User talk:CarTick/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

edit fumble

apologies ..see rectified editCityvalyu (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the preview option before saving helps avoid running into this type of trouble. Dock^Hi 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

U R TOO FAST MAN;)..MY BAD HABITS (NOT USING PREVIEW) DIE HARD..ER!! I DONT EVEN HAVE A MINUTE TO RECTIFY MY FUMBLES (BEFORE U SPOT THAT) AND I KEEP MAKING THOSE SILLY BLUNDERS REPEATEDLY..I WILL TRY TO CORRECT MYSELF.. ). Cityvalyu (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

About my Fox News edit

I have a source for it, but it's not an article. It would have to be the YouTube video of Keith Olbermann's coverage of this event, or even of the actual McClellan interview.--74.237.241.122 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read this wikipedia guideline which illustrates why youtube videos can not be considered reliable. A transcript of the same video in MSNBC, CNN, NY times, Washington Post or any similar reliable source will do. Appreciate your interest. Dock^Hi 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you and sorry for the confusion. I have read the introduction / editing requirements. I hope to have the "Autoconfirmed" status soon, as again I have a fantastic picture that I think would benifit the Western Rat Snakes article.

Thanks again,

bcpaddler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcpaddler (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am curious to see the picture. Dock^Hi 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyde Act

You asked me to help out on the Hyde Act and whether it binds India. The answer is pretty simple: it doesn't. It binds the United States. However, it does define the parameters for U.S.-India cooperation and create consequences for possible future actions by India. If india conducts a nuclear test, for example, all cooperation would cease and the United States would have the right to demand the return of items supplied under the 123 agreement.

But I feel like it's more up to someone from India to make the point that U.S. domestic law does not bind India. 138.88.154.46 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. From the article There is ambiguity as to whether the Hyde Act binds India although it can be construed as prescriptive for future U.S. decisions. Why is the ambiguity here then. What does "prescriptive for future US decisions". Guess it needs some clarification for laymen like me to be able to understand. Dock^Hi 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's really only one sliver of ambiguity, as far as I can tell. In cases where the 123 agreement is ambiguous, the Hyde Act may provide guidance for its interpretation. The negotiating record (which is not available to the public) would be another source of guidance, and would likely supersede other sources. If, during negotiations, Indian negotiators told their U.S. counterparts that they reject an interpretation based on the Hyde Act, that would likely take precedence. NPguy (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you please elaborate a little on that ambiguity? Dock^Hi 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

John Howard

Please don't mess with it - it really is likely to inflame the situation. I have just reverted you and I am the one who added it in the first place! - Regards --Matilda ^talk 04:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand it. Is this some kind of enforced silence? Dock^Hi 04:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - as far as I am concerned. Why don't you ask Gnangarra who first reverted you. --Matilda ^talk 04:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds dictatorial though. Dock^Hi 04:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Appologies for sounding dictatorial but ... To explain further - it has recently been subject to page protection. There is a lengthy discussion and you have just arrived to add your two cents. It is currently up for (perhaps a rather sidetracked but anyway ... ) discussion on the BLP noticeboard. Do you know what you are stumbling into? --Matilda ^talk 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I have been watching it for a while. Just wanted to give my opinion. Dock^Hi 04:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Caveat editor then - but please it has been suggested to me and I think it a really good idea that we apply the 1 revert rule (which is voluntary). --Matilda ^talk 05:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what does "caveat editor" mean? Dock^Hi 03:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't see your question until now - I making a pun (a very poor pun) on Caveat emptor - Latin for "Let the buyer beware" --Matilda ^talk 02:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Edwards Ivins

