User talk:Kaiwhakahaere/Archive 2

Hi Kaiwhakahaere, There is currently a proposal to change the existing title "Jeremiah Wright controversy" that we supported last month. If you could "Oppose title change" on the talk page [[1]], it would be appreciated. Thanks, IP 75

75.25.30.215 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to encourage you to continue to participate at Talk:Barack Obama and related articles. I am taking a 30-day voluntary Wikibreak from the topic. You seem to be one of the more restrained and compromise-minded people who have contributed recently to the discussion. Please review my comments on User talk:Bigtimepeace. BTP is an admin who has volunteered to monitor the progress of the article, which is one of the reasons why I feel confident that I can take 30 days off, without it turning into an Obama campaign brochure. Discussion there now appears to be constructive. Cheers Kossack4Truth (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for not getin gback to you so soon its been kind of hectic over here. I am in the process of discussing this important issue at TALK:unidentifed fying object talk page. if you want to continue this discusion it will be taken place there and I will be answerin galong questions along the iwth the other contributors to that article. There. Smith Jones (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaiwhakahaere, Thanks for your change at New Zealand land confiscations, but I've reverted to what I had. I struggled to find a one-sentence explanation of the policy, and settled on that one in the end because it more accurately presented its purported aim. The article explains the more likely intention of the legislation and its effect a little further on in the introduction.

I'm still working my way through the history ... the failure of the policy and government admissions of wrongdoing. I'd welcome any thoughts. Grimhim (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Purported aim". PURPORTED AIM my foot.. The land wars happened because Maori rejected theft of their land for white settlement. They didn't happen because of a "purported aim", they happened because of actual events, the murder of natives by colonials. We must reflect that, or forever more stop pretending we are supposed to be an encyclopedia. And why did your intro specify "Māori tribes at war with the government"? What? Conceding that it takes two to tango, I would have thought it would have been more the government at war with Māori tribes. Your version is extremely POV. Mine is not. It accurately states the confiscations (were introduced) to punish Māori who opposed the government giving settlers land owned by Māori , and which Māori refused to sell. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except your intro is wrong. The confiscations didn't take place "to punish Māori tribes who opposed the government's policy of settling pakeha on their land they refused to sell." Probably most Māori opposed excessive white colonisation. They weren't targeted by the legislation. The law was applied to those who were identified, wrongly in many cases, of "rebelling" (in the language of the legislation) by taking up arms. Your wording is too broad. My wording acknowledges they were at war with the government. I don't think that reflects a POV. They were certainly fighting a war. In most cases the war had been started by the government, but they were still at war.

I'll copy this discussion to the talk page of the article, where it's more appropriate to continue.Grimhim (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whom Wikipedia says "encourage[d] writers to be stylistically simple and direct"----but whose work I find way too formal (probably preferring something more akin to the Modern Language Association's approach....) Complete satisfaction (I'm sure! <wink>) of your expressed curiosity can be found here. — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at it over the next couple of days. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I sent you a vid of mine working would it do any good? (You'll haqve to sign a nondisclosure form first). By the way, a germ self-replicates and is a physical object so it is a self-replicating machine. That's how I see it. (answer at the Self-rep. site talk please). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.23.247 (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You edited this page so I felt it was my duty to let you know. Feel free to delete this message. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patricia_Bragg --mboverload@ 22:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your page move split the edit history of the page, and I have requested a history merge. The "move" tab should be used when moving pages, as it keeps the edit history in one place. I think this one could have been moved over the redirect without deleting it, as the redirect had no edits after creation (and when that is not possible, {{db-move}} should be used). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 22:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Niiiice...  :-) --Ludwigs2 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree that the section should be gone, but I've tagged it and am giving those who submitted it as well as the person who replaced it time to defend it. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. I have just removed that section again, so too late. People can discuss it on the talk page if they want to defend it. It doesn't actually have to be in the article (demonstrating how childish Wiki can sometimes be). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sense a bit of bias on User:DeFacto's part, he seems to be really reaching to do everything he can to minimize the efficiency of the Prius. This Top Gear "test" is a meaningless test designed to make the Prius fail. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Dirty helen was reverted. It was nonsense, but a better way to handle it is to mark the article for a speedy delete. Jons63 (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tēnā koe to a fellow New Zealander! Perhaps a compromise would be in order? I have changed the photo to one which I hope both you and Bzuk can work with. I have discussed this on the Spitfire discussion page. Ka kite anō.Minorhistorian (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Kaiwhakahaere,

