User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive43

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

re sarvagnya on ani[edit]

The attacking part of my comment was directly aimed at dravidian nationalists not at sarvagnya.Bakaman 23:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to you - the other guys arguing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tor open proxy trouble-making[edit]

Hello. I just stumbled upon a whole series of open proxy edits involved in vote-stacking AfD's, harssing users, etc. Would you mind having a look? Due to the context, I think it is a user you blocked. I started noticing all sorts of them stemming from this diff. I verified all of these are Tor open proxy editors, but there are probably more.

- WeniWidiWiki 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I was writing this another one appeared.

Yes, thanks, I've blocked and sprotected the pages. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC) And another:[reply]

Here's another one which was involved in some sort of spat on Frater Xyzzy' user page. Diff

Done to both. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not your concern, please focus on other bananas in your bucket[edit]

Your allusion to my comments here [1] Let me quote my comments that you have used to assume that I am not Indian " Well for a person who left the nation and sings the American anthem who are you to talk of patriotism ? You worry about the KKK and getting stuck on the wrong end of a cross and let me worry about my country.Haphar 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" In no way refute ( or prove) what my nationality is. And as what my religion is, is not your concern , neither is my nationality. Haphar 10:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My personal information is being given to other users in wikipedia (not even admins) who have no reason to have any information about me, apart from their known hostility towards me. This from someone in the arbcom. Great- just goes to prove how reasonable a person you are. Incidentally who hires an ip does not decide in today's world of international leased lines, where that link goes to or where it is used ,( or who uses it- including vendors servicing the company.). So I would like know from you whether your behaviour is appropriate as per wikipedia's policies ? Haphar 11:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, it's amusing that you like to hold the high ground and complain about other users all the time. Especially when you try to discredit other users on the basis of their nationality. However, given the fact that you call other users drug addicts, reserve the right to attack other religions while commenting on Hindu and Jewish groups, and trolling, and then claim that you have done nothing wrong, making bogus allegations that I blocked you and not Netaji and then going and claiming [getting targeted by Neta's comments and responding were getting slapped much more and harder than Neta] - Well I see that Subhash_bose was blocked for 7, 7, 3 and 4 days, and you for one day. Either you cannot count to seven or you are deliberately making false claims. Given your comment about reserving the right to attack other religions but complaining about others doing the same thing, I don't see how you are going to change your mind, it never worked on anybody who claims things like that throughout history, of which there are many current examples. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While i will respond to all your "allegation" (most relating to incidents 8 months old), you have not answered my question. Let me rephrase it and spell it out in details so that you understand it fully "Is it appropriate for a Arbcom member ( that's you), to target a person who opposed his Arbcom candidacy ( that's me), by giving information about my location to a user known to be hostile to me ?" Please do note that this refers to a post you made yesterday and not to events stretching back to 8 months ago. Haphar 08:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not revealing anything, you posted it on your userpage. Are you still beating your wife? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are giving some other details there, not what I have on my User page, so what are your intentions in doing so when Bakasupraman was not even involved in the earlier discussion you are referring to ? Are You? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haphar (talk • contribs) 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Anybody knows that tracing thing. It is redundant. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well It’s more an opinion that “Anybody knows that tracking thing” it is not really factual, For instance I did not know of it . However I will assume good faith and move on to more specifics about some fancy words that you are using to dress up my 8 month old discussions.
Mentioning "pipe dreams" does not equate calling someone a drug addict. Like there is a difference in calling a person “not bright” and calling him “stupid" or an "idiot”.
Then you say that I ( in your words ) "reserve the right to attack other religions while commenting on Hindu and Jewish groups" And these comments of mine are what you have put to substantiate the claim :-
"At least they are history professors and not terrorists. Further to quote you "All this, combined with the fact that India is a stinking hellhole of a country compared to America, Israel, or even SAUDI ARABIA (wtf!)". Talk about self hatred, ( after accusing the world of it). You have been claiming that you do not attack islam but protect Hinduism from attacks. The language above is very much attacking Islam. But then you have claimed one thing and ended up saying another before too. To quote in Punjabi- "Khoti chadi khujoor tey, utto suttay umb" Haphar 20:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Here I am accusing Shiva’s Trident of attacking a religion and there is no "reservation of rights " for me to attack any religion. ? Where have I attacked any religion ? The passage "All this, combined with the fact that India is a stinking hellhole of a country compared to America, Israel, or even SAUDI ARABIA (wtf!)". is a quotation from Shiva’s earlier post that I am quoting back to him.
This is not the kind of interpretation one expects from an admin, much less from an Arbcom admin !. So I would want you to take back your comments on "attacking religion". If you want a translation of the Punjabi couplet recited above and an analysis of it’s meaning, I would do that also, it comments upon the other User’s intelligence and has no religious connotations. If you want exact meanings please let me know and I would oblige.
So can you please take back your claim on my attacking other religions ? Haphar 09:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an idiot like BhaiSaab to even care where he edits from.Bakaman 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on my talk page[edit]

