User talk:Aude/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aude Maps Photography Toolbox To-do Talk
Archives: August 2004 – December 2005 · January – April 2006 · April - June 2006 · July – September 2006 · October - December 2006 · January - April 2007 · May - July 2007 · July 2007 - April 2008
This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)





Contents

Really small? small as in 49.3 percent of Ney Yorkers saying yes to "some of our leaders knew in advance attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and consciously failed to act"

[[[1]]]

[edit] Portal:Communism

Thanks for your nice comments on the Portal's talk page. I hope you help us, proposing articles and pictures to be selected, updating the "to do" box or the "did you know". Feel free to make any suggestions you want! Thanks! Afonso Silva 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bombs

See Talk:Oklahoma_City_bombing#Proposal.2Fapologies. Thx — Xiutwel (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, but...

Thank you for your response. While I know now the rules of wikipedia, I have a questions. 1. How did you know that I had edited those pages and put what I put?

Secondly, I do have some issuse with your editing.

As a US Marine, who served in Iraq, people like Glick, Beamer, Burnett, and Bingham are personal heroes to me. When I was in Iraq and felt homesick and tired, I looked at a list of names. The above were on that list along with other 9/11 victims. When I looked at thoses names, it reminded me why I was there. "Do it for them" was my motivation. So why can I not honor those 4 men with the word "gallantly"? On numerous Medal of Honor citations for Marines and Soldiers who were awarded posthumonsly, the last sentence reads: "He gallantly gave his life for his country." I beleive that you are being too politically correct. And that's what's wrong with this country. However, I will respect opinion, but I asked that you would reconsider and let me add what I had wrote for those 4 men.

Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.255.254 (talk • contribs)


PS. Both the 9/11 Commission and Al-Queda stated that Flight 93 was headed for the Capitol.

Replied on your talk page. -Aude (talk contribs) 04:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WTC rebuilding

Apparently, Silverstein properties was wrong in their height claims about three of the buildings going up during the WTC reconstruction...as shown in the changes I made here, the heights will be substantially lower than originally reported...it was, I believe just a simple mistake, not a deliberate attempt to mislead...[2]. An anon added the info to the World Trade Center article and I adjusted the three articles I did on these towers to reflect the new data...just thought you'd like to know. Have a good day.--MONGO 16:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

These numbers make more sense. I was somewhat suprised to see that 200 Greenwich Street would be as built as tall as the Empire State Building. Seemed questionable. Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks again and thank you for work on keeping those wacko 9/11 conspiracy theorists out.

[edit] Photographs of Georgia

I notice you have contributed some rather nice photographs of Georgia. There is a particular statue there that Wikipedia lacks a free use photograph of: the original Spirit of the American Doughboy is in Nashville, Georgia, facing East on the Northwest corner of Berrien County Courthouse Square – near the intersection of Marion Avenue and Davis Street, and can be seen on this page. A free photograph would be wonderful, if you ever happen to head out that way, although I know it's not your main editing area on the 'pedia! As for 9/11, keep persevering... TheGrappler 05:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you. I was just there visiting and no plans to go back anytime soon. I suggest asking people listed in Category:Wikipedians in Georgia, USA. I notice PiccoloNamek (talk · contribs) is listed there (has contributed many featured pictures). Maveric149 (talk · contribs) also has contributed some featured pictures. -Aude (talk contribs) 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for that suggestion. That's appreciated - it's a shame there's not a "photo task force" or even a categorized system of wikiphotographers. I know of somebody who was trying to set one up, I may go back and see how they're doing. TheGrappler 04:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you! (Oklahoma City bombing vandal)

Thank you for your speedy action with the repeated vandalism of the Oklahoma City bombing article!! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newsbrowsebar

I like where this redesign is headed. Though, in the newsbrowsebar, there needs to be a link back to the main current events page. That way, the newsbrowsebar can be used on Current events in the United States, and one can easily get back to the main Current events page. -Aude (talk contribs) 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I added a World link. Do you think that is clear enough? joturner 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Biography

