User talk:Veggies/Archive 6
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Hatez meh teh troophers"
Just a quick reminder here: It's conducive to a collaborative project to maintain civility at all times and assume good faith within reason, including with people we disagree with. Please keep this in mind in your future contributions. Thank you. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right, right. I just hate 9/11 Truthers. Not for being Truthers, but for completely ignoring all facts that contradict them as Government Propaganda... -- VegitaU (talk)
First class
If first class is rows 1-5 it looks like there are 7 fatalities and 4 with serious injuries, assuming that the assigned seats were the seats used. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, that's strange.. I didn't notice there was a separate "lounge" - Perhaps it was a three class aircraft and it calls the actual first class lounge. But even so the NTSB said that it could not establish a relationship between documented seat map and survival in the crash, so I would have to say "one person who was documented as being in first class survived." WhisperToMe (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
a little help please?
This edit and previous edits to the same page: I've messed up my reference, and can't quickly spot what I did incorrectly. I have to dash off, a friend has an emergency and I have to leave immediately. Would you please look over my edit and fix it if you have time, please? User:Pedant (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It might be strange for me to ask you for help, but I know you are familiar with the material and can do it. User:Pedant (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice Layout
How would I go about obtaining a layout like the one on your user page? Any input would be greatly appreciated. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just click 'Edit this page' on my user page and copy the code. Paste it onto your own page and change whatever you need to change. That's what I did originally. I took the code from User:Jimbo Wales. User:Thx2005 has a similar layout. -- VegitaU (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. This should help greatly. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Moving
I'm still in favor of moving - I got sidetracked with other stuff, I guess ... WhisperToMe (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
9/11 - Tachyonbursts
Don't worry too much about Tachyonbursts. I suspect he will self destruct in the coming days, and we can get back to trying to build a nominateable article. =) --Tarage (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've put in a complaint at WP:AN/I. I guess we'll see what happens. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Tachyonbursts
Goading like this[1] isn't really necessary or helpful. He's on a topic ban and I'm watching him. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- So you've just seen his two edits on the 9/11 article? How exactly is topic banning enforceable then? -- VegitaU (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing those edits to my attention. But it's not necessary to twist the knife. It would be unfortunate if even more editors were to come under editing restrictions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Disruptive Edits
Why don't you contact me with a civil inquiry before you accuse me of 'disruptive edits'?
If perhaps you paused to examine the nature of my edits, you'll notice that I was trying to rectify the discrepancies in various 9/11 related pages. United Airlines Flight 93 has a total of 45 in its 'Others' section and a total of 44 in its 'Summary'. United Airlines Flight 175's 'Summary' lists 56 passengers, but its 'Nationalities' section lists 47. September 11, 2001 attacks lists 64 fatalites (including hijackers) for Flight 175. So if you've set yourself up as a policman for these pages, why don't you rectify these discrepancies yourself? If I wanted to vandalize anything, I'd go to a PC cafe with an anonymous IP. Davidabram (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Images for deletion
Hi VegitaU! Noticed that you left a few messages on the images from Google Earth as nominated for deletion. Google Earth gives licence to use the images as long as the attributions including the Google logo attribution are preserved. I have recently used an image from Google Earth in one of my publications for a Springer's journal and it has been accepted. The reviewers there had visited the copyrights of these images and have reconfirmed that they are copyright free. If need be I can email you the uncorrected proof (it is not online yet). But, that would be a last resort as I would like to maintain anonymity on Wikipedia. Let me know if you still think that there is a copyright violation. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 06:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do know that I left my message in your talk page not too long ago, but your tagging is causing a cascade of effects which can be partially evident with a quick look at my talk page. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 12:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see that you have been on wiki after my messages above. May be you missed them. Please respond to them on why you still think the tag you added is valid. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Didn't mean to ignore you. I think two people messaged me at once and I only caught the last one. Anyways, WP:NFCC and WP:NFC lay out the policies with respect to images. The images I tagged, first of all, weren't being used on any mainspace article. You can't have fair-use images on userspace. Secondly, as you can see here, you uploaded the images with a GNU free-use tag which Google Earth and Google Maps do not fall under. Google is holds the copyrights on its images and services. So I changed the copyright tag to reflect this. Thirdly, I tagged the image for deletion because, as mentioned in the Wikipedia policies, you can't use a fair-use image to illustrate something that can be photographed. That is, if there's a possibility of a free image, then a fair-use image can't be used. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guess if it is not a GNU free, then please advice me on what does it come under. Google earth, as the link I have provided in licence, would let tell you that they do allow it to be used for non-commecial purposes. Please do go through the licence part before you tag them. As I mentioned earlier, Google Earth image as this one was part of a recent paper I had submitted to a well aclaimed journal (can not mention more details here as I really do like to maintain anonimity on Wiki but do feel free to demand for a uncorreted author's proof from the journal if you need one) and they do agree that it can be used for academic and any non-commecial purposes. The image was not uploaded for my userspace, but for an ongoing discussion on jurisdiction of water falls of which this one is used for. You should have seen the links at the bottom of the image page and it was you who removed them from the archives of the talk page [2]. Not only that the very serious dispute being discussed doesn't make any sense after you removed them, the discussion is still going on and we need the archives to be visited ever so often untill then. Please do respond asap since I do not want to remove the tag myself and violate the rules, and the time is closing down on the deletion. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- It goes under what I tagged it: a non-free software screenshot. Which means it needs a fair-use rationale, which is immediately violated when taken into context because these waterfalls can be photographed in real life, they are not historical pieces (i.e. now gone). Because they are considered "replaceable", they can't be used on Wikipedia, regardless of what research paper used them or what Google gives users permission to do: Wikipedia rules.
