User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive90

Johnson and throwing

Thanks for this. BTW, any comments, suggestions etc. on Ian Johnson (cricketer) if you have a chance would be much appreciated. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like I'm the bottleneck with all my half-finished Invincibles articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware of any chucking innuendo against him. The Whimpress book that I used for Jack Marsh some slo-mo footage of IJ and said that he was more dubious than Murali. Is there much chatter in the literature about his action? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few bits and pieces about it around. I have used this in the article: "Trevor Bailey insisted that Johnson threw every ball but said that English umpires did not call who had not been no-balled in their own countries." from On top down under p. 242. I read somewhere else that despite suspicion he had never actually been called but I didn't take note of where and now of course I can't find it again! Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should have read teh article more carefully. Perhaps a ref/comment from someone other than an opponent (Bailey) would make the reader take it more seriously. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this. There hasn't been much interest in him at all at FAC. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C68/SV/FM

I don't doubt that you've seen it, but I'd like to formally point you towards [1] motion on the C68-FM-SV case. The continuing delay, resulting from refusal to arbitrate, of this case is getting beyond a joke and I personally find it unacceptable. Many in the community are as a result of this delay calling Arbcom's very existence into question. The refusal to come to a conclusion, echoing the MM case amongst others, demonstrates that Arbcom is no longer willing to deal with long-term problematic behaviour and is giving a free pass to those involved. What is worse is that even the vote to dismiss is being delayed. Please vote there as soon as possible, because the community needs some kind of closure and to prolong the case further is a disservice to the many editors who have spent time preparing the case. I'm posting this to your talk page as you are a sitting arbitrator, and I will be doing similar on the others'. Thank you, --78.145.83.124 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dashes

I promise I'll learn to use the correct dashes soon. :) Thanks for fixing them when I stuff up. - Bilby (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it's all good. I made heaps of errors when I first started with FA processes and its the right thing to help people I think, especially if it makes people more confident and helps them get invovled. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mujahideen54

Hi Blnguyen -- is there any record regarding the Mujahideen54 (talk · contribs) case? Any checkuser case, any blocking template? You seem to have blocked RefuG (talk · contribs), but I didn't catch you documenting anything anywhere. I would be interested if there is any "main" account here. Regards, dab (𒁳) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well because I have checkuser I just did it myself without having a formal request lodged because I thought from the way Mujahideen54 was acting on talk pages he was a bad-hand account for stirring up debate on talk pages, or a banned user trying to cause distractions. And it came up with about 80 overlapped socks. I didn't notice yesterday, but one of the socks I found was Padan (talk · contribs) who was already blocked as a sock of RajivLal, and when I followed the SSP page it said that he was a sock a Thileep.... but looking at Thileep's old writeup, yeah, the IP range is definitely him. Mujaideen is Thileep. But I didn't tag all 80 of them because I thought it's a waste of time. But you can add {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} if you want. It took me about 45 minutes just to block all of those jokers...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. The pattern looked confusing for lack of a "main" account. I'm still not clear on which is the primary account chronologically, it appears to be Thileepanmathivanan though (first appeared in January). Of course you don't need to tag the throwaway accounts, but I might slap a few tags on those accounts which made some semblance of being bona fide editors. Cheers for your good work, dab (𒁳) 06:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Media

Yes I realised that. I was waiting for this weekend to revert them. We can divide the work so it gets done faster. Let me know, if that works with you. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap! you shouldn't have reverted... there were other changes I made there... You should have just deleted the category... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing. something similar is also the case with television channels. as in. It is an Indian television station as well as a member of Indian television. indian television stations is a member of Indian Televisions. will u be making those changes as well? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, television is a subset of media. I think because you have AWB, it is faster for you to order it to remove a supercat if it is already in the subcat. I don't have AWB. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ian Johnson.jpg

