User talk:Blnguyen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
  • Notable Recent Projects

You are welcome to leave me a message or request admin action.

Blnguyen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) 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

The YellowMonkey is fixing up his articles......he seems to have somewhat strong opinions about article content and is feeling feisty
The YellowMonkey is fixing up his articles......he seems to have somewhat strong opinions about article content and is feeling feisty
Archives  


Contents

[edit] Please help with Vietnamese Wikipedia image

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Thorpe main page

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

Thanks, unfortunately it was the most criticised FA in living memory. Talk:Ian Thorpe, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 25, 2007 and [2] 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)

[edit] A puzzle

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] question

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)

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. Subhash bose (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Hkelkar (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), TerryJ-Ho (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Nadirali (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Szhaider (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Mahawiki (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Arya Rajya Maharashtra (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Haphar (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)...................... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Brian Booth

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)

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

[edit] Wow

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. GizzaChat © 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maharashtraexpress

It is very likely. The account is editing from Sarvabhaum's same IP range. Dmcdevit·t 07:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Hello

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

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

[edit] stub

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

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)
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)

[edit] ArbCom activity

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)

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)

[edit] Welcome back, mate

I hope you feel better. We all missed you, and I hope antyhing that was troubling you prior to your break is all gone, for your wellbeing and benefit. All the best, and good luck, Daniel Bryant 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! Hope the hibernation period is over now. By the way, this link is not working in your user page. :-) - KNM Talk 05:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is this link used? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
In your user page, linking to "reported in the Indian media", in this line:
due to vandalism and edit-warring was reported in the Indian media and the New York Times. - KNM Talk 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see. I guess the link went dead or something. I was looking in the cricket bios. No wonder I didn't find anything. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SRT

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)

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

[edit] Ha...

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

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

[edit] Deletion

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)

[edit] Re:DYK

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

[edit] Oversight

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

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

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent successful RfA. --Anthony.bradbury 14:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] DYK medal

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

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)

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

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

[edit] Iverson

per Richie Benaud [4]:

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)

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

[edit] Ngo Dinh Diem

Hello, Binguyen.

I liked a lot of your changes on the Buddhist issue. It makes sense to put the events of May-August, 1963 under the section regarding the coup. However, on the question of Diem's general treatment of Buddhists (under "Rule"), you are presenting one (albeit majority) POV as fact, and excluding the other. The revisionists make a good case, and their views deserved to be aired. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me on my talk page.

I would also point out that although you have added some much-needed citations, they are not presented in a form that can be checked. Specifically, one cannot tell what books by "Tucker," "Gettleman" and "Buttinger" you are attempting to cite. I'm not sure who Tucker and Gettleman are, and Joseph Buttinger wrote at least two books on Vietnam.

--VnTruth 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the general discussion about where NDD was anti-Buddhist, I did not conclude that he was an anti-Buddhist, but simply stated that the majority of scholars felt that he was anti-Buddhist. Hence the word regarded.
“ As a member of the Catholic Vietnamese minority, he is regarded by a majority of historians as having pursued pro-Catholic policies that antagonized many Buddhists. Specifically, the government was regarded as being biased towards Catholics in public servant and military promotions, as well as allocation of land, business favours and tax concessions. ”
I then pointed out some instances cited by the scholarly majority in their arguments that he was biased. The other thing to note is the WP:NPOV "Neutral Point of View policy" that requires that the proportion of space given to the evidence of various theories needs to be in proportion with the scholarly consensus of reputable historians. As a result, I trimmed and condensed the Moyar things, because as he notes in his own writing, he is very much in the minority "very few" and is attempting to change academic consensus. In the preface of his book he states
“ The revisionist school,...has published much less, primarily because it has few adherents in the academic world. ”
As such I removed his 27% figure because the Buddhist % is almost universally put at 70-90% in the overwhelming number of sources, rather than have a separate line for a very much miniscule minority estimate, and simply stated that almost all believe that there is a majority, and estimate it in the 70-90 range. Otherwise we would need maybe 20 sentences quoting many many people saying that Buddhists are the majority, to keep things in proportion. I also removed the religious composition of his cabinet, since I found one other mainstream book which has 3/18 cabinet ministers as Buddhist. Although people can interpret things in different ways, it is difficult when one minority group has a large disparity in the statistics that they use. It may not be particularly relevant anyway, since NDD's brothers were not cabinet ministers yet controlled the secret police, services, special forces, etc, and most power lay with the these bodies as well as the army generals. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
As regards to the citations, I will fix them up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to delete one POV simply because you find a contrary one. I did this earlier in another section of the article and got taken to task for it. Leave both in and let the reader decide.