I think there may be a miunderstanding that has come up at this talk page, that should be cleared up.

I took the tone of your post to be condescending. Because this page has been tagged with a warning to all editors to be careful about this, I was attempting to let you know about this, and nothing more. This is not "me" trying to determine what should or should not be written. This is the community request that comes down on talk pages that can be contentious. I have seen admins wither sensitive triggers about escalating warnings and such on pages so tagged, and was trying to give advice on staying uot of trouble. I obviuosly was not clear as to my intent, and hope I am clearing this up now.

If I may advise for the future, if a question comes up such as "What exactly is the definition of controversey?", you cuold simply provide a link. You could explain your thoughts on the matter. Stating something to the effect of "Has anyone read this?" can be taken as derogatory.

Second, I agree that it is not up to you or I to determine what "controversey" means in the context of this article, but I disagree about pointing to Wikitionary or any other wikipedia article in this regards. Rather, it is up to the consensus of the community as to whether or not it is pertinent in ths particular case. It is for that reason that the discussion was initiated on the talk page. I think it is more correct to say that you and I have an equal voice in that (to which I was referring when I noted that this depends somewhat on a POV: a scientist would probably not be so inclined to see any controversey at all; simlpy what is known and what is still not known. People who support the idea of UFOs as being of extraterrestrial origin might look at some cases (hoaxes and/or objects that have not been explained to their satisfaction) as being controversial.

I am not trying to lecture you here, and am certainly not trying to sit over you as smoeone who is smarter or superior. Rather, I am hoping you will think about this a little; coming from a fellow editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You personally categorised the tone of my post to be condescending. It wasn't, but even it had been, please point out the tag that warned all editors "to be careful about this". You claim you are "..... not trying to lecture ...." me here -- but you actually did. The last thing I need is advice from you for the future, because IMMHO It is bad advice. You hope I will "think about this a little". I will, provided you think about it a lot. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard conflicting reports about date autoformatting, I'm a bit confused. Is it policy to not autoformat dates in the introduction paragraph? Joshuagross (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that, in some instances, autoformatting should NOT be used. I'm trying to figure out which instances those are. I see you were right to autoformat on Apple Inc., I just want to make sure I know when they should/shouldn't be used. Joshuagross (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please strike part of your post on the homeopathy talk page where you accuse me of trying to bypass wikipedia policy. I am doing no such thing and this just seems to be a misunderstanding. As I have said I don't think it needs to be in the lead, but I'm not against it being there. This is simply a good faith attempt to try and resolve this issue which keeps coming up, and I hoped that establishing a clear consensus, in either direction, would put this matter to bed. I also did read your comment and do not endorse censorship. Let me repeat that I support the inclusion of quackery in the article, and pseudoscience should clearly be left there. My reply to you was to point out that I had accidentally left out the fact that quackery is currently only referred to in the lead, and it should probably appear in the article if it is in the lead. I wasn't disputing your point - just adding extra information that was pertinent and that I originally intended to include. If you study my contributions you will see that I am clearly of the opinion that homeopathy is not a real medical intervention. Sorry for any confusion, and I hope this clears it up for you. Verbal chat 10:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please address the above at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Verbal chat 05:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would so simple for me to strike it, and move on, and everything in the garden is lovely. But no. There is an important principle here. You started the section by saying the following - Several people, mostly homeopaths, have commented that they don't like the word quackery appearing in the lead ....(and)....for the lead I feel that that the term pseudoscience is enough. When someone champions the cause of the complaining homeopaths, it is difficult to AGF when that someone continues to press the point, despite it having been demonstrated that the word quackery is clearly within wikipolicy. My comment which you want struck was an honestly held opinion, but of course, I am quite happy to acknowledge that you say you are now not opposed to the word quackery being in the lead. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I think you read me right as far as, if you're unsure about a picture's copyright status it is best to not use it. That said, I wonder if you've looked at Diana Beaglehole's article about Ms. Winstone [2] ? She (Beaglehole) *apparently* has a link for contact at [3] . Maybe she could help you research the provenance of that photo? I can see why you'd want to use it, I think.  :) Failing that, the same first article links lists at least two references to Ms. Winstone - looks like a book and an obituary. Maybe some research could put you in touch with the "S. Laine."

I know that's a loooooong way to go for one photo, but only you can make the call if that would be worth it.  :) Hope you can chase it down, as I'm sure it would be an interesting article with interesting illustration! Best, LaughingVulcan 02:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LV. No, I've given up on that particular image. Yes, I've seen the Beaglehole bio, and dig up other bits and pieces too. Bought a copy of Spitfire Women of WW2 by Giles Whittell, today, so will get around to doing an article soon. Unless someone beats me to it. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I also didn't want you to think that I was against the article or pic per se. It sounds like a really good article idea, too! Hope you'll get one a pic that will work for you. Best, LaughingVulcan 01:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarah Palin Kuwait 13b.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On "Yda Addis" just look at the bottom of the article, the references are there. Chaos4tu (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will ask here, as I have no intention of harassing you. Please see the thread above and remove or strike your ill-founded personal attack against me on homeopathy, or give me or someone else permission to do it for you. Yours, Verbal chat 09:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you: The lack of references in the Yda Addis article is suspicious: the story must have been made up, perhaps it is a big lie? Why no delete it? Chaos4tu (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has potential, but you ignoring constructive advice places it in peril. It's your call. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is announced on the cited web page - you didn't scroll down enough. Not that unusual: I've seen funeral arrangements, when current, mentioned in WP articles. In the UK the funeral would be to most of those visiting the article, people who knew KC or fans, the current if transitory important fact. Does the recently died template not imply this kind of situation? The intention was to excise it after the event. Have there never been events you'd wished you'd been at, had you but known at the time? Your edit means there will be many more in that category than would otherwise have been the case. But I take your point. If that's your feeling, there must be a million other sensation seekers out there who'd think likewise. I concur with Kevin Kelly's dictum: "Nobody is as smart as everybody." So be it. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt a footnote on a blog, added by someone called Hooligan, can genuinely be classified an announcement about an upcoming funeral. Regardless, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a public notices vehicle, which is why I removed that info from the lead. It's too soon after a sumptuous lunch to attempt obscure riddles, so please explain what you mean by "If that's your feeling, there must be a million other sensation seekers out there who'd think likewise." Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply: your own reaction I confidently suppose to be randomly representative of millions of others, were they to come across the sentence you cut out; that's why I take it seriously and, however reluctantly & disappointedly, accept it. (The blog, by the way, is in fact an obituary by Michael Billington, who, by dint of his vintage status, must have seen more Campbell productions over the years than any other theatre reviewer still in the saddle.) Wingspeed (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint you, but like thousands of other Wiki editors I try to maintain editorial standards, which means we remove information which turns articles into public notices/advertisements. The information you quoted was not written by Billington at all, but was added to his blog by someone with the name Hooligan, which doesn't exactly suggest reliable source. --Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I know. But I knew the information to be reliable since I'm attending the funeral myself. We can differ as to whether such information in such circumstances is justified or not, given that WikiP as it develops is inevitably redefining the nature of encyclopedia as communication tool and as public utility. Let's conclude the matter there. Wingspeed (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

