User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive146

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Yes, I suppose you are right. You still wrote the best noms though dude. My best comment ever was at your Editor Review, where I believe I told you to write more mainspace cause you were good at it. Well, I guess you listened! -- Samir 02:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you have to get the good ones at RFA! Aaroncrick (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I didn't and wasn't suspicious enough in 2006, when I was very naive. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think any of your noms have had a negative impact to the encyclopaedia. And I once read one of your huge in depth noms which was terrific. Aaroncrick (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen the fracas at 2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia‎ from our friend? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha yeah; should be slapped and blocked under 3RR if removed again. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There isn't a limit on GAN is there? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I had about 15-20 up at one stage, although I've reviewed more than I've nominated (about 65-70 noms I think). TonyTheTiger has nommed 200+ and reviewed a lot less and nobody's boycotted his articles, so no worries there. His get reviewed quicker than most, probably because there are more people interested in Chicago stuff, or perhaps because the articles are short and won't take so long to review YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, man that's a lot. Surely an article on Launceston's Casino is notable? Especially as it was proposed to be the first in Australia and may have been the second in Aus after Hobart. It's been created but deleted before. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah they would be, because licenses are pretty hard to get. TonyTheTiger also had 10+ at one (or more) stage. My 15-20 were all those 1948 series, maybe it was 23 or so with all the Test articles chucked in as well. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been deleted twice I think, but I was dreadfully inexperienced so couldn't really argue. The canvassing thing over at RFA has been blown out of proportion. NSW V Vic will be interesting. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

An old edit by a Nangparbat sympathizer[edit]


I just noticed this edit by User:Lanternix, who appears to be a Nangparbat sympathizer. This user is falsely claiming that I am HKelkar... Even though this edit was made four months ago, can anything be done to discipline this editor?

Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC) (this has also been posted on Nishkid's page)

No, but I found he has another sock Medical Woman (talk · contribs) and has been IP socking recently. Interesting. A lot of people who harp on about socks often sock themselves. 1 week YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure that this is Nangparbat again. (talk · contribs) Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 20:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

posting history links to make life slightly easier for you [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More editing against consensus[edit]

A weeks block do you think[7]? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


Dear YellowMonkey

I sent you an email asking your opinion.


mattisse (Talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and POV-pushing from multiple IPs in Bhumihar article[edit]

A set of anons have added this paragraph from a book "Hindu Castes and Sects" by Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya in Bhumihar article

Pandit Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya in his book Hindu Castes and Sects published in 1896, went on to write about the origin of Bhumihar Brahmins of Bihar and Banaras as: "The clue to the exact status of the Bhumihar Brahmans is afforded by their very name. The word literally means a landholder. In the language of the Indian feudal systems, Bhoom is the name given to a kind of tenure similar to the Inams and Jagirs of Mohammedan times. By a Bhoom, according to the Rajputana Gazeteer, an hereditary, non-resumableand inalienable property in soil was inseparably bound up with a revenue-free title. Bhoom was given as a compensation for bloodshedin order to quell a feud, for distinguished services in the field, for protection of a border or for the watch and ward of the village. The meaning of the designation Bhumihar being as stated above, the Bhumihar Brahmans are evidently these Brahmans who held grants of land for secular service. Whoever held a secular fief was Bhumihar. Where a Brahman held such a tenure, he was called a Bhumihar Brahman....Bhumihar Brahmans are sometimes called simply Bhumihars..."

However, the same set of anon IPs have been repeatedly removing the following content which I have been adding to Bhumihar article in order to balance POV despite the fact that it is sourced from the same book as you can see here and here

The Brahmins and Kshatriyas look down upon the Bhumihars whom they claim to have descended from Brahmin men and Kshatriya women. Pandit Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya says that according to legend prevalent among Brahmins, the Bhumihars were non-Brahmin Hindus who were conferred the status of Brahmins by a Raja who wanted more Brahmins in his kingdom in order to celebrate religious festivals.Herbert Hope Risley holds the view that Bhumihars are an offshoot of the Rajputs as their clans and septs are closer to that of the Rajputs. A widely prevalent belief is that they had descended from the Bhuyans, a tribe which acquired land and claimed to be Brahmins

