User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive59

Madame Nhu and "collaborated"

I have deleted the word "collaborated" again from the Madame Nhu article, re her paternal grandfather. Without detail or further explanation, "collaborated" is a POV term per Wiki definitions. If you believe strongly that her paternal grandfather was a "collaborator" then you will have to explain this more fully and provide a citation. To call him a collaborator adds an implication of criminality, given the popular usage of the term since World War II.Kitchawan 18:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. It is in Stanley Karnow's book but nothing more is made of it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This made me think... (ArbCom)

Hi,

This comment of yours at the Gustafson ArbCom case made me wonder:

"If the ArbCom is to start desysopping people for incivility, Mr Gustafson would not be the first to spring to mind."

Who would be the first to spring to mind, and can you start the proceedings, please?

My point is, I suppose, that never having done a thing before is no reason to refrain from doing it, if it is a good thing to do. Mind you, I like Jeffrey, so I'm not disagreeing with your choice, but your rationale strikes me as odd (and a bit flippant) -- why not desysop for persistent incivility? Other than novelty, is there any reason that it is a bad idea?

By coincidence, I was reading the article on the Shuttle Columbia disaster, and was reminded of the term "normalization of deviance," which refers to the tendency, within institutions, for slight negative behaviors to become accepted and habitual over time -- establishing a "new normal" -- and leading gradually by progression to the adoption of more severe corruptive behaviors as typical. Could this be a problem within Wikipedia? Best wishes, Xoloz 00:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, naturally I don't want to name names just in case those people might get put in the dock, but there are a few who are much worse. I'm sure you have clashed with some of them. Of course, in principle, we should desysop for incivility - It is a requirement at RfA to be civil but in general people can (should they choose to do so) become foulmouthed after they become an admin with impunity. So in principle, yes we should. "never having done a thing before is no reason to refrain from doing it, if it is a good thing to do" - That's true. If it was to signal the start of a trend of desysopping rude people, then definitely, but I get the impression that Mr Gustafson has gotten under people's skin substantially because of his rather idiosyncratic behaviour which might be taken to be a deliberate comedy act. I got the impression that this was going to be a once off desysopping for incivility and didn't think it would result in a desysopping if another ruder but less idiosyncratic person was RfArbed. In which case it would appear that JOG would end up merely being a symbolic case, which is pointless since he deletes more stuff than most admins. As regards to the second point, yes. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet - you are being accused of being a vandal

You may wish to know that you are being accused of being a vandal by User:219.73.11.127. Not only in the talk page of the Tibet article, but also in an edit summary, and in addition the same IP user has left a message on another (registered) users talk page again accusing you of being a vandal, as they reckon they can't leave a message on here (so how did I leave this message I wonder!). The message, left on User talk:Khoikhoi syaes that the Tibet article "seems going increasingly unbalanced!". Amazingly ironic given the IP users edits which have included adding content without a fully verifiable reliable source. I would take further action, but I need to go. I will though tomorrow make a start on checking the sources on the Tibet article as there are far too many alleged sources that are simply not verifiable and they need a verify tag adding at the very least. The IP user is right in that it is becoming "unbalanced" bit not in the way they clearly believe. The article attracts very strong views, sometimes there are clear POV edits from pro-Tibetan independence users (which I have removed when I see them), but there have been way too many pro-PRC POV edits to the article, some of which have remained. Anyway, have fun as the IP User apparently needs to calm down(their words). ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok I'll live. My talk page is actually slocked at the moment because of trolls. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Robson

Hey you, I've been editing Sir Bobby's article, particularly expanding his playing career. I'm not saying it's ready yet but fancy taking at a look at that section and letting me know if it's sufficient for you? I know the Newcastle section is a bit too expanded versus the Euro exploits, I'll work on that next, but can you just let me know that the playing section meets with your GA-eyed approval...? Cheers fella. The Rambling Man 16:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batting chart

Do you think it would be possible to generate one of these batting charts for Anil Kumble? Gnanapiti 19:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on Raven's talk page as per Rambling man's suggestion. Gnanapiti 22:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks. The chart looks great. That was fast too! Nice and strange to see in the graph a pillar crossing 100 mark after so so many red lines. :) Gnanapiti 05:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only took about 15 minutes. I have refined my technique!!! It depends mostly on how many innings they have played. The main part is manually adding the not out dots in blue. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing where people could talk anytime

Where do I go to make it so people can chat with me, like "talk to me" or "chat with me"? Agtaz 04:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of this except for the WP:IRC. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1955 State of Vietnam referendum

I saw 1955 State of Vietnam referendum on the good article candidates list. I made some edits which hopefully were for the better. Well done. Perspicacite 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 15 in Arizona

Is there a reason you didn't use the image for this? I was going to notify RCMoeur that his photo was on the front page. --NE2 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is usually a problem that supply of pictures > picture space. Only one picture is available for each slot and there are six-eight articles. Usually 3-4 of these have picture selections so some will miss out. I guess the picture didn't really grab me. Sometimes if the article is really good, it will have the picture even though the picture is not so good, but I didn't think that was the case her. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small topics

Such as, say, the Black Hawk War or maybe Frank Lloyd Wright? : ) Your last message was sneaky, took me a second to find. IvoShandor 08:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the Vietnam one now, thread must be too old and I got too many messages after yours or something, I just missed it, I will take a look if I get a shot here, maybe do my first review in months. Gotta warn ya, I'm tough. Speaking of small topics, I must have about 8 nominations on the Black Hawk War up now, I just added James W. Stephenson, and might I say, what an interesting guy. IvoShandor 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK that is. IvoShandor 09:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, we have this receipt policy on returns . . . IvoShandor 09:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit ability

Please restore my ability to edit my own talk page so that I can archive it. — NRen2k5 09:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns?

Should we take this guy's words seriously or just ignore? Gnanapiti 02:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I already blocked him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Cena

Hi Blnguen,

I was wondering if you could review John Cena as the article is getting very little comments at the moment. Also, could you re-review 2007 Malaysian Grand Prix when you have a moment as that also is getting very little comments. Much appreciated. Davnel03 08:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I can do Malaysia but I don't really understand WWE and how it is stage and all that. I've seen previous discussions where people weigh up the "character" and the "real person" and it left me a bit stumped. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your advice on something

Hello, I would need you (or one of your fellow admins) to take a look at White People and Black People (and their associated talk pages) and this posting on ANI [1]. This looks to be two groups of users, each pushing for a specific agenda (unfortunately, I have been among these users too, I'll admit), except the revert wars are bordering on the ridiculous (whole sections being deleted because somebody has a thin understanding of biology, Afrocentrist Egyptology being deemed a "US-only" subject (when its main proponent isn't American at all!), unfounded accusations of bad faith (lying, etc.) and personal attacks that would make your ears sing into the next century (just look at the talk page for either articles). Something needs to be done, but where do I start? RfPP? ANI? What's the best way to get this rapidly-degenerating situation the rapid attention it deserves? Please let me know, either here or on my talk page. Thank you for your attention!--Ramdrake 12:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I am rather stumped. I have never really ever dealt with racial classifcation type issues and don't really know anything about this topic. The only stuff I ever did was reverting Ernham (talk · contribs) when he did racial purification edits to a few mixed blood Germans. I do see that many people are already watching this guy...frm all over ANI and so forth. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I am continuing to edit {{CUR-CHICOTW}}. Is it palatable yet?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid I do not see what you are trying to tell me. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation: John Howard, Request for Comment

Hi Blnguyen. There is a Request For Comment on the John Howard talk page. I wish to invite you to leave a comment there, and to give your opinion on those matters. Hope to see you there. Cheers, Lester2 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted thankyou. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd pop by ;-)

Hey Blnguyen; we've never actually met before, although I've seen your (very commendable ;) work around, so just for you here's a "hey" and some .. er, .. traffic cones (?). Well, enjoy!

Here's some traffic cones for you! Cones somehow promote WikiLove, and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the Luv by giving something friendly to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiHarmony to others!
Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk)

;-) Anthøny (contact ⇔ talk) 15:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Kumble

Hi, the sentence actually says among leg spinners from all countries, Kumble is the second highest wicket taker in test cricket only behind Shane Warne of Australia. I think the sentence is right when you are comparing only leg spinners, right? Murali is a off spinner and so not compared here. Gnanapiti 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it was a bit unclear, so I tried to reword the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

Mate, thanks for your fast action, as ever. Cheers, Ian Rose 05:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

Hi Blng did you get my email? Paul August ☎ 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And replied. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poznań 1956 protests

I have copyedit the article, per your suggestions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Empire

Sir,

Some Anon user seems to be tagging this article and leaving abusive messages on its talk page. Please put a soft block on both pages. I believe the same user left a nasty message on Vijayanagara architecture talk page also. Dineshkannambadi 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Hornplease

Hi Blnguyen, there's a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hornplease_.28was:_Community.27s_criminal_negligence_at_revelation_of_personal_information.29 about your block of User:Hornplease, which has been lifted. It might be helpful if you could comment there; I guess no one informed you of the discussion. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since 3RR was broken in this case by a very specific IP range (140.247.152.*) rather than a named user, can I ask what the rationale was for blocking a user account 2 weeks inactive instead of the offending IPs? JFD 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I simply compared Hornplease's declared IP ranges (from his userpage declaration) with those of the IPs who were active on the given Witzel page. Given that the IP ranges overlap, and the fact that both the University and the Home IPs match using the WHOIS tool, I thought this was him. The other thing was that Hornplease declared himself at Harvard/Cambridge and also the IPs did straight reverts with machine tools and knows all the policies apparently. This would be the usual way a RFCU and its output would work, but since hornplease declared his IPs on his userpage I reasoned that there wasn't a need for a checkuser. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declared specific IPs. The Ip ranges you compared were for all of Harvard and Cambridge. Does it surprise you in the least that people from that university are visiting the article on someone who teaches there? It certainly is not a legitimate assumption to make that only two people would edit the Witzel article ever from the fairly prominent and large university where he teaches.

Be that as it may, I am applying for an RFCU. When it comes back, and I have more time at my disposal, I am taking this to AN/I for a discussion of your reasoning. Hornplease 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hornplease was pro-Witzel
The edits of the sock/meat was pro-Witzel
One IP is in Cambridge, Mass, the other at Harvard proper
The IP's editing in July matched an IP used by Hornplease when not logged on
The IP's had in depth "knowledge" of BLP, a policy Hornplease used to play around with very frequently
The edit summary here entails that this user was active on Talk:Michael E. J. Witzel. Hornplease was the only user in Cambridge participating on the talk page.
Witzel teaches at Harvard, Hornplease is associated with Harvard
Even if there isn't explicit sockpuppetry, Hornplease's conduct towards those criticizing Witzel, and hatred of Hindutva leads to questions about his affiliations and allegations he is editing on behalf of Witzel.

Baka man 23:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see BLN's response to this, and to my point below. The block was absurd. Harvard's a large university, and it would be a little strange to assume only one person edits from there. Further, as pointed out below, I haven't been in cambridge, as anyone with CheckUser would be able to confirm. I'd like an apology from the blocking admin. Hornplease 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I return from a vacation and wikibreak to discover that you blocked me at Baka's suggestion. I don't have time to go over this completely right now, but I would like to point out that I did not violate 3RR through IP-warring. As anyone with checkuser privilege would be able to tell you, I have been editing from New York City for some time, and definitely was there at the time the questionable edit from a Harvard IP was made. I'd like to know where I can go to ensure that this information is made publicly available. An apology from you would also be acceptable. Hornplease 23:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did not check Baka's RFCU request nor did I receive any emails and so forth from him before I landed the block. Witzel's article is actually on my watchlist seeing as it has a source of action since recent arbcom actions although I have never edited it and can't prove that it was on my watchlist. Per the explanation above, I compared your declared IPs on your userpage to those on the Witzel page. I would have asked for RFCU if you hadn;t already declared your IPs, but if you were away in NYC then this would have shown up in the RFCU. If you were in NYC then I apologise for the mistake. I guess you can ask at WP:RFCU for a test of innocence, and I will be happy to sign a retraction on your talk page if this is the case. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: The IPs I 'declared' were specific addresses assigned to me at one point a few years ago. You seem to have examined the entire range of Harvard and Cambridge IPs and noticed a reversion, and then assumed that that must be the person who has declared an affiliation with that university, rather than one of the thirty-five thousand other people with Harvard institutional affiliation, editing an article about a Harvard professor. I certainly don't think it is surprising that more than one person from Harvard would edit an article about a member of that faculty. Given that assumption, an RFCU is the least you should have waited for, given that I have edited here for many, many years without ever once breakin 3RR or being blocked. I am taking this to RFCU, and then, once those results are in, to AN/I for a further examination of your behaviour. Hornplease 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just a co-incidence that more and more number of socks are interested in this case or is it just Kuntan?Gnanapiti 08:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also interesting that while you went without any proofs to block Hornplease, but at the same time, several socks who later were found to be made by Hkelkar had a free run in the article, making Pro-Baka/HK revert wars. Blnguyen, during Rama's Arrows case, I mentioned that you should recuse yourself from such situations where your neutrality as a judge might be called into question. In future, I request you not to take any admin actions pro- or anti- these editors, as such actions are bound to be scrutinized if they seem a bit one-sided. I'm not questioning any good faith efforts, just that this block and ignoring-hk-socks at the Witzel article does look pretty awful. You need not bring these upon yourself. This is just a personal observation, and you don't need to reply to this. Thank you. --Ragib 07:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm not involved. Your smarter than that. Also the indefinite blocks you voted for were based on false emails. Also, by your reasoning, you should not have voted and only people who have never heard of the people should vote. Like the arbcom, who found that the evidence was a joke. Secondly, since you think it's ok for RA to revert and block, you're rather funny. You don't need to feign concern for my well being. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At AN/I here. Do, please look in if you have the time. Hornplease 03:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard from you at AN/I. Mackensen has indicated that he will not reconsider the earlier, declined, RFCU. Given that, and that I have established that the 3RR-breaking edit to an article on the head of a Harvard department came from a dynamically assigned Harvard IP - of which there are thousands - can I assume you admit that the block was an error, especially since I was on an obvious wikibreak? If so, will you follow Raymond Arritt's/Bishonen's suggestion? Hornplease 04:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLN, I'd really appreciate a reply on this. Hornplease 09:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so. I have asked another confirmation of your location in NYC. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. I look forward to it being confirmed, as I have been editing from NYC for months, with only short breaks till my vacation, when I was offline and didn't edit at all (and was blocked.) Hornplease 20:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation, and the little, ceremonial block. I still don't agree with your case for blocking, mind you, but, as always, you've been conscientious in following up. Matter closed, and forgotten. Thanks again! Hornplease 20:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

war victims pensions

Hi! thanks for your message concerning Heinz Barth. Actually, I prefer other to nominate them... One can't be everywhere! Barth wasn't the only one to have received such a pension, see for instance http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bhKRI6PDInE&b=296323&ct=351033 . It would be interesting to find more about that... Tazmaniacs 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xa Loi Pagoda raids

I won't template the regulars, but you just made 24 edits in less than half an hour in this article :) Melsaran (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh........I should use preview more often. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi, with the newish DYK procedure does the text from the current template go strait to the archive and who sets up the template for the next update? --Peta 06:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, traditionally I have always put the current stuff into the archive at the top. It seems as though it is common these days. Nowadays, anyone can fill out the next update, so that non-admins can participate. Anyone can move them back to the nomination page as well if they disagree. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little bit more cumbersome with the suggestion template; I probably wouldn't use it unless it was filled out. Does the suggestion template cause any/many problems, is there much non-admin participation anyway? --Peta 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I estimate perhaps 20-30% of the preparation into the loading zone is now done by non-admins. It would encourage less inclined or busy admins to participate because the work now comes in smaller bits. Sometimes a few busy admins will step in if it is already prepared for them. There is no rule for using it, up I use DYK/N as a sandbox anyway. If I am going to update directly I don't move the credits, I just paste into N and use the previewer, then cut again to the main page. If I do N with the intention of doing the real thing, I don't move the credits, just the hooks and then do the credits straight from DYKT. I do find that the N option encourages admins who are otherwise disinclined to update, because sometimes when I update in the Australian afternoon, I will reload N, and I tend to notice that the next update afterwards is usually moved into place at most 8 hours later if it is already filled. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's getting the template updated sooner then it's working and that's a good thing. I just wish I'd read the one I just added, 4/5 of the items are US based - I like a bit more variety than that. It must be a bit of a pain to move items back to the suggestion page if you choose not to put them on the template. --Peta 07:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The re-addition to the main suggestions page is the drawback, especially if there were special circumstances, or if there was a wad of old discussion that was removed when it is moved to N. Once there was a large article which went from 25k to 35k and it was on the N, so I deleted it. But there was a special circumstance that the 25k version was a copyvio so it was actually a 0k ->35k and it caused a bit of a mixup - this was explained in the original nom but was removed when it was processed into N. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Quiz

We need a clue! Please... The-Pope 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Howard / Wikiquette Alert

Hi, Blnguyen. I submitted a Wikiquette Alert regarding Discourteous Deletions that have occurred in the John Howard article. I cited your name, as well as Skyring. You would understand Wikiquette alert procedures more than me, but I understand it is a low-level way to resolve disputes that carries no penalty. My aim is for everyone to observe etiquette and courtesy when deleting content. I want to avoid delete/edit wars. I invite you to participate in the Wikiquette Alert discussion. Thanks, Lester2 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Auerbach

Hi there Blnguyen, I know you are one of the experienced FAC and GAC reviewers here, so I wanted you ask your opinion on the handling of Red Auerbach, recently made a "failed GA" by User:OhanaUnited. OU just pretty unilaterally removed 1-month old GA Red Auerbach, just citing minor shortcomings in 2 lines, and then failing the article after 4 days. He completely failed to inform the main editors (User:Onomatopoeia, User:Chensiyuan and others), never listed the article on WP:GA/R for discussion, and never listed the article on WP:NBA for any discussion for our WikiProject, yet stating "he did everything he did to let everybody know", see Wikipedia:Editor review/OhanaUnited. Can you drop me a line about this? Thanks. —Onomatopoeia 12:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I guess in hindsight it would be better to inform the article writers directly like the custom of doing so for WP:FAR. Even then many guys don't read the FAR instructions and SandyGeorgia or Marskell have to do the notes. But on the other hand GA/C/R is supposed to be easy come, easy go on principle. But I can understand it might be interpreted as a bit of a slap in the face for an established contributor. I don't think OU meant it in bad faith at all, he's a good guy. I have at times ripped off four GAs without even a prior notice, so perhaps I should take it a bit easy, those were Naseem Ashraf (BLP/POV tabloid), Fatima Jinnah Dental College (no proper sources whatsoever), Bali Nine (BLp violations: unsourced allegations of drug dealing) and Fremantle Prison (sources). I guess playing it safe and taking things a bit slow might have made things a little better but I don't think that there is a major issue. I'm surprised you don't watchlist everything. I separately watchlist User:Blnguyen/Contributions for my major article contribs. That way I don't miss it among all the other not so important articles that I maintain. But overall I think you guys have been doing a good job on improving the articles so you should worry about that because that's what keeps you happy. I think you seem to have distracted yourselves a little by getting too stressed about minor procedural things which you don't view as ideal. Fixing up the issues with the articles is a lot more important, enjoyable and rewarding. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 14 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 20:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Passage to Freedom, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pham Ngoc Thao

I have copy edited about half of Pham Ngoc Thao. I have made significant changes, including some minor content changes. Since I relied on wikipedia's articles on the events in question to make those alterations, you should check the article for accuracy again. I also left quite a few internal comments, asking for clarification, etc. Such comments can be seen well with something like wikEd, which color codes comments, body text, footnotes, etc. Awadewit | talk 07:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my copy edit. I highly suggest that you have someone familiar with the period take another look at it, though. I found it difficult to change much since I know shockingly little about the Vietnam War. I started to read all of the linked articles, but I could not keep that up. Thus, the second half of the article has more internal comments - asking for clarifications and precision. I hope that I helped. I am concerned that I screwed things up. Awadewit | talk 03:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Double Seven Day scuffle

On 18 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Double Seven Day scuffle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 08:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtrakuta Empire

Sir, Looks like User:Deccanking who calls himself an professor of History from Maharashtra (he used to call himself a student of History, he has graduated now:)) is none other than User:Sarvabhaum and is active on above page. Please lock up this article for the time being. Interestingly his IP has changed to 86.12.210.21. (used to be 59.95..)Dineshkannambadi 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at him and at first glance he does not appear to be Mahawiki judging by MW's distinctive tone. Unfortunately a slock would not work anyway since hte account is not new. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratefulness

I will not belittle your support with a mere 'Thank you'. You are one of the few persons to appreciate how bad it feels when neglected after all the hard work. With regards - P.K.Niyogi 03:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks but I am not particular sure what you are referring to with your second sentence there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways of looking at odd articles in Wikipedia. One is to point out faults for ultimate improvement - it is a supportive role. The other is to be destructive - criticise and leave it. As an Indian, I do have problems sometimes in making myself understood to others. Moreover, some of what I write may not have a broad appeal. I have always found you to be sympathetic and supportive. I feel, that is a great quality you have. In particluar, I was referring to your selection of Shyambazar for DYK, after several people had questioned the hook. Regards - P.K.Niyogi 12:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

File:ForBlnguyen.png

Your very first support means much to me...

Thanks a lot, Blnguyen. I'll try my best to live up to your expectation. Don't hesitate to rebuke me if I mishandle the buttons. Hope that I'll have chance to work more with you. And congrats on your new FA!!! Excellent enough it's the very first Vietnamese individual's FA (but I think the title should be with diacritics). Oh, I was intended to award you something for the greatest expansion (only one day) I've ever seen but I was so busy to do that. Again, thanks for everything. @pple 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, it was a pleasure and I certainly intend to make Thich Quang Duc an FA as well. Oh and being the first Viet editor to write a Viet FA seems cool too. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]