User talk:Aude/Archive5

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

[edit] American Airlines Flight 77

Why did you mark my edit to this article as vandalism? I gave an explanation for the edit and it was because the link to the picture doesn't work anymore. Fighting for Justice 21:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I never said anything about vandalism. Quite the contrary, I said "re: taxi photo (will find another link)". Also, there was a minor problem with the formatting of the references. I know the taxi photo is available many other places on the web, including the DOD itself. With some time to find it, I will put it in. Thanks. And welcome to Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Rather than finding another link, I put the taxicab photo directly in the article. (since it's public domain, from the DOD) Hope this is satisfactory. Without your edit and talk page comment, I don't think I would have noticed the bad link. Thanks for bringing it to attention. --Aude (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain

Please explain why all of a sudden, the 'to do list' was removed? There were 2 steps that have been removed regarding the truth of the events of 911. Why were they removed? Thank you.

[edit] WTC Marriott

Thanks for the speedy move. It's appreciated. Kafziel Talk 01:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about my update

Good Day, I have posted a new information under Syria, and i found that you have deleted this update as it was nonsense as you mention, so can you tell me why and what was the reason?

14:31, 3 October 2006 AudeVivere (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 64.39.142.66 (talk) to last version by Mbamya)


regards, MHD.Bamya

[edit] Wiki Projects

I was looking at the contribute categories and thought I'd like to work on cleanup and/or copy editing but when I was clicking on articles to find one to work on I noticed that some of those on the lists had no tag at the top of the page. Is there a procedure for removing items from lists that are no longer tagged or adding the tag when they are on the list? --PTR 20:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which contribute categories you are referring to? If you provide a specific article as an example, I may be able to figure out why it's listed in the category but has no tag, or suggest what to do. --Aude (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. I just figured out the tag is not always at the top of the page. --PTR 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCurse work 15:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ive got a question. Why was my Chris Stallier article deleted? What do i need to do to make it better?

[edit] Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree

I copyedited Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree. When I think I've finished the copyediting do I remove the tag or tag it for someone to look it over?

Thanks --PTR 21:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go ahead and remove the tag. --Aude (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --PTR 00:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Front Page

Did you notice that Banff is going to be on the front page on the 15th?--MONGO 08:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed. Going to try and be around on Sunday to monitor for the usual vandalism. At least kids aren't in school, where I think they do much of the vandalism. Looks like last Sunday's article faired okay [1] compared to Tuesday's article [2] as an example. --Aude (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please ban User:65.249.173.3

They vandalized Perry Mason twice before I could revert the edits. This appears to be since the most recent warnings. Will (Talk - contribs) 18:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi AudeVivere! I wanted to tell you that I really appreciate your co-nom!! It's been added to the nomination and it's now live. Yikes! --plange 17:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Close & Re-List

The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As Maine goes, so goes the country

Thanks for adding the {{afd1}} tag to As Maine goes, so goes the country, Aude ... my browser crashed as I was working on it and forgot to go back and do it. Excellent cleanup of the page as well! --Aaron 03:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help. I don't think I would have noticed this article, if not for the AFD. --Aude (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed my article

Hello, I'm not sure if you can help me or not but I had an incomplete article and I think I've fixed it up. Could you let me know if it is satisfactory? Thanks!

[edit] Sean Hannity

I'm involved in cleaning up the Sean Hannity page (it has a clean up tag) and it seems there is some edit warring. I'm not interested in getting involved and I'm not asking you to get involved but I do have two questions. Question 1: If Media Matters criticized Hannity for saying "X" but there is no citation for Hannity saying "X" and only a citation for the criticism is this okay? I questioned another user User:Kuzaar about this (you can view our conversations on our talk pages) but he seemed to be missing my point or I was missing his. Question 2: If the criticism is about something Hannity said on his show and we have a page for his show (we have both the The Sean Hannity Show and Hannity & Colmes) should the criticism be moved there?--PTR 21:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I generally stay out of controversial political articles, so might not be able to give the best answers here. But, will try to answer your questions. WP:NPOV requires that both sides of an issue are included, though in respect with due weight to each side. ("the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.") Is Media Matters a reliable source? If so, what they say could be included (though, in company of other viewpoints). I don't think you need a citation for Hannity saying "X", as long Media Matters (or anything else) is considered a reliable source. As for the second question, I'm not familiar with the specifics regarding Hannity, and how important (or not) they are to his bio. In general, I think the criticism can be included on biographical articles. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons provides more guidance on how to handle such articles. The bottom line is that criticism should be well-sourced. Ultimately, it's up to editors on Talk:Sean Hannity, to reach consensus and decide if Media Matters is a reliable source, how much due weight to give the criticism, and whether to include in his bio article or only on the articles about the shows. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --PTR 13:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auto show images

Just upload them and leave the information you don't know out of the information field. Just leave a note on my Talk page that they're up, and I'll add the necessary information to the descriptions. IFCAR 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done about half of the ones up so far. I can't gaurantee success on the classic cars, but the rest shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for contributing. IFCAR 10:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. In the next few days, I'll upload the rest of them. --Aude (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have lots of (over 80) great auto show pictures from the NY Auto Show 2006, all of which I release into the public domain.[3] --Amit 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, the photos look great and definitely could be useful here. --Aude (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taichung City

I am new on WikiProject Cities. I have added considerable content to the first city I am working on, which happens to be the city of my residence, Taichung City. Would you mind taking a few minutes to look it over and leave comments on how you think I can make it better to bring it up to WikiProject Cities standards in a section of the discussion page for the city’s article page that I have set up.

Thank you. Ludahai 03:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. population counter image

Do you mind if I replace your image at [4] and [5] with a crop of [6] which shows the exact 300,000,000 figure? The new image will be much longer horizontally, but I think it's more significant overall. Thank you. --Amit 12:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind, though after uploading it, I thought it would be easy to tweak the numbers to make them show 300,000,000 and the corresponding world population figure. I have just done that and re-uploaded. I think it's interesting and helpful to have the world population figure along side the U.S. population figure. --Aude (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. I see you also updated the world population in the image to the correct number. --Amit 14:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] censorship

Aude,

The 9/11 terrorists' pages are shameful propaganda intended to brainwash people. They should either present both sides of the debate, or be removed.

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for doing so much to clean up the Ramzi Binalshibh article! It's looking a lot better. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help with it. This is part of a series of articles relating to the 9/11 attacks that I would like to see brought up to good or featured status. This articles still needs a lot more work, and more sources. --Aude (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

               Aude, thank you so much for being one of my nominators for RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I don't think anyone dared oppose having you guys as my nominators! :-) I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your nomination and complimentary words on my RFA, as well as the note of congratulations! --plange 21:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Editor Review

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on my edits. If you have the time could you possibly leave a review or comment on Wikipedia:Editor review/Jersey Devil. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NYC meetup

why 5...because sundown is just after 4 o'clock. Besides, I'll be there all night, and most people come late anyway. hope to see you there. mdash;ExplorerCDT 23:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sounds fine if I can come late. If it is raining (or snow?), then my afternoon plans may be cancelled and I could come at 5pm. --Aude (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No matter what... I look forward to meeting you and the others. —ExplorerCDT 23:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi AudeVivere, and thanks for your participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Wikipedia, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman 05:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats and Dogs Portals

Hi, AudeVivere. If you can offer some tips on the respective portal talk pages about how to improve Cats and Dogs up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gun violence in the United States