- I see that you have been on wiki after my messages above. May be you missed them. Please respond to them on why you still think the tag you added is valid. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- First it is not a screen shot, but an output. Please refer to this page for copyrights of Google Earth images. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- FYI photographs of the falls are already there, but what we need there is the topographic map with small features shown clearly, as well as, the political boundry. This is what the discussion there is about on the falls article. The image is very much irreplaceable. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you think Google policies trump Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia? If a map is what your arguing for, Wikimedia has tons of maps! Please see the dispute resolution page if you need clarification. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- We don't have one for this and as I already said, why look for another source anyways, when it states that you are free to use it for non-commercial purposes? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I think you are not seeing the point. IF I created one, we can't use it to discuss. We can creat one for the mainspace, BUT not to show as reference. Google maps doesn't show the resolution we need to in this discussion. To be more clear, we need to be able to see where the actual border crosses over. On the waterfalls itself, or on an island next to it. If it was availabe on google maps or wikimapia, then we would have just provided links. Unfortunately it doesn,t. Even NASA world wind doesn't give that resolution. Google Earth is the only one that does. Hope I have explained myself enough. Thanks for the patient replies and I really do not intend to troll on your page. But as you may agree its best to discuss. Thanks Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, am a real thick daft nut, I don't know what you mean by it sounds good to you!!!! Are we going to get rid of the tags or it stays there? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Anyways, you haven't been rude in your replies and so I shall try to put this as gentle as possible. Please do not leave warning messages on user pages, unless, it is unavoidable. Talking about replaceable things, a warning message can be replaced with a milder tone message of pointing out copyright stuff and initiate an healthy discussion. Its just for the next time for you. I, when I find myself in need of leaving a warning message to a new user, who would other wise be considered a vandal, leave him/her a {{welcome}} template, which lists the rules and guidelines of wikipedia. The user will obviously see his/her edits being removed/reverted and also get the message why. If it goes further, then you leave a warning. This is how I work and trust me, it works. I can quote you two examples of new editors (former vandals by others intepretation) who are now great contributors. Thanks for your time anyways. I will get back in touch with you, if the image survives deletion process. As a good will gesture, it would be nice if you can strike off the warning you left. It won't take a second for me to just remove them, but I believe in building good gesture relationships within Wiki editors. Ciao Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 23:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Image:Cairo - Mohandesin.PNG, you will be blocked from editing. This image is copyrighted. Do not change templates to claim free-use or public-domain status. VegitaU (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Really, is that what you think I did? First of all, this images is from Google Maps; which is a free-use AND a public-domain.
Second, threatening to block me...WOW, didn't u see my contributions to Wikpedia. I would like you to take a look at some of my contributions:
- City Stars (Cairo), was, before my contributions.
- Showtime Arabia, was, before my contributions.
- Gezira Sporting Club is an article I created from scratch.
Plus all my other corrections to valuable information that was placed in a wrong way or was even wrong. So just blocking because of something that stupid, even if I was wrong (which I am NOT), is the stupidest thing I ever heard around here.
I am sorry if you think that, but I guess you go around doing whatever you want cause you're an admin here.