Hi Blnguyen. I've had a really bad night, so I could just have my stupid head on, but I really didn't understand your post on my talk page! --Dweller 11:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that I was trying to get too much article writing done, so I am a bit behind on all the paperwork. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request for you to consider[edit]

I spotted this ([2]) on my watch list. --Dweller 14:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very well-mannered guy Tintin 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I see the request was speedily denied. I wasn't sure about being called a "retard", but anyone who thinks Stuart Clark is a "carbon copy" of Curtly is... odd. --Dweller 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was never going to get off the ground. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gautama Buddha[edit]

Do you think this page ought to be semi-protected？ Apparently it has been subject to numerous vandal attacks and 90 per cent of unregistered edits are vandalism. The vandalism-to-edits ratio is astonishingly high. My attempts to get User:Nishkid64 to semi-protect it have been in vain. Mandel 16:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done, since I also edit the article, I guess the vandals would bother me more than him. Actually hardly anything useful at all ever happens there...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK (13 Feb)[edit]

Updated DYK query On 13 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murali Kartik, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smurrayinchester (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RfArb "Pakistani Nationalism"[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the title of Rama's arrow's Request for Arbitration had been changed to "Pakistani Nationalism." I think the new title unfairly tilts the balance in favor of the initiator, Rama's arrow. I am not sure if everyone knows that the RfArb was initiated by Rama's arrow at 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC), a full 16 minutes after (and therefore likely in reaction to) an incident at WP:ANI, against Rama's arrow (See here:"Admin abusing his privileges") filed at 16:43, 12 February 2007, by the other editors (Pakistani) now involved in this RfArb. As a neutral editor who has battled both sides in this dispute at different times and occasions, my own view is that nationalism exists on both sides of the Pakistan-India border and both sides are equally prolific in edit-wars on Wikipedia. In my perspective, Rama's arrow has been selectively aggressive towards Pakistani editors and, correspondingly, selectively benign towards Indian editors. I think the way that this RfArb is framed, Rama's arrow comes out looking as a concerned, but, perhaps, neutral administrator and his interlocutors as somewhat rabid nationalists. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The RfArb was inevitable anyway, and the ANI sideshow was/isn't going to resolve anything in the long run. I also note that Taxman and Dbachmann have also frequently expressed concerns about the concepts expressed on Panini but I have no strong opinion in the naming. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite User:Fowler&fowler's pretensions of being a neutral observer, i must say all i see are some irredentists demarcating 3000 years of shared history based on a 60 year old line ofetn going against the academic consensus. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 13:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

If you've got a sec, could you chip in on the talk page of circus, an anon is arguing that it is not POV to label a section on animals as "animal acts and abuse". They are pushing their POV and I'm over it. Thanks. --Peta 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, definitely. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various[edit]

Thanks for the sean mc sean block - it seems there is an obsessive compulsive pathological issue there - I had tried to venture to deaf ears there - you might be amused (or not) by the current John Forrest talk regarding methods of deceasement (my term) which some of our friends are battling out SatuSuro 00:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh indeed, I guess the administrators will be seeing from him as soon as the block expires. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From experience to date so far... SatuSuro 01:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sooner than we thought on his talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean_mc_sean&action=edit&section=42SatuSuro 01:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently is abusing another user from an isp...I think it was the late douglas adams vogons who had some innocuous quotable quote about life... SatuSuro 06:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day Assult![edit]

Bwahahahaha!--§hanel 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam AfD[edit]

"The result was delete - the fact that the only people who think these should be kept are those in the project, tips the balances."

