User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive55

-Yes, this is my issue, I want to start a dialogue of two professional people that are members of wikipedia. You have been a contributer to wikipedia and I can see have alot of time on your hands to volunteer on wikipedia and recived awards.

-I have been a member here befor you as you can see from my records http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bnguyen&action=history

-My name is Brandon Nguyen and I am a proud Vietnamese-American and proud of my heritage, if you are as well a Vietnamese American that is fine that you would like to use Nguyen but can we come to a professional dialogue and agreement to extend your name your first name such as Bobby_Nguyen or etc.

-This issue yes, it is mine and I do not want other people contacting me, I want to converse to you on this issue.

-This is a new day and new way of talking about this professionally and I am not demeaning you, only want to talk about the issue at hand of my name is Bnguyen. Thank you for your assistance. Bnguyen 11:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you were a member before I was. I use this name because my real name is the first thing that springs to mind, however, I am not willing to disclose my full name to almost everybody. Since you are already publishing your full name on your userpage, it would be more convenient if you changed your username to your full name. WP:CHU is the place to do this. You may not be aware, but this function allows your name to be changed, but your edits are transferred to your new name, so that you do not "abandon" your account or "lose credit" for your contributions. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping by to add a comment: I have met Blnguyen in real life, and I can confirm that his Wikipedia username represents his real life name accurately. Just for the record, Daniel 07:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not have noticed, Arrow740 (talk · contribs) thinks I'm biased against him and people who agree with his opinions on Islam. Since you responded to a 3RR involving Itaqallah (where I did not block, and you later blocked) as well as a more recent report involving Dashes (where I asked a question, and you blocked), I'm curious whether you agree with Arrow (insofar as you believe I am biased against him and others with his opinion). I personally don't think I consciously am (especially because I was not aware of Arrow's opinions of Islam until very recently), but I'm afraid, based on your responses to both reports and the fact that Arrow's surprise, surprise comment preceded your response to Dashes, that you're starting to concur with him. -- tariqabjotu 04:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honeset I haven't really looked into any of the deeper issues of this matter. I have simply looked at the 3RR reports on the noticeboard where they have occurred and counted from one to four and identifying the reverts. I haven't looked at any patterns of bias at all yet. To be honest, I've already spent by religious battle quota researching Hkelkar_2 and haven't gotten to any articles yet.....:(...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take back my previous comment, as it was a hopelessly silly question. Why do I need to defend myself against accusations of bias when at some point here, you're going to have to admit this all looks suspicious. I'm not saying you're biased (no, I'm not even being facetious about that; I don't think you are), but an outsider looking in would have to suspect that Arrow has been influencing some of your actions, perhaps even requesting your assistance by e-mail. I understand overturning the actions of an admin without consultation is done, but the overturning of the actions of four admins (me, Tom harrison (talk · contribs), Evilclown93 (talk · contribs), and After Midnight (talk · contribs)) on four different occasions in such a short period of time is quite odd. Add to that the fact that your first Wikipedia action in over sixty hours was unblocking an editor w/o an (unanswered) unblock template on his talk page. Then there's the block against Aminz (borrowing your words... use[r] did not edit war more than anyone else on that page) that, from this vantage point, appears excessive and punitive, given the problem article is protected. Yes, you're a popular and good guy nonetheless, but I just have to be upfront about this. Are we not doing our jobs well enough? Are we failing to be even-handed? If so, please explain (no facetiousness again), because I would hate to have every action of mine related to Islam nitpicked and overturned quietly, with other users using such actions to conjure up frivolous complaints about my conduct. Sigh... sorry if this sounded rantish, but I'm insulted in so many ways. By Arrow and Karl's comments. By the way in which said comments are justified by an unblock. By the way so many admin actions have been overturned recently. By the appearance of impropriety and off-wiki contact. But perhaps most importantly by the fact that I'm questioned for actions made in good-faith based on the fact that Muslim appeared on my page at one point, while no one gives a damn about your similar good-faith actions. -- tariqabjotu 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom harrison did not say that Aminz should not be blocked, he didn't get involved other than protecting the page. Something that I noticed when After Midnight didn't unblock me is that User:TheFearow had already noted that tariqabjotu's block was invalid here. After Midnight has expressed some negative sentiments towards TheFearow, see [1], [2], and [3]. I changed my mind [4] about bringing up tariqabjotu's behavior on my talk page or in another forum after the recent events - I removed my comments and haven't brought it up since. Now that he has initiated this, I must say that it is hypocritical for the person who actually has been choosing to use or not to use his tools for reasons outside of policy to accuse someone who actually follows the policy of wrong-doing. Arrow740 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly a CU has informed me that it is none other than His excellency.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it may look rather suspicious, but I feel that none of my blocks are inconsistent with my blocking philosophy. While some admins have different philosophies quite clearly about blocking, I think that I have been self-consistent. I haven't blocked anybody in living memory (or at least recent times) for anything less than 3RR on these religion or ethnic pages. Simply put, I don't tend to do discretionary blocks at all on religion or ethnic pages, since it is quite difficult to expect idealistic peace on those articles (I haven't done a block for <3R on these pages in any long memory, and I wouldn't do so unless there was some guy(s) who was heavily outnumbered but just did their three reverts per day anyway against obvious consensus) -- unlike articles about sport or music or what have, people have been killed etc in religious/ethnic conflict so people would have strong views about them, so even when some sport or music article is 10X more POV/weaselly, there will likely by 10X more reverting on the religion and ethnic pages. So I have tended not to do discretion blocks on people in these cases, and if ever, I think it's preferable to use ANI and wait for a strong consensus to block if some guy just reverts on a regular basis with their "quota". I do not tend to follow AN3 particularly closely, since most of the reports there are quite moribund and routine, but when I saw the same high profile religious pages and the same high profile established religious editors report each other more frequently (just from the watchlist edit summaries), I went to see what all the drama was. That's how I saw the Itaqallah report, and since there was a big argument about counting reverts, I counted them and saw for myself (4 reverts) what all this was about. Since you later noted that you did see the reverts, I think that one was resolved. Since then I saw more reverting and reporting going in my watchlist. I actually have Islam and Muhammad on my watchlist - I have reverted vandalism on them a few times, but I'm pretty sure the intensification leading up to the FA date was real and not simply my perception. When I came back after the weekend, I traversed ANI and saw a big argument about clashes on the Islam page and saw that there was another complaint about some allegations of 3RRV on the article. Since Arrow740 had not violated 3RR and Dashes did (not sure if it is declared or not, but in response to the HE sock, I don't know that Dashes is a declared Muslim) I undid Arrow's block and put one on Dashes. I also noted that since many other guys also did three reverts it would be unfair to have Arrow barred from editing.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onto today's debate on AN3, Aminz noted on the report that did three reverts and the fourth that he wanted to claim amnesty was a website of a professor. So that's how I got the four reverts. The other thing as I noted was that after putting three reverts while the article was on the main page, he went and stuck tags on the page and then put commentary on the page which looks cynical and unprofessional, which combined with his previous history of violating 3RR multiple times, is not good. In today's case, I do believe that he did revert more than the other users, he went past 3 reverts, and considering that he had a day off from the computer on July 2, he seems to have done seven reverts in two wiki-days and also the other edits which seem to be loopholing. I am fine with your performance as and administrator....since you and Evilclown seemed a bit puzzled by the amount of reverts on the page and couldn't recognise the edits, I was willing to do it. Also, Arrow hasn't emailed me to ask me to cut down and Muslim editors (or anyone else for that matter), but I don't mind you bringing that up. As for me being popular, I don't think so....unfortunately....but I don't mind either..... I should spend more time schmoozing instead of updating the main page... article writers on DYK aren't very sociable.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comprehensive analysis of what needed to be done to achieve GA status. A team of us have been busy implementing or providing responses to these points, and we'd be interested to see what you think of the improvement. The three key points that are most likely to require scrutiny are:

