User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive15

Suggestions towards removing POV in Hindutva

I've given some suggestions on Talk:Hindutva for removing POV and coming to a consensus on the content for this article. Do consider them. Also I've requested a template to be inserted using editprotected. Please look into it. Thanks. --^Babub→Talk 07:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin

uhhh... I'm Animereadabouter2 and I just want to know first hand what is it like to be an administrator

I'm not requesting I just want to know so mabye I will request. —Preceding unsigned comment added by animereadabouter2 (talk • contribs) 

Well, it's up to you what you make of it really. Depends one how you choose to get involved in things. Basically you can delete bad pages and block people and lock articles, but it has more implications than that, if that's how you want to make it.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Subhash Again

• i am constantly being called Anti - hindu by user Subhash.Large removals have been carried by this person again ob[1] without discussions and uncivil threatening language used.

Lkadvani 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Ok, I'm looking. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindu rule of Charsadda?

Please view my comments on the discussion page here:Talk:Charsadda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farzand (talk • contribs)

Replied on talk page.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

A smile for you...

Michael has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Michael 01:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild

Category:Patriotic Indian Wikipedian's Guild is a copy of User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch, also under Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMbroodEY/Fundy Watch mfd. --Ragib 05:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

bhaisaab's comment on my talk page.

Should I report it? I found it very harassing. he's been stalking my user edits not to mention a couple other users.--D-Boy 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My jihad comment was absolutely correct. Bhaisaab states on his user page that he is a muslim wikipedian. Using crusade would been incorrect since he is not an xtian. I should have been more specific stated that he was pursuing jihad bil lisan which means Jihad by the tongue instead of jihad. the ignorance at the time for not being accurate enough was on my part.--D-Boy 06:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it is correct is wholly the point. See WP:NPA.Timothy Usher 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's correct, but it was not a personal attack in my opinion.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the message! I'm not in Mumbai at the moment, so internet connection is a bit sporadic. Will resume later this week. Regards, --Nichalp 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to see that you are well.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Atlantique Incident

Pls see Atlantique Incident. Bharatveer 14:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's now protected. Please have a discussion on the talk page. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Boy Charlton and Talk:Australian Olympic medalists in Swimming

Nice article - I can see a fair bit of work in that. I'll see if I can find a PD photo unless you add one first. -- I@n ≡ talk 04:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat over it - it was only an idle thought (which most of mine are BTW). Whenever you're ready. -- I@n 03:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, I wondered what you thought of my suggestion above. Be honest. -- I@n 09:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Sorry, seems like I've caught myself into a moderation of a messy personal attack campaign on some Indian religious articles, I was mentioned in a bogus arbitration case (though not named as a party), and also had to resign from Esperanza, and reply to a complaint as to my comment on an RfA. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen, Long time-no speak. Its good to hear from you again. That's quite OK, I don't have a strong view on it at all, merely a suggestion. Like you, my to-do list just seems to get longer. personally, I find that I need to occasionally refocus on straight article editing and totally avoid admin chores, else it just doesn't happen. Its a matter of finding a balance. Is that being selfish? -- I@n 05:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably there is price to pay for all the Indian support on my RfA, I got more than even the Indian RfAs like Ganeshk and Srikeit perhaps..Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for blocking Alanstout (talk · contribs) regarding his alteration of my vote. -- Gogo Dodo 08:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Hey again. Can you do me a favor and protect the Adnan Oktar article? It appears that multiple sockpuppets are trying to remove material critical of Oktar. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. :) —Khoikhoi 06:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

No thanks

I've not interacted with any of them. --^Babub→Talk 06:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The honeybee "dance language" (DL) controversy

I am disappointed by your decision in the closure of the AFD discussion but more importantly, I am very disappointed that you chose not to explain your reasoning when closing the debate. AFD closures are not mere vote-counts. In this case, I believe there were some substantive issues which made this an ambiguous decision. I think there are also some timing issues that deserved noting. I believe that there is some significance to the fact that no one argued to delete after I added my evidence to the discussion and in fact that several users returned to the discussion to remove their "delete" opinions. That kind of comment pattern is generally an indicator that the discussion needs careful analysis before rendering a closing decision.

