Samuel Luo (talk | contribs) →Locking [[Suppression of Falun Gong ]] page: I thought I should provide some background info on edit conflicts on these pages. |
128.122.89.171 (talk) No edit summary |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 311: | Line 311: | ||
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{2|MSK-008_Dijeh}}}|deletion review]] of [[:MSK-008_Dijeh]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- [[User:Jreferee|Jreferee]] 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#{{{2|MSK-008_Dijeh}}}|deletion review]] of [[:MSK-008_Dijeh]]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- [[User:Jreferee|Jreferee]] 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I just noticed someone previously posted the same request on your talk page. To this, I'll just add that the heart of the MSK-008 Dijeh deletion review goes directly to the closing statements that you made, where one editor at the deletion review now argues that the "closing admin apparently devalued the comments of some of the editors based on a perceived association with a WikiProject in order to reach his conclusion that there was a consensus to delete." -- [[User:Jreferee|Jreferee]] 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
:I just noticed someone previously posted the same request on your talk page. To this, I'll just add that the heart of the MSK-008 Dijeh deletion review goes directly to the closing statements that you made, where one editor at the deletion review now argues that the "closing admin apparently devalued the comments of some of the editors based on a perceived association with a WikiProject in order to reach his conclusion that there was a consensus to delete." -- [[User:Jreferee|Jreferee]] 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
==[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Hkelkar#Hkelkar|Checkuser case]]== |
|||
I must say you're pretty bad at detecting [[User:Rumpelstiltskin223|sockpuppets]] for an arbcom member. [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive185#User:Rumpelstiltskin223|Read and learn]]. |
Revision as of 22:33, 7 February 2007
User:Blnguyen/CWC Advert User:Blnguyen/Recent
You are welcome to .
Blnguyen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an administrator since 29 May 2006 and an arbitrator since January 1, 2007.
FOR ANONS, I WILL DEFINITELY REPLY HERE. FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS MAY BE HERE OR AT YOUR TALK PAGE. IF IT IS A MULTI-PARTY DISCUSSION, THEN DEFINITELY HERE
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ac/Blnguyen_party.jpg/300px-Blnguyen_party.jpg)
Ian thorpe
Any news? Have you made up your mind? any input from anyone else? Karacult 09:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Your sources seem to contradict Karacult! Ian Thorpe--SAS87 19:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Sarah Hanson-Young page
Hi Blnguyen,
I am writing to ask that you reconsider your 'delete & protect' on the entry for Sarah Hanson-Young (Senate candidate for Greens SA) on 23 Oct 2006. She seems no less worthy (in fact, she is probably more worthy) of entry in Wikipedia than the many other candidates in Australian elections (see e.g. those listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candidates_of_the_South_Australian_legislative_election,_2006).
Unlike many of these people, Sarah has been a prominent community activist for many years. I knew of her when she was involved in pro-refugee causes and, when I heard she had been preselected for the Greens, I went to Wikipedia to find out more. I was dismayed to discover that, as a consequence of your actions, she did not have a page. I understand that Wikipedia has a policy against 'speculative' entries but I put it to you that her prior activities, and the fact of her candidature, are more than enough to warrant an entry.
I also note that the 'deleted and protected' entry for Sarah is now the top-ranking entry for her name on Google. This suggests to me that there is interest in reading a Wikipedia entry about her, that is currently being prevented by your actions.
Could I ask that you lift your 'delete and protect' on her page? I am currently living overseas and have no personal interest in this matter, except that I rely on Wikipedia as an information source.
Thanks, JS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.130.213 (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
- It was deleted because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young. The only reason I deleted it again, was because it was reposted. If you want to reverse the decision, please see WP:DRV. The reason that the people on the page you cite have articles, is because they are elected. SH-Y is a failed candidate, and has been agreed by other users that she is not at the moment entitled to an article. I am fully aware of her activities, especially outside Baxter Detention Centre, and the asylum seekers running away as well, as I attended the same university and was also canvassed by her for a vote a few years ago. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blnguyen, thanks for your reply and the links. I really didn't want to get dragged into this, but your arguments are factually incorrect on several points so I feel obligated to. In particular,
(1) Numerous failed candidates from the SA 2006 state election have bios - that is why I referred you to the link. See Amanda Rishworth, Rosemary Clancy, or Peter Gandolfi, to name just 3. So being a failed candidate does indeed seem to entitle you to an article. Moreover, these people have done far less than Sarah has outside of being party candidates.
