User talk:Motor

Software infobox

Sorry, I have no idea where I am meant to put this reply! Anyway, just thought I would say that I went to the discussion page intending to add a comment saying it seems like a good idea to add the logo to the box. I spotted that someone else had already brought it up, although there were no more posts on that thread, so I thought I would just be bold and try to implement it! I'm afraid I had no idea how much discussion might be needed before doing something like that. I did realise that pages with no icon displayed logo={{{logo}}} but thought it might prompt people to actually add the logo on those pages! It was an experiment really, I was interested to see how the community would react. Maybe I should have created a variant template and used it on the first article that I had added a logo to, which was Eclipse (software). Maybe I'll try that? CharlesC 13:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You could have just replied on your own talk page. After I posted there I added it to my watchlist -- not that it matters really. You were right to be bold about adding the logo, but because a template changes can alter so many pages at once it's usually prudent to leave a note explaining what you are planning and see if there are any views first (unless it's just fixing a typo etc etc). Having said that, it's often the case that going ahead and changing it is what prompts some action, while yakking on the talk page gets nowhere... meh. I've always tried to compromise: for example, I wouldn't create a new template just yet (it's your choice though)... I'd post on the Software template talk page telling everyone what I was planning, and if you don't get a reaction by tomorrow, just go ahead and add it... but it would be diplomatic to fix up the pages that will be changed by your modification. - Motor (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Outer Limits

Are you an Outer Limits fan too? --Blizzard 1

I suppose so. There's an episode on every day at the time I sit down to watch the TV, so I've seen and enjoyed a lot of them. By the way, you can sign and date your additions to talk pages by using four tilde "~" characters in a row. --Motor 10:38, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

Motor, I've put a note to you on The Outer Limits discussion page. Slowmover 20:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

'Personal Attacks'

Pardon me Motor if this is a 'personal attack', but you seem prickly in the extreme. The only thing I can recall as being anywhere near a comment on you was my last (exceedingly minor) edit of the KDE page where I corrected the spelling of 'organization', and as part of a comment I said 'silly Motor'. *That's* a 'personal attack'?! I really have to wonder how you woulda reacted if I had actually insulted you. Sheesh. And as for the anonymous comment, I stand by it- what idiot edits an article, for the sole purpose of making one statement wrong?

The "K" originally stood for "Kool" ("C" as in "cool" was The "K" originally stood for "Kool" ("C" as in "cool" was already given away to the Common Desktop Environment), but was changed soon after to stand simply for "K", which is "The first letter after 'L' (which stands for Linux) in the Latin alphabet."

That was his modification, I corrected it. 'K' does not come after 'L'- 'M' does. Was it maybe intemperate? Yes. Was it wrong? No.

In summary- I didn't insult you, so back off; and the anonymous person made a bonehead, plain wrong edit, and I was exasperated. --maru 15:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See maru talk page for reply. --Motor 16:40, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, the Wikipedia guidelines for American vs British English say to use whichever is either most predominant in Wikipedia, or what applies best to the article or what the article is written in, in order of ascending priority. Wikipedia is largely in American English, Gnome is an American project, and reading through the article, the only thing that I can find that is British English and not American, is precisely the word we are quarrelling over. So I think I can safely say it should be 'organization', not 'organisation'. But I don't want a revert war, so I'm gonna drop it until I hear from you. 'Course, we could always go to arbitration... --maru 15:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all... I notice you have now modified your original bold and incorrect assertion that "American English" is the standard on Wikipedia. Second... GNOME is not largely an American project, that is simply incorrect. Third, I wrote most of the article, and I can assure that it is "British" English with a few exceptions where other people written something and I didn't "correct" it (naturally), or where I simply preferred the "American" spelling when writing it. Fourth, when I edit I try to fit in with the style of a pre-existing article. I would also revert the edits of anyone who started converting an "American" spelling article into "British" spelling one while adding nothing of substance. I do not edit the writing of others to fit my style or spelling, and I have no intention of allowing you to simply start changing the spelling of an article to suit your personal preferences -- and I think you'll find that any arbitration will agree with me on this since it is the only workable policy in articles that are not *definitely* British or American or anything else. Certainly considering that your contributions to the article are minimal.