Would you happen to know of any good way of getting more comments on this nom? I'd like to have some more opinions there. Kirill Lokshin 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest leaving it up there until Cyberjunkie returns from wikibreak. Also, Worldtraveller recently returned from travels. Maybe he would take a look at the featured portal candidates. Aside from that, I'm not sure. I have some broader, related concerns about the many unmaintained portals. I also wonder if what we're doing, using box-skeleton and making portals topic-specific "main pages" is best? Or if we could be doing something different to attract more maintainers (and readers). de:Portal:USA is quite different, and perhaps more useful with its emphasis on topics? Any thoughts on these broader issues? -Aude (talk contribs) 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. The German portal is nothing more than a glorified linkfarm. It might be useful as a sort of index into the subject, but nobody will actually visit the thing except when they're having trouble with the search tool, as there's no actual content.
I'm not convinced that waiting for Cyberjunkie will be either productive or feasible in the long run, but I suppose that's just my personal take on things. Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have an answer on how to proceed and get more people involved with portals (including featured portal candidates). Broadly, I've been trying to identify which portals are in greatest need of maintainers and would like to reach out to the relevant wikiprojects to recruit. Though, I've tried that with Portal:History with no luck yet. -Aude (talk contribs) 01:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Was coming here to ask how Biography WikiProject can help and see a discussion already under way. WikiProject has been revitalized and we'd love to help out with maintaining the Portal:Biography. How can we best help? Where are nominations made for selected articles? Thanks! plange 03:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banff

I think I finished the last article on the major glaciers to be found in Banff with Saskatchewan Glacier. I wish I could find more recent information about the retreat of these glaciers than I have, but at least the glaciers are now done. I may add more to that section in the article as far as the issue of glacier retreat, but have held back due to the lack of more current info.--MONGO 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for more sources that deal with glacier retreat. Though, I think that more is known about glacier retreat in Jasper National Park (notably Athabasca Glacier). Peyto Glacier has also been studied, a fair amount, but not sure what if anything is recent. -Aude (talk contribs) 00:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Thanks for your help with the FBI article. Just wanted to let you know that. In any case, I am very much into the FBI so I am going to start working on most of the FBI related articles. Since you seem to be interesed in most of them I thought, and you have no obligation of course, that you wouldn't mind starting up a FBI Wikipedia Project, if you thought there was enough information out there. That is the only problem I see. In any case, I am working on FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives design right now and I just wanted to see if you could talk a look at the idea. Thanks.. --Shane (T - C - E) 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. The FBI article has already improved alot since the FA nom. Given a few more weeks, to allow consulting non-web sources, it will be up to FA status. Take a look at the Banff National Park article, which I'm also working on, to see the difference these sources make. There are important aspects of the history (e.g. internment camps) that Parks Canada doesn't say much, if anything, about. It's also likely that the FBI neglects important aspects of its history, criticism, etc. on its website. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
PS. User:Steven Russell has been working on the FBI wanted list article. He might be interested in the WikiProject. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Anyway, it has been created here: Wikipedia:WikiProject FBI Shane (talk/contrib) 05:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:United States Selected article for July 9 to 15

Hi, I just wanted to leave a gentle reminder that the Louisville, Kentucky article was going to be the Selected article this week, but it is not appearing yet. At any rate, thanks for all the support in this process. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When I set this up, I wasn't 100% sure when the week starts. I think Wikipedia uses ISO_8601, so the week starts on Monday (tomorrow). The article should automatically update tonight at 8pm EDT. Also, if there is another article you want selected for a future week, please suggest. Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 17:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal approval

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims? Discussion opened. SilkTork 08:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Domain?

Are your images copyrighted or are they public domain? May they be used? Please let me know --thanks--

My images are licensed under Creative Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 (Cc-by-sa-2.5). This means that you can use them freely, though please attribute the images ("AudeVivere") and please note that the image is licensed under Cc-by-sa-2.5. And, if you want to let me know where they are used, I would be interested in knowing, but it's not required. Thanks. -Aude (talk contribs) 23:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers

I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers and it has a ways to go. I am still working on Banff NP as well, so you know, just thought I would get the ball rolling on this project, which sat in my user subpages for several months. There is a lot of work to be done yet, but if you're interested, help out. No obligations of course.--MONGO 15:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watchlist and make sure my work on Banff and other Canadian Rockies articles are consistent with what others are doing. Though, it may be some time before I get to working on the other national parks articles, as there are some other crime/criminal justice-related articles that I'm working on to bring to featured status. -Aude (talk contribs) 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change?

Did you change your name? -- Shane (talk/contrib) 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I no longer liked my old name - an unimaginative string of letters and numbers - created in the earlier days of Wikipedia. "Aude" is latin for "be bold" --Aude (talk contribs) 20:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't go making automated changes on User_talk pages - it brings up the newmessages banner, but there's no real message. This is irriating. Please stop. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if it bothers you that the "new messages" box appears with minor changes (these are not automated) to your talk page. People periodically make such minor changes to my user talk page, and I could care less. I know there are ways to suppress the new messages box with .css But for personal reasons, my old username is no longer suitable, and I would strongly prefer converting each instance linking to my old user page to the new. Doing so also lets people know that my username has changed. Also, you might want to archive the older messages on your talk page. Again, apologies but its necessary to update the links to my userpage. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to add, there's always a possibility that I need to go back and update something in some old talk page message. Please respect that. If such minor updates bother you, apologies. And, I will think twice about leaving you any future talk page messages. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar for you

The Original Barnstar
For your recent edits to the Washington Metro article. Well done! SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! The article is getting closer to featured status quality. The history section could use more work, with a subarticle, explaining more about why decisions were made to build Metro in the way it was, problems along the way, and mention of transit-oriented developments in parts of the Washington, D.C. area (and lack of in other parts). Zachary Schrag's new book gives good background to these issues, and he provides many references to other sources. When I get some time, I'll try and address these aspects in the article. --Aude (talk contribs) 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
















The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your tireless and effective vandal combat. Best regards. --Buenoma 15:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getting better

I think you're real close with the Banff article. I left a note on the talk page about areas I thought still needed work. I have stepped back to let you take over as I want you to be able to show yourself as the major contributor to getting it to FA. I don't know if you have a featured article, but this one should be yours.--MONGO 05:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ophthalmology missing from the medicine portal

Tthe Medicine portal does not include eyes or feature Ophthalmology as a speciality! That is indeed strange considering that Ophthalmology encompasses a tremendous amount of medicine, besides surgical procedures. Eye complaints and their management is a very common medically managed issue. Being an eye specialist, I feel that it deserves inclusion in the portal and envisage a much wider role for portal as a whole for physicians and surgeons. Excluding other surgical specialities also is, IMO, not desirable. Could you kindly take steps to ensure such an inclusion. EyeMD 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need you remove some double redirect links, please

Hello Aude,

In your User:AudeVivere/WPindex-l from a list dated January 2006:

  • Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest C-E is listed.
  • Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest D-E is listed.
  • Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest F-J is listed.
  • Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest M-O is listed.
  • Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest P-R is listed.
  • Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest P-T is listed.

These are now considered Wikipedia:Double redirects, so please remove them from the list and submit a speedie delete notice to delete these redirects that no longer exist appropriately. Thanks. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amanda Dowler

Would you like to help in the expansion of this page?--Lucy-marie 19:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Silverstein

Please respond the specific points regarding inclusion of controlled demolition theory in talk before reverting the change. Thanks. Antonrojo 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banff National Park looks good

I enlarged the images a bit and reduced some redundant wikilinks, etc. I think it's ready for peer review whenever you have the time to address comments made by reviewers. Good work.--MONGO 19:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A few things left to do, since most of the references date from the 1990s and prior:
  • Review the 1997 and 2004 park management plans.
  • Go through newspaper archives since the mid-1990s, and make sure debates regarding developments are covered properly.
  • Add another historic image, such as a photo of the internment camps, coal mining, or the early railroad.
Then, this can go to peer review. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with PD images the U.S. government has...what about Canada...I would like to add images to the glacier articles affliated with this park...maybe one even in the Banff article if one is good enough.--MONGO 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Canadian government does not put their work into the public domain like the U.S. government. However, the cutoff for material going into the public domain is generally 1949 (compared to 1923 in the U.S.). So, that means that images in some of my books would be usable here, to go in the history section. As for glaciers, I might have something of Saskatachewan Glacier. Otherwise, there is always Landsat satellite imagery. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I see...yes, Landsat...maybe I'll have a peek there...thanks.--MONGO 06:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, check this stuff out...maybe I'm a bit slow..but NASA is linking to Wikipedia...see their blue lined links to hoary marmots, pikas, harlequin ducks on this page.--MONGO 07:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Biography

