User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive57

cricket

wait... explain to me something... why wasn't England awarded a victory against India after the game was rained out? And what is "caught in front" or something? Thx. -- Y not? 16:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the rules of Test cricket

You need to dismiss the other team twice in order to win, unless they voluntarily surrender (for tactical purposes or otherwise) Declaration (cricket)

England KOed 9 Indians but when the rain came they had not done the 10th. Thus India "survive" for a draw.

"caught in front" = slang for leg before wicket - as in the batsman used his leg to illegally defend his wicket and the umpire deems that the ball would have hit the stumps (most of the time, except in the case of a full toss. Cricket is a sport where dpending on the condition,

The batsman can be given "out" by the umpire when the ball would have hit the stumps
The batsman can be given "not out" by the umpire when the ball would have hit the stumps
The batsman can be given "out" by the umpire when the ball would not have hit the stumps
The batsman can be given "not out" by the umpire when the ball would not have hit the stumps

As Bill Lawry would say "It's all happening" and the BBC - "It's a funny old game"

Confused? Time for more trans-Atlantic cultural sessions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you and I are trans-Pacific, old boy! :) -- Y not? 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but cricket is an English sport. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen a good writer... no! ;)

No, I was just kidding. Sorry, I mean 14 GAs, 110 DYKs, 2 FLs and 2FAs + numerous other articles - so what? We all know you are just about the worst article writer Wikipedia has ever seen! ;) (Thanks for the DYK, by the way) Cheers, and please, stop writing all of these horrible articles, they really make me quite ill. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about all those guys above he on your DYK list and on the WP:WBFAN. I'm in 166th....and only 5th in DYKs after all....and nowhere near the top 10 I suspect on the GAs or FLs either....I must be overrated then if you rank me beside Yomangani: 130+ DYKs and 10+ FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani is pretty good, but then 14 GAs, 2 FAs... I'd say you are probably equal... but then, its not a contest is it? :) -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAs are way higher than GAs.... See ALoan who has now retired. No it isn't a contest. I could easily have written lots of small articles and got my count that way. Well I still would have to do say I don't think I'm in the top 40 of article writers even. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen good writer, yes!

Had to throw that in, it's quite true.--Sandahl 02:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was, of course, only joking. See my talk page for more information. We all know he is a great article writer. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were joking, I just like to compliment him.--Sandahl 03:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blush....:) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1948 mob

What can I do to help? Not sure how much time I have at the moment, but I have a 1949 Wisden on my shelf. Give me something specific to do and I'll be happy to give it a crack. --Dweller 13:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The match reports I guess since that is what Wisden is best suited for. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benaud book ?

If you have My spin on cricket, can you please add something more to this. Tintin 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well my library does anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tintin 01:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Chopra

Looks like this deleted statement: "His articles are often characterized by a flair for meticulous detail, even bordering on claims to the use of the scientific method, which is reminiscent of his style on the field. " is indeed true: Here are the relevant articles which substantiate this claim : for a small set of examples consider [1] and [2]. Maybe one should add the statement with references like these? Piyush Sriva 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we cannot do that, because it is original research. What that would do is that we are taking Chopra's work and we are making our own original judgment of it, and then posting it. If another person said that Chopra was good, then we can quote them. But I agree that he is good and analytical. But that is something new that we are introducing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rape of Nanking (book) GA on hold

I noticed that you put the GA nomination of The Rape of Nanking (book) on hold but you didn't leave any comments in the Talk page and you didn't indicate that it was on hold at Wikipedia:Good article candidates. Was there something you wanted to note about how to improve the article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were very quick. I was in the process of typing them up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address all your points except for one - your request to expand the "Acclaim and criticism" section. That may take a little more time than the other editing I did to address your concerns, and I don't really have the time to work on it right now. But I'll get back to it as soon as possible. In the meantime, please take a look at my changes so far to see if you are OK with them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind marking this article "On hold" at GAC? I just tagged it for review, thinking it was available. I will remove my review tag, but it would be good to place the "On hold" tag there. Awadewit | talk 09:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry about that.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure if you have the article on your watchlist, but just in case you don't - take a look at the article now to see if there are still any outstanding issues to be addressed. I've made a note of what I did in the talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment on the talk page.[3] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep pestering you, but I am eager to get the The Rape of Nanking (book) article moving along. It seems like you think the book invalidated some old or previously known information about the Nanking Massacre. Did you happen to read the book or articles written about the book and got the impression that that's what the book did? Because from what I can tell both from having read the book and from the articles I've read, I didn't get the sense that that's what the book does. Please let me know how we can move the GAN along. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was just checking my watchlist and have replied. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe

Whats with all the crazy pictures on your userpage of that cuddly toy playing the violin? . — Rlest (formerly Qst) 10:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A spot of amusement I suppose. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALP edit please