I explained on the talk page why I removed it. It was not because it was unreferenced but because the whole nation was not terrorized. I was not terrorized and I know many people who were not terrorized. Anthrax, IMO, is not a weapon of mass destruction and it is not something to be terrrorized over. Jons63 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

brave man you are. :) Dock^Hi 04:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So I take it you were terrorized by these letters. I don't think of myself as brave, but I am knowledgeable about the effects of anthrax and other CBRN weapons. I lived in the Washington DC area at the time and I was certain that there was no way that anyone, through the mail, would have the ability to infect large numbers of people. There is a possibility that something could happen to anyone, but if it is going to happen it will. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time then there is nothing you can do. But being scared that something might hapen is not a fun way to live. It is the same with with any terrorist plot, 9/11 and DC Sniper to name a couple of others I was in the DC area at the time they happened. Once large numbers of people are terrorized by the actions of a few, the few win. They have accomplished their objective. Jons63 (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thoughts. Dock^Hi 13:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

Here I was rude in my edit summary, and what I wrote in that edit was unnecessarily harsh. Since then, I have gained quite an appreciation for your neutrality and fairness. Please accept both my apology and my thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. Dock^Hi 13:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

There is no edit-warring going on to me. If you look, another editor also removed the entry. Further I DID invite him to discuss the matter on that talk page. But taking a "consensus" from a totally different article and applying it other articles is not proper. It holds no weight with the article in question. This whole issue is not a dispute of fact, but of wp:undue. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not reporting a viewpoint or opinion. We are writing a factual content based on report from a reliable source. We have refrained ourselves from making any extraneous implications. The edit is valid to be where it is based on WP:RS and WP:VERI. Because there is an undisputable connection between the content of the book and the actions of the owner of the book (ownership established in a police search which was reported in a reliable source) , I dont quite think it violates WP:UNDUE. You are making a good point which is that it is not yet established that it is the books which made him crazy. Therefore, I dont support writing such unestablished implications as well. In summary, as it is now, I dont see any violation of any policy.Dock^Hi 13:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Undisputable? I suggest you take a step back and let the police make these connection. You may also want to read up on cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Arzel (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just meant connection between title of the book and the actions of the criminal. It is correleative and I dont know if it is causative. Dock^Hi 17:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sea gull sandy point.JPG

Could you add more location info on this image? Where is Sandy Point? Is it one of the Sandy Points here? Richard001 (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. By the way, if you could upload pics to the Commons in future that would be great. I'll probably move the gull ones myself soon as that's the area I'm working on at the moment. Richard001 (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion taken. By the way, i still could not figure out what species of sea gull it belongs to? If you are a bird person..... Docku^Hi 10:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not really, though I'm learning a little bit about gull identification by moving the images of them. I have asked at the bird project already; I'm sure Sabine's Sunbird or one of the others will know. Richard001 (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, with the bazillion other gull identifications I have asked for. I'm trying to move the lot of them there, though many uploaders aren't sure what species it is that they photographed. Richard001 (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP

If you noticed, an administrator removed my comments about Michael Moore on the talk page because he says it violated BLP. The BLP policy applies to ANY page. The book was written by Hannity and reflects his own opinions. Hannity is a living person. Ergo, BLP applies. BLP makes clear that "guilt by association" should be avoided and that there should be a "clear demonstration of relevance". My contention is that BLP applies and it being violated by adding the implication that the book (which you haven't read and can't prove Adkisson did either) had any bearing on the crimes. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am begining to feel that I dont have a strong case and I guess I will drop it unless there is support for my position coming up later. Regardless, it was nice working with you . No hard feelings. Docku^Hi 16:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Q's ping

I've responsed on my talkpage. Gnangarra 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I will study it carefully and let you know my opinion. Docku^Hi 15:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

from Matilda

Re the messages on Gnangarra's talk page and your posting at Talk:John Howard. I will try to also answer the issues raised at Gnangarra's talk page too but here first.

I thought your section on Response to Gnangarra and a suggestion for a compromise was useful and well thought out.

I am not quite sure why you left my name out of the statements

I am summarising opinions of the editors involved in this discussion based on the current talk page, I did not include opinions from BLP notice board and individual members talk pages. If I may have made mistakes (unintentional) in the summarisation, please feel free to remind me and I will correct. Now, while Gnangarra, Pete (Skyring), Suturz and Yeti Hunter think it is BLP violation, MickMacNee, Merbabu, Orderinchaos, Peter Ballard, chaser, Lester and Carbon Rodney dont. Gnagarra and Orderinchaos believe it violates WP:UNDUE MickMacNee and Carbon Rodney dont.