- Those ones got through the net. I am willing to nominate them for deletion, as it is clear that those that are nominated, are routinely deleted in a decisive verdict. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
(2) Being a prominent community activist is, separately, a legitimate reason for being listed in wikipedia. Check out the bios for Ian Rintoul, Juanita Wheeler, or Felix Eldridge, to name just 3. Of course, you could spend your days going through wikipedia and deleting these people as well. Alternatively you could recognise that different communities use wikipedia to document their stories and histories, and that this is one of the things that makes wikipedia so valuable.
- That is true, as Felix Eldridge has survived one AfD. However, these are grey cases, and SHY did not pass her AfD. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
For both these reasons the "NN" rule does not apply. Consequently the whole argument about "crystal ball gazing" does not apply in this case, because Sarah is entitled to an article on the basis of her community activism and status as a candidate, not only as a prospective electee.
Furthermore, your electoral analysis on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young is factually incorrect. Political parties do not need a 14% primary vote to be elected to the Senate - they need 14% after preferences. The 2004 Family First candidate in Victoria was elected with about 2% primary vote. So the electoral situation of the Greens in no way justifies the deletion of the article. Similarly, your argument for including Andrea Mason and excluding Sarah is purely arbitrary and stands open to allegations of bias.
Moreover, and I say this respectfully, it really concerns me that (a) you have backed up your actions with spurious electoral analysis despite having an understanding of the Australian political and electoral systems that is incorrect on fundamental points, (b) you have done so little research to ensure that your deletion is consistent with the treatment of bios of people in analogous positions, and (c) you yourself admit to having a personal knowledge of Sarah, which surely should disqualify you from involvement in this case on the basis that you are not an impartial arbitrator. Your comments above, linking Sarah to the escape of refugees from detention, clearly suggests a bias against her.
I don't want to have to take this to a formal undeletion review because (a) I am busy and don't have enough of a personal involvement to engage in endless argument, and (b) it would unavoidably involve public criticism of you, which I have no particular desire to do. Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that it is within your power to reverse the deletion yourself. I am asking you to do this. If you are not, I would appreciate it if you could tell me exactly how to initiate an undeletion review.
Sincerely, JS
- I'm aware that you don't need 14% primary votes to get into the senate at all, but the preference system is quite complicated and I didn't go to the length of putting a convoluted argument there for people not acquainted with Australia's electoral system. The comparison to Steve Fielding's 2% is irrelevant, since he was elected, and continues to generate considerable media coverage as a sitting senator, while, SHY does not get a comparable amount of publicity. While it's true that Fielding had a lot of luck and on electoral merit is less notable, as a sitting senator, he is far more notable. I'm confident that the community was not fleeced, since the majority of the commenters are Australian and some are involved in politics themselves. User:Cyberjunkie "cj" is an activist at Flinders, User:Roisterer used to be a NUS office bearer, Lankiveil, Andjam, are all Australians. The only people who wanted to keep, Rebecca (is a student activist) and Zzymurgy is involved with the Greens, so the people who have kept have involvement, moreso than myself, I am simply a random student not involved or having a stake in politics at all, aside from being canvassed for a vote. I do not have a conflict of interest. All those things aside, it was not my decision to delete the article : CSCWEM closed the debate as a delete, as the nominator, I cannot adjudicate the verdict. I only deleted the second time because an article had been reposted after a group consensus to delete (see WP:CSD G4 ??) about deleting reposted content. My delete was not dependent on any judgment except that it was to enforce the removal of something which was sanctioned by somebody else, in this case, CSCWEM. So I cannot undelete it myself, since it was the community verdict to delete the article. You would have to go to WP:DRV and start an entry for SHY. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Cricket World Cup
blgnguyen can you please do the best to fix those you metioned? I have already addressed the critisims and so im asking you please do a copyedit or get a user who's good at it to do so, also please provide better source if you can. thanks for taking care of it--Thugchildz
- Well, I don't fancy my copyediting skills much, so if you revert me, I'll assume my edits were rubbish and won't revert them back. Having said that, I might not bother if I keep on getting reverted, because I don't think I'm contributing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you please comment on it's FAC. — NOBLEEAGLE [TALK] [C] 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I will, I will try to polish it a little first. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? Am I still going for the FA, yes. I don't know what else is there to it. The objections thats been made are all addressed, imo, but they are just refusing to striking them out. It should have already been promoted--Thugchildz
- It's not up to you to decide that the problems don't exist anymore, the FA coordinator, User:Raul654 will decide that. Did you ask them to come back and have a look or follow up on their concerns? I would have to say that criterion 1a and language use is still clearly an issue, and that User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a would be a good thing to read. Usually, there will be more opposition and nit-picking, but because the FAC is not at consensus, the tough guys haven't bothered to look at it yet. Once the lenient reviewers pass it and it *seems* headed to pass, the tough guys will step in to do further checks and likely raise further objections. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, and yes they have been asked here and here by nobleeagle after the 1st times when i asked them to. I didn't read the link you gave me, but will when I get sometime. But is there any users from project cricket thats good at copyediting that could solve the language problem? And thanks for the copyedits that you made too--Thugchildz
- ALoan has written at least 5 FAs and probably 10+ by himself, Nichalp 17 and Sam_Vimes wrote one on the Ashes.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Making policy...
I think this is my first attempt at helping make policy and I'd appreciate a careful eye cast on my stumbling efforts. Please will you take a peek at WT:BIO and chime in? --Dweller 10:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Err, I think you are doing fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for locking Belgaum
Thank you for locking article and suppressing truth! Even if wikipedia says Belgaum is Belgavi, reality doesnt change. Indian newspapers/media dont call that city by that name. Great groupism and elitism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.20.87 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
- Hello, I know it is you Sarvabhaum. You are blocked. Evading the block will get a longer block and people are allowed to revert sockpuppet edits without limit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is nothing to do with the article content, it is about you evading the block. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey!This shows how ignorants you people are! Imagine we have at least five computers accessible to us and my college has 625 students!! So anyone who does dare to write anything against ur pampered friends u will label it as me. BTW still no explanation about why Kannada script precede Marathi? And what's belgavi!! Dear its non-existent. Also I have citations for other pages also! I mean feel some shame,the way ur end User:Sarvabhaum
- You are again evading the block Sarvabhaum, and with this IP you are again reverting all the Kannada empire pages. That's another month -> 4 months. We know it isn't a shared IP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can u do something when ur friends are removing cited info from various pages. I have scans to prove my point. I will send u the scans if u want. Ur friend kannambadi is insulting other states of India by labelling their great empires as kannada. email me at vishuba2007@rediffmail.com and I will send u the scans.
About Belgaum,those ignorants are using Belgavi as a heading on a page titled Belgaum ! Belgavi is not used by any newspaper. So let me see if u r of any use!
- d with this IP you are again reverting all the Kannada empire pages. That's another month -> 4 months. We know it isn't a shared IP.
What is this>?I didnt understand!! Dont frame fictitious charges on me! its a shared IP!! User:Sarvabhaum
- The guy I was referring to actually signed as Sarvabhaum, please stop the mock outrage, you fool nobody. Any more, and you will be banned (not suspended). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Falun Gong discussion page three-strike proposal regarding FG editors' behavior
Hi Blnguyen. I've noticed you protected the Falun Gong wikipedia entry and thus are probably the most suitable to approve / enforce / disapprove this matter, not to talk about your position on the ArbCom. There is a three-strike proposal regarding editors' behavior which they must conform to, and has been agreed by persons from all three camps (the pro-FG, the anti-FG and the third-parties). I'll reproduce the rules here that have been adopted:
The rules are:
- 1. If you propose an edit to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, it MUST be posted in the discussion board of the Falun Gong Wiki entry or one of the special and related talk pages (e.g. the FG introduction discussion page). Exceptions only apply to administrators or sysops when playing their admin / sysop function.
- 2(a) An edit by any editor here is defined as the alteration - addition or deletion - of content of the Falun Gong Wikipedia entry.
- 2(b) Alterations of format, settings, including font size, etc., will be subject to direct approval by an administrator-level editor or above.
- 2(c) The inclusion of pictures is subject to Wikipedia copyright rules, the approval of editors AND the direct approval of an administrator.
- 3(a)(i). This proposal has to be on there for a minimum of FIVE FULL DAYS (120 hours) without disagreement from any other editor, except those editors blocked by Wikipedia during that time for violation of this rule IN RELATION to this proposal.