There has been a request for more detail on the source of this image at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Johnson (cricketer) if you can help. Thanks, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddles off to the library....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looking again, that pic doesn't have the exact date and it seems that I guessed the date from his looks :(..... Perhaps I should un-recuse myself from voting on Invincibles articles because it looks as though we'll be stuck here forever. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. I have found a (less than satisfactory) replacement as you can see. I probably need to chase up some more reviewers if it is going to progress one way or the other, but my Wikipedia mood at the moment is still pretty "meh". Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glueing in that family photo again, cropped, looks like the way to go. There's also a big pic of him in Mytery Spinner by Haigh. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of looking there. Got the picture, he is wearing a very natty hat! I will try and scan this afternoon/evening. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have it at the moment, the copy in my library can't be taken out of the library for scanning, can you scan some of the other pics there of Johnston and Iverson? Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to, of course. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Iverson&Friends.jpg. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and Image:Johnsonwithhat.jpg, Image:Johnstoninhat.jpg and Image:IversonPortrait.jpg. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Roman army

Late Roman army is currently nominated for A-class. Can you please comment on prose in this review. Thanks Wandalstouring (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the MOS issues. Please comment on the prose in the review in order to build consensus before editing. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is discussion needed to simply reword some statements to another form which has the same meaning? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the main author has a very difficult stance towards copyedits. He thinks his writing style is good. My suggestion is to point out what is not good first, achieve an agreement and edit afterwards. Here is one of his messages(the other "copyeditor", Dhatfield, acted on his own accord, I did not invite him)

So, I see the review is under way. It would have been nice if you had informed me of it. I also see that you've landed me with TWO copyeditors. Dhatfield has already started his edit with the Principate subsection. And accuracy is already suffering. e.g. my wording "ca. 30 legions, almost entirely infantry" has become just "30 legions of infantry", ignoring the fact that the number of legions varied and that they had cavalry arms. In fact, Dhatfield has decided to remove all the circa 's in favour of simple figures, even though most of these figures are approximative. He also lost the point that commoners could be elevated to equites, but not, normally, to senators directly. To be fair, not all the changes are bad: e.g. his listing of the offices of the two orders above one another is obviously easier to read. But the changes have been so minor that one wonders whether it is worth the hassle. And the other guy hasn't even started yet. But this time, I'm inclined to let the process run its course, if only to show you how pointless it is. After all, if the article does end up as an incoherent jumble, we can always revert to the original version. Vale 86.85.44.73 (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you understand now that if copyedits are needed, this is a rather difficlut case. That is exactly why I asked you to comment in the review. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's ok. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatic Music

The Carnatic Music page inaccurately -- and possibly insidiously, states that Sri Purandara Dasa ((1484 – 1564) "founded" Carnatic music. I have given handful of references, including books, peere reviewed academic journal articles in the discussion page that directly or indirectly (by establishing that Carantic Music -- including Raga/Tala/Improvisation/Technicalities, indeed existed much before 1400). Would you be kind enough to go through the references and verify it? If you find the references credible, it would be great if you could rewrite the "founder claim" appropraitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarion81 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've unlocked it so you can edit it because the argument seems to have died down by default. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report

Well I can answer some. I'm a coord. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, its available here - Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/WikiProject report. Rudget (logs) 09:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...are these questions supposed to be answered as a private citizen or as an official policy of MILHIST?? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm.. either? There's an example of a project report here if you wish to see how the 'interview' is conducted. Rudget (logs) 09:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam

It's gone bigger... —Dark ^talk 09:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preah Vihear Temple

Hi, many anons keep removing the nomenclature at Preah Vihear Temple (which gives the name in Thai as well as Khmer), apparently for pro-Cambodian nationalistic reasons. Is there a way to "soft protect" the article while the issue is in the news, from editing by such anons? I hate to do it, but it's been very hard to keep up with restoring the Thai when it keeps getting blanked again and again. Thanks, Badagnani (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article is currently linked in the main page section T:ITN so we don't lock it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna tour sections

I would like to get your opinion on another user, Alkclark (talk) who has been changing the Madonna tour sections; The Virgin Tour, Who's That Girl World Tour, Blond Ambition World Tour, The Girlie Show World Tour, Drowned World Tour, Re-Invention World Tour and Confessions Tour. This user has been restructuring the content with the history and details at the end of the article. I have been reverting it back to its old structure as I am going in accordance with Wikipedia:Style

I have mentioned to the user the details in accordance with the Style guide

It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so; for example, it is unacceptable to change from American to British spelling unless the article concerns a British topic. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable. If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style. When it is unclear whether an article has been stable, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