If you wish to do something constructive to the GNOME article, I made a few suggestions on the talk page. I would welcome the help, since (as I said) I wrote most of the article and have felt for a long time that it needs more detail and more voices in order to become a better article. You can see evidence of this in the talk page. --Motor 16:40, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Well, I've done some more thinking, and a lot more editing, about the spelling and personal attack things and I've finally come to the conclusion that you are entirely correct about the personal attacks. I apologize to you and the anonymous user. I'm sorry.

And vis-a-vis the spelling: if you care enough to stop and revert every anonymous IP or registered users change of 'organisation' to 'organization', well, that is within your rights, since you contributed the most to it. But if more and more people keep on trying to change it, you might want to reconsider spending your time that way. --maru 19:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. As for the spelling -- I check every edit on articles of interest to me, that is the nature of wikipedia. Had I let the user alter the heading, it would have made it inconsistent with the rest, not least the "organised" immediately below the heading itself. That is beside the fact that is it is perfectly valid spelling already. Thank you for your concern over how I spend my time, but it's really not necessary. I watch the edits on 150 articles currently and it takes but a few moments to ensure that an edit adds to the quality of the article, and is neither incorrect nor simply ignorant. Wikipedia is designed to make it easy to revert such changes, if necessary. Feel free to contribute to the GNOME article if you wish, as I said, there are many improvements, not least of which are some newer screenshots. Motor 21:59, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

"Link of the gorons"?

Hi, on The Legend of Zelda series races you put this line...

"Notable Gorons - merge in Link of the gorons article"

...in the edit header. Why? The whole point of merging all the characters into a single article was to avoid dispersion of non-notable characters. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just interested as to your reasoning for this. Or have I completely misunderstood this statement? Anyway, thanks in advance! --Master Thief Garrett 00:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I was just noting where the information came from so that anyone interested could follow the edit history by following the link and seeing what happened. Here's a quick summary: I spotted the Link of the Gorons article on the newpages, took a look and realised that it was, at best, a minor character and the data really belonged in the main article. So I copied it across, and made a few minor corrections and changed the Link of the Gorons article to redirect to The Legend of Zelda series races. When creating the edit summary, I mistyped and "Gorons" became "gorons", and the link was broken... and since correcting edit summaries isn't possible... I suppose I should have noted it in the talk page. --Motor 09:10, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

Ahhhh... I hadn't noticed that article. That makes sense now! --Master Thief Garrett 09:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers

Your work on Blackburn Rovers F.C. is absolutely brilliant! What a pleasant surprise to see all that history up there. The image scans are particularly good. You might want to pass your eye over Blackburn to see if you can contribute anything. It's something I've been developing for a while. TreveX^talk 23:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... I'm planning to get around to filling out some of the later history sections too (eventually!). I'll take a look at Blackburn. Motor 08:10, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Bryce Harrington

Hi -- Since you've ben working on the Inkscape article, I thought you might be interested to know that the Bryce Harrington article is currently being voted on for deletion. --Bcrowell 16:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GIMP Toolkit

NOTE:I've copied this to the GIMP Toolkit talk page. If you could continue it there please... - Motor (talk) 09:53:59, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Why did you reverse my edit to GIMP Toolkit ? The information that it's architecturally unfit for garbage-collected language is true, important and relevant to in the section about support for programming languages. Taw 02:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Because with the edit (and edit summary) you were trying to make a case, and not writing a encyclopedia article (and yes, I read the link you included). As I said in my edit summary, wikipedia isn't for grinding axes, nor is it a surrogate for mailing list technical disputes. Also, considering the link you provided, I'm pretty sure it counts as original research - Motor (talk) 04:46:00, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any case, I'm merely documenting the facts, and they're not disputed by anyone.