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Most impressive work on your article Gun Violence in the United States...all that in only a few days...wow.--MONGO 13:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. It's appreciated. I'm moving on to the less controversial topic of property crime which was also a non-existent article, but going to get the "gun violence" article through peer review now. Have filed a formal request here. --Aude (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the barnstar. That's good solid scholarship. It's surprising what gaps there are in our coverage. I hadn't looked, but I would have assumed we had articles on property crime, gun violence, etc. Good job filling those in. Tom Harrison Talk 20:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Criminology is a main area of expertise, so there is plenty for me to work on here. With gun violence, it's inevitable to get people with strong POV. The gun-control people haven't come along yet, but I have a hunch that they would also find the article POV. --Aude (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work. It is an interesting, well-written and well-referenced article on an important topic. I tried to fix a reference that seemed to be missing.[7] You might take a look, when you have a moment. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gun injuries

I drifted in from WP:PR. In the intro, you cite a source about gun injuries - does the original source differentiate between violent gun injuries and those that occur in hunting accidents et al.? I have no idea whether that's even a significant proportion but it might be better to be very precise. I hope to keep reading and make some changes/suggestions. Kaisershatner 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the source makes a distinction between violent gun injuries and accidental. The source is the National Academy of Science, which in turn gets the figure from the CDC. I think the CDC derives their figures from hospital surveillance data.I will try and dig up the original CDC source, to clarify what the figure covers. Thank you for taking a look at the article. --Aude (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I have updated the figure, with the CDC as a direct source. The figure only includes violence-related injuries, though there CDC query tool provides the option to include accidental. --Aude (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hi AudeVivere, and thanks very much for your support during my recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 64/0/0. I am grateful for the overwhelming support I received from the community, and hope I will continue to earn your trust as a expand my participation on Wikipedia. It goes without saying that if you ever need anything and I can help, please let me know. Wait, I guess it does go with saying. ; ) --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 12 November 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gun violence in the United States, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--LordAmeth 20:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a website to the prison page

In reference to your request to not add links to the prison Wikipedia page - I added Corrections.com because it is an unbiased news and information source for and about the corrections industry. It provides daily news about corrections as well as feature stories and resources. Therefore, I think it is a relevant piece to the prison Wikipage as well as other prison/jail/criminal justice pages. Feel free to check it out yourself first, www.corrections.com. Then, please further advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmontalto (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I understand the mission to add relevant informaiton to a topic. However, corrections.com is an information resource for a specific industry, and it is very relevant to other criminal justice areas.

But, I'm not sure of your definition of improved articles on the Corrections.com site. The site contains unbiased information about programs and information that is useful to those in corrections and to those who are interested in learning more about the field. It sounds like you're not thrilled with the nunber of ads, which is fine, but limiting the right to post a viable resource based on one's definition of "improved" seems unfair. The site is not blatanly advertising on Wikipedia (unlike companies like Cingular and Proctor & Gamble, who have their own entries). Corrections.com is a genuine resource for and about the corrections industry. It would be a shame if those interesed in corrections,prisons, jails, etc. didn't know about another reference/resource other than Wikipedia. So, I would like to put Corrections.com back on the corrections page and am requesting permission to also add it as a resource/reference to related topics. I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to better undertand Wikipedia's rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmontalto (talk • contribs)

[edit] Gun violence

Hi, Aude. I wanted to clarify (appended below): Hi - maybe this should be moved to talk? There's no way to know what the "major factor" is - it might be that if there were strict gun control laws the homicide rate would be the same but knives would be used instead. Or maybe it would be lower. But it's an assertion that gun violence per se is the difference - or am I wrong? I often am. Kaisershatner 20:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC) The difference for what? For why the U.S. homicide rate is higher? In the intro, I think noting the higher homicide rate and the rate of homicides committed with firearms is important. We can save "why" for later in the article, such as the "Homicides" section where it says "When a crime occurs involving a gun, the likelihood that it results in a death is significantly increased, due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation." and "that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons". (if you want to move this to the talk page, that's fine with me) --Aude (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My question is basically whether we're guilty of assuming thecorrelation implies causation fallacy. (A) The US has a comparatively high rate of homicide (B) The US has a particular position on gun ownership (C) therefore, gun violence is the differential factor in the higher US homicide rate. I'm asking if writing "the US has a higher than average homicide rate" and "the majority of homicides are committed with guns" is a truly direct relationship, and if this is supported by the facts. Since I don't know, I would favor simply, "68% of homicides are committed with guns" standing on its own, and introducing the stats about the overall homicide rate in the body of the article. Again, the subject of the article is NOT the US homicide rate. The rate at which gun violence is a part of the homicide rate IS the subject. Finally, please assume my good faith, it can be hard to infer tone from writing. I may be asking dumb questions but trust me, it's out of curiousity and a committment to intellectually rigorous writing and editing. Best, Kaisershatner 14:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I have replied on Talk:Gun violence in the United States. --Aude (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] flight 77 and pentagon

