Contents

User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive49

Is Dave Kelly still non-notable? [1] --KSnortum 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know. The AfD said no. If you feel he has now become notable, feel free to lodge an undeletion discission at WP:DRV. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ridge was the Lord's Test. I thought I was only referring to one Test there. ?? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 77* was at Old Trafford - http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1960S/1961/AUS_IN_ENG/AUS_ENG_T4_27JUL-01AUG1961.html McKenzie made a few at Lord's (http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1960S/1961/AUS_IN_ENG/AUS_ENG_T2_22-26JUN1961.html) but Davidson scored only 6 & 0*. Tintin 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I must have been seeeing things. The sources didn't happen to mention the Ridge Test. Thanks for keeping an eye out! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now. The Haigh Cricinfo profile said he made a telling contribution in the Ridge Test at Lord's and I assumed he was referring to the 77*. I guess Haigh must have been referring to teh seven wickets. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That included 12 for 123 at Kanpur in 1957-58 - a match that Australia still lost. - This was in 1959-60 and Davidson conceded 124. CI is worse than Wikipedia a lot of the time :-) Tintin 06:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, about the date and score errors by CI. The thing about the 57.3 overs unchanged in Kanpur which amuses me is that Davidson mentioned it his chapter "The Value of All rounders" in Pollard's coaching/history book. Davidson said that was the value of being fit that you can bowl so much in 100+ Fahrenheit but he didn't tell us that he was bowling spin. He tricked the Australian children into believing he bowled 57 consecutive overs of fast medium! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Davidson himself says that he bowled fast, I checked some books but could not find much. OxfordCompanion is disturbingly silent on the subject of his spin bowling while CMJ's Who's Who says that he started off as a chinaman bowler but there is no mention of it afterwards. I found a one paragraph quote by GS Ramchand about the Kanpur Test where he says Davidson bowled "cutters most beautifully".

What I knew about it had come from Partab Ramchand's Great Feats of Indian Cricket. It contains a 25-page chapter on Jasu Patel's effort. It describes the Australian innings almost dismissal by dismissal but there is not much on Australian bowling. These are the ones relevant to Davidson's spin bowling : "{in the first innings) the scoreboard showed Davidson having taken five wickets but all his victims were got rid of with his left-arm orthodox spinners", "(at about the point when India took the lead in the second innings) The Australian attack was now all spin. Davidson was bowling his left-arm spinners, Benaud too had a long spell ...". "the left hander finished with seven wickets for the innings and twelve for the match, almost every wicket having been got through bowling of an unfamiliar type. He was indeed proving to be India's answer to Patel". So I guess (hope ?) what I changed yesterday was okay. Tintin 11:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson didn't explicitly say in the coaching book that he bowled fast, but he did say that he took up fast bowling for his uncle and "hardly bowled them since" in respect to spinners. Having said that he used to be a wrist spinner, so he may have taken up orthodox later, so there is a caveat. But safer with the ambiguity. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not 'reverted' 4 times. My 3 reverts were [2], [3], [4]. You were probably confused about this edit which is not a revert since dinesh's contribution was different. How did you come to know about the edit war? Is it in your watch list? Or did somebody contact you? Anyways, good job in stopping further escalation of conflict. :) BTW: If a edit war is on progress and if I report that to you, would you be kind enough to protect the article? Praveen 17:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have the article on my watchlist. Actually the other edit was also a a revert, because you had already added those tags on the Greek stuff the day before - [5]. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't add the 'check' tag which was explained by Dinesh. I added other two tags which were not explained at the time of my addition. Let me explain each event step by step.

1. I added three tags the day before.

2. Dinesh explained one tag but unfortunately removed all the 3 tags.

3. I added only two tags which were not explained.

Is this a revert? Thanks Praveen 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So technically I didn't revert any body's 'work'. I didn't know if it is a revert. Anyways thanks for your input. If you have any explanations do let me know. Praveen 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's still a revert. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Praveen 04:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Melodifestivalen is undergoing a peer-review here at the moment. I'd love to get some feedback from you, as you've done some work on Eurovision-related articles in the past. Thanks. Chwech 19:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will try my best. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Blnguyen. I think there is a good case for censure of the NPOV member who persists in his idolisation of this player. I've just reverted "the greatest" again and quoted NPOV again but I doubt if it will have the least effect. Best wishes. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noted, thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear blnguyen, I am adsomvilay requesting that you find out who vandalised "Lady Yunalesca" in Characters of Final Fantasy X. They put "You can see her beautiful ass and her pussy and breasts are very close to showing and I wish she was naked." The link is [[6]] Thank you for your services. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adsomvilay (talk • contribs).