According to your own link, they do seem to be disputed -- if not the fact that you can provoke a memory leak (which is hardly unique), then certainly the severity of the problem. Not to mention, this isn't a highly technical article.

I and Ruby/GNOME2 developers found a problem that requires a change to Gtk architecture to fix correctly.

I'm not disputing that you have a technical issue with GTK while writing Ruby bindings (who doesn't), nor am I interested in defending GTK developers, merely stating that Wikipedia is not the place to complain about specific "bugs". Does the official GTK documentation acknowledge the problem, if so, perhaps you could quote that?

One of the Gtk developers that answered agreed that the problem exists, but he's clear they're not going to fix it. So nobody's disputing the facts. The problem (cooperation across GC boundaries) is not unusual, it should be documented in general in any decent reference on GC,

Your edit was not documenting the issue. It was complaing about it. Your post to the mailing list documents the issue, and that's where it belongs. If you think it hasn't had due attention, then repost it. In fact, you might find it useful to include a link to your edited version of the article. You can find a link to it via the page history (sorry if you already know this, I'm just covering bases).

and in the Gtk case it seems it has been already discussed, even as early as 1998, wrt Guile bindings. If you cared to read No original research, you'd see quite clearly that this has nothing to do with my edit. Taw 08:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read it... it is original research. You think you've found a big technical problem with GTK. Reading the link it's clear that he does not agree with you about the severity of the problem, in fact he says quite clearly that "they" designed around it. None of this is relevant -- you are quoting your own research on a mailing list as a source. As I said, the mailing list is the place for this. - Motor (talk) 09:03:52, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Merging Hammer Film Productions Ltd.

The Hammer Film Productions Ltd. article has lots of great stuff about the pre-horror days of the studio, but I'm not sure about how to merge it with the Hammer Horror article, if at all. I can handle the merging of the prose, but the technical side worries me a little - edit histories and so on. Advice welcome.Rayray 14:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I assume that you are planning to unify all the Hammer articles into one all-conquering Hammer article that covers all their operations and history? In that case, you need to decide first of all what you are going to call it. Let's assume (just for this explanation) that it's going to be Hammer Film Productions.

Currently, Hammer Horror contains the most detail and the most useful edit history, so that will be the page upon which we will build. This is how I would proceed (if you agree let me know). There is currently a redirect on Hammer Film Productions -- I will put that up for speedy deletion (there shouldn't be a problem, it has no real edit history.. it was created purely as a redirect).

Once that page is deleted, I/you will move the Hammer Horror (see the "Move This Page" option on the sidebar of the article) to Hammer Film Productions. Then we can begin sorting out the other redundant Hammer pages to redirect to Hammer Film Productions (assuming all the info has been merged). Let me know if the name sound right, or if you have something else in mind. - Motor (talk) 15:21:27, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

BTW: The reason I suggest Hammer Film Productions as the base is that it's listed as the production company for all the film and tv stuff, and it's not common to see companies on Wikipedia listed with inc. or Ltd. etc etc. - Motor (talk) 16:38:00, 2005-08-19 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and put "Hammer Film Productions" up for deletion and it went through. I've moved "Hammer Horror" to Hammer Film Productions. So I suggest you go ahead and merge in the information from Hammer Film Productions Ltd. -- but watch out if you plan to copy blocks of text. I can't say for sure, but the page looks like it could be a copyright violation. I may be unfairly maligning the writer, but looking at the edit history I see lots of prose suddenly pasted to create a new article by an unlogged in user, and that often smells of copyright problems.