Sources have also been removed again and needed to be restored as you see here and here. These IPs have also been altering sentences and introducing POV, mostly unsourced, as you see here, here

I suspect that these are IP-socks of User:Krishnakoli who created ridiculous categories like Category:Bhumihars and make POV edits like adding other Brahmin communities like Nambudiris, and trying to advertise Bhumihars in an article on Nambudiris or User:Gopaljirai or those of User:Ranvir Sena. The first two have been continuously indulging in advertising their caste by creating new stubs on members of their community and adding copyvio content in them picking up whole paragraphs from some biased source or the other.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 10:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

From the logs, you can observe that all this has been happening though it has been semi-protected for five or six times before-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 10:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

They're too old to be crosschecked YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CU request[edit]

Can you check if User:Marcosino Pedros Sancheza is a sock of User:Druid.raul = User:Rhp_26 who typically edit from and ? The behavioral evidence itself is quite convincing, but the SPI report has been languishing for some time. Abecedare (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further info: The IP ranges have been rangeblocked to deal with sockpupetter who has been trolling, outing another user, as well as making racist attacks, and "death threats". Is there a way to tell if how many other legitimate users are being affected by this, in case the current rangeblock needs to be extended ? Abecedare (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it's him. He only sees to be on so why the wider range? YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation.
As for the IP range: he is using PACENET, Mumbai ISP (which controls and according to WHOIS info) and shifts addresses within minutes of an IP being blocked. He has used User:, User:, User: pretty recently. Do you mean that would work in place of ? Abecedare (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On, he and his socks only use one /24, so it's inconveniencing a few others YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats good to know. Abecedare (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

First Edit Day[edit]


Wishing YellowMonkey/Archive146 a very Happy First Edit Day!

Have a fantastic day!

From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Vatsan34 (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats :) 4 years? Aaroncrick (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Hey well done YM - I didn't realise we have been here almost exactly the same amount of time. I have only 27 days to go to reach the same milestone. Best wishes.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 07:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Monkey's getting old. —Dark 10:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet returns[edit]

Hello, can you please look at this user Linguisticgeek, i am 100% sure he is the sock of Princeofdark07 (indef blocked user), remember, a month ago you've bolcked his static ip address, see in this ANI discussion, i asked you that "is a indefinite blocked editor is allowed to create new account?", you replied me as "No" and you blocked his IP. his previous accounts were blocked because of his disruptive editing behavior(vandalism, personal attacks) but still he has not learnt from his previous mistakes, he continues to use abusive words in my talkpage see [8] [9]. I added sockpuppet tags in his talkpage/userpage on October 9 and he agrees with that,and he says "do whatever you want i am going to uk this weekend and will be editing from there.what will you do than"->see last two lines. and also i said him to stop editing wikipedia, but still he continues to edit. C21Ktalk 15:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy Birthday, YellowMonkey, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a nice day!


Hi, YellowMonkey! Please, tell me, if some user is blocked for some small period of time, and he contribute peacefully and usefully in Wikipedia during that block, is that problematic? Anyone can edit Wikipedia? Be well, (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tadija, according to this, YellowMonkey blocked you for a month (not that small period of time), because you continued your disruptive behavior (the opposite of peacefully and usefully) while being blocked, in the anonymous fashion, and you are still editing as can be seen here for example. Thank you. kedadial 22:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kedadi, you lie now! YellowMonkey, this edit is not disruptive. Just go to that site. What can reader find out from that site? This is English Wikipedia. And that site is off for months. Kedadi is just trying to push his own point of view, and now is trying to show you just his lying side. Please, look if there was even one really disruptive edit by me? Please, if you show me that, and you, YellowMonkey, just you tell me that it really was disruptive, i will agree. You can not blame me for good and useful edits. And YellowMonkey, write here questions for me, and i will answer you that. And Kedadi, i thank you for your support, but YellowMonkey is administrator, and he knows wiki rules better that anyone of us. He dont need your advices now. (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How not to protest an AFD[edit]

You might find this misplaced page from June 2006 at the title "Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kai Wong" to be amusing. I've deleted it under CSD G6; if you want to undelete it or move it somewhere that's fine with me. :-) I only found it because the person who created it, Sky678trax (talk · contribs), also made this edit to a talk page that messed up the formatting. For non-admins, it's along the same lines as this comment. Also note that "votes for deletion" is the old name of "articles for deletion" from August 2005, waaay before the misplaced deletion page was created in June 2006. Graham87 13:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile) - A-class review[edit]