;>_ I replied here. Thanks again for bringing it to my attention =). –xeno (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Dixon's info box lists 2008 season result why not Briscoes? --Falcadore (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it should list it. I was reverting the curious edits by 118.101.174.45, and yours got caught up in it without me noticing. Sorry about that. Incidentally, we aren't allowed to speculate in article space, but here on talk I can say I think Briscoe is a whisker away from better things. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have made a mistake there. I thought I was reverting an anon edit, which was placed in the middle of text referenced from a book.[4] I'm not sure how I ended up reverting you. Possibly a non-refreshed watchlist. Ty 01:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British Police MP5s are semi auto, that is what they should be called, what is the problem? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect to you, in this case you are wrong. Wikipedia states that the MP5 is a submachine gun, of course it does, thats because it is. It fires full auto of course, but the British Police ones fire semi-auto a far cry from fully, British police classify it as a semi automatic carbine. You are wrong, its just plainly as simple as that I'm afraid. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I direct you to the talk page discussion for a full explanation. Thanks, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you're no doubt aware, we're getting some anonymous edits and reverts on the article from a Seattle Comcast connection. Cynical or not, it is likely that (seeing as the IP has only ever edited wikipedia in relation to Mr Kohnstamm) that it is indeed him, or someone with a vested interest in being his apologist.

Anyway, if you feel the article needs changing or fixing (after your last comment when reverting) I'm not intending on becoming the guardian and commander of it :D so please do make changes, I welcome your input - plus you were there before me :)

My intention was purely, if it is to be an article on the controversy, to ensure that the breadth is covered. The nuances are not for wikipedia in my opinion (our anonymous friend argues otherwise each time he/she edits).--Koncorde (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at getting real, too bad they will not let you point out that only Collin's is a true "self-replicator", replicating all of its small parts (unlike all the corporate advertising elsewise). (I can't edit there, not a privliged character yet, you know) Antiliby (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Atiliby is Charles Michael Collins, a banned user.Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at any other article intro, i.e. 2008 Masters Tournament or 2007 U.S. Open Golf Championship . The winner is not described in the opening sentence! The primary information is 'when' and 'where'. The second sentence describes 'who'. Let's be consistent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.63.203 (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. We are talking about the Ryder Cup 2008, not the Ryder Cup. The reason we have the article is to advise who won it. Where it was held, and when, naturally flows on from the intro giving the result. Incidentally, you have broken 3RR. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC) The intro to the other articles is irrelevant. There is absolutely NO wikipolicy that demands that poor writing must be perpetuated in articles about subsequent events. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) Note too what the precis says on our main page --"Team USA defeats Team Europe to win the 37th Ryder Cup Matches.". It tells us What/Who, not Where/When, as it should. Kaiwhakahaere (talk)[reply]

I disagree. Look at most sporting even articles. i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics . The prime importance of the contest is NOT who won, but what the contest consisted of (where/when, etc..). The outcome is still discussed in the first three sentences as would be expected.--Ryckmonster (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, the Ryder Cup is a competetion, which is held somewhere, at sometime. It is not fundamentally won by USA or Europe. You don't open an article on something (like basketball) by saying "Basketball is a sport invented by _____" you say "Basketball is a team sport which consists of ____ and ____." --Ryckmonster (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a load of old bollocks. The dumbing down of wiki continues. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown your case to an active admin (User:EdJohnston). Perhaps the best place would've been WP:3RRN as I am not active :-) Thanks anyways though! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 09:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on the Akshardham Article which I have completely revamped. What else can I do rather that bolding the words to makit look nicer?    Juthani1   ^tcs 23:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me an example of a featured article with this type of formatting    Juthani1   ^tcs 01:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean with boldface type in the sentences in a section, I can't direct you to any. As I said in an edit summary earlier, the Manual of Style says "Italics are used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (bolding is normally not used at all for this purpose)."Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is taken from National Military Museum of Egypt. Located at Cairo Citadel. Here is a webpage about the museum. --Wrightbus (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But none of the tanks have identifying markings, nor has the one in your photo. Considering that Egypt used M60s too, maybe we should be asking for some sort of authentication of ownership of the tanks. There must be some sort of reference/authentication to justify the word "captured". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have photos of another tanks taken from the museum but not uploaded to Wikicommons yet. Here is another photo describing the captured M60 tank. --Wrightbus (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You so called "Editors" at Wikipedia really give the organization a bad name with your lack of education and understanding of the material. You don't even read the article entirely, you just cut cut cut. Why? You think you have some kind of academic powers? Look ... the few photographs that remain of Alfred Shea Addis's work are all there is and you single handedly decided to remove some of those photographs from the article about Alfred Shea Addis. Why? To demonstrate your lack of education, lack of knowledge, lack of sense? Or did you do that to attempt to erase a 19th century Western photographer from American culture? Come on and get a grip. Stop being so predjudical. 76.0.222.56 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning to you too Marian. It's pointless me trying to debate with you, so let me just say that if you are so sure your verbosity is preferable to succinct writing, then take this to RfC. Just so readers know what the problem is, they can judge for themselves from the following two passages.

• Yours --"Although Alfred Shea Addis was a prolific photographer, today there remains but a handful of his carte de visites and photographs. Only fifteen are still in existence".
• Mine -- "Although Addis was a prolific photographer, only 15 of his cartes de visit and photographs still exist."

And yes, it is cartes de visit, not carte which you insist on. Also, I did not remove "some of those photographs from the article". I removed one, which is shown here. It's size limitation means it is neither use nor ornament in this article. I am reverting the article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. I like it on the rght side as well, but there are mnay users who don't. SO I was just seeing what it would look like an pressed save page as a reflex instead of show preview.    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What were you intending with this edit? Ashley Litton was Miss Missouri USA, not Miss USA. What made you make that edit? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was because the first sentence of the second paragraph said "On April 12 2004, Finnessey won the Miss USA title when she competed in the Miss USA 2004 pageant." But of course, I should have realised that because of the dreadful writing in the beauty contest thingies, whenever it says someone won the Miss USA title it actually means she didn't win the Miss USA title. Silly me. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article title again. The article is about Ashley Litton. Ashley Litton did not become Miss USA, Shandi Finnessey became Miss USA. And because Shandi Finnessey became Miss USA, Ashley Litton became Miss Missouri USA in her place. I'll take another look at the wording, but from memory its all pretty clear. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, it is very clear. I suggest you read the article you are editing closely before you make unnecessary and uninformed edits. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 09:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't know any from that region which is in Southern India. I'm a North Indian. This might help Category:Indian Wikipedians except it doesn't show Indians by region. It is only a complation of all Indian Wikipedians    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what is your nationality? Also, since you have been helping me out with the Akshardham article, I would like to inform you that it is a GA candidate. I would also like to invite you to join WP:Swaminarayan which encompasses all articles relating to Swaminarayan (the founder of the sect) and all of his sects temples. You are really helpful with fixing up Akshardham    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might help too, except I don't know if Ponducherry is in Tamil Nadu- Category:Tamil Wikipedians    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user has finally made a comment for the GA assessment of Delhi Akshardham. Please help with fixing up the article after reading the comments located here.    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You titled the section race records, and the Skyline 6:19 IS the actual race record. Maybe you should have titled it something else.

