User talk:Newshounder

Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 23:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC) The current date and time is 5 November 2024 T 23:26 UTC.[reply]

P.S. I like messages :-P

Douglas Wood

Good edits here and elsewhere. We can use some Australian editors who are not slaves to the Wikipedia slightly-left-of-centre orthodoxy. Adam 13:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I will also oppose the insertion of right-wing POV in articles. Adam 09:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a couple of your changes to John Kerr came close. Adam 13:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Age

Your edits to the Age article were reverted because they were POV and incorrect. The Age editorialises pro-free trade and their editors treatment of a particular individual case is irrelevant to the paper as a whole unless you can prove otherwise. Leunig isn't that left-wing and information about the business' profitability is unverifiable. - Aaron Hill 13:00, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Refer to the following editorials: "Why free trade with the tigers is crucial", 30 November 2004, "From rhetoric to reality in free trade", 3 August 2004.

Quote from the latter:

If lofty rhetoric and lots of promises sufficed to bring change, global trade barriers would have crumbled long ago. The nations of the world have been vowing to scrap the subsidies, tariffs and quotas that restrict the trade in agricultural products, in particular, for more than a decade. In Geneva at the weekend, the 147 member states of the World Trade Organisation did so again. Do they really mean it this time? In the United States, Japan and the European Union, farm lobbies wield considerable political clout. Each time the governments of these wealthy nations have raised the prospect of opening their markets to the farm products of other countries, including Australia, they have given themselves an escape clause. The Geneva meeting was no exception: as well as pledging to end agricultural protection, it allowed governments to protect "sensitive products". Whether this latest round of promises turns out to be yet another round of empty words will depend on what is allowed to count as "sensitive". If US beef, the EU's milk lakes and cheese mountains, and Japanese rice are considered too sensitive to touch, the producers of these products in other countries can expect to be shut out yet again. The test will be in the detailed talks on implementation that have yet to begin, but there is cause for hope in a greater desire for real change on the part of the EU. This is perhaps a consequence of having been mugged by reality - the hefty subsidies paid to farmers are becoming too expensive for the expanded, 25-member union.

Sounds pro-free trade to me. - Aaron Hill 13:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

"Leunig isn't that leftwing"?? Adam 13:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not as described, no. - Aaron Hill 13:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

You have to be joking. Adam 13:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have never reverted the Age article before. - Aaron Hill 13:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

If Leunig isn't left-wing then John Howard doesn't like cricket. Newshounder 13:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't "ultra" left-wing. That's the issue. Saying Leunig isn't left wing is like calling Turnball a monarchist: certainly untrue, but he's not an "ultra" republican. - Aaron Hill 14:38, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Branch stacking

I just looked at your edits. You need to remember that Wikipedia is subject to the laws of defamation. I don't think you can name MPs as stackers unless they have been found guilty of it. Also your little joke is not very encyclopaedic. Adam 13:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Age

It looks like we got into an edit conflict on The Age; my apologies. I'm editing more for style than POV; things like how, yes, Leunig is left-wing, and not all that funny IMAO, but there's no need to say so more than once in a stub article. Also, I have doubts as to whether the allegations about the paper's revenue sources should be in the article at all if they remain unproven, though I remain open to persuasion. Cheers, J.K. 14:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do agree that Leunig is left-wing just not "ultra left-wing" as stated. And why did you remove the fact that the newspaper endorsed both Howard and Beazley and why did you insert POV about the Herald Sun? - Aaron Hill 14:36, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

How 'bout we just take this to the article's Talk page? J.K. 14:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will rapidly revise my opinion of you if you make edits like the last one you made to the Age article. Such childishness just wastes the time of other editors. Adam 01:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your info, David Syme did not found the Age. He and his brother Ebenezer bought it from the founders. Secondly, yes Syme supported a white Australia, but so did virtually everyone else in Australian politics and journalism at that time. It is facile and ahistorical to use a late 20th century label like "racist" to describe attitudes of earlier periods, rather like criticising George Washington for not supporting affirmative action or same-sex marriage. Thirdly the term "left-wing" is so hackneyed, and so contested, that it is no longer a serious descriptive term and is nothing but a piece of cheap political abuse. If you intend using Wikipedia to pursue shallow political agendas rather than write serious articles, you will find yourself getting reverted rather a lot. Adam 05:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspan was editor of a Scottish newspaper before coming to Melbourne, so I assumed he was a Scot. That however is a minor matter compared to your other edits, some of which are useful but others are just political pointscoring and will be changed. You seriously think anyone other than a conservative used language like "pinko rag", for example? My memory is that the Kerry Packer "Goanna" story was in the National Times, not the Age, but it was a long time ago so I may be wrong. (Anyway I still think it is true). Adam 12:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see Ambi has reverted your edits, saving me the trouble. Actually I would have kept some of them, and I will reinstate some of them when you and Ambi stop reverting each other. I am puzzled that you spoil your reputation here with such silly shallow childish editing as putting the Henderson quote in the opening paragraph. These are just partisan cheap shots which you know will be reverted, wasting your time and ours. Adam 12:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You really are very stupid, aren't you? You think the way to overcome left-wing bias at Wikipedia is through cheap personal abuse? Now Ambi will have a good case for having you blocked. Adam 13:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now you have been banned, and serves you right. You can't say you weren't warned. Adam 14:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Anurag Dikshit.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Anurag Dikshit.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.