Anyway, go ahead do what ever you want...Abdallah (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- No that's not what I think you did, that's what you did. I'm not interested in your contributions or questioning how good an editor you are. All I'm saying is you can't remove copyrighted tags and replace them with free-use tags. Google Maps are not free-use maps. Google does not release them to the public, they just allow the user to view them through their website for no charge as a gesture of goodwill and a way to get more people to use their site and invest in their projects. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Alright then, my bad! Thought that Google Maps was a free software license...but I did not have bad intentions, I did not remove Google Earth from the distribution of the image...
- I am sorry for that tone earlier, but I still think the threatening to block part was useless and offensive as well. Cheers, Abdallah (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Deleted bit on the 9/11 article
Hey, a few weeks ago you deleted a large section of mostly my edits on the article about 9/11. Here are the deletions:
Could you explain it? You said that they were redundant and poorly sourced, but they were not redundant (where else on the page is it?) and not poorly sourced (I was very careful about citations). Also, you replaced it with text that didn't capture the essence of the information: you left out al-Zawahiri in the list of signers of the 1998 fatwa, despite the fact that in the stuff you deleted, I cited an article that said that he was indeed not only the author of the fatwa, but the key figure in al-Qaeda's operations. Ssmith619 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can never get all my reasons out on the edit summary; apologies, I'm sure you've worked very hard on this and I wasn't trying to cheapen your contributions. I've been revising the article and deleting everything that's not absolutely necessary to try and shorten the 110K + size. The 1998 fatwa was signed by a variety of people, but the central figure remembered is Osama bin Laden. There's a link to the fatwa in case the reader wants to go see what it's all about. The 9/11 article even still says "signed by bin laden and others." -- VegitaU (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sinebot
This bot did not vandalize your page, the "look at this" edit was separate (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVegitaU&diff=211391071&oldid=210911272), sinebot just took care of the {{unsigned}} part like it is supposed to. — xaosflux Talk 03:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Removal of talk page comments
Just a friendly reminder that removing other users' good-faith edits on talk pages (such as this edit) can lead to accusations of vandalism, even if you consider the comment unnecessary. Please bear this in mind in future. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 23:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
American Airlines Flight 11
Hi VegitaU. I'll take a look today. Finetooth (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Done. That's about as far as I can safely go. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Finetooth (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you do not yet have email set in your preferences. That might be helpful should I need to send some reference material for an article. I have some material that is not directly, at no cost, available online. Regards --Aude (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Stop with the vandalism
Please stop arbitratary deleting comments on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. Nobody died and make you god of the page. Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The above warning appears to be nonsense. VegitaU appears to be working within the arbitration decision and helping to enforce it. VegitaU, let me know if you need further help on this issue. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Image Deletion from Article Perdido Key
The images on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perdido_Key%2C_Florida are not copyrighted. I took the photos and released them to the public domain. While it is true that the photos were selected to appear on Google Earth and Panoramio, they were selected from my Panoramio account, http://www.panoramio.com/user/153276
I will take some new photos today for use in the article that will not appear on Google Earth.
Joey Eads (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- All righty. I actually just wanted to discuss that with you on ANI. Thank you. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Airlines Flight 77 copyedit
Hi, I'm overwhelmed at the moment, but I'll add your request to the deep pile on my desk. I'll try to take a look, but it won't be any time soon. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Way to go
Congratulations on the FA for American Airlines Flight 11. I was surprised that it got so little attention, but maybe it's just that FAC is quiet right now. And good for you for standing firm on the language for the reason the towers fell. Though I don't think it was Laser brain's intention to introduce the conspiracy theories, I like it when editors have ethics and standards for their articles. It was a hard article to read and review. For me, at least. Good job. --Moni3 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. I do have a history of being overly snappy sometimes. I know Laser was just making reasonable assumptions and I didn't mean any disrespect. Thanks again for helping out the article. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Congrats from me as well...nice job.--MONGO 23:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Request
I want someone to make a TOC(Tables of content) template for wikipedia like this[3]. If you know how to make, then please put on your effort as it will be good for wikipedia and its users. *The image is an edited one*. I didn't find any template that would break or split the contents into half and put the other half on right side[4]. This template will utilize the blank space and will make the contents table easily accessible without scrolling down. THANKS. Harryroger (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TOC_template.JPG){kind=link}
Copyediting Request
Hi VegitaU. I have not had much advanced copyediting experience, but I would like to copyedit September 11, 2001 attacks. If I were to copyedit the article, it might be best to have someone else make a little check after my copyediting, because I'm not sure how fine my skills are. I'd like to have an opportunity like this, but if you'd rather not have someone who's less experienced, that's fine. Let me know so we can avoid edit conflicts of two editors actively on the same page – for now, I'd like to just begin a preliminary copyedit. Thanks! Jamie☆S93 18:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again VegitaU. I've completed copyediting the September 11, 2001 attacks article. It seems like that took kind of long for me to complete, but I think the prose is in decent shape for an FAC.
