User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive47

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 "

Noted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I don't know any Vietnamese-literate Wikipedians, and I'm taking a chance that you read Vietnamese based on your username.
I would like to re-use the image of Vietnamese poet Xuân Diệu from the Vietnamese language Wikipedia article of the same name: http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xu%C3%A2n_Di%E1%BB%87u but I can't read the license info and I don't know how to link that image. If it's properly licensed, maybe it could be moved to the commons. Any help you could provide would be much appreciated! --67.188.0.96 01:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the image is fair use. To be frank, it probably should be deleted from the vi-wiki as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So fair use can't go into the commons, but it can it be re-used for the english wiki, no? He looks to be roughly 20 years old in that photo and was born in 1916, making that photo roughly 71 years old and 4 years short of going into the public domain. Of course he could be older. Oh well... Anyway, thanks for checking that out. --67.188.0.96 05:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can be, but in this case I don't think a portrait is fair use applicable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Blnguyen 74.12.84.236 03:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, unfortunately it was the most criticised FA in living memory. Talk:Ian Thorpe, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 25, 2007 and [3] shows the picture. Perhaps that's an omen. Added to that, Harbhajan Singh's FA is now redundant.......Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate. I just thought I'd see if you and your Mysterious Powers can shed some light on this:

Both my userpage and my user talk page have recently been vandalised by a series of IPs. The most recent instances make mention of User:MurraySkull, whose Talk page suggests a small level of activity but who seems to have no contribs at all. Essentially, I'm trying to figure out if the IPs (which all have related addresses) are tied to the user in any way. Obviously without contribs on the part of the user, it gets tricky. If you've got any insight, I'd love to hear it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I go to Murray Skull's talk page, I see there is a note that one of his pages has been deleted. Once I went into the link, it will show that he did edit that deleted page and you deleted it. I guess those IPs are him then. Yeah it's rotten when their pages are deleted and you can't remember what rubbish was posted. But that likely explains why he is angry. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would it be worth actually blocking the named user next time an IP does the same routine on me? I mean, we're still only just one step up from hearsay evidence until the user remembers to sign in and edit an article, but that seems like a good answer. By the way, I think I've just acquitted myself reasonably well on my first "I want my neologism in Wikipedia" debate over on my Talk page. Maybe this admin thing really is for me :P BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to, I guess at least for 1-2 hours, and the guy will log off and go away, since he is probably on a dynamic IP or something. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BL, you may be away, but I think it would be nice if, when you have time, you address the issue of whether or not you think civility is not necessary on India-related pages. You have been quoted as saying that by Bakasuprman on the Freedom Skies RfArb. It's irritating, because he's using it as a way to shut down discussion. Hornplease 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never said it was unnecessary, I simply noted that it because of the high tension in that area, then applying the usual diplomatic standards expected on benign topics elsewhere, would lead to an empty paddock and no coverage of the given area. Even though many parties appear happy to have frank and flamboyant debates and jibgin, as well as the reality that the civility in that area is not policed strictly as in other areas, however to say that is not the case is false. I do think I noted that a well behaved user could gain themselves an advantage simply because they are less likely to be serving blocks. Simply to disprove this contention, one needs only peruse the block logs of the following people, some of whom I blocked myself, as well as being arbcom banned.

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Szhaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mahawiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Arya Rajya Maharashtra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Haphar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...................... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. I think I disagree that it would lead to an empty paddock, but I do understand that policing it is impossibly hard. (Political theory says that when policing is hard, enforcement is rare, but severe.) Hornplease 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some of the specifics of hockey in the 1956 Olympics because it seems that he did not play in any match. The official report at http://www.aafla.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1956/OR1956.pdf has the lineups for all the matches and he doesn't appear in any of them (it is a 33 MB file). He also doesn't appear in the list of 14 given in David Wallechinsky's Complete Book of the Summer Olmpics (mine is 1996 edition). We can always add it back if we find evidence to the contrary. Tintin 13:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I knew the month of my anniversary but didn't know it was today! It was also your first admin nomination so Happy First (+ Successful) Nomination Day! I still have plenty to do as an admin and editor. I haven't even strongly contributed to any FA yet. The closest was the World Cup, but after pushing it to GA status, I stuck around only on the talk page and left the final yards up to Noble, Thugs, you and others. It has been pleasant time working with too and I likewise wish you all the best within and outside Wikipedia. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very likely. The account is editing from Sarvabhaum's same IP range.

Ok, I'd say yes then. It does edit the linguistic articles with the same bias and has the same interest in the certain Marathi political party which is a proponent of reclaiming Belgaum etc etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you better. --Dweller 08:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thankyou. The feisty aspect of me awoke me again, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest in making this stub not suck? Hesperian 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not? I guess I have a few things to prove after the latest debacle on Talk:Ian Thorpe being the worst ever main page FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I missed all that. I invariably enter Wikipedia by the back door. Sorry to hear that; I guess it was just bad timing; wrt the release of the new licensing policy resolution. Hesperian 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your vote to accept the Betacommand case. Should we deem you active in that case if/when it opens? Should we restore you to active status in the cases currently in the evidence/voting stages? Please advise. Regards, Newyorkbrad 02:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't think you need to worry, I will reactivate myself on the cases where I have informed myself sufficiently to make a useful say. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks awful. All the articles about current cricketers need a rewrite every two months or so :-/

Saw the Harby/Ponting incident today. It was in the SRT's 143 run match in Sharjah. Ponting hit HS for a six and was stumped immediately afterwards. While RTP was walking back, HS pointed him with his thumb in the direction of the pavilion. RTP suddenly moved in the direction of HS and shouted something. Tintin 08:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah.... I remeber the second part..Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice banner. Teke 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it misleading advertising? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted an entry I made on a public access TV program called "Back Porch Video." It was a very relevent show, and one of the first music-video programs in the country. It ran for well over 10 years. Would it be possible to have the article reinstated? Thank you, Lance

It would be possible, since the deletion is contested. At the time I deleted it, nobody contested it, so I removed it under

WP:PROD. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for posting it :) - Fedayee 22:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone beat me to it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --

Well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The DYK Medal
		For creating and maintaining DYKs. Few deserve it more.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Piotrus for this medal. This is a great honour, coming from one of most prolific DYK contributors ever, and one of the most prolific article writers ever. You are one of those who deserve it much more than myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already have one, so I am spreading the honor where deserved :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had one too. :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

per Richie Benaud [5]:

There have been plenty of spin bowlers around for more than a hundred years but the four, for me, who have broken the mould and made batsmen think seriously about what was coming down the pitch at them, have been Bernard Bosanquet, Jack Iverson, John Gleeson and Shane Warne...

—Moondyne 06:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thankyou. I've added the quote, with attribution of course. :) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]