If you think the vast majority of scholars say the Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of the population, cite them in a long footnote. The citations you included in your last edits don't say that. One is an internet article that states in passing and without citation that Buddhists constituted a majority view, and the other is Dr. Moyar, who says that inexperienced, biased, Saigon-based journalists claimed in 1963 that Buddhists constituted up to 90% of the population, but that their information--which came from Buddhist activists and two men later found to be Communist agents--was wrong. I tried to find a historian who claimed that Buddhists constituted the majority just so I could supply a cite for the "majority view"; however, neither of the two "mainstream" histories of the Vietnam War that I have at home--Karnow's Vietnam and Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie--make that assertion. --VnTruth 13:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the revisionist school is self described as having "few adherents" that's why it was culled a lot. Your initial version had about 75% revisionist commentary. I have cut things down to size. The facts are supposed to be stated rawly, and then analysis and evaluation of pundits added in proporation to their academic prevalence. I will clean up the majority thing - do you really think that most people think that they were not? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you agree to mediation? --VnTruth 12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

One other thing. If you only cite the author's last name, how can anybody find the book? --VnTruth 12:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is not yet warranted. It's a standard that because the book is mentioned in the "further reading", we only need the surname and the year, and it automatically refers to the one in the bibliography. At the moment, there are no books by the same person in the same year, so there is no ambiguity. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


I take your point on the footnotes. The approach you are using is a good one that saves everyone needless work. However, if you cite three sources after a sentence, you should make them into one footnote, rather than three, as you do with your footnotes 8-10.

Now to the hard part. I take it from your edit summary, that your most recent reason for deleting my edits is your belief that they violate Wikipedia's rule against publicizing fringe opinions. Whether we go to mediation/arbitration would appear to turn on your willingness to accept that the views I'm setting forth are not fringe views. If you can't accept that, then we should let the powers that be at Wikipedia decide.

In my view, none of my edits represent "fringe" views in the sense Wikipedia uses that word. My principal source, Triumph Forsaken, was published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press, and has received praise from such respected persons as Senator (and Vietnam War hero) James Webb and historian Max Boot, both of whom, as you can see, are written up in Wikipedia. The author, Dr. Mark Moyar, graduated summa cum laude at Harvard and earned his Ph.D at Cambridge University in England. He has already written a well-received history of one aspect of the Vietnam War, the Phoenix program. In addition I also cited other historians who also support the assertions I made in the text that you removed. Once the page is unlocked, I intend to add one more source that supports my text regarding the Buddhists, Marguerite Higgins, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, written up in Wikipedia. In fact, my assertions are better supported than yours.

For that matter, the claim that Buddhists constituted 70%-90% of South Vietnam's population does not appear to constiute the majority view. Your citations consist of: Dr. Moyar, who actually says that such claims were made in 1963, but were false; an internet article that says only--in passing and without citation--that Buddhists constituted a majority of the population; and a book by Marvin Gettleman that is 40 years old and so obscure that it lacks a Wikipedia identifying number. As far as I can tell, the more recent historians do not claim that Buddhists constituted the majority. For example, Stanley Karnow and Neil Sheehan,widely read and anti-Diem to the core, do not make this claim.

I also note that you deleted text and a footnote that I had written under the "Repercussions" heading which seems to me to clearly represent the majority view. There is no question that the military situation deteriorated after Diem fell. Even Karnow, whom I cited in the footnote you deleted, acknowledges it.

Anyway, I rest my case. And ask you once again: Will you stop deleting my changes? If not, I think I'm going to have to appeal to a third party to sort this out. Then we can let the chips fall where they may.

By the way, sorry I mispelled your user name in one of my earlier messages. The four consonants in a row threw me. --VnTruth 18:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK Nomination

hi - thanks for supporting User:KNM move to nominate a DYK on Kapil Dev. I noticed one more when editing the page of Ajit Wadekar. Please let me know if the tit-bit is interesting enough to post as a DYK nomination - Kalyan 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:ALoan has already nominated Ajit Wadekar for DYK. However, I believe, the article needs some more expansion, because it is still a stub. - KNM Talk 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a bit more info out there. He was the first Indian to score two consecutive Test centuries I think? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually that was Vijay Hazare. There's quite a lot in his cricinfo profile which is not used. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kosambi

Thanks for the note, Yes the Dictionary of Pali Proper Names is a good resource, it makes it easy to find out things. It only needs to be integrated into an article, which is quite a fun activity....Greetings, Sacca 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course. Interesting place to learn as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I please know as to who are you to decide whether any trivia is irrelevant or not???

Kindly do not remove my content from the John Bracewall page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmisra (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, it seems to be unencyclopedic and doesn't seem to fit into the prose at all. If this is the case, then it shouldn't really be there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the summary of Wikipedia's rules on trivia -

"Should trivia be allowed on Wikipedia?

Yes and no. It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because the term "important" is subjective. That said, an ideal Wikipedia article would present its subject in a straightforward but well-organized way, without spending much time on unnecessary details, yet while referring the reader to other articles or outside resources where more details can be found."

Important phrases here - "straightforward", "well-organized", "without spending time on unnecessary details", "referring the reader to other articles".

Clearly, I have followed all the rules for trivia here. Would therefore request you to bear in mind these points when you remove any articles.

(User talk:kmisra) 11:02, 3 April 2007 (IST)

Can you fit it into his biography smoothly. Trivia is by defintion trivial and thus unencyclopedic. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 2 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article relics of Sariputra and Mahamoggallana, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: DYK

Regarding this, I don't believe either article ever made it to DYK. From quickly looking at histories, I see that ALoan's nomination was removed[5] from Template talk:Did you know, but not added to Template:Did you know/Next update subsequently[6]. Obviously no links exist to it from the main page or thereabouts. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, I'm sorry. The page was not added to the update page and it went missing. Apologies, I put it there now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hindutva revert performed by you stating “pov and not supported by the source”

Dear Blnguyen, I updated Hindutva article with reference to make reader understand that my contribution to this article is not POV or OR. I appreciate your valid concern and thanks for hints to provide references. With love John Paul 10:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article eg, states that Mr Staines and his sons was killed by a group of Hindu. You wrote a generalisation in the lead that Hindutva is generally engaged in attacking Christians. This is not what the source stated, so I removed it. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 3 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jack Iverson, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mangalore, User:Sarvagnya, User:Gnanapiti

I have blocked Sarvagnya for a period of four days, and indeffed Gnanapita as it now abundantly clear that these two users are sockpuppets, complementing each others' edit-wars in synchronisation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was established they were different users. You (referring to blnguyen) even told me to stop suggesting they were the same, and so did dmcdevit, aksi, etc.Bakaman 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

NHN, you are mistaken, so I unblocked both of them. The first time in November, they were visiting each other from interstate and the RFCU showed them to be in the same place but after that, they went back home again and the two RFCUs after that were negative. The most recent was this February. From November until mid February they were put under a joint 3RR and no double voting on linguistic divisive topics. After a while it was obvious that both were serious contributors and article writers and not only there to get extra reverts and votes, so Aksi and I agreed to remove their restrictions as Dmcdevit decided not to partake in the inquiry. the discussion is in my archive some where. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood. I apologise for the inconvenience caused. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Here it is. Sarvagnya 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK Award

Thanks so much for your recognition of my DYK work. It's nice to know that one is appreciated.--Eva bd 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome, it's a pleasure. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFCN

Howdy! You're welcome to participate on WP:RFCN, but it's inappropriate to be using non-username criteria as you've been doing during the Heavybuddha discussion. I don't know whether you've been doing this on any other discussions. If this is not a condition you can abide, it may be best if you curtail your future involvement there. If, on the other hand, you're willing to use WP:U in the discussions to determine name appropriateness, then please remain. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's fine although, you could have just told me so there.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket grounds

Thanks for the prompt response. I will wait for further contribution then AfD the article as cricket-related and see what happens. I have proded it previously and the Aquinas College wikipedia kruftian killed the prod without improving the article, the most he has said is "Western Fury play there" (I'm guessing, once, when they couldn't get onto their real game due to a PURA Cup clash).Garrie 04:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a merge is in order to be perfectly honest. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 85.96.159.36

Thanks! Khoikhoi 04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

Thanks for the welcome back, Blnguyen. I'll bear your offer in mind and be in touch if necessary. All the best. --BlackJack | talk page 05:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ngo Dinh Can

Updated DYK query On 4 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ngo Dinh Can, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the feedback. i accept all your points. will remember them going forward Kalyan 07:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1st world cup trophy

here it is.
here it is.