Hey, thanks for correcting me on those pages, I would have never found the Judicial Watch videos otherwise. I'm sure we have differing opinions, but those refs you added very interesting. In each case, the frame showing "flight 77" sure looks like a missile to me. Fresheneesz 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Zero witnesses have reported seeing a missile, while numerous witnesses saw an American Airlines jet. Even Russell Pickering, who runs PentagonResearch.com [8] now believes that the plane did crash into the Pentagon. (per the notice on the main page of his website) You may be interested in this video, which illustrates the flight path, the downed lampposts, and examines the security video (these cameras were located two football field-lengths away). --Aude (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. But numerous people saw a small aircraft - not a huge "roaring" 747. Also, the aircraft parts at the scene match a Douglas A-3 Sky Warrior, not a 747. My view is that it wasn't a 747, and a Sky Warrior isn't gonna punch through 3 rings of the pentagon. Fresheneesz 06:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks!
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Georgewilliamherbert 05:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [Statement of gratitude]

[Unique statement of excitement]!

[Your username name, not subst:ed properly], [statement of gratitude] for [your specific vote] in [link to request for adminship], which passed with a final tally of [final tally][percent in parentheses (optional)]. I plan to [statement of intentions regarding admin tools] and [statement acknowledging oppose votes as helpful]. If you [type of desire for help] or want to provide any [type of feedback], feel free to [link to talk page or e-mail]. [Statement of gratitude, again (optional)] [signature of new admin]

Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help.

I had noted the problem with the difference in the link and the article in the talk section, but had gotten no response. I decided to go ahead and fix it myself. Thanks for cleaning it up and changing to a more authoritative link. CodeCarpenter 19:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support but...

...you need to wait until it goes live at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. I'm just waiting for MONGO to come online as he asked me to do so. It will be live sometime later today (well, I suppose that may depend on when today ends for you). —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep my eye on it. --Aude (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the timestamp (such a technicality) will be an issue. In the unlikely event that a swarm of folks come along to oppose, I can update the timestamp. --Aude (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Yellowstone National Park:

You recently protected[9] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 04:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Yellowstone National Park:

You recently protected[10] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 04:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University of Mary Washington

Aude, I appreciate your input. I had not read the rules in terms of the conflict of interest that arises from adding my own link. I was simply upset that someone had continued to remove a link for the page of the college at which I attend. The site I run with several other students is, in my strong personal opinion, not linkspam, spam, etc. Although it may appear to be a blog, etc., it is actually a portal used by a large number of students at the school. The concept is something that is new, and it helps students become accustomed to our university when transferring here or attending as freshmen. I will add the suggestion for the link under the discussion section, and I hope that others will view the site, evaluate it without bias, and add it to the links as it is a piece of campus life here in Fredericksburg.

Thanks, Bobby

[edit] Lauren Grandcolas

You work on the above is excellent. Nevertheless, I just wanted to share my thoughts about some of the reversals you made to my edits, namely the inclusion of the seat numbers, which would appear to be trivial to the extreme, unless you have information whiah I do not.

In addition, I had removed the sisters' married names and the name of the publisher for the reason that this info already appears in the Published work section which I had ejected the information to, and is thus redundant. Ohconfucius 08:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be best, I think, to discuss these issues on the article talk page, so I have copied this discussion there. --Aude (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beretta Cx4 Storm

Could use your help in helping resolve a dispute with the Beretta Cx4 Storm article. Thanks Yaf 03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umm...

