User talk:Adam Carr

Me with Professor Venerable Samdhong Rinpoche, Prime Minister of the Central Tibetan Administration, Sydney, February 2006.

Please note I am not an Administrator and don't wish to be one.

I do not respond to anonymous comments.

I do not edit articles on currently serving Australian politicians.

Aus. political articles

Hi Adam,

Just noticed you've taken down your statement re: not editing current Australian politicians' articles. Does this reflect a change in your stance on this, or is it merely time to move to your next message? I'm just curious. Thanks. Harr o5 05:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick clarification. Harr o5 05:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to "seek further advice" yet? Ambi 06:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Thailand since 1973

I have noticed legal aspect, mob instigator, and mob's motive were taken out, and instead summed up very briefly. Could you give reason why so?

Thank you, Gate keeper 06:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for replying quickly. Well, I believe in cause-effect. But it would be too POV in politic. So I have edited it again and cut out minute detail. Please tell if this is agreeable. Gate keeper

Laos TIME image

Show me the fair use rationale image, and prove to me that it is being used correctly as fair use. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam

It's nice to meet you :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Ray

Yes. I agree. I should have been more clear. I reverted because Ray has an interest and his edits seemed (in my veiw) to express that interest into this encyclopaedia. I know that you have interests in many issues, but I almost always find your edits above reproach. My comment was not a general statement. Xtra 23:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images moved to Commons

Image:Lunapark.JPG to Image:Luna Park St. Kilda.JPG on Commons
Image:PICT2278.JPG to Image:Esplanade hotel St. Kilda.jpg on Commons -Nv8200p talk 00:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point that some of them are a little light-hearted but I don't see how that disqualifies everything I've written from consideration, especially given the obviously biased nature of what it replaced. Is there a way we can denote the article as being libellous, as in its unaltered state it clearly is. DarrenRay 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Thailand legislative election, 2006, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 12:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that an anonymous user Ambi is reverting many of the edits I am making and doesn't seem to provide a justification. Do you know why this would be? DarrenRay 02:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you say John Cain II was an economist? He was a lawyer. DarrenRay 02:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good one, I'll see what I can dig up from Andrew. DarrenRay 05:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we agree on that.

jour·nal·ist n. One whose occupation is journalism. One who keeps a journal.

journalism n. The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts. Material written for publication in a newspaper or magazine or for broadcast. The style of writing characteristic of material in newspapers and magazines, consisting of direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation. Newspapers and magazines. An academic course training students in journalism. Written material of current interest or wide popular appeal

I think The Australian described him recently as a webdiarist. I don't think it matters as long as its accurate and businessman is not correct. He calls himself a journalist according to Google and I'm not sure it's possible to go beyond that meaningfully.

I read his site regularly and he clearly is in the activity of collecting, writing, editing, presenting news. It's not like his blog is a personal diary or something. He seems to break news regularly.

On any measure this is journalism as defined above, the fact that he does so online does not change the fact. Journalist, commentator, news presenter, there's a lot of debate about these terms but he clearly qualifies as a journalist in my opinion. DarrenRay 08:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Henk van Leeuwen? Xtra 09:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good question Xtra. Margot has long since retired from the Herald, setting up her own version, doesn't make her any less of a journalist. In fact she's retired from that too I think and it's still a fair description. News Commentator or satirist may be better but whatever it is, an outdated description should not be retained. You seem to define journalist in a way that precludes a self-employed one, I can't agree with that definition. DarrenRay 09:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to keep up with that logic, I must admit. I will look for how others in analogous situations are treated and see how that is treated. Here's two.

A well known US blogger is described as "founder and main author". Markos Moulitsas Zúniga

Matt Drudge as "internet news personality"

If you're uncomfortable with the term journalist - which I still don't get given the dictionary definitions - then perhaps they work better. But businessman seems to me factually incorrect and outdated. DarrenRay 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) DarrenRay 11:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry to be coy in our discussion, I didn't really want to discuss Wikipedia with an audience, including some foes. Please feel free to give me a call at your convenience. DarrenRay 08:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreformed House of Commons

Hello Adam, I notice that you are the main author of this article, which is quite interesting and well done. However, I notice that the numbers given in the text of the article for how many of each type of English borough there are do not add up with the numbers given in the table. I went into detail on the talk page. I was hoping you could explain the discrepancy. Thanks. john k 07:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very late reply

You once wrote me:
"But much as I love the Greeks I am under no illusions about irrationalism of Greek romantic nationalism. If it is foolish for the Macedonians to lay claim to Thessaloniki, it is equally foolish for Greeks to pine after Smyrna and Constantinople and Trebizond, as many still do. Parochial nationalism is the curse of the region, and the Greeks, as heirs of a great and cosmopolitan civilisation, should take the lead in overcoming it."
I agree to everything you said except this last bit. I was born in Constantinople to Greek parents, who were eventually forced to migrate due to extensive anthellenic aggressions while I was only 4. I've lived most of my life as a traveller and an immigrant in various countries of Europe. During the 20th century over 2 million Greeks were expelled from Turkey and over 400 tousand were slain. Thessaloniki on the other hand, had always been a largerly Greek, Jewish and Ottoman city, with Slavs being only a minority. Despite what the Slavs claim, Greeks had always been a majority in Southern and Central Macedonia (Bitola district). The two scenarios are completely dissimilar, yet I don't complain nearly as much as the Macedonian Slavic editors in wikipedia and all over the internet. I can't just sit by and watch the communist propaganda pass into public view. As for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I openly give my support to the Jews. I don't have an issue with arabs (on the contrary), nor do I compare them to the Slavs, I just think that they are the main source of the problem. They view Israel as a crusader state (which is partly true), and the only reason they don't want to share this land is a thing called Arab pride. The European crusaders who once entered Jerusalem were viewed by the Islamic civilisation as a bunch of barbarians, and they could hardly believe that those people had a religious cause. Things are hardly the same today. I can hardly believe that the perpentrators of 9/11 and all the related events had a religious cause. Even if a Palestinian state is formed (and it soon will), I highly doubt that the conflict will end. The arabs will want more and more and more until the tiny Jewish state is erased from the map. The Jews know this, but no-one else in the world is willing to admit it. Why? Because people (and nations) prefer to remain neutral rather than taking sides. Having the ability to see things clearly and openly pick a side takes courage. Miskin 16:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your knowledge of Wikipedia I was reluctant to revert your change re. the John Cain article but did so because from my reading it seems clear that the politics of Pyramid was in large part driven by the perception of what the state government's role ought to have been. If you still have reservations though, I'll accept your judgement and probably superior information. DarrenRay 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly do believe that you should do so. Miskin 09:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean McVeigh

Could you have a look at Garglebutt's edits on Dean McVeigh. Is there a protocol about merging articles because I find her/his way of dealing with the issue very confronting. Would appreciate any suggestions. DarrenRay 02:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

I don't put in "silly edits." You need to back off and stop harrassing me. I will continue putting in sourced information. If you want to try to censor it, that's your prerogative. But, mark my words. You won't win. RJII 05:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you're calling me a "crank" on the Talk page FDR. I repeat. Stop your personal attacks. We would all appreciate it if you behaved yourself. RJII 03:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psephology

As someone with an interest in psephology, and with an extensive research collection, would you be able to contribute to Gallagher Index? At the moment, it is really only about the index itself and does not compare electoral systems used by different countries. Essentially, I would like to see Wikipedia have an up to date (and constantly updated) version of Arend Lijphart's Electoral Systems and Party Systems. While I would like to do this, I am bit constrained in that I am still learning this area, and doing my honours degree (in Political Science at Victoria University of Wellington). Cheers, --Midnighttonight 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Nope. I am not, nor have ever been, Paula Rizzuto. I'm not logged in at the moment, so you can see my IP - you'll notice that it traces back to the Australian National University, where I'm logged on at the moment. The person I mentioned to you in the email seems to have gotten this into their head since I stepped in to have the Paula Rizzuto article deleted (though it was a near-unanimous vote). Ambi (150.203.2.85) 05:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Michael Danby and Australian legislative election, 2007. Have I stuffed anything up or missed anything? Ambi 05:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the above exchange proves anything at all. No one disputes Paula Rizzuto knows people at Australian National University. Adam has raised a really big issue here about undisclosed political agendas of anonymous/pseudonymous editors. If people won't put their real names to their contributions, there will continue to be this problem. I don't know how to solve it but I welcome the discussion about it. I would certainly like to see Administrators revealing their real identity, even as just a start to increase levels of accountability. DarrenRay 07:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, as I have said here many times. However that does not mean that I do not believe Ambi when she says she is not Paula R. Now that the accusation has been denied, it is up to those making it to substantiate it. Adam 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A helpful Wikipedia editor has emailed me about this, there seem to be many concerned about this issue of anonymity so I think you're onto something Adam. We can ask for a CheckUser on all the editors of these articles, especially those editing political ones while demonstrating a certain agenda. That might be good. DarrenRay 07:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be healthier and more honest if people come forward with their own names and political agendas. DarrenRay 07:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this apply to Zondor, who has just conducted a stupid provocation on Ambi's User page? Adam 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That blog User:Zondor is citing is the Aus politics vandal StephenBengHo's "parody" site. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that Ambi is Rizzuto is the most ludicrous thing I've seen spewed out for a long time. It is a blatant attempt to discredit her and move attention away from the actual articles to the individuals involved in editing them. I believe Ambi is a young person, not a 33-year-old woman, and I believe she is a student at ANU. I've never seen anything that would make me doubt what she says. Anyone pushing this agenda needs to provide some actual, you know, proof. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

Be advised that I am in the process of filing a Request for Arbitration in relation to the edit war between DarrenRay, 2006BC and others. You are being named as an involved party. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi

Could you please consider this link [1] and explain why such material would be removed. --2006BC 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batchelor is in the left? He's never acted like it. I thought he was a member of Unity, but that's irrelevant to this. Anyway, I'm removing this particular paragraph because it biases the article - I wouldn't object to its inclusion half so much if its fans took the time to write too or three articles on the rest of Batchelor's career. More than half of an article about a relatively distinguished minister being about some random incident from 1985 is not on. Ambi 05:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that it's biased, but I'll defer to your experience and leave it alone. Ambi 05:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gowrie

Hello! My name is Heathcote, and my great grandfather is Alexander Hore-Ruthven, and i belive you started the wikipedia artical about him...i'm sure you got help on whatnot from other wikipedians but you did a great job. If you want any bits of information that i may be able to get from my grandfather, i'd be more than glad to help.

Peace and love Heathcoteheat 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Nation Party

G'day Adam,

I'm sure you've seen m:The wrong version. Ahem. Seriously, now: yours is the last edit made to One Nation Party. I didn't deliberately protect on any version, but you'll concede, I hope, that the version protected is in fact coincidentally your own version. Why does it contain defamatory statements? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi - Lidia Argondizzo

[2]

Interesting that Ambi is also pre-occupied with deleting references to Argondizzo being in the Socialist Left as well. It's amazing that someone in Canberra has such an interest in local ALP MP's from the Left. We must truly live in a global village. DarrenRay 03:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, knock it off. Most Aussie political editors have edited outside their state/territory (some of my better articles have been on Victorian state politicians, for example). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome it, I don't welcome the bias and deletion of relevant material. DarrenRay 04:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is 'who' considers it relevant and 'who' considers it POV. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how that happened with Andrew Olexander. I'm sure a previous version mentioned it - I suspect it got lost in later edits. Ambi 12:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olexander

I don't see why you shouldn't edit articles about politicians, it would be a shame to miss out on your knowledge.

With Andrew Olexander do you really think it's appropriate to list a number of MP's as homophobes based on the untested assertion of one angry guy. Yes the allegations are denied and that's noted but I thought removing the names was the measured response. I'm not going to insist on it but I thought it was something to think about. DarrenRay 04:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know of one of them, I believe him too, for what it's worth. DarrenRay 06:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]