Murphy's lap was one of the greatest achievements in the race, but qualifying lap records are purely unofficial, essentially a stat created for TV. It does not count for anything and is not recorded in race programs or similar. The official lap record is Whincup's and deserves recognition no matter how sentimental people might get over Murphy's lap. Let's divorce the emotion and state things as they are. This is a serious article, not fanboy cruft. --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Falcdore. Your message timed at 05.44. See my change made at 05:37, I hope that overcomes your concern. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Whincup is the official lap record holder, and deserves primary mention. You don't give the gold medal to the guy who was fastest in the Olympic trials, you have to do it on the day. --Falcadore (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no gold medal for fastest lap in practice, qualifying, top 10 or actual race. The gold medal (winner/s trophy) has nothing to do with lap times. The most meritorious lap time is the fastest ever recorded relevant to this race, and that deserves the primary mention, which is why I phrased the section as I did. However, as you object, I am breaking it into separate sections.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking proverbially, but you know that. There is not official recognition for qualifying laps, but there is for race laps. You can't just make stuff up just because of the emotion surrounding Murphy's lap. I have a 20 years worth of official programmes and publications which diisagree with you. The most meritorious lap time can only be recorded in a race. I appreciate that you have an opinion, but wikipedia is not written with opinions. --Falcadore (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is interesting. You insist "there is not official recognition for qualifying laps" but you insert shootout lap times in Wikipedia in this edit. But that's OK because it shows that you really do see that shootout times are official, the reason officials use them to determine the first 10 grid positions, and we should correctly acknowledge this. My opinion has no more weight than yours, so let's look at a fraction of the verifiable general perception held by the media/public. Following are a few quotes to ponder.

• ".....prizemoney being offered to the driver who can claim pole position and also better his (Murphy's) lap record during the Top 10 Shootout........Murphy’s lap is considered to be one of the greatest individual performances in Australian motorsport history". V8X Magazine, here

• "However, Lowndes was not popular with everyone at the track. He and New Zealand's Greg Murphy, who has the fastest lap ever recorded at Bathurst.....". The Australian report of yesterday's race, here

• "But Murphy - whose Bathurst lap record set five years ago still stands - could not hunt down the Triple Eight Falcon.....". Sydney Morning Herald report of yesterday's race, here

• "Greg Murphy relives the epic hot lap that wrote his name into the Bathurst record book, where it still stands." Wheels Magazine, here

• "His (Winterbottom's) super-quick lap of 2:07.19, less than half a second outside the lap record, denied the holder Greg Murphy........." The Mercury, here

• "But Murphy - whose Bathurst lap record set five years ago still stands - could not hunt down the...." Brisbane Times report of yesterday"s race, here

I think that's enough. Ask any driver whether they consciously try to beat Murphy's time in the Top 10. Tell them that someone wrote on Wikipedia the "most meritorious lap time can only be recorded in a race", and let us know what their responses are. Ask the TV commentators why year after year after year they rabbit on about Murphy's fastest lap. It's because the fastest lap in the history of the event is, well, historically significant, and meritorious, and merits a stand alone mention in Wikipedia. It is unlikely the fastest outright lap and lap record will ever be one and the same because the shootout pace is quicker than race pace, (Murphy's pole time was almost two seconds faster than the lap record set that day). I am restoring the information, but below race winners as suggested by you, and which I agree with. I am also copying this to the article's talk so readers won't scratch their heads wondering what is going on. Cheers. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have better explained my comments at the Talk:Akshardham (Delhi)/GA1 page. Jordan ^Contribs 15:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kia Ora Kaiwhakahaere,