Hi! Do you have any other comments or positive/negative views about the article? I just got the feeling it is stuck there. Flayer (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look. Unfortunately the reviews do tend to depend on how many enthusiasts there are in a certain country's military, and can lead to great disparities in getting reviews. Same for any other topic YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets in Iyer article[edit]

The article Iyer was indefinitely semi-protected due to persistent vandalism. And when the article was semi-protected, vandalism had almost ceased. However, here are a new set of users who are frequently vandalizing the article.

Just have a look at the diffs. I could figure out a pattern below.

User:Cybernetizen was the first person to vandalize the article in many months. And the account was created on August 17, 2009. Soon afterwards, the same unsourced POV has been added by another new user User:Akash2005 whose account was created on October 3, 2009 (incidentally the same day when User:Cybernetizen made his last edit). Lastly, the article was edited by User:Mrt9089 whose account was created on June 9, 2009 and has barely 13 edits. So, all these accounts have been newly created and have very few edits. And the same POV, too. All these users desire to project Iyers as Indo-Aryans and thus, racially different from Dravidians. I suspect all the three could be different sockpuppets of one and the same user. And please note that User:Cybernetizen has been previously blocked for sockpuppetry. Claiming that Iyers were Aryans is a standard political propaganda adopted by Anti-Brahmin political parties in India which probably explains the edits made by the sockpuppeteer. I don't wish to start a sockpuppet case in a hurry as my doubts proved wrong the last time around. Anyway, the evidence, this time, is extremely suggestive.

By the way, User:Cybernetizen edits the same pages like Dheeran Chinnamalai, Kongu Vellalar, Kongu Nadu, Mukkulathor and Nadar (caste) as User:PONDHEEPANKAR and his socks did. Could User:PONDHEEPANKAR be the master sockpuppetteer owning all these sockpuppets.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 16:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Cybernetizen lives in the same state as POND so it might be him, and I found another of his socks and gave him a week. The others don't have anything to do with him YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not basing my doubts on the location of these individuals alone. They also seemed to be involving themselves in the same sort of POV pushing.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 09:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, they aren't in the same place. So CU can't do anythign else YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Stop your personal vendetta against me. What the Hell is your problem? Tony the Marine (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop spamming vanity YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 05:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I've explained the content reasons. If you are only going to say that I am a crook and not explain why your edits are a better fit, then I can't control that. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jose Aponte[edit]

I thought that rollback was for vandalism? Stop your personal vendetta against an established user and sysop. --Jmundo (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want to claim the high ground you can. I'm not supporting unreferenced autobiographical info. You're side is using machine edits as well. If I go and pose with famous people and go and add the picture with me in it to their Wiki articles, feel free to block me. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entlínkt ist doof! 22/Archive[edit]

Hey there. I was just wondering if all the accounts listed were socks, or if some were unconnected. Four of them were left unblocked (although I think two had their accounts locked). NW (Talk) 19:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't checled. I had only checked SkF and know Strider's stats. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

List of boxing triple champions[edit]

Can you please keep the issues that you have out of the boxing articles? If you have problems with Tony (and that seems like a given) talk it out with him, but don't go around removing free images from lists unrelated to your skirmish. If you keep it up, we might have to go a round or two at ANI. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No this is a red herring. The issues are to do with the appropriateness of the content. I've given my reasons. If people write an article about Early life and military career of John McCain for example, we put in photos of him during that era as a young servicemen, we don't for instance put a picture of John McCain aged 70 meeting some other person, where there is a relevant photo from the time period. That applies here. I've explained the content reasons for my edits, it others just want to shout irrelevant things about what they think of me, that doesn't change anything. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope, it doesn't seem like a red-herring to me when you have systematically pursued the issue on a few dozens of pages. I am not the kind of guy that will edit war over the images, but that doesn't mean that I won't take the issue to ANI before your rollback wars get into one of my works. I will let the issue rest for today, but tomorrow I will open a thread at ANI and let the uninvolved community weight in on the issue. - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..[edit]

Admin mop.PNG Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - September and October 2009[edit]

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)