I, Robot (disambiguation)

G'Day Motor. In I, Robot (disambiguation) you wiki-linked extra words, which disrupts the efficiency of a disambiguation page (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)). I've changed the format to one link per line. Otherwise, you fixed up the page nicely, cheers. --Commander Keane 12:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I read the guide before making the change, and it gives one example using the Grateful Dead in which the band name is linked, IMO because it helps people find what they are looking for. The statement "one link per line" is quite clearly marked as disputed, and flatly contracted by the example. The previous state of I, Robot had lots of unneccessary links, but I see nothing wrong with linking the artists, it's going OTT that causes problem. - Motor (talk) 13:31:05, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

That's cool. --Commander Keane 13:38, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I, Robot (short story)

Hiya. I think that I, Robot (short story) should *also* link to the Cory Doctorow story, as it's another "I, Robot" short story, rather than getting rid of the link entirely -- Palfrey 20:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the article isn't about "I, Robot" short stories generally, it's about the original Eando Binder short story titled "I, Robot", which doesn't really have anything to do with Cory Doctorow's later story (which, as I understand it is more a take-off of Asimov's short stories). Having said that, the article really does need a disambig line linking to I, Robot (disambiguation), which already links to the Doctorow article. Thanks for bringing it up. - Motor (talk) 21:04:51, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

Tigon British Film Productions

Motor - I've started an article on Tigon British Film Productions, which is linked from Hammer Film Productions. I'm going to expand it a bit over the next week or so, but thought you might be interested in adding to it, or at least making sure it all looks OK.Rayray 13:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to seeing the result. - Motor (talk) 14:07:20, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Re: Blackburn Rovers edits

Fair enough, I was concerned about the intro becoming a second history section which was happening with some other club articles, but now that I've re-read it I can see it more as a summary. I just made one minor change that isn't really summary information (League Cup score), and expanded upon it in the "new millenium" section. And I assure you it's not just because I'm a Spurs fan! ;) - Pal 20:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

GNOME

Sorry if I was unpolite. -- Carloswoelz 02:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Opera

You know very well that the discussion about Opera's license is located at that page's discussion page, you are taking part in that discussion on that page yourself , so don't try to make me discuss it somewhere else.

That's a dishonest way to handle these discussions. It is like setting followup to another newsgroup in usenet. It takes only one such trick from you to destroy your own reputation, and you just did it. ~ Roger4911 01:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Discussions regarding changing the software infobox template are taking place on the infobox discussion page; discussion regarding Opera are taking place on the Opera discussion page. Furthermore, it's probably a good idea to familiarise yourself with how templates work. - Motor (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope you are aware that the page Opera_browser_features was created for the same purpose you are proposing(?)to disambiguate the opera_(web_browser) page. (The Opera browser in itself is not ambigous but contains all its features). I would really like to urge your caution when moving pages that has previously been discussed and agreed upon to create. I would commend you for a lot of your cleanup work (also on the Opera page), but please stay away from moving pages around like this. I am tempted to revert to the version the existed before you merged, and link to main feature articles (Like the one about M2) from the features page instead. TomAn 16:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

First, no pages have been "moved" in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Second, I read all the discussions before starting to edit the page. Third, I added a merge template to each article, and then started a discussion on the Opera Browser page, and then waited a respectable amount of time to listen to any objections... and then began slowly moving the information across ensuring that, at each stage, interested editors could see what was happening. The fact remains that "Opera Browser Features" was a pointless page consisting of (a) redundant and poorly written information, and (b) lists of keystrokes and howtos that are completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. There was simply no justification for it to exist separately from "Opera (web browser)".

