User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive26

Wikibreak

Have fun. -- I@n 08:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy! But come back soon. Lots of religious hostilities waiting you. ;-) -- thund e rboltz ^(Deepu) 09:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that wiki-drama hasn't upset you too much. Look forward to seeing you back soon -- Samir धर्म 10:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come back soon. Hope your break cheers you up. Take care. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a long holiday. You have been working too hard :-) Tintin (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(pile on). :) —Khoikhoi 23:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll miss you man.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see that you are controlling your Wikiholicism. Gizza^Chat ^© 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make it as long as you need it to be. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 08:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Enjoy your well-deserved wikibreak. Sango 123 13:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But do come back .... Agathoclea 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to see you back soon friend, it would be horrible to lose a valuable wikipedian like yourself. Stubbleboy 02:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quick hook on blocking pages?

HI,

I'm wondering what the criteria for accepting a page protection request is. Doesn't automagic acceptance of a request mean that one unhappy camper can thumb his/her nose at the world, at will? What if (for a hypothetical example....) a page is up for "Good Article" review, and someone doesn't want the topic to receive that staus...? Just wondering --Ling.Nut 13:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget my question. have a nice break. --Ling.Nut 14:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete decision for "The Road to Tyranny"

Hi there, I have a few questions about the rationale you put forward for the deletion of that article [1]. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 07:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Have a really good break. Don't stay away forever because I will miss you :)-Dakota 05:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too... take care B... ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (50/3/0). If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to write me. I hope I will live up to your trust. Michael 01:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model

I notice that you changed the ANTM template, which I also wanted to do, but didn't for want of knowing how to unprotect. Some realitycrufter has reversed all your changes, resulting in many double-redirects which I am sure you also wanted to avoid. As deleted candidates' namespace is now always redirected to the program's main page, it would be useful if you restored your changes and reprotected it. Thanks Ohconfucius 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversary

Your kind words of 18.09.06: Hello Bhadani. Well it has been a year since you became an Admin. You are a wonderful contributor, one of the best we have, which is proven in the contributions log, despite what anybody else or the general populace may think. Take care, Blnguyen

Thank you friend. I wish that you shall be back properly wiki-rested! And, with all the new ideas to make the Project still better. Have a nice time. --Bhadani 13:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on record

Which, according to you are important records in Batting??
Why was the golden arm term removed. It is told by reputed cricket sources. If well establish cricket writers refer him by one word, it should be taken as such. Remember that Rahul Dravid or Sehwag is not referred by that term. Please note that I have already explained this in the talk section. Don't say that it gives an image as if he is a great bowler to those who don't know about cricket.

"Man with a golden arm" is a description. When he has broken more than one partnership, any bowler can be called with that term. I don't think that it is a NPOV problem. If the sentence had been "he is a bowler who always breaks partnership" that is a different story. THe description "with golden arm" is usually applied to "part time bowlers" who get wickets of well settled batsmen. The term is not used for the regular bowlers. You can read the old literature and will find that Srilanka's man with golden arm was De Silva (and Not Vaas or Murali) and Australians used that term for Mark Waugh (and not McGrath and Warne) and Mike Clarke [2](he has so far taken 8 wickets in 20 matches) and in Windies it will be Viv Richards and not Walsh. Hence this is just a FACT. Only if we tell that "Mr.Tendulkar is a bowler who breaks partnerships as soon as he is called to bowl" that will be not be a Neutral Point of View. You cannot ordinarily write this term (golden arm) on the article of Murali or Warne or Walsh. They are bowlers who can get any batsman out. I am sure that now the confusion is cleared.

Please read the line I have given "Inspite of his bowling average....." IF someone gets an impression that a person with just 37 wickets in 132 matches (that is one wicket every 8 innings) with a bowling average of over 40 "is a great bowler", it is the fault of the reader. If the term golden arm had been in the first stanza of the article without the other details (which very well tell that the person described is a part time bowler), that can cause some confusion. But in the present scenario, it is just a fact and has no NPOV problems.

Sachin tendulkar does not have a higher rate of taking wickets that break partnerships when you compare him with Muralitharan or Agarkar who are bowlers. If he has something like that, he will be termed as an allrounder and not a batsman with a golden arm. Is that clear. The NPOV issue arises only if we say that Sachin is a genuine test bowler or an allrounder (then only we can compare him with Courtney Walsh or Imran Khan. The term "golden arm" is not limited to ONLY ONE PLAYER (that is the person with maximum wickets or minimum average etc). It is a much general term

First of all, the description "golden arm" is not a rigid description that can be "proved" with statistics. As I have repeatedly told you, there is no "criteria" that exists to tell a player as "someone with a golden arm". The term is used for batsman who occasionally bowl and break partnerships. THis is the most I can explain. Other facts (including citations) have been already given by me.

It means that a batsman, who is not a regular bowler, occasionally breaks partnership. Sachin is definitely inferior to Kapil and Kumble at breaking partnership. That is a fact. But Kapil and Kumble are not called with the term because Kapil is an allrounder and Kumble a bowler. On the other hand, Sachin is better than Rahul Dravid and VVS Laxman, Sadagopan Ramesh, Kambli, Gavaskar etc at breaking partnership, and that is the reason cricket wrtiers (not me and you) have given this term to him. The same is true about Clarke, who is an inferior bowler compared to McGrath and Warne. Yet Warne and McGrath are not called as men with golden arm, because they are bowlers. On the other hand Clarke is better than, (for example) Hayden and Ponting and hence called with the term. Is this clear.

Sachin Tendulkar's Golden Arm

The single handed has been modified to another match. I am sure that every one agrees with the contribution in this match. Please don't ask a question as if no one else fielded in the match and whether he was the only person in the stadium. By the way, I am not able to understand as to your edits regarding Golden Arm. It is a term used by reputed Cricket Writers and it was well quoted. I had given more than one citation for that also. Why was that removed. Any sensible explanation ????. One explanation that is damn stupid is telling that "it may mislead those who don't know anything about cricket and they may think that he is a great bowler". Please don't give that explanation... PLEASE..... Rejecting a well known and well established fact with a hypothetical theory that a newbie may misunderstand seems very awkward. If you go like this, then when you say caught at mid wicket, some one new to cricket may think that the batsman was caught between the stumps and hence mid wicket violates NPOV etc. Similarly, a person who is new to cricket may think that Fine leg means Aiswarya Rai. If you think carefully, every (or most) term in cricket has another meaning outside cricket. Citing POV telling that those not knowing cricket my misunderstand is a very bad argument. If you have any other opinion tell us. Or else, please revert yourself. As a respect for you, I am not reverting this edit (Golden Arm) myself. Doctor BrunoTalk 14:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Tendulkar talk page.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too late....Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Thank you for providing me with a reasonable explanation of Wikipedia's standards for notability and inclusion. I appreciate your tact and brevity. Everything else I read, provided by other admin, was inconclusive and didn't support their argument. You, however, have convinced me that Wikipedia policy does extend to this issue. Thank you. Chriswurst 06:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks B

Hey Blnguyen, thankyou so much for your message and for your awesome support at my RfA. I feel so humbled by the number of awesome editors and administrators who supported me and I just hope I don't let anyone down. Please give me a tap on the shoulder if you notice me stuff anything up! If I'd known that I would only need one more support to overtake your tally, I would have done some campaiging! I'm sure I could have found ONE vote SOMEWHERE!! :) Cheers B, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Poll:

Hi everyone! This is the 2nd poll ever to be sent out. Please read the Disclaimer below & enjoy! -- Spawn Man 09:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 2 - Writing subjects

Question 1: When you edit or write articles on Wikipedia, do you specialise, or tend to write about a single or select topic range? For example, only frogs or only movies.
- A)Yes. B)No. C)I have a few topics I write about. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 2: If you have more than only one topic range, what are the top 3 topics or subjects you write about on Wikipedia? For example, frogs, movies & cars.
- A)My top 3 are... B)I have less than 3 topic ranges. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

Question 3: Have you ever written or edited an article about your home town or the city you live in?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Briefly. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 4: Have you ever edited what was, or turned out to be, a controversial subject or article in current news or on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 5: Have you ever reverted vandalism?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

Question 6: Have you ever helped get an article to Featured Article status?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)I helped partly. D)I've edited a Featured Article after it was promoted, but never helped to get one featured. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.

Question 7: Do you find it difficult to think of things to write about on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 8: On Wikipedia, do you edit articles to do with Wikipedia policies & voting etc more frequently than you edit actual encyclopedic articles?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)I have an equal mix of the two. D)Occasionally. E)Not sure. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.

Question 9: Do you wish there was a Wikipedia article about your life?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 10: Would you like to expand the range of topics you write about on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 11: Do you usually write about topics that are to do with your job, school or hobbies?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't work, I've never been to school & I don't have hobbies. :(. E)I don't know. F)Other... (Please explain). G)Abstain.

Disclaimer

Hi everyone. If this is your first time filling out a survey, read this. To fill out a questionaire sheet, simply send me a post to my talk page, clearly stating your choice for each answer. For example: For Question 1, you might choose to place on the message, "Q1: A)" or "Question 1: Choice A." etc etc. It's up to you, as long as I get the general jist of what your choices are. You have around 1 week to return a survey sheet, but late entrie's will be accepted.

Remember however, your personal choices may be read whilst they are on my talk page. I will understand if you don't wish to answer some or all of the survey due to this. For this reason I have also placed an "Abstain" choice for each question. Try & answer truthfully, or don't answer at all if you can't.

However, your personal choices will not be expressed on the survey's outcome, instead it will be part of a larger finding, such as "60% of people eat chocolate, 25% never eat chocolate & 5% of people chose to abstain from answering..." I will never say, "90% of people eat chocolate, while only Fruityman said he didn't..." This would be an invasion of privacy. However, if a question has (Please explain) or (Please elaborate) as a choice, your specific answer may be used in the survey outcome, although your name will not be. If a question does not have (Please explain) as a question choice, but your intended choice is not represented on the choice list, then feel free to provide another choice which fits your description.

You're probably getting bored reading all of this so I'll wrap up. To see outcomes of the results, see my Polls subpage. Feel free to comment on anything! Feedback is always welcome. Most importantly, have fun. Topics will vary greatly & surveys may be resent out at later times to re-assess a consensus if survey numbers have grown significantly. If you know anyone who would be interested in these surveys, send them to my talk page or if you see this survey sheet, send your own answers in! Thanks. -- Spawn Man.

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Speaking of, I noticed you deleted your user page. Your photo was is the best user photo I've seen (though I think I mentioned that before). I hope it comes back. Anyways, have a good wikibreak. -- Gogo Dodo 03:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hello Binguyen, I appericiate your considerations. I am interested in handling administrative powers. Shyam ^(T/C) 05:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Check out Rana Bhagwandas and Poverty in Pakistan. Both been put up on main page. Poverty in PAkistan was a great effort from User:Hkelkar. I'm going to catch up to you in yellow boxes.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny

Hi, could you please provide me with the source and the edit history for: 9-11:_The_Road_to_Tyranny

ref: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9-11: The Road to Tyranny (3rd nomination)

Thanks,  Xiutwel (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my request, please note the article is under WP:DRV by the way.  Xiutwel (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Source, Blnguyen! And, please, the edit history?  Xiutwel (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, had not realised; b.t.w. you may want to respond to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_September_25#proposal_911:_The_Road_to_Tyranny

 Xiutwel (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Halo's RfA

Blnguyen...
Thank you very much for the constructive criticism in your oppose comment in my request for adminship. Ultimately, no consensus was reached, and I failed to be promoted, but I am very grateful for your coments. I will strive to better myself in all areas, especially Mainspace.
Yours, Th ε Halo ^Θ 00:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

madhuri's pic

Can I use http://freshmeat.net/projects/madhuri/ for collage?Its GNU licenced...mahawiki 08:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone bogus tagged it to be perfectly honest. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hello. I am sure you are enjoying your wiki-break. In case, you find time please see this: [3]. I understand that you are more familiar with the background. Regards. --Bhadani 10:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

admins who dont edit articles

Just thought given a few of your recent RfA edits you may be interested in the following idea up for discussion. [4] Ansell 11:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

review

Hi - Please do me the kindness of visiting and sharing your views at Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2. I need your advice and criticism, and I would be immensely grateful if you could spare a little time on this. Thank you, Rama's arrow 15:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9-11: The Road to Tyranny on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 9-11: The Road to Tyranny. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortfuse (talk • contribs)

Mr. Lefty's RfA thanks

Hi, Blnguyen, and thanks for your comments in my recent request for adminship, which succeeded with a final tally of 70/4/4. I hope I can live up to your expectations, and if there's ever anything you need, you know where to find me! --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of anti-americanism book cover was vandalism

It is well known that book covers are fair use. Image:1antiamericanism.jpg Your deletion of the image is vandalism. Mrdthree 05:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't vandaliam. There are thousands of stuff out there not tagge properly. Perhaps you could please consider keeping an eye out, as it falls to about 10 admins to delete about 1200 images per day. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 05:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships RESULTS

Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships

Question 1: Do you feel that other Wikipedians are as nice (or as horrible!) as when you started editing Wikipedia as a registered user?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Roughly about the same. D)Don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 2: If you answered "No" above, how have other Wikipedian's attitudes changed?
- A)They have grown nicer. B)They have grown meaner. C)Don't know. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

Question 3: Are admins as nice as you think they should be? If you're an admin, try to be truthful...
- A)Yes. B)No, they are nicer. C)No, they are meaner/grumpier. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 4: Have you ever been in a serious dispute on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No, I've never been in a dispute. C)No, I've only been in minor disputes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 5: Have you ever been blocked from editing Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. (You can find out by checking "My contributions" & selecting "block log"). D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

Question 6: Have you ever met another editor on Wikipedia in real life?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Not sure. D)Other... (Please explain). E)Abstain.

Question 7: Do you enjoy communicating or working with other editors on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 8: Have you ever taken a "Wikibreak" due to stress from other editors?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)No, I've only taken a "Wikibreak" due to un-editor related stress. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 9: Have you ever collaborated on an article with another editor on Wikipedia?
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Several times. D)Not sure. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Question 10: Do you envy other editors on Wikipedia for their achievements or good fortune? Be honest...
- A)Yes. B)No. C)Sometimes. D)I don't know. E)Other... (Please explain). F)Abstain.

Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships - RESULTS

These are the results for Poll 1 - Wikipedian relationships. For the actual questions see above. Other (please explain) answers may have their text placed into these results for clarity. However, only a selection of Other (please explain) samples may be included if full selection is too big. Options not expressed means that nobody picked them. Any thoughts are appreciated.

Question 1: Of the 14 editors to answer Q1; 3 editors (21%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 1 editor (7%) chose option D) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "People need to be nicer to one another. The other site I tend to inhabit is much more civil, and always has been" & "It really depends on the individual; some are as nice as ever while others have acquired noticeably dourer dispositions."

Question 2: Of the 7 editors to answer Q2; 3 editors (43%) chose option A), 2 editors (29%) chose option B) & 2 editors (29%) chose option D), saying "The focus needs to be more on building the encyclopedia, and less on internal politics, in my opinion" & "Passive aggressiveness is more prominent than before."

Question 3: Of the 14 editors to answer Q3; 4 editors (29%) chose option A), 2 editors (14%) chose option C), 3 editors (21%) chose option D) & 5 editors (36%) chose option E), saying "Admins need to realize their behaviors reflect on the entire Wikipedia community" & "Again, it depends on the individual" & "Administrators are not as professional as they should be."

Question 4: Of the 14 editors to answer Q4; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 5 editors (36%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "It depends on the definition of "serious". I've been involved in some that got fairly acrimonious, but mostly over things that might be considered relatively trivial in some quarters."

Question 5: Of the 14 editors to answer Q5; 1 editor (7%) chose option A), 11 editors (79%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option D), saying "Yes but it was overturned" & "I was blocked by accident when someone hacked my email."

Question 6: Of the 14 editors to answer Q6; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B) & 2 editors (14%) chose option C).

Question 7: Of the 14 editors to answer Q7; 8 editors (57%) chose option A), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 2 editors (14%) chose option E), saying "For the most part, yes" & "Yes, but not always (but more than 'Sometimes')."

Question 8: Of the 14 editors to answer Q8; 5 editors (36%) chose option A), 6 editors (43%) chose option B), 2 editors (14%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "Only to deal with real life time consuming things."

Question 9: Of the 14 editors to answer Q9; 9 editors (64%) chose option A), 1 editor (7%) chose option B), 3 editors (21%) chose option C), & 1 editor (7%) chose option E), saying "I suppose I have, but not directly. I haven't spoken to someone directly and said, okay let's work on this together."

Question 10: Of the 14 editors to answer Q10; 2 editors (14%) chose option A), 7 editors (50%) chose option B), 4 editors (29%) chose option C) & 1 editor (7%) chose option D).

Hope you enjoy the results which you, the editors of Wikipedia, changed in every way. Have a ncie day! -- Spawn Man 10:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Happy Birthday

Thanks for the lovely birthday wishes and flower, dear Blnguyen. Seeing the latest image of your awe-inspiring collection of monkey photos on my talk page really made my day. ;) Cheers, Sango 123 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error in the Republic of China article

Hi, I just want to let you know that there is a factual mistake at the Republic of China article. Because it is been currently blocked from editing, I wanted to let you know that maybe you could fix it quickly. In the Republic_of_China#Political_status section's fifth paragraph, it states that 25 states recognizes the Republic of China, but in actuality, there is only 24 states. See Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_China. Please fix this factual mistakes, thanks.--Indefinitevirtue 22:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you already fixed it. --Indefinitevirtue 21:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

To **Blnguyen** for exceptional contributions as an editor and dedication as an administrator. Your hard work is appreciated by all of us -- **Samir** धर्म 01:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitefield College

The Whitefield College article might need a semi-protect and the anon IPs might need some tough love, see talk. Arbusto 01:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting images

Hi Blnguyen. Despite my best efforts to stay out of your way, you and I must be working the same CSD#I4 folders today, because I keep loading images that you've already deleted. Anyway, I've noticed quite a few that you've neglected to remove from articles. Is this intentional? It's slow and irritating to remove them, I know, but leaving red links in articles does not seem like a good idea to me. All the best. ×Meegs 04:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the bot does usually get 95% of them, but there's a new issue that Carnildo is working on. Reminds us just how indispensable the bot is, I guess. Anyway, keep up the good work. We couldn't get along without you either. ×Meegs 04:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blnguyen/Rahul Dravid

Are you no longer working on this ? Tintin (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on writing leave atm. Only checking my watchlist (which is too big).Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate name

Sir,

Thank you for your concern. But this is my name given to me when I took Buddhist "Diksha". I use this name insted of some nick name to convince the community that I am here to speak the truth.

--Bodhidhamma 14:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont you think these comments are unnessesary?

Please refer your message Dont you think this comment was completely unneccesary? unless you claim to be a reincarnation. You are an administrator so you should be careful when you write messages to others. Those should be very neutral and to the point. I will request wikipedia to get neutral administrators to controvertial articles.

If you combine different words from different languages you will always find such similarity. If I get such request from some neutral administrator, whos user page doesnt have any relation to Hinduism I will surly comply to the request.

Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bodhidhamma (talk • contribs) .

Well, WP:USERNAME says not to use the name of a famous person/religious figure unless you are that person. Bodhidharma passed on a while agao, so you cannot be him, unless you are a reincarnation. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hi. just wanted some clarification regarding uploading photographs. A friend of mine visited Badami/Pattadakal/Aihole in Karnataka, India and took many photos of Badami Chalukya monuments there. He is not too interested in uploading his pictures on to Wikipedia but does not mind sending me the pictures to do the same. Is it ok for me to upload his photos, so long as I mention who took the photos and that i have full permission from him to upload it on to wiki?

Dineshkannambadi

OK, replied on userpage. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you. I am feeling great! Shall report soon after returning most likely early morning of 30.09.06 (Indian Standar Time). Lot of work at office on 30.09.06. anyway, life is like that ... --Bhadani 01:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Indrancroos

This string of at least 20 edits really ticked me off [5]. He put images of fat people and feces on the Indian martial arts page. I feel blatantvandal tag was in order.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 months. Pics deleted. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 07:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now taht Haphar & Bhaisaab have moved off and Indrancroos is blocked, I guess I'll be working more on DYK's and the like and phasing out time on wiki for a bit. Wiki is almost like an MMORPG. Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BULL

Thanks. :-) Snottygobble 06:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want red.

But red usernames are annoying... --tjstrf 08:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the barnstar! Nice to know my efforts are noticed. --Kbdank71 11:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hey thanks for the barnstar! - and the thought - it's to be aprreciated - I'll put it on my barnstar page - thanks again. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! :)

You've brightened my day, and you're the first person who noticed that I'm sticking fairly strictly to my "RfA mandate" -- quite astute, as I'd expect from you. :) Wiki-love, Xoloz 14:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!

Thanks for the Barnstar, 'Yen! I truly appreciate it! - 18:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Blnguyen, thanks for the barnstar. You deserve one too but I'll wait 'till later and surprise you (or one of the other recipients will). It was such a good idea you had to put all of the image cats at csd that were past a week, you are very smart. When will you make a new userpage? See ya around, DVD+ R/W 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

trashing of my user page

User:Holywarrior (now User:Ikonoblast) has been putting up bogus warnings on User:Hkelkar's page here, here, here, and here. He gave me bogus warning here, here, and made personal attacks here. He also accused me of being a sock [6] , [7]. He also is harrasing me by accusing me of being subhash's sock [8]. This is the fourth such case made against myself, Hkelkar and Subhash_bose. He also vandalized my page with sock tags when I never used socks, and suggested my one throwaway account User:Bilbobaggins8 was a sock.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:....long overdue...

Hey thanks! Backlogs eh, so many of them... I'll keep having a go at them, though don't have as much time as before to do so- maybe this is why you're on wikibreak? I hope to see you back sometime. Thanks, Petros471 15:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]