::Most of what I have on the Stamp Act Congress comes from the Weslager book listed in the bibliography. The book includes about forty pages of the actual journal of the Stamp Act Congress and generally goes into fairly good detail on the proceedings. I don't know how easy it is to find the book however. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I need to expand the Lead and the Later Effects sections, integrate your recent additions, and then the whole thing should be ready to post.[[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
::Most of what I have on the Stamp Act Congress comes from the Weslager book listed in the bibliography. The book includes about forty pages of the actual journal of the Stamp Act Congress and generally goes into fairly good detail on the proceedings. I don't know how easy it is to find the book however. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I need to expand the Lead and the Later Effects sections, integrate your recent additions, and then the whole thing should be ready to post.[[User:North Shoreman|Tom (North Shoreman)]] 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I will look for the book in a local used book shop, library, or online somewhere. Thanks for suggesting it. --[[User:Aude|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:Aude|talk]])</small> 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I will look for the book in a local used book shop, library, or online somewhere. Thanks for suggesting it. --[[User:Aude|Aude]] <small>([[User talk:Aude|talk]])</small> 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
==Thanks==
Many thanks for your kind comments on my mcginnly talk page - I've been editing under joopercoopers in dealing with Taj Mahal articles. I've also requested that [[Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal]] be deleted but it seems to have met some resistance, I'm the sole author and it was my understanding that I could request its deletion. Do you know/are you an admin who might oblige me, I'd be very grateful. I'm afraid I've come to believe wikipedia is a busted flush in terms of quality and its major draw appears to be incessant bickering. It would be great if you could find someone to maintain the portal, it needs FA's and GA's updating and the featured pictures and articles setting up. Kind regards Aude, take care. --[[User:Joopercoopers|Joopercoopers]] 22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
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)[reply]
Thanks for the honor. Hopefully in due time, we can get the rest of the WTC articles organized and fully referenced. --Aude (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I will look into registration. Very helpful info from you.
To help other unregistered dweebs like me who stumble onto (semi-permanently?) semi-protected "Africa" article, I suggest that if you like my points and think they are germane, you move them to the top of the stack (overruling the usual etiquette).
POV
Hi, why did you revert me? I felt having a rebuttle (that was properly attributed) to popular mechanics (who's opinion is represented as fact) was justified. What's your problem with it? — Selmo(talk)12:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flight 93 altitude
Has Dylan & co. rebutted Popular Mechanics? Also, Loose Change hasn't proven anything about cell phones. What reliable source describes LC as proving that?
Do you realize that Flight 93 was flying ~5000ft above sea level (over a part of Pennsylvania where elevations and cell towers are ~2500 above sea level) when the two cell calls (at 9:58 a.m. - point G on the diagram) were made? For comparison, the WTC was 1368 ft tall, and the calls were made ~2500 above the ground. The calls were dropped after ~1 minute, probably when the calls tried to switch to the next cell tower and the transfer failed. --Aude (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one of the sites cited as a reliable source also attacks Loose Change.[1] wtc7.info articles don't mention Loose Change. The argument your using against my edits can be used against others' POV edits to the article. Can you protect the page to stop everyone from edit warring? — Selmo(talk)13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been stable for a while. Seems that User:RoyBoy, User:Qarnos, User:Tom harrison, and myself all have problems with some edits you have been making. It's good to see you stopped short of 3RR. There's not enough back and forth to justify protecting the page at this point. --Aude (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An admin has already warned him for vandalizing my talk page. If you have nto noticed, I do not goto his page leaving messages such as: [2] - you are a problem child aren't you sockpuppet Perhaps if MONGO can maintain some civility and cease his accusations. I would not have to report him for NPA violations and vandalism. I know you are buddies, judging by your similar edits to articles, so I will not go any further. However as an admin I would have expected you to warn him upon seeing the vandalism. Also considering MONGO has already made it clear you have a bias attitude toward me, I ask you do not post here further, since it seems you have already judged me. Please do not move this back to my talk page and feel free to delete it if you like. Also if MONGO was not telling the truth about you pre-judging me, then my apologies, and perhaps you should speak to them. --SevenOfDiamonds22:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brickskeller
On 21 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Brickskeller, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
The FBI is a difficult topic, since there is plenty of controversy, to make sure the article is comprehensive and neutral. The references to the FBI website itself are fine, but references from other sources are too few. At minimum, the article needs more than 100 references, drawing from a variety of good sources. I wouldn't be surprised if there were nearly 200, when the article passes as a featured article. Also, the lists in the "mission and priorities" section don't seem to fit right, there, especially the "criminal charges" list. That list needs to be made into prose and integrated with the rest of the article. There are some other things that need to be done, but referencing is the big thing. Getting an article like this to be featured will take time, more time than other topics do, due to the fact that there are so many things to cover, while maintaining NPOV. --Aude (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you for doing the protection of Morton devonshire's page. I've been fighting constant vandalism on that page for the last hour or so, various IPs. I could not find a place to request page protection. I used the TW:RPP tab but it did not seem to go through. If you could point me to a page that temp protection can be requested for such events, I'd be very appreciative!Ariel♥Gold12:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aude, I see you reverted the image I placed on the left in the Benjamin Latrobe article. Are you aware of this guideline from the MoS? Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. (Example: Race).* Exception: Portraