OK, I give up. Why have I been had? Do they not call it the American war? If so, the lead sentence in the vietnam War article needs editing. Mdw0 (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound very neutral. Fact is, in the context of history there is a victorious socialist government and also one or two victorious socialist Vietnamese, so what they call their wars is relevant. You cant edit out history just because you disagree with the politics of the figures involved. Incidentally, I say socialist because communism is actually a utopian impossibility that isnt self-sustaining. All the extreme left wingers degenerate into either more practical socialists or very temporary murdering nutters. Anyway, I think the name American War is an interesting reminder that not everyone has the same POV as the Americans. I've gotta say that once I heard that name I thought it was obvious - what else would they call it? I've heard more than one person from Vietnam remind me that the war is referred to as part of a series of wars by the Vietnamese, from both sides of politics, but of course that's hardly a valid Wiki reference. When I get a decent citation I'll put it back in. Mdw0 (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you ought to edit the first sentence in the Vietnam War article. But just to follow the logical outcome of your comment - if its in the communist party textbooks, then it would be referred to as such by the Communists and Communist Party supporters in Vietnam. Which would mean thousands if not millions who use it. Correct or not??? Mdw0 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore an academic source that ackowledges popular or government use of the term would be enough to indicate its use exists here, correct? Your opinion as to whether communist academia exists or qualifies as worthy I can predict. Fortunately its not the main issue. Mdw0 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an academic source from somewhere says it is often referred to as the American War, then its in. Not that academics everywhere refer to it as such. For instance, a communist academic would not be regarded as good enough, correct? The ones who write the textbooks? Also, do you have a link in the Manual of Style that says only academic reference and not more general usage can be used for section titles? Mdw0 (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I am prepared to say OK to that for the sake of a sane Wikipedia, but its a policy decision to not use information because it may encourage insanity elsewhere. It does NOT mean that I've been had, or that the actual information in and of itself isn't sensible and interesting.
Are you willing to edit it out of the Vietnam War article? Surely if its not allowed in the History of Vietnam article three-quarters of the way down, its not allowed in the leading sentence of the VietnamWar article? Mdw0 (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! This is amazing. To think that so much time was wasted not only by these sockpuppets but also by us: user:RegentsPark, user:Nichalp, user:Philip Baird Shearer, me and a few others!! Thanks a million for working on this! (I had my suspicions about Umar Zulfikar Khan when he turned up on the talk page, but he seemed more knowledgeable than the others. There is one other person, user:Doorvery far, who has also sided with these folk on Talk:British Raj, see here for examples of him and Xn4 supporting each other. You are welcome to investigate this at your convenience ... but he might be innocent as well. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And see here as well. Hope you don't mind some wider discussion. I am always nervous about BLPs where there has been claims of defamation (although I think there is no evidence of defamation in the article) and thought it wise to get a broader perspective. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I borrowed the book through an inter-library loan. Our library here, while shiny and new, is very small and I had to send away for it. ILLs only give me a month and by the time the article was reviewed I was on my second letter from the library looking for the book to be returned. -- Mattinbgn\talk04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot, I need to order in most books that I am after. It does have some Perry books as well; his book on Monash is in the recommended section! My personal cricket library would be around 100 times bigger than the town one. It is otherwise well appointed for facilities however and it has the only wireless hotspot in town. Will keep an eye on the attack article. Plenty of conspiracies on the web at the moment. Take a look at Pakpassion for lots of speculation (and lost of refutation as well, to be fair.) -- Mattinbgn\talk09:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you have a good library then. The only books I have are SRW's 1996 WC diary, Cashman's AZ (which is good), and Pollard's "Cricket the Australian Way", the rest are borrowed. ARW and AZ were 20c from the library clearance sale. For whatever reason they usually turf anything over ten years old. I guess you must have 800+ then unless the library only has 8 cricket books. How much did it cost you to put all that together? Bought them new? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I exaggerate slightly! I reckon I have about 200-250 or so books (including two book-shaped objects by Perry). My first was the Compleat Who's Who of Test Cricketers by CMJ which is now held together with tape and staples! Most of the early ones were gifts. When I lived in Brisbane, Lifeline held a "bookfest" at the Convention Centre where you could buy books by weight and I did well out of that exercise. I had an opportunity to buy a set of ABC Cricket Books from around 1960 to 1975 for $100 at the bookfest but as a struggling student I couldn't afford it and have regretted it ever since. Plenty of looking about second hand book shops etc. I picked up a first edition copy (no jacket) of Between Wickets at Daylesford for $10, which I thought was a bargain. When books have taken my eye, I occasionally buy them new; like the new Kim Hughes book by Christian Ryan I want to purchase next time I am at Borders. -- Mattinbgn\talk01:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on Ealdgyth - Talk18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YellowMonkey has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as YellowMonkey's day!
For all the ways you contribute excellently around here,
enjoy being the Star of the day, YellowMonkey!
And Happy "Let's-have-a-long-weekend-in-March-because-having-a-long-weekend-in-winter-is-a-stupid-idea" too!
For you poor unfortunates who don't live in Adelaide and don't know any better, Monday is the Adelaide Cup Holiday.
Annecdote: Queen Juliana's birthday is/was on 30 April - mid spring - a rather pleasant time of year in the Netherlands. At age 70, after 32 years in office, she said: I've been doing this for a while. I'm getting on a bit now. I think it's time to hand over to my daughter. So she quit. (Sorry purists - she abdicated.) So along came B. Now, these Dutch women ain't stupid. B's birthday is on 31 January - the time of year they have long-distance ice-skating races on the canals. So once in office, B decreed that the Netherlands would continue to celebrate the Queen's Birthday on 30 April ...
Please unprotect the page. Consensus was not found. And the version of Shahid is in my opinion a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. He reverted again to his version pushing his POV. The last stable version was without any mention of filmfare awards. The discussion on the talk page is ongoing and has not ended it seems. --Bollywood-Turk (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think, you misused your privilege of administering Wikipedia at A. R. Rahmanhere. A complaint is on the way. I'm sorry, but this is not the first time, I have observed such kind of behaviour of you. I'm assuming bad faith, because you are involved in the "Filmfare" Award problem at A. R. Rahman and also were/are a real life Times of India contributor in the Cricket section. Since Filmfare Award belongs to Times of India I believe you have decided at A. R. Rahman in your (company's) favour. --91.130.91.92 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Pakistani matches won't be going ahead, now that India won't go there, that changes one vote against them and the Champions Trophy was already voted down last year anyway. The BCCSL are broke and get handouts from the BCCI and the BCCI will probably cut off their money if they won't vote against Pakistan now, if they weren't already staying away. The Tamil Tiger blast in 1996, well the SL govt were trying their best to stop them, but as far as Pakistan goes, there is a rather large elephant in the room as to Pakistan funding Islamists. The other countries aren't going to sit there and gift Pakistan all their group matches by forfeit. Maybe Bangladesh might go but Pakistan should beat them anyway (95% chance). I don't think the other countries should be cancelled, it isn't nice but the murder rate in RSA is the highest in the world, and the % chance of a terrorist death compared to car accidents and ordinary criminals is much lower, and the other three governments are doing their best. With no checks whatsoever at Australian cricket grounds on training, and pretty perfunctory ones on game day, there's nothing stopping them travelling overseas and walking straight through the gate at a practice section. I'm surprised LET haven't already done that to India, or that the BCCI hasn't insisted on meaningful security in Western countries, because there isn't any apart from a few unarmed bouncers. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind monitoring this article for a while? I lost all knowledge of cricket when Steve Waugh retired so my knowledge is a little archaic. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it), I won't be able to tell the difference between vandalism and fact. —Darktalk10:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the article to my watchlist. It's hard to know if some statements that will and have been added are factually verifiable or just personal opinions. I strongly suggest that any statement added needs to be reference otherwise it should be removed. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk)10:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this user is in denial. But wikipedia isn't exactly the place for expressing these opinions on articles. Hilfy and Siddle are in doubt. Damn! Although from what I've seen locally at the old NTCA Ground and on TV, I'd rate Brett Geeves higher than Hilfy. Geeves is a good lower order batsmen and probably a better fielder (not saying that's very hard). Geeves is also a top bloke, not saying Hilfy isn't though. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk)09:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing some of Yousaf465 (talk·contribs) contributions, I now see what you mean. It's a bit of a worry that on his talkpage it states "This experienced editor is seeking to adopt new users." Well hopefully I don't have too many altercations with him the future, although I see you already have. I've also just noticed he has given himself a barnstar! :S Very very strange indeed. If he gives himself a barnstar for just removing red links, imagine how many barnstars some other wiki editors (including yourself) could give themselves. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk)09:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you people check that in article,I did atleast and result wasn't what was mentioned in article then who should I believe NDTV or website from where I checked it.I gave banglore as location.Another of my WP:Or!User:Yousaf465 (talk)
Seems that he has now removed that blog article, unless I missed it. Sometimes people just need to use common sense with issues like this.
It has been swinging a bit down in Hobart and since the previous curator has moved to the MCG, the pitch is playing a lot different. There's a lot more sideways movement and the pitches seem to have more uneven bounce and are generally slower. These factors are probably helping Hilfy. Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk)06:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you wanted a bbc link here it is [2].If you understand.Remember that
The good thing is he has started using sources!! Conspiracy theories will float around for quite sometime (thanks to the Pak national leaders and media). Its not Yousaf's fault entirely, but its the Pak government which floats these theories. I remember watching a Pakistani national channel on youtube hinting Hindu terrorists for Mumbai attacks. Only on 12th February (2 ½ months later) did Pakistan accept the perpetuators were Pakistanis (Pakistan finally admits Mumbai attackers link -- The Independent (UK)! --KnowledgeHegemonytalk07:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using them before.remember the cfr article ?User:Yousaf465 (talk)
I could not but praise the coverage of Geo News as it came up. Unfortunately some people, including cricketing personalities such as Miandad, tried try to deflect attention while the usual hawks like Sherry Rehman were uncharacteristically placid at first. I should be trying and editing the article in a few hours since it seems to have gotten the attention it needs right now. As a current event though, the article can always use more attention. JSR056212:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That newspaper would have been referring to Taxila,not to Buddha's origin .User:Yousaf465 (talk)
Geo was the network that carried out the Kasav probe into Okara, proving his identity for television audience. They have the same news as most other Pakistani networks but the usual 'blame-game', as it is called in the subcontinent, is slightly toned down. Geo had good video footage and probably the best eyewitness accounts of any television network. They interviewed and quizzed a number of people including one curious case of a civilian who made what, in my opinion, was the first comparison to Ajmal Kasav, much before the officials came up with "we will get the bastards" and other statements. Also, the 'Indian agent' theory was snubbed by Chidambaram no less in an interview with Arnab Goswami yesterday. JSR056205:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, also he has Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk · contribs) and two others... what were they called? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