I'm not arguing for you to change your mind but I would appreciate it if you would return to the AFD discussion page and document your reasoning more fully. Thank you. Rossami (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will do so.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked me to open a DRV - I assume for this case. The truth is that I'm not yet sure that a Deletion Review is appropriate. Even though I argued strongly in this case to keep the page, I can see the case for deletion. I would like to read your reasoning before deciding whether a DRV is appropriate. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Books

Is there a criteria in Wikipedia that differentiates Text Books and Exam Books.Doctor Bruno 01:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think that there was, although I think we are evaluating the subject of the article in the sense of his notability as an academic, in which case academic merit should be the criteria for verifying the notability.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

When there is NO criteria why you say that I am not notable. How do you define the merit of an author. DO you mean to say that one becomes notable only if he gets post graduationDoctor Bruno 06:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant that an author's notability as an academic is dependent on his publication of academic research papers or textbooks for university courses. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this Wikipedia's guidelines. I think that they don't differentiate between textbooks for university courses and other books like Self Assessment and Board Review. Any how I feel that most of the users have given a hasty decision and their ego prevents them from going back. It is because of the ego that various reasons have been givenDoctor Bruno 06:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that a five page paper is more notable than a 500 page book Doctor Bruno 06:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel so, a five page paper is five papers of new results, and with full derivations can be transformed into a 20 page chapter in a textbook with new info. To be honest, most first year textbooks are recycled copies of one another, and would be less of an achievement than to do new research. If you are referring to an exam-cram book then even more so, since, they mostly consist of worked solutions of exam problems.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My Wish

YOu should note that My wish regarding my article is immaterial. But as far as I am concerned, as per the current norms which is given in the pages dealing with notability I am notable.

What is worrying me is the fact that users give a hasty judgement and then try to search reasons to justify that and in that process (of justification) slander me. If you see the whole arguments, you will see that I have been able to substantiate my points far better than those opposing it

To summarise

1. Notability of Books. THe books have an ISBN Number. 5 books are published by reputed firms. 4 of those are published by the biggest medical publisher in India. In such a case, one user who gave a knee jerk comment in the first place has choosen the 6th (1 out of 6 minority) and say that it is self publishable. He has ignored 5 because his ego prevents him from going back on his earlier words

Notability (people) 1. Published authors - 6 books is more than enough to satisfy this criteria

Notability (doctor) May be there is nothing called as exam preparation in western world, but here it is a budding field. I did not give these links it that page as it will amount to "self-glory", but since you seem to understand, I am giving you few links. You can search at www.rxpgonline.com [2] www.aippg.net/forum[3] and www.netmedicos.com [4] You may think me of some one obsessed with self glory, but the point to prove is that, unless some one is regarded as an expert in that area, you will not see students from the length and breath of a country with 1000 million population to ask for my help

Then

Regarding the counter points

1. The article was not written by me. When this controversy erupted, I read the guidelines regarding autobiography and has followed what is given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you Even without going through the debate, when users accuse of vanity (as if I have created the article) it hurts a lot

2. WP:BIO clearly says that you can have articles on published authors. There is no talk about Junior/Senior, Undergraduation/Post Graduation, Fiction/Nonfiction etc.

My main concern is that all these points come out only after I put a counter question. They are not the real facts, but are made up as the users ego prevent them from stepping back. In order to substantiate the hasty vote, they invent new guideline. Wounded by these new "self invented" guidelines, I even deleted the article my self, but that has been restoredDoctor Bruno 07:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand

Dear Blnguyen

You have explained well. Now I understand that even though my books have been published, I may still fall short of the notability criteria as the books are not "textboks" or well known (throughout the world) If some one had said this on day one, it would have been nice. Instead, I had comments like Junior doctor/ limited shelf life etc and quoting one book while ignoring the other 5 that made be irritated. Thanks for your patienceDoctor Bruno 00:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I hope that there are no hard feelings. Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor quibble

(This will seem trivial compared to the stuff above this section. :) )

I notice you have updated your popularity graph on your user page as Image:edit.jpg. However, please consider uploading it as a new version of the old file, Image:Blnguyencount.jpg instead, and delete the edit.jpg. This is because edit.jpg sounds quite generic and your file could easily be overwritten. Thanks! Kimchi.sg 23:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll get around to this, perhaps next week, or maybe the week after, maybe a new graph for the latest spike...although I don't think that getting a lot of messages means that I am necessarily popular. Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit revert war scorekeeping

Hey, Blnguyen, I was looking into the revert war on Sanskrit, before I knew you has looked at it, and I see you are saying Crculver had 5 reverts? Can that be right? Are you counting [5], edit summary "rvv"? If so, is that fair? That wasn't precisely exactly vandalism being reverted, as it looks good-faith perhaps, but it is so close as to make no difference: it included a link to [[Media:Example.ogg]] for example. Or am I misunderstanding? (I agree he made four reverts, by the way, but I had to think long and hard about that one before making up my mind.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's the 18.31 on the 7th that I'm worried about. I think he should get a free pass for that one. Look at the anon edit he was reverting. It had a link to [[Media:Example.ogg]] followed by text inside the infobox code, turning the article into this. Please take a look! Reverting that sort of damage shouldn't count. Right? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Half a revert for that one? Yeah, that sounds like a good call to me. I'll adjust the block and leave a note. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's fine, a 27 hour block. You're most welcome. a good dialogue.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the first edit day wish my friend. --Dakota 03:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

You blocked VandalBot indefinitely. Um. They haven't contributed since late 2004. :) Am I missing something? --Woohookitty^(meow) 08:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the username a problem? Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed links - why?

Could you please tell me why you removed (without any comment) the external links I added to a few country pages? In what way do they not qualify? They point to non-commercial, relevant and up to date information about the countries. Petrux 10:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. I think you are correct. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Voter Fraud

I believe that you are mistaken in accusing me of voter fraud during a posting of a recent random article and thus having me blocked for 24 hours. Im not sure whether this is an indication of a simple mistake on your part or a reflection of your disdain for people who post pointless articles, however I would like you to know that I personally would never do something stupid just to keep a dumb article on wikipedia and I am sure that you will give me the benefit of the doubt in the future. I wish you all the best and a plesant day. Go play a game of Naked Robber i think it might do you good. :-) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanstout (talk • contribs) .

This edit shows you clearly switching Gogo Dodo's "vote" on the Naked Robber AfD. The block is justified in my opinon. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Travis Gilbert

Your help please with Ohnoitsjamie and the review process in general. I want to continue improving the articles I was planning on doing, but this stupid argument is holding me up. He asked me to go to that link and dispute my case on that link but I don't understand how to do so. I just want the article as it is, it does not quality for speedy deletion. Can you help me out with this? Timeshift 06:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Questionable behaviour

Can you please give your opinion regarding the behaviour of User EyeMD. Please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FK._R._Kaushik&diff=68742235&oldid=68722846 Also see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doctorbruno/Archive_6#Published_MCQ_books He seems to drag my name into each and every controversyDoctor Bruno 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked about his exam credential because he said that he is "a doctor with extensive education and major contributions to two international textbooks." and "never read this particular author's "books" to prepare for my PG entrance exams in Delhi, nor heard about him from my extended group of doctor/medical student/PG friends all over North India." When he is using his education to argue a point against me, I feel that it is appropriate for me to ask about his academic qualifications. Please note that I did not ask whether he is a MBBS or not. I just asked his rank for which he has not answered, but is going around talk pages discrediting me.

About the copyvio thing, unlike the previous years, they do not get the question papers back after the exams(they used to do this before 2002). The question papers are released after the exam. Hence there is no problem at all. This has been very well verified by the publisher before coming out with the book By the way, please see what he himself says "doctors like Salgunan, Bhatia et al could claim to be much more widely read authors of such "best-sellers", with an evidently much wider circulation." Both of these doctors (as well as a host of others) have done the same thing as me. In fact they even did that prior to the era when the question papers have to be returned along with the answer sheets and were not released after the exam. They publish a guide with the questions and answers (only answers) where as I give references and explanation etc. The very fact that he does not care to question Bhatia and Salgunan (I don't say that he should do that !!!) but is worried about the copyright vio only with me substantiates the fact that this user has malicious intention against me. Doctor Bruno 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very simple. Let me explain a bit. He says that my books violate the Copy Right. It is not at all related to Wikipedia. It is about the 3 books I have published. One more thing you have to note is the fact that it is not mentioned anywhere that I have written a book for AIIMS. I have so far written only for ALl India. THe AIIMS book is not yet released. But he has also included that in his message. That means the guy has some personal agenda (in real world - may be another author) against me. Initially he said that there are no books at all authored by me. After the existence of books were proved, it was the Notability Issue. Now since it has been proved that the books are notable he has stepped further and says that my books may violate the copyright and hence should not be included. The bottom line is clear. He (and few others) want my article to be deleted for reasons other than Wikipedia. This proves the fact that he has some personal malicious intention against me. I wish you (and other Genuine Wikipedians) understand the issue and revise your opinion accordingly.Doctor Bruno 03:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I am telling from day 1. The main aim of nominating the AFD is to slander me in the debate. If they write something wrong or defaming in the article, it can be deleted citing WP:V Instead they have choosed to defame me in the AFD.

They did not expect me to take the bull by the horns and reply myself. Once I did that, they kept changing the stands and others like you were also misguided. You can now see a opinion from an anonymous account. How many AFD pages do you see an anonymous account giving such a lengthy explanation for "spirit of the rules"

I expect Wikipedians like you to understand the issue and revise your stand and take the necessary actionDoctor Bruno 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied at the AfD and left a comment for EyeMD.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply - I was busy in real life. Well, the question on copyvio was made to ascertain facts in relation to the AfD on his biography, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas, which was an ongoing activity at the time of asking my question. Anyway, his labelling my query as questionable behavior is akin to his ongoing rule lawyering as pointed out by multiple editors on the AfD and I don't want to inflame the issue any further, since I have no personal interest in this issue. That preserved page on AfD is a stark reminder of challenges of countering an editor with a subjective point of view along with major ego issues, using rule lawyering as an iron rod to try and browbeat fellow editors leaving their comments on AfD. EyeMD 10:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As it has been pointed out, his questioning me about the contents of my book, when it has nothing to do with Wikipedia was my concern. He initially said that you know nothing about my book and have not heard about my books(see the debate please) inspite of his extensive education and unverifiable claims about contribution to books. He later questioned about the specificities which can be done only if he had read the book (and that means this guy has cheated the entire wikipedia community with his first message that he has not heard about the books). Any how, for any doubts regarding copyright issues in real world, he should have mailed me directly (I have the mail option enabled). The question of that AFD debate was verifiability (that was proved clearly) and notability (a subjective criteria regarding which there were varied opinions). None of the issues had any relation to the contents of the book. That preserved page on AFD is also a stark remainder of how few useless criminal guys can write unverifiable deliberately false propaganda about some one whom they may not like in real life. And our EyeMD is one of such persons who use wikipedia for their personal gains and in my opinion, wikipedia will be a better place if such irresponsible users are weeded outDoctor Bruno 17:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I quote the learned people from the deletion review : Stop the commotion that you are raising here, You have a wilful, almost troll-like, desire towards pedantry and Go Troll Elsewhere - as rightly said by the SysOps on the deletion review page. No need to waste your breath and wage a useless war of words. In case your brain did not get it, I translate it into plain language for you, which thereby means: Shut Up and get a life. EyeMD 18:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced rumour

Thanks for fixing that. I did a bit of googling and found that the person mentioned has indeed done freestyle skiing, but she doesn't seem to be notable yet, nor is she the same age as him. Andjam 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Never mind. Add it to the list of stories to tell your grandchildren in your dotage. Snottygobble 03:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll survive. Hopefully. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey friend

It was a new sensation indeed. No problem. --Dakota 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You are a good Wikipedian, and an excellent admin and I will be the first to say so.--Dakota 03:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you come to irc.--Dakota 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the access atm, sorry again. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Bruno

Thank you for reinstating my comments -- I'm not quite sure why Srikeit removed them! 193.129.65.37 04:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a mouse error or something.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It could be also that he has Firefox with Google Toolbar http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5643 Doctor Bruno 07:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion

It most definitely was not serious...perhaps a ;) at the end might have cleared that up... Nobleeagle (Talk) 10:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Template: India collaborations

Hello. You reinstated the RfA section in the above template when it was removed by Crzrussian. He has again removed the section with the summary: "once again, and for the final time, I have rmved the inappropriate RfA section. Such electioneering is beneath you, Wikipedians". I find this charge to be baseless as that template was never intended to be an electioneering tool. So should the section be reintated again or should we leave it that way? - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 05:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aksi. I dont know how that is an electioneering tool. There is enough evidence on your talk page that all Indians dont see eye to eye with each other. The information on the template only helps all concerned people to voice their opinions -- Lost^(talk) 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask him to discuss this. Obviously you can see from the contents above and in the previous archive you that there are many Indian editors who are on extremely bad terms with one another, so putting the template would likely lead to more scrutiny of below-the-belt behaviour on a plethora of religious and historical related articles. Also there is a the same thing at the Australian noticeboard and they are of the opinion that the RfA notice provides an opportunity for more informative comments, as I know that the Australian editors never chack RfA and only look at the noticeboard for Australian discussions, and strongly rebuffed calls to remove the section from the AUS board. It's likely the same here, as most Indian editors focus on the Indian RfAs and could do with a notice. For example I can recall that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sukh did get an opposition from Nobleeagle, because of his activity on the Khalistan page I think, and I don't think the non-Indian editors paid attention to this, for example. Blnguyen | rant-line 06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. Obviously discussing the issue with him would be better than revert warring. Wanted to say that you are doing a great job. I have been following these debates (pro-Hindu vs. anti-Hindu) for 2-3 days now and it really amazes me to see this these people bickering on so many talk pages at the same time. All the best in your mediation efforts. I would like to point you to Talk:2002 Gujarat violence. A mediator has stepped in to control the situation. Maybe something of the same sort is required over all these disputed and controversial religious pages. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 06:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: MEDCAB - Democracy dab page

Hey there Blnguyen, it will be nice to work with you again. Good luck with us as your first case, hopefully we won't prove too difficult. :) -- Natalya 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No way, should it be difficult. See what's above you :o .Blnguyen | rant-line 03:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. Yeah. Maybe it will even be like a vacation..? -- Natalya 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And below you....Blnguyen | rant-line 07:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be done - thanks for being willing to take it anyway! -- Natalya 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Good photo

File:Blnguyen.JPG

Who's in the suit? Who took the picture? Where'd you get the suit? Has the desk been cleaned up since? I must know.--Andeh 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's not a suit -It's a doll. It's only about 60cm tall and has 10cm feet! I took the picture with a digital camera. No, the desk isn't much cleaner, still filled with research papers that I need to read and laboratory notebooks that I need to mark, and textbooks.Blnguyen | rant-line 07:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do I get this doll?--Andeh 00:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea, it came from a chook raffle. It wasn't bought. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dorney Court

This article was deleted against policy by User:Redvers as he admitted Whether or not he considers a Grade 1 Listed building as non-notable is irrelevant, as an Admin he should follow deletion policy. I ask can you please restore this article. He is also accusing me of calling him a vandal, which I certainly did not as I explained on my talk page --RMHED 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed.Blnguyen | rant-line 03:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Meetup on 24th August 2006

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but the Inaugural Adelaide Meetup will take place on Thursday 24th of August at Brougham Place Uniting Church, thanks to Alex Sims. Please indicate if you will attend or not.

This message left by May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) on behalf of [ælfəks], 09:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

DRV for Frank Lloyd

G'day Blnguyen,

just a quick note to let you know I've nominated Frank Lloyd (Australian actor) for deletion review. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

reply about RfA

I guess I am ready; why don't we give it a shot? Again, I'm very honored that you are considering this. To be honest, I know how the RfA process works on the voting end, but I have to admit I don't know what I am supposed to do to get it started.

Also, I was planning on adding this comment to the same section in which we last talked about this, but I think that that section has now scrolled about 10 pages back into your archives. Wow... :P -- Deville (Talk) 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, great, I see the RfA page is up. Thanks again! I will accept, of course, so I'll head over there and answer the questions now. I presume that after I'm done with that, I should add it to the RfA page? -- Deville (Talk) 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is up, and it seems to be started anyway, I hope it works out. Anyway, I think I might have to head to bed now. It's pretty late in EST right now....;D -- Deville (Talk) 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadowclan

I recreated the Shadowclan page about a month ago and it has been up since then. Suddenly it was deleted again. I assumed that you didn't have a problem with that page and that it made an appropriate claim to importance. So why the deletion again after more than a month?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bagginator (talk • contribs) .

You didn't delete the page - I did. I restored it and put it up for AfD. Kimchi.sg 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the only other admin i'm aware of I was hoping you could direct me. Another admin, Kimchi, is deleting a wiki article I created. In the process this admin is using ad hominem attacks against me 'Lastly, there's no need to automatically write something in response to every delete comment - it makes you look silly. calling me silly for no apparant reason. I havn't written a single response (To my knowledge) to any delete comments and yet i'm being called names for trying to provide the evidence this admin asked for. Is there someone I can go to with this complaint?Bagginator 08:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

From my long experience with Kimchi, I know that he didn't mean that as a slur at all. If you haven't done any comment yet, then Kimchi is in my opinion giving you a friendly piece of personal advice. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Hey.. This is concerning the editing of the Student Newspapers in Mallya Aditi International School page. Im not sure if you know anything about our school or not, but The Scribbler is infact an official magazine that has been approved by the principal of our school. I've edited the page again and I hope you understand the fact that our school has more than one papers in circulation.

'The Joke' is a satirical paper which unlike ours, was never granted the permission to be circulated or sold in school.

Our paper, The Scribbler, does have the principal's permission, and before it releases, it's proof-read by one of our teachers. So... in the future, please remember that The Scribe isn't the only School Newspaper. =)

Thanx.

- George

PS: What does "rm shenanigans" refer to? and "rv again"?

Ok, thanks for clearing it up.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Muralitheran pic

Im not sure whether it is copyrighted ir not, just take it down to be safe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul0991 (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks, I will get rid of it ASAP. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble mate --Paul 15:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Email

I just sent you an email. Michael 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Noted.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Blnguyen, thank you.

Right now I am finding it really psychologically difficult to cope, but your message meant a lot to see, and has made me feel a bit better. Thank you so much for your support. I just can't put into words what your message meant. Thank you. Thε Halo ^Θ 00:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny

"I seem to be a rather innocuous, undemonstrative and low-key contributor" - Nice one :) especially the "low-key" part.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I added that in January and haven't changed it since. I probably should. I got 65 talk messages in my first 5000 edits and in my last 5000 I have received something like 1100. Blnguyen | rant-line 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu

You have not detailed why you have removed the link to Great Tamils in Modern era, so reverted back to the previous edit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Asprakash (talk • contribs)

Unless I am mistaken, my edit [6] only reverted a user who changed "Chennai" to "Madras". I believe someone else changed it and that you are mistaken? Blnguyen | rant-line 04:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page problem

All too often you seem a comfortable voice of sanity around here. Any chance you'd be able to attend to a problem I'm having?

I wrote a message on User:Aranherunar's talk page regarding the spelling of 'civilisation' He took offence to what was blunt, but not offensive and subsequently placed a WP:CIVIL warning on my talk page. I removed this warning (considered by me to be an insult, and a waste) with the edit summary 'rmv crap'. Aranherunar then placed the warning back, stated that he was going to remove the original warning anyway, but was now going to continue to insist on it being placed there due to my edit summary of 'rmv crap' which he considered offensive. A tit-for-tat revert war is now taking place on my talk page. I stated that "All you're doing is playing tit-for-tat. A endless shit-slinging match goes nowhere. Spend your time contributing to Wikipedia instead." and got:

"Yes, I was going to remove that NPA warning, which I deemed unnecessary until then. However, an abusive edit summary, under any circumstances, no matter you are right or not, is completely unacceptable. I would have thought you had more sense than that. Your removal of warnings is completely childish. Rather than telling me to spend my time contributing to Wikipedia, why don't you? The removal of warnings is completely unnecessary. They do not in any way hinder your ability to contribute. Instead, you have decided to start an edit war on the warnings. This is completely immature, forgive my frankness, and I would suggest you to stop it right away before an admin has to come to solve this dispute which isn't needed at all."

Can you please offer an outcome? I really am quite fed up with this. michael ^talk 06:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you deleted this, but since it was deleted whilst I was posting something to Aranherunar's page, I just resuscitated it anyway so that I could make a note that I had made my observations. Thanks and you're welcome. Blnguyen | rant-line 07:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

ER

Thanks for those comments. I am in no hurry for an RfA. I was looking at September/October. I would be on a break for 1 week each in August, Semptember and 2 weeks in November (due to college projects and exams). I will be increasing participation in XfDs (have already started doing so) and RfA. I am always on a look-out for DYK worthy topics. Just yesterday I wrote an article on Vishnu Digambar Paluskar (already submitted at DYK). Thanks once again. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 08:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)