I have also contacted Ericorbit who agrees with the correct structure of having the History, details of the Show, then other information after that. I need your help as Alkclark (talk) is edit warring and believing he has ownership of this article. Please help! I need mediation! Alkclark is starting to use threatening behaviour which I would also like to report to you. JWAD (talk)

Hmm, I think Giggy (talk · contribs) is the man for music formats...Lots of FAs and GAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that Jwad's version is correct; general precedent in many articles (including outside of tour articles) is to have a history section first. —Giggy 08:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment campaign

There's been an user who's been harassing me for a month, trying to prevent some of my DYK noms by giving them tags he knows will prevent them from being accepted, as well as doing his best to give noms accepted that I said no to due to their negative bias against the source. This is getting tiresome. Which page should I report this nonsense to?--Bedford ^Pray 03:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more specific things that fiery incidents, you can use WP:ANI but for more longer term type things, WP:RFC/U is the place to go. Obviously if the DYK regulars-and I have been enjoying some downtime lately on that front-ignore this person's complaints, then that only leaves the issue of getting under your skin. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll see what happens, anmd if I need to complain, I know where to go. Thanks.--Bedford ^Pray 04:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had enough; he won't stop. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doncram‎ was the only way to go, as he's trying to get me for 3RR, while doing nothign constructive to help Wikipedia.--Bedford ^Pray 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview

Sure. Thanks for the link. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Sir, an abusive IP has been vandalising all most all the Karnataka FA articles in addition to leaving abusive messages on talk pages (talk:Chalukya Dynasty]]. If it continues, please consider softlocking these articles. I am still travelling and will be back in a week on active duty. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I already blcoked him. Take it easy and enjoy your trip. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm

Given you're a plagiarized cricket pundit, I hesitate to demur, but... since when were averages calculated per dismissal? Incidentally, I was also surprised to see so much made in that same article about "inflated" averages that include not outs... But batsmen should not only make runs; they should also endeavour not to get out. Nothing "inflated" about that. What say you? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batting_average#Cricket - this should explain nicely. If a guy makes 10 in his first innings and then 10 not out in the next innings and then he retires, then he has an average of 20. If it was simply "per innings" then it would be 10. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Triple Crown

Hello my friend, I found the concept of the 3-Crown interesting. I asked User talk:Durova, but nothing. You know, I looked over your User page two days ago and I can honestly say that I am amazed and impressed at all of your contrbutions to Wikipedia. I told myself, "WOW! I knew that Blnguyen was outstanding, but I did not have an idea that you were that outstanding". If there were only more people like you here. Take care Tony the Marine (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the useful links you gave me earlier. They helped me with adding images and such. I see that you're in WikiProject Physics, so are you a physics student/professor? Eistube (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing War

Hey Binguyen long time since I've heard from you and congrats on your position. I have been busy for some time and just recently checked in on formwer articles. I seem to be in an editing war on the Tet Offensive article. Nothing major, but I cannot seem to convince my opposition that the titles Republic of Vietnam, Democratic Republic of Vietnam, or National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam should be mentioned at least once in the article before they are replaced by South and North Vietnam and Vietcong. Could you please check it out? Maybe I'm just being defensive of the article, but I seem to be bothered that the common usage umbrella is just another phase of dumbing down to the lowest common denominator that I have run into elsewhere in Wiki. Would appreciate any assistance.RM Gillespie (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll have a look. I hope to see in full flight against soon. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous POV

Hi I've just been browsing through the Hindustani and Carnatic singers and the POV is absolutely diabolical. Almost every article has little encyclopedic value but rather say what a great singer and success they were and how super fast they were. PLease can you look into it and sort some of them out. It is quite embarrasing to read some of them. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that most Indian admins don't bother getting reverting bad edits and just write their own collection of articles, this isn't surprising. Secondly, given that some folks don't even care when drive-by anons make random pov/spam/commentary edits to *their own* FAs that *they wrote* and you won't be surprised. A lot of the "lists of.." are stacked with random business cards for doctors and most geography articles have likewise descended into lists of businesses, school and perosnal service adverts... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shame isn't it. I know there are a huge number of Indian articles but they are still articles nonetheless. SOme people don't get the idea of wikipedia and that it is not here to reflect who people think are great. Over half of those singer articles should be deleted and started again, but I;d imagine anons will continue with their POV and making it look like a fan site ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S please can you check the accuracy that the Auto Expo is Asia largest or second largest auto show. The FA Delhi says it is the largest yet the auto expo artixle says the second largest. Both are referenced so one of them is clearly inaccurate, Could you address this. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the link in the Auto Expo article doesn't have anything about the motor show, so it's probably wrong. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

biography?

would you care to tell us all about yourself? or are you happy to hide behind editing various entries? would love to hear from you but think you are too afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthreader (talk • contribs) 06:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a member of any political party. Has never voted for the coalition. I guess you're a greens supporter or a university student leader eh? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself and not for Blnguyen there are excellent reasons for retaining pseudonymity on wikipedia if you are a very active user and fearless administrator. In the end it does not matter what you say about yourself on the internet unless it is verified by reliably published sources. On wikipedia we are merely the sum of our edits - that is our identity. Claims of anything else are treated with suspicion, and have in the past been found to be false. Our wikipedian reputation is based on our editing history. Because we take on sometimes difficult issues and deal with people that are not always rational editors, our pseudonymity gives us some protection. --Matilda ^talk 06:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram

Hi User:Blnguyen! Thank you for blocking Ideogram’s sock Slashem. There is no doubt that Slashem is his sock based on contribution (he also uses the name Slashem on IRC). However, his main account’s 1 year ban is set to expire in 2 weeks (August 15th). Given that he is gaming the system, effectively evading his ban, and showing a lack of respect for wikipedia policy, a complete siteban would be appropriate on his main account as well or at the very least the 1 year ban should be restarted. Note that he also edits with his IP address (User:66.234.217.151) Thank you--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Jehochman has done it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Jehochman has not. He did list Ideogram under banned user list[2], but he has yet to unblock then reblock Ideogram for a period of 1 year (The original 1-year community ban is set to expire on August 15th). I'm confused by his reluctance to reset the ban. Ideogram/Slashem's IP address User:66.234.217.151 is also guilty of ban-evasion and in my opinion, should be blocked for 1 year as well to avoid future violations.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remind Jehochman that he wrote a message authorising the new ban but that he forgot to "press the button"? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. But his reasoning didn't make any sense at all. He said Blocks are one thing, bans are another. If his block expires and he starts editing, we can deal with it. I'd actually like that because it would give us something to checkuser against in case he tries socking. Right now we don't have any fresh edits to compare potential socks against. Further, if he happens to return and is constructive, we can get rid of the ban. Bans are not punitive; they protect against disruption I think he is misinterpreting the idea of ban.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will increase the block, since there seems to be a mini-consensus for that. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson and Miller

Very interested in whatever you have on the Miller–Johnson rivalry. I wonder how much of the rivalry was due to their military careers; one a pilot in the European war, the other in the South West Pacific .... Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XXIX (July 2008)

Project news

The criteria for Military history A-Class reviews have been overhauled. The new standard is deliberately set higher than before, and is much closer to featured article quality. The new criteria are:

A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.

The timescale for A-Class articles has also been changed to give more editors an opportunity to participate.
The six-monthly Coordinators' election has been moved back a month to avoid clashes with the holiday period. The sign-up period will run from 1–15 September and the elections themselves from 16–30 September.
The military land vehicles task force has been created.

Articles of note

New featured articles:

New featured portals:

Portal:World War II

New A-Class articles:

Current proposals and discussions

Input wanted from people who didn't participate in Tag & Assess '08. Please comment at the Tag & Assess workshop so we can improve future drives.

Awards and honors

The Contest department has completed its sixteenth month of competition, which saw 22 entries. The top scorer this month is new entrant Bellhalla with 41 points, followed by Blnguyen with 33 points. Cam, Ed!, David Underdown, and Ferbess also fielded entries. Blnguyen remains the overall leader, with 226 points in total. The Chevrons go to Bellhalla and Blnguyen gets the Writer's Barnstar. You are encouraged to submit any articles you are working on as entries.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]