Thanks, I think I will look into registration. Very helpful info from you.
To help other unregistered dweebs like me who stumble onto (semi-permanently?) semi-protected "Africa" article, I suggest that if you like my points and think they are germane, you move them to the top of the stack (overruling the usual etiquette).
Hi, why did you revert me? I felt having a rebuttle (that was properly attributed) to popular mechanics (who's opinion is represented as fact) was justified. What's your problem with it? — Selmo(talk)12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flight 93 altitude
Has Dylan & co. rebutted Popular Mechanics? Also, Loose Change hasn't proven anything about cell phones. What reliable source describes LC as proving that?
Do you realize that Flight 93 was flying ~5000ft above sea level (over a part of Pennsylvania where elevations and cell towers are ~2500 above sea level) when the two cell calls (at 9:58 a.m. - point G on the diagram) were made? For comparison, the WTC was 1368 ft tall, and the calls were made ~2500 above the ground. The calls were dropped after ~1 minute, probably when the calls tried to switch to the next cell tower and the transfer failed. --Aude (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the sites cited as a reliable source also attacks Loose Change.[1] wtc7.info articles don't mention Loose Change. The argument your using against my edits can be used against others' POV edits to the article. Can you protect the page to stop everyone from edit warring? — Selmo(talk)13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been stable for a while. Seems that User:RoyBoy, User:Qarnos, User:Tom harrison, and myself all have problems with some edits you have been making. It's good to see you stopped short of 3RR. There's not enough back and forth to justify protecting the page at this point. --Aude (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An admin has already warned him for vandalizing my talk page. If you have nto noticed, I do not goto his page leaving messages such as: [2] - you are a problem child aren't you sockpuppet Perhaps if MONGO can maintain some civility and cease his accusations. I would not have to report him for NPA violations and vandalism. I know you are buddies, judging by your similar edits to articles, so I will not go any further. However as an admin I would have expected you to warn him upon seeing the vandalism. Also considering MONGO has already made it clear you have a bias attitude toward me, I ask you do not post here further, since it seems you have already judged me. Please do not move this back to my talk page and feel free to delete it if you like. Also if MONGO was not telling the truth about you pre-judging me, then my apologies, and perhaps you should speak to them. --SevenOfDiamonds22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brickskeller, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The FBI is a difficult topic, since there is plenty of controversy, to make sure the article is comprehensive and neutral. The references to the FBI website itself are fine, but references from other sources are too few. At minimum, the article needs more than 100 references, drawing from a variety of good sources. I wouldn't be surprised if there were nearly 200, when the article passes as a featured article. Also, the lists in the "mission and priorities" section don't seem to fit right, there, especially the "criminal charges" list. That list needs to be made into prose and integrated with the rest of the article. There are some other things that need to be done, but referencing is the big thing. Getting an article like this to be featured will take time, more time than other topics do, due to the fact that there are so many things to cover, while maintaining NPOV. --Aude (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the protection of Morton devonshire's page. I've been fighting constant vandalism on that page for the last hour or so, various IPs. I could not find a place to request page protection. I used the TW:RPP tab but it did not seem to go through. If you could point me to a page that temp protection can be requested for such events, I'd be very appreciative!Ariel♥Gold12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aude, I see you reverted the image I placed on the left in the Benjamin Latrobe article. Are you aware of this guideline from the MoS? Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. (Example: Race).* Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) cheers Raasgat07:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I see that you to be occucied with GIS, perhaps you have a chance to present the datas of Wikipedia-World in a better way like OpenLayers or so. OpenLayers would good to work together with openstreetmaps. This would be also interresting for Commons:Commons:Geocoding. --de:Benutzer:Kolossos 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yikes - if he left, that certainly wasn't my intention...it was just a kneejerk reaction as I was on RC patrol at the time and when I see a new article, I tend to have a look at it, and either tag it or do a bit of cleanup. Will(talk)14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging it is the way to go. I have cleaned up the article, nominated it for WP:DYK and left him a message about that. Hope he will stick around. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know? was updated. On 23 August, 2007, a fact from the article Ninoshima, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Aude! I saw your comments and beautifully taken pictures a lot. It would be grateful if you could change the name of this image to The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Other users say so on the talk page too. Thanks. Oda Mari15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure for changing the name is to re-upload the image with the new name. I went ahead and did that step, and a copy of the image is now available at Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg. Now, the new name can be used. Though, keep in mind that the image is used on a lot of articles in English Wikipedia, as well as numerous other languages, still linking to Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg. Those links need to be updated to use the new name. Once the old image is orphaned, then it can be deleted from Commons. --Aude (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rename procedure is to upload the original image with a new name. What in fact was done was that a new version from another source (ie a different version) was uploaded with a different name. The effect was to corrupts the FP process as this new image was not the one promoted, but the delinking process gave the impression it was - literally rewriting history. The correct thing to do is upload the old version with a new name and upload the different version with a different name. --121.73.5.5523:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A template you created, Template:Mainpagevote, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride23:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the copy edits. The article reads much better. I'll let User:Tony1 know. I'm not sure how much longer the article will stay listed at FAC. It's been there two weeks already, due to low amount of feedback. It should be ready to pass soon. --Aude (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:Coren. This is a false positive, which I reported to him/her. Also see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I'll be opting out of the bots and suggest regulars and especially admins be opted out. The community has entrusted admins not to violate policy, and the bot needs to respect that. I just wasted 15-20 minutes fixing this mess. --Aude (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being dense, but why is it a false positive? I ask because the article at debunk911myths.org was created in March (history), and the article here was created today, with the exact same wording as the article at debunk911myths.org. --Iamunknown18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explained on User talk:Coren. The more likely explanation is that I hold copyright to material there, and thus free to copy material. I expect admins to be cognizant of copyrights. It would be best to opt me out of the bot. This is a huge waste of my time. I think I'm done for the day with Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith is a good thing. So is following copyright policy, which you have not. There is no indication that the site is yours (whether I believe you (and I do) is immaterial), and there is no permission for copying on the copied page. There is a procedure for requesting permission to use copyrighter works on Wikipedia which must be followed, even if you are the author, and therefore will likely give yourself permission :-)
Either a note on the copied page placing the contents under the GFDL (or a compatible licence), giving it to the public domain, or (less favored) an email to OTRS (at permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org) is required.
So, to respond to your original comment, that was not a false positive. It was a correct match of a copy of external copyrighted work used without attribution or verifiable permission.
As for excluding admins or "experienced editors", that is obviously out of the question. A full third for copyright violations are commited (usually unwittingly) by experienced editors, including admins. The tags take seconds to clean up, and almost always lead to the copyright violation being corrected (or proper permission being secured). That's a good thing. Besides, there is a very obvious technical hurdle about how a bot is supposed to guess at an editor's experience, especially as regards to copyright matters (almost all editors, regardless of quantity of contributions, have no true understanding of copyright matters— even when they think they do).
As for excluding you personally, I can do that if you usually copy large amounts of copyrighted text with permission (although you really should put a GFLD permission notice on your original web site).
Some problems with all that. Wikipedia:Copyright violations says "Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL." So, yes this is a false alarm. As always, I agree to license your contributions here under the GFDL, but doesn't mean I have to make everything on my website GFDL for anybody to take and do anything with. I don't see the need to go through formal procedures, per WP:SENSE and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you need proof, see the Flickr link here and same links here: User:Aude and User:Aude/Images. --Aude (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly not obligated to go through formal procedures; this explanation is more than sufficient to, for instance, satisfy me that you are the author and thus can donate your prose to Wikipedia. Thing is, the formal bit will alleviate the need for you to make that same argument over and over again— that red tape is a pretty much unavoidable price to pay.
As for your site, perhaps the simplest thing is to add it to the list of exceptions— this would mean that things you copy off the site will not trigger bots... but also that someone else copying an article off your site would also not trigger it. This is, arguably, status quo with no bot, so you are no worse off. — Coren(talk)23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all interfering. Please feel free to edit and improve. The article just needs to be expanded. Also, though it's attracted a lot of discussion on the talk page, I think the Ronald Reagan article looks great thanks to your hard work on it. --Aude (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Aude! I'm Arknascar44, and I was wondering if you're still interested in helping out over at WP:WPEL. I've done some work on the project page and created a couple subpages and some templates, and am really interested in reviving it! Cheers, Arky¡Hablar!16:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see the project pages improved. The wikiproject was started the same time as WP:WPSPAM, and overlapped some in the goals. But, now I think the WikiProject could do other things. I don't know if there is a bot existing to check for dead links, for example. Broken links need to be updated, perhaps linked to Internet Archive, or altogether removed. And, of course cleaning out spam and trimming list of links. And make sure WP:EL guidelines are maintained appropriately. I don't have lots of time to work on all that, but always on the look out for such problems, can report articles that need attention, and perhaps help in other ways. But, please go ahead and take the lead on this if you wish. --Aude (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can do other things, as dead links and spam are indeed certainly different :) Oh, and User:Ocobot takes care of dead links, and is a really great bot; one of the best. Just help when you can, but no need to overwork if you haven't got the time :) Cheers, Arky¡Hablar!16:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on a revision of this article for a while and probably should have noted that on the article's discussion page. I am about ready to add what would be a major revision but I noticed that you were in the process today of making improvements. Please check out what I've done so far at User:North Shoreman/Sandbox and let me know how you think we should proceed. Tom (North Shoreman)19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's in your sandbox is a tremendous improvement over the existing article. Excellent work! I suggest it go into the article. Not sure there's a lot I can do to improve on what you have, except maybe add some references. Do you have anything for Stamp Act Congress? That's mainly what I'm interested, but then noticed the whole topic needed work. I'm spending time on the History of the United States Congress and United States Congress articles, the latter one at WP:FAR now. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I have on the Stamp Act Congress comes from the Weslager book listed in the bibliography. The book includes about forty pages of the actual journal of the Stamp Act Congress and generally goes into fairly good detail on the proceedings. I don't know how easy it is to find the book however. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I need to expand the Lead and the Later Effects sections, integrate your recent additions, and then the whole thing should be ready to post.Tom (North Shoreman)20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind comments on my mcginnly talk page - I've been editing under joopercoopers in dealing with Taj Mahal articles. I've also requested that Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal be deleted but it seems to have met some resistance, I'm the sole author and it was my understanding that I could request its deletion. Do you know/are you an admin who might oblige me, I'd be very grateful. I'm afraid I've come to believe wikipedia is a busted flush in terms of quality and its major draw appears to be incessant bickering. It would be great if you could find someone to maintain the portal, it needs FA's and GA's updating and the featured pictures and articles setting up. Kind regards Aude, take care. --Joopercoopers22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, just saw the message. This shouldn't have been a source of drama. The policy is clear, G7 does apply. As for the portal, I already have a lot on my plate, but maybe can check in and update sometimes. --Aude (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Auld - re the portal I was really also wondering if you might just be able to point someone in my direction that might like to take on the role - Perhaps I should get a gnome on editor review or something to do--Joopercoopers11:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've given you access to the admins channel. You should be able to get in whenever you are identified, though if you experience problems, you can go "/msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins". - Mark16:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully with unanimous support. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and vote and I can't wait to learn the new tools and further immerse myself into Wikipedia! Please don't hesitate to point out any errors I make so I can prevent them from occurring again. I'm always here to help, so if you ever need anything, just let me know. Also, thanks to Wizardman for nominating me and for guiding many other editors to become admins. Again, thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams202006:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message. I didn't know that there is a discussion about the print/s. and didn't notice the differences of the prints. I posted my comment on Deletion request page. I'm really surprised, you know, I was only thinking about the name. Then the Great Wave is a reproduction? Maybe so. Thinking about the print age, it's too beautiful. But it is beautiful. Oda Mari09:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aude! You've indicated you're going to continue to work on this one. I have no problem leaving it open, if you want to do that work; but we need an indication that you're still there. Do you intend to continue to work? Oh, I know a couple of keeps have arrived but the article is still presenting undercited simplicity. It's not our best work. It's not our worst. It's...well, it's ok, but not our best. I'll take a nod from you on whether the review should continue. Cheers, Marskell23:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had much time to work on Wikipedia in the past few days. Agree completely with all the opposes, comments, criticisms, etc. Not sure how long it will take to get to current FA standards, but still working on it. --Aude (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you indicated at the review that you weren't terribly bothered, I did remove. This is an important topic and I feel a fresh FAC would be worthwhile, after it's been gone over. I think there's still probably weeks of work at the pace it's been receiving attention. Ali asked at the review if I would fact tag things; I will in fact bury some Qs and add tags for info and continue to watch it. Cheers, Marskell11:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Chicagocrime.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris B • talk15:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aude! What do you think of this? It seems to me that the two tall buildings on the left are WTC and the picture was taken from Brooklyn before Sept. 11, 2001. Oda Mari (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like User:Zscout370 is helping with the copyrights. I don't really have the patience or the time at the moment to deal with difficult copyright problems. Ask me again later, if this is not getting resolved, and maybe I can help. --Aude (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i stumbled across these 2 articles and didnt like how they're set up right now. i figured to get them up to wiki standards quicker i could bring them to the attention of a WikiProject. i wasnt sure if WP:Urban Planning or WP:Civil Engineering was the right one (i found u under WP:Urban). anyhow, i posted 6 of my concerns about 'Cardo' under its talk page, and i have similiar concerns about 'Decumanus'. could u take a quick peek at these 2 articles, see if they need to be included in WP:UP or WP:CE. that way my 6 posted concerns can be dealt with. thanks. Ivansevil00:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I saw you didn't like my section about the conspiracy theories surrounding Flight 77. I understand your point of view, so I've written (in the talk page) a second proposition, taking your suggestions into account. I really think there should be a section about this. For the moment, the article feels weird: It talks about witnesses, it talks about cameras, but it barely mentions why we are talking about them at all, a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room. Look at what I propose, and tell me what you think. Ratfox01:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to get involved. It may feel thankless sometimes, but I'm sure the reading public do appreciate articles that are well maintained. Even if they don't realize all the frustrating issues that have been endured in order to create and keep it good. -- SiobhanHansa15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that is important for featured pictures is resolution of the image. Image:Central_Park_New_York_City_New_York_23_cropped.jpg is 4648 × 3248 pixels while some of your images uploaded are less than 1000 px in dimension. The resolution is something that puts them at a disadvantage.
That is not my photo, maybe if you did your joob correct you would stop making errors.
Third consideration that has been discussed is that we want all the boroughs represented on the page, with pictures.
And on the current page they are represented...????????? Are you trying to be a pain.
Aside from those considerations, I am open to discussion, as are other users. Please take time to give your thoughts on the discussion/talk page. That will go a long way to resolve any disagreements. Regards.
We already came to a concensus on the discussion page, it seems everyone like the changes...you should read the discussion page.