Hello! Was coming here to ask how Biography WikiProject can help and see a discussion already under way. WikiProject has been revitalized and we'd love to help out with maintaining the Portal:Biography. How can we best help? Where are nominations made for selected articles? Thanks! plange 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I can definitely use help. I only took on maintaining the Biography portal because no one else was. The portal is not set up for nominations, but if you would like to queue up articles for future weeks, that would be great. Or, if you want to change the "selected picture"... I'm getting behind on the "selected anniversaries", but am going through a copy of the enwiki database to pull together data to setup these up for the rest of the year. If you have any other ideas for the portal, they would be more than welcome. --Aude (talk contribs) 19:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've set up a nominations page for the selected article-- how do you decide what goes on the selected anniversaries? I can start adding some to certain dates when I run across bios plange 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work on the portal. I'm glad to have a WikiProject behind the portal. How do I set up the "anniveraries"? I try and pick out approximately 14 biographies of most importance, using a multi-step process:
  1. Copy all the entries (under "Births" and "Deaths") for a day (e.g. August 10) into a sandbox page.
  2. Then, get the last 5000 related changes in the past 30 days. [3].
  3. In an external text editor, I work through these and pick out the biography articles with the most edits, keeping in mind that this tends to give bias towards pop culture and sports figures.
  4. I also have a copy of the database (the page and category tables). The MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia has a feature to track page hits (visits), however the feature has been turned off for Wikipedia. Nonetheless, the tables have page hits totals, up to a certain point. This is also useful to pick out biography articles of some importance.
  5. In picking out biographies, I try to avoid bias by picking only so many Americans, only so many sports figures, and represent different historical time periods.
I'm working with the database to automate this more. I'm developing a table that will have "important" biography articles listed, along with date of birth and death, and importance (as determined by page hits, # of recent changes, or inclusion in certain categories such as Current national leaders). This can be used to set up pages for the rest of the year, as well as update the date pages (e.g. August 10) with any important missing people. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request your attention to the GoldToeMarionette case

GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs) had a WP:RFCU inappropriately completed on their account by Jayjg (talk · contribs) and Hall Monitor (talk · contribs) blocked the account after it was identified as a multiple account despite their being no violation of Wikipedia policy by GoldToeMarionette. These users did not respond to requests to undo the action.

Other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Comments on RFCU itself [4]
Other Admins contacted [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
Hall Monitor was emailed with no reply
GoldToeMarionette posted on the account's User and Talk Pages seeking assistance when the talk page was protected without the issue being discussed. User:GoldToeMarionette User_talk:GoldToeMarionette

GoldToeMarionette notified article contributors that illustrative examples were subject to an AfD. The account strictly followed the WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming guideline. The AfD was without controversy. GoldToeMarionette did not participate in the vote. HereToCleanup removed the posts following the AfD in accord with the widely accepted Wikipedia Guideline Wikipedia:Spam#Internal_spamming that states "Clean up your mess. For example, after engaging in cross-posting to promote some election, be sure to remove those cross-posts after the election is complete." [10]

Since GoldToeMarionette was strictly following Wikipedia Policy, there should not have been a Check User completed by Jayjg. Hall Monitor only blocked the account because it was labeled as a sockpuppet by Jayjg's completed Check User. Absent policy violation it should not have been processed in RFCU or been blocked. I am asking for your help to confirm that policy was not violated, administrative action should not have been taken, and request that the administrative action be reversed by unblocking GoldToeMarionette and unprotecting the talk page. Thank you for your time with this request. RealTime 02:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This user went around spamming all the admins beginning with A, see my talk page Ashibaka tock 18:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney

A portal created recently by Mallimak (talk · contribs) - the Orkney Portal - has been nominated for deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion please contribute at:

Thanks. --Mais oui! 08:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy video

Another one just popped up at 9/11: The Great Illusion. It's on Amazon but not on IMDB. I'm not sure what to do with it. Gazpacho 01:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, yes I am. Gazpacho 01:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the user's edits on 911 (disambiguation). There are more google search results for this video than the other one, but not near as many as Loose Change (video). The search results don't turn up reliable sources that discuss the video. AFD is a good place to take this for wider input and consensus. --Aude (talk contribs) 01:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Maps link patrol

It's nice to see someone else doing patrol on the links in the article. More eyes are always welcome.

I did want to give one suggestion. When I'm doing the patrol, I tend to follow a personal 1RR rule on the links. No one single link is the problem, it's the accumulation of them that begins when they are not cleared that is the problem. So there's not much to be gained by edit warring over a single link. If I see a new, undiscussed one, I'll remove it. If it is put back in, I will not remove it again until the next day. But come the next day, I will definitely remove it again. And in the mean time, I would be trying to get the link-pusher to come to the talk page to discuss why their link should stay. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good strategy. We use it on the September 11, 2001 attacks article, which has really helped cut down on amount of conspiracycruft and linkspam there. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent AfD

Hello. You recently participated in an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco Bell menu. The article was deleted but is up for deletion review here. I thought you may be interested in participating in that discussion. Ifnord 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glacier morphology

That was quick! Thanks!--MONGO 14:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On a side note...the "talk" link in your sig seems to direct me to your userpage...if that matters...maybe it's just user error on my part.--MONGO 15:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Updated my sig. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banff

I see...do you want me to pull it.--MONGO 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. I haven't really the time yet to go through peer review comments either. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I have the nom in my userspace now so you just let me know when you're ready--MONGO 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I never announce wikibreak. Please just keep watch on Larry Silverstein and the S911T articles. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The article count could still be listed but the wording changed to. Wikipedia is current;y working on 1,337,456 articles in English. This way it gives people an incentive to join it and improve it and acknowledging that despite so many articles it is not perfect. To say that we should stop expanding it is absolute rubbish. I strongly beleive that yes our priority should be to improve existing articles but do you realise how many very important articles are currently missing from the project? 81.102.25.233 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma City bombing 23.8.

hi, please react to: talk page Thanks, — Xiutwel (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Oklahoma City bombing#ready to insert? — Xiutwel (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try and think of some contribution to the wording of the paragraph I want to insert, in stead of objecting to any mentioning. Please? — Xiutwel (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Geography Wikiproject

Hello, I saw that you were the first person to put your name down as a participant and I was woundering whether your still interested. Geography on wiki is quite bad at the moment as you know and your help would be appreciated. I've asked a few geographers here if they would be interested and hopefully the project should start to grow. AlexD 11:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still interested though not sure how much time I'll have to put into it in the near future. I'm also working on criminology and criminal justice topics (also in pretty bad shape), among other topics. My main interests are urban geography, urban planning, spatial data analysis, GIS, and cartography. Though, I have also worked on articles relating to glaciers and climate change, and have interest in epidemiology, economic geography, and political geography. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fantatsic, I understand the time constraints and so we'll have to take a long term approach to geography but hopefully we'll get enough interest so a larger number of people can help. I'm going to give it until next week for people to get back and say whether they are interested and then start with an article every two weeks or less. AlexD 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC renomination

Good...I'll help copyedit if you need...but the article is almost entirely your work. It will probably be at FAC for a few weeks, so good luck to you.--MONGO 04:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

It is honor to meet you, at the moment I have no time to study this inside architecture… your work here is impressive. --Lovelight 4:55, 2 September 2006 (CET)

[edit] Urbepedia invitation

Hi!

my name is Meutia Chaerani from Singapore. I volunteered helped out in the Urbepedia at Urbepedia. It is a newly set up wiki focusing on Urban issues, and currently needing more contributors. I'd like to invite your participation in the wiki. Also need to brainstorm more on how the Urbepedia can be different yet complementing to information already existing in Wikipedia.

At this stage, i'm thinking that Urbepedia would be more detailed and more technical, and also acts as repository of best urban practices from around the world, as well as repository of contact information of urban experts. Whereas wikipedia is aimed for a broader audience, the article should be easy to grasp to different kind of people, from kids to adults. In that sense, urbepedia is different from wikipedia, but of course, we can link both wikipedia and urbepedia together in the article page.

We hope that you'd be interested to get involved.

Regards, Chaerani 02:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] afd's you might be interested in

[edit] Complete(?) list of 9/11 Conspiracy AfDs

Given the sheer number of recent 9/11 conspiracy AfDs I've decided to create a list. User:GabrielF/911TMCruft Thought you might find it useful. Feel free to add anything that I missed.