I don't really care that much if the articles are deleted or not, but that's a fucked up thing to say. Why on Earth would you say something like that when it's just going to piss people off? I can understand if there are deletion rationales that extend beyond your comments, but what you said was rude. -- Ned Scott 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking[edit]

Hi you deleted some external links i put on the Bill Clinton page, blocked my account and labled me a spammer. i understand why--i violated the rule of not posting links to a site you are affiliated with. However, i did not violate the spirit of the rule. I run the library at the Miller Center and make available online literally over 3,000 hours of multimedia resource related to the presidency. One of the links you deleted was to a speech page that makes available to the public complete audio of 10 of Bill Clinton's speeches. This material is not available online anywhere else as far as I know. It is a resource we make avaialble for free. The Miller Center is part of the University of Virginia and is non-partisan. Nobody who visited the page would ever consider it spam and any reasonable person would consider an ideal external link. Here is the link for your reference:

http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/scripps/digitalarchive/speechDetail/34

It has been suggested to me to request that editors of the pages add links via the discussion pages. In theory this sounds fine, however in practice this does not work. I have a wealth of information on all 42 presidents that i would like to make available to the wikipedia audience. I realistically do not have the time to engage in a discussion about every link that i would like to put on these pages (this assumes that editors of pages even respond to my request). Furthermore, links that i have come accross in the past posted by other users are often quite inaccurate in their description. These are honest mistakes but mistakes none the less. according to the posting rules i do not have the right to even fix those mistakes but rather must go back to the discussion board and request that someone fix them for me. The Miller Center is considered the foremost authority on the American Presidency. We have a treasure trove of material that cannot be found anywhere else in the world (e.g. over 150 hours of complete audio of presidential speeches, over 3,000 hours of secretly recorded conversations from presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon; the authoritative oral histories of the Carter and Reagan presidencies, and a number of in depth bibliographies on each president). It would be a shame that these unique and free resources cannot be made available to the wikipedia audience because of a rule that was clearly NOT put in place to stop the type of actions that i am attempting. I would appreciate your suggestions on how to proceed. Many thanks. Michael Greco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.2.163.2 (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I can do it for you I guess. Feel free to contact me. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for chiming in there—I didn't want to have to be in the awkward position of being the only person arguing against the inclusion, given the figure at hand, and the stigma that could possibly result. Again, thank you. michael talk 23:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cardreader[edit]

I highly doubt he is a sock of User:Primetime. Cardreader speaks fluent Hindi and does not seem to know any spanish. He primarily edited india-related pages as well. Can you look into this?Bakaman 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems strange. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come only arbitrators can vote?[edit]

Hi Blnguyen. How come I can't vote on Osli73's case? Who are arbitrators? How can I become one? I am refering to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Osli73 Thanks. Bosniak 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBCOM talks about the arbitration committee. There will be an election in December 2007. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you turning red?[edit]

Your userpage is gone. Are you ok? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

You're only admin that hasn't got a user page. :))) --PaxEquilibrium 12:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey_O_Gustafson [sic] and J_Di as well I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, comrade! Others will soon see the (red) light. Bwahah. Bwahahahahahaha. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Katrina Renars.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Katrina Renars.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used in the article Congratulations (Eurovision).Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hope you're OK and enjoy your Wikibreak. Well deserved. Just to let you know that a few of us have responded to your advert. We've started with Paul Collingwood and will try to get it to FA asap. If (when?) we complete the task, we'll press on with another of your selected articles. Cheers, --Dweller 20:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, just a routine hibernation for some rest and recharging I think. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti sockpuppets?[edit]

Hi,

I recall seeing a statement by you making a statement on sockpuppetry/meatpuppetryhere. This was due to Dmcdevit confirming that both Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti are sockpuppets here. The account for Gnanapiti was warned not to edit on a same page as Sarvagnya. However, after being warned, both accounts were used in a vote fraud here by user acount of Sarvagnya and here by user account Gnanapiti.

