User talk:Tri400

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Flags next to names of executives in infoboxes

I noticed you've been adding flags next to the names of executives in the infoboxes. Now I love flags, I think they can add a lot to articles by making it easier to get information at a quick glance, but adding flags for the national origin of executives seems a bit much. Is this really necessary? What value do you believe it adds? The national origin of an executive is not one of the most important things about them.

But also it introduces the tricky question of what flag to put for someone. Take for example Rupert Murdoch -- born and raised in Australia, but now an American citizen, living in the US. American flag or Australian flag? And I noticed on National Australia Bank you put both the Australian flag and the Lebanese flag next to Ahmed Fahour. Why? He was born in Australia, is an Australian citizen, and lives in Australia. His only tie to Lebanon is his ethnicity. Surely putting flags next to executives' names to indicate their ethnicity is not warranted. --Crocodile Punter 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I like to see the effective use of flags, and don't entirely agree with the essay WP:FLAGCRUFT, but these edits, like the one to Optus do appear to cause issues rather than add value - as discussed in the essay. -- Rob.au 13:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What Issues?

The fact that the Optus leadership is not Australian? I think you have issues. Tri400 05:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you have seriously misinterpreted my issue with your edits to the Optus article. Firstly, you continue to cause collateral damage while reinstating the flagcruft, on your latest edit you have caused the following damage to the article (and not for the first time):
  • Paul O'Sullivan's position title is Chief Exectuive not CEO. Check the Optus website, the difference is notable.
  • Optus main offices are in Sydney, but they operate all over Australia. Hence why it is important to leave the (headquarters) notation
Secondly, I notice on subsequent edits you have become focussed on asserting the Singaporean nationality of two high level staff members, when this is genuinely irrelevant. The article is about Optus, not about the individuals. The article already outlines Optus' relationship to SingTel, in that it is a wholly owned subsidiary. With your latest edit I am finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith in your edits. Now that I have started losing this ability to assume good faith in your edits, I notice that the majority of your use of flags has been to demonstrate alleged non-Australians in charge of Australian companies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a politcal tool, and this should be carried out elsewhere. -- Rob.au 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to add the summary - biographical information (such as nationality) belongs on articles about individuals and elsewhere only where a person's nationality is important to the subject of the other article. A person's ability to perform their duties is not impacted by their nationality, so it doesn't belong in company infoboxes. -- Rob.au 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optus Headquaters and CEO

The article already says "Headquaters" then you are saying it again. That's stupid and its not on any other telco's page.

Chief Executive is CEO, those terms are interchangable. [1] If you believe that they are not, point me to a single page on the web where it says they are different.

My point exactly is that foreign members in a management team can and does bring benefits to an organization. If you disagree with the wikipedia policy on the use of flagicons, that's your problem. It offers a quick glance at the origins of the management team, as on many other pages, especially if there is nothing written about the management team. Tri400 01:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your point of "foreign members in a management team can and does bring benefits to an organisation" is appropriate in a neutral point of view encyclopedia article. This is not neutral, it is expressing and prompting a non-neutral opinion and as such should be avoided. Please read WP:NPOV. Further, there is no specific wikipedia policy on flagicons, just a strong body of opinion that under existing policies they tend to add clutter and don't add value to the article. My stance is that your use of flagicons has two impacts - it adds clutter AND it causes the articles to be non-neutral. This is a problem. As for the position title, Optus refers to it as "Chief Executive" - this makes it the only accurate why to describe it. -- Rob.au 05:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I would also appreciate it if you would remain civil in these discussions. We have a difference of opinion, but there is no need to say "I think you have issues" or "That's stupid" or "that's your problem". Please see WP:CIVIL. By all means, disagree with me - but please be civil about it. -- Rob.au 05:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paspaley

A tag has been placed on Paspaley, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Andante1980 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted page

Which page are you talking about? NawlinWiki 14:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Bob Woolmer

Hi, regards your reversion of my redirect and your comparison with the OJ Simpson case;

  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper WP:NOT
  • Information in Wikipedia must be verified and attributed WP:V WP:A
  • No original research WP:OR
  • Currently on wikipedia we have a problem that a majority of our 1.7million articles are of poor quality. Many are little more than stubs.

