User talk:CarTick/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. To find out how to make useful contributions, take a look at the welcome page. To stay in Wikipedia, an article has to be about something notable, that is, of general interest. Click on Notability for an explanation of what that means. Also, it must give independently verifiable sources. Articles that don't meet these requirements are likely to be deleted. Follow the links below to learn more:

• To find out more about creating articles, read the Introduction and the Guide to creating your first article.
• You should not write articles about yourself, your band, or your best friend - that's a conflict of interest.
• Before you plan an article, check whether Wikipedia already has one on the subject.
• For experiments, please use the sandbox.

JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have turned your article "The Jackson Labarotory" into a redirect to the existing article Jackson Laboratory. Before you plan an article, it's a good idea to check whether Wikipedia already has one on the subject - with over 2,000,000 articles, it's quite probable! Have a look at Your first article for more advice. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Docku (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin and Hardball appearance

Comments like the one you made at Kevin James' article do not serve WP in the least. Arzel (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I dont find anything wrong in questioning an editor's credibility based on his past edit history.Docku (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What you have done, and have now expanded upon is a personal attack. Arzel (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Finding a pattern in a person's edit history and questioning his credibility based on the pattern is not personal attack in my opinion. Isn't that one of many reasons why we have edit history for? Besides, pls do not delete the talk page in Kevin James article Docku (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Read up on WP:AGF. What you have done is accuse me of not editing in good faith because you think my previous edits on other articles show that I am biased. Comment on the EDIT not the EDITOR. I will give you the opportunity to remove your comments from the KJ talk page before I report this. Arzel (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith while making those edits and I standby my comments. You are welcome to report and I would be glad to find how others think about my opinion. By the way, you are deleting my comments on your own talk page. Docku (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This clearly isn't appropriate. Everyone has their biases, and going out of your way to highlight them isn't productive. Contributions are judged by Wikipedia policies, not by who added them.-Wafulz (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the pattern I pointed out is that he has extended the same support of trying to protect the following individuals and organisations, Bill O Reilly, Sean Hannity and FOX News Channel sometimes even unfairly. What does Kevin James whom Arzel is trying to protect now have in common with? Well everyone knows that. All that i did was raise this concern in the article's talk page? I am told by the administrator now that this is not a genuine concern and amounts to personal attack. I find it short sighted. Docku (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

uploading images

When uploading images, please make sure you aren't overwriting an image already on Wikipedia. You recently did at Image:Condor.jpg. I have fixed it.--Rockfang (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was quite confusing. I uploaded an image named Condor and tried to invoke it into an article. It looked like there is already a file named Condor. So i changed my image's name and uploaded again. I am still familiarising with how things work here.Docku (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Porter Barry

You are not understanding what constitutes a reliable source. Primary sources are not reliable in and of themselves, particularly when commenting on opinions. Using the transcript or YouTube video as a source only tells us what happened, but not the significance of it. Instead, you need a secondary or tertiary source that comments on the issue The guideline asks for "reliable, third-party, published sources". Do you have any source that explicitly says that Porter Barry is controversial or even noteworthy? Without such a source, the article itself is not noteworthy and should be deleted. With that said, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy improving it. Bytebear (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• I am not going to deny that I dont understand you. But, I would like to raise the same issue I raised in the deletion discussion page. The O'Reilly Factor is one of the famous evening news shows in US with over 2 million viewers and Porter Barry is one of the producers of the show. In other words, Shouldnt a producer of a show watched by over 2 million Americans deserve a page in Wikipedia? We have citations to prove that he is the producer atleast.

Finally, to be honest with you, I dont really care whether Poter Barry has an article or not. I just thought by starting an article about him will bring info from people who probably has more knowledge about him than I do. Atleast that is what I thought how it works.Docku (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He has to be notable outside of just doing his job. You have no third party unbiased information on him at all. Not to mention the blatant POV that you have created with the article, violating not only WP:NPOV but WP:BLP as well. Bytebear (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, First of all I know what POV is. Secondly, Pls dont forget that you are the one who suggested that this material could belong to Fox News Channel controversies here. How can the same material which you intially thought would fit in one article suddenly become POV. Are you trying to discredit me?Docku (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote in your last edit of the article "Barry is known for his confrontational interviews." Is he? Do you have a single reference to that statement? This person is not notable. Period. Bytebear (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have changed the wording. You are welcome to improve. Thanks for that suggestion.Docku (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the wording. It's the lack of third party statements. Who says he is known for anything? You need references and they just don't exist. Bytebear (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let it be on record. The article has references including FOX news website, MSNBC website and youtube video which are sufficient enough (in my opinion) to prove that he works with Bill O Reilly, he has interviewed Bill Moyers, Nancy Cantor and George Tiller. These are the references

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_2IZT4VgDY -Youtube video of the interview with Bill Moyers,

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/09/1126562.aspx -MSNBC,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355898,00.html -Porter Barry interviews chancellor of Syracuse University,http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281861,00.html -Porter Barry interviews abortion doctor. Also for the record, three of the references were added by someone else.

If you guys think this is not sufficient for a wikipedia article, pls go ahead and delete it. I am out of here.Docku (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Just wanted to make sure you understand that the RFC is already ongoing on the page. The discussion we are having in the section were the RFC tag is listed is the RFC. I didn't want you to be waiting for something more formal. When you list the RFC and the bot picks it up and places on the RFC page a link is created for the section and other users can come by and comment. When consensus is reached, we remove the tag and it is removed from the list of RFCs. It is an informal process. WP:RFC --PTR (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling that RFC is being taken care from bottom up in the list and our request is at the top.Docku (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, RFC's are handled at random. People just wander it as they see them, and if the RFC interests them, they will reply. They don't get handled in any order. You can ask me any other questions if you're concerned. --Haemo (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Haemo for taking your time to reply. We have discussed a lot about the dispute in the article's talk page and sometimes I have a feeling that we are discussing the same issue over and over again with just different words. So, I decided to wait until someone from RFC shows interest in our dispute and present our arguments to them. I am really ready for any solution but a fair solution from an editor who is convincingly neutral. Docku (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Mortadella Sandwich

I removed the notability tag. Sorry about that. I read thearticle too quickly. I've been here patrolling new pages and I saw a lot of "garbage" come in lately. I didn't take the time to read your article and see that it was valid. sorry about that.. i need to take a break and d walk my dog.. chiefhuggybear (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not a problem. I kind of guessed the situation. Wish you a great time outside.Docku (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi dude!!

Really great talking with you...nice to see u being interested in making Tamil Nadu article better. I totally respect ur views. Just see if we can resolve this issue. I feel the image I posted was better. But you too have a valid point - not restricting the images to only one part of the state. Also, I wanted to change this pic since I find the same image in Andhra Pradesh article too - don't know which one is correct:) If you happen to find a better pic of any other part of the state - plz publish it.

Cheers, Vivian

First, I am not sure if i like to be called "dude". That is condescending. Second, I didnt post the picture myself and I just defended it when you deleted it.i have no clue why it should be threre in both AP and TN. Apparently, one is wrong. Docku (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR block of IP

I hope this resolves the problem. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For catching an edit-warring vandal, and bringing it to Administrators' attention. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bearian for your help. Docku (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the guy has been vandalising the page the past few days and he appears with a different IP everyday. Please look at these examples here, 1, 2, 3. The first two numbers on the IP address is the same on all three occasions. I hope he will not come back with a different IP tomorrow and if he does, I hope he will be willing to discuss instead of just vandalising. Docku (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Vera Krasova

A tag has been placed on Vera Krasova requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

When the 4th runner-up Elisa Nájera in the same contestant already has a page, shouldn't the 3rd one have one? Docku (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to put the references into the article before you post it online. As it stands, the article has no content or context. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, The contest was just finished. It might be soon you will see reports of the contest. Infact Miss Universe 2008 article in wikipedia has it all updated. Docku (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mullet

Docku, thanks for your contribution. I removed the south Indian name because Wikipedia is not a multilingual dictionary. We don't include the names of things in various languages in articles. What's more, this article was about the whole family Mugilidae, not just the Liza (fish), which is only one of 17 genera. Compare the article on the striped mullet; we don't include the French (mulet), Italian (cefalo or muggine), Turkish (dubar), and other names for it in the article. On the other hand, we do have cross-references to the relevant articles in other-language Wikipedias. Make sense? --Macrakis (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your argument very well, my argument is why not? Including the french name may make French man find what he is looking for. You might argue that there is French wikipedia. But let us not forget English wikipedia is the most elaborate. By the way, I could not find the "Wikipedia is not a multilingual dictionary" guidelines. Could you please help me find. I could find "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" though. Docku (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If WP is not a dictionary, a fortiori it is not a multilingual dictionary! This is the English-language Wikipedia, and while non-English names are sometimes useful and relevant in English-language articles, in general they are not. --Macrakis (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand of the guidelines, While it distinguishes between which articles qualify to be included in Wikipedia and which in Wiktionary, it does not spell objections to inclusion of words of foreign origin in a wikipedia article for encyclopedic purposes. Docku (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

green revolution and cancer

i nominated your green revolution and cancer page for deletion. that topic is covered in the main green revolution entry. the green revolution and cancer page is pretty thin on it's own, and only a small portion actually deals directly with cancer.