The Opera Browser page is open for discussion about how to proceed from here... do we start a more appropriately named article ("Opera (internet suite)" possibly) dealing with the timeline of the suite as a whole, or not. Feel free to contribute to that if you wish, but as far as I'm concerned Wikipedia is better off without the "Opera Browser Features" article. - Motor (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If you read any of what I said as constructive critisism, you would have noticed that I suggested using the opera_browser_features as a page for more detailed articles. Why do you think detailed descriptions are "completely inappropriate"? The page was created for that purpose. And why do you think it had no justification existing? Do you know why it was separated? It would have been better to clean the two pages up independently than to merge them and spawn new pages for the same reason opera_browser_features was created. This is the same as ie. Firefox has and it was agreed upon by all the editors then. (And IMHO, 5 days is too little when deciding to merge a page.) TomAn 09:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you had read my reply properly. I don't think detailed descriptions are inappropriate, I think that documenting keystrokes and writing howtos is inappropriate for Wikipedia -- that is what Opera's help system is for. The Opera Browser Features articles was and remains a pointless article (with a poorly chosen name) with virtually zero content over and above the opera web browser article. And finally, I consider 5 days more than enough time, especially considering the state the Opera article(s) were in. Having taken a look at your edit history I notice that it was around 5-6 months since you last edited the Opera article, or any article (not counting any edits today) -- I'd say that's probably a bit too long to wait for comments. - Motor (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I take your point, but I still think that documenting unique features is good. Header navigation and spatial navigation (which you are referring to by keyboard shortcuts) is not something people know what is since it does not exsist in any other browser. Showing what it is by the shortcuts worked well. Lets see where this heads. I think linking to separate articles where appropriate could be a good thing. TomAn 11:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I still think that documenting unique features is good. -- as do I. "which you are referring to by keyboard shortcuts" -- have a look back over this thread... I've always deliberately used the term "keystrokes", not "keyboard shortcuts". I don't mind explaining that you can, for example, "navigate between headings using just the keyboard"... look in the article source and you'll find an HTML comment (added by me) saying that we should explain what access keys are (in general terms) and what they do within the Opera article itself and not rely on a link. However, it's not appropriate to document what keys to hit in order to do it, or more generally, what steps you need to take to perform certain actions. We only need to tell people what Opera can do, not how to do it because that's a job for Opera's help system/documentation.

I'll try and put it another way: it's far more useful and appropriate to explain what header navigation is, and above all, why it is important than telling people what keys are used and how to do it. - Motor (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Proprietary Software

I see what you're trying to do, but it would be better if it was based on Template:Infobox Software2. The technical preview of Opera 9 is released, but it can't be mentioned with the old software template. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 07:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I know... nor should it be mentioned in the infobox. An infobox is just for the simplest, most basic, and most important information for those who are skimming. Technical preview releases are better discussed on the article itself. Quite apart from that, (as I've mentioned before) Infobox 2 is far too complicated, confusing for newbies and is radically different from the way normal wikipedia editing works, and does not solve any real problems. - Motor (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Hammer Films Productions - The Mummy

Good stuff on the Mummy - nice to see quotations from the Daily Cinema, and a fuller exploration of this period in Hammer's history.Rayray 11:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you back. I wondered if you'd got tired of Horror film history :) Anyway, thanks... I've added quite a bit of stuff recently and it could do with a good proofing/polishing if you feel like it. - Motor (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

These things go in phases with me... that and I've been applying for my own job and have been pretty busy. Happy to help with polishing and proofing though. Keep up the good work.Rayray 13:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Opera usage share

I understand that Opera does indeed identify itself as Opera even when it identifies itself as a different browser, but what makes you think that the websites that track usage share neccesarily account for this? They certainly could but they may not. I have encountered plenty of websites that have not correctly identified Opera as Opera. What I am looking for is information on whether websites that track usages share know how to identify Opera. I've actually looked for this myself and I haven't been able to find it. Theshibboleth 02:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have encountered lots of small sites that misindentify browsers and produce awful pages as a result... but you want to suggest in the article that Opera is somehow undercounted *by businesses whose job it is to perform this count* because of its UA string -- when, in fact, the Opera identification is right there to be counted by even the most incompetent coder. There isn't the slightest evidence to suggest that this is true, or that it has even a miniscule effect on browser share usage figures. These articles are supposed to be factual and verifiable. I hope you've noticed that the version I keep reverting to is a simple statement of facts/figures. If you have a problem with the figures themselves, that's fine... but you need to take that up on the Usage share of web browsers page. - Motor (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation on Trollaxor