I guess it was Special:Contributions/24.228.2.172. They stopped though. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from userpage, and vandalism reverted --TeaDrinker 00:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TeaDrinker. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On14 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alan Davidson (cricketer), 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.

--Carabinieri 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On14 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pigneau de Behaine, 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.

On14 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yasa, 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.

--Carabinieri 21:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking to resolve our differences regarding the Ngo Dinh Diem article by arbitration. I left a message on your talk page earlier, but it's since been pointed out to me that I should have done a better job of highlighting it. So here it is again.--VnTruth 15:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On15 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nguyen Van Nhung, 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} 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On15 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandra Morgan, 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} 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Blnguyen,

I've just reverted an addition that included some personal information. Can you have a look and see if it needs an oversight deletion? Thanks, Andjam 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done, thanks. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On16 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bhadda Kapilani, 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.

Thank you for your contributions! Daniel Bryant 06:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the Barnie. Agreed re Brett Lee - and I took the hint (!). What's that weird stuff at the foot of his article? --Dweller 08:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the Lee history. I've made one revert, but I'm not interested in a revert war there or anywhere on WP for that matter. I suggest we bring in WP:CRIC for a consensus conversation at the talk page. Once consensus is established, reverts can be made and the dissenting minority needs to avoid 3RR. --Dweller 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I see, the guy has been blocked for sockpuppeteering. Well, I guess it's 2-1 but I don't think that guy will be changing his mind anytime. Single article editors usually are quite strong in their opinions about the subject, which is why they only want to edit one and have no interest in others. And usually way POV as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line that you removed about Blee being the first Aussie in 22 years to take a wicket in the first over was wrong too. Sir C Miller took a wicket with his fifth ball, at Rawalpindi 1998-99 I hope the editors are not deliberately making up stuff to make the players look better. Tintin 05:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I note that you picked Judy Morris (created April 12) for a future DYK. Not sure if I have done the correct thing but to remind you the submission was a co-nomination by myself as a collaborative effort with a young new editor User:HB4026 - hence a co-nomination. I assume that is okay? Anyway in regards to your choice and the bot set up I noted a single name at the entry - and so I have adjusted to this Judy Morris by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs) and HB4026 (talk • contribs) started at 00:05, 12 April 2007atUser:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult. If that is incorrect please let me know and then I offer my apologies.--VS ^talk 10:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC) No need to respond looks like I didn't wreck anything. Cheers!--VS ^talk 22:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are a pundit with TOI, why do you hate Ganguly. You removed the comeback sentence from the Ganguly chappel controversy, and that is enough proof you are a ganguly basher.

Real cricket pundits don't bash Ganguly. Have you ever heard Tendulkar, Alan Border, Steve Waugh, Boycott, Gavaskar, Ranatunga bash Ganguly? And you will never hear.

People who bash Ganguly are medicore.Examples include the Chappel brothers, kiran More, and yourself.

Brian Lara said to Times Now (thats your company) that a player like Ganguly should not have been dropped in the first place.

Long live Chapppell. and you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blessingsboy (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not an employee with the ToI, I simply noted that my work was plagiarised and used by them. I reverted your edits because they have too much hyperbole, personal commentary, weasel words and peacock terms, and in my opinion make the article worse. ToI is a tabloid. Cricinfo/Wisden is the world's most respected cricket outlet. Steve Waugh bashed Ganguly during the 2001 BG, although I would take it as a compliment that his feathers were ruffled. It is not necessary to be criticised to note that a person has not been making runs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's obviously the only person qualified to comment on Vietnam's fledgling cricket team, blessingboy.Bakaman 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arequest for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/David Irving, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

I've been removed, since I only commented on an RfC. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great News! WikiProject Swimming is now up and running. Your name has been added to the members list, since you noted your interest on the discussion page! If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or the project talk page. For starters, my first goal is to get {{WikiProject Swimming}} on as many swimming related talk pages as possible. Please help get this new project off to a great start! Regards, wpktsfs 22:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in Wikiproject India newsletter of March 2007, the weekly collaboration of the Indian wikiproject has fallen from its once high feats. This message is to request the users to visit the collaboration page and help rejuvenate it.

The present collaboration of the week is Religion in India. Please go through the talk page of the article to see the proposed changes in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your additions. However, the additions need to be trimmed. Our plan is to make single level sections as far as practicable (no subsections under sections, and creating appropriate daughter articles as and when necessary — please see the section "major religions" and corresponding daughter article Major religions in India). So, the plan for History section is to develop a chronological history of religions of India, incorporating all the religions at one flow. Individual history of religions can be dealt with in appropriate articles, such as History of Buddhism in India. Hence, damn good summary writing will be needed. Users like Nichalp are great at it. However, for the time being, we can add information as it comes, and later concentrate on summarising. Similar plans apply for other sections like "pilgrimages", "thinkers" etc. However, this not having subsections is not a basic requirement and subsections may be needed according to circumstances.

One major section is pending, that is "problems" (communal riots etc). Hope to start that section soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I apologize that I had to temporarily remove some of your additions, besides summarising some other edits. The modern Buddhism history stuffs that you added will again be added (in as much summary form as possible) once we reach the modern era in the "History" section, which is very much under construction. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a nag, but were you going to move back to active on WP:AC? You know we worry about these things. :) Newyorkbrad 07:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err, okay. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Blnguyen, loong time no see! Feels really good to be back and even more so when one finds that such good friends are still looking out for you. See you around and thanks again! --Srikeit 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to upload images from Commons locally and use Template:C-uploaded. Otherwise the image is not protected. Thanks.--Pharos 08:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I forgot to upload to the same place, but had the numbers. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the problem I see now was you downloaded directly from the picture on the image page, instead of from the "Image in higher resolution" link, right below the picture on the image page. This means that (1) you only downloaded a low-res version of the photo and (2) it was automatically saved to your computer under a different name (the numbers were for the pixel size). When you download the image directly from the "Image in higher resolution" link, you'll get the full resolution picture and no numbers in the filename. Thanks.--Pharos 06:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On17 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Faith Leech, 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.

One more for the yellow primate! --Srikeit 08:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Actually a translation... But Operation Charly also is interesting... Tazmaniacs 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you had shown interest in the past has been tagged to be peer reviewed. Your input will be appreciatedRaveenS

Hm, I don't know much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acursory search shows Tôn Thất Đính to be the correct name. DHN 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interview with him on Radio Australia several years ago about his role in the 1963 coup [7]. DHN 04:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Notorious BLN! I'm well, how are you? I see that your notoriety has even further grown. Hope the arbitrator's job is suiting you well -- Samir 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rfar looks somewhat spurious to me -- Samir 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)[reply]

As regards to the citations, I will fix them up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1) I am happy to combine the booknotes into one.

2) The views are very much fringe. Moyar notes so himself, that he is a revisionist. He is attempting to overturn academic historical establishment on what is fact. Many of factual events that he records as having taken place directly contradict the records of the established history, and Moyar is frequently stating in the book that the account of events by the orthodox historians is false and spends much of the book attempting to discredit the historical events they describe. So it is definitely fringe and does not even really pass WP:RS since his version of events contradicts what is accepted. WP:NOT states under the headline Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought point 1 that

Moyar's work is as yet not accepted knowledge, since his attempt to debunk "orthodox-fact" has with "revisionism-fact" has not yet changed the consensus of what Diem did. I am not referring to what people evaluate of Diem, but black and white statements about what events happened and what did not.

3) For example, in 1955, Diem recorded 133% of the vote in Saigon. This is incontrovertible, and nothing further needs to be said except that the mathematically impossible results means that the election was rigged. The fact that Moyar wants to ignore the fact that Diem got 133% of the vote says enough about his extremely tendentious nature.

4) The fact that a person has a PhD does not mean that their views are mainstream or non-fringe. Plenty of people who are professors at Harvard and Princeton such as Noam Chomsky and Peter Singer frequently find themselves far on the outer.