For the record I believe my actions are explicit that I believe it is neither a BLP violation nor a violation of Undue. I do not support the assertion the belief that he commited war crimes are held by a small number of people. While a small number of people are associated with the ICC action group, as you refer elsewhere in your response there were major protests against the war. These are not mentioned currently in the Howard article. The Howard article is currently very incomplete because as a result of issues raised therein I suggested that we have a separate article on the Howard Government (nominated as different name ... but the intent was to separate Howard the man from the actions of his Government where appropriate - it wasn't a one-man show entirely and there were things in the John Howard article that could not be attributed usefully to Howard the man. I also nominated the Howard Government article for ACOTF and ... I am not editing there because of my wikibreak but it is making progress and certainly looks a whole lot better (progress to date since ACOTF declared ).
In the process of developing the Howard Government article I removed information from the John Howard article - not all of it should not be duplicated int eh Hohn Howard article in my view - for example in the section Howard Government#Iraq we state

Australian opinion was deeply divided on the war and large public protests against the war occurred.[29] Several senior figures from the Liberal party, including John Valder, a former president of the Liberal Party, and Howard's former friend and colleague, former Opposition Leader John Hewson and former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser publicly criticised Howard over Iraq.[30] John Valder's criticism was particularly strong, claiming that Howard should be tried and punished as a war criminal.[31]

This is personal to Howard as well as being a feature of the Howard Government. There are probably other events which also need to be duplicated in order to ensure balance in both articles - how to achieve balanced articles without undue repetitiveness is only a matter that can be dealt with when tensions generally have been defused.

In response then to your suggested wording - yes it is a start but perhaps there is more that can be added as per the Howard Govt content I quoted above. It may belong under George Bush section or in the now-unbalanced area of Prime Minister. I think also there is some ambiguity as to whether a loosely associated ICC action group is somehow loosely associated with the Malaysian PM - I realise careful reading ensures no such confusion but tweaking can ensure that a quick and careless reader is not left with the probably wrong impression.

Gnangarra states in response to points you apparently made in your ping Matilda did make a couple of questionable admin actions in relation to Skyring - I made no admin actions in relation to Skyring that I am aware of (happy to be corrected). I reported Skyring for 3RR reversion - I did not block - I am not sure why my report is considered inappropriate I have stated elsewhere I will report any violation of 3RR promptly. I am also not sure why I am being judged for Ed Johnston's decision - his decision not mine and I don't believe I mislead him with any info.
Gnangarra and others object to my two times reversion of Skyring and it has been alleged that I "goaded" Skyring into a 3RR breach. Firstly they (OiC and Gnangarra) have very strongly failed to assume good faith - I will assert again that I had no intention of goading Skyring (WP:BEANS applies though so I wouldn't trust me in future on this irony!) Gnangarra seeks to for all to abide by WP:1RR - in particular in relation tot he John howard article. While I think the idea has merit - he spoke to mea about that after my two time reversion and I was operating on <3RR - I don't see two times reversion as edit warring - I am not trying to be a wikilawyer - that is what the policy says and to assert otherwise as Skyring (supported by OiC and Gnangarra) is not in my view justified.
Wikipedia:Administrators states while correct use of the tools and appropriate conduct is considered very important, the title of "administrator" is not a big deal . Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct gives some quite specific guidelines - including the prefacing caveat Administrators, like all users, are not perfect beings. However, in general, they are role models within the community, and must have a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters . Gnangarra and Orderinchaos by endorsing Skyring's RfC have called into question my conduct as an admin - and moreover they have done so elsewhere. Wikipedia:Harassment#Assistance for administrators being harassed it states In case of problems administrators have the exact same right as any other user to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason ... I thought by taking a wikibreak I would allow the situation to de-escalate - it didn't. Right now my Wiki-involvement is "spoilt" to quote WP:Harass and I personally see no other way out than to escalate and we will see where that goes :-( --Matilda ^talk 21:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick response. I am sorry for not including your name. I will do so right away. will respond to you again when I read your full comments. Thanks. Docku^Hi 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally dont believe in being goaded.. I guess we all are adults and we are responsible for our actions. I will however look into the instances you mentioned and will not shy away from providing an objective opinion if and when required. Wish you the best. Docku^Hi 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John_Howard#Proposal

