At page load, it was -- T in UTC
(see W3C Date and Time Formats)
Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
hi Dunc - saw your "arbcom committee is just having a coffee" remark - to be fair, they've just been in the process of finishing a couple of grueling arbitrations that involved more prominent articles & more frequent vandalism, so as annoying and repetitive as the JVT case is, I can see how it's not at the top of their list. I did drop a note to Fred Bauder though. ←Hob 17:01, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
- Yes alright mate, I understand they do a difficult job, one that I wouldn't like to do, and I will apologise if anyone gets grumpy with me. I should have put a smiley in. :) Dunc|☺ 17:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okey I will put the resources of images. Dont worry I am good guy ;) (20:12, 21 Oct 2004 User:Onursendag)
Jimmy VanThach, Tran Van Ba, Carl Lindgren & co.
These people have been causing alot of trouble lately with all of their bizarre and ridiculous claims. I have studied Vietnamese history for years, and still have alot of respect for the traditional beliefs, even when the people in power often failed to live up to them. The really sickening thing is that this collection of nuts, who have been spamming the web like crazy with their silly claims, are always having events that fool decent, naive Vietnamese people out of their money. The only get support by handing out old Vietnamese titles (in English way) like Duke, Count, Baron & such nonsense and pretty medals, all of which were abolished at the end of the colonial era. If you do a web-search you will see they have posted copies of all these pages on every free on-line encyclopedia around and spammed every guestbook, message board and free "press release" site on the web.
I assure you, no one in the Vietnamese community takes these people seriously, most of them are not even Vietnamese but Americans given Vietnamese names & titles. Personally, I don't think it's entirely fair, but the fact is, as any history book will tell you, the Nguyen monarchy was very unpopular because of their long association with the French. Most people either hated them or felt that they simply didn't matter; they were puppets for the French regime.
Dunc, I responded to the RFC on this disputed and have been trying to get my arms around it a bit. I don't know that all the articles they are posting are encyclopedic, but at Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh, it appears to my disinterested eye that User:Jimmyvanthach might be acting in good faith. Tom - Talk 16:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- He responded positively to my request to please confine issue discussion to the article talk page. Tom - Talk
- He has left the Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh article empty of all controversial discussion to the point I was totally clueless why the article even existed. It was certainly not pushing a POV at this point.
- He said he was off doing research. I consider that a good faith gesture. Tom - Talk
Now, User:NguyenHue edited what appeared to be a non-controversial article on Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh recently to add a bunch of inflammatory and biased information. I think I should revert to the boring version, move the recent edits to the talk page, ask the parties to duke it out there, and protect the page until they both request at my user talk. Two questions for you. 1) Do you think that is a wise course? 2) Is that appropriate use of page protection? Tom - Talk 16:44, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Are you saying User:NguyenHue's latest edits are good to be protected? They seem hasty and inflammatory. The content might ought to stay as an explanation for the article, but you and I don't have the background or the inclination to sort through it all, so I thought the previous version might be better (it was a dry timeline of a guy's life). Those latest edits are pretty rough looking. Tom - Talk 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lets research together
I am not aggressive, only trying to gain knowledge and facts, I have never bullied anyone here on Wikipedia.
Nguyen Hue, I have contacted senior member of the Royal Family of Vietnam Prince Nguyen Buu Phuc, and researched his contact information from The International Monarchist League,
• Association de l'Imperiale Familie du Vietnam Arc-En-Ciel-Bellatrix, rue du Colonel Gassin, F-0600 Nice, France. Tel: +33 4 93851289 Contact: Prince Buu-Phuc
The link is: International Monarchist League Directory
Concerning Prince George Vinh San, can you provide me with his email address, or does he have a official statement online, or contact information, I would like to do some research on this and converse.
There is no holy war, only trying to get information for the biography, of Prince Buu Chanh and the Vientamese Imperial Family.
I just contacted Asian Scholar concerning Prince Buu Chanh and have researched I have researched this issue of the biography with *Dr. My-Van Tran an Asian Vietnamese Professor and confirmed the information please read her Scholar papers
I understand you have conflicting information, please provide some references you have to show that he is not a Prince, or he is Sir Buu Chanh ?
NB: That nonsense was User:Jimmyvanthach
- I'm not going to bother with you. I have better things to do. You're a aggressive pov-pushing crank, bugger off. Dunc|☺ 10:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi Duncharris, what is POV about the present version of Y-chromosomal Aaron? When writing this up I made quite sure I reported as much serious criticism as possible. JFW | T@lk 14:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that the subject is somewhat esoteric, and smells of Bible Codes and other scientific "proofs" for Biblical phenomena. I'm not sure if there is more research going on at present. Thanks for rewriting the intro :-). JFW | T@lk 19:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, did you have a worked-through reason for inverting the order? We were using "add to the bottom", the same as WP:RfD, which has been that way for a long time, and works very smoothly; everyone (both there and on WP:RM) seems to like this. If you don't mind, I propose to put it back the way it was. Noel 15:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, actually I had thought of that at some point. I had had to delete that link (earlier) because it wasn't working with the order the other way around. If we leave it this order, we'll have to put it back. Well, let me think about about this ordering issue for a bit - I'm sure my initial dismay was in good part because I do a lot of the admin work on RfD, and I'm so used to the other order used there. That order does have its advantages - it forces me to scroll past earlier entries and deal with them, instead of leaving them down the bottow where I can ignore them! :-) I'd be happy to do a lot of the admin work here too. (I guess you can't - you don't seem to be an admin yet - any particular reason, you have plenty of edits?) Anyway, let me think about the order. Also, I put a number of comments on WT:RM - did you have any reaction to them? Thanks! Noel 21:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that you left a message on 126.96.36.199's talk page politely asking him/her to do experiments in the sandbox (to which he/she replied, "hell no"). Do you have some official status at Wikipedia or are you just another one of us common folk? I just corrected vandalism to the article on the iditarod done by 188.8.131.52 at 10:39, 17 Oct 2004. He/she deleted the entire article and replaced it with a monologue on animal rights. I left the monologue there since it is related to the original article but restored the original material, (although I think the monologue should be edited for brevity). I thought that perhaps 184.108.40.206 should get an official warning about vandalizing articles. Rsduhamel 22:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Dunc. Seeing that you recorded what you thought (”horrible, yuk!”) of the John Vanbrugh draft that was earlier nominated on FAC for a few hours, I was wondering if you might be interested in giving an opinion on the finished version that’s there now.--Bishonen 14:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Vietnamese Royal Succession
In the past, the throne was passed always to the oldest son as is common in most monarchies, but this was changed during the era of Thieu Tri so that the Emperor could choose a successor from his children; which actually turned out to be a bad idea really as upon his death there was soon an internal war between his oldest son, Crown Prince Hong Bao, and his chosen successor the Emperor Tu Duc. However, all heirs must be descendants of Emperor Minh Mang and usually age is given preference. Actually, through much of the Nguyen reign it was the French who picked the Emperor based on who they thought would be most cooperative.
The problem with Buu Chanh is that the only evidence of his ancestry comes from him himself, he claims to be a descendant of the Duke of Kien Hoa who was the 71st son of the Emperor Minh Mang. Even if this is true, it would only make him a very distant cousin of the last Emperor, Bao Dai, with literally hundreds of the exact same generational rank. Titles, whether of duke or prince or whatever where not inherited endlessly; given the size of the Imperial Family this would have been impossible -almost every Vietnamese alive would have a title. Only the Emperor could give someone a rank title like this and for Buu Chanh this would have been clearly impossible as he was born in 1942 and Emperor Bao Dai abdicated in 1945, after which time he would have no authority to do such, nor is there any evidence that he ever did.
The last Emperor of Vietnam, Bao Dai, reigned from 1926-1945 after which time he handed over his (already nominal) power to President Ho Chi Minh. He had 5 legitimate children, two of them sons, the oldest of which, Bao Long, was invested in the traditional was as Crown Prince of Vietnam in 1934 as an infant. This was not a very common practice but was done to avoid (get ready) any disputes over the succession due to the ugly rumors that Bao Dai had been illegitimate. To avoid this the full ceremony was held making Bao Long crown prince and heir to the throne. His position, which in any event is of purely historical/symbolic significance is accepted by his siblings. Bao Long has repeatedly refused to have anything to do with Buu Chanh as has the other children and grandchildren of the past emperors Duy Tan and Ham Nghi.