Hi there, Aude. I started the above linked page yesterday and am trying to track down volunteers. I know you're a regularly active editor and I also see you are a member of the WikiProject Geography. That's one category that has received few volunteers. If you're interested, pass the page link along to friends. Cheers, Marskell13:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that there was no connection between Randi and William Rodriguez. Randi's article mentions no connection to 9-11 conspiracy theories or to Rodriguez. Sorry for the confusion. (I do not, however, see how posting to his user talk page was any worse than posting anywhere else, since blocking a user does not prevent them from reading any non-deleted page).—Random83203:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Sorry again for jumping in. If it'd been me, I wouldn't have called it a "username block" - to me, that term implies that it's solely the username: no other context is necessary - if one saw the name "Jrandi" editing, say, Schneeberg, Bavaria (first hit on random article) they should block - AND that the user has done little or nothing else wrong other than their choice of username. That was why I didn't really look closely at his edits before questioning the block - I didn't realize you were saying there was anything wrong with his edits.—Random83205:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Aude. Thanks a lot for your participation at my ArbCom nomination's vote. I just want you to read my addendum where i explicitly explained my position. I hope receiving a feedback from you. Thanks again. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aude. I will be coming to the DC meeting of Wikipedians this Sunday and wanted to see if you could take a look at some articles I wrote in the categories "Water supply and sanitation by country" and and "Electricity sector by country". I am in the process to mobilize more professionals working on developing countries to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia by writing counry topic overviews on other topics in (mainly) developing countries, using a similar format to facilitate comparison. I'd love to talk to you about this on Sunday and thought that if you could look at some of the articles beforehand we can have a better conversation.--Mschiffler (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Haunted"—— by a bank teller? The bit about the building being "haunted" was contributed by you in April 2007. I am posting to ask you to add a footnote if this "haunting" appears anywhere in print. Otherwise, it should be dropped from the article. --Wetman (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a slight entry to the article on Julian Rotter, but I think that the bulk of the article on locus of control theory is best left to cover his work on locus of control (I am not sure that there should be unnecessary overlaps between Wikipedia articles). I notice that the article says that he was born in 1916, but does not give a date of death - I am not sure he is still alive (I am pretty sure he was not, but need to check his death). You mention putting some in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DYK. I am not really familiar with this part of Wikipedia, and was not sure whether you were referring to the article on locus of control or that on Rotter. If you want to tell me a little more about WP:DYK (you can leave a message on my userpage, I can let you know whether I consider either of these articles worthy of mention there. Many thanks for contacting me. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:38, 12 Defember 2007 (UTC)
As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).
In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.
The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Julian Rotter, was selected for DYK!
On December 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Julian Rotter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc.19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject United States Barnstar of National Merit
I, Taifarious1, hereby award you this barnstar for your continuous efforts at improving multiple articles relating to the United States and your high standards to which that was accomplished. Taifarious121:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting you with a request for you to unlock an article, well actually it is a redirect. The redirect in question is: Sports Trainer. This article was created and then deleted several months ago. It is now a rediretc to athletic trainer, as the administrator in question believed that the two articles were similar. When it was tried to be re-written the article was then locked so now it cant be re-written.
The problem is that they two articles are different, the two main differences are the title and qualifications, to be an athletic trainer you need to go to college and complete a degree over a number of years, to become a sports trainer you only need to complete a short 2 day course. And ofcourse the title. Athletic Trainers only exist in United States, Sports Trainers are in Australia and New Zealand. In other words, people from Aus/NZ dont even know what an athletic trainer is, they don't exist in those countries, sports traienrs do, so if only for their benifit we do need a separate article.
I am asking for the chance to re-write the article and for you to see that there are differences and then protect it from being deleted. I mean wikipedia has lots of articles that dont really need to exist (fictional characters) so whats the harm in having a separate article for sports trainer?
A tag has been placed on Template:Climate in Middle East cities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
I can see from your edit history that you are the person largely responsible for bring a fair neutral tone to the Gun violence in the United States article, not an easy task for a 'hot topic' like that. I appreciate what you have done and am impressed with your NPOV determination. I am presently trying to work towards the same NPOV goal for the Gun politics in the United States article, and being as these two topics intersect a bit I was wondering if you might be willing to add it to you watchlist? SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time nowadays to be on Wikipedia. An article like Gun politics in the United States is a magnet for POV problems and takes considerable time to watch/maintain. I'll add it to my watchlist, but doubt I'll have time to do much there. --Aude (talk) 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Template:HOB-WTC2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.