• Is the lead reasonable now? It's certainly less statistical, but has this been over-edited to the extent that it's now too short?
• What are your thoughts on the karting section (see talk)
• Alternative sources have been found for a source that you questioned the reliability of, but the source itself is still being used in the article, to a far lesser extent. (see talk)

Again many thanks for your contribution to the article and to wikipedia in general. BeL1EveR 18:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've checked back in again. It's going well :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for passing Hamilton. Apologies if some of my comments were a bit stroppy! 4u1e 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You need to edit articles about religious and ethnic conflict then......User:Blnguyen/J'accuse. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or evolution/creationism. No thanks: Michael Schumacher and you know who provided me with quite enough conflict for a couple of years. ;-) 4u1e 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phan Quang Dan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On July 2, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle for Saigon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done my dear sir. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thankyou.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it, Nishkid64 moved it to the loading zone. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nguyen Ngoc Tho, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blnguyen. I was happy to add myself as a DYK admin. I'm looking forward to diving into the DYK backlogs. I've been working on improving the usability of the results from the "Good" DYK articles proposed by bot list. If the backlog is increasing, then my efforts are working! More often than not, my post is the only positive post on their talk page. The other posts usually are 'We're going to delete this image you uploaded', 'Stop doing xxx', 'I'm going to report you', etc. As you can see from my talk page, contributors are very happy to learn that someone thinks their article is Main Page material. It also seems a very good way to promote DYK so that they keep it in mind for their next article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, that's very true...we need to reach out to the new article writers as well. Well done, but perhaps the 10-20 session is a bit busy? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please comment on the latter half of the discussion at Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen. I am furious out of my skin and desperately concerned that given the attitude of these guys the Miss Teen USA state articles are going to be next on their radar. PageantUpdater 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider leniency on his block? As I pointed out on the 3RR report I think reverts 1 and 2 could be logically counted as one, since the second was unrelated and was separated from the first only by an edit of mine. Also, he's been discussing the issue with me on my talk page civilly. - Merzbow 04:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps...what do the other editors of the page think of that? Because Aminz also noted on the report that did three reverts and the fourth that he wanted to claim amnesty was a website of a professor. So that's how I got the four reverts. The other thing as I noted was that after putting three reverts while the article was on the main page, he went and stuck tags on the page and then put commentary on the page which looks very cynical, which combined with his previous history of violating 3RR, is not good. I don't tend to do discretionary blocks at all on religion or ethnic pages, since it is quite difficult to expect idealistic peace on those articles (I haven't done a block for <3R on these pages in any long memory, and I wouldn't do so unless there was some guy(s) who was heavily outnumbered but just did their three reverts anyway), but to do three per day and then do a fourth every now and then isn't very good. Especially with four or five articles times where he not only rode the line but crossed it clearly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, he has violated 3RR after edit-warring and defacing the article when it was on the main page. So he deserves the block. Further, he has blatantly misrepresented sources recently, which is a cardinal sin around here. In this series of edits, Aminz added a line which blatantly contradicts the very sources he is citing. See Talk:Aisha#Puberty for the unpleasant details. Fortunately proabivouac and I caught it. I was wondering what to do about that. Arrow740 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsing the block. Disclaimer: I was among those who conflicted with Aminz. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will consider unblocking, or reducing the length. There has been a certain amount of brinkmanship, but everyone involved is working in good faith to improve the page. The preventative effect of blocking has been achieved, and further improvements in the editing environment will probably come through negotiation on the talk page, with recognition that the article went through a review process to get to featured status. Maybe some agreed-upon limitation on reverts would be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll look into it. Of course a peace deal on the reverts would be good as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be the first to say that itaqallah, Tigeroo, and ALM have been improving the general environment in the last couple days. Aminz, however, has gotten worse, and the violation of 3RR is part of that. Arrow740 19:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this block. Aminz's five previous blocks for edit warring did nothing to change his behavior. In the last couple of months, Aminz was not blocked at least twice after clearly violating 3RR. This time, he should not be let off hook. Blnguyen made a courageous decision; let's commend him for that. Beit Or 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only really edited the page when it was featured on the Main page, and only to maintain the consensus version that was promoted to FA. I put work into FA Jerusalem (which, while a hot-topic, did not have this problem), and I can't say that I would really be able to understand how a user who had taken part in consensus-building could still make controversial, unilateral edits that fly in the face of that consensus. I find the idea to be disrespectful to my fellow editors, and disruptive of the processes that allow us to build an encyclopaedia. I endorse your block, not because of any ill will to Aminz, but because I just have no ideas as to how else we could respond to this. Tewfik^Talk 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your update. Taprobanus 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pitiful stub at Chelsea korka, which I tried to move to Chelsea Korka only to find that it was protected. I know this page has been speedily deleted a few times, but this is a real person, and if she's ever going to have an article it should be under the right capitalisation of her name. (I suspect it'll never be much more thatn a stub though). What's the best way forward? pablo_|\talk 21:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it's been deleted again, which is unsurprising so please ignore the above. pablo_|\talk 23:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue XVI (June 2007)
Project news The contest department has completed another month of competition. The leader for this month, with 16 points, is Kevin Myers; Carom and Cla68 tied for second place with 10 points each. Kevin is also the overall leader, with 36 points in total. All project members are encouraged to submit the articles they're working on as entries. Work has begun on a publication about the military history of Athens. A number of new subject-area contacts have been approved; we are looking for more capable editors to join this program. A brief history of the project has been compiled.		Current proposals and discussions A proposal to standardize the layout of navigational templates is being discussed. Several category reorganization and renaming proposals have been made; comments are welcome!
Articles of note New featured articles: AHS Centaur Battle of Cape Esperance USS New Jersey (BB-62) New A-Class articles: Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope Battle of Arras (1917) Battle of Red Cliffs Ironclad warship Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident Victoria Cross	Awards and honors Noclador has been awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of his outstanding work on structural graphics for land-based forces worldwide, his contributions to the Alpini and other regiments, and all his other military graphics.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, My name is Ravi. I am a new Wikipedian. My nickname is ‘Sam’. I made few changes in articles like Purdue University and Indiana as an anonymous user. My e-mail address is Ravi-141@hotmail.com. User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator. On 9 June 2007, My friend User:Devraj5000 was introducing me to the policies of the Wikipedia. Devraj5000 accidentally violated 3RR. User:Hemlock Martinus, who is an administrator blocked Devraj5000 for 24 hours. Then, Devraj5000 asked me to create an account. I created an account User:R-1441 and I made some comments on the behalf of Devraj5000. Then, Devraj5000 left the computer. After that, User:Hemlock Martinus accused Devraj5000 of sockpuppetry and blocked him for a week. He also blocked IP address: 202.52.234.194 and User:R-1441. Sir, User:R-1441 is my account. I created this new account because User:Hemlock Martinus blocked my account without informing me. It is totally wrong for an administrator to block so many people from editing. User:Hemlock Martinus is an arrogant human being and he is abusing his power as an administrator. He should be blocked from the Wikipedia. Thank you. Ravi. RaviJames 07:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been put on many editor's pages. User talk:Charles Matthews#User:Hemlock Martinus is abusing his power as an administrator. ahs a couple of responses. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 08:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with this article? User:Helloarise has requested page protection due to a "content dispute and edit war". What's with the move from E. V. Ramasami Naicker to Periyar and then back? Seems like something ought to be done here but I'm hesitant to come clomping in like an elephant when there are already two admins editing here. I don't have any knowledge in this area so I'm sure to make the wrong decision if I try to understand the content dispute. Let me know if User:Helloarise has a valid case here. Thanks.

--Richard 14:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. But there was sequence of page moves to a whole pile of different spellings, and somewhere along the chain, the talk page got detached from the article and it got confusing. But the talk and article are together now. Not sure about the article, I haven't looked at it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Huynh Phu So, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rod Marsh, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion that when I get the buttons I could replace you!

Really, I've only been contributing to DYK so much lately because I've gotten the material to contribute (there's another one, Moffat Library, in the offing.).

As it happens, I completely slept through Moodna Creek's spin on the Main Page, the first time that's ever happened. However, one anon did put in the original Dutch word for "murderers"[5], which I had really wanted but couldn't find. Daniel Case 14:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blnguyen. I have just noticed your extensive question on my RfB. I find it very pertinent, and I will require some time to write a detailed answer. Would you mind if I answer to it tomorrow? It's 4:22am where I am, I'm starting to feel a bit drowsy and will be off to bed in half an hour or so... :-/ Regards, Húsönd 03:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same question on another RFB. Has this actually happened before? The recent case of Pedro allegedly benefiting from an RFA clique springs to mind.--Chaser - T 05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definitely. I prefer not to name names (so to incriminate the users I consider not up to scratch), but there was one candidate last year who had 2 stubs and only 1000 mainspace edits (mostly machine popup edits which can do 100+ per hour) and the person in question got close to triple figure support and passed almost unopposed despite not having a single XfD edit and only about 200 WP edits which were related to work. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Agathoclea for a not so lucky person but perhaps because I rebutted one of the opposers that stemmed the tide. Just on the people I nominated, User:Blnguyen/RfA, I felt that Edgar with about 150 start class articles and 300+ diagrams and Melchoir with his FAs were the strongest but got hardly any votes. You can get a ton of votes from being popular on IRC etc. I was also going to nominate BigHaz (User:Blnguyen/RfA/scribble) but he selfnommed when I was away. He wrote about 600+ start class articles on all the Eurovision songs (he's up to P in the alphabet I think) and the notes I had showed him to be a very skillful and analytical AfD debater but he barely got 50 votes. I can think of one person who was only here 2 months and got a lot of IRC votes and scraped home whereas any other user with 2 months would have failed...and this person only had about 1000 article edits and no articles. I don't want to name people but I can think of one candidate who had maybe 5-10 opposes citing bad English [who never used that reason], even though the candidate had written and successfully copeydited FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your question on my RfB. My reply was rather lengthy, but I don't believe I repeated myself that much so the length was probably necessary. --Deskana (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also responded now. --Húsönd 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for taking the time to answer my question, even though my computer blew up...$1000 made in China, so the network admin told me...and that's why they bought it..because it was cheap...the motherboard went dead after only 21 months but the warranty is still there.....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i created this article today - Nadendla Bhaskara Rao. He was a former CM of AP. In fact he has the shortest stint of all AP CMs. He was the founder of TDP along with NT Ramarao - a fact that few people know, because he revolted against NTR and tried becoming the CM.