Currently the cause Woolmer's death is unknown and the subject of much media speculation. It's the subject of the media and so there's a lot of interest in it. This means there's a lot of people adding to the article. Having two articles means that their efforts are being split into two articles.

The best way to achieve our target of quality articles is to firstly add the event to the parent article. After the flurry of public interest and associated edits has slowed down, and we have all the facts (ie the official police reports are concluded). Then the article can be copy edited and brought to a stable state. The references can be checked and cleaned up. Then and only then are we in a position to see if creating a retrospective article on the subject of his death/murder/accident/whatever (we just don't know yet). In fact it's easier at that point to cut and paste the section out and write a summary for the main article than it is to clean up two duplicate articles and attempt to merge the section of the main into the sub article.

OJ Simpson's case pre-dates Wikipedia itself, and as such there's a large body of reference material that can be drawn upon. In OJ's case a retrospective article can be written as there's a lot of source material to write a retrospective quality article.

Just a few things for you to consider for the future.

Cheers, Monotonehell 17:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Because that would be counter-productive. The Woolmer article was already in full swing with the death. There was a concerted effort to keep the speculative rumours out of the article. The second article was simply a cut and paste of the original section. The main point here is that the creation of the second article was premature. We, as an encyclopaedia, should wait for the full story to come out before creating a new article. Otherwise we are being a newspaper. That's what Wikinews is for. --Monotonehell 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pathologist

Can you please take care with this pathologist thing. The edit summary where you said 'first pathologist is incompetent Indian' bordered on racism. Indeed, I don't see any need to mention the fact he's from India at all as he's been working in Jamaica for 12 years and is a government pathologist. It's not as if he was specially flown in from India for the job. Furthermore, this pathologist thing doesn't appear to have attracted much controversy. Only one person has outright criticised him. Another said maybe it was mishandled but maybe it was just the way he wanted to handle things. From what I can tell, neither had even looked at the report or spoken to the pathologist in question. Therefore, this pathologist thing should only get brief mention if at all. And we have no idea why an additional pathologist was flown in. It isn't uncommon for multiple & more experienced patholigists to be used in high profile cases. Assuming it was because the first pathologist is incomponetent is grossly unfair. Please remember BLP. Incidently, I for one ruled out a heart attack fairly early on. One of the early statements from Pervez Mir mentioned blood and vomit in the room and/or on the body. For whatever reason, the media didn't pick up on this directly but it seemed fairly unlikely to me it was a heart attack. Nil Einne 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not racism because i myself am Indian. Tri400 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Captcha-gmail-activate.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Captcha-gmail-activate.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ratan-naval.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ratan-naval.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narendra Modi

I removed your addition to his article. The references don't back up the material added. Recurring dreams 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Criminal MPs

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Criminal MPs. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 16:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That was days ago; I can't remember who the article attacked. I can assume it was the MPs if they were the subject. I tagged the article as an attack page, meaning that it violated NPOV and fitted WP:CSD#G10. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WSJ India edition

Please provide evidence on the article's Talk page supporting your assertion that this is the Indian edition of [WSJ.com this]. One is owned by HT Media and the other by Dow Jones. The supposed "Indian edition" lists WSJ.com as a partner. --ElKevbo 19:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nike, Inc.

The Nike, Inc. article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shahrukh Khan

Please stop reverting my edits and adding fangush. Youtube is not a reliable site according to WP:RS. And he was born in New Delhi, unless you can cite a reliable site o prove otherwise. ShahidTalk2me 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well first off, the hospital in which his mother dies is not needed here. Please add quality information. Youtube is not reliable (unfortunately), that's Wikipedia's standard, and I don't think you or me can protest it. Therefor I request you to find that information in some good reference from a reliable site. ShahidTalk2me 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)