A tag has been placed on Template:Meetup-DC invite requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
A tag has been placed on Template:Geolinks-Canada-region requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Like too many other editors who have contributed to the current renaming debate at 9/11 conspiracy theories, you claimed that what "reliable sources" call something is a consideration in choosing names for articles, despite the fact that it had already been pointed out that this was not the case. Please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy and guidelines in this way because it causes a lot of confusion. ireneshusband(talk)09:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled. You wrote: For example, the Pentagon police officers do not belong on the list. The officers explained that they saw American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. Yet, LyteTrip et al. nitpick what the officers said and incorporate it into their theory that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon instead of crashed. The transcript is clear they say the plane took a more south trajectory before it went into the Pentagon. Who claims these officers are confirming a plane flew OVER the Pentagon, and where and when does he/she/it claim that? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute)02:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Aude. Would you mind looking into user:Xiutwel and providing some insight? I saw your comment on Talk:9/11 but I'm unaware if you know of Xiutwel's long history of disruption through tendentious editing. Forgive this long comment, but I’ll bring you up to speed.
He/she has been pushing for inclusion of a POV into the 9/11 article for more than a year, dousing the talk page on a daily basis with excessively long proposals. This is rather baffling to me; many editors have been informing him/her of policy while rejecting the proposals, but he/she is apparently unable or unwilling to accept it, and repeats the same arguments for the proposed additions. He/she has denounced core policies and guidelines on multiple occasions to support the arguments, and has spent 95% of his/her wikitime over the past year in these disputes.
This prolonged disruption has, over the last few days, created edit wars involving NPOV tags, in which the editor has continued to insert the tags despite strong consensus against it after months of discussion. This, however, is only the most recent disruption — Xiutwel has a long history of editing the article after attempting but failing to reach consensus for a particular addition.
In the last few days, two IP addresses (76.87.151.24, 67.165.163.114) have actively joined the discussion on the 9/11 talk page, each arguing in Xiutwel's favor. Both adresses have only a few edits prior to this. Xiutwel has been the primary contributor to the talk page of one of the IP addresses, but that's a common tactic for sockpuppeters, so I am not discounting the possibility that both or one of these IP addresses are being used by Xiutwel.
Okie, I am not socking. The only sock is User:Sockrates-duo, which is harmless. And I must say I find it hard to have reasonable discussions with you, which I appreciate, and continue discussing your very lengthy quotations of policy and OR interpretations of them, while you are at the same time accusing me of bad faith and/or disruption. I will try to ignore your accusations for the moment, unless you direct them on my own talk page. I can find no better way to handle this split behaviour. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute)00:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xiutwel - I don't have near the amount of time or interest in continuing to discuss on the talk page. I've been discussing things with you for the past 2+ years and there still is no consensus for the changes you wish to make. In fact we do have consensus that the article meets WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR ... and we will not bend the wikirules to allow for more "truth" or even innuendo (with odd facts). --Aude (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aude, thanks for the comments on Okiefromokla's talk page. Would you be willing to put something together thumbnailing your issues with Xiutwel for a possible RFC? I know your time is limited and I don't want to ask for any more of your time then you're willing to give. I think ultimately this is headed toward Arbcom and that road runs through RFC, thanks. RxS (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:
"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.
Another reflexive and unexplained reversion by Wikihw. I am out of ideas for dealing with these insistent edits. Do you have any thoughts? Thanks - JohnInDC (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, just revert the edits. It's annoying that Wikiwh won't come to the talk page. If he/she doesn't give up and doesn't come to the talk page, then Wikiwh could be temporarily blocked from editing. Hopefully it won't come to that. --Aude (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding: your relationship with Kirill I removed this from the workpage as JzG requested. I don't know your relationship or lack of relationship to Kirill, and there is no point in spending days researching it. One picture is not enough evidence for Kirill to recuse himself. I was wrong and I apologize. Trav (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on rewording the brief section on the conspiracy theory after I saw it mentioned at the noticeboard of NPOV. I also provided a reliable source. It's just a brief summary of information, with a {{main}} link to the specific article. Their claims of NPOV are a bit overexaggerated, but it's worth noting, even with a very miniscule mention. Grsz1119:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
