User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive84

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam

YellowMonkey/Archive84, just a note of appreciation for your recent support of my request for adminship, which ended successfully with 112 supports, 2 opposes, and 1 neutral. If there's something I've realized during my RFA process this last week, it's that adminship is primarily about trust. I will strive to honour that trust in my future interactions with the community. Many thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a special word of thanks B-man for your words of encouragement re my admin bid, and your strong support at the RfA. I'm sure your vote of confidence helped swing things my way!

And speaking of things that swing - a little something for the monkey's banana bucket, as a small token of appreciation :) Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Falun Gong articles

I would like to seek your advice on a problem I'm having with a fellow editor re the abovementioned articles. I just cannot seem to get through to him - we have had words before, and he has now returned from wiki-break with a different approach: he has covered himself with a veneer of politeness, yet is just as opinionated and dug-in, and bent on turning these Falun Gong related articles into soapboxes for Falun Gong.

The current battleground is Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident, (rewritten over a period of months as a collaboration between asdfg12345 and myself, and gaining good article status in October) has been overrun by this particular disciple of Falun Gong who has admitted their political motivation. The culprit, Dilip Rajeev (who edits few, if any, non-Falun Gong articles and has a history of edit wars), stated to myself on the article talk page, "The reason we cant used propaganda from the CCP controlled press is that it is a long known and a well documented fact(by no means my personal opinion) that the CCP controlled press has been using the weirdest and the most slanderous propaganda against Falun Gong for the sole purpose of incitement of hatred."

He is completely unable to accept that anything the Chinese authorities says could be worthy of citation in a wikipedia article, whilst claims, assertions and allegations of Falun Gong and other advocacy groups', however marginal and insignificant, are totally legitimate and indeed necessary. He says We are obliged to report here what Human Rights Organizations such as the Amnesty have said on the issue - whether you like it or not. He has been forcing his way in editing on the above article, digging in trenches. He has also sought other significant non-neutral POV changes to the series of articles - such as putting ironic quotation marks around words he feels do not reflect the FG position; unilaterally renaming Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China → Falun Gong and live organ harvesting, and proposing to rename Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident → Tiananmen Square "self-immolation" incident.

I strongly suspect his next battleground will be Persecution of Falun Gong, which surprisingly been largely stable for over a month now. In addition, he has been harrassing me and accusing me or removing comments not pertinent to a given article as "covering-up". In addition, he has just accused me of sockpuppetry.

I've lodged renaming request, requested a pre-emptive page protection, but am seemingly at wit's end, as he is completely stressing me out. I don't want to bow out of editing the FG articles to give him free rein. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I might take a while, I'm a bit busy. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

I wish to point out that I have not made any such reverts lately. I had discussed , at length, every change I made and have always asked other editors to point out if they see any concern with any particular edit of mine. My recent changes have been very positively commended upon by other editors. The reverts I did was mainly in response to user:EgraS who kept reverting my changes, while not even bothering to give an edit summmary. I stopped rolling back his reverts, after two reverts, for the sake of avoiding an edit war, despite him not even bothering to give a reason( or even an edit summary for that matter) for his reverts. It was another well established user who restored the revert of user:EgraS, using TW, to the version of the page after my edits, pointing out to EgraS that "There is absolutely no need for a large scale revert. I'm resisting this time because it is such an egregious case. The edit was mostly just deleting a huge amount of content. There's no justification for that at all.".

If you feel, in any particular case that my edits were against wikipedia policies or that I have reverted against majority opinion, kindly point out and I'll be careful not to make a similar mistake again. I am also requesting Oconfucius to please point out using "diffs" any edit of mine that he would characterize as "disruptive".

In response to certain allegations raised above against me by User:Ohconfucius , please allow me to clarify:

• The recent changes have done are here[1][2]. The quality (or lack of thereof) of my edits may please be judged after reviewing my edits and the pertinent discussion on the talk pages. The content I have added, in most part, are from sources of The Highest Repute such as The Amnesty International, Kilgour-Matas Reports, HRW, Human Rights Reports submitted at the UN, etc. and very often in blockquotes. The changes were positively commended on by other editors.

• The change of title ,from the vague "Falun Gong and live organ harvesting" to the much more objective Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, was done on May 3rd after I mentioned it first on April 21st and requesting on May 1st that if there is any disagreement on the new title, it may please be pointed out. The majority of users, you may verify from talk page discussions, consider the change of title to be a good one.

• I have never made any personal "accusations" against Oconfucius - while on the other had the user has been repeatedly and baselessly accusing me of a wide range of "violations" from wp:soap, wp:de, wp:attack, wp:npov etc. while refusing to point out, despite my repeated requests, which particular edit of mine he has problems with. I am still requesting that he may please point out which particular edit of mine he'd characterize as above using diffs. Also requesting that he may please not pull out statements I made as part of talk pages discussions and put them out of context as he has done above.

• The checkuser request I made to compare IPs of EgraS and Oconfucius was only because I was very much surprised by certain edits where EgraS was referring to Onconfucis statements as if it were his own and EgraS's response to a request for explanation of removal of content by Oconfucius as if the question were directed at him. Also the uncanny word-for-word resemblance in certain talk page statements made by the two users. For instance, please see these edits. To be honest, I still find it hard to accept such similarities could occur by mere coincidence and the users are completely unrelated.

• I also wish to bring this case to the attention of the Arbitration committee, because Oconfucius has been blaming me for all kinds of violations for a while and if there be fault on my part the arbitration committee may point it out and I will make sure not to repeat those mistakes and if such allegations are baseless the above user may please be requested to not do so since doing so it makes it much harder then to focus objectively on the edits .

Sincerely, Dilip rajeev (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously you can't revert because the page was locked. I'm not concerned with or haven't looked at other things like CU stunts or the like. I could check the data again I guess, but if similar edits are the only thing, then one could simply imitate another person and get them blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I repeatedly pointed out Dilip rajeev's transgressions principally of WP:SOAP, WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE), but also of WP:ATTACK, which he has been obstinately refusing to accept. Admittedly, I only explained in global terms why the text he is attempting to delete or insert was problematic in my view. The editor incessantly writes in talk pages about the "persecution of Falun Gong" and "atrocities" perpetrated against practitioners, "lies" of the CCP, using these as justification of removing or inserting certain text, or ironic quotation marks - I, and Egra, protested again and again. The said editor insisted on glorifying Falun Gong and banishing all criticism as "propaganda", inconsistently saying his changes were "not radical" in one breath and "radical" in another, making unabashed stand-alone rants about the "Chinese Communist party propaganda", and making red-herring arguments while referring to BLP in the Li Hongzhi article - I found it nigh on impossible to carry out a sensible dialogue with him, however high his IQ may be.

Also requesting that he may please not repeatedly reinsert criticisms naming me in a talk page not relating to the article but to another, in violation of WP:TALK, was utterly reasonable in my view. I told Rajeev I found this action of his provocative; User:Antilived happened to concur with me that the comments did not belong.

The checkuser request he made to compare IPs of EgraS and mine was a smokescreen to cover his transgressions, to bog us down trying to defend ourselves. It may even be an attempt to get even at me for having him banned twice for edit warring. He appears to be more willing to find consensus than in the past on the surface. In reality, he is just as aggressive and belligerent as in the past - a leopard does not easily change his spots.The sheer number of edits to the checkuser request bears witness to his complete obsession with making a case against me.

I did notice the very long thread at RFCU. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

He fails to accept the common and accepted way of cross-discussions between different editors on Usertalk pages, let alone on article talk pages. He is being conveniently thick, using similarities I deliberately placed in the talk pages (in parody or to save retyping a shared point of view) as an excuse to accuse me of sockpuppetry. The "evidence" he offered against me using a sockpuppet is about as sound as his "evidence" against the Chinese authorities in the article.

I too wish for Arbitration committee to take note of what is happening, because rajeev's hounding and harrassment of me all around WP, waging a trench warfare on the Falun Gong articles, repeated editing disruptively and turning WP into a soapbox for Falun Gong, is completely not conducive to a sane editing environment. I have been enjoying a healthy editing relationship with another FG practitioner, and would suggest rajeev has been the only pro-Falun Gong user violently confronting others since FG articles has been put on probation by ArbCom. If there be fault on my part the arbitration committee may point it out and I will make sure not to repeat those mistakes, and if such allegations are baseless the above user may please be requested to not do so since doing so it makes it much harder then to focus objectively on the edits. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked people in the past for droning on nonsense about checkuser results that said the opposite to what the guy claimed, eg User:Wiki Raja. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddha's Birthday

Sure! Fine by me. From personal experience though, I should warn you that you probably won't get quite the same buzz when you are notified of your hook's success ;) Gatoclass (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Íve added two on the WT:DYK main page. I have another six right here on the hard drive. Are we going to have 8 Vietnamese temples on one dạy In any case, Vesak, at least in Vietnam, falls next Monday. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should save some for next monday then? --BorgQueen (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I could make some more over the next week. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Íve added another set to WT:DYK. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tay An Temple, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On 12 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Tinh Xa Trung Tam, and Kh'Leang Temple, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

On 12 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sac Tu Tam Bao Temple, 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.

On 12 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Van Hanh Zen Temple, 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.

PeterSymonds | talk 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Saggers

Honestly? I don't think it would make GA with such a gap in his personal life, unfortunately. I might trawl through the times digital archive (got access at Uni) for the invincibles tour and see what they say about him. Anything else you want me to look for while I'm there? Got lectures this morning so will leave that time for you to reply. SGGH ^speak! 07:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, at least with me I don't care. Murali Kartik is GA and so are a whole pile of other things. I don't think it's that important at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

help needed

A vicious debate has emerged on Talk:Chilean Australian between myself and TeePee - both positions are presented and the arguments are vigorously debated, although I am afraid it has turned out vicious and tendentious. Given your contribution to similar ethnic group articles in Australia and your standing as an arbitrator, I would value your moderating contribution to this debate. Thanks

Ok, looking. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

by the way, toi cung biet noi tieng Viet voi trinh do trung binh. Anh/Chi hoc tieng viet o dau? Kransky (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Em là người dân tọc Việt. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Btw, Kransky does not care this was merely an attempt to win you. He is not sincere. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very sentimental. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Very clever Kransky using what you have in common as a way of influencing him to favour you, but hopefully Blnguyen will choose to do the right thing and not favour you, at least consciously. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, he has already been influenced! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! Can you please view Kransky's contributions and see the RfC he made about me which did not abide by any of the policies put in place before making it. And if you wish to help us settle our disputes then can you please read from start to end and not selected sections. It may take you a long time as there is alot of history but if you truly wish to help you need to know the full story. Thankyou. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Also could you tell him to observe WP:CIVIL please? You will understand why by looking at his contributions before I posted the comment on the Chilean Talkpage which I'm pretty certain you are referring to. Thankyou. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime it appears that you have been blocked. Also, I have posted to WP:AWNB to get a larger sampling of opinion. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Chilean-Australian. Resolution sought

ATTN: PelleSmith, Pippu d'angelo, Itsmejudith, Blnguyen, Angusmclellan, Conman, SQL, Ned Scott and AussieLegend

I think it is in all our interests that we resolve the debate on the cited number of Chilean-Australians.

TeePee and myself have presented our arguments and rebuttals for some days now.

I thank you for your attention to the issues, and especially for bearing with us in this challenging debate. While I can not speak for TeePee, I would assume he is equally grateful.

But now is the time to get this debate finally finished.

I have drafted a comprimise version here (15:58, 17 May 2008 ) which provides references to the Jupp 2001 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestry estimate, with caveats attached which explain their respective difficiencies.

Now I respectfully ask if you could pass judgement on my text for this version, with a support or oppose provided on Talk:Chilean Australian. If you have not responded by 20 May I will presume you have elected not to take part.

I myself, and I would hope and expect TeePee, will abide by your ruling.

Thank you. Kransky (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although I do think it is in all our interest that we resolve the debate, I still think there are some issues needed to be addressed. I am equally as grateful as Kransky for all your time and effort but do not agree with his revision especially since it still contains information which has been referenced by an invalid reference which has been the major issues I have had with him throughout the whole history of this article. My version here provides references to the Embassy 2006 estimate and the ABS 2006 ancestory estimate. I respectfully ask you view my edit first as I asked first and tell me what problems you have with it before viewing Kransky's revision. (This was the terms I agreed to Kransky before promising I would not revert your revision, as you did not respect my request and want your revision to be viewed first I do not see why I should respect your request and let the article remain in it's current revision especially since you have provided that invalid reference which you have been doing for months). Thankyou TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

of course, it is me

I just forgot to login sometimes. Never trying to hide that. So afraid of truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guox0032 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot 3rr apply to 1 article not to 1 editor. If I get banned for 1 day, I have no complain.

But why did you edit out the slavery part, do you not believe that or refuse to believe that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.88.55 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not RS. Not neutrally presented by the writer. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read my sources to claim my sources are not reliable? You are one sided, and bias on this matter. I don't deny some of the good things dalai lama has done, but he has done plenty bad things as well, and this article is really one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guox0032 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did. Just a self-styled website etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Taner Akçam - related oversighting

The article Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front claims that Taner Akçam is a member of this terrorist group, without any citations. Can you please oversight the relevant edits? Also, do you happen to know what to do if there's defamation in a different language (Turkish) wiki? (I've also tried to raise that issue here and here) Thanks, Andjam (talk) 05:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Righto I'll have a look. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

done, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New page for MILHIST copy-editors

The coordinators have decided to make it easier for copy-editors to watch the new requests by creating an own page for this purpose. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics/Copy-editing/Requests all new and old requests are listed. Please add this page to your watchlist. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Privacy query

Blnguyen, can you advise on this thread relative to the Hillary Clinton FAC and QuirkyAndSuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The editor had his personal myspace account posted to his user page since March 2006, it was raised on the FAC, he removed his myspace link on May 11, 2008 (two years later) and he now wants the link removed from the FAC. My understanding is that policy doesn't allow me to do that, and that the only way that info can be expunged is if he exercises RTV, but I don't know policy in this area, and I don't want to do something that risks destabilizing the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I would be willing to bend the rules and oversight if another oversighter would agree with it. I'm not too worried about the compromising of the FAC, although you might think differently. A lot of FACs have ethnic bloc votes and I wouldn't really care whether the guy has a blog or a userpage with strong opinions on ethnic matters since even with most street-smart guys who don't declare their ideology, it still affects their dispute/poll positions anyway. A guy might not even know that he is biased but I have seen way biased people with no soapboxing on their userpages. But I think talking to the guy who raised his website and asking them to refactor is ok. And then oversighting. Raul can oversight as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Both "sides" seem dug in here, so I'm afraid to suggest anything lest it rock the boat; I don't think asking the fellow who posted it to refactor is going to go over well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we'll see if this dies down organically. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

{{ref_label|a|a|none}}

Blnguyen!! Please explain to me how these things work, I have been looking for them to use in my own article for ages. A way to do footnotes that aren't in the references section for extra information! SGGH ^speak! 08:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see that someone did them for me in Thich Quang Duc. Apart from that I'm pretty clueless. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Dammit. SGGH ^speak! 09:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hoi Khanh Temple

On 16 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hoi Khanh Temple, 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.

--BorgQueen (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your deletions of Who's who for famous Buddhist teachers

Why did you delete all of the Who's who of Buddhism links from famous Buddhist teachers to an external link of "Who's who of Buddhism" ? That is what the "External links" is for. Is there some reason you did that? If so, what are the reasons? It links to a non-profit organization link which is educational only, not a business or profit making center. This is an appropriate link to an educational site that enhances the wikipedia articles. Please put the links back or give a valid explanation. Vibhajjavada (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that it added much because most of them were 2-3 sentences and were a subset of the info in the main article anyway and did not provide a staging ground for access to further materials. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But they are staging grounds for further information. This is because they direct the reader to an extensive "who's who of Buddhism." Also, some of the people on that "who's who" list at that link do not have pages at Wikipedia, but are quite famous. Some might want to make a page about those others, thereby improving Wikipedia. There are also pictures at that link not found on Wikipedia. That link provides great benefit to those articles and for Wikipedia.Vibhajjavada (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia's category structure and navigation templates already do this. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The pictures are interesting, but if those are really released and not copyright violations then they could be added directly to the article instead. I agree the rest of the content in those links did not add any encyclopedic value. I removed them when they were added again. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)