happy reading and hope something from this makes to DYK --Kalyan 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well sorry that I was away and didn't get round to putting it on DYK, but you certainly could have gone to T:DYKT as self-nomming is the normal thing around here. Also you need to list the references under references and not ext links, otherwise people will not accept it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a DYK nominee is closely related to a current event is there any precedent for it remaining on the main page for 2 or 3 DYK time periods. I ask in reference to my July 5th nomination. It might be good for the encyclopedia to have a Major League Baseball All-Star game related article on the main page during the day of the All-Star game. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, :(, there is a precedent that T:ITN and T:DYK should be kept apart...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you're currently opposing me because of my lack of article writing, I would appreciate if you looked at this. I hope you don't mind me posting this on your talk page, but I know some people probably don't watchlist everything they ever edit. I know you have other reasons for opposition Blnguyen, and I know those reasons will stay, no matter what you think of what I wrote. However, I still ask you to read it because it's one of your reason. Thanks, R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only thing that matters is the article writing. It's not because you are an American and don't like cricket and other Europhile things that I may be interested in, or anti-Americanism of any type. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you let me know what you think about the comment I left on this article's talk page? Thanks. JHMM13^(Disc) 21:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and fixed. I was away for a week. The computer in my office blew up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reporting User:Cali567 for suspesion of sockpuppetry. I believed that this user might be used by User talk:Al-Andalus. Both have similar edit actions and can you please investigate the issue. Thanks! Ramírez July 10, 2007 (UTC)

Reply: User Cali567 is using User:68.110.8.21 identified as a sock puppet IP address, of him. Can you investigate the issue. Ramírez July 10, 2007 (UTC)

Hey buster, leave me the hell out of your bickering. I am not a Californian or Mexican. Just because I edited on two talk pages, (White Hispanic, White Latin American) doesn't mean I give a damn about either of you or your dramas. You can take your accusatory attitudes and shove them. You can see by the majority of my edits, a totally different interest in topics. Oh and fuck Mexifornia too. 68.110.8.21 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RFCU to lodge a complaint.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the original nominator clearly doesn't like my compromise solution, can you please vote at this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss America's Outstanding Teen state pageants and hopefully offer some argument to make these morons believe the article should be kept? PageantUpdater 22:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cali567 has vandalized the mestizo article. -- Ramírez July 10, 2007 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi friend I'm in need of some help. There are a lot of anons disrupting and putting in stuff that is incorrect on the Sikh article, please do same action and make it like you did on the Sikhism article so anons can't edit and wiki members can.--Peter johnson4 09:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you are welcome. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blnguyen,

I have asked a question here [6], I would be thankful to hear your advices as to how one should proceed in such a situation. Thanks --Aminz 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I think that is better explained by a more knowledgable person.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blnguyen,

Sorry to bother you, but a POV-pusing new user user:Hindutashravi, who is claiming that parts of southwestern Xinjiang are in fact parts of Ladakh and Kashmir according to a discredited (even in the 1870s) claim, is edit-warring on that page. I first noticed that page about a week ago, made a post both on his talk page and on the India-related notice board. I then edited it using sold sources and maps. He insists on reverting to his version, which among other things is (a) a copy vio, (b) is completely inaccurate in its history, (c) is poorly written, and (d) is inaccurate in its geography. He has now violated a the 3RR rule, claiming that he has added a few things, but I don't see any additions. His only source is Gazetteer of Kashimr" with no publisher, date etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Ragib got there first. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the instructions on the DYK template talk page, I am trying to attract the attention of an admin to update the DYK template. If you are able to help out, thank you very much. -Dekkanar 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the DYK appearance notice you left on my talk page for Women in the Philippines. Thanks for choosing it too. Dragonbite 02:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the DYK on the Paul Aste article. I really appreciate it. Chris 12:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]