- 3(a)(ii). To prevent abuse of the term "five full days", aka 120 hours, the time that Wikipedia is down or not accessible (if more than 1 hour at any one time during those 120 hours), then the time that Wikipedia was down will NOT count to those 120 hours.
- 3(b) If, during those five full days any other editor disagrees with the proposal, the five full day time clock is reset. A reset time clock applies to any edit of the main Falun Gong Wiki entry of the proposal's section(s).
- 3(c) If, after five full days, there is no disagreement from any user, then the main Falun Gong Wiki page will be edited accordingly. Reversion of such an edit is not permitted unless another proposal is made, which must then adhere to the above rules.
- 4. Any deletion or addition of content of more than 25% by any editor who is not a non-involved (in content) administrator or sysop of any one section will constitute as vandalism, except -
- a) The addition of more than 25% is to revert a deletion of more than 25% of the same content
- b) Violation of the above rule shall be deemed in violation of WP:Vandalism and thus incur the same action(s) / penalty(ies).
- 5. If a user edits in violation of this, then they will be given a warning ('first strike'). Similar action will be taken if they do it a second time.
- 6(a) If the user edits the main Falun Gong page without discussion, or with discussion but with less than 120 hours for disagreement, or in violation of any of the above rules, and they do it three times, then BOTH sides will HAVE to agree to take action against this user.
- 6(b) Actions to be taken have to include one of the following: consulting an administrator or sysop, or going to the ArbCom to have them temporarily blocked. The length of the block is to be determined by the relevant administrator, sysop or ArbCom. If these short blocks don't work, nor the longer blocks, then blocks ranging up to being permanently banned from Wikipedia will be considered.
- 7. This proposal will apply only to Wikipedia's Falun Gong entry, and not to any other related entry.
- 8. Any change of these rules is subject to a proposal in a similar fashion to the above.
I hope you can give your opinion / approve / enforce the above rules for the Falun Gong Wikipedia entry. This way, permanent protection of that entry will not be necessary. Preferably, a reply can be given on the Falun Gong discussion page here as well as anywhere else you deem appropriate. Thanks for your time. Jsw663 19:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm reading through it yes. Thanks for the notice. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
DYK
Thanks again Szvest for your contributions. This article kindly nominated by Rama's Arrow. Many thanks and feel free to self nominate in the future. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Blnguyen and welkies. The article's become a pretty good one since i started it. Rama's done a good job as well. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocking of 999
Hi, I'm just wondering about your blocking of 999 as a sockpuppet of Ekajati. How was this decision arrived at? Are there any relevant pages I can look at for information on how your decision was arrived at, such as a page on WP:SSP? Thanks. --Jackhorkheimer 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's a bit more in Archive 40 of my talk page - User_talk:Blnguyen/Archive40 and also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence under my postings and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Frater Xyzzy
He's still causing problems, not only is he engaging in personal attacks [1] here, he's got a sympathizer jumping on board something she has no clue about. He doesn't understand that I wanted to note that the IP was Frater, and that the IP was used when he was blocked - it's one less way Xyzzy can use a sock on WP. Anyhow, since Xyzzy was the IP, that means he rm'ed the prod off the article he started in the first place w/o disclosure (He edited as an anon user, and clearly had a vested interest). He then tried to create a problem on the AfD of said article as the anon by claiming COI because Masons were voting and not disclosing (we all have userboxes, BTW). He has since gone back to the AfD and changed the IP edit comments to his username (thus obliterating the dates), and has disclosed he is the author, as well as voting on said AfD. In the latest edit summary, he again accuses the Masonic editors of lack of disclosure see the history). I'm really not sure how much more disruptive he needs to be to be bliocked, but he's certainly toeing a lot of lines as far as I'm concerned. MSJapan 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, he's bent the rules again by evading his block and I wouldn't be surprised if he was evading the technology anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Admin
I would have thought, simply, that I'm too much of an aggressive cunt to be an admin. But that's just my humble opinion. michael talk 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all. chin up. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that current conversation regarding his edits that are being disputed and allowed to be deleted? Even though they are still being talked about with him? Even though he simply wants to dismiss people's comments? It's a bit stupid for people to go looking in the history of a page to add another point to a conversation that is still occurring. --Borgarde (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am allowed to blank my user talk page according to the rules of Wikipedia. -Nationalist 05:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is, although a persistent self-blanker will generate more attention by doing so and it may be a pyrhhic victory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
DYK thanks and query
Thank you for featuring John Perlman. However it's a pity that this South African story was only featured for 6 hours between 1am and 7am on Monday morning South African time. Zaian 06:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's a pity, the updates are a bit irregular because of different people doing different shifts on different timezones, but if you submit a few times, the long and the short stints will balance each other out hopefully. There was a time on a weekend when it stayed for 40 hours.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please re-consider? I've made a lot of improvement on the article. Thank you! --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would but it is already 8 days old...I wonder how many people would mind though... let's see....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you...Please let me know...BTW, the Singing Priests of Tagbilaran was WP:DYK, too, but there wasn't any notice sent on this. Can you help verify? Thank you. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I did put it there [2], although I had to go away from the computer for awhile and someone else did the notifications. I think they didn't put it up because I squeezed some extra space for the Priests and it wasn't recorded at T:DYK/N, so they didn't notice. Whoops! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you...Please let me know...BTW, the Singing Priests of Tagbilaran was WP:DYK, too, but there wasn't any notice sent on this. Can you help verify? Thank you. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 20:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
What about the Loboc Children's Choir? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, none of the admins seem to be willing to bend the rules by three days..:( Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
DYK
Thanks for putting up Norte Chico (even if it only stayed for six hours...). As for adminship, you're the fourth person to suggest it in the last couple of weeks. One of these days. Marskell 12:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, the updates are a bit irregular, but if you submit a few times, the long and the short stints will balance each other out. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hey Blnguyen,
I just would like to thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 54/13/11. I appreciate the trust expressed by members of the community, and will do my best to uphold it.
Naturally, I am still becoming accustomed to using the new tools, so if you have suggestions or feedback, or need anything please let me know. - Gilliam 20:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well done. You're welcome. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't work out what is going on here. Why have you reblocked this user? User:Theresa knott 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, he was originally blocked after Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood raised some issues and Dmcdevit and UC showed that they were linked, initially. Given the editing patterns, there was also suspicion that these guys had multiple computers or were meatpuppets of some banned users. So I blocked Frater Xyzzy. It turns out he was evading that block, as he later admitted using an IP, and then re-signed the IP address using his username. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- You missed the fact that his original block was invalid, since a RFCU proved that he was not a sock, which was the reason for his unblock. You should unban him again, MSJ mislead you by leaving out the reason the Xyzzy account was unbanned, and presented it as a simply block evasion. Seraphim 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- More info. MSJ went admin shopping for this re-block on the morning of the 4th, as you can see by his posts on various admin talk pages, here, here, and here, then after 11hrs passed and none of those admins agreed to re-block him he posted here asking you for a reblock. The fact that 3 admins, including WMC who is known for his agressive policy on blocks decided not to block him, and another admin Theresa knott came here asking for reasoning as to why you reblocked him, should be a red flag. Also i'd like to point out that his anon ip editing consisted of him asking quite a few times for someone to RFCU him to get his main account cleared, someone evading a block wouldn't go back and re-sign all their old stuff especially when in a massive content dispute with an obsessive wikilawyer like MSJ. Please re-evaluate your block on him. Seraphim 21:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware he was cleared, but my first block occurred after I asked UninvitedCompany and Dmcdevit to RFCU him with JA and a link was discovered. So my block was technically merited when I encated it. It is one thing to appeal properly, but to circumvent the system vigilante style is not acceptable. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- My only real problem is the fact that MSJ admin shopped around to find someone to re-block him. After 3 admins (including WMC) declined to block him you decided to. That's what bugs me. Seraphim 05:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- You missed the fact that his original block was invalid, since a RFCU proved that he was not a sock, which was the reason for his unblock. You should unban him again, MSJ mislead you by leaving out the reason the Xyzzy account was unbanned, and presented it as a simply block evasion. Seraphim 21:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
Somehow I only just noticed your little comment on my talk page... thanks! It's always nice to know my work is appreciated :) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful
It is wonderful to receive the barnstar. Many thanks for your thoughtfulness. Regards. -- P.K.Niyogi 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you know?
