User:Blnguyen/Top

    This user is a cricket pundit for the Times of India, the world's largest distribution daily newspaper. Details/disclaimer

User:Blnguyen/UB

• User:Blnguyen/Contributions
• User:Blnguyen/DYK

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User:Blnguyen/Recent

FOR ANONS, I WILL DEFINITELY REPLY HERE. FOR EVERYBODY ELSE, THIS MAY BE HERE OR AT YOUR TALK PAGE. IF IT IS A MULTI-PARTY DISCUSSION, THEN DEFINITELY HERE User:Blnguyen/box

I trust you'll enjoy yourself and tell us about his ice-cream pant-less performance....and all the other stuff as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for your msg. I did a little work on Ian Johnson a while back, don't know if you saw it. I feel there's enough for a FA on him as well. Same for Sam Loxton; I reckon I can get him there too. I've been doing a little prelim research on both and located some imgaes etc. So are we drawing short straws for Hamence and Saggers??!! I'm not sure what is the minimum for FT, is it each article has to have at least GA status? Sooner or later we have to deal with the Bradman conundrum - I saw the article on Sir Isaac Newton and like that design. That would work well, say splitting his life into two articles, then we can bring the daughter articles back in and lose some of the periphal stuff. With a bit of hard work the Don could be done in a week or so....thoughts?

Phanto282 (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the criteria, WP:FTC, the core article (the tour article) must be FA and 2/3rds of the articles need to be FA and the rest need to be GA. For FA, length is not really an issue - some really short articles have become FA if their is a paucity of documentation. Keith Johnson is long enough as it is if nothing more is known about him. Ian Johnson would make it easily. I did notice that you expanded it a month or so ago, and I think early this year I reverted a large addition by your IP because I thought it was a copyvio....Johnson can easily be made to the same length and longer than the current version of Bill Brown, using "Captain Australia" at least. For Saggers and Hamence we might not have so much though....But the main guys who played in 3-5 Tests in the series all would have a lot of info for FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! --Dweller (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the new Haigh/Frith book, Tallon was also banned due to "reasons other than cricket ability", along with Barnes in 1951-52. Apparently, the ban was a unilateral decision made by Aubrey Oxlade (who supported Barnes and lost the chairmanship of the Board beacuse of it) due to some comments made by Tallon to the press. Obviously, it was not effective as Tallon was injured for the season & replaced by Langley, but it may explain why Tallon never regained a permanent place in the Test team, although he did make the 53 tour. If you want to include it in the bio of Tallon, let me know & I'll give you refs, etc. Meanwhile, we're back to the ice cream on Hassett's pants and how he got Richie out of bed in the middle of the night to talk about his golf swing.....BTW, would the Don really go into a match with Tallon batting at 6???

Phanto282 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh interesting, sounds like something to liven things up. You could have just added it, since I don't have a right to a monoply on the article.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't bat Tallon at 6. The Bradman team has an awfully long tail....oh and I got stuck into Hassett.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australia newsletter Issue 1, Volume 1 — December 2, 2007

Welcome! WikiProject Australia is a WikiProject, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. This newsletter exists simply to notify Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events within the project and relating to Australia on Wikipedia. WikiProject crowned first by Durova After a post on our regional noticeboard, Durova awarded the first Special edition WikiProject triple crown to WikiProject Australia. Daniel, Blnguyen, Dihydrogen Monoxide, Orderinchaos and Lincalinca had all previously qualified for Durova's standard Triple Crown for articles relating to Australia, and so won themselves and the project the prestigious award. Congratulations to all who contributed. Durova is still accepting new members of the project that qualify for the award, so if you qualify, add your name and your articles (remembering they can't be articles already taken) to the list. Controversial articles debated controversially Subsequent to the Australian federal election, 2007, an edit war sparked on the Australia article, debating over whether newly-elected Labor leader Kevin Rudd had earned prime minister status yet over current Prime Minister John Howard. The debate died down after protection was applied to the page, but later sparked the creation of another article, entitled Prime Minister-elect. The AfD for the article continues today. An article pertaining to the Australian federal election for 2010 was created, and later debated at another AfD. Some argued that the article was purely speculation, and that the article was a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, a variation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and shouldn't be used for speculating about a subject or articles that predict future events. The article was later retitled to Australian federal election, 2011, after new evidence came to light regarding the election being scheduled for that year. Recent events Dec 2: The project was the first WikiProject to receive the WikiProject Triple Crown from Durova. Nov 26 & 28: AfD debates opened for articles pertaining to the future 2010 election and the term "Prime Minister-elect". Nov 26: Seven Australia-related articles were promoted to featured article status, making November 2007 WikiProject Australia's "FA Month". Main page · Talk · Notice board · Portal · Articles · Current collaboration · Complete to-do · Article quality (FA·GA) · Subprojects · Miscellanous This month's newsletter was written by Spebi and published by ~. If you wish to stop receiving it, receive it in a different format, or submit items for consideration next month, see our co-ordination page. Issue 1, Volume 1, December 2007. See [[newsletter archives]] for previous issues. You can also view this issue directly [[here]] Quality watch Yet another crowning took place on the project in the past month – November 2007 was officially crowned by members of the project as "Australian FA" month. No less than seven articles were promoted to featured article status last month making it the month with the highest amount of article promotions the project has seen since its creation. Among the seven brilliant articles promoted in November were Variegated Fairy-wren, Dream Days at the Hotel Existence, Ian Chappell, 1999 Sydney hailstorm, Karmichael Hunt, Arthur Morris and Powderfinger. Hopefully more articles to come. Big congratulations to all who contributed – you're doing a great job. Meanwhile, the following articles became GAs in November: I Don't Remember, Alan Davidson (cricketer), Ernie Toshack, Beaumont House, Archie Jackson, Alan Kippax, 1992 Queensland storms, Time on Earth, Small Mercies, Toyota Aurion, Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney, British nuclear tests at Maralinga, Passenger (Powderfinger song). And again, congratulations to all who were involved there! We are currently aiming to have 100GAs by the end of the year!

