User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive45

Hello RE: Ajith

I do not understand why you have reverted back my version of the Ajith articles as I provided many relevant sources for each point made.

Can you pls make me aware of wha else i have to do??

Thank you for your time, happy editting!

King Dracula 12:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can discuss the usage of WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK words in the article which need to be cleaned up. I'm not averse to expansion as long as the content is encyclopedic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Dinesh Karthik

The bureaucratic fuck finally did something over a article. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I might have to revert some of it. :). I find his style of learning cricket in the early years to be interesting. And some other jargon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Irfan Pathan

I think you undid all the changes that I made, and that include improvements in the language which was used. The article read more like fancruft than anything. But that is why we have the policy of neutrality on Wikipedia. I tried to improve the article. Could you revert yourself back and manually remove the errors that I made, in order to keep the language in order? Thanks. Zamkudi 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think that the article can be made less dramatic, I have no objection, but I do not think some of your phrasing style makes the article smoother, and you divided one of the sentences into two, including a very short one about his father being the muezzin, which makes the prose less flowing. I retained the "mockingly applauded" because Pathan not only mocked Martyn, but sardonically clapped him. I just felt that "rose to gain selection" is smoother, but perhaps I am missing something. Complaints about hagioigraphy are welcome though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that by this edit, you reverted each and every change that I made to the article. I am going to fix what you have pointed out here, though. I am relatively a newcomer to this site, and I could use your guidance a bit. :) Zamkudi 11:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse Rfa

Thanks for the rfa support. Glad we can work together. Rlevse 03:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan-India arbcomm case

Well..Its pretty much over. My contributions have been overlooked and my mistakes from last December have been magnified
I just wanted to ask you if you could point out to the committee that I am on a shared Ip used by many people. If my account only could be banned, and if anyone discovers I am editing again, they can ban the IP. Thank you for reading. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

P.s Let me know what you think of this Proposal [1]. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 01:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RfArb for Falun Gong

Binguyen, I am troubled by your comment on the arbitration page here. You point out the problematic edit-wars on FLG pages and then encourage the committee to accept the case against me. Your comment seems to imply that I am the trouble maker. Do you really mean that? --Samuel Luo 19:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the case would automatically involve all those who are arguing on the FLG pages, which is why the name should be changed to FLG. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you changed the ArbCom case against Samuel Luo to "Falun Gong", stating that "this case is a battle between a group of users who are single-issue editors who are either proponents or critics of FLG in real life". In my opinion, that reflects a misunderstanding of the meaning of the request. We've had real content disputes on the Falun Gong pages, but they're not to be mixed with this case. These articles have suffered from serious policy violations, and this question must be resolved before any further progress can be made. It is no accident that Samuel Luo has been banned five times already, whereas none of the other involved editors have received such penalties to my knowledge. Even though I don't completely oppose to extending the case, we must make sure that it focuses on these policy violations instead of any content disputes, and that the ArbCom clarifies this principle to all involved parties. Falun Gong arbitration has been refused once because the editors hadn't understood what the ArbCom is all about. ---Olaf Stephanos 02:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've pointed out the the clerks to consider changing the title, not because Samuel is the problem or not the problem, since I have not looked at the issues enough, but merely to maintain a sense of not prejudging who the problem is. Do see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan/Proposed decision where it seems that four Pakistani editors will be banned; the naming was changed from "Pakistani nationalism" so as to not pre-empt or pre-judge what the result may be. That is all. The first arbitration was refused because the parties did not spell out policy violations beyond a standard conflict over what content should be in the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon my interjecting, but speaking as one of the clerks who help maintain these cases under the arbitrators' direction, we probably would have changed the casename anyway if the case was accepted. In fact, I had raised the question yesterday. There is a preference for casenames based on article titles or other things other than individual users whenever possible. This doesn't in any way restrict the arbitrators from examining all the evidence presented and making whatever decisions are appropriate. And you are right that ArbCom generally focuses on user conduct rather than content issues, but that also has nothing to do with the casename. Newyorkbrad 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to interject too. I think that there is certainly a case for changing the name of the article and expanding the range of investigation, but I think Blnguyen's comment was a little off the mark. I think the mentality of characterising the problems raised in the request as a battle between two sides is exactly the mentality that we need to get away from. There is only one battle here, and it is between editors who conform to wikipedia policies and those who flaunt them -- that should be our criteria for evaluating this case, nothing else. If the case is accepted and the range of investigations expands from Samuel to every editor involved in the article I think that would also be useful. Whoever has been really breaking the rules in a bad way and refuses to change should be dealt with. It should be clear that this is about: constant and unrepentant blanking of legitimate and sourced info with no discussion, inserting unsourced material and weasel words consistently, reverting deletions of these kinds of edits, refusal to discuss productively, consistently leaving misleading edit summaries, etc. etc. This is what we are talking about here, and for whoever was doing that, including if it was meant to advocate for Falun Gong somehow, I too would want them to change their behaviour ot get booted off this project if they couldn't get up to speed. That kind of thing helps no one and needs to be unequivocally stamped out. The terms of discourse need to be very clear in dealing with this, and particularly in this ArbCom case, they need to be super clear. The users responsible for this kind of thing are doing all they can to smudge them, so it does not help to go along with it. It would be enough for Samuel simply to undo his latest series of edits and state clearly that he promises not to do those things again. Why doesn't he do it? --Asdfg12345 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the question should be, IF Samuel promises to do the above and does it, will the pro-FG editors be willing to take on a similar strict oath? And more importantly, IF Samuel does it, will Olaf drop the Arbitration case?