They have absolutely no legitimacy to be doing any of the things they have been doing. They have produced no evidence that Bao Dai bypassed his son in favor of this group, nor would it be possible to as Bao Dai had no authority to pass on to anyone, he had abdicated decades before and was in every way a common French citizen after that. NguyenHue 02:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
Re: Sorting wiki syntax errors with bots:
Re: Sorting wiki syntax errors with bots:
I don't think it's particularly feasible, simply because a bot doesn't understand context, whereas a human does. For example, if a bot sees this "in [1902 the first steam and gas turbine]] was invented", what should it do? Should it make the whole thing a link by adding the missing bracket? I.e. "in [[1902 the first steam and gas turbine]] was invented"? Or should it remove them all together? What about if it encounters "The integral of this equation is [0,9)" - what should it do this situation? Basically, it's far from trivial to make a bot that knows the right answers are "in [] the first steam and [[gas turbine]] was invented", but that the equation is right, and should just be enclosed in 'nowiki' tags ... humans on the other hand can work these out quite easily, as well as how to fix them. In short, humans do some things well, and software does some things well, and this is something that humans simply do better than software. All the best, -- Nickj 06:09, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- "The point is anyway to ask one of the better skilled programmers around here to see what they can do." For sure, let me know how you go! I'd be very interested to see how this problem is solved. All the best, -- Nickj 22:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
forgot about the orders
The only order (so far) that this Buu Chanh has deemed himself worthy to give out is the "Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam", which is, to say the least, a bizzare choice for someone claiming to be a Vietnamese patriot. This was a French colonial order given out during the later half of the Nguyen reign when the Emperors were mere French puppets. It was and is regarded as a merit badge for French colonizers and their Vietnamese collaborators. Needless to say, Buu Chanh has no authority to award it at all. The Viet Emperor could, with the permission of the French President, but the order was abolished at the end of the colonial era and was replaced by the National Order of Vietnam which the former Emperor instituted when he returned to power as "Head of State" (Quoc Truong) of the French sponsored "State of Vietnam" (Quoc Gia Viet Nam) which existed from 1948-1955. The National Order was retained throughout the era of the American War by their client regime, the Republic of Vietnam (Viet Nam Cong Hoa).
If you can find some cached images old enough you can see on Buu Chanh's website that the first thing done after "restoring" this order was to hand them out like candy to some of his American sycophants who then tried to arrange order exchanges with some unsuspecting African ex-royals. It all stinks of a scam of "order collectors". NguyenHue 07:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
2003 invasion of Iraq
Hi. I'm trying to figure out why you moved 2003 invasion of Iraq to 2003 Invasion of Iraq. I can't think of any reason to capitalize the I, very few Wikipedia articles use that form (the vast majority use the former, although there are many other variations, as well), and looking at google hits, lowercase seems to be far more commonly used on other sites/media. I also didn't see any proposal or discussion on the move at Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq#Naming or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Iraq war). Also, the first talk page points out that the l/c version is more consistent with U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Niteowlneils 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- OK. I can see that point, after all it is the Vietnam War, not "Vietnam war". And I certainly agree that we (I'm a life-long US citizen) shouldn't have attacked Iraq. All that said, I guess I'm mostly wondering if you would be troubled if I moved it back to the lowercase version (to be consistent with the Afghanistan article, if nothing else), at least until a 'formal' name for the invasion is established. Niteowlneils 17:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have a question
What the heck is up with people thinking a body can't be an admin if he or she has ever gotten exasperated? Not that I've been pushed hard enough, yet, to call someone a name, but that's because I'm chicken and don't correct the bad stuff that would lead me there. I suspect that's true of most of the people who are shocked -- just shocked! -- that you got put out enough with the king of Vietnam's retainers to use a naughty word. I know at least one person who keeps turning down RfA nomination attempts because he or she doesn't like the abasement of it. Not, of course, that one should be rude even to the rude and persistently destructive authors, but I worry about patterns rather than having a run-in too far. Geogre 19:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Effective 6 November 2004
"Edits by User Jimmyvanthach, User Celindgrenand and User Tran Van Ba and obvious sockpuppets to articles which relate to the former royal family of Vietnam or to the recent history and politics of Vietnam may be removed by any user."
- Yeah, I knew that was coming. The slightly annoying thing is that he's started behaving himself now, though I do not trust him and I do doubt the notabilty of some of his entries on advocacy groups, and there is something very dodgy going on with Buu Chanh. Dunc|☺ 12:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In response to your question, yes I wrote Darwinian medicine and Darwinian happiness. I shall try to expand on the second enctrance (sometimes next week). BG
it's not original research
it is facts. i have been working WITH rednblue on creationist articles -- read up on my talk page and you'll read him congratulating me on doing a good job rehauling several pages. the article is pov right now. ID is much bigger than the institute. an article on the INSTITUTE should be about the institute. this is about ID, and it needs to fairly represent the breadth and depth of ID ideas, beyond the institute. Ungtss 18:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- i hearya ... at the same time, ID is ABOUT the bio stuff -- if you remove the bio, then you've portrayed it as a purely religious movement -- maybe it is a purely religious movement (or an argument from design, as you said) -- but maybe it isn't -- that's a pov question. but THEY don't think they're purely religious -- THEY think they're biologists, and they base their arguments on biology and biology alone -- they're not arguing for God at all. God doesn't even enter into the discussion until farther down "the wedge." so if you want to fairly portrary ID, you've got to have their BIOLOGY arguments right up front, i think. wadduyasay? Ungtss 18:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- sounds good ... so you'd like subpages on the actual ideas with brief summaries upfront? can we also subpage the stuff on the institute? id IS much bigger than the institute ... in fact ... a lot of ID types think the institute's pretty wacked, and think the "wedge strategy" discredits all of id. nice to meet you too, in a paddy-free environment:). perhaps we should continue this on the article talkpage? Ungtss 18:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- good deal -- mutual promise to always cite opposing viewpoints:). so the plan, as of now, is to subpage the biology arguments, and get all the institute stuff to the institute page? what about the criticism? right now, the page is 9/10 criticism, with virtually no representation of what ID actually IS. if we're gonna have a long and detailed criticism on ID, we've gotta have a corresponding "description of and reasons for ID" section. can we agree to make it no longer than the description of ID? Ungtss 19:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your handling of Darwinian medicine and Darwinian happiness is fine with me. I would prefer 'Darwinian' from 'Evolutionary', but that may just be a personal bias. 'Evolutionary' is a more "open" word, for good and bad.
I am new to wikipedia, but I certainly appreciate the effort.
Thanks for you contribution to the List of publications in biology. I tried to format the publication you added and add some more information to it. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with this topic. Why was this publication important? Can you write its description?
Thanks, APH 08:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Protection policy#Editing protected pages. As you can see on the talk page and edit history, any changes to the look, style, or spacing on this template is bound to be controversial. It's best to discuss on Talk first and see if there's consensus for the change.
In this case, adding style information to the tag is counter-productive, since it has a class already. Style information should go in the class description at MediaWiki:Monobook.css so different browsers don't treat conflicting descriptors differently. Having this info in Monobook.css also allows a user to overwrite how it displays on his or her own browser, if he or she chooses to do so.
Incidentally, the page isn't protected to prevent vandalism; it's protected to prevent frequent changes, for server efficiency reasons. See, when one page gets changed, then the server cache for that one page has to be refreshed. No big deal. But when a template which is included on ten thousand pages gets changed, the server has to refresh the cashe on all those pages, which is a serious performance hit. And when there's an edit war on a page like this (which there has been, more than once), it makes Wikipedia noticeably slower for everyone. So protection makes sure this page is updated infrequently. – Quadell (talk) (help)[] 19:29, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
How do you deal with creationists on wiki.. it's highly frustrating. -Fleacircus 00:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Dunc. That rather clever verse at "May Sinclair" was totally original. One "Detective Drone" story was posted to BJAODN some time ago and another one came in just the other day. I think the guy's trolling to make the BJAODN page. - Lucky 6.9 19:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oh yes, took a google search to verify it was a sack of lies. I blocked him for 24 hours for calculated vandalism. Dunc|☺ 19:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi! I am at present bringing up to date the article entitled Rail transport in Great Britain. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so at first was not aware that there are often parallel articles carrying bits of other articles or sometimes almost identical but with pieces missing from either one or the other. I now know better.
I have a good set of rail reference books ( including a whole run of Railway Magazine from 1921 onwards and the Railway Year Book for 1912), so can often supply quite particular facts and figures. You will see from the rail transport article that one of those mentioned is simply called Northern Counties Committee's lines and that will show what I submitted, using my books. Now I find that you also have an article entitled slightly differently, but with less information. That is of course not cross referred in the main article.
Can we merge the two? I am not sufficiently adept at doing that part of Wikipedia (I imagine it's fairly straightforward?) but I don't want to do it without asking first. Peter Shearan 10:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Another Pretender Page
Unless Wikipedia is going to list every single nut that claims to be royalty and sells off titles to support themselves, some of this is really going to have to stop. The self-proclaimed "Crown Prince" Shwebomin of Burma is a particularly blatant case. His name is not even an actual name, and the last king of the kingdom he claims to be Crown Prince of died about a century before this guy was born (and with no sons). His case was discussed by the royalty experts at alt.talk.royalty here: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=38e9db65.0304291231.773625%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DBurma%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dalt.talk.royalty%26selm%3D38e9db65.0304291231.773625%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D2
and the Oxford Union was worried he would ruin their reputation by speaking, as some might think they endorse his claim http://www.cherwell.org/?id=74
Further, at least one of the photos is "hot" and one of the external links is a rip off of the one right before it (obviously put down in hope that more links would = more credibility). I mentioned the clearly and easily proven ridiculousness of this case on the discussion page, but one seemed to notice, simply assuming that all the claims *must* be true. NguyenHue 02:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
Why did you group all the pictures on Trofim Lysenko at the top of the page? I wouldn't even say anything except that I found it so inexplicable that it got the better of my curiosity. Everyking 02:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
contact mayor office of Westminster and U.S. Air War college in Alabama
-Surely being from Westminster, California, the largest Vietnamese Community in the world outside of Vietnam. I was present at the 2004 Westminster Vietnamese New Year Tet Parade, The Nguyen Dynasty consisting of Imperial Family members were apart of the parade and had a float included and was allowed by the City of Westminister.
-I myself saw Prince Buu Chanh and other members of the Royal Family and the Mayor of Westminster. The Nguyen Dynasty was awarded best float design by the City of Westminster for the 2004 Vietnamese New Year Tet Parade.
-The edit wars I see are former members Nguyen Trung De and Joseph Crisp from Texas personating as NguyenHue.
-I contacted U.S. Air War college in Alabama as "NguyenHue" suggested that he studied under Dr. Xiaoming Zhang. See >>[] <<
-The search person *Dr. Xiaoming Zhang
-Dr. Xiaoming Zhang had taught at Texas Tech University and Texas A&M International University.
-Joseph Crisp has been a student at Texas Tech University and Texas A&M International University and he is currently an expelled member by The Nguyen Dynasty.
-Information on his website also confirms his university affilation with the school.
-It seems like a person as "Nguyen Hue aka Joseph Crisp" has been using a Vietnamese name here on wikipedia and claims to be an expert since he was banned from the Nguyen Dynasty, and now attacking them since his expulsion.
-I do not agree with person trying to mis-represent themselve and their bias against the Nguyen Dynasty because they were expelled.