Thanks for the note! Carlossuarez46 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
Thanks enormously for that wonderful co-nom. I hope the RFA passes, it would be a pity for you to have wasted such a great nom on a failed RFA. Ah well. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 09:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- That is a bit light for my standards. Check out User:Blnguyen/RfA. I nearly freaked out when I saw this message as it sounded as though the RfA might be derailed.... Things are looking up I hope. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
INCOTW
You voted for Harbhajan Singh, this week's Indian Collaboration of the Week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sir, an anon user with ipaddress 151.193.220.29 has been removing large chunks of cited info on the above page. This is not the first time nor is this the only article he has been warned not to remove info from (from the ip address talk page). The funny part is he is warning us not to revert his blatant removal of cited info and says he will bring in adminstrators. They come in various forms, dont they?. Please consider warning him or blocking him. thanksDineshkannambadi 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This vandal seem to be or seems to be getting support from a user:Ramk2004 who has just now created his account. I have asked him not to support anon users.thanks.Please look into this.Dineshkannambadi 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sir, one more account user:TexasJyotish has been created to vandalise Kadambas page. We probably need a complete block on this page untill matters are sorted out.thanksDineshkannambadi 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sure I've put an anon and newbie lock on it. I'll see what happens. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I will revert to my most updated version tommorow as it contained significant amount of cited information.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Block review
User:Gerash77 has posted an unblock request and I see you were the blocking admin. Would it be possible for you to provide a little more detail of the "stalking" you indicate as the basis for the block, to make it easier for the reviewing admin? If you'd prefer not to reply on-wiki feel free to e-mail. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, it was just some on-wiki article stalking. I note that Gerash seems only to edit Iranian and Islam type articles, and that Iran does not play cricket whatsoever. However, he went over to two cricket articles, Stan McCabe and Irfan Pathan after I edited something he didn't like on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the case of McCabe, he undid my GA polishing on the page, including removing some sources, undoing grammar corrections and unsplitting some overly complicated sentences. As for the Pathan article, he drove past and tagged two pieces of information that were already sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've based a proposal on the mediation from the Piotrus-Ghirla case. Your input would be welcome. Please reply on the proposal talk page. DurovaCharge! 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Noted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review: MSK-008 Dijeh
An editor has asked for a deletion review of MSK-008 Dijeh. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Farix (Talk) 01:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Locking Suppression of Falun Gong page
Hello, can you please explain the reason that you locked that page just now? I am aware of the long history of unconstructive edit wars, and so I would understand if you did not have the time or think it worthwhile to look into the reasons behind the latest, but at the same time I think that if you had done so you would have found that at this time we are engaged in a more positive and wikifriendly (can I say that?) approach to editing the articles. I would like to draw attention to the blanking and what I consider rather hostile additions of unsourced and quite biased content by Samuel Luo:
Critics of the Chinese government, who are unaware of the Falun Gong's attacks against critics in China before the ban and the cultish nature of this group, has suggested it was the Zhongnanhai demonstration of April 25 that led to "fear, animosity and suppression".[1]
that [1] is a reference to "American Asian Review, Vol. XIX, no. 4, Winter 2001, p. 12" - where the final words come from.
This paragraph replaces a photo of an alleged victim of the Chinese governments campaign, as well as several paragraphs of neutrally presented material drawn from academic journals. Another graphic image was removed, too.
It is probably not your role to get involved in the substance of what I am saying, but I just want to point a few things out. These are not my opinions, I am just describing the editing behaviour of Samuel Luo. So, in the end I feel that you did not need to lock the page. One editor was behaving poorly and breaking rules, and others were resisting it. It's a really clear cut case. Had you left the page unlocked I think maybe he would have given up after a little while. I will try to do some mediation or something. It is rather problematic editing and stunts growth of the articles. No attempts at discussion were made on the edit pages. My reason for communicating with you is to request that in simple cases like this that you do not lock the page, as it prevents us from adding anything further to the articles. Sorry if I am not supposed to bother you with this, and you just did what you were supposed to. There must be other avenues for dealing with this kind of behaviour. I will ask around. I am a little new to wikipedia. Thanks --Asdfg12345 01:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to look more carefully, but I am surprised you guys stick the word "controversial" everywhere. Have you read WP:WEASEL. These words are useless and don't do any good. People will read the facts and work it out. Having said that the state of these Falun Gong articles are a disgrace. I don't know enough about FLG to talk about bias, but the formatting, language, professionalism of the text is absolutely dreadful. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay I'll read it cheers. Yeah I know what you mean, we are working on it. We realise there are many problems, and they run quite deep. It is hard to do things because this kind of activity is constant. Most time is spent arguing about this kind of thing or minor other revert-battles, so genuine improvements to the articles have been put in a secondary place sometimes. Those are just my thoughts. We are coming up with new strategies and things, so the situation should improve. Thanks, and please get back to me about what we can do to prevent further behaviour like Samuel's. One editor has proposed additions to the locked page. I think it is a request to put the blanked stuff back in. I'd be curious about what kind of justification Samuel provides for his editing. --Asdfg12345 15:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Blnguyen, since you have stopped revert wars on FG related pages, I thought I should provide some background info on edit conflicts on these pages. Basically editors on FG pages come from two camps: Falun-Gong-practitioner editors and non-Falun-Gong-practitioner editors. And their editing style is drastically different. Practitioner editors are here on a mission to promote their group, non-practitioner editors are here to inform the public about the core teachings and practices of this group. Practitioner editors have repeatedly removed statements and teachings of their leader as well as reports from major US media such as the Times and Wall Street Journal. Their blanking of info has always been rejected by editors on the other side.
- Because Asdfg12345 is complaining about me here I hope you can give me a chance to defend myself. My parents are both long term Falun Gong practitioners and because of that I have an insider’s view of this group which is considered a cult by prominent American cult experts. [3] I have revealed well concealed core beliefs of this group on Wikipedia and I believe my contributions have helped make these FG pages more educational rather than Falun Gong propaganda. Asdfg12345 is a Falun Gong practitioner and a self-proclaimed edit warrior, the following is his latest declaration: “I will continue to remove all edits which misrepresent Falun Dafa and force a POV on wikipedia.--Asdfg12345 11:59, 5 February 2007” [4]. There is a whole section on the Falnu Gong talk page regarding his destructive edits.
- Coming to the issue of a recent revert war on Suppression of Falun Gong page. Asdfg12345 and his fellow practitioner editors started rewriting the whole page at this time 17:04, 3 February 2007. The following example will give you a sense of the POV they were pushing. The Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident section had this neutral beginning: “From July 22, 1999 to the end of 2002, tens of thousand of Falun Gong practitioners had protested in the center of Beijing--Tiananmen Square. None of these protests was more shocking, revealing, controversial, or tragic than the incident on January 23, 2001.” It was changed to “The campaign of government suppression of Falun Gong was considered by most observers to be largely ineffectual until January 2001, when persons whom the government claimed were Falun Gong practitioners, among them a 13-year-old girl named Liu Siying, set themselves on fire in Tiananmen Square.”
- Despite the fact that these self-immolators who were badly burned attested that they were practitioners and third party observers have confirmed their identity, the Falun Gong has denied them practitioner status ever since the incident. In their attempt to push their denial, practitioner editors removed statements like this one: “All but the twelve-year-old girl had protested the ban in Tiananmen Square previously, according to the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy[5]."
- You are right about the dreadfulness of Falun Gong pages. There have been too many revert wars and people don’t bother to polish these articles. We have demanded mediation and Armedblowfish is finally agreeing to look into the dispute. Hopefully he can solve the deadlock.--Samuel Luo 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You have mail
Please take a look at it immediately. Tintin 05:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hadn't noticed the INCOTW. Tintin 05:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- NP. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
I can't say that I am interested in becoming admin. It seems that admins just spend their time getting abused by vandals. I'm content to just work on whatever interests me and revert vandalism where I see it. Cheers. --Roisterer 09:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Yep, agree. Article talk pages are the place, if any, for that sort of silly stuff. --Shirt58 10:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Just in case...
you don't notice this diff ([6]) in your no-doubt very crowded watchlist, I'll bring it to your attention. Sorry if my assumption of redundancy was wrong. --Dweller 17:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
MSK-008 Dijeh
An editor has asked for a deletion review of MSK-008_Dijeh. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee 20:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed someone previously posted the same request on your talk page. To this, I'll just add that the heart of the MSK-008 Dijeh deletion review goes directly to the closing statements that you made, where one editor at the deletion review now argues that the "closing admin apparently devalued the comments of some of the editors based on a perceived association with a WikiProject in order to reach his conclusion that there was a consensus to delete." -- Jreferee 20:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I must say you're pretty bad at detecting sockpuppets for an arbcom member. Read and learn.