The user is obviously a single-purpose account. I've tried to clean-up his/her edits a bit, by removing criticism from the intro, and by removing weasel words and selective quotations. The article needs more positive stuff, though. utcursch | talk 08:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from that list of accounts and so forth before, two more names and an IP. The accounts are the creatively named "HazBig" and "SmallHaz", both of which have been indefblocked for obvious reasons. There's also the IP 60.230.37.94, which I'll lay odds is the same guy (I've blocked it, but not indefinitely, just in case). I believe these ones are coming from a home computer, so with any luck we might be able to zap him and have done with it. If you could drop me a line on my Talk page when you take care of it, that would be great. What with Christmas coming up, I might forget to check back here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 13:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the IP addresses are too spread out to do a rangeblock. Slocking your page is probably more effective. Blocking a single ip isn't going to be useful because it seems his IP changes every day. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I think I'll keep my page as open as possible for the moment, since I feel that new/unregistered users have the right to ask me questions and so on, although if he keeps it up then I might change my views. So he's definitely changing IPs regularly, or is there one big change from when his school broke for the year? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Fayssal. I've gone through and hopefully improved the article. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job Blnguyen. I've done some further copy editing and rearrangement. Please review. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I hope you are going to reconsider your objection. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm fine with your changes. What else are we looking for? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything which can be done further. Everything seems fine and there's no reason to oppose now :) At least there are no more red links as i've just created a stub for Pham Phu Quoc which i'll expand later on today or tomorrow. Thanks for your collaboration. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Untypically very bad call from you here (B's noticeboard). She has been plugging away at an article I found a couple of days ago & we have had exchanges on the talk-page. She may have picked up the Elonka page from my contributions history - her comment was rather similar to mine. Or by any of a thousand other routes.... But we don't know, do we? I hope you are not falling into top secrit ways. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A CU was ran! I hope I didn't give the impression that it was purely from cynicism! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Aramgar - Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well! I take it all back. My lonely search for another medieval iconographer on WP must continue I suppose.... Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with what you just did in Empire of Vietnam. And I would like you to do the same thing in every articles about Vietnamese history in Template:History of Vietnam with same reason, removing every Hán tự, don't let any of them in Vietnamese articles. The modern Vietnamese now only care about quốc ngữ. JacquesNguyen (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aiming for a fairy-wren FT???? Hmm, there are three drives going for the first Australian FT then.... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a long time before a Fairy-wren FT but I was musing on it. What are the others?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. The first is Powderfinger by Giggy, Spebi and Lincalinca. The other one would be Bradman's Invincibles. Time for some shameless advertising...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh duh. I should have realised....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work at 1962 South Vietnamese Presidential Palace bombing. Excellent job. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know what that means. Acalamari 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your email. -JodyB _talk 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Cobi's RFA, you !voted oppose due to his low edit count, so I thought I'd let you know that he's added a few hundred edits (albeit most are vandal reverts) since you commented. I don't know if that'll make a difference, I'm still an opposer as well, but I thought you might like to know. Useight (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know your recent FA Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem showed me someone could be an admin and still write FAs - thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you manage to check all the articles in the cat had the Aus tag that quicklky? Or am I missing something? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your question. done and checked only means the section has been checked for false positives. Category and article tagging is yet to be done, although I can see that User:Euryalus has started on this. —Moondyne 07:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I do. Stand by. —Moondyne 08:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lindwall.jpg Email with more to follow shortly. —Moondyne 08:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the star. And well done on the AC election as well. You can put your feet up now...Another thing, you might want to put Military of Sri Lanka‎ on the 1RR list and Talk:Military of Sri Lanka as well. It looks as though there are some doing more than one per day...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Noted. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The practical result of what has been done to the cold fusion article is the public will get misleading information on the current status of cold fusion. Since cold fusion is something that can be a major benefit to the human race, this is a serious error.