Bnguyen 02:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First of all, you seem to have way too much time on your hands, and the fact that one person posting on a free-encyclopedia sends you pretenders into such fits that you go trying to dig up dirt on anyone who disagrees with you should prove to anyone just how legitimate this group really is. As for these other people you claim I am (Nguyen Trung De or Joseph Crisp?) I studied under Dr. Zhang in Iowa, I have never been to Laredo in my life nor have I ever belonged to any political party (they're all after cash) and I'm certainly not a white catholic. You are clearly so desperate to promote yourself that you're grasping at straws. If you were as legitimate and exalted as you claim, "Wikipedia" would hardly be worth this much trouble. I can see now you should have been banned entirely to begin with, starting with the whole identity-theft thing. NguyenHue 03:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
-I am not here assuming names and pretending I am a historical figure as you NguyenHue
-I have my name and photo available and my website
-Your tone and language towards me just proves you are bias expelled member from the Nguyen Dynasty
-I had seen the Royal Family and Prince Buu Chanh when they visited Westminster, California and my support for the Campaign election for Tran Thai Van.
-Assemblyman Tran Thai Van has met the Royal Family as well as the Mayor of Westminster.
-Your personal attacks on myself just because I have spoken up as a Vietnamese-American again shows your unprofessionalism as a so called historian. Bnguyen 04:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
NEGATIVE WORDS USED BY DUNCHARRIS AGAINST ME=
This page is full of Jimmybullshit. Dunc|☺ 15:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
listen, do not bring my name into this to the nerve of you who leaves foul language against me this is uncalled for and negative here on wikipedia.
you are the one that had me requested to ban me from editing and providing information about Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh and any Vietnamese Royals.
I would like to have DUNCHARRIS banned for using vulgar language, he has used negative language as curse words, this is not acceptable and should not be tolerated.
he has accused me of causing problems, and I have not I have now moved on to give information on Laos Royals and Vietnamese Americans.
he has used non-official data and trusted a person by the name of NguyenHue "alias" who seems to have alternative motives as an ex-member.
look at the hateful languages NguyenHue "alias" used it can be seen that he is not non-neutral in his discussion
I see that now there is someone else that refruts the claims by NguyenHue alias.
so, I see you are causing problems again, trying to get me involved and you can see clearly now I AM ACTING IN GOOD FAITH by the Admin decision not to edit Vietnamese Royals or vietnamese History.
It can be seen now that Vietnamese who are aware of the Nguyen Dynasty are weighing in, and since NguyenHue is not getting his way, because he has his own opinion.
as I said and stated all along, he is giving his opinion and never provided a SINGLE BOOK OR REFERENCE that Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh is not a Royal in the Nguyen Dynasty.
so why dont you leave me alone before you get recommended to be banned for using FOUL language on here and that includes you also NGUYENHUE "alias".
you are not the owner here and I will provide the messages where you left negative comments to the admin if you continue. --Jimmyvanthach 18:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is going way too far
User bnguyen has been removing all edits to the pages of Vietnamese & southeast Asian royal pretenders showing their questionable legitimacy and doubts about their standing. I added these only after it was suggested on the Shwebomin talk page to do so. You know well the behavior of the others (actually all turned out to be jimmyvanthach who bnguyen may be as well) pushing these questionable individuals. Once again, there has been no credible evidence posted, nothing new that can be verified, just reverting back to all of the pages' 'jimmy versions'. Again, I find it highly unlikely that someone on the up and up would resort to this kind of lunacy over a free encyclopedia site.
However, what is most disturbing to me, as I have never been one to put information about myself on-line, is the attempt by jimmyvanthach, now taken up by bnguyen, to assert that I am an American college student who was removed/quit their farcial little group. bnguyen even claims to have contacted the college of an old professor of mine to find "proof" of my identity. I find this extremely offensive, not only to myself but to the other individuals whose names they have posted here when it is quite outside of the subject matter (the lack of proof of the claims of these individuals). Considering that accusations of identity-theft have already been made regarding this group, I take this very seriously. It is fear of this that has caused me to never put any personal info online. bnguyen has repeatedly posted my alleged "identity" on edit summaries (not talk pages where it could be refuted) and I consider this totally improper. Any discussion about me should be about what I have posted, about proving what claims have been made, not about who said what. It is unfair to me as well as to these other people who have nothing to do with editing wikipages. NguyenHue 05:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
-Adding and making suggestions should only be based on cited material and non-inflamatory remarks
-The Comments you made are baseless and upon contacting the references you provided
-From the evidence Dr. Xiaoming Zhang had taught at Texas Tech University and Texas A&M International University.