With all due respect, I have reported Sarvagnya for his incivil behavior, trolling, and abuse of accounts on the Admin Notification of Incidents here. Instead, I have been bombarded for improper uploading of images. I understand that per procedure as an admin, it is your duty to see to it that editors follow the rules and have accepted your requests and questions to my uploading. Furthermore, I have taken care of that situation. However, it seems that regardless of the report I made, it has been left undone. As administrator of Wikipedia, I ask for justice and equality in dealing with the editors on Wikipedia. Please look into this situation regarding Sarvagnya and take the appropriate action. As it shows, I am not the only one who has requested a check user on Sarvagnya here. Thank you.

Wiki Raja 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been refuted. They are free subject to the restrictions above. These were stated after the first positive check. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, bascially it is not ok to conduct sockpuppetry, but it is ok to be involved with meatpuppetry? I thought you had stated the same thing against that here. I do not understand why some people can get let off the hook so easy. What does it matter if both accounts are used on lines of Kannada language or not? What if it is on the lines of Tamil language, would that count? Well, it looks like the two user accounts have engaged in a battle on Kannada lines here. Wiki Raja 05:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are allowed to collaborate to improve an article etc, etc, it means that if they revert in a group, they only get three reverts together, so to speak. Yeah, they aren't supposed to vote together on Kannada or topics which are based on linguistic lines. In this case that means the Sarvabhaum ban, although it had no effect on the outcome. You can point this out to them I suppose, or if they do it again, simply point out on the voting page that they are under these restrictions so that the administrator who closes the debate doesn't double count (although it strictly isn't a count). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of the past checkuser results, and Sarvabhaum has already told everybody he introduced Gnanapiti to Wikipedia when Gnanapiti visited him. After the second check, they were in two different places after Gnanapiti went home to a faraway location. So they are free to edit, except if they team up in a linguistic battle upon Kannada lines, they don't get counted as two people, since Gnanapiti was introduced to Wikipedia by Sarvagnya in that context. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even Bakasuprman states that Sarvagnya is using a sockpuppet here/here. Wiki Raja 05:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to hibernate.....
If the battle lines were drawn on linguistic lines then no they are not allowed a double quota; eg the arguments on Belgaum were Kannada vs Marathi, etc.... I don't see a double use of the revert quota on Yakshagana. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yakshagana is from Karnataka, just like Belgaum is in Karnataka. Wiki Raja 07:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do see a double use of both accounts of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti have been used on Yakshagana here, here, here, and here. Both accounts have also edited on Kannada language here,here, here, here,here, andhere. Both accounts have been also used on Karnataka here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. On the Kannadigas both accounts have edited here, here, here, here, and here. On Kaveri River, both accounts have edited here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
What is shocking enough is that you said here that, "Gnanapiti was subsequently unblocked and free to edit - under the condition that they did not double vote" on 12 February 2007 in which they did here and here on 9 February 2007. Both usernames of Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti can be seen in the same vote fraud on this page here here. I am sorry to sound like this, but the more we discuss about this issue, the more I sense favoritism. Wiki Raja 08:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikiraja, let me please clarify something for the last time in the admin's presence. I and Gnanapiti(we are two different people, not me with two accounts) were accused of sockpuppetry by Bakasuprman a few months ago. The initial checkuser upheld it. But both of us appealed and upon further investigation, we were cleared of sockpuppetry charges. Btw, 'sockpuppetry' is when one person uses multiple accounts in bad faith.

Now the other concern that then cropped up was of 'meatpuppetry'. Meatpuppetry is when, two or more people in cohorts with each other act in bad faith to push their POV. Now, let me clarify something here.

I introduced Gnanapiti to wikipedia(en.wiki). I only taught him how wiki works, how to edit and inane stuff like that. This does not constitute meatpuppetry by any stretch of imagination. If anything the project needs more people like me who will bring in more editors to build this encyclopedia.

I did not implant any 'ideology' in his head. Whatever his views are, they are purely his own. I have no control over his thought processes. He is a responsible adult and is certainly more than capable of taking a stance about anything. As for my own views, needless to say, they are my own.

So there we have it. Sockpuppetry accusations were hogwash. And meatpuppetry concerns misplaced. And in spite of this, Gnanapiti was effectively blocked for almost a month for no fault of his or mine.