GabrielF 01:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Already keeping track of them myself, User:AudeVivere/To-do, so I know which ones I've already voted on and don't vote twice on any. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured

Congrats on getting Banff National Park to featured level...very nice!--MONGO 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It will probably some time before I get to the Jasper National Park article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In plane site

Have you ever heard about this film (911: In Plane Site)? It survived an afd (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/911_In_Plane_Site) but it doesn't seem very notable to me. --Peephole 11:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I probably have heard of most conspiracycruft books, videos, and websites - this one included. This video is by Dave VonKleist (of "The Power Hour"), who is a Pentagon no-planer and helped come up with the "pod" theory, regarding United Airlines Flight 175. Even folks like Jim Hoffman don't agree with VonKleist. Being on The Power Hour, perhaps Dave VonKleist is slightly more notable. Though, not sure there are enough reliable sources about the video. Search google and see for yourself. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star

I appreciate the Defender of Wiki barnstar...but I think a few there would prefer I get the boot instead. Not sure why they chose yesterday, of all days, to start being argumentative about the wording.--MONGO 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently my edit last night, putting "terrorist" back where we had it, has stuck. It really annoys me that people make such an issue of it on that one day. These people aren't here 365 days a year watching the article and partipating in discussions. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Precisely...I'm always interested in communication, but when the communication fails, then I don't see any reason in saying much more...what's the point?--MONGO 17:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, too for the star. Had I known of an organized countereffort I would have been happy to take part; the nerve of those folks. --Mmx1 22:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for all that, sincerely… -- Lovelight 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Particular variable

Just wanted to say clearly how I have no wish or intention to throw missing planes at anyone… there is no rush whatsoever… However, please understand that I honestly wonder why the fact that US president justified War in Iraq with 911 events doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in source article in The War on Terrorism or Domestic Response subsections? Please answer… I'm waiting for valid answers about that particular issue for some time… for it seems fairly important from my perspective… and then instead of weighting such heavy issue, there is this silence, and misunderstanding, and poor wording and all that… perhaps you should take a look from that "don’t bite the newcomers perspective:)… -- Lovelight 02:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This issue is/should be discussed in the War on Terrorism article. I think it's beyond the scope of the main 9/11 article. Like collapse times, it's a nuanced issue that needs more space to discuss than what we have available in the main 9/11 article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 13:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I understand that. However I don't understand that reasoning about more space, since there is not much to discuss. We are talking about well know fact. One which was proven over and over again, since the proof was obviously not enough, since people don't listen or whatever to heck is wrong with them? Why would there be need to illustrate this in any other way but with a single factual, notable sentence… Thank you for sharing your thought's on this issue… -- Lovelight 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PTR - September 11

Hi Aude,

Thanks for the welcome - again. I thought I'd start with the Attacks section (I'm leaving the intro alone since that's a very touchy section) and edit my way down.

Should I should go to the September 11 attacks timeline of the attacks page and discuss changing the title there or is that something to discuss on the main page?--PTR 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll be bold then. --PTR 17:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources/September 11 Attacks

I don't have access to edit the page (haven't been registered long enough) but someone has add some text to the article citing the source as the New York Times, August 13, 2006. The text is from a New York Times editorial. Editorial is not referenced in the paragraph and I thought it should be.--PTR 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. MONGO fixed it.--PTR 21:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galatasaray article

On the page of Galatasaray i saw a mistake but i cannot revert it becauce the page is under protection , in the Managerial area Yılmaz Gökdel was the manager in 1974-1975 season could you fix this? http://www.webaslan.com/kulup/antrenor.php this is the official site of Galatasaray here it says that Gokdel is coach for the 74-75 season :)

Johnny200 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You should put {{editprotected}} on the article talk page, and not my (and other admins') talk pages. I know nothing about the topic your asking about, and can't help. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 16:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PTR Sept. 11

Thanks. I'll see what I can get done.--PTR 02:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rm tag?

Hi Aude, can you tell me why you remove the tag? I see no solution? Is this according to guidelines? Thanks. — Xiutwel (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've continued the discussion on: Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/FBI_poster_controversy#Continued_discussion_from_talk_page. Would you please take a look? — Xiutwel (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11 FBI

Hi. I was thinking we might resolve this by changing the sentence to read:

The United States government determined that al-Qaeda headed by Osama bin Laden bore responsibility for the attacks.

Might cut the whole thing off at the pass. Didn't want to mention it in the discussion page since... well... they might jump all over it to remove everything mentioning OBL being responsible. --PTR 14:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. --Aude (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I noticed the changes you made and think they make the article stronger. I had not intended to get involved in the many discussions involving what should or should not go into the article but c'est la vie. Sorry for using you as my shield. I'll try to remember l'audace, l'audace... --PTR 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Generate POTD R

Template:Generate POTD R has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon

Hi, could you please do something about 203.217.1.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) at Macedonians (ethnic group). He has been messing with it for some time, adding inaccurate information, and has certainly broken the 3RR. --Tzekai 17:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)