In relation to your comment at Talk:John_Howard#Proposal - did you really mean to support Blnguyen or Cabonrodney's unsigned opposition which immediately preceded the comment? --Matilda ^talk 01:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was naive not to understand that he was referring to me. I am open for RFC/U. I have nothing to hide. In fact, that will be a big shame for them. Docku^Hi 01:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not mean at all that Blnguyen might be referring to you - I have no reason to suspect that he would (albeit the vagueness of some editors is confusing). But similarly it was not in character for you to have a response that referred to editors rather than content.--Matilda ^talk 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure too. Whatever. I am not worried because I got nothing to hide. Docku^Hi 01:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On thinking about the surrounding matters, I do owe you an apology for taking things personally and making quite strong allegations against you. The first paragraph of my addition here I hope explains things on that front, at least, as I see them. Essentially, I was guilty of two basic things: one, conflating your actions with those of several other people, and two, of reading some of your comments on Friday in particular in the worst possible light (I thought you were accusing me of some pretty major stuff and it turns out you were not) and reacting before really thinking about what would have been best to say - there are one or two editors who have behaved quite reprehensibly in this drama, but while I have strongly disagreed with some of the comments you have made in this matter, I could have done so in a more good faith manner - i.e. as a disagreement between two editors rather than an editor dealing with a troll with all means at hand - and called in a third opinion and waited for them to comment, as barneca has on the page. I hope you can accept this apology in the spirit in which it is given, and that we can work together in a more cooperative manner in the future. Orderinchaos 19:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

accepted in the same spirit. I am trying to stay away from wikipedia especially not involve in any disputes. It really takes away lot of my time. Will be around on and off. Docku^Hi 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dan Abrams edit

I take it you were not watching the Bush v. Gore coverage on live TV? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080410/ http://www.mediabistro.com/content/archives/01/07/26/ I watched it live on TV and knew who Dan Abrams was before the telecast. It was very weird, because the Supreme Court handed out decision pamphlets instead of holding a press conference. No one else had live coverage, except Dan and his partner. It was his big break. That Dan Abrams is a Delta Tau Delta member is covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Delta_Tau_Delta_members. In addition, I can personally verify it because I was there. --68.47.58.71 (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I havent watched it. I wouldnt have removed if you had provided those references there. Please go ahead and add it, and remember to add the reference at the appropriate place. Please let me know if you need help. I will have a look at it later. Good luck. Docku^Hi 23:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=ADHB&p_theme=adhb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0ECF196F015F181B&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

In general, if something is "true" and "not potentially damaging" then there is no WP:BLP issue. --68.47.58.71 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I did not remove because it was potentially damaging. You sound like an educated editor,. Totally irrrelevant materials get added a lot of times, therefore one needs to be careful. Thanks for your contributions though. Docku^Hi 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sean Hannity

I fixed it. The problem was, the IP made two edits, and you only undid one of them. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Docku^Hi 03:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Seal gulls sandy point.JPG

Image:Seal gulls sandy point.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Sea gulls sandy point.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Sea gulls sandy point.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Sandy point beach.jpg

Image:Sandy point beach.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Sandy point beach.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Sandy point beach.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Chennai Chart

Atually if you ever add something that causes conflict, it has to be taken out and then discussed before it gets added to the article. Follow this procedure since there is no requirement for a chart for a city article.. Also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Geography section does not say this is required. There are soooo many featured Indian city articles but NONE of them have such a chart. Hence you need to discuss this before adding. Nikkul (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be considered a conflict which requires immediate removal if it was a conflict due to wikipedia policy interpretation (BLP violation for example). But the conflict here is because you dont think it is appropriate and I think it appropriate and the user who added it also thinks it is appropriate. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Indian_cities#Geography section is neither a policy nor a law. Well, why dont we leave it in the article talk page and ask more people's opinion before removing it. if many think it is not necessary, I am not going to stand in its way. Docku^Hi 18:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments

Hi

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them. Basically I recognised (and also was told off-wiki) that my behaviour was not helping. Declaring myself to be on a wikibreak but then obviously coming back to add my two cents repeatedly was unconstructive. Plus of course being on a wikibreak I limited my other editing which made me just a tad obsessive.

I decided to draw a line by replying to the RfC and not ignoring it and by trying in my response to be constructive as per the spirit of such RfCs - ie are there any policies or guidelines that could be changed to help? As said elsewhere (and I really will try to stop repeating it) I think the policies are fine if they are adhered to. Some obviously interpreted slightly differently by some editors than others but I don't think that is a problem.

I think taking the content discussion to a sub-page could help and it would not put off other editors who came to the page to discuss something totally different. At the moment I would say the page is in a state of paralysis but I am not game to be bold and archive it just yet. If nothing happens over the weekend I will do it on Monday.

I acknowledge Lester's comments. Ithink in part the problems would diminish if content only was discussed and not conduct mixed in with it.

Anyway I have been delighted to make your wikiacquaintance and hope to bump into you again :-) inspired by the promise of Spring, an optimistic and positive Matilda ^talk 03:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Same here. :) I will be sticking around. Docku^Hi 12:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing own comments

In the context of misrepresentation, may I draw your attention to WP:Talk:

'Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change, consider taking one of the following steps:

• Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
• use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
  • Strike-through is typed <s>like this</s> and ends up like this.
  • A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"

Please restore your original wording so that the responses of other editors remain meaningful, and consider alternative methods of making a fresh proposal. --Pete (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. May be a strike through is a good idea. Docku^Hi 13:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Caution

Docku, you have come to my talk page to ask a question about matters related to the immediately above post. I thank you for your post and I will respond there shortly also. However my actions must also include a comment to you with regards your own actions also. As it appears that this is the first time that an editor/administrator has so come to your talk page so I will place it as a caution in the first place. In relation therefore to your adjustment of edits I caution you that adjustment to your edits - most specifically after they have been responded to is inappropriate and I request your cessation of this practice. With thanks. --VS ^talk 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I learnt that it was a mistake and will not happen again. Docku^Hi 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A mature response Docku. Thank You. I am sorry it has taken me a little while to get back to it. I have had a big day with work and personal matters (which continues even now) but just now coming in quickly to read this comment and your graciousness has caught my eye. Keep editing - keep up the great work.--VS ^talk 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I enjoy working with nice and reasonable people and appreciate your fairness. Docku^Hi 12:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo meat

Hi - if there is a reference for this, please include it in the article or link to the content if it is in Wiki. The reader, or other editors, shouldn't have to guess that this material migtht be referenced elsewhere. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I will notify the person who added the information without reference. Docku^Hi 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced

Hi - saw your comment. How do you suggest we get balance? The talk page environment is poisonous and we seem to be making no headway sentence by sentence in my view. Regards --Matilda ^talk 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I really havent followed his domestic politics as much as I wish I did. I, do however find Howard Government article quite balanced. I also cant imagine him not having been under criticism for domestic issues (apart from International) in his almost half a century of political life which does not include his time as a prime minister. While it is a good idea to have separated his biography and government into two articles, important instances (I believe) need to be on both articles. If you see this article Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, you could see that there is one whole section dedicated to criticisms. I am sorry I didnt have enough time to make specific suggestions to you, but would be willing to participate in a discussion if someone tries to initiate some work on balancing the article. Well, I went through the article again, I believe there are criticisms but really hidden into the details. I guess one idea would be to put them all together into one section and also elaborate on Iraq war criticism as you have proposed. What about pacific solution? Wasnt that something initiated by Howard? I am not sure if it is mentioned in the article. I am sure you know better than me. Docku^Hi 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested explanation

It was not something I thought needed explanation. It’s my commentary and is civil. Intentionally it doesn’t identify specific people and it is indeed commentary on not just one “side” of apparent political bias. My intent – which I had hoped was clear – was that if anyone editor thinks it was aimed at them, then I hoped they’d keep it to themselves and modify their behaviour as they see fit. I have used this before a number of times in similar toxic environment, it was heeded by some, actually got some positive feedback, and there's every chance I will use it in the future. Again, it was intended – arguably self-importantly – to prompt quiet reflection and perhaps even behaviour modification; the parts you quoted were not intended to prompt drawn out discussion. On the other hand, I did put some thoughts on content. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you confirm that your comments "axe-grinders" and "usual suspects of reactionary and combative editors this page attracts (apparently representing all apparent POVs) as seen here is intended at someone? Am i right? I would be deeply offended and upset if it was aimed at me, I am asking this because I was one of the four editors involved in the discussion today including you (User:Surturz, User:Matilda, me and you). Docku^Hi 23:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Are you right"?. No, you are incorrect. I think I've been more than clear and genourous with my explanations. kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just re-thought and rolled back my adjustment of your change to your comments. But my strong suggestion is to please don't do it again after an editor has replied, particularly if it is clearly a sensitive issue for one or more editors. regards --Merbabu (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt notice, I guess I was still typing when you replied to me. In fact, I didnt modify, I just added some info. The issue is ""I would be deeply offended and upset if it was aimed at me, I am asking this because I was one of the four editors involved in the discussion today including you (User:Surturz, User:Matilda, me and you)." Docku^Hi 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving up

Hi Docku. I think this is the first message I've sent to you. It's a shame you're thinking about leaving the Howard article as a result of incivility by others. If so, would be the latest in a long line of people who have left that article due to incivility. I wonder whether some people use incivility as a weapon in their arsenal to deter opponents? I have stayed away from the JH article recently, also because of the incivility. I would like to participate, but am just not in the mood to be the subject of a tirade of abuse by anyone. The JH article is the worst, as far as behaviour goes, of any article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I hope things will be different some day. Regards, --Lester 02:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me and I do certainly appreciate that. I guess I have to agree with you considering the fact that the same information which created so much of a heated debate is sitting in Tony Blair article for a while until one of the editors from John Howard article removed it. I really hope things will change in Howard article some day and who knows! Docku^Hi 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I fully sympathise! Look forward to seeing you elsewhere. Thanks for your support to date :-) --Matilda ^talk 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Docku, I'm trying to stop the crazy reverting and incivility that goes on at the John Howard article. Blatant vandalism, of course, should be reverted, but I think referenced content should be left there until the community decides what to do with it. That is, first discussion, -> WP:RFC -> WP:RFM, and everyone remains civil throughout the process. Doesn't that sound reasonable? Are you agreeable to that? Then we'd have an agreed process, rather than the wild west gunfight that occurs presently. --Lester 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. it was a wild night. well, now, I do appreciate your effort. Reading the discussions in Skyring's talk page and John Howard talk page, I am getting a feeling that things are going to get better and certainly encouraged by that. I really had removed the article from my watch list and readded it again.

I do notice that you are one of the main contributors of John Howard article and it will be great to have you there. The discussion about opinion polls is interesting and everyone has interesting and good and different opinions. When too many opinions are floated, it makes decision making a little harder (which is good and bad). I will keep watching and will definitley provide my opinion when I feel necessary. Docku^Hi 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

AN

• • Hi - I refactored your quoting the comments too at WP:AN - not sure if you have ever seen Monty Python's Life of Brian - no ref to the scene I am thinking of in the wiki article though - I can explain if you don't know it. Regards Matilda ^talk 18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

HI Matilda. refactoring is a good idea including in the AN. I havent seen the movie and I also dont understand how it is related to this incident? Would appreciate explanation. Are you meaning that the movie has a controversial scene and is not mentioned in WP articles here. I guess I am getting it. Docku^Hi 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No - not controversial http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-04.htm - the official ended up being stoned

removed text - available through link and perhaps copyright applies ....