I have decided to give up on Wikipedia. PCarbon seems to me to have the patience of a saint. PCarbon has told me that he is also quitting Wikipedia. I will admit that cold fusion is a complex and unique issue. I think that most people who do not have at least a bachelor’s degree in the physical sciences or engineering would have a hard time grasping it. However there are many notable exceptions to this rule.

Pons and Fleishman made their announcement in March of 1989. The announcement was to protect The University of Utah’s patent rights. Some important information like the palladium alloy they used and the length of time it took to get a result (weeks) were not released to protect patent rights. Many scientists understood the significance of the discovery and scientists all over the world began experiments. Pons and Fleishman had been reproducing the experiment for five years and did not expect the difficulty others would have reproducing the experiment. Expectations were raised very high, and when a lot of positive experimental evidence was not appearing, there was a backlash. In the scientific world editors of journals have a lot of power, since scientists must publish or perish. The editor of Nature and other editors decided that cold fusion could not be real, that it was an embarrassment to science and that it needed to be squelched immediately. They also concluded the end justified the means. The used de facto censorship, name calling, and tried to ruin the careers of people who advanced the cold fusion idea. For this reason many of the scientists who continued to work on cold fusion, were retired, had tenure, or worked in another country where the witch hunt was not active.

Even while this political assault was under way, Nature refused to publish a positive result on the grounds that the issue was already decided. Melvin Miles had an initial negative result which he reported to the DOE committee. The DOE committee told the world about this negative result. When Melvin Miles later reported a positive result to the DOE committee, the DOE committee reported the result to no one.

This is how the “consensus” and de facto censorship came about. Cold fusion was done in by the political method, not by the scientific method.

The experiments have gone on for 18 years. Something like 3500 scientific papers by hundreds of scientists with PhDs in physics and chemistry have been written. Since 1992 nuclear transmutations with unnatural isotope ratios have been found. These nuclear transmutations are proof that nuclear reactions are occurring. More heat, tritium, He3, and He4 has been found. Some x-rays, gamma rays, and charged particles have been found. Reproducibility has improved.

Now some comments about Wikipedia. When working on the cold fusion article I have merely tried to include the experimenters’ point of view. I have not tried to censor or delete the skeptics’ point of view. I have tried to create a NPOV article.

I have a problem with some of Wikipedia’s rules and how they are applied. The rules do not show a grasp of the scientific method. Wikipedia has a nest of self appointed scientific censors that do not have a grasp of the scientific method. The scientific method is that experiment is the reality check of science. The only logical proof against experiment is experimental error. Consensus, existing the theory, and expertise can cast doubt on an experiment, but they are not a logical proof that negates experimental evidence. To imply other wise is a use of the political method. Your “undue” weight rule is seriously flawed. It seems to favor consensus over truth and does not give experimental evidence its proper weight. The principal of “information suppression” is well described in the NPOV Tutorial. Wikipedia does nothing to stop “information suppression.” Wikipedia claims that NPOV is its highest principal, but it does not enforce it. Apparently consensus is its highest principal. Truth and facts do not make the list. I do not see how content dispute is not a NPOV dispute. I do not see why “information suppression” is allowed under content dispute. “Content dispute” just seems to be a buzz word for doing nothing. I was told by one of your admins that if Wikipedia had existed in the Middle Ages, it would say the world was flat. If this is true, you should put this statement on your home page as a warning label.

You seem to be overrun with censors who like to throw around words like pseudoscience, pathological science, proto science, and fringe science. These are nonsense words. There only purpose they serve is political name calling. It is not all that complicated. If you are following the scientific method you are practicing science. If you are not following the scientific method you are not practicing science. If you make mistakes while following the scientific method, you are still practicing science.

There are ways that Wikipedia can improve their product. Wikipedia could change its rules to incorporate a sense of the scientific method and give experiment its proper weight They could stop using old censorship to justify new censorship. They could bring their nest of scientific censors under control. They could stop publishing articles on controversial science or new science since they cannot do it competently. They could issue warning labels. They could stop “information suppression”. They could enforce NPOV. They could resolve disputes with people who are scientifically knowledgeable and do not have a censorship passion or axe to grind. However Wikipedia does not seem to be interested in reform. Ron Marshall (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]