-Joseph Crisp has been a student at Texas Tech University and Texas A&M International University and he is currently an expelled member by The Nguyen Dynasty.
-Joseph Crisp is also a expelled member of the Nguyen Dynasty and the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League.
-You are assuming the name NGUYENHUE About the Author Joseph Crisp as to trick people here on wikipedia you are acting non-biased
-To Corroborate your Userpage to find out who you are shows bias, you have not once provided a cite that any of the Nguyen Royalty is a self Styled Pretender or Shwebomin.
-Bias by a member is very important you are putting your character and not acting in Good Faith
-If you can provide cite work to show of their non-royalty then provide it right here on this page.Bnguyen 00:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You clearly don't know me from Adam, but whether I am Joe Six Pack, Harry, Moe or Curly is none of your damn business and has nothing to do with any of these articles and the POV you and your cohorts have been pushing. You're probably also the only one to think I am trying to make people "assume" I am Nguyen Hue, an 18th Century Historical figure. However, I'll give you people points for consistency, just like jimmyvanthach you have to keep bringing up other names to throw attention off the point of debate here (namely the lack of basis for practically every single post from this fringe group) and for making the absurd charge that anyone who doubts you're outrageous claims should have to find a scholarly journal soemwhere that says "Nguyen Buu Chanh is not royalty". The fact that you can produce no credible evidence is proof enough, the fact that an on-line encyclopedia is considered important enough to send you're little club into orbit is proof enough and the past actions of everyone from this group and their continued POV pushing is proof enough. From now on, I'm declaring myself the King of Tahiti until someone can provide a book saying I'm not. NguyenHue 07:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue
- If you care to read my user profile here on wikipedia Bnguyen I am not assuming any name and give factual statement about myself.
- -I had supported and campaigned for the election of Tran Thai Van for Republican Assemblyman in Califonia, which resulted in his win this past November 2004.
- The only contact I am aware of Prince Buu Chanh and the Nguyen Dynasty is when they came to Westminster, Orange County California, and I viewed them at the Vietnamese New Year Tet parade in Feb. 2004, they were awareded best Float design by the Mayor of Westminster.
-I am also aware that Assemblyman Tran Thai Van has also met Prince Buu Chanh, because I worked on the election campaign.
-The question I show is bias of your attempt to make negative words that without factual basis.
-I am not a member of the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League or any political organization affilated with protesting the Vietnamse Government.
-I do however praise them to help my people that I felt are unjustly treated by the current Regime, and would like the United Nations to mandate control over the country and an election as in Cambodia.
-Using words as "fringe group", "little club into orbit is proof enough", "you and your cohorts have been pushing" and etc, is unfair.
-I have never used any terms only enlighten that your bias as an expelled member of the Nguyen Dynasty and that you are deceiving wikipedia of your suppose proof About the Author Joseph Crisp and that your supporter Nguyen Trung De show supporters of Resturants and local Vietnamese in towns in Texas:
-Contributors and Supporters of this Website: -Kong Jing Xue, Nguyen Trung De, Nguyen Van Tuan, Kong Zhishu, Nguyen Thi Linh, Ly Binh, Nguyen Thi -Diu, Pham Van Dao, Ni Su-tiao, Nguyen Dai Chinh, Ngo Van Hieu, Tran Huynh and Le Anh Dung. -Business and Community Support: -Little Saigon Resteraunt, Laredo TX; Ngay Nay gulf news Port Aransas TX, Nguyen Dynasty -Resteraunt,Galveston TX; Crisco Land Clearing Company, Artesia Wells TX; Crisp Conservation Service, -Cotulla TX; Confucian Temple of Woodward, TX; Lucky Eagle Casino, Kick-apoo, Eagle Pass TX; Confucian -Literary School, San Antonio TX; De and Sons Shrimp, Port Aransas TX.
-It can be clearly seen that you dont have any Nguyen Dynasty Royal supporting you or has any affilation with you.
-So you need to come clean and state why you are your Group are trying to make un-factual claims without factual support, while esteemed indivduals in the U.S. Government, other Royal Families, and Vietnamese-Americans, other exile Vietnamse foreign Nations have shown support for the Nguyen Dynasty.Bnguyen 13:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)