Without wanting to be rude, why did you revert my edits to Portal:Mathematics/Featured article? I was changeing it so it would autmoatically update every week (as has been suggested - at the bottom of the page). I was doing this because myupdates have been getting steadily later in the week, and I wanted to avoid that in the furture. Tompw 20:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies... I saw the edit summary "(←Replaced page with..." which normally constitutes vandalism. Obviously, on close look at your edit, it's definitely not vandalism. I can only suggest you leave an edit summary from now on, so such edits are not mistaken.--Aude (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I thought I did. No worries though. I've changed things back. :-) Tompw 20:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm watching all the major portals. It helps that I now know you are working on the portal, and will recognize your name in the recent changes. Though, it will now be more difficult to watch the "selected article", because I won't remember to watchlist it each week. Please be watching it carefully, or you may want it semi-protected. --Aude (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the actual content pages (Portal:Mathematics/Featured article/2006_47) are harder to get to than the the main AotW sub-page... granted the latter can still be vandalised just as eaily, but it will still be on people's watchlists. Actually, I've created the pages for weeks 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51, so there's nothing to stop you from adding those to your watchlist if you want. (It's also possible to add pages to your watchlist that haven't been created yet, in case you were feeling *really* keen). I'm mildly surprised you hadn't noticed my name cropping up as the author of most of the non-vandalising, non-reverting edits for the AotW... although sadly, that means my edits are in the minority.
Anyway, I'm rambling somewhat, so I post this. Tompw 21:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowstone National Park

I don't mind fighting on articles related to 9/11, ensuring only the known facts are all we report, but as far as dealing with the edit warring going on on the Yellowstone National Park article, well, I simply refuse to contest someone there that is determined to make the article a picture book. I had every intention of trying to get it to a level equal to Banff, Glacier and Redwoods in terms of the coverage and scope as well as using cited refs, but it is impossible with that editor constantly insisting on having an article dominated by images. I give up.--MONGO 17:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It just needs fewer pictures, with additional ones moved to subarticles or commons. I don't want to make these choices unilaterally, though. Your input as to which ones are most needed would be good. --Aude (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but I retreat to the protect areas articles and glaciers to get away from the editing disputes...I can't deal with them everywhere. It is too aggrevating at this point. Maybe in a couple of months as I see a real big situation about to take over a large chunk of my time.--MONGO 17:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It annoys me too. Images are usually an afterthought for me, after working on the article text. I really don't know enough about Yellowstone to work on the article myself, nor have the time to research it... but can keep an eye on the page. --Aude (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I worked there, so maybe I am too close to the park to remain neutral. I did post a comment on the protected areas project page asking for help in gettin the article to a higher standard in keeping with Banff, et al. I even fought the 1988 fires there for 6 weeks and had plans on making a seperate article on that event, since it was a pretty big thing...oh well.--MONGO 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't give up on it. You obviously would know what information to add and find references. I can help copyedit, but don't have much substantive to add. I'm not sure I'm happy with the images set with no "px". I logged off and the default size is way too small. I'll try and find out why that is. Doesn't seem right. --Aude (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It is related to your browser settings...if you have a high resolution such as the editor in question..the images appear huge. If your resolution is set at 1068X780 (or something like that), then the images appear small. I'll return to that article soon...just more immediate issues to get finalized. I appreciate all your help there...just don't let it bug you out.--MONGO 20:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109Talk 23:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support at RFA

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 23:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CamperStrike

CamperStrike has been confirmed by checkuser [11] to be a blocked editor evading his blocks and has now been blocked indefinitely. Expect to see some other anon or trolling IP's to make an effort to continue to stir up trouble on Yellowstone and related articles.--MONGO 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11 attacks

I thought I'd try to get a clear discussion going on the proposed changes so we can get the page unprotected. I've pasted Acebrocks first proposed paragraph on the talk page with a section for comments below. It's getting rather wearing to keep asking what the changes should be and I thought this was a better solution.--PTR 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's worth a try. Would be good to get the page unprotected. In the brief period the article was unprotected recently, I was able to add only two sources. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion on my talk page