5) There is no ISBN on that Gettleman book because it is too old. There are two documents in there which cite the Buddhist majority, including a Halberstam report which won a Pulitzer Prize. The fact that Moyar makes strong polemical attacks, including personal attacks on Halberstam's credibility does not change the fact that Halberstam is regarded as a leading Vietnam scholar and Moyar does not. Moyar notes this himself in his own preface. There is a wide consensus of sources that a majority of RoV was Buddhist.

6) I removed the repercussions, since it is not neccessary under WP:CRYSTAL, and also implies that if Diem were still around , then the military situation would not have deteriorated. This tips the POV balance.

7) I am not offended by the misspelling of my name. Many people do it, including the owner of Wikipedia.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by randomly here. Now, contrary to some at the present, I have not a single POV in relation to all of Asia - at all. I have a pretty simple solution, if you two want to embrace it.

Is it possible to note, in the article, that there is a dispute over the numbers between references? It may seem stupid, but it really isn't, and it's an easy way to present what could arguably considered to be "fringe theories" in a NPOV way. See Intelligent design, a featured article which uses this technique all through it. I found the quote "Leave both in and let the reader decide" to be a pretty good indication that VnTruth may accept this - I'd link to think you would - what better way than to note that there is a dispute and present it in a NPOV and all-encompassing way that there is a dispute than to say so in the article? Anyways, that's just my $0.02; oh, and I spell Blngyuen Blgnuyen Blnguyne Blnguyen wrong lots, too :) Just some thoughts to ponder. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the revisionists are in the minority, WP:UNDUE would seem to imply that noting that most estimates are of a majority is sufficient. Clearly those in the minority, by inference, do not. The comparison to Intelligent design does not hold because the article is about ID, and it is telling us about what people think of a different theory and an alternative theory which explains empirically measured observations (in this case whether evolution desribes the history of animal life, or whether ID does). This differs in the case of Ngo Dinh Diem, where a totally different claim of empirical events is happening. If you see Kargil War (an FA) there is no inclusion of the Pakistani statistics which claim that they routed the Indians, since consensus is that the Pakistanis suffered heavy losses. NPOV allows for discussing various theories and analyses which explain observed phenomena, but it is not for minority revisionist historians to change the observed phenomena. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might also note that the 27% figure comes from a CIA report. Since the CIA were instrumental (Edward Lansdale)) in helping to install Diem to power, they have a vested interest, and their figures are not reliable. Otherwise we would believe North Korean news reports that there is no crime, poverty, unemployment in North Korea. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider it a reliable source given this fact. Daniel Bryant 08:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested arbitration on your latest changes. --VnTruth 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell, for what reasons you gotta edit Chennai Wiki page? If you mention that "subjective surveys don't go int he lead", then you better edit the Mumbai page, you maharashtrian sweetiepie. I really donna why you guys can't face the truth? Is it hard to swallow the truth? Crooked narrow minded guys can never rise high. -Inferno

Go again using J'accuse. lol ! Funny !!!

Maharashtrian sweetiepie? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave u a chance to accuse me that I was sexually harassing ya ;-) lol. Anyways jokes apart s.bag,..Now tell why were you mis-interpretting the Mercer's Survey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infernorulez (talk • contribs)

Heh. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bl,
User talk:Blnguyen/Times of India this has been created by Infernorulez (talk · contribs). Have marked it for speedy-deletion. Thought of bringing it into your attention, just in case if you haven't noticed. Feel free to remove the speedy template, if you don't want the page to get deleted. ;-) - KNM ^Talk 07:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, completed the formalities on user page notices for the DYKs, which you had asked someone to do, as mentioned in the editsummary just before you left yesterday. Hope all went right. - KNM ^Talk 07:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Gilly. We're more likely to get ITN for the result and we've got 2 cricket articles close to the top of the queue for TFA. Two things from me to you: 1) Please bring your subcontinental eye (!) to bear on the "Indipper" chat at WT:CRIC and 2) I spotted this: 09:27, 19 April 2007 Deckiller (Talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Blnguyen/Times of India" (content was: '{{db-nonsense}}Why did u revert changes in Chennai wiki page?') in a log as I passed by. Looks like an admin innocently speedied a page maliciously tagged. --Dweller 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a newbie edited the talk page and misplaced something. That's all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's breaking news on every channel in India right now. I've been watching it. Internet will pick up by the end of the day. It's only morning in India right now. - shez_15

And don't think it's notable either. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]