User talk:CarTick/Archive 2
edit fumble
apologies ..see rectified editCityvalyu (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Using the preview option before saving helps avoid running into this type of trouble. DockHi 20:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
About my Fox News edit
I have a source for it, but it's not an article. It would have to be the YouTube video of Keith Olbermann's coverage of this event, or even of the actual McClellan interview.--74.237.241.122 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please read this wikipedia guideline which illustrates why youtube videos can not be considered reliable. A transcript of the same video in MSNBC, CNN, NY times, Washington Post or any similar reliable source will do. Appreciate your interest. DockHi 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you and sorry for the confusion. I have read the introduction / editing requirements. I hope to have the "Autoconfirmed" status soon, as again I have a fantastic picture that I think would benifit the Western Rat Snakes article.
Thanks again,
bcpaddler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcpaddler (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Hyde Act
You asked me to help out on the Hyde Act and whether it binds India. The answer is pretty simple: it doesn't. It binds the United States. However, it does define the parameters for U.S.-India cooperation and create consequences for possible future actions by India. If india conducts a nuclear test, for example, all cooperation would cease and the United States would have the right to demand the return of items supplied under the 123 agreement.
But I feel like it's more up to someone from India to make the point that U.S. domestic law does not bind India. 138.88.154.46 (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. From the article There is ambiguity as to whether the Hyde Act binds India although it can be construed as prescriptive for future U.S. decisions. Why is the ambiguity here then. What does "prescriptive for future US decisions". Guess it needs some clarification for laymen like me to be able to understand. DockHi 23:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's really only one sliver of ambiguity, as far as I can tell. In cases where the 123 agreement is ambiguous, the Hyde Act may provide guidance for its interpretation. The negotiating record (which is not available to the public) would be another source of guidance, and would likely supersede other sources. If, during negotiations, Indian negotiators told their U.S. counterparts that they reject an interpretation based on the Hyde Act, that would likely take precedence. NPguy (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
John Howard
Please don't mess with it - it really is likely to inflame the situation. I have just reverted you and I am the one who added it in the first place! - Regards --Matilda talk 04:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Appologies for sounding dictatorial but ... To explain further - it has recently been subject to page protection. There is a lengthy discussion and you have just arrived to add your two cents. It is currently up for (perhaps a rather sidetracked but anyway ... ) discussion on the BLP noticeboard. Do you know what you are stumbling into? --Matilda talk 04:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Caveat editor then - but please it has been suggested to me and I think it a really good idea that we apply the 1 revert rule (which is voluntary). --Matilda talk 05:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Bruce Edwards Ivins
I explained on the talk page why I removed it. It was not because it was unreferenced but because the whole nation was not terrorized. I was not terrorized and I know many people who were not terrorized. Anthrax, IMO, is not a weapon of mass destruction and it is not something to be terrrorized over. Jons63 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- So I take it you were terrorized by these letters. I don't think of myself as brave, but I am knowledgeable about the effects of anthrax and other CBRN weapons. I lived in the Washington DC area at the time and I was certain that there was no way that anyone, through the mail, would have the ability to infect large numbers of people. There is a possibility that something could happen to anyone, but if it is going to happen it will. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time then there is nothing you can do. But being scared that something might hapen is not a fun way to live. It is the same with with any terrorist plot, 9/11 and DC Sniper to name a couple of others I was in the DC area at the time they happened. Once large numbers of people are terrorized by the actions of a few, the few win. They have accomplished their objective. Jons63 (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I owe you an apology
Here I was rude in my edit summary, and what I wrote in that edit was unnecessarily harsh. Since then, I have gained quite an appreciation for your neutrality and fairness. Please accept both my apology and my thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Edit Warring
There is no edit-warring going on to me. If you look, another editor also removed the entry. Further I DID invite him to discuss the matter on that talk page. But taking a "consensus" from a totally different article and applying it other articles is not proper. It holds no weight with the article in question. This whole issue is not a dispute of fact, but of wp:undue. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- We are not reporting a viewpoint or opinion. We are writing a factual content based on report from a reliable source. We have refrained ourselves from making any extraneous implications. The edit is valid to be where it is based on WP:RS and WP:VERI. Because there is an undisputable connection between the content of the book and the actions of the owner of the book (ownership established in a police search which was reported in a reliable source) , I dont quite think it violates WP:UNDUE. You are making a good point which is that it is not yet established that it is the books which made him crazy. Therefore, I dont support writing such unestablished implications. In summary, as it is now, I dont see any violation of any policy.DockHi 13:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)