It's OK, just let them accumulate. It makes it easier to keep track of them. —Doug Bell talk 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --Aude (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup NYC

Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. —ExplorerCDT 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal tips

I have done a lot of extensive work (and so has Rfrisbie) to Portal:Business and Economics. I would like to bring it to Featured Portal status and I am seeking your opinion! Please leave your suggestions at the the Portal talk:Business and Economics about how to get this portal to featured status. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nishkid64 04:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal review volunteers

Hi, based on your previous good deeds, please consider becoming one of the portal review volunteers and adding your name to the list. :-) Regards, Rfrisbietalk 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Just wanted to drop a note of thanks for commenting about questions I'd missed in the ArbCom elections. If you hadn't mentioned it, I might not have realized people had left additional queries on the page. I think I need a shorter watchlist again :) Shell babelfish 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for helping with the 911tm Template

I was just leaving a message on User:Bov's talk page, when I noticed that you had reverted the changes that he made. I made a proposal to him for us all to talk about this on the Template_talk:911tm page. As per my comments on that page, I was already debating on removing Jeff Rense from the template as he is notable in other areas but is probably quite as notable per the template's subject. I have refrained from removing or adding links on the template without concensus or agreement from others interested in the template. The majority of what I have done is to redesign the look (I got a complaint about it being glaring (I think it was a little glaring)), and to make it more consistent with the look of other navigation templates. Other than that I have not modified the contents of it. Anyway let's discuss this (where the discussion most likely belongs) at Template_talk:911tm. Thanks again for helping. Umeboshi 18:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bov might not like it but articles about Loose Change (video), Jim Fetzer, etc. are notable and exist because they relate to the "truth movement". Thus, these links belong in the template. --Aude (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Bov doesn't like the defenders of the official version of events promoting the "nukes," (Jimmy Walters) "UFOs," (Jeff Rense) and "space weapons" (Jim Fetzer) pushers being touted as "researchers" when the real goal of that is to discredit us. They do not represent the vast majority of the movement yet when they are promoted in a template format, the implication is that they do. They do not. Loose Change is popular, sure, but is also a commercial video that says, among many other hoaxes and mistakes, that Flight 93 was swapped and never crashed in Pennsylvannia but that the passengers were deboarded into an empty NASA research hanger and disappeared. Those who want the "conspiracy theorists" to look as crazy as you are sure we are will repost this template over and over and over. And as you do, I will now start to make wikipedia my focus again. If this is what you want, go for it. bov 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It's called muddying the waters in the intelligence community. When ideas float around a targeted group that you don't like you try to associate them closely with other clearly ridiculous ideas. I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have an article on this. How will the intel crowd learn what they need to learn? --OpenTheDoor 03:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of one of your photos in a new wetlands ecology textbook

An author of mine would like to use this photo of the Athabasca River in his textbook (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-047129232X.html):

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Athabasca_river_2001.jpg

How would you prefer to be credited as the photographer? AudeVivere or something else?

Pixel23 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"AudeVivere" will work. Also, thanks for uploading the photographs of Daniel Libeskind and George Pataki. --Aude (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks for the support! MONGO 09:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article map

The other day, when I was talking about the Template:911tm, I noticed your "map of links" here. I'm not quite sure of what you want to call it, but I thought it looked pretty cool. I've decided to make one myself. To start with, I made a copy of it on my own user page here. I'll remove it, if that is what you wish, but I think that it is a valuable tool, and I appreciate the time it must of taken you to make it. Umeboshi 19:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll: External timeline in 911 attacks article

Since you have been involved with the 911 attacks article in the past, you might be interested in voting in a straw poll on an external timeline currently used in the article. [12] . Thanks. Abe Froman 18:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Club of New York

Come see: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club of New York. —ExplorerCDT 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Savannah official seal.png, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 14:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)