You have reverted this article three times in the last 24 hours (and four times in the last 36). If you wish to dispute the outcome of the AfD for the article, please do so on WP:VFU. I did not see any consensus on the article's talk page to delete/redirect it. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Fansubs Speedy/AFD

I've placed Lunar Anime on speedy:bio and I've noticed you had strong feelings about fansub groups on wikipedia in a previous AFD. Maybe you're interested in deleting this one, too? --Timecop 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

tv-screenshot not film-screenshot

[:Image:OL-thegalaxybeing.jpg] No big deal, but images you load such as this one should be labeled as TV screenshots instead of film screenshots. I fixed the licensing for this image, used in "The Galaxy Being", since I ended up reusing it in Cliff Robertson. Whether such re-use is fair use is a separate question :-) ... 66.167.139.18 23:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC).]]

I know, but the selection in the drop down box when I uploaded said "Television/Film screenshot" (it's now been changed to be seperate catagories)... so as far as I was concerned, it wasn't my problem. - Motor (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cookie Monster

What made you feel the urge to remove the International section of Cookie Monster? It's perfectly legitimate there. -- user:zanimum

I noted my reasons on the article's talk page. In short: people have not supplied any kind of verification for the entries, and I have no way of checking myself. For all anyone knows, the section is full of swear words in non-English languages or people entering their own school nicknames (or anything else for that matter). 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations!!! This Tech Barnstar is presented to Motor from LBMixPro for his edits to the Opera (web browser) article, making the article a highly detailed look into that web suite, while keeping the alternate browser newcomer in mind. May you continue to be a good contributer to Wikipedia.

Baxter Template

Thanks! Lcarsdata ^{Talk | E-mail | My Contribs} 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox2

It would be a bit inconsistant though, as I have started making infobox2's on other GNOME articles. I think that infobox2 makes things a lot easier, and could be used in pages such as Comparison of.... I don't think it is used enough, but on software that doesn't have new versions regularly, 1 is good enough. bruce89 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the "comparison of" bit on the discussion on the Opera talk page... it's not a real problem. Infobox2 makes editing more difficult, not less... because it is completely different from editing anything else on Wikipedia. At best, it makes the lives of people who compile lists and comparison pages slightly easier, but it also puts another barrier of complexity in the way of new editors. It also actively hides edits to a page. It's just not a good trade-off, which is why I've refused to use it on any page I edit... including the main GNOME article, Opera, Nautilus, Metacity, OpenOffice.org, among others. - Motor (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections

Hi! I was just looking at biographies to see how the issue of criticism was handled on various articles. I liked your comments on the Cory Doctorow page, which match my own sentiments. There is a small but vocal group of editors insisting on a criticism section for Xeni Jardin, and the criticism basically seems neither notable nor substantive. However, my attempts at altering that section have met the most resistance I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. Would you be interested in taking a look? Jokestress 02:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Could the reason for the resistance be that in your attempt to get links removed you quoted irrelevant Wiki guidelines to try and back up your weak arguments?--Gerardm 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm trying my best to parse that sentence. Let's see: My reason for removing the criticism sections on Doctorow and Jardin are that neither sections were backed up by reliable sources... as well as other reasons that I listed on Xeni Jardin. Perhaps you should have read that first before coming to my user page. - Motor (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Very clearly that was a reply to Jokestress. As for your response, it is laughable. Are you suggesting that a person in the street can not criticise President Bush because they are not a reliable source? I don't care who criticses someone; if the criticise is valid (note I don't say I agree with it) then it deserves to be reported. Do you believe people don't criticise Jardin? If you don't then why shouldn't their view be represented?