P.S. Your attempt to spread the pro-FG view as the 'indisputable truth' on uninvolved users like Penwhale, Asdfg, makes me doubt that despite you promising to be neutral, how committed to that you really are yourself. If so, then why demand Samuel do something you can't even adhere to yourself? Jsw663 18:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's up to Olaf. I am stating my personal attitude toward this. I have never engaged in the behaviour cited above and never will. There's not really a question here. Of course I won't do those things. --Asdfg12345 18:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Jsw, what are you talking about? I am quite within my rights to explain my understanding of whatever I like to whomever I like. This has nothing to do with anything. By the way, we shouldn't use Blngyun's talk page for this so if you want to continue you are welcome to drop me a friendly message.--Asdfg12345 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen: here's the question that you should know the answer to regarding your involvement: Did you block/lock the editors on the grounds of edit warring, etc? If that is the only reason, then I see no reason for you to recuse from the case. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the blocks were for edit-warring and that's why I locked the page as well. That is usually enough to recuse - and is generally the standard used by arbitrators. I might also note that once after I unlocked the pages, I removed the word "controversial" from the lead, as I feel that they violate WP:WEASEL - a check of Osama bin Laden, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jean Marie Le Pen etc, indicate that it was the "right" thing to do, but it is safest to not participate in this issue. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

India-Pakistan RfAr

You inadvertently voted twice in favor of finding #3. I mention this instead of just fixing because you might have intended that second vote for another paragraph and I can't be sure which one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Huge misunderstanding

I believe you misunderstood me here. [2]. What I meant was, He died in 1948, which is after 1947 (creation of Pakistan), so his nationality is Pakistani. It was the response for referring to him as Indian, even after Pakistan was created in 1947. I just realised why people misunderstood this edit summary, and I can assure you that I am against false edit summaries. Please dont get me wrong here. I have never tried to trick people, and never will do so. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 03:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will try to understand. This was nothing but a stupid mistake on my part, and if you go through my posts on the evidence section, you will see that I hadnt even realised this until now. You should know me. I admit the mistakes I make, I dont deny them. I always back up my edits with sources and facts. Why would I make a change under a false edit summary when I am right about Jinnah being a Pakistani? He died in Karachi in 1948, which was after the creation of Pakistan. Surely it couldnt be more misleading to call him Indian. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 04:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well perhaps I should not use that diff, in case it leads to confusion. I did look at the recent contributions of Nadirali and yourself, and was not convinced by {{OR}} tagging History of India and creating a POV fork Pakistani mathematics which appears to list Aryabhata as a Pakistani, when he appears to have lived in Pataliputra, which is now in Bihar. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. I had nothing to do with that article. Blnguyen, I am reasonable guy. I am quite saddened that you feel the need to treat me like this. I dont lie about my views. I dont deny what I did, but when people accuse me of things I didnt do, I am hurt. Mistakes I made when I first joined Wiki are being used against me to ban me for a year, and not only have these mistakes been used to give me weeks worth of block before, but they really do not compare anything to what you are ignoring on the Indian users.
Anyway, I just wanted to ask you about my IP. Can only my account be blocked? I can assure you I am leaving this place. Thank you for reading. --Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ ^UT 02:23, 1 March

I mean Pakistani civilization where it forks a whole pile of people who live in what is now RoI. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yellow

Just stopped by to say hello to the yellow. And, you are most welcome to listen to the real one, that is, me within 2 days: [3]. --Bhadani 16:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have audio on this computer. I will upload a visual depiction of the YellowMonkey listening to audio though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: DYK

Thanks for your encouragement. --IslesCape^Talk 19:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Newsflash

"Contributions deteriorated significantly in recent months." you say. I never contributed more than fixing a few typos until "recent months". And Indian lobby could not tolerate when someone tried to nullify their propaganda by providing solid proofs of their POV and provided neutarl information. I wonder what is your criteria of analyzing my contributions. Szhaider 22:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, previously you mostly inserted Urdu scripts and enhanced the articles, although since late November, the contributions have not been as impressive. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Because other unnecessarily confronted me which I do not like in any walk of life. I like to be very peaceful and cannot tolerate any kind of confrontation. I literally avoided Rama's Arrow considering him a kid (a punk if I may)(no offence intended), however, at every step he chose to confront me although I did my best to avoid him. This ArbCom case is a part of a quest to stop any resistence against propaganda edits of his favourites. Szhaider 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

After my months of block was over I wanted to stay away any more disputes. It was Rama's Arrow, who in his quest to ban Pakistani editors, began ArbCom case. Where is my fault in my attempt to stay away from disputes as a new beginning? Szhaider 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

URGENT: George Soros requests identity of user

URGENT REQUEST: A statement on Wikipedia has made George Soros and his security staff concerned for his person. A user edited the Family section George Soros' Biography sometime after February 2nd and added the line "He is now married to violinist, Jennifer Chun." This is a red flag for us. For his safety can you please help us retrieve all information about the user who added this comment?

Thank you for you help in this matter,

Garret LoPorto garret@totalconvert.com (978) 369-5070

You may also contact Michael Vachon at Soros.com if you are concerned about my credentials in this matter. His email address is Michael.Vachon@soros.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.162.219.203 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm afraid that with this type of legal issues, you may want to contact a board member. Try User:Mindspillage or User:Danny, who would handle these sorts of things. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My unblock request

Hi, its Uncle Mart here, I had to add the unblock again as there appears to have been some sort of bug on the site where it said the unblock request would still show up but it wasnt, as I couldnt get anyone to reply to me I had no choice, I left this message on my talk page but im guessing you didnt see it and thought I was being an ass, thats most definitly not the case, im now locked out of being able to talk to any admin who drops by to sort it out so I'd appreciate it if you could unlock it again please. Thanks :) 85.178.222.109 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that the account is not being used for productive means. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not clear at all, I've made many contributions and my account was hacked, so if you're reffering to anything from that period then I can agree, but as you'll see, before the account was hacked it has made contributions and was productive, im still waiting on a sensible reply from an admin as to why im not being unblocked. 85.178.205.117 14:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I still had some questions on my talk page that nobody has answered if you have the time, the main one being why im being blocked for lack of contributions when I have at least two pages of contributions? and also where does it state that a user should have to contribute a certain amount because I cant find anything, plus if I start a new account will I be victimised and banned for being a sock puppet despite never having been banned and only having an account thats been blocked due to no fault of my own. - thanks 85.178.205.117 22:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Inactive arbitrators

I saw that on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, you just moved three arbitrators to inactive status. Do you know if they are planning to be inactive for long enough that the clerks should recalculate the number of participating arbitrators and the majority in pending cases? Obviously, we would only consider them inactive with respect to cases on which they haven't already voted. Please advise or ask your colleagues to do so. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh definitely a post on the mailing list will be circulated. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The clerks have the Arbitration Committee page watchlisted, or can be reached on the noticeboard at WP:AC/CN. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related topic, I also just noticed your recusal in the Starwood case, reducing the panel to three arbitrators and the majority to two. That's obviously a suboptimal number; do you think you could ping any of your new colleagues to become active for that case? Newyorkbrad 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I should indeed, although the case now seems to be somewhat trivial now that many of the participants have now been banned as sockpuppets. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to remove all restraints on me and Gnanapiti - We dont deserve it.

In the light of neverending the hue and cry that Wikiraja has been raising with regards to our(mine and Gnanapiti's) so called 'sockpuppetry' case and also considering this comment by Blnuyen, I'd like to request the following from the admins.

Like it has been proved, I and Gnanapiti are neither sockpuppets nor meatpuppets. We both are independent editors and have our own interests too when it comes to editing articles. It is just a coincidence that we also share some interests. Like Blnguyen notes in that comment, both of us have always edited in good faith and contributed usefully.

I strongly feel that we were punished wrongly and come to think of it, Gnanapiti effectively served an extremely harsh near one month block. Thinking back, I feel that it was an atrocious thing to have subjected him to that. I dont think there is a precedent of this sort anywhere on Wikipedia. A one month block is something that I see handed out in the rarest of cases and only to people who are repeat violators, trolls and vandals.

People have gotten off with all sorts of nonsense. Even Wikiraja has. His template was patent nonsense and he kept edit warring with multiple editors on dozens of pages until it got deleted. And he doesnt even get a token punitive block! If Gnanapiti could have been subjected to a one month block on the basis of erroneous checkuser results, Wikiraja ought to serve atleast 6 months for his disruption. If anything, the community owes an apology to Gnanapiti. It is to his eternal credit that he continues to contribute handsomely and in good faith to Wikipedia. How easy it would have been to kill someone's enthusiasm and zeal with such draconian blocks.

And on top of all this, I dont see any reason that we should be suffering this ignominy of having to bear all the nonsense that the likes of Wikiraja have to offer. I request that all constraints on us be lifted. Its difficult to edit articles and contribute usefully if you have to be looking over your shoulder all the time.

I for one, atleast, cannot and will not keep watching my step to see if Gnanapiti is editing an article or not before I get down to edit it. I have always edited in good faith and will continue to do so. And, so has Gnana. Even when it comes to voting, I refuse to be held accountable. If one of our votes was invalid anywhere, it is for the admin to strike it off. I cannot be expected to scroll up and down a page looking for Gnana's name. NO. Sarvagnya 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that sarvagnya has stopped trolling on Hindi language issues it seems fair, even so, I dont trust him that much. Gnanpiti OTOH has proven to be a very helpful user, see his work on Gopalakrishna Adiga, a DYK article I wrote this week.Bakaman 23:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Coming from a user who initiated this CU himself and who, admittedly doesnt trust me(like I'd care), I'll just take it. As for 'hindi', 'trolling' and all that hot air, well, I think I was vindicated on two of the three articles I opposed it on(atleast on JGM) and the third is still being 'discussed'. huh. Sarvagnya 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI: I do not have two user accounts created from the same computer. Furthermore, I do not call people names, put down their ethnicity or religion, and I do not harass people with incivility. And, who on earth are these multiple anonymous IP Address sockpuppets removing these Dravidian templates? This has happened three times so far, with the third incident involving over 38 anonymous IP Addresses simultaneously back to back removing the Dravidian template from each page. So far, I have handled this situation diplomatically. I have provided multiple referenced sources as per demand, and then you and your sidekick are still not satisfied and ask for more references from me when you have not even once provided one source. Furthermore, I have been as neutral as possible as compared to others who have been ultra POV pushers. If it were to be someone being blocked, sorry to say, it should be the two accounts of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti. Wiki Raja 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Who are u replying to wikiraja? Remember, based on a hunch I initiated the checkuser on Sarvagnya 4 months ago, while he screamed "Hindi nationalist conspiracy". gngnpiti OTOH seems to have changed and become a helpful user.Bakaman

Two wrongs do not make a right. Wiki Raja 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I will bring this up with Dmcdevit and Aksi_great. Gnanapiti has proved to have a strong interest in contributing in his own right, and it seems pretty clear he is not simply here to revert or vote. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blnguyen here and support the move to lift the restraints put on their editing. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's a yes then, seeing as there are no objections. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Sarvagnya 05:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks a lot. Unfortunately, my personal computer has forgotten how to switch on. So my time in wiki is limited to only certain hours of day. :( Otherwise I would have given FA's just like Dinesh.:D Gnanapiti 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul Collingwood

Following your feedback and the subsequent changes made, can I ask you to clarify at the FAC page whether you support or object to the article becoming FA? If the latter, I'd welcome the chance to improve it. Cheers. --Dweller 06:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (PS My editor review...!)

I actually haven't really read the article carefully and inspected all the language one by one. The detail of the international career looks as though it covers every Test series in detail, (seems like each of the 20 Tests are accounted for) And it appears that it summarises each ODI tournament, but I'll probably stop and take a look at the statsguru series summary to compare that a summary of each tournament is there. I guess I'll have to research the county stuff to see if anything really big happened there,....and test out each of the qualitative claims as well. I just tweaked one of the claims in the lead about the fielding which seemed to be a bit overoptimistic. Perhaps I must be a dire kind of guy or have a morbid fascination with badness, because Harbhajan Singh is one of my favourite bowlers and the article seems to mention all manner of calamities! Aside from that, I have an ideological objection to including punditry from tabloid sources, so I am inclined to object to quotes by idiot tabloid commentators. That includes The Sunday Times (Western Australia) which is a Murdoch tabloid which has a certain writer Robert Craddock known for posting sensationalist drivel. After the 2004/05 Aus ODI season in which Australia defeated Pakistan 2-0 (both were closely contested 30 run wins in which Australia had a few umpiring benefits) he posted an article "can anybody give us a decent game" - After Lord's 2005 "Vaughan again losers" - After Ashes 2005 he described Australia as "flat-track bullies" and "pie-hitters" and said that it would take "10 years" to recover from "the depths" - and then two months later is going on about "the world" being "no match for Australia" and then after Ashes 06/07 and midway trhough the CB Series posted more drivel about how Australia were the "greatest ever team" going on about how Australia has plenty of quicks to replace McGrath, and then two weeks later said "Australia's WC campaign in disarray" and today as I speak moaning about Australia's death-bowling about how bad it was that Australia had 3 of the 10 most expensive death bowlers in ODIs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's nothing to complain about the standard of the article, just a polemic against tabloid journos and why they should not be quoted on WP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol, thanks. Not wishing to sound like a broken record, but my editor review has moved on and I'd really welcome your input, as by far the most experienced user of those who've posted there so far. Cheers, --Dweller 11:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should both avoid adminnery for a while. It detracts from our article writing! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC) ...has finally made it to WP:FA! Thanks for all your help and support in getting the article promoted! The Rambling Man 09:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I only tweaked about three sentences, and provided the picture. That's the main thing though, that was the prerequisite! congratulations! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

I thank you for your Holi greetings to me - amazing that you know about it! The festival of colour may be over, but life is itself a celebration. Let us continue to celebrate life. --Bhadani 15:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hoysala architecture

Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

More on ToI plagiarism

FYI. --Ragib 01:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and commented. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the thought and Wikipe-tan. .--– Dakota 04:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Portal peer review

Hi Yellow Monkey! Just reminding you that Arjun and I have reviewed the portal. Hopefully these reviews will help the portal improve and get featured status! Cheers, S.D. 23:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know ... that KNM has addressed YM's concerns about DYK's on Warrant of committal and South Park (season 10) ? :-) - KNM ^Talk 02:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do now...but unfortunately the YellowMonkey sleeps on weekends and didn't see the fixes in time. :( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Entrusted with the Bucket!

Yes, my identical copy of bucket-and-mop =]

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA. Thanks for your vote, I've received an overwhelming 96% support and successfully took a copy of bucket-and-mop from the main office!

School graduation exam and HKCEE are both pressing in, so I might become inactive for a while. But soon after that, I look forward to working with you! --Deryck C. 03:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

Happy Holi !!--Dwaipayan (talk)

DYK emergency

I see you just updated the DYK and included a Lithuanization in there. I am sorry i did not notice its submission on time to comment. Featuring it on main page is highly dubious. While the concept of cultural assimilation of minorities by Lithuanians does exist as for any nation, this is such an obscure phenomenon that the term suggested by the article's authors is a pure neologism. The term produces only 57 google hits of which many are about Lithuanization of the software or the Lithuanization of the names (that is how foreign names, when written in Lithuanian, are modified by adding suffixes in the end). In the cultural assimilationist term, the term is exceedingly rare and the article dubiously titled cannot be featured on the main page. Please put it back on the backburner for the discussion. TIA, --Irpen 05:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I missed a small "dubious" tag on there as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Irpen is the only one who disputes this (see Talk:Lithuanization). The term is used in academic sources, and fits our naming conventions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noted. The tag is still on the page though. That is an issue. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK Updating

Just to clear up something which I'm not sure about, at what point do the articles on the DYK template get their hooks moved to Wikipedia:Recent additions? When I tried my hand at the update yesterday afternoon, I understood that it was my job to move the old hooks to the archive before adding the new hooks to the front page. Those hooks, though, never seem to have turned up in the archive, so should I in fact have moved everything to the front page and then copied the new hooks into the archive? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to have a copy of the current template in Recent Additions straightaway. Most other admins also seem to have this, so that they archive the current display simultaneously. Some guys forget totally though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ariel Sokolovsky

Who are you and why did you delete my user page and protected it from being recreated when I reposted it? Ariel Sokolovsky 13:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr Sokolovsky. I am myself. I deleted the userpage because it appears that you are here to market yourself in contravention of WP:NOT. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For your greetings. Unfortunately, I won't have the time to help push anything to FA these days. I really want to hibernate until November but Wiki's addictive nature will make me do a couple of (minor) edits every now and again. Gizza^{Chat ©} 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)