I have found a free picture of the 1st world cup trophy. But do we need it? Because I have been looking but I can't find any information on the trophies used before the current one.--ThugChildz 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well why not, if it's free we can use it under any circumstances. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the Prudentials Cups had a similar trophy while the others changed when the sponsors changed until the 1999 wc. So the 1st three had a similar trophy while 87, 92 and 96 had different trophies because of different sponsors until the icc decided to have its own trophy. But so far I couldn't find any source to help me, so if you can find any that be great though.--ThugChildz 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patacara, 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.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 4 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ton That Dinh, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese diacritics

Hello. I notice that you are contributing a lot of articles about Vietnamese people, without using the diacritics used in Vietnamese (for tone, etc.), and sometimes these are changed by other people. Is there a standard naming convention/manual of style on the English Wikipedia regarding Vietnamese? I can't find a statement about it. I would think the original version (with diacritics) should at least be mentioned, if it is not used in the page name. Are you able to add them? Your articles are nice, by the way. Rigadoun (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cloak and Dagger (society) deletion

I am looking for the article entitled "Cloak and Dagger (Society)

According to wikipedia, it was deleted by you on 6 June 2006...yet the creation pages claim it was made on 11 July 2006. Could you help me recreate what exactly happened to this page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.83.126 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] 1955 South Vietnamese election

Updated DYK query On 5 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1955 South Vietnamese election, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ching Hai Bio

I have researched the internet sources cited in the biography and revised the biography to quote what was written (previous writer generalized some things). I didn't delete any information previously stated -- just made it more concise and organised. I also removed all the biased and weasel words and phrases to give a more neutral POV. This is, as stated before, a living person's biography, and as such we must follow the guidelines given. I respectfully ask you to give a valid reason for reverting my work. Thank you. Sg2ns5 23:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 DYKs

Updated DYK query On 6 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Australian cricket team in India in 2000-01, 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.
Updated DYK query On 6 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Assaji, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Thank you for the support vote in my recent RfA. Although it wasn't successful I appreciate your vote of confidence. Anyway, I'm continuing on with editing Pacific War-related articles and hopefully you'll see several of them on the FA nominations page in the future. Cla68 23:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anuruddha

Updated DYK query On 6 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anuruddha, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Le Quang Tung

Updated DYK query On 7 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Le Quang Tung, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernham is back

Hi. I notice you've been involved in blocking User:Ernham before. He's just come back from his ban, and is already at it again, removing sourced references etc. he doesn't like with no attempt to discuss. I'm immensely frustrated at wasting time reverting him, and hope not to get sucked into another edit war. I'd appreciate your help in keeping an eye on him, especially his 'contribution' to Lothar von Trotha and Herero and Namaqua genocide. Thank you :) Greenman 12:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at [7] and commented on a report of his against another user at [8]. It would be much appreciated if you could add your comments if you get a chance. Thank you :) Greenman 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.
 Blnguyen, thanks for your support in my successful RfA.

As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage.
--Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swimming

Hi Blnguyen,

I am trying to start the Swimming Wikiproject. I got this idea when I noticed that the Phelps page did not have a picture, even when it was a featured article on the main page, and when he broke the world record. Swimming/WaterSports needs a hub of workers to help with swimming related articles. The project would include long and short course, along with water ballet, syncro, diving, water polo, open water and the players of those sports. It's all up for discussion. If you are interested, please add your name here. See you around the pool, --wpktsfs 04:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lal Bahadur Shastri Stadium

Hi - I finished major changes in the article. Please let me know if the same is OK as i plan to rework other major test venues on these lines.

Also, i think you might find a couple of DYK candidates in the article

Kalyan 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/n/User_talk%7EBlnguyen_584f.html"