Archives

1

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sorry. I take back. But that does not discourage the edit (which is unrelated to this). Dock^Hi 17:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)