Petitepassionz (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, The main article Green revolution deals with green revolution in general like what it is, where it started, how it spread, how it helped humanity, advantages and disadvantages of the same. I created this new article to provide emphasis on the newly emerging but disturbing trend of the negative side effects of green revolution. By the way, Why dont you help improve the article instead of nominating it for deletion.Docku (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason your article should be deleted is because the topic is not worthy of its own entry. This stuff should be in the main green revolution page. If it was worthy of it's own entry, then a bunch of other green revolution pages need to be made, such as "the green revolution and famine," and the "green revolution and diabetes," etc. I agree that the topic is interesting and should be in the main green revolution page, but it definitely is worthy to have its own article. So please, let's delete this page already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petitepassionz (talk • contribs) 02:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Please understand that there is a connection between green revolution and cancer. Pesticides and chemicals which made green revolution successful are also also one of the major reasons for cancer in humans. How? When we add chemicals and pesticides to the crops, some of them get absorbed into the produce and make their way into our body when we consume them. These pesticides in many cases have been proven to be carcinogeneic. The fact that cancer is one of the major causes of death and misery in humans and the idea that it can be caused by the food we eat, gives sufficient notability for it to be a separate article. Does that make sense to you? Well, Green revolution and famine, Green revolution and diabetes topics could deserve to be separate articles as well if you have reliable references to back them up. Docku (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

E.D. Hill

Another user attempted to insert the word "apparently" before the description of E.D. Hill's questioning of Barack and Michelle Obama's "fist bump" as a "terrorist fist jab." In the edit, the user justified it by the context of her quote. It is not necessary to get a consensus on the talk page before doing this. Ashwinr (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When the sentence quotes six references, why do we need a weasel word "apparently"? Is it to raise doubts in reader's minds? Docku (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel here. Yes, I more or less do want to raise doubts, in that I think that it's unfair to assert that she was giving her own opinion. However, saying that she was giving somebody else's opinion would be to assert the opposite. Therefore, I described what she appeared to do, and let the reader decide for themselves. I guess you have a point on the weasel wording, maybe there's a better way to phrase it? (continue in E D Hill talk if you want, I put a section there like you suggested) Orblivion (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Description on Vaiko piece

As noted by you, I grant it that part of the adjectives added by me (about self-immolators) may have been more relevant for the discussion section. However, the irony of his siding with his former tormentor is not to be missed.

Besides, considering the hagiographic nature of the entire piece, my opinion is, any comment goes in, till someone cleans it up.

Sudar (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in a horrible shape. I am in fact thinking of removing most of the stuff which is unreferenced. It is not helpful to add more mess into something which is already a mess. Docku (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Kamaraj

hi, i think there was a chief minister named bhaktavatchalam somewhere between 1952 and 1969! i dont remember details..so can u please do a favour to that article by check that 3 term claim..thanks for responding Cityvalyu (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

i took help from the "link" on your talk page and it led to the top of the discussion page ..i presumed you wanted a reply on the top..i shall use the bottom part henceforth ..apologiesCityvalyu (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Lemme correct it. Dock^Hi 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, Bhaktavatchalam became the Chief Minister after the three consecutive terms of kamaraj. Dock^Hi 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Legislative assembly

I just saw your comment about the CM on this talk page. Are you part of the India project for politics? If so, i was wondering if would be interested in helping set up the various Legis Assembly pages with election results (need a lot of updating in 2008)? Lihaas (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation. I am not part of the project. I appreciate your idea of setting up various legislative assembly pages. I will see what I can do to help you. Dock^Hi 13:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We're still finishing off the LS constituent pages, but once we're on the LA pages I will tell you whats up, so you know where and/or when you can help. Lihaas (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo

The photo was taken by me, and was originally uploaded to Wikipedia by me ; don't know how User:Raj srikanth800 could claim it to be his own. Thanks for bringing to my attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infocaster (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5