Hi - can you please disambig the DLP link on the ALP page please - it needs to be Democratic Labor Party not Democratic Labor Party. Ta. Timeshift 05:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see Rebecca has beaten me to it. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC Reviewer of the Week

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		Congratulations, I have chosen you as my GAC Reviewer of the Week for the week ending 28/7/2007. Epbr123 11:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This award is a disgrace! And you should be seriously ashamed of yourself to actually accept. I have witnessed your serious abuse of the GAReview template, which is intended to mark an article or two that you are currently actively reviewing. Instead, you've tagged 5 and 6 articles at a time, and let them sit for over a day or two, until you "get around" to reviewing them. By doing this, you're effectively "hogging" the articles for your own review, so it's no wonder that you've reviewed more articles than everyone else this month!!!! This is unacceptable practice, and should be stopped immediately. Should you actually choose to accept this award, it's a serious disgrace to the whole GA system, as well as wikipedia's barnstar system. Dr. Cash 04:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are factually incorrect on a few fronts. I have never tagged "5 and 6 articles at a time" and I have not "let them sit for over a day or two". I suppose you are referring to the {{GAReview}} because if you looked at the GAC page and my contribution history, then I have only once put three articles on hold simultaneously and that occasion was also the only occasion when I had any articles sit there for over one day. Two articles, Wisden Trophy and Gilbert Perreault were there for 26 and 29 hours and the others were not over 24 hours. As for your comments at WT:GAC regarding "several of these tags added and left on the article for several days" I have not done any of this. "One user also just tagged about 5 articles with this tag late last night" - Firstly I didn't tag "about 5"

as I already explained, I put in my report as soon as I came online the next day. I have internet access for only part of the day, so I print out the articles and read them on the bus to and from university and file the report as soon as I am back after checking my watchlist, which is why on all the occasions there were no more than two articles and they were pending for no more than 15 or so hours. As for the three articles I took simulteneously and in response to your comment that people may simply be picking any old junk that they don't know about, Wisden Trophy, gilbert Perreault and Attack on Sydney Harbour - well the first is about cricket and I have 11 GAs and 1FA on cricket. See the top of this page and my userpage. Secondly, the Perreault was about sport and I do tend to spend too much time editing sport. See my userpage. The third was about military history of Australia. Well I have written a few articles about coups and military attacks/politics - see the history section of the thing on my userpage and I am also from Australia so am aware of this attack on Sydney. And in the case of the Wisden Trophy, I know a fair bit about the topic, that's why I was rather eager on that one, and when it came around, I did put rather thorough comments on the talk page, more thorough than the average review. In explaining the relatively tardiness on these articles, if you look at my contributions on the 25th and 26th, I undid a rather controversial block on two administrators (JzG and Violetriga) in relation to a rather controversial Arb case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff - and then spent a while reading a flurry of emails on the arbitration case relating to the battle in question. Apart from that a certain sockpuppet Adyarboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started making some allegations against me so I had to do some paperwork on him too. This cut a few hours into my schedule for the 25th and caused something of a backlog until the next day. If you believe that I am falsely claiming to be reviewing them when I am offline, that is up to you. Apart from that, nothing has been held over for more than one day.
I have not done the most reviews this month either. Another incorrect statement. (!!!!!!!)
With regards to "This is unacceptable practice, and should be stopped immediately", I have not "tagged 5 and 6 articles at a time, and let them sit for over a day or two" and I have not used {{GAReview}} at all since you made your sensational and false claims, so it is irrelevant. If you are offended by my reviewing, I can stop. I would have thought that since I submitted 10 article myself in the past 2 months, I should actually put back in, but it seems that I am hindering your ability to contribute because my activities have psychologically distracted you from your ability to contribute so I will stop.
If the GA system is in disarray, then it is because people pass articles with weasel words, hyperbole, blog refs, no refs and black holes. I am one of the stricter reviewers and would not be the person most responsible for rubbish articles passing GAC - of which there are many, like Banglapedia which has unsourced sections and broken English like "Editor in Chief Professor Islam acknowledged the complain and promised to amend the it in the second edition." and "Mosaic in Green A 160-page photographic encyclopedia showcasing the natural history, culture and landscape of Bangladesh, created by the Ministry of Information, People's Republic of Bangladesh.". The article also doesn't have a proper lead, has inconsistent references and so forth. And things like people passing stuff by their buddies which are below par.
Wikipedia's barnstar system is not the be all and end all. It is the POV of the awarder. If it did I would judge people on how many barnstars they have. I can think of one person with 4 stubs totalling about 12k and they have 60 barnstars, and another person with 120 mainspace edits that are all small tweaks who had 15 barnstars. Whereas I nominated User:Edgar181 for RfA and he had one barnstar and about 150 start class articles and 360 diagrams that he contributed. If I cared about barnstars so much, then I would plaster them on the front of my userpage. You put your awards on your userpage and do not list any articles. I prefer to put my article contributions on display, because that is the point of WP. You feel that barnstars are some kind of "official judgment" that "officially decrees" me to be better than anyone at all, then that is all in your mind and your inferiority complex to deal with. If you feel that people have to treat me with "respect" because of a barnstar, then it is for your mind to deal with. I certainly know there are some guys who have contributed more than I have and do not have barnstars whereas others contribute very little and have a lot. Any award is the POV of the awarder. I even know of a few instances where people gave barnstars to their ethnic/religious comrades for pushing POV or harassing common opponents. And in one case, where person A gave person B a barnstar for illegally and unilaterally blocking and banning a person that person A didn't like. If I wanted barnstars that badly, I would do nothing related to article writing and prance about some more. People are really likely to give me more barnstars if I write long long reviews complaining about a variety of black holes in their articles aren't they? I have a much higher failing rate than most other reviewers, putting in more requests for major expansions and so forth. This is really going to endear me to people and get me lots of barnstars isn't it? If you want barnstars, go and parade about some more. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get over it, Dr. Cash. Really, you're just making a big deal about nothing. Giggy _U^CP 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and had an actual beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, my friend! Love, Phaedriel - 02:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether your beautiful gift is "cheesy" my dearest B - it's from you, and therefore, so very very special to me :) Thank you so much! xoxox, Shazza

Thanks mate!

Namaste! Thank u for awarding me the 'DYK Medal' earlier as i've never hope nor expect to receive any Wiki accolades all these while. Currently taking a Wiki break due to writing fatigue but will continue to contribute quality writeups afterwards as feature writing is my passion & it makes me happy to share my knowledge with others. Take care! -- Aldwinteo 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing

GA Review

Dear YellowMonkey/Archive57, I am here to inform you that I have placed 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing on Hold status for a period of 2-7 days. This means that you have 2-7 days to address the issues detailed on the articles talk page. If I feel that, after this designated time, the issues raised have not been dealt with, then the article will fail. If you can address the problems in the period of time, the article will pass. If you have any questions about the review, please leave them on my talk page. Good luck on improving the article. Regards,-- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I see that you have placed 3 more in-line refs on the article, just like I requested. That was fast ;). If you are positive that you couldnt possible eke any more refs out of any sources you have on hand, I will pass the article now. But please - I will recommend that, if possible, a few more refs be added, if you ever come across a source/s. Also, the lead looks perhaps a bit long and extensive for a lead, but thats just a semi-superfluous comment. Cheers, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations = GA pass

-- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting images from Commons on the MainPage

Please remember to upload such images locally per {{c-uploaded}}. We just had some vandalism on DYK recently, and it's still vulnerable when we don't upload locally. Thanks.--Pharos 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I must have forgotten again. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Ah, BL, you deserve a thousand medals for the 'administrative' work you do around here, never mind dropping into FAC! Michael ^talk 02:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no I don't. My writing, corny as it may be is much more important. Also, I probably spend 70% of my time on articles but proabbly only 20% of the awards are for writing. Hooray for buraucracy LOL <shakes head>. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi, Blnguyen, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAs On Hold

Thanks for the time contribution to The French Connection (hockey) and Gilbert Perreault. I am travelling this afternoon. I will try to get to your suggestions, but I will likely need more than the minimum 2 days. I will contact you before the 7 day limit when I think the articles are ready for further review.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take your time, there's no hurry. Quality comes first. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Connection is pretty much ready. I might be able to find a citation for the Bob Gainey sentence and will add that if I do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for having a look. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did pretty much all I think is necessary for a GA at French Connection. I hope you agree.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the promotion and thanks for the AfD notice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've done what I am going to do for Perreault. I will take my lumps based on his current article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka

Time to update your Indian featured articles graph. Karnataka is featured now. Thanks for your comments and support. Gnanapiti 17:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do much, just a few tweaks to the sport section. I have indeed updated the graph and made another one with more details:Image:IndFA2.jpg Image:IndiaFA.JPG. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A banana for your bucket

It's somewhat old news now, but I wanted to thank you for the defence of the good faith of others with regard to WP:FAR a week back. This isn't a disinterested comment, because I was one of the main editors being referred to, but I appreciated your words. It's hard to wave your hands and say "no, no, good ordinary editors [in the best sense of ordinary] work with and like this process just fine!". It's far more heartening to hear it from a good editor directly. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marskell (talk • contribs)

Well thanks, I really like the way FAC and FARC works because even though it may it might be arduous (and since it is supposed to be top quality work, I expect nothing less - what would be the point of having an easy system where Tony doesn't find any problems.) and most importantly because it is judged on hard cold merit and nothing else unlike voters at RfA and suchforth. I am very happy at the standard of the umpiring in closing the FARCs and FACs. If anybody could do it then it would end up like admin shopping to get really harsh blocks on opponents and asking a friend to close an AfD on some article that one doesn't like. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivietlit

Hi BlNguyen,

I'm writing to ask your reasons for deleting Wikivietlit and Linh Dinh from Wikipedia.

The code I see in your comment for deleting Wikivietlit:

<02:01, 27 June 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikivietlit" (a7, this site has about 100 articles, nn)>

refers to this policy:

Since we have previously contested a speedy deletion, and the article on Wikivietlit was kept, according to that rule you should have listed the article at Articles for Deletion, instead of using speedy deletion, right? You seem to have broken the rules in order to avoid public debate on a matter in which you have professional interest as an author on Vietnamese topics.

I can't reliably call up your reasons for deleting Linh Dinh. I found them once, and remember that the shorthand was "autobio; fails professor test". If the objection is that Linh writes about himself, that is easily remedied. I'll write one using references found in any public library.

If your objection is that that Linh doesn't teach at tertiary institutions, that's mistaken and irrelevant. He is a regular visiting lecturer at university writing programs, because of his achievements as a critic and author, easily found at Amazon or in any library catalogue.

Will you reverse your deletion decisions? If we continue to disagree, will you refer the matter to an administrator without an interest in Viet Nam?

Dan Duffy Editor, Viet Nam Literature Project —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vietnamlit (talk • contribs).

WRT to Wikivietlit, it was never the subject of a deletion discussion, you just removed the deletion nomination. Secondly, there were no refs that come under WP:RS that I saw. Tien Ve is not a reliable source, it is a some kind of brotherhood of arts.

If Linh Dinh or Wikivietlit is notable, then someone - not him or his associates (you) will put him up there. As I see it he wouldn't pass any deletion debate. And he's such a charming bloke with his obscenities and ego trips. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your orientation, Vietnamlit has posted a complaint to Wikipedia:Help desk#Wikivietlit. PrimeHunter 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

smoke on the diaper (and fire in the...)

I don't suppose you examined the image before protecting the page to continue displaying it. Nobody is smoking in that painting, and for ample reason. —freak(talk) 04:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed. Although I wasn't going to revert and then protect for obvious reasons....or wait for you to revert, because you alredy deleted that pic four times within 24 hours as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you protected the article in that state, even agreeing that the ass-wiping image made a travesty of it, I'm disappointed to say the least. This is not a censorship issue. There is no simpler way to explain that changing a diaper has nothing to do with smoking. This is a simple fact which can be vouched for by any of the millions of people who have done both things at least once. —freak(talk) 05:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as censorship goes, I am well aware of that famous penis image that you had on your user page.. as well as that other famous claim you made about some mechanic thing. I'm not sure I had much of a choice, since if Peter was going to be blocked, then you would have to have been blocked as well. That left the possibility of locking the page. Well you could have sent someone to revert for you I guess, but I don't think reverting and protecting is a good idea. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctorate

Thanks--you work on Wiktionary as well, don't you? Can you tell me if this term should be capitalized? Badagnani 05:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see DHN has already answered a no. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight?

Hiya. Is this is worthy of an oversight action (it's not my address and I don't know whose it is)? · jersyko talk 16:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. by me. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

I would like to be mentored in the following skills:

Mediation Adminship Improving the encyclopedia

Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Laleena^{Talk to me} _{Contributions to Wikipedia} 23:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit busy atm, sorry. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for copyedit

I'm back trying to write quality articles. Can you copyedit Bob Meusel for me and give me some advise on it. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll have a look next week, I'm trying to fix up a computer program so that it can run over the weekend colecting data. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quit putting bogus material in the Otto wiki

You have put back an eroneous cite on the kristin Otto Wiki. This is behavior needs immediate explanation from someone that is obviously not a "newbie" to wikipedia. The cite in question does not even mention Otto in it at all, which was mentioned in my edit of the page. Explain your edits...68.187.117.71 22:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go away Ernham. It says that GDR WRs are generally discredited because fo the drug factory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adult interdependent relationship in Alberta

Thanks much for the DYK! :-) --Textorus 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs

Thanks for the DYKs and your great feedback. -- Chris.B 13:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thorpe

I was waiting for someone living outside of Australia to change my edit. The fact is we have been bombarded with media about this guy, and they say he's homosexual on TV because he speaks like a homosexual. It has NOTHING, ZERO to do with his fashion interests. Have you ever watched a video of him being interviewed? Holymolytree2 14:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I watched the Aussie swim team on many occasions. But someone has to make that analysis, we cannot do our own analysis per the rules against orgianal research. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, El on ka 05:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]