Just wondering what you meant when you undid my (admittedly cheeky) edit of NZ's official languages. I put '(de facto)' next to 'English', and you have commented that all 3 languages are de facto. The Maori Language Act and the New Zealand Sign Language Act would have to disagree with you there, they are clearly de jure, whereas no statute seems to proclaim NZ English an official language. Comments? Cheers, GintyFrench|^(talk!) 12:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tena koe ehoa gintyfrench. Oh, I see what you mean. However, why would we need to say English is de facto in a section labelled official languages? And if we say english is de facto wouldn't we have to also say the other two are de jure? Overkill? Ka kite. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't see the issue. Highbeam is a standard archive of news sources and is a convenient link. If we have a free version of the resource we should link to that but otherwise I fail to see the problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is potential fraud. Wikipedia is directing readers to a site where they must give their credit card number to see the information given as a reference in an article. Here is an edited part from our own article on fraud - "Fraud ..... the difficulty of checking identity and legitimacy online, the ease with which hackers can divert browsers to dishonest site and steal credit card details, the international dimensions of the web and ease with which users can hide their location, all contribute to making internet fraud the fastest growing area of fraud." You must see the potential here. Adopting a policy of not allowing pay-site references would protect Wiki. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably true but that's a realm for a much more general discussion. Such a result would for example mean that we couldn't link to major newspapers old archives or JSTOR or Mathscinet. In any event, there is no such policy at current and one would need a general community consensus to adopt that. In the meantime removal of such links when they are used as references is not a good idea. Moreover, the references themselves are stil valid references and thus the citation information should certainly not be removed. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be only one RED arrow in the map. That arrow should be next to the start/finish line and in the same group. It would be exactly what you suspected. My information had the course as counter-clockwise. If that is incorrect or there are more than one red arrow, please let me know. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the course is counter clockwise, but the RED arrow near the start/finish points east so it is indicating a clockwise circuit. The cars actually run from east to west on the pit (start/finish) straight. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was too busy working on a new track for the Snaefell Mountain Course on the Isle of Man to check the actual image. New version is up.

BTW: Please reply to my talk page. When you reply here, Wikipedia doesn't tell you replied. It does tell me about changes to my talk page. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. I left a message on your talk page. Had you responded there I would have picked it up on my watchlist, and we could have gone on ad infinitum gabbling away with the whole conversation contained on one same page. But you responded on my page, which meant the conversation was split over two pages. Not actually ideal. Never mind. The map arrow is fixed. Ta. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Phar Lap. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. --John (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was anything special.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So what was your point then, caller? --John (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caller? You sound like a policeman. Oh, of course, I forgot.......Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was pretty funny, thanks for the smile. So you were just pointing out to SA that I have a quote on my user page which you think isn't anything special, and you now don't want to talk about it. Glad to have clarified, and thanks for your contributions. --John (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant your user page isn't anything special, not the quote, (otherwise....). I'm surprised you have time to chat here, what with all those wikipedians out there who need a right old bollocking now and then. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's 4pm Monday here, time to be picked up and off to my club, so please don't expect a quick response to anything you may leave here. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: m (Restore better version. Since when did the air force "attempt" to refute this. Th refuted it. Not attempted to. Also why two identical sentences in the 2nd par?)

Your version says, "this led officials from four agencies in the United States to jointly publish a fact sheet refuting the rumors and explaining the science of contrail formation." If you read the reference, you will realize only one one agency, the US Air Force, attempted to refute the people suggesting that military aircraft were creating clouds to cause global dimming. That is a fact. My version is accurate, and yours is not.

You say, "also why two identical sentences in the 2nd par," so then fix that, instead of reverting to a factually inaccurate version of the article.

Your version says, "The Chemtrail conspiracy theory holds that some contrails seen behind high flying aircraft...," but it really holds that military aircraft are spraying something completely different than contrails. It says that the jets still leave natural contrails, but there are also chemicals that form clouds that are not contrails. So, you are making a statement of fact without sourcing it, when the only source is government fact sheets or activist debunkers, and then you are going on to define a different subject in the first sentence of this article. It is completely off topic. Slipgrid (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaiwhakahaere, The First WikiConference India is being organized in Mumbai and will take place on 18-20 November 2011. You can see our Official website, the Facebook event and our Scholarship form. But the activities start now with the 100 day long WikiOutreach. As you are part of WikiProject India community we invite you to be there for conference and share your experience. Thank you for your contributions. We look forward to see you at Mumbai on 18-20 November 2011