As for Yakshagana, stop giving it a spurious spin. Let me tell it the way it is. Gnanapiti has an interest in Yakshagana and has been editing that article for a long time. As for me, that article was not even on my watchlist. However, I have an interest in what you call 'Dravidian' topics and few of them are on my watchlist. I therefore happened to come across your templates and therefore I landed on Talk:Dravidian topics or one of those 'Dravidian' talk pages. The discussions there went on and on and on with you stubbornly stonewalling. It then started spilling over to multiple talk pages with you leading me from one page to another. I myself had been a part of the discussions on few of them. It was then that I happened to observe that the discussion had reached Talk:Yakshagana too. It was then that I landed on Talk:Yakshagana. You led me there.

As for your charge of votestacking (1) neither Sarvabhaum nor the template votes were 'linguistic' (2) the extra vote hardly mattered. Decision was almost unanimous (3) like I said, we are neither sockpuppets nor meatpuppets. So it is not very easy to keep a track of what the other is doing. When I vote somewhere, believe me, I dont bother(and cant be expected) looking up and scanning for Gnanapiti's name each time. I just go and vote. Thats all. If anybody(admin or anyone) has concerns about both of us voting, it is upto them to keep an eye out and strike out one of us.

So stop your crowing and get back to doing something useful. Your non stop tirade against me, your vague templates or your copyvios are of no use to wikipedia. So stop it and stop it NOW! Sarvagnya 17:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blnguyen - I think I've clarified this as best as I could. I will not respond to any further trolling on his part. If he again uses terms like vandal, votefraud, votestacking, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry etc to describe me or Gnanapiti, I request that you block him for disruption. I think I've explained enough. Sarvagnya 17:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Blngyen: What do you have to say about this? Wiki Raja 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer it if they did not vote together or double-revert on things that are divisive along linguistically/regional lines, as that was the agreement I believe. Sarvabhaum is an example of a Marathi editor who was involved in fights against Kannada users, so that qualifies as a linguistic/regional dispute, and thus I don' think they should have voted there or on the Dravidian template. As it was, it caused no issues. This does not mean that they cannot collaborate productively to improve an article, it only applies to team-warring and double voting. If they both help to simply improve an article is no problem. The other thing about the question of meatpuppetry is that both people are working properly on articles in their own right, rather than simply being recruited as a tool of convenience for an extra revert-vote quota, so I wonder what Dmcdevit an Aksi_great would think about whether the restrictions should eventually be relaxed entirely. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence to you or anything, but I feel that is favoritism towards Sarvagnya. There were a few times you have contradicted yourself. Now, Sarvabhaum is brought up. Is this another excuse for not dealing with Sarvagnya? I am not trying to start any trouble or anything, but I thought rules were rules. There was nothing productive in trying to get rid of the Dravidian topics template, accept for a productive POV. I understand your interest in the Kannadiga culture which I admire. However, that does not make it right to take a particular side because of interest in that group. Once again, that is called favoritism. Sorry to sound harsh, but I had to tell it like it is. Wiki Raja 04:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the case. Sarvabhaum the Marathi was blocked because he broke 3RR and then evaded it and create sockpuppets and continued over and over. I nominated the template simply because I feel that it links too many weakly related things together. I also blocked Sarvagnya once last year. I don't think it is accurate to say that I have a special interest in Kannada culture at all; it is simply that the wars that occurred on Wikipedia were in that topic. As for my editing interests, a look at my records User:Blnguyen/Contributions doesn't show anything much in India apart from some cricket and Buddhism articles. Apart from that, I see Portal:Maharashtra, which I created. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you have blocked Sarvagnya sometime last year. Anyways, Sarvagnya has a very rude, incivil, and bullyish attitude towars other editors on Wikipedia. Furthermore, it seems that he is treating you like his personal genie.Wiki Raja 06:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VegaDark's Request for Adminship[edit]

YellowMonkey/Archive43

Thank you for supporting my RfA. It was successful at a unanimous 52/0/0. I hope I can live up to the kind words expressed of me there, and hope to now be more of an asset to the community with access to the tools. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me in the future. Thanks again! VegaDark 06:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

User:144.36.228.127 Vandalism[edit]

Sir, a anon user with above IP is editing Kannada and Karnataka articles repeatedly and reverting.Dineshkannambadi 15:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't warned them yet. You must do so. Is it vandalism? It seems like POV at most. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:YellowMonkey/Archive43&oldid=1088874871"