→Dubious: new section |
DawnisuponUS (talk | contribs) →Dubious: Remarkable, this is way beyond misconduct. Aude should have been topic banned from all articles related to 9/11 attacks long, long time ago. |
||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
If you decide that the simplest way to bring your use of this template into compliance with the guideline is to simply excise all the instances where you used it, and didn't explain yourself, I am prepared to help. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
If you decide that the simplest way to bring your use of this template into compliance with the guideline is to simply excise all the instances where you used it, and didn't explain yourself, I am prepared to help. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Remarkable, this is way beyond misconduct. Aude should have been topic banned from all articles related to 9/11 attacks long, long time ago. [[User:DawnisuponUS|DawnisuponUS]] ([[User talk:DawnisuponUS|talk]]) 16:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:18, 31 March 2009
I will respond to messages here on my talk page, in order to keep conversations together. I may or may not respond to any rude comments. --Aude (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC) |
Building of the World Trade Center
The Original Barnstar | ||
What a fantastic article at Building of the World Trade Center! — Rebelguys2 talk 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC) |
- I just came here to agree, Building of the World Trade Center is a stellar example of a Featured Article...and it's incredibly well-referenced and illustrated...many congratulations. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
September 11 attacks
Dear Aude,
I visited your talkpage to discuss about our 9/11 article. I'm so disappointed after reading this. Tendentious editors are not easy dealt with, but if sane people like you leave WP, most of our articles will be ruined by idiots. You are certainly one of the best WP editors. We have to bring 9/11 article to FA someday. Please don't leave WP. Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't think I'll leave, but I'm not interested in devoting a lot of time here right now. --Aude (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Signpost: REVISIONUSER
You wrote a Signpost article that included this new magic word, but it doesn't appear to have been enabled yet. Do you know when we can use it and if it could potentially be used in templates to display the last user who edited an article on another page? - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure when the magic word will be enabled. It will happen whenever developers update Wikipedia and other wiki sites with the very latest version of MediaWiki. I think that will be soon, but don't know exactly when. --Aude (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Surrender of Japan FAC
Can you take another look at your comments there? Raul654 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Twinkle
Hello,
I recently set up my account with Twinkle. My account is fairly old and I have many many edits to my name. When I want to use the Twinkle application I still get a message saying my account is to new to use Twinkle. I was wondering if you know what I can do to fix this. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have never used Twinkle, so not sure I can help. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle or at Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical. --Aude (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
At it again
Hey Aude, just thought you might like to know that another user is attempting to get yet another mediation case going on the Sept 11th article. Normally I'd let it alone and not bother you, but since you were named outright, I thought you should know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-03/September_11_attacks
--Tarage (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Dubious
I recently made some minor edits to the article on Mohamed Atta. While doing so I came across a template I had never noticed before, the {{dubious}} template.
I left a note on Talk:Mohamed_Atta#Dubious, where I noted that who-ever placed these templates did not comply with the guidelines direction that they should first explain the concern that prompted the tag on the article's talk page.
It took me a long time to figure out who had placed these templates. The edit summaries were no help, as they didn't state who added these tags in any of your edit summaries. If I am not mistaken It was you -- you placed these tags.
I tried to keep my note on the article's talk page non-confrontational. I didn't name you as the person who left the tags. And I wrote that the guideline might not have been so clear on the responsibilities of the tag placer eight months ago, when the tags were first placed.
Since writing that I checked the revision history of Wikipedia:Disputed statement. It seems to have had only trivial modifications during the last eight months.
Have you made heavy use of the {{dubious}} template? If so, did you add explanations to the article's talk pages in the other instances you used it?
If you decide that the simplest way to bring your use of this template into compliance with the guideline is to simply excise all the instances where you used it, and didn't explain yourself, I am prepared to help. Geo Swan (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Remarkable, this is way beyond misconduct. Aude should have been topic banned from all articles related to 9/11 attacks long, long time ago. DawnisuponUS (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)