Hear, hear! Little Aude hit nail on head! What is Wikipedia about? [1] Have very own popcornmaker! Scoot over on couch, watch the show, share popcorn with 'zilla and little 'shonen (don't give ArbCom any). bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC). reply

Mmmmm popcorn. Thanks! -- Aude ( talk) 12:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Aude. As far as I know this kind of behaviour has never been accepted in the 9/11 pages: any significant change from estabilished versions must be discussed before being applied in order to check wheter there is consensus, and discussions should not be made by means of edit summaries, they must be made in the talk page. Don't you agree?-- Pokipsy76 ( talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Aude/Archive9, In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.  —  Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply

My apologies, but your latest violations forced me to seek the remedy for your unacceptable behavior and disregard to the community, you may find it at the Administrators' noticeboard. Tachyonbursts ( talk) 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Please consider joining the working group for the WMF DC chapter. Since we have a very active and very community oriented DC/MD/VA area group of Wikipedians, it only makes sense to develop it as a chapter, especially given the recent changes to the Board of Trustees structure, giving chapters more of a vote. Hopefully we will be either the first or the second officially recognized US Chapter (WMF Pennsylvania is pending as well), and hopefully our efforts will benefit WMF Penn as well. Remember, it's a working group, and this is a wiki, so feel free to offer changes, make bold changes to the group, and discuss on the talk page! I hope to see you there, as well as Wikimeetup DC 4 if you're attending. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC) reply

As someone who may live or work near Washington D.C., you may be interested - if you've not heard already - about the meetup scheduled for Saturday, May 17th, at Union Station. For details, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4.

You are receiving this automated message because your userpage appears in Category:Wikipedians in the District of Columbia. Addbot ( talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Aude, first, let me thank you for your dedication to 9/11 articles and efforts to edit.

Second, I'm planning to put Flight 11 up for Featured Article status tonight. I just wanted your input on that. As an admin and editor of the article, how do you feel about the article's status? -- VegitaU ( talk) 04:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Alrighty. I've activated my email address. -- VegitaU ( talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't want to start a new section, but I wanted your input on something. With Wikipedia being such a visible source, we can really make a statement with what we display. There are pictures of bodies found at the Pentagon found here and posting these could really open people's eyes. Especially those who say there were no bodies seen at the Pentagon. What do you think? Should we post these? -- VegitaU ( talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I realize that Wikipedia is not censored, but think maybe we should exercise some caution. I think pictures of debris would be better. For example, this picture shows a piece of debris that very clearly came from an American Airlines aircraft. That picture is in the public domain and usable here. There are plenty of other debris pictures and other photos that would be good. -- Aude ( talk) 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I made a first pass on AA11. I have not touched the crash or aftermath sections yet. Will get to those later this afternoon. -- PTR ( talk) 16:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Completed first pass copy edit. -- PTR ( talk) 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC) reply

It's looking good with the new lead and all the work by User:Finetooth. Good luck on the FA. -- PTR ( talk) 12:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you missed the part where the editor removed the CSD tag. Which, as you of course know, is blockable if the editor persists. He removed it twice and I warned him appropriately. Have a nice day. Bstone ( talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

He removed it because the CSD tagging was inappropriate. Such templated warnings are also highly inappropriate to use against established users. Please don't do that again. -- Aude ( talk) 14:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The only inappropriate thing was this editor removing a legit CSD tag. He has been appropriately warned, per policy. From WP:CSD, "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add [[hangon}} to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page." Thank you for your concern. I consider this the sum of our conversation. Bstone ( talk) 14:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

What you quote is worded with terms like "may" and "should" and says nothing about blocking. Please use common sense. Such quick tagging (and retagging) of articles without giving editors a chance is the type of action that discourages good editors and can drive them away from the project. Ditto for using templated warnings. User:Jbmurray and User:Geo Swan are two of our best editors. Regards. -- Aude ( talk) 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. I tried to respond to your comments at FAC. There are now more wikilinks and the lead has been quite radically revised, in a way that is intended to set off better the article's emphases and strengths. And further thoughts you had would be most appreciated. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 08:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I will take a look over the weekend. I think the article has improved alot, but will see if I can offer any more suggestions. -- Aude ( talk) 18:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply

		The Epic Barnstar
		With American Airlines Flight 11 a Featured Article, I just wanted to thank you for finding sources and being a major contributer and editor during the month-long promotion process.

Excellent work on your part! Cheers. -- Aude ( talk) 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey Aude, check out the section entitled hello on my talk page and inform me at User:Redmarkviolinist/Talkpage2 on how I dealt with the questions that Xiutwel asked me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} _{Review Me!} 18:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Aude, were you planning to revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Airlines Flight 77? Since you're an admin, I was wondering if you could look into Talk:The Pentagon#Article title; it looks to me like our article is mistitled, and belongs at Pentagon (building), but I'm hoping you know more about the actual name of the building. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't like the way of inputing more realistic point of view into 'conspiracy teories' - all more educated Americans already know the truth. Other people live not aware as they under the influence of propaganda. What we gonna do with this? On which side we are? All English wikipedia supports untruly facts as one checks another. This makes the official version very stable. Will we need to wait until the history will show the real true? But TRUE will not be thanksgiving to wikipedia. I know this mechanisms much better as I'm a Polish and I lived in such system of selfchecking many years. But finally truth won in Poland. I you can do it Americans - if we were able do it in the past - you also can. Peace my men!!!

Astropata user talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropata ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Aude. The problem from March of the insistent editor persists. (To refresh your recollection check here and here.) Your last advice to me was simply to keep reverting his edits, but I am growing uncomfortable with doing it six or seven times in the space of a month -- after this length of time, that approach begins to seem almost as robotic and unhelpful as the underlying problem. I will continue to do that if in fact it is the best course but I wonder if there is something else I should be doing (also whether this requires a blunter approach). Thoughts, advice? JohnInDC ( talk) 10:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

At this point, it's best to get an uninvolved admin to look at the situation. I suggest bringing the matter up at the administrators noticeboard for incidents - WP:ANI. Wikihw's contributions are not all bad, but his/her conduct is a problem that needs attention. -- Aude ( talk) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'll write something up. JohnInDC ( talk) 16:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

It's here. I do mention your name. If you have a moment to comment on the entry, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 17:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 93. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Let me know if there's anything else you want me to do about this or if it's good to go. -- Veggy ( talk) 00:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I think the article is good. I'm double checking sources and details. Some details with the article may have to wait until I come back to the states and cross check with non-web sources (e.g. Without Precedent by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton). Still the quality if the article is excellent and it should pass now. -- Aude ( talk) 20:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

It'll be good to have you back. Hope you enjoyed hunting terrorists—or whatever it is you do. -- Veggy ( talk) 22:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I was at your presentation yesterday. I just want to add couple of more points on the reasons behind why Egyptians don't write in Arabic wikipedia. 1st we noticed lately in other websites that when participants were writing in politics in English only few groups of people were interacting with them. But when they start writing in Arabic they get persecuted by gov. 2nd also Arabic people who can read English believe that the English content is more reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafaahmedhussien ( talk • contribs) 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I hope you don't mind me asking, but why did you remove the POV tag, when the NPOV of the article is currently being disputed? Sennen goroshi ( talk) 18:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for the barnstar. It is greatly appreciated. And no worries about the FAC. Like I said, I am happy to respond to concerns with the article; I was definitely was expecting some questions and/or problems. The process hasn't been too bad, but I spent several months running it through several peer reviews, etc. to make sure the article wasn't missing anything! I definitely understand that all criticism is constructive. Thanks again. Best, epicAdam ( talk) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Aude,

this picture [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa.jpg ] was uploaded by you. I would like to know if you are the photographer as well? I would like to use the picture in a poster advertising a youth orchestra concert in Berlin/Germany. I am aware that the copyright of the painter has expired but I am not sure about the semi-commercial use of the photography. Can you help me?

Thanks, Robert.

The picture is not mine. Though, I believe it is in the public domain, thus you may use it. -- Aude ( talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...
	Hello Aude, Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief. Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying. Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC) reply This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government. You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace. Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier.	Help us get the project off the ground and flying.

I worked on some articles about Supreme Court cases a while ago, but don't think I can add much or give much time to another wikiproject. And I don't live in the U.S. now. Regards -- Aude ( talk) 17:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi I'm a user from the Catalan wikipedia ( Viquipèdia Catalana) and I'm migrating my count in other wiquipedias and I have seen that nobody is using "Canals" in the english wikipedia but I can't migrate that name so it maybe somebody has create it and isn't using it... and I want know if any administrator can do anything.

Thanks, Canals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.217.40 ( talk) 18:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Try Wikipedia:Usurpation which allows users to take over usernames of unused accounts. -- Aude ( talk) 18:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you! -- Canals-- 81.33.217.40 ( talk) 19:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I recently edited the Conspiracy Theories section of the Flight 77 article to include the "flyover theory" in the section, but it was reverted, citing "wikipedia is not a soapbox." That edit followed exactly the form and structure of the existing section, and included a link to interviews in the Library of Congress. Is it possible to add the "flyover theory" to the Conspiracy Theories section of the Flight 77 article? Facilitatetruth ( talk) 23:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! We're working out the details about the next DC Meetup sometime this month and would love your opinion. Please check it out at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 5 and spread the word. Staeiou ( talk) 18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Greetings! You are receiving this message because you said you wanted to be reminded about future DC meetups on Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_4. We are planning the next DC meetup in late August/early September at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_5, and would love to have your input. Staeiou ( talk) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have made at least 25 edits to Chicago. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 18:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Aude, I have a question for WP:GEOGRAPHY which I am going to ask you directly. I'm going to ask also at the Geography talk page, please sit back and watch to see if anyone else responds there.

• Do you have any insight to add at this question on the Science Reference Desk? Thanks if you do, no problem if you don't. Do you know any other geo-interested editors who could help? I ask you because you are the first project member I found who appears active. Thanks!
• On a more general level, and not directed at you or your own particular wiki-project - have you lately tried asking a question at a wiki-project? Was it answered quickly? Do you watch the WP:GEO talk page closely? I ask this because I have become somewhat disillusioned at the wiki-project concept, to my mind they should be the first resort for questions. Often they are active and responsive. Equally often, inspection of the project talk page reveals echoing emptiness. From the overall view of the wiki, that disturbs me.
• And now I will post the same longitude question to WP:GEO as the experiment. Hopefully any other project members reading here first will note so if they respond there.

Thanks for your attention. I'd prefer to get that RefDesk question resolved above all else. Cheers! :) Franamax ( talk) 03:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your edits to Alexandria on Wikitravel. As you're living in Egypt, a skilled Wikimaniac and a native speaker of English, would you be interested in signing up to edit the Cairo/Alex guide for Wikitravel Press? It's not a big job, just cleaning up any missed vandalism and adding in major changes that readers have missed once per month, and you'll get a royalty for any copies sold. Jpatokal ( talk) 14:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Can you please contact me via e-mail. I would need an electronic copy (pdf?) to look at, as I remember there being some issues with the Arabic phrase book. I would like to see what needs to be done with it. Thanks. -- Aude ( talk) 15:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot ( talk) 23:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC) reply

It was nice meeting you at the DC meetup. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Aude, you added <ref name="prospect"/> on Mohamed Atta. It was a mistake. Please see this diff: [2]. AdjustShift ( talk) 18:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your work. New editors like me can learn many things from you. :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 18:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I see I was partially wrong, while I defend images like the flight record and driver's license of Atta - you are right that the MSNBC footage of the tower burning is inappropriate use of FU. Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure about the drivers license either. Actually his "mugshot" in the infobox is from his drivers license, so we are duplicating. I just don't know how much fair use we can get away with. This article is getting close to the point were it can be nominated for WP:FAC and they do scrutinize for fair use images. I say we have a choice between the flight record and the drivers license, and the flight record is more helpful in illustrating the article text. -- Aude ( talk) 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to drop a line and say that your DC Homicide Map is awesome!

sohmc ( talk) 15:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. -- Aude ( talk) 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure whether that guy should get a second chance. He sounds earnest enough. What do you, as the blocking admin, think?  Sandstein  11:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

If he's willing to stay away from politics articles, including Sarah Palin, until after the election then an unblock would be okay with me. If he continues to cause problems, then we can reevaluate later. -- Aude ( talk) 16:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC) reply

After reviewing your comments and those of Dstern1, I have unblocked him. Tiptoety ^talk 03:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for following up on this. -- Aude ( talk) 00:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

You told me you had added the times of the planes impacting but please refer to my commets on the 9/11 talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eenuuk ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Replied on the September 11 attacks talk page. -- Aude ( talk) 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Aude,

I've a question about Mohamed Atta. Atta was completing Master's degree in urban planning before he joined Al Qaeda. Did he completed his Master's?

Have a nice day! AdjustShift ( talk) 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC) reply

He finished and defended his thesis in August 1999. He was selected for the 9/11 plot when he went to Afghanistan at the end of 1999 and early 2000. But, he disappeared for periods of time prior in 1997 and 1998, so could have joined Al Qaeda earlier than 1999. -- Aude ( talk) 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. And you've done an amazing work on 9/11-related articles. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for taking the time to help clean up Khalid's article; I've always found him one of the most interesting of the hijackers (if you look back through history, Quadell and I wrote 95% of the articles on the 19 hijackers originally). I just wanted to give you a heads-up that it's difficult to track your diffs, so if you remove any information, I'd appreciate a tap; that way I can dig through my offline sources and see what I can find - my hard drive is filled with original PDFs, scans and the like -- so I might have a document you haven't seen, or a link that I never included as a ref. (The articles were "written" before the WMF ruling on references - so are under-reffed). Cheers, Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

What I'm removing are unreliable sources such as cooperative research, which also happen to be broken links. The sources need to be solidly reliable and high quality, with some news articles (though realizing they got some details wrong at first), government documents, books, etc. When I'm done going through the article, you should definitely look it over to see if you can add anything else. Also, feel free to add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject September 11. -- Aude ( talk) 02:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't mind your removing unreliable sources such as CR, but please leave the facts present with a {{ fact}} tag - that way I know which statements are in need of verification. If you simply remove a claim that a hijacker visited Disneyland because of its CR reference, I won't know to look into the fact. Just use {{ fact}} tags, it's all I ask ;) Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 04:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Hrm, I knew about Jarrah (but didn't consider his "unofficial" to count), but I don't think I knew about Omari; have a link/source for that? Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 07:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

For Omari, see here and here. Marwan al-Shehhi may also have been technically married, which was a forced and arranged marriage setup by his family. There was some ceremony for Shehhi when he visited his family in the UAE in 1999. Shehhi wasn't pleased with this. (there is a footnote in the 9/11 Commission Report, with the story reported in other news articles) -- Aude ( talk) 08:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Any chance you could convert [ this video to OGG so it could be included in the five relevant articles; rather than just the single screenshot? I think people would find it much more "interesting". Only trouble is copyright on a security camera film; I've seen arguments it doesn't exist since it lacks creativity, but we may be pushing a grey line. Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I can most likely convert it to OGG. I think it's possible we could include a brief clip (not the whole thing) and be okay under fair use, not 100% sure and suggest we ask someone more knowledgeable about fair use. (e.g. User:Durova) Some other possible drawbacks are that the video player used in Wikipedia doesn't work for everyone (including me, for some reason). Also, I'm not sure how large the file(s) would be, but I know there is an upload limit for file size. So, I'm not sure about this, but can still try converting the video and see if it can work on Wikipedia. -- Aude ( talk) 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm converting it to a flash video now, which is more compatible for me to view. Will then do ogg. -- Aude ( talk) 03:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Haha, a perfect opportunity for loopholes then; it's an 8 minute film, by simply playing the 85-clip that includes the hijackers, we're clearly meeting FU criteria ;) Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 04:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay, this isn't as straightforward as I thought, so I won't have anything right away. I try in the next day or so. -- Aude ( talk) 05:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Aww, you speak Arabic - you may become my new favourite WP person to harrass for collaboration :D Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 22:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I was hoping to find more details about Mihdhar from Arabic sources, but no luck so far. I'm also not having much luck with the Dulles video. I have it as a .flv file which is much more compact but my software doesn't do ogg. So, I need to install additional software. Anyway, I'm thinking a better venue for the video clip may be another site, which I can do, and then link to it. Everyone can see the still image, and those interested can see the video. I do believe the video falls under fair use, since the use involves critical commentary of the video. -- Aude ( talk) 02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The critical commentary was added by the courts though, not by a private website; so it would be under similar PD/Copyright to the video itself. Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

If you use copyrighted video footage for purposes of critical commentary, then it's permissible under fair use. That's exactly the purpose of using the video, and thus why I believe it would be perfectly okay to post the video somewhere. Though, Wikipedia is more strict about fair use than what copyright laws specify. I posted a note on the FAC page saying that a short video clip might be better than a still image, but still not sure if video clips are permissible. -- Aude ( talk) 18:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The video is posted outside of Wikipedia. [3] If permissible, I could post some portion of this to Wikipedia, but don't see any precedent for posting fair use video clips. -- Aude ( talk) 02:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Aude, I believe that the "See also" section on our September 11 attacks article is unnecessary. You've made more edits to our 9/11 article that any other person in this planet. :-) I'm curious to know your thoughts on this matter. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think most of the links are not needed, but suggest posting a note on Talk:September 11 attacks and see what people think. The purpose of the "See also" is detailed in WP:LAYOUT. -- Aude ( talk) 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I've already posted a note on Talk:September 11 attacks. Since you are the No. 1 contributor, your comment will be critical. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 19:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

A few questions, since I'm glad to see attention being paid to cleaning these up. Often the "information" is there, but it's uncited, poorly worded, confusing or given undue weight.

• The al-Hazmis (and Ghamdis?), should we use "al-Hazmi then rented..." in the article, or "Salem then rented..."?
• I'm going to be very liberal in adding {{ fact}} tags, please don't remove any of the statements, these are just there so I (and you) can see what needs to be confirmed. If one of us can't find any proper citation, drop a note on the talk page and the other person can have a try at finding that information.
• I'm of the opinion we should remove the "External links" link to the 9/11 Commission in each article, it's already extensively linked through the references. Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I say leave everything there as-is, with no fact tags needed. I'm going through everything, doing searches for sources including Lexis-Nexis for news articles that are no longer online. If after searching for sources, I can't find anything then I can move statements to the talk page. Does that work, so you know what's been removed and we can keep looking for sources? -- Aude ( talk) 05:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

For the external links, let's leave the link there for now. While it's okay to have no external links, it's unusual and people might find it a little odd. I'll think about what else to put in external links that might be better than the 9/11 Commission. -- Aude ( talk) 05:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• • While I disagree with external links (I prefer mnimalist on the "extras", heavy on the facts), moving unreferenced facts to the talk page seems like an easy solution, thanks. Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 06:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You should know that I messed around with the categories in order to get the importance categories working. I then unintentionally screwed up every other category and I know that you'll notice it and tell me so I figured i'd tell you first. I would stay up and fix it tonight but I don't feel all that well so i'll look at it tomorrow and fix it. Sorry for messing up the categories but I think that the automatic update might be slow when concerning the templates. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate you working on the categories and setting up the assessment page. It's fine with me to fix the categories tomorrow or sometime later. Cheers. -- Aude ( talk) 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Aude. I'd be happy to look at the Khalid al-Mihdhar article. I'll let you know about any issues I encounter. momoricks ^talk 03:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much. It's a huge help. -- Aude ( talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

First of all, kudos on your writing/copyediting skills. Wikipedia definitely needs more people like you. Second, I went through the article and fixed small stuff like grammar, spelling, punctuation, wikilinks, etc. It's 4:30 a.m. here so I'm gonna hit the sack, but I'll post the things that need to addressed on the article talk page later today. In the meantime, I'd suggest using WebCite to archive all of the online sources to keep them from being lost if the URLs change, are deleted, etc. Best, momoricks ^talk 11:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I find that a second run through an article helps fine tune everything, so I'll do that this morning and be in touch with you soon. momoricks ^talk 06:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I posted my "report" on the article talk page. Best of luck! momoricks ^talk 13:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For your tireless work on Khalid al-Mihdhar to bring it up to FA status. momoricks talk 00:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Very much appreciated. -- Aude ( talk) 02:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a note to remind you that all of your comments about the Featured article candidate of PNC Park have been addressed. If there is anything else that you feel needs attention please let me know. Thank you! Black ngold29 03:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I have adressed your second batch of comments—some with corrections and others with further explination. The reason why there are so many viewpoints in the "Reception" section is because I kind of wrote it like an album's reception section. If Rolling Stone and MTV both say the album is good, both should be quoted in the paragraph. So while it may sound redundant to say two or three sources called it a good ballpark, it is vital to show that the opinion that it is widely held. Black ngold29 22:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm satisfied with your explanation. Cheers. -- Aude ( talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I couldn't help you. Classes are killing me right now. One notable issue issue is Ziad Jarrah. Technically an FA article, but I think a look-through will undeniably show you it's really not up to 2008 FA standards. Whenever I get around to reading Looming Tower and Prefect Soldiers, I'll definately help out. -- Veggy ( talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Totally understand that you don't have much time at all for Wikipedia. I think Khalid al-Mihdhar is okay now, thanks to excellent copyediting help from User:Momoricks. I think the next article that is almost ready to put up for FAC is Wail al-Shehri, which is not overly long, and will get around to working on Ziad Jarrah's article at some point. Along with the individual hijackers articles, there is the Organizers of the September 11 attacks article which needs substantial work. Whenever you get spare time, your input will be welcome. -- Aude ( talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

On a separate note, was Ziad Jarrah married to his girlfriend? Inside 9/11 purports he was, but I can't find anything in the article. -- Veggy ( talk) 17:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think they had an informal and unofficial ceremony in Germany, but didn't involve his family. This needs explanation in his article, along with appropriate sources. In The Perfect Soldiers, Terry McDermott wrote

In the spring [1999], Ziad Jarrah married Aysel Sengün at a ceremony at Al Nur Mosque in Hamburg... Jarrah’s wedding must have been a desultory affair. It was done over Aysel’s objections not at Al Quds, where Jarrah worshipped, but at the Tabligh mosque. It was almost as if he were trying to hide the event. Neither family was informed, before or after. It was clear the wedding was intended to do little more than placate Jarrah’s friends, or perhaps his conscience... The couple never registered the marriage with the state, and Aysel said she didn’t consider it genuine. It was real enough, however, that she insisted the two of them sign a contract beforehand that specified she could continue her medical studies.

-- Aude ( talk) 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Wow. I really gotta read that book. Fascinating. Thanks. -- Veggy ( talk) 19:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Not to continue bugging you, but an annoying issue is the contradictions that sources make. For example, I was looking over Jarrah being pulled over 2 days before the attacks. One source says it was near Pikesville, Maryland (which would make it on I-695) while another says somewhere in Cecil County, Maryland on I-95. Inside 9/11 says Pikesville, but it was almost definitely in Cecil County from what I've read. Anyways, it just serves to confuse people and encourage CTs. -- Veggy ( talk) 23:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC) reply

This CNN article [4] which is specifically about the traffic stop says he was stopped on I-95 near the Delaware state line, in Cecil County. The article also says "PIKESVILLE" in the byline, but that is the location of the Maryland State Police headquarters [5], which is probably the source of confusion. The announcement about releasing the video probably happened at state police headquarters. Another source, is a court document presented at the Moussaoui trial [6] (document B) which says Jarrah received the citation in the Perryville area in Cecil County. So, I would have to say Cecil County is where he was stopped. -- Aude ( talk) 00:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the one I read also focused on the mile-95 marker on I-95 in Cecil Co. Shame Inside 9/11 got it wrong. -- Veggy ( talk) 00:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi again, Aude. Thank you for the advice. It is much appreciated. On a different note, I'd be happy to copyedit any other articles you are working on. Best regards, momoricks ^talk 00:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Your welcome. Let me know if you need help for anything else. For copyediting, I'm almost done with the Wail al-Shehri article, which is not overly long. I added webcite links, but still need to add page numbers, check the page for manual of style compliance, and anything else I can think of. Then, the article does need copyediting before nominating it at featured article candidates. It's important to not repeat the same problems that came up with the Khalid al-Mihdhar article. -- Aude ( talk) 01:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you deleted pretty much the entire Discussion page for this issue, thereby ending many on-going issues being discussed on improving the article. I was wondering what your reasoning was in doing this and if it was acceptable by Wikipedia. I see no such message to the editors on the Discussion page. Neurolanis ( talk) 17:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It is routine procedure to archive a talk page when it gets too large. Links to the talk page archives are at the top of the Talk:September 11 attacks page. You are welcome to start a new discussion or revive an old one on the article talk page. -- Aude ( talk) 18:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Neurolanis ( talk) 19:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello. I just wanted to say good work you've been doing to improve World Trade Center. I watchlisted it a few days ago, and you have been improving that article all day! Is there anything I can help with? I'll see if I can help or not. Yours, – RyanCross ( talk) 06:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think I'm at a stopping point, with the next step is to go through the Collapse of the World Trade Center and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing articles and bring them up to acceptable standards. Maybe we can get them to the point were they could pass as good articles. With decent subarticles, it's much easier to go back to the main WTC article and follow summary style. And, both those subarticles were picked by the bot. I think the biggest thing I always need help with is copyediting, or anything else you are interested in doing would be helpful. -- Aude ( talk) 06:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'll just be doing some copyediting to the articles you listed at the 9/11 project talk page for now. Thanks for the advice, – RyanCross ( talk) 00:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Aude. I hope you don't mind me turning to you with my questions related to Wikipedia policies and procedures. I have the Serial killer article on my watchlist, and it was vandalized today by an anonymous IP user. Another Wiki editor reverted it and placed a Level 4im template on the user page, although it appears to be the first time this has happened. I have two questions related to this: 1) is this an appropriate template to use for a first-time vandal? and 2) can any Wikipedia editor threaten to block a vandal or does it need to be an administrator?

Thanks in advance, -- momoricks ^talk 04:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The serial killer article seems like one that would attract plenty of vandalism. You are more than welcome to issue warnings, and report vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If the vandalism gets too frequent, we can semi-protect the article, which disallows IP edits.

As for warnings, if it seems at all possible that they are making test edits, or it was a mistake (e.g. blanking a page), then I go easy and give a test warning. We want to assume good faith whenever possible. Oftentimes, the vandalism is blatant and clearly malicious. In those cases, I see no point in going through all the warning levels, even if they haven't done it before. The {{ bv}} template is one that I like to use, as it includes a welcome note, along with making it clear we don't tolerate nonsense. I would not choose {{ uw-vandalism4im}}, but there is some discretion. I looked at what these vandalism edits where and they seem juvenile, but clearly nonsense. It might be silly to tell them "thank you for testing, please use the sandbox", so I would probably use {{ bv}} which allows a quick block if they keep it up. {{ uw-vandalism4im}} may be a tad harsh, but think it's within discretion. -- Aude ( talk) 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the guidance. I requested semi-protection on the article about a week or so ago, but it was denied due to the lack of a significant recent vandalism history. I'll keep an eye on it, however, and may make another semi-protection request in the future. Take care, -- momoricks ^talk 01:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Aude, I'm thinking about coming back to editing, but I'm still banned from the 9/11 related articles. (I'm talking to Jehochman and John about possible conditions). I notice activity is picking up again and I'm pleased to see you at the forefront. Perhaps one way to decide whether or not my presence would be constructive is to think about that question of whether the collapse was a "surprise". I think the NCE quote (which I put in) is accurate. I feel supported by Bazant's much later assessment:

The destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was not only the largest mass murder in U.S. history but also a big surprise for the structural engineering profession, perhaps the biggest since the collapse of the Tacoma Bridge in 1940. No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination. (J. Eng. Mech. vol 133, iss. 3, 2007, p. 308)

This seems very much at odds with your suggestion that it was the attacks themselves that surprised engineers, not the response of the buildings to them. Ronald Hamburger, who contributed to the investigations, reacted in the same way as NCE. '"I was very surprised," said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings "certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped."' (PDF here.) On the standing interpretation of my work here, this kind of observation would probably be seen as POV-pushing and if you agree with that asssessment my time here is likely to be short. But isn't this the very thing your literature search would turn up anyway?-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 19:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I think arbcom sanctions appeals can be made at WP:AE or it might belong at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests.

As for the article, due to article size constraints and following WP:NPOV#Undue weight, it's best to give mention the most commonly response and cited points brought up ("surprise to engineers" not being one as common). The most common response from structural engineers and experts was to offer an explanation of what they thought happened. Also, I notice you cite Ronald Hamburger. Putting his quote into context, he initially thought maybe bombs had been planted in the buildings, and was "surprised" that was not the case. He was quoted elsewhere about this, and went on to refute the notion that controlled demolition was involved.

"To many who saw the buildings fall on television, the collapse resembled a planned demolition, especially in the way that the twin towers imploded--tumbling in on themselves. But engineering experts discounted the notion that additional explosives had been planted around the base of the buildings to ensure that they came down. Demolition of a building the size of the ones in the World Trade Center would require "literally hundreds of charges around the building," Hamburger said. "It's inconceivable to me anyone would be able to place that many charges--even with years of planning." (McFarling, Usha Lee (2001-09-12). "Structural engineers say the terrorists apparently knew they had to strike the World Trade Center as low as possible to cause the most damage", Los Angeles Times.)

Of all the articles that I have read, "surprise" is not as common of a reaction. There were many who seemed surprised at the type of attack/situation, but not surprised the buildings couldn't withstand it:

Until now, a fire has never caused this level of catastrophe. Who could have envisioned something like this? It was a unique and devastating attack that firefighters could not handle. (John Hooper) - seems surprised at the type of attack and situation

Buildings are simply not designed to withstand "the extreme levels of heat that would be found in the situation with the amount of jet fuel and the explosion that occurred." (Aine Brazil) - Glanz, James, Towers Believed to Be Safe Proved Vulnerable to an Intense Jet Fuel Fire, Experts Say. The New York Times. September 12, 2001

It was several orders of magnitude beyond anything we'd seen before. (Richard Little) - Smith, Deborah (2001-09-13). "Jet fuel behind collapse", Sydney Morning Herald.

And there are reactions like that of Housh Rahimzadeh, who was not at all surprised, but anticipated that the towers would collapse.

"When Housh Rahimzadeh saw the second plane crash into the World Trade Center last week, he knew exactly what would happen next. He wanted to whisper in a rescue commander's ear, and urge him to hold those firefighters back." During any fire, a floor in a high-rise building is supposed to maintain its integrity for two hours. But in the super-heated World Trade Center towers, that wouldn't happen. Once the steel framework reached a particular temperature, it would suddenly turn to licorice. And because of the towers' lack of interior supports, failure would be total as each floor pancaked onto the one below. Neither Rahimzadeh nor other engineers or architects had any criticism about the design of the World Trade Center. But in those crucial moments, Rahimzadeh said, "if someone had consulted a construction engineer, he would have told them what was going to happen." At the proper time, and with appropriate regard to the heroism shown by rescuers, the engineer said authorities will have to study the decision to send heavily laden firefighters into the second tower. (Galloway, Jim (2001-09-19). "High hopes abundant among skyscraper builders since attack", Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)

Since some were not surprised at all, and there are other more common reactions to include, I have doubts about putting "surprise" in the article. The article is still a work in progress, and not yet up to GA standards. I will continue to go through articles and add to my sandbox page, and the article can be adjusted accordingly. -- Aude ( talk) 17:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, the next step is AE, if I choose to come back. My question was whether discussing this with me would, to you, appear to be POV-pushing on my part. If so, you could make short work of my return, so there wouldn't be much point in causing us both grief. On the substantive issue we do disagree. You're comparing a survey of newspaper articles (of your own synthesizing) with the immediate reaction of a major industry magazine, supported by the lasting impression of a major contributor in a top peer-reviewed journal. It's not just about counting pronouncements by engineers.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

We must follow NPOV#Undue weight, which means looking at not only newspaper articles along with other sources like Engineering News-Record in deciding what to include in the article. If not satisfied with newspaper reports, we could instead cite the Engineering News-Record which quoted Richard M. Kielar saying, "These were airliners scheduled for long flights, full of fuel, causing massive explosions, No structure could have sustained this kind of assault." (Post, Nadine M. and Sherie Winston (2001-09-17). "Massive Assault Doomed Towers", Engineering News-Record.)

The original New Civil Engineer article from September 13, 2001, also puts forth thew view that the attacks were very unusual circumstances: "'An aeroplane flying into the building is such an unusual circumstance that we wouldn't design for it. Then there is the massive increase in fire loading provided by aviation fuel, ' said WS Atkins director and head of structural engineering Mike Otlet. 'A bomb explosion will shift elements in a building and the loading will change, but it will not cause a fire like that. 'It is such an incredible set of circumstances that it is not a structural engineering issue - it is not reasonable to design for this type of load, ' he added." The New Civil Engineer says nothing in the article about "surprise", so I don't think it belongs in the "initial reactions" section.

Anyway, regarding Arbcom, my talk page is not the right place for the discussion. I think review of the sanctions requires broader input on the arbcom page. I can't really spend more time on the collapse article or arbcom discussions right now, as I need to finish going through other articles for the Wikipedia Release Version which has a deadline coming up. -- Aude ( talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Of course, Robertson and Skilling are quoted as saying the WTC was designed to withstand an airplane crash, but the extent (if at all) that they considered the effects of the resulting fires is not totally known. The initial opinions were that it was unreasonable to expect the WTC to withstand that kind of attack. -- Aude ( talk) 17:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I was actually asking for your personal opinion. I.e., is the discussion we're having here (which belongs on the article's talk page) worth your time? Or do you interpret my support for NCE's "surprised" reaction (i.e., it was "unthinkable") as POV pushing.-- Thomas Basboll ( talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 14:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The sourcing for the information from Illuminatus! is valid, and information (with more to be added) about the Pentagon in popular culture is a damned sight more interesting to readers than a useless list of what vendors are in the food court!

You don't own the article. -- Davidkevin ( talk) 15:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Aude,

I'm commenting on this edit. Your rationale was there should be no left align images directly beneath section headings per WP:MOS#Images. I read WP:MOS#Images, and it doesn't say that there should be no left align images directly beneath section headings. It only says that there should be no left-aligned images directly below subsection-level (=== or greater) headings. Did I missed something? I think no guideline says that left align images shouldn't be directly beneath section headings. I think you should analyze this.

Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I looked again at the guidelines and think you are technically correct about left-aligned images. In this case, since the image is long vertically, left aligning it can cause the "Casualties" header to shift for some people. I think it's best to instead left align images with normal dimensions and put them in the middle of sections. See some other featured articles as examples, Samuel Johnson and Stephen Crane, of what I think works best. Cheers. -- Aude ( talk) 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think your approach is practical. And congratulations for developing the Khalid al-Mihdhar article into a featured article. It was a wonderful work. And thanks for starting and developing the Main Navy and Munitions Buildings article. It’s a fantastic article. Your article work is fantastic, and I learned many things about article building by analyzing your edits. I’ve started a new article called Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Egypt). You live in Egypt, so you might be interested in that article. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 05:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I wanted you opinion on a matter. I have started reading parts of Perfect Soldiers but it doesn't seem to go into as much detail about some things as I wanted. What do you make of the event at Shuckums Bar? How come there is so much discrepancy among sources about this? Is there any particular source that covers this definitively? Thanks. -- Veggy ( talk) 04:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't think anyone has fully sorted out the Shuckums issue. News reports give various dates, some saying they went on Saturday, September 8th and some say September 7th. According to the FBI timeline and various other sources, Atta left Florida on September 7th for Baltimore, and he made wire transfers at grocery stores in the Laurel area on September 8th. Though, the FBI timeline indicates that Shehhi (with another male) was at Shuckums on September 6th. I think it's plausible that Atta and Shehhi had been to Shuckums at some point, and maybe the news reports got the date wrong. Or, it's possible that it's mistaken identity. It's also possible, per takfir, that some of the hijackers did drink, called prostitutes, and other un-Islamic behavior which may be permitted to allow them to blend into western society.

On the Mohamed Atta article, the Shuckums issue is a problem, with no definitive source. All I can do is point out the contradiction, but do so without violating WP:NOR. -- Aude ( talk) 04:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

That sounds good although I don't see who the hijackers were trying to blend in alone in their hotel room the night before the attack when they called up a prostitute. Sounds like they themselves became "corrupted" and gave in. That's just my opinion, though. -- Veggy ( talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You could be right. -- Aude ( talk) 15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC) reply

On 25 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Main Navy and Munitions Buildings, 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.

BorgQueen ( talk) 11:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Aude - first, thanks for looking at this as an objective third party. I have put in this formal request to have greentealovers.com unblocked. In my defense I'd like you to note the followingL My site cites reputable peer reviewed journals for ALL its aggregated health information. Similarly it gets its processing and preparation information directly from the largest producer of green tea in Japan which it also cites appropriately on the bottom of every page (Some images and information are courtesy of ITO EN, Inc.). The question I have is why was my contributions and citations were good enough for Wikipedia for years especially in its early days when it need non-tech information, but now it isn't. Why was my reference to Tea History in China removed now (after YEARS) by OhnoitsJamie simply because it was moved -- not added. Most importantly, why did editor Ohnoitsjamie, after repeatedly being referred to the bias even by two other editors -- not act upon it? I seriously have to question the actions he took in this case and wonder if others have been also treated in an unbalanced way. I notice on his info page he talks about the numnber of times his pages have been hacked/abused. I have to wonder if it has something to do with the unbalanced way this editor treats contributors? Finally in light of your green tea page edits are references citations [3] and [8] really still appropriate by the standards you are using to qualify these references? comment added by Jpeizer ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It is okay and encouraged to directly cite reputable peer review journals in Wikipedia articles, but self-published sites like yours don't fit within what we expect of reliable sources. Standards for references have been rising on Wikipedia, and becoming more stringent. Thus, while the links may have been acceptable (or simply not noticed) before, I don't think they should be included now. Also, realize that Wikipedia is configured to use the nofollow parameter in all external links, so having your site listed on the Wikipedia page will not improve search engine rankings. -- Aude ( talk) 20:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The procedure for merger is Wikipedia:Merge. It doesn't involve hitting a delete button at any point in the entire process. History mergers are something else entirely, and are only required in special cases. Have a look at the rampant confusion in that article's edit history that's there now. Please stop using history mergers for ordinary mergers. Uncle G ( talk) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Adding a redirect could work, though would like the edit history preserved here in the article history. -- Aude ( talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, but look how confusing it makes the edit history. We don't do history mergers unless we need to fix things up for GFDL compliance, such as in the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Ordinary mergers keep the histories separate, and thus comprehensible. Uncle G ( talk) 00:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I have sorted this out. I have done cut & paste move repairs before, but see that doesn't work here. -- Aude ( talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments about merging the article with the casualties article. I only am interested in a well written Wikipedia and don't want to discourage people from writing. However, I thought the survivor's article was just a paragraph and not really a good article. Now that information is preserved in a better article.

Chergles ( talk) 16:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Some of these articles were created long ago, right after 9/11, when Wikipedia was much different and smaller. With time past now, it's good to reconsider whether if/how the material could fit on Wikipedia, with a merge appropriate in this case. Regards. -- Aude ( talk) 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

The reason i am requesting greentealovers.com be unblacklisted is the principal and the negatives associated with said blacklisting -- Greentealovers.com was a valid contributor to Wikipedia for years and wikipedia had no issue with the site when it needed that content to justify itself as more than a technical reference. Jaime blacklisted greentealovers.com because 1) I placed a reference up again when he refused to deal unbiasedly with the other listings like stash and celestial tea on the same page and 2) refused to discuss the matter further in also in violation of Wiki rules -- There is a cause and effect here. I'm no longer arguing with you as to if greentealovers reference should be cited on the green tea page because you have also dealt in a balanced way and deleted the other similar references as well. That was a valid argument I made to Jaime when similar citations existed there and he did nothing to remove them despite another editor stating a case for equity as well. What I am arguing is that since the blocking of greentealovers.com was done in a biased manner and my re-referencing on wikipedia was only to acheive a balance with Stash, Celestial etc references that it should be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 ( talk) 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You are welcome to bring your concerns to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist for more input, but as an individual editor, I can't override consensus in this case. -- Aude ( talk) 20:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I've already told Jpeizer that he's welcome to remove links that he feels violates WP:EL. I certainly won't object. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I see there is sometimes strong debate about keeping or deleting an article. Terms, like notability, are cited.

Taking a step back, we are citing artificial rules that we have created. What if we banned the number "13"? Any article with a 13 would be grounds for deleted. "I vote delete because the person was born on January 13th." "No, the person could not help it but he did have 13 children."

What would happen if we did not have deletion debates? Clear vandalism and non-sense article would be removed. I am not advocating this but I seek to understand Wikipedia better and to examine our own rules. What do you think? Chergles ( talk) 20:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply

You can see how deletion was done when Wikipedia was much smaller and newer, [7] but processes like that don't scale once Wikipedia became larger with many many more users. I'm not normally involved in AFDs, but think the process (even if it's not perfect) is helpful for us to find consensus. In clear-cut cases, including nonsense articles, we have speedy deletion which requires no debate. -- Aude ( talk) 21:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply