the article a bit. I'm sure it could also be updated and expanded as it was host for the commonwealth games in 2002. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really understood "Images need alt text as per WP:ALT", I've read it and still don't fully understand what it means. So what has to be done? Aaroncrick (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you add "|alt= stuff" and literally describe what the picture is for blind people, more or less. So if it was a portrait of John Howard you would say "Middle aged man with blue eyes, bald head, glasses, wearing a grey suit and tie" and whatnot. Inzy would be a rotund, brown-skinned man with a thick stubble, pot belly" etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks. Yes I'll give Pilcha a shout out as nothing is happening. There is some stuff being mentioned that I never knew anyone cared about in GA, but better for the run. Another reviewer it would probably pass straight away, even FA a year or two ago. I have fixed everything I can so far.. Talk:York Park/GA3. But nothing has happened. I was hoping it would have been continued while I was in Melbourne, but anyway. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the coverage of olden day AFL/VFL players good or is there a massive bias towards the modern stuff? Cricket, the olden day stuff is pretty pleasing actually. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well not as good as cricket stuff, but there is still info around (I suppose it's bias to modern day stuff). A lot of info is in those gigantic books on AFL. There isn't many specific books on old VFL players, especially before 1950. You might be able to fork out info in club history/greatest players books but that's as much as I've come across. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about unloading numerous question at you, ones you probably think are obvious, but what is a dablink? Is it Something to do with disambiguation pages? I suppose you've got to learn from somewhere, and it can't hurt learning from one of the best. :) Aaroncrick (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this it must be hah ;) Aaroncrick (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey reported by Haruspex101

Report Link

Page: Roland_Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User: YellowMonkey (talk · contribs)

Ongoing problems with highly experienced YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) user.

Have made extensive attempts to enter into content discussions at Talk:Roland_Perry

Requested Solution:

(1) Revert to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roland_Perry&oldid=303248300

(2) All users to propose and discuss substantive edits at Talk:Roland_Perry with consensus required before take edits to Roland Perry article.

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)[reply]

Haruspex101 (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)[reply]

You, the subject of the article, should be blocked for legal threats. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As previously declared, I am not Roland Perry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roland_Perry&diff=300936541&oldid=300713182

In any case it has no bearing on the Roland Perry content page as highlighted by Mattinbgm user and agreed by you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattinbgn&diff=300782605&oldid=300761537

And as you have identified (presumably using CheckUser), I live in Melbourne -- the city where Roland Perry resides:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaroncrick&diff=300717140&oldid=300710207

I have made no legal action or legal threat. The nature of the material is, however, defamatory and should be deleted as per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel

Haruspex101 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (novice user)[reply]

You have been informed by others that the content you refer to is not libel [4]. You are starting to become extraordinarily tendentious with regards this matter. --VS ^talk 03:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a waste of time to talk to this fellow. I only ask other people who are familiar with cricket to sign on the talk page saying that he should be ignored. It is not libel, it is sourced criticism from a review. Otherwise you are implying that anything except self-idolatry of Perry is disallowed, in which case you should be banned as being only to spam. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This incidence shows why paid editing should never be allowed on Wikipedia. Imagine what will happen if Roland Perry were to pay an admin ... oops ... I think I may have given a hint to Mr. Perry what he should do next time! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know, Nichalp was interested in cricket. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - At least he's brought some attention to the article. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He helped the development in the article in that he flooded it with spamcruft, thereby forcing me to dig up Wisden to find more serious stuff on him. Although spending a few hours writing up rubbish to respond to him was not YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open proxy concerns

Hey YM. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies - there are three reports of suspected open proxies, one five days old. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm no good at that, each time I suspect something I always get someone else to do it. Each time I ask a CU they just tell that google will answer me.... all rather perplexing, I know one CU likes to proclaim their tech expertise and tells the rest of us that he is willing to help them but he never responds (or says he is adding the data into his smart data analysis program and never responds afterwards) and never does any CUs except in some famous cases when he can get famous and tell everyone about his incisive sharpeye nonsense.... aaahhh YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Would it be OK to nominate Delrina for FAR? It does not seem a quality article. It is a 2005 promotion.

Concerns are:

1a Prose is not always clear.

Example: "Despite the seeming threat posed by Microsoft in the online communications and fax markets back in 1995, the company has not made significant improvements to its communications software; in Windows 95 the fax software was dropped, and it still licenses HyperTerminal from Hilgraeve. However, Microsoft's Internet Explorer would become the dominant Web browser in the years after Cyberjack was released."

1b, Comprehensiveness.

Does not put the company nor the products in wider context. There are no insights into the company, the product or the rising sophistication of the technological climate. Also neglected is any comprehensive explanation of the underlying technology. No outside views of the products and company are provided.

1c. Well-researched

The article was poorly cited to begin with, with an absence of reliable sources. Example:

The section on the court case Berkeley Systems Inc. v. Delrina is uncited

Many sources are to corporate websites and are not neutral

There are now many dead and irrelevant links.

1d Neutrality.

The article seems to promote the product rather than give an objective view.

"Despite the publicity generated by the case, Delrina lost hundreds of thousands of dollars over the affair. The decision itself has been interpreted by some as an erosion of First Amendment rights over the increasing protection provided to copyright holders." (unsourced)

"The most notable multimedia software produced by Delrina was Echo Lake, an early form of scrapbook software that came out in February 1995. During development it was touted internally as a "cross [of] Quark Xpress and Myst"[5]. It featured an immersive 3D environment where a user could go to a virtual desktop in a virtual office and assemble video and audio clips along with images, and then send them as either a virtual book other users of the program could access, or to print. It was a highly innovative product for its time, and ultimately was hampered by the inability of many users to easily input their own multimedia content into a computer from that period." (unsourced)

What do you think? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why it would be an illegitimate nom. It certainly isn't disruptive YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam War

Hi, could you take a look at the article -- specifically Sea888 edits? I reverted all of them because of the drastic shortening of the "Opposition"-section in addition to a likely copyvio (see his talkpage, I've notified another admin familiar with his previous copyvios), but his other edits might have been fine. Thanks, --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]