You probably have to be in the mood to find it funny. I saw it when it first came out and recently saw bits of it again because I had referred to the film too often to my children and they wanted to see it. I hovered in the background but didn't sit through the lot.--Matilda ^talk 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is sure funny. A nice message as well. :) Docku^Hi 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just refactored to remove the text - the text is available through the link and perhaps it is relevant that the original offense was Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.' - Merbabu's comment That Australians largely appeared to have been against the war but Howard went in anyway is hugely important, and makes the other criticisms look trivial. Your inclusion of poll data to support this point was a small masterstroke – it contributes towards a much more mature article in comparison to a listing of “notable” criticisms and commentators. is like the halibut - who he detracted or blasphemed in passing was ... (but I agree the detraction was unnecessary and unpleasant)

There are lots of other good bits in the film too for example from http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-19.htm Now, you listen here! He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! Now, go away! and then a little later BRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals! FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals! BRIAN:You're all different! FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!... plus http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-31.htm which includes Always look on the bright side of life. Overall though Python humour to me seems a bit cruel and thus unpleasant even if some clever ideas embedded within it - eg religious satire and perhaps even better political satire --Matilda ^talk 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

maharashtra

Hey, Here are the links which point to this:

• "Maharashtra is India's richest state with an average per capita income of US$ 800. The state has also virtually achieved universal enrollment of children in primary schools. In 2001, its literacy rate was 77% and infant mortality rate was 42 for every 1000 live births as against the all India average of 60." [1]

• "This high level of industrialisation is also reflected in the per capita income in the state, which stands at approximately Rs.17,295, as compared to a national average of Rs.10,771. Maharashtra contributes to almost 14.7 per cent of India's gross domestic product and 15.1 per cent of the national income. The state also accounts for nearly 40 per cent of the total tax collections in the country." [2]

• And this [3]

Nikkul (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkul. I would then suggest a rewrite which is is a fair reflection of the references. Let me suggest for example. Maharashtra is the richest state in India with a per capita income of $800.00 or Maharashtra has the highest per capita income of all states in India. I dont think the references do support the claim developed state.

I believe that the state of being developed and richest can be very different and achieved by different means. The reason being that per capita income can be heavily skewed towards one side or the other by a chunk of extremely wealthy people while still majority of the people can still be very poor. Let us not forget that Mumbai has plenty of heavy weights to skew the data one way. (I believe Punjab is one of the states which has fair wealth distribution) My point is let us state what the references say and not make any interpretation ourselves. I hope I make my points clear and pls drop me a line if you need clarification. Well, I reworded it myself and hope it is ok. Docku^Hi 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Public apology

I hereby make a public apology to User:Docku for this comment. I sincerely regret the genuine hurt and pain it caused to you, and I shall do my best to refrain from making similar comments in future. --Pete (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

apology accepted and welcome back. Docku^Hi 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

from the article on kangaroo meat - this is a pic (not mine) from one of the two major supermarket chains, the other is no different)

Cheers re the kangaroo article, its really a great meat. I have eaten tonnes of it myself and it is a very common meat in Australia. StopVandalsNow 00:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have contradictory feelings about animals. I love animals and strongly believe that animals should be given equal rights as human beings. this, however does not deter me from trying any kind of meat (yea a carnivore). Have eaten once in Thai restaurant, dont remember the taste very well, it was prepared spicy.

When you say that it is very commonly available, you mean in every supermarket like chicken and beef or just specialty super markets? Just out of curiosity. Docku^Hi 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Chipping in - It is available in every medium to large supermarket - not just specialty. It is a gamy meat like venison. --Matilda ^talk 01:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Docku^Hi 01:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its quite common, if you want to buy it you can from most food shops, its a great meat, just don't over-cook it as it becomes tough. StopVandalsNow 18:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Amitabh

there is a reference that indicates he is the greatest and the ref is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/millennium/jun/winner.stm

It does not say he is the first superstar like you had added here. I believe he is one of the greatest actors but the reference you just cited show an opinion of an individual Rama Susarla (one of the several respondents in what appears to be some kind of blog). Docku^Hi 16:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Factually correct previous version

I wish to pursue a point that is more important than it might seem at first blush. When you used the words "factually correct previous version" in restoring the the original description of Olbermann's August 18 comment you were buying into what I consider an erroneous assumption, to wit, that the MSNBC website's descriptions of Olbermann's commentaries are somehow an integral part of a Wikipedia article listing those commentaries. This is really a leap of faith. These commentaries are primarily a television phenomenon not an internet phenomenon and even if they were the latter, an ideologically neutral article would not be compelled to use a cheerleading description of them, especially as the only description of them. Suppose, for example, that there were a Wikipedia article listing Bill O'Reilly's "Talking point memos" and the Fox News website descsribed one of them as "a fair and balanced explanation of the necessity for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq." Would Wikipedia be bound to use this as its sole description of the "memo" in its article because it was the "factually correct" version? One further point, having perused the other thirty-odd description blurbs found in the Olbermann article I can tell you that most of them are not the MSNBC versions. Blaxthos, I dare say, flagged my description not so much because it was "original research" (as are, very technically, most of the descriptions) but because he preferred MSNBC's cheerleading version to mine. Badmintonhist (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any other description of Olberman's commentaries other than MSNBC? probably not. Well, I understand your argument that MSNBC's description may be biased, while I also understand the other side of the story that changing the description could be called original research. As I dont feel strongly one way or the other, i decide not to take sides. If you are going to revert my previous edit, I am not going to interfere. Docku^Hi 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Borivali

Hey Docku..i agree..The Borivli page largely consists of copy pasted stuff frm other pages... We shld ideally monitor it regularly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anup711 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ippadikku Rose

Ippadikku Rose is a TV talk show telecast in one of the major cable channels in India called Vijay TV (one of the TV channels owned by News Corporation). The show is a big leap in a culturally conservative country like India. The article has several references. I dont understand how "No notability asserted" can be a reason for it to be proposed for deletion. I guess I will go ahead and remove the tag. Docku^Hi 18:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Docku! The article doesn't say *why* the show is important, it simply describes the show. Therefore, "No notability asserted". Feel free to remove the prod, but if you do, could you at least expand the article to include validly sourced info on why it's important? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is the first talk show hosted every by a transgender in India. I had added that and will try to work on it when I have more time. Thanks for your suggestion. Docku^Hi 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Karpaga

Hi, Docku! I'm very concerned about the article Karpaga. I can find no other references to her anywhere, including no references to the movie at IMDB. At the moment, the article is simply a WP:BLP1E. Without corroborating references to back up the claim that she's the first transgender person in a mainstream film, the article is ripe for deletion. Can you find any other sources? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pls give me some time. I will try, if not, it is your decision. Docku^Hi 15:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for your work! BTW, don't know if you're interested, but have a look around WP:LGBT, and if you are interested, sign up? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have thought about joining other wikiprojects previously and never did so for two reasons 1) It may happen soon that I wouldnt have as much time as I have for wikipedia now 2) I have scatterered interests and am not sure if I am ready to settle down contributing to one area of encyclopedia on a regular basis. But I do appreciate your suggestion and certainly will be doing my minimal contributions whenever I can. Docku^Hi 20:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite Marathi regionalism

Sir, this article created by you is in a bad shape. Seeing other contributions by you to WP I am sure you can make this article better. Cheers. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 06:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try. I will appreciate your help as well. Docku^Hi 12:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is now more factual than before. I appreciate your efforts.--KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 05:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help too. The article looks certainly better than before, but it can be improved. For example, the socio-political causes of regionalism need to be added in more detail at some point of time. Docku^Hi 12:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)