- By the way, I'd be happy to help with the prose-related article alterations and comments on the FAC sub-page if you'd like. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you ever need an extra hand with the FAC on that article. :) Cheers, Jamie☆S93 14:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Flight 77
Thought of doing some reviewing of prose and other issues at FAC? TONY (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't think I'm all that experienced at reviewing. You need to know WP:MOS by heart. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Reference columns
Hi, please, there is no need to change reflists to 2 columns immediately. The immediate issue is a Firefox bug and should have Firefox deal with it, NOT change all the reflists here, because it only affects Firefox 3 users. For the MOS part of things, please take it to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reflist. Gary King (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Lights in the Sky map.jpg
Hey VegitaU, thanks for the note. I was assuming I'd run into problems with the image eventually, but you surprised me with how quick it happened! You pointed out on my talk page that I claimed fair-use with the image. This is not true; I stated it was free-use. The free-use template was there, which you took off yourself (diff). So that's really where the problem lies. I'm not sure how in-depth you went, but if you take a look at the image source link, it is licensed as Creative Commons (which I tagged it as). So, I'm not really sure where the problem lies, except in that it's no longer tagged appropriately. Please let me know what you think. Drewcifer (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Original barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For VegitaU, for improving American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, and September 11, 2001 attacks that needed to be done, that I would not touch with a 10-foot pole. They are so painfully sad still, and there's too much nuttiness in them. Moni3 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC) |
Now I'm off to rip your article apart at FAC! Yay! I know you didn't do this by yourself, though. Pass it along to whoever else deserves it.
Edit to add: Cats in tiny hats... I don't see them at FAC yet... --Moni3 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Operation COOKIE MONSTER
Air Force
You user page says you were in the AF and went to Iraq. My brother in-law is still in and just got back from his third tour in Iraq/Kuwait. Maybe you know him. Where did you go to basic and tech school? Steve8675309 (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe. I got out over a year ago, though. I went to Lackland for basic, and Keesler and Sheppard for tech school. But that was a while ago. -- VegitaU (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
it is what it is
You do not have the right to remove talk page comments, I saw that you done it again and I said to that user that this kind of thinks should be "reported".--Ilhanli (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
WTC7
Why we do not add this images about WTC7, they are free. --144.122.250.205 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what anything on that site says. And I would wager most 7 WTC images are actually copyrighted. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
United Airlines Flight 93
Sorry you delinked dates (at my suggestion) only to be asked to link them again! Now User:Tony1 has delinked them once more. Hope you have a good sense of humor! Regardless, I think your article is excellent. Normally I stay away from reading 9/11 related articles, but yours strikes just the right tone. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Aircraft of Spetember 11, 2001
Have a better idea - why do you not revert my edits and leave the information on the page - you are wrong and this is the page for this information.... I keep reverting everytime you keep screwing-up my contributionsDavegnz (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Kuntzler references on Motive section of 9/11
Hi VegitaU. First of all, thank you for serviing our country. I am in awe of your contributions to our safety. re my post being suspended - how does this get decided? do you do it? do I look at all the comments and try again? I don't mind going with Kaufman's idea, as I can see what I put in was too long.--waldenpond (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)rosedora
- Thanks. The discussion is open on the talk page. Editors have added part of your contribution into the article already. I'm not too familiar with the issue myself. I just cloaked it for formatting reasons. You can try putting what you want in the talk page and see what people think. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Please be aware of how you express yourself; I do not consider my edits as unproductive. The submission made to the September 11, 2001 attacks was to see what the issue was when contributions made by an editor that were reverted were brought up to the WP:AIRCRAFT PROJECT group. I "tested" the article with basic, referenced edits, and instead received the treatment normally visited on a vandal. I can see what the aforementioned editor was describing. For your edification:
 | This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. |
Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect one another. But we have every right to demand civility.
Problem
Visitors are invited to improve the text in Wikipedia. But often there are differences of opinion on whether a change in text is an "improvement". When editors weigh the pros and cons of whether a change is an improvement, it may be difficult to criticize text without being subjective about the situation. Editors, in trying to be clear, can be unnecessarily harsh on the giving end. Conversely, on the receiving end, editors can be oversensitive when they see what they wrote replaced by something that claims to be "better", despite it being the opposite of what they wrote.
Silent and faceless words on Talk pages and Edit summaries do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious comments being misinterpreted. One uncivil remark can easily escalate into a heated discussion which may not be focused objectively on the problem at hand. It is during these exchanges that community members may become uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy".
Examples
Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
- Rudeness
- Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")
- Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
- Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:CIV#ICA)
- Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but... or 1st, read WP:MOS - your revs are poorly written; 2nd, aircraft types says nothing about transcontinental nature; just write and cite 'transcontinental'."
- Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute.
More serious examples include:
- Taunting
- Personal attacks
- Racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
- Profanity directed at another contributor
- Lies
- Defacing user pages
- Giving users derogatory names via Pagemove vandalism
- Calling for bans or blocks
- Indecent suggestions
Incivility happens, for example, when you are quietly creating a new page, and another user tells you, If you're going to write a pointless page, could you spell-check it?.
Escalation occurs when you reply, Mind your own business.
- That's great, thanks. You might want to read Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the article and event is a sensitive issue but civility is one of the cornerstones of the project. I note that you have acted in a restrained manner in at least one of the situations, although, one of the first edit-checks experienced editors will do is to refer to an edit history before reversion. I specifically mention this because reversion or "rollback" is specifically limited to combating vandalism. My advice is to think before reacting especially in making "biting" comments and to use a correction when it is clear that an edit falls into WP:AGF. FWiW, if you wish to continue our discourse, please use my talk page. Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC).
3RR
1. Don't template me again. I am well aware of 3RR and you should not template the regulars. 2. I find it amusing that you gave me a warning regarding 3RR, when you have made 3 reverts yourself.
Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars
- Don't template the regulars, I suggest you read it.
- Any templates placed by you on my user page, will be removed. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Val McC.
Please don't change the referenced edit which says that she took the only known photo. Ok, I'll let you have your way keep from the public that she has been harassed (properly referenced from reliable sources) but let's not hide the fact that the photo is the only known photo. That is what makes it notable.
Likewise, we don't say "Joe Public took a photo of the WTC" because many people did so. Val was the ONLY one to do so of United 93. Presumptive (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Good Article Review
I have started a review here of the 9/11 article you are welcome to comment. BigDuncTalk 21:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
AA flight
What the heck is going on at Talk:American Airlines Flight 11?? --Laser brain (talk) 03:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- User:Thefactis and I are discussing problems he has with the lead. Apparently the phrases are inaccurate POV—according to him, at least. I'm still trying to figure out what he's talking about. Feel free to add to the discussion if you want to. -- Veggy (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
"August 2008" - reply to your post
- --> Please see my reply at the article's Discussion page: [5] --AVM (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Please, you stop screwing with the lead sentence. There are major objections by others about your version of the lead in the 9/11 article. The comma is not part of the title so it violates WP:LEAD. If you are going to have a highlighted phrase that is not the exact title, you might as well have a good phrase, not the awkward one you propose.
The article needs improvement so I am improving one sentence at a time. Please allow improvement and don't revert to the version which does not have consensus. The version that I placed was discussed for 13 days and improved by Peter Grey. There was not opposition. If you want to change it, you must discuss it and after a few days, we'll see how the discussion leads. Presumptive (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Use of Twinkle
Hello. Could you please be more careful in your use of Twinkle to revert other user's edits. These reverts: [6], [7], [8] (and some others in your contribution history) were not reverts of clear vandalism but you mis-labelled them as such. When reverting good-faith edits, it is better to avoid automated edit summaries and enter the summary manually. Implicitly calling another editor a vandal inevitably leads to ill-feeling and an unproductive atmosphere. CIreland (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really care but...
... did you "steal" my signature and Gb's user page design? :P -- RyRy (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I went to WP:LOCEM and saw something cool (might have been yours) because I got tired of the mainstream signature. And I took my main page style from User:Jimbo Wales. -- Veggy (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
THANK YOU
Wow, thank you so much, you have no idea how shocking and amazing this is. I didn't think anyone was going to like it, I expected it to be reverted. This means so much to me, you made my week. --Enzuru 06:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like it has already been changed. I was expecting this, we'll see what happens. --Enzuru 08:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Notification about an AN/I thread
You are being discussed in the following AN/I thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Please help that was started by User:Presumptive. Nsk92 (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
TFA/R
The vandal is blocked, but you reverted to a version that still includes both of his vandal requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |