User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive40

blnguyen - please help

These individuals or possibly same individual - Hadzija and 74.119.72.55 are deleting significant portions of Srebrenica Massacre article without proper consultation on discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&action=history . I have voiced my concern about Hadzija and this new 74.119.72.55 individual here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#.22Critical_views.22_or_.22Denial_of_the_massacre.2C_revisionism_and_scepticism.22 .

Please do something. Bosniak 23:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that there does seem to be rather a concerted attack on the article from the usual direction. It's quite hard work making sure they remain aware that the article hasn't been abandoned to their predatory attacks, hard work which means the article always gets patches, never proper attention. When people treat the findings of the UN and the ICTY as meaningless it's hard to know when the loop is ever going to stop playing. --Opbeith 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put comments on the discussion page for example about the section title of Genocide deniers etc which the interveners simply disregard. It's an uphill struggle trying to conduct a reasoned argument in this sort of motivated chaos. --Opbeith 12:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll see if I can sneak in a peek. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson Anderson's block

Hi,

I would like to know which is the reason you have to block User:Jefferson Anderson for sockpuppetry when the case hasn't finished and there's any injuction against him as far as I know. I would really appreciate that you clarify me this, because I'm really confused on this. Thank you! --Neigel von Teighen 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany and Dmcdevit did CU on them, and it showed that they were connected, and they voted together on a few AfDs. It wasn't explicit arbitration motions or anything. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that you recently blocked User:32.97.110.142, stating that tthis was a sockpuppet of Jefferson Anderson. Please note several things: 1) I could find no evidence that this IP address edited anything that Jefferson Anderson was interested in. Wouldn't it have been better to just blocked Jeff Andersons account directly? 2) This router is part of a pool of routers for IBM North America, serving 110K employees and contractors. Blocks will be ineffective, because there are other routers in the pool. Blocks will result in all users being blocked, even those with valid logins. 3) I don't know what "CU" is, but if its based on IP addresses, it will lead to incorrect deductions of sockpuppetry. With one hundred thousand users coming from this address, most of whom are highly educated, sophisticated adults, there is likely to be a lot of overlap of interests. These are not just IT pros and engineers; you can walk the hallways and see people with interests in everything from art and poetry to ancient history and philosophy. Just because a few of them voted the same way on AfD's does not indicate sockpuppetry. 4) Vandalism and bad conduct are against the IBM Business Conduct Guidelines. Misbehaviour of employees (provided their identities can be found out) can and should be reported. linas 15:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. I blocked JA. The block also automatically targets his IP, which in this case was yours, although JA was logged in at the time, so there is no record of this in the IP. Afterwards, I had to undo the autoblock of the that IP, so that you could edit. The autoblock is automatic and does not reveal which IP it is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Blnguyen. I have recently been the subject of three [1] [2] [3] noticeboard incident reports in quick succession. There is more on my discussion page, and indeed, on the discussion page for the relevant article. The incident reports contain numerous distortions, I have not been informed of any in a timely fashion, have been told that I've been blocked when I haven't, etc. Since I'm sure this will be watched, I won't go into more detail right now, but have been taking notes. I concede that I have been incivil on a couple of occasions and made other mistakes, but don't feel that there has been any real balance (one editor and one admin have provided a little on the noticeboard pages, but everyone else involved has been very partisan).

I was going to use the "helpme" template on my discussion page, but realize that doing so would probably lead to a quick discussion on IRC etc.

Would you please have a look or recommend someone else who might?

Once again, I am aware that I have been at fault a couple of times, but have read the relevant policies and am also aware that this also applies to several other longer-standing users, who would have had better reason to know better. Sorry for this.FasterPussycatWooHoo 10:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have had a little too much on my plate recently. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Border-Gavaskar Trophy

The article's topic is worthy of GA, there's been a lot of hype about these encounters in recent years so lots of sources are out there. But I wonder whether you know of any images on wiki or perhaps any images you can upload relating to the tournament. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. It would be quite easy to get that to GA, although we would have to spend a bit of time removing the hyperbole of the people who wrote it a long time ago. I can't see any free images around the place, unless any Wikipedians have their own images they took a long time ago by actually going to the games. Having said that, you don't need pics at all for GA, and if an FA was wanted, then fair use would do in the absence of anything else. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the likelihood of finding any action pictures of the players in the BG series would be rare. However, the Harbhajan Singh article has a free pic of him in training gear. Many of the Australian bios also have pics as well, so we could put portraits of some of the players into the sections on series where they had a prominent role, with Harbhajan in 2001, Ponting in 2003-04 consecutive double centuries, and Martyn in 2004. Cheers, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

Smear campaign

Sir, Sarvabhaum has embarked on a smear campaign against me. I believe he is right now blocked for 3RR vio. If you see the discussion unfolding on the Vijayanagara Empire discussion page (not the FA discussion), this becomes clear. This may pull out other worms from the woodwork with grouses generally against Karnataka people and articles. His IP address is 59.95.... Is there anything you can do.ThanksDineshkannambadi 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that he is blocked, but there have been no edits to the talk page since he has been blocked. The person who runs FAC, Raul654, is an arbitrator and checkuser, so he knows when sockpuppets are gatecrashing, and he will ignore them. Don't worry. I've got a close eye on the article though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support to Vijayanagara EmpireDineshkannambadi 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply:Cricket Bios

Thank you very much for your wishes! Yes, I am certainly interested in Cricket bios, especially in bringing the articles to FA level. Will keep involved in them. Nice to see free pictures in some of the articles, like Sachin Tendulkar (although resolution is not very good). As discussed earlier, we should try seek any of the authorities related to International cricket teams, to get more pictures.

Oh! by the way, many congratulations on becoming a member of Arb Com. Well deserved one! I missed the party, as I was on the vacation.

Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

falun gong pages

Blnguyen, Could you help to stop the repeated edit wars on all falun gong pages? Pro-Falun gong editors (Asdfg12345, Mcconn, user:HappyInGeneral, Fnhddzs) have censored all these pages and have repeatedly removed legitimate and sourced material that they do not approve. Just now they again removed two important sections, “Depravity of today’s people” and “Sickness Karma” on Teachings of Falun Gong page. Also, “Interviews with Mr. Li Hongzhi” and “Li's claims of divinity” sections on Li Hongzhi page. Since material in these sections are from Li’s own mouth and sourced to US major media, there is no justification for their removal. Edit wars have been provoked by the aggressive and outrageous edits of Pro-falun gong editors. I am tired of reverting them again and I hope you can use your power to stop them from removing these material. Thanks --Mr.He 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As an admin I don't have extra editorial powers to decide what stays and what goes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Blnguyen. You should probably be aware of this. Regards Paul August ☎ 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's User:Kuntan. It's amusing. Thankyou. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		If you don't stop making DYK articles there won't be any left to write. Keep it up! James086Talk 12:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, James.

Stuart Clark + socks?

Please visit this ([4]). I'd be most grateful. --Dweller 13:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked them anyway for vandalism, but I will get a check to see if they are related. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. Let's hope calm is now restored at the article. --Dweller 09:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jitarth is back to his tricks again. --Dweller 14:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I blocked him permanently now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagara empire

Hi. In the FAC discussion page, a new reviewer, user:Circeus has severely criticised my style of citations (which is in the same format as earlier FA's), called the citation style "patently wrong" and has opposed nomination. He went ahead and chopped most citations into a different format then I am used to providing. He seems to be the only one with a problem. Any ideas?Dineshkannambadi 13:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone else did it on Ian Thorpe as well. I didn't mind at all, he put the year in brackets and moved the detail into the refs, and only had the short version in the footnotes. Seems now that Circeus is fine, things should be OK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire

Hi. Looks like an anon user 220.226.22.78 is doing massive blanking of the page. Can you please put a anon lock on the page please. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire and Krishnadevaraya

Sir, This FAC article is being blanked out by an anon vandal repeatedly in the past few days. Please put a anon lock on these pages. Several users have requested the user to stop vandalism but in vain. The anon vandal is blanking out even the related discussion page.Dineshkannambadi 20:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I did it for the first one, bu the second, isn't really busy enough for a locking. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User:A_Ramachandran's block

Can I ask for what reasons you have blocked A Ramachandran? This user's contribution patterns look completely different from Ekajati's, and furthermore has only made useful contributions. Please remove the block. Sfacets 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the for myself utterly unknown A Ramachandran's user page because he performed an appreciated edit, and seeing this block quickly compared contributions: same impression as Sfacets mentions, A R. appears not as a user that does highly controversial things on WP. Was the block a mistake or perhaps caused by a shared IP? — SomeHuman 22 Jan2007 05:59 (UTC)

There is a report on the block on WP:ANI, which was done after a checkuser was performed by Dmcdevit, who is also an arbitrator, at my request. The checkuser said that it was "determined with a high degree of certainty" that A Ramachandran is the same as Ekajati. Manually going through their contributions, I can see that their editing is completely interleaved, with no edits at the same time. Many times one will log off and within an hour, sometimes even half an hour, the other will log on, and start editing. The fact that it is synchronised in this, with changeovers of less than an hour, yet, no intersections whatsoever, is quite dubious. Both these users have voted on AfDs with the same ideology -> AfD vote stacking. I did not initially suspect A Ramachandran to be Ekajati, but rather Hanuman Das. As I noted on ANI, A.R. was created immediately on the day that H.D. "retired" when he was put into arbitration. I noticed A.R. editing Lu Sheng-yen, which was only edited by five regular editors (excluding vandalism, vandal reverts, formatting, etc) in 15 months: Hanuman Das, Ekajati, 999, Nat_Krause and myself. I looked at the article contributions of both HD and AR, and noticed that they had also frequented the same general topics, with many common articles in their ten most edited articles. Another which stood out in particular was AR was one of only about seven people who edited Michael Roach in the last year, (mostly the same people as in the LSY article, but not myself). Thus I asked Dmcdevit to check if HD had reincarnated as AR to avoid possible arbitration sanctions. The Checkuser found that AR = Ekajati, and was unrelated to Nat Krause, 999, myself etc. However, since HD's checkuser data had expired, that left HD unaccounted for. So what is the chance that a new user registers immediately after the retirement of one of only five people who edited a given article in 15 months, and begins editing on that same article? not only that, but edit another article in the same predicament, and the general topics as well, with the same viewpoint on content and AfDs ? What is the chance that a new user knows how to merge and redirect on their first edit, with an edit summary which is also wikilinked, and then creates an AfD on their 11th edit, and knows what "rvv" stands for and wiki-process in 30 edits? To further confirm this, I checked HD's edits against Ekajati. They are well known to be editing-allies, AfD allies, etc over a long period. Again, all the edits were interleaved, and even though there were often changeovers of less than half an hour, there is no overlap. Thus, it seems pretty obvious to me what is going on. HD had been blocked multiple times and has evaded it using Ekajati, as well as that, team revert-warring, AfD vote stacking, mobbing other users, etc.... I have blocked Ekajati et al, as there is no need for them to function at this time while Ekajati is under block. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've declined the unblock based on your assertion that he's a checkuser-confirmed sock, but that's being called into question. Could you please provide a link to the checkuser confirmation or to any particular edits of A_Ramachandran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that warrant a block? Thanks, 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC) (unsigned comment by administrator User:Sandstein - talk)

That's funny. Hanuman Das made precisely the same observation about Mattisse and Timmy12, here or more readably here. Nobody who signed the RfC took it seriously. Do you? 999 (Talk) 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've commented on Sandstein's talk page. Suggest to follow SH:AAGFF, SomeHuman's guideline Administrators assume good faith forever. ;-) — SomeHuman 23 Jan2007 04:20 (UTC)

If people are in the same house, family, couple, etc, that counts as meatpuppetry and they are only allowed to act as one account. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is this written? I can't find it in the meatpuppet section in Wikipedia: Sock puppetry, nor anywhere else. TwilightDragon 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen, for your thorough explanation. In deferment to your judgment, and seeing that this is being actively discussed on WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry_related_to_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood, I see no need to take further action at this point. Sandstein 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I realized we were just taking your word for the fact that there was never any overlap between Ekajati and Hanuman Das, but it's not true. For example, on November 14, Ekajati starts editing at 14:24 and ends at 15:05 and Hanuman Das posts to Mattise's talk page at 14:59. On November 13, Ekajati starts editing at 14:51 and ends at 15:24, while Hanuman Das post on Ekajati's talk page at 15:08. On November 1st, Hanuman Das startes editing at 15:43 and ends at 15:54, while Ekajati edits Tantra at 15:51 and posts on Hanuman Das' talk page at 15:52. I'm sure more examples could be found. 999 (Talk) 13:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I checked further back through all the data as I should have checked more than the last month, and found instances of four single edits wedged in the middle of two other edits, but the pause in the other account was about 5 minutes. Four instances out of 2000. But many instances of close changeovers, which were clean. I did an experiment with User:Blnguyen1 and found myself wedging edits into one-minute gaps, so a five minute sandwich isn't that remarkable. I am preparing a more detailed report on the overlap patterns of these two users. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Back in May, Hanuman Das admitted his IP was 66.68.112.85 here. I can confirm that this is the IP used by the other sockpuppets, and I think it is very conclusive proof that they are the same person. Dmcdevit·t 23:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is A. Ramachandran, and you'd better check that again. Other than 1 time at a cybercafe, my ip address was always 24.27.14.192, and I'm shocked that you would say otherwise. And yes, I'm coming in through a proxy this time b/c you guys are crooked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.124.149.146 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Would that be the cafe where Ekajati works as a waitress? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, further checking shows that 999 edits from the same city as Hanuman Das and his sockpuppets, which is strong evidence in favor of sockpuppetry if editing patterns show a correlation as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's another Hanuman IP, also Austin, TX. [5]. Thatcher131 12:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what IP 999 uses, but according to traceroute, the 2 Hanuman 66.68.x IPs and Ramachandran's 24.27 IP have the same immediate upstream server, which is 24.27.12.229. Thatcher131 14:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Just blocked Chai Walla (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) per the previous checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Adityanath as he is now suddenly active again. Thatcher131 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm wondering why you said "likely" for HD = Ek when Dmcdevit said that HD's IP was "used by the other sockpuppets" of Ekajati? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ralf Schumacher

Hey,

I wrote the section about Ralf Schumacher's private life. I admit I was perhaps a bit over-the-top in my first edit, but I think (as a long-time F1 fan) the subject is relevant to Ralf's image in the sport. I have provided a reference from British media by way of substantiation, the originals being in German and also subject to legal censure.

I didn't post the section to defame Ralf or cause controversy, hence my re-edit.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forzaminardi (talk • contribs)

Generally, I was a bit skeptical about the veracity of this rumour, and although there is now a source, I'm not so sure that it is relevant, given that only the notorious News of the World appears to have carried this. If a mainstream F1 media outlet didn't talk about this, then I am inclined to say that it is not relevant and appears to be a fringe issue, unlike, eg, the Raikkonen frolics, which were reported on itv-f1, F1 magazine etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, fair enough. It would seem to me that the allegations in question are fairly well known among F1 fans and indeed a brief search has shown considerable message-board and forum discussion in English, Italian and German in connection with this specific story and also the state of their marriage and Cora's plastic surgery. Not that this neseccarily suggests anything, nor that are they reliable sources, but it implies that the issue was discussed and relevant to Ralf's performances at that point. The difference with Raikonnen's shennanigans is that Raikonnen did not challenge the publishers in court (for the obvious reason that he had no case) so they were not subject to legal sanction and therefore the pictures and stories are still freely available for citation. Given that Ralf and Cora have been succesful in prosecuting publishers who have invaded their privacy, the original articles in question are not available - hence why I have cited the News of the World story which effectively is a "story about the story" if you follow and is freely available. It should be noted also that while the News of the World is not noted for it's impartiality, it is a major provider of sports news. Equally, Byron Young (the author) is no Shakespeare, but he is a prolific F1 reporter with a considerable track record.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Forzaminardi (talk • contribs)

Well, I cross-posted this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One‎, to get more opinions. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review request

Hello. I've noticed you helped promoting some Olympics-related pages up to FA/FL, so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind to take a look at Olympic Committee of Portugal - an article I created and is under peer-review - and perhaps, if you feel like it, post any comments or suggestions. I'd appreciate a lot! If not, thanks anyway. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Terence Tao and John Howard

I realized too late that you also edited the sentence which I removed (diff). Please do let me know if you disagree. All the best, Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have strong opinions, I just saw the thing about his nomination pop up in the history so I decided to look, as I wasn't aware of him being nominated previously. Then I just fixed the name without thinking about the deeper issue. You are right though, the immigration thing is more of a political thing about JH. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for help with Iraqi dinar vandal

Thanks for stepping in. He seems to be creating new accounts as fast as we block them, however. Zora 08:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping racism

Thank you for blocking Cali567 for his racial remarks. Your photos of the yellow monkey is very cute by the way ^^. -- Seong0980 29 January 2007.

Ajith article

I cleaned it up -- again. I'm recalling now that I did this a year ago. I don't think my cleanup lasted very long. Demented fans soon restored the fan-worship edition. I may have just wasted an hour of my life doing the cleanup. I did this because you asked -- now help me keep the de-gushed version up. Zora 09:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Ideogram#Bright_line_violations..._and_the_rest

I've unbollocked Ideogram, I think there are some crossed wires... he hadn't edited since the warning? If I've screwed the pooch, just re-block and fill me in on the details later. - brenneman 11:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I don't mind. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

i am ading an external link for Abhishek bachchans wedding

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).

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).

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

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)

XanGo

I've reverted your revert at XanGo. If you see the need to revert again please comment at Talk:XanGo/Archives/2012#MLS Sponsorship. - Aagtbdfoua 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Vijayanagara Empire

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

OMG

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

Ludwig van Beethoven

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

T:ITNT

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

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)

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)

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

Orphaned fair use image (Image:KC Boutiette.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:KC Boutiette.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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 [6]and placed on probation under the premise of "Any user may request review by members of the Arbitration Committee."[7]. 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 [8] 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 [9] Analysis of situation [10] Suspicion of sockpuppet account [11] 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) [12]

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.[13] 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" [14] but the request is still sitting there.

User "Some people" transformed the article with over 30 + entries on 22:41 28 Jan 2007 [15] 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[16])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)

Replied on User talk:Fred Bauder [17]. Thatcher131 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on same user Talk page [18] Thank you. avyakt7 21:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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