Jump to content

User talk:YellowMonkey

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by YellowMonkey (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 2 February 2007 (mumble). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Blnguyen/CWC Advert User:Blnguyen/Recent


FOR ANONS, I WILL DEFINITELY REPLY HERE. FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS MAY BE HERE OR AT YOUR TALK PAGE. IF IT IS A MULTI-PARTY DISCUSSION, THEN DEFINITELY HERE

Blnguyen is very happy, humbled, honoured to have received such levels of support and endorsing comments for the Arbitration Committee. He is looking forward to serving the community to achieve its goals of making decisions which further the encyclopedia. He is also relieved after the turbulent and rocky ride of the election period. He is first and foremost an editor at heart and also intends to continue his work as a humble editor! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archives  

Ian thorpe

Any news? Have you made up your mind? any input from anyone else? Karacult 09:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Sarah Hanson-Young page

Hi Blnguyen,

I am writing to ask that you reconsider your 'delete & protect' on the entry for Sarah Hanson-Young (Senate candidate for Greens SA) on 23 Oct 2006. She seems no less worthy (in fact, she is probably more worthy) of entry in Wikipedia than the many other candidates in Australian elections (see e.g. those listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_of_the_South_Australian_legislative_election,_2006).

Unlike many of these people, Sarah has been a prominent community activist for many years. I knew of her when she was involved in pro-refugee causes and, when I heard she had been preselected for the Greens, I went to Wikipedia to find out more. I was dismayed to discover that, as a consequence of your actions, she did not have a page. I understand that Wikipedia has a policy against 'speculative' entries but I put it to you that her prior activities, and the fact of her candidature, are more than enough to warrant an entry.

I also note that the 'deleted and protected' entry for Sarah is now the top-ranking entry for her name on Google. This suggests to me that there is interest in reading a Wikipedia entry about her, that is currently being prevented by your actions.


Could I ask that you lift your 'delete and protect' on her page? I am currently living overseas and have no personal interest in this matter, except that I rely on Wikipedia as an information source.

Thanks, JS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.130.213 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It was deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young. The only reason I deleted it again, was because it was reposted. If you want to reverse the decision, please see WP:DRV. The reason that the people on the page you cite have articles, is because they are elected. SH-Y is a failed candidate, and has been agreed by other users that she is not at the moment entitled to an article. I am fully aware of her activities, especially outside Baxter Detention Centre, and the asylum seekers running away as well, as I attended the same university and was also canvassed by her for a vote a few years ago. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Blnguyen, thanks for your reply and the links. I really didn't want to get dragged into this, but your arguments are factually incorrect on several points so I feel obligated to. In particular,

(1) Numerous failed candidates from the SA 2006 state election have bios - that is why I referred you to the link. See Amanda Rishworth, Rosemary Clancy, or Peter Gandolfi, to name just 3. So being a failed candidate does indeed seem to entitle you to an article. Moreover, these people have done far less than Sarah has outside of being party candidates.

Those ones got through the net. I am willing to nominate them for deletion, as it is clear that those that are nominated, are routinely deleted in a decisive verdict. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Being a prominent community activist is, separately, a legitimate reason for being listed in wikipedia. Check out the bios for Ian Rintoul, Juanita Wheeler, or Felix Eldridge, to name just 3. Of course, you could spend your days going through wikipedia and deleting these people as well. Alternatively you could recognise that different communities use wikipedia to document their stories and histories, and that this is one of the things that makes wikipedia so valuable.

That is true, as Felix Eldridge has survived one AfD. However, these are grey cases, and SHY did not pass her AfD. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For both these reasons the "NN" rule does not apply. Consequently the whole argument about "crystal ball gazing" does not apply in this case, because Sarah is entitled to an article on the basis of her community activism and status as a candidate, not only as a prospective electee.

Furthermore, your electoral analysis on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young is factually incorrect. Political parties do not need a 14% primary vote to be elected to the Senate - they need 14% after preferences. The 2004 Family First candidate in Victoria was elected with about 2% primary vote. So the electoral situation of the Greens in no way justifies the deletion of the article. Similarly, your argument for including Andrea Mason and excluding Sarah is purely arbitrary and stands open to allegations of bias.

Moreover, and I say this respectfully, it really concerns me that (a) you have backed up your actions with spurious electoral analysis despite having an understanding of the Australian political and electoral systems that is incorrect on fundamental points, (b) you have done so little research to ensure that your deletion is consistent with the treatment of bios of people in analogous positions, and (c) you yourself admit to having a personal knowledge of Sarah, which surely should disqualify you from involvement in this case on the basis that you are not an impartial arbitrator. Your comments above, linking Sarah to the escape of refugees from detention, clearly suggests a bias against her.

I don't want to have to take this to a formal undeletion review because (a) I am busy and don't have enough of a personal involvement to engage in endless argument, and (b) it would unavoidably involve public criticism of you, which I have no particular desire to do. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that it is within your power to reverse the deletion yourself. I am asking you to do this. If you are not, I would appreciate it if you could tell me exactly how to initiate an undeletion review.

Sincerely, JS

I'm aware that you don't need 14% primary votes to get into the senate at all, but the preference system is quite complicated and I didn't go to the length of putting a convoluted argument there for people not acquainted with Australia's electoral system. The comparison to Steve Fielding's 2% is irrelevant, since he was elected, and continues to generate considerable media coverage as a sitting senator, while, SHY does not get a comparable amount of publicity. While it's true that Fielding had a lot of luck and on electoral merit is less notable, as a sitting senator, he is far more notable. I'm confident that the community was not fleeced, since the majority of the commenters are Australian and some are involved in politics themselves. User:Cyberjunkie "cj" is an activist at Flinders, User:Roisterer used to be a NUS office bearer, Lankiveil, Andjam, are all Australians. The only people who wanted to keep, Rebecca (is a student activist) and Zzymurgy is involved with the Greens, so the people who have kept have involvement, moreso than myself, I am simply a random student not involved or having a stake in politics at all, aside from being canvassed for a vote. I do not have a conflict of interest. All those things aside, it was not my decision to delete the article : CSCWEM closed the debate as a delete, as the nominator, I cannot adjudicate the verdict. I only deleted the second time because an article had been reposted after a group consensus to delete (see WP:CSD G4 ??) about deleting reposted content. My delete was not dependent on any judgment except that it was to enforce the removal of something which was sanctioned by somebody else, in this case, CSCWEM. So I cannot undelete it myself, since it was the community verdict to delete the article. You would have to go to WP:DRV and start an entry for SHY. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket World Cup

blgnguyen can you please do the best to fix those you metioned? I have already addressed the critisims and so im asking you please do a copyedit or get a user who's good at it to do so, also please provide better source if you can. thanks for taking care of it--Thugchildz

Well, I don't fancy my copyediting skills much, so if you revert me, I'll assume my edits were rubbish and won't revert them back. Having said that, I might not bother if I keep on getting reverted, because I don't think I'm contributing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please comment on it's FAC. — NOBLEEAGLE [TALK] [C] 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, I will try to polish it a little first. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.

I am really sorry about that. I was just goofing around. I never meant to press enter sorry! It won't happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shanak9 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, i am ading an external link of Abhishek bachchans wedding in his page,I can't add this link in sharuk khan's page.So guide me a place to put news and coments about Abhishek bachchans wedding, Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bbsnetting (talk • contribs) 05:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

1.I add an External link which is dedicated to Abhishek's wedding. 2.If this is not a proper place to add a link in his page,where to put? So,guide me.If you are a real gentleman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bbsnetting (talk • contribs) 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It unfortunately doesn't meet the inclusion criteria. WP:EL. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, www.aishwarya-wedding.com which is dedicated only for the wedding between Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan.Already there are plenty fans coming and visiting this site. You worte this is not a good site for Wiki ok,what about this link you are givig as good external link in wiki this page disgrace my favourite actor with his past life and there is no mention of his current engagement with aishwarya rai. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0045393/ (this have ONLY 6 advts)

i still belive my web www.aishwarya-wedding.com is 100% better than this web and deserve a place here. If you can point any bad thing that disgracing both Aish and Abhi ,i will remove it from the page,for the other fans to get good view.Don't simply say,this don't meet that. rgds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbsnetting (talk • contribs)

Well, it seems that about four other users disagree, not just me, I think Talk:Abhishek Bachchan is an appropriate venue for everybody to discuss. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XanGo

I've reverted your revert at XanGo. If you see the need to revert again please comment at Talk:XanGo#MLS Sponsorship. - Aagtbdfoua 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted because of a banned user. Apart from that, I don't mind. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hi, I've started a RfC Talk:India#Request_for_Comment:_Adding_new_material_to_the_India_page_history_section. Any comments and feedback, at your convenience, will be welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devadasi

Hi. I noticed you protected the devadasi article awhile back. The edit conflict there was due to one editor, User:Rumpelstiltskin223, objecting to information from reliable sources. I believe this is a case of a lone POV editor, if you consider his posts on my talk page and elsewhere, where he reveals a very strong and extreme POV regarding devadasi as well as Western sources. He claimed that my sources were about "killing Hindus" and other nonsense. He also clashed with User:Lemongoat earlier over the issue. Even Indian sources do not appease him. Currently, he blocked for abuses elsewhere.

With this in mind, I would like devadasi to be unprotected, as User:Lemongoat and I have decided to work on this together. I will first reinstate my version, and he will tweak my sources and coverage of them to fit mainstream Indian sensibilities. I hope that this can work out and produce a version that gives due weight without distorting the issue or offending mainstream Indians. The Behnam 06:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see what happens. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

Just to let you know, I've made a couple of update edits to my editor review page since you kindly posted there. --Dweller 13:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Party Leader tables on NSW election page

Hi , I was hoping you might be able to offer your opinion for the MPL issue on this page or this page. Cheers. Timeshift 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear ArbComm Member of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University;

This note is to bring to your attention two issues which are creating upheaval in the article located here [1]and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee."[2]. This request is based on enforcement or remedies stated in the arbitration process and failure to follow up on it.

1) An article-banned user [3] orchestrated a come back through proxy IPs from Japan and then through an account "Some people" which has been blocked twice. The problem with this is that this user had modified the entire article in less than 12 hours on January 28 2007. This user partner, TalkAbout; acted in synchrony with 244 on that night and made some changes as well using "Some people" new version. User Andries had a minor edit of that version as well.

Request to investigate user Some people [4] Analysis of situation [5] Suspicion of sockpuppet account [6] Blocks to user Some people for "a reincarnation of the editor who formerly posted from the IP address 195.82.106.244"( As admin Thatcher put it) [7]

2) The only admin we've dealing with is Thatcher131. I would like to bring to your attention what I consider to be "lack of neutrality" and fairness from his/her part. Even though, user "Some people" was blocked by Thatcher131 under a strong suspicion of him being user 244 (banned by the ArbComm for a year) Thatcher131 supported the new version of the page which are the versions of a banned user.[8] A request for enforcement of arbitration has been submitted long time ago before user 195.82.106.244 (aka 244) made several changes through his sockpuppet account "Some people" [9] but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 [10] and then User TalkAbout added some content and at that point, that was considered the new "good version" of the article.

I would like to request the following: 1) the article to be reverted to a state before "Some people" took over. 2) To change the "admin in charge", Thatcher131 to someone who is not emotionally involved in this issue (Thatcher131 was the clerk in the arbitration case and helped user 195.82.106.244 to file the case and presented some evidence against me but not against 244[11])and that could enforce normal wikipedia procedures are taking place. I appreciate your time and prompt consideration on this.

Truly Yours, avyakt7 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Fred Bauder [12]. Thatcher131 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on same user Talk page [13] Thank you. avyakt7 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Empire

Thanks. This one took longer, but was worth it.Dineshkannambadi 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG

Saw the Sunbury vandalism. I think someone had far too much time! Orderinchaos78 01:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig von Beethoven

Seeing that it is so heavily vandalized recently, may you please semi-protect the page? bibliomaniac15 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T:ITNT

Major dispute? I don't think so, but... okay... care to chime in? -- tariqabjotu 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, okay. That wasn't there when the article was originally put on ITN. That's fine then. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed ITN item

I didn't mean Haizum's complaint about the blurb, else I would have simply rephrased it. It was because the article is tagged {{TotallyDisputed}}. Usually DYK or ITN items with "red alert" tags like "cleanup" "no sources" "pov" and "factually innacurate" etc, are not allowed on the main page. That was my reasoning, the actual article. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I self-reverted when I saw your explanation on the talk page. Sorry about that. —David Levy 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making policy...

I think this is my first attempt at helping make policy and I'd appreciate a careful eye cast on my stumbling efforts. Please will you take a peek at WT:BIO and chime in? --Dweller 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I think you are doing fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for locking Belgaum

Thank you for locking article and suppressing truth! Even if wikipedia says Belgaum is Belgavi, reality doesnt change. Indian newspapers/media dont call that city by that name. Great groupism and elitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.20.87 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I know it is you Sarvabhaum. You are blocked. Evading the block will get a longer block and people are allowed to revert sockpuppet edits without limit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing to do with the article content, it is about you evading the block. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!This shows how ignorants you people are! Imagine we have at least five computers accessible to us and my college has 625 students!! So anyone who does dare to write anything against ur pampered friends u will label it as me. BTW still no explanation about why Kannada script precede Marathi? And what's belgavi!! Dear its non-existent. Also I have citations for other pages also! I mean feel some shame,the way ur end User:Sarvabhaum

You are again evading the block Sarvabhaum, and with this IP you are again reverting all the Kannada empire pages. That's another month -> 4 months. We know it isn't a shared IP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey&oldid=104967652"