User talk:YellowMonkey/Archive101

Gppande block

Hey dude, I have noticed you have blocked Gppande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for sock puppetry with an account Kokar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). As far as I know, He is a reputed editor and somehow I fail to digest it. Was there a Check user request for this , so that I can have a look. IMO , Kokar was not disruptive unless a sure and proven sock of Gppande. Looking at the contributions of User:Kokar, he appears to be new user and i cant understand why a prominent user like GPPAnde would do this foolish ignorance ! Also to be noted is that unlike in other countries , there is lots of IP sharing in third world countries like India. Would we mind placing a courtesy block notice for Gppande. I appeal to consider to review the block again. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 05:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I confirm YellowMonkey's CheckUser findings. There's a direct hit between Gppande and Kokar on multiple shared IP addresses and ISPs. It can't be a coincidence that two accounts on the same shared IPs voted "keep" on the same AfD just minutes apart. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was quite astounded that he would do such a thing. It is completely unnecessary but for some reason he double voted on the Rahul Raj AfD. Kokar has only used three different IP addresses. All three have also been used by Gppande. The first two are static IPs. Gppande has uses these regularly, day after day, and is the only regular editor there (excluding accounts that don't edit). Kokar edited from both of these. The third IP that Kokar used was dynamic and in a range that Gppande uses. Each time Gppande uses this range, he gets allocated to a random different IP, but on this exact IP address within the range, within a few minutes of each other, Kokar and Gppande are both editing from the same IP with interleaved edits. This indicates that it is one person logging in and out of Wikipedia while still being connected to the internet. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

wow. crazy and unnecessary. well, I would never have suspected them to be socks, nothing indicating to me to that effect. I wonder what made u suspicious of them. Docku: What up? 05:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I never suspected Gppande. You asked me to look at Manoj nav and Not-ashamed, and I saw this recent AfD. Kokar's 20-odd contributions show that he clearly is not a new user. Given their previous history, I just assumed that Kokar must have been one of these two, so I checked him, and when I checked his IPs, it showed Gppande on all of them. The risks are pretty pointless to get an extra vote among about 10 voters. Especially considering what is necessary to give a sock a new personality and history to make it look like a genuine long-term user. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That is quite a story. Apparently, you had to check all those who voted in that debate. well said, little to gain and lot to lose. Docku: What up? 05:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't check all of them. I only checked Kokar and followed the trail to Gppande. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 06:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If what I am hearing is true, it was totally foolishness and useless attempt from Gppande. Sad! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I came here for ArbCom nagging, but came across this - really sad; why oh why oh why do it for an AFD...it's just not worth it! :( Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, User_talk:Gppande#Kokur -- Tinu Cherian - 09:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have replied there in more detail. I still can't think of any rational reasoning mechanism as to why one would act in that way, but the results seem extremely clear, unlike the Mspraveen one. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's really unfortunate that this happened. Even I was blocked a few month back. I had expressed my concern then -

"I am shocked that wikipedia is so prone to misunderstanding and administrator possibly have fewer tools which could help them to take authentic actions."

I wish administrators use this - Wikipedia:Assume good faith more often then the limited tools provided to them. Apart from this, administrators should never misuse their position. Also I don't think many would support for an article being deleted based on voting . It should be based on the reasons posted on Afd page by various users and not the number of users.

Wikipedia:Discuss_and_Vote: An admin takes the discussion into account as well as the numbers voting to arrive at an informed conclusion. Consequently, the stronger arguments will prevail although a decision contrary to the majority would only be rendered when there is compelling evidence of inappropriate campaigning or "vote stacking" by one side. Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is preferable that people include comments and discuss the matter along with voting - that is, people are encouraged to explain their reasonings, respond to others and possibly compromise or change a vote, rather than signing a one-word opinion and not looking back.

Manoj nav (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a direct for you too. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

right

U r right about removing arbitary names. I've also removed the Wikipedia created arbitrary name. Once the name is agreed upon by the world, we can use it. We shouldn't create a name ourselves and put it in bold, thus creating a made up invention. Thank you. Marlinette (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted me, as in making one descriptive title not of a proper noun is ok, where no proper noun name exists, so that WP's one doesn't have to be accompanied by a descriptive rewording by everyone else. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Punditry

November must be the month for meeting cricket pundits; my good friend had Ken Piesse turn up on his doorstep to pick up a book the my friend sold to him on eBay. Sounds like an interesting session. Often you will find that at forums such as those (and at the numerous sportsman nights in country towns around Australia) ex-cricketers are quite open about their thoughts on throwing, match-fixing, inter-team disputes etc. Claiming Hauritz's Test debut was in 2001 is a bit of a howler though. It would have been interesting to meet Haigh. I enjoy his writing—his longer works more than his essays and his historical works more than his pieces on contemporary cricket—but on television he comes across as a little pompous and on Cricinfo he seems much too quick to praise Indian cricket and condemn Australian cricket and cricketers. Not sure if topic was discussed at your session.

The doosra is interesting. Some bowlers are called when bowling it (such as Botha), others such as Bhajji seem to get away with it with an action (to my non-biomechancially trained eyes) that is little different in its basic movements.

I was in Brisbane for the Test; a very uninspiring match and regardless of the result does not lend to much optimism about Australian cricket. The selection of Hauritz is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. If Australia must select an out-of-form spinner then why not Bailey or Cullen? How long can Lee continue to get a game while looking completely unthreatening? Hayden had no luck in Brisbane but it must be time to give Marsh or even Phillip Hughes a go. Haddin looks totally lost with the gloves and the bat. England must fancy their chances in 2009.

Good luck with the writing. I have your blog on RSS feed and look forward to following it. The blog will be better practise for punditry than Wikipedia. People read pundits for their point of view and our NPOV policy here can lead to a flat, dull writing style where adjectives are seen as the enemy—to be exterminated on sight (wrongly in my view). I take it you are not at the Test today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs) `

No, I'm not at the Test, I would have gone to hunt photographs for WP on Tuesday or Wednesday but the digital camera is on an overseas holiday. Well I guess if I knew about the conference I would have gone to that instead of the nets. Yes, and I have realised my writing on WP is as flat as Bhajji's darts. Even with the freedom of the blog I am feeling a bit rigid. Even though I try to focus on olden-day cricketers when more characters like Macartney existed to liven up the narrative. Oh well, at least Bhajji enlivens the prose with his shenanigans. I was a bit surprised that one of them were openly talking about their experience of incumbent cricket officials being involved in corruption and criminal activities though.

Yes, some cricket people seem markedly different in voice, in books and in columns. I think Roebuck is more effective as a radio analyst because I think in the SMH columns he might he trying too hard with the literary flourishes. And definitely, the more profound writers like Frith feel better in the history-type books for some reason. Although I think Coward sounded very good during the India tour.

As for Aus, if a token finger-spinner was necessary, I would've picked Aaron O'Brien, who defected from NSW to SA. He is actually getting games at the moment and Cullen and Bailey are not. And he is getting more wickets than Hauritz even though he is batting at No. 7 I think as an allrounder. Casson is playing atm also. If S Jones is back fit England should have some chance. Especially as without McGrath Australia won't be able to test Cook and Bell outside off stump so much. They still played pretty poorly in India, also selecting the wrong team. But if Australia played the way they did in Brisbane, England and South Africa will clout them by 150 runs/ 6 wickets at least I think.

Gideon had a very dim view of T20 as with basically all of them there, it's pretty obvious that everyone there is quite non-mainstream traditionalists compared to most people who are interested in modern cricket. They were a bit like me, you and BlackJack I guess. More generally I'm guessing most people there are rather left-wing so to speak. Gideon talked about Stanford being 3rd gen and talked about the proverb of 3rd gen wasting away money and predicting the series would collapse and slating Champions League and so forth. He also didn't hold back about the BCCI or ACB, similarly to his book with Frith on the ACB's autocratic history. The subcontinental fellows were pretty critical of the political interference in the BCCI and how politicians see it as bigger than cabinet posts. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 04:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: 606

Yes, SGGH on 606 gets exasperated with all the knee jerk reactions that YellowMonkey probably continually puts on with his multiple 606-troll accounts when he keeper is not looking :P SGGH ^speak! 13:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ban

Who are you to ban me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.39.230 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? I guess it doesnt matter since you have evaded it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of user:PaxEquilibrium

After review I think there is some doubt about PaxE being the master account. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_unblock_of_User:PaxEquilibrium. Thatcher 13:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, noted. I am fine with whatever happens. Khoikhoi asked me to CU the original guy and was quite surprised by what he saw. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your closure of the Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War AfD

See User_talk:ChrisO#Shadows_in_the_Desert:_Ancient_Persia_at_War_AfD_closure. --Crusio (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you to review your closure decision; this is one of the most unsatisfactory closures I've seen in a very long time. As an administrator, you're not supposed to simply count heads in closing an AfD. Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." The arguments in this case were simply nonsensical:

• that the introduction of the book was somehow an independent source;
• that links which included a copy of the book's frontispiece text, a podcast on a personal website and a blog post were reliable independent sources;
• that passing mentions were sufficient to establish notability;
• that the book won a major award (it didn't).

I cannot understand how you could have disregarded the extreme weakness of the arguments in this case, particularly the complete lack of anything that satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (books), and I would be grateful for a response before I take it to WP:DRV. If you are unsure about how to close this AfD, I suggest that you leave it open and let another admin do it. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello friend!

Hello friend, nice to meet a fellow Vietnamese who shares virtually all of the same interests as myself! I've been following your page for many months, and greatly appreciate your tireless efforts for building knowledge. Do you have a facebook account? Please do add me, "Huy-Anh Le (Carleton CA)". Le Anh-Huy (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh

You did not give a reason for why you reverted my edits on Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. The edits I removed were clearly uncited/unreferenced claims. If you wish to revert my edits again, please explain the reason behind it on the Talk page of the article, I will be watching it.

Re: Casliber

Yeah, but I'd want my ArbCom members to have no life (on wikipedia, that is) besides the cases, as I feel the deliberation and such takes too long leading to more drama than satisfaction. Not that I expect my oppose will mean much :) ... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know

Champa is neither a Khmer or Vietnamese kingdom, it's of Cham people and is considered part of Vietnamese history. Cham people are not related to Khmer or Vietnamese. 98.112.201.198 (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, I should have noticed the word Cambodian there and not reinstated that part when I restored the whole sentence. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sock issue

Hi there, I see that Irek Biernat is blocked as sock by you. I tried to follow the template that you put on this users page to see "checkuser" for evidence but could not find any process listed on that page. Could you please guide me to the evidence of sock-puppetry by this or related user? Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it right here. A direct hit.  Confirmed Beetle CT, Irek Biernat and Singh6 are all the same. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reply. However, that is an indicator not proof; I was looking for proof of sock-puppetry by all 3 blocked by you. How is the decision made? Are they all working from the same IP address? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a direct overlap of IPs. No third parties use the aforementioned IPs and all of the accounts focus on the same topic, about Sikhism/Khalistan. Also the Sikh population in this area is less than 0.05%. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello YellowMonkey, what do you mean when you say "direct overlap"; are you saying all 3 Irek Biernat, Singh6 etc are editing from the same IP? Not sure why you mentioned them editing the same article and whats the deal with the Sikh population in that area figure?

YellowMonkey, You did not answer RoadAhead's question, please clear out the things. Are you saying that Irek Biernat, Singh6 and Beetle CT were editing from the exact same IP? Please answer Roadahead's other questions as well--Singh6 (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's you. Irek Biernat has used two IPs. One, you used, and the other, Beetle used. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So do you mean to say that Irek and Singh6 actually edited using exact same IP all the time or even few times?--144.160.130.16 (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello YellowMonkey, it seems like you have blocked the IP of a company simply because "some" edits were done by couple of editors whose list of articles are same on Wikipedia. I don't think this would be appropriate. Also, you have not responded to my question what you mean by the Sikh population %tage in that town. Please take a look into this matter, It would be inappropriate to operate on insufficient evidence and block the IPs and 3 accounts like this simply because their POVs on a topic are same. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 03:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

These users were found to be editing on the same exact IP address. Also note that Singh6 and Irek Biernat violated WP:SOCK by votestacking on the Sikh extremism AfD. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nishkid64, This is not correct. Even Yellowmonkey has accepted that Singh6 and Beetle CT have never shared any IP Address. I will send you an email today. Let YellowMonkey answer Roadahead's and 144.160.130.16 questions here. --Singh6 (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that transitivity proves the point. IB= Singh6, IB= Beetle CT, therefore, Singh6=Beetle CT. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Respected Sir, Kindly answer User: Roadahead's and User: 144.160.130.16's exact questions. --Singh6 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been socking, transitivity is an obvious proof. Stop trolling. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr Anon, you are Singh6/Beetle_CT/Irek doubling up again. You can have another block. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi YellowMonkey, If that ANON is not Singh6 but IrekBiernat or BeetleCT (both of which have been indefinitely banned by you) how will they talk or oppose the ban if they feel their ban is unjustified? They may have no other means (as being blocked) but to leave comment on your talkpage without logging (as ANON). Again, not sure how you concluded that the ANON is "Singh6/Beetle_CT/Irek doubling up again"? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello YellowMonkey, I came across the following on the talkpage of one of the editors blocked by you (Beetle CT): -

On November 13th 2008, I had edited wikipedia from state of Pennsylvania. (You can verify the location of the used IP through IP LookUp or any of your own sources. Singh6 had edited wikipedia 8 times on the same date and one of his edit happened within 4 minutes my edit. Irek Biernat had edited wikipedia 6 times on the same date. Since both of these respected editors have mentioned here (Irek Biernat) and here (Singh6) that they live/edit in state of California, 'then it proves that this Sockpuppet case is illegitimate because one editor can not travel between US-East and US-West Coasts within 4 minutes of time'. Even the minimum air-travel time between these two states is 10 to 12 hours atleast (7-9 hours in Air-Travel time including plane change/minor-stay at one connecting airport + approximately 3 hours of time which always get wasted in ticketing, security, boarding and baggage claim areas etc).

Is this true? If this is true how can transitivity hold here as he user (Beetle CT) is saying s/he edited from east coast while Singh6 and IB have edited from west coast within a few minutes? Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into a joke. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What is turning into a joke? My asking you a question or that quoted text of Beetle CT above? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The geographical locations they are reporting is not correct. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

LeagleEagle's suspicion of sockpuppetry by user:Zafarnamah

Hi yellowmonkey sorry not to start discussion at a new section but what I wanted to report pertained to sockpupetting. I wanted to report a particular User:Zafarnamah who I suspect to be a sockpuppet of any of the three user whom you had recently blocked. The reasons of my suspicion is the prolonged absence (almost for 2.33 years) and then suddenly popping up one day to vote in an Afd where the other blocked users were voting en masse. But this again is my suspicion which I thought I might share with you. I wanted to know if there is an institutionalised mechanism in wiki where one may put a notice for suspicous sockpupetting? Thanks, LegalEagle (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be him, but he's hardly edited at all and there isnt much of a sample. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Isis Gee

Hi, you protected the wrong version. If you read the bottom it was the sockpuppet version and removed the placing information and added POV material. Please revert to GRK's consensus version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isis_Gee&oldid=255907555 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeastand (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello sock! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: The Bugle Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
Project news The Lebanese military history task force has been created. The recent promotion of Tom Crean (explorer) brings the number of featured articles within the scope of the Military History Project to 300. Following a lengthy discussion, a new section - Personal libraries - has been added to the Logistics Department. The aim is to make sourcing and citation checking easier by sharing information about editors' personal book holdings. If you have half an hour to spare, why not add a list of your Milhist reference books?	Articles of note New featured articles: Battle of Lipantitlán Battle of Khafji Richard Williams (RAAF officer) Tom Crean Third Battle of Kharkov SS Mauna Loa SS Montanan SS Ohioan (1914) USS Constitution New featured lists: List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Schnellboot service New A-Class articles: 13th Airborne Division (United States) Alaska class battlecruiser Edmund Herring Revolt of the Comuneros Rheinmetall 120 mm gun SS Black Osprey Stanley Goble Tanks in the Spanish Army
Current proposals and discussions Adoption of C-class remains firmly on the Milhist agenda with discussions approaching their fifth month of debate. More views are sought on this. What is a Pyrrhic victory? There's an interesting and lively discussion on this here. (And the short answer is: follow what the sources say.) Can you design logos? We're looking for a snappy new logo to go with the new title of the newsletter. See the ideas so far at the newsletter workshop.
Awards and honors The Contest department has completed its twentieth month of competition, which saw a record 78 entries. The top scorer this month is Bellhalla with 143 points, followed by Catalan with 42 points. Georgejdorner, Ian Rose, Abraham, B.S., the_ed17, Skinny87, Rosiestep, ERcheck, David Underdown and Gaia Octavia Agrippa also fielded entries. Bellhalla remains the overall leader with 481 points in total. The Chevrons go to Bellhalla and Catalan gets the Writer's Barnstar. You are encouraged to submit any articles you are working on as entries.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "Strong support" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - December 2008

Note: from now on the Newsletter will be "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011 (talk). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War

I would submit that, reviewing the arguments presented, the result was in fact "merge". But it's not a big deal, since articles can of course be merged also without an afd. --dab (𒁳) 08:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Beetle CT requesting unblock

A user you blocked, User:Beetle CT, is requesting an unblock. Your block summary and the sockpuppet templates reference checkuser evidence that I am unable to find. Could you please reply to the unblock message or direct me to the checkuser case? Thanks! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it right here, since I don't request and carry out my own checks in a formal way:  Confirmed Irek Biernat = BeetleCT = Singh6. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Thanks much and sorry I missed it! Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 03:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Please refer this and reply there as well. This "Confirmed" tag is telling nothing more than some graphics to those who do not have checkuser privileges. I thought your previous statement said that transitivity of the type IB=Singh6 and IB=Beetle CT exists but now they are directly operation from same IP?--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Garden/WikiCup

Ohai YellowMonkey, I see that you are listed towards the top of this page, which means you have experience with article writing and expanding articles -- getting them featured. I'd like you to check out the WikiCup, beginning in January for the fourth cup. ayematthew ✡ 23:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the invite. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Beetle CT

This user, which you had blocked for sockpuppetry, is requesting unblocking. He has a number of specific arguments as to why you made an error that I can't check out without the checkuser tool. Could you take a look, and comment on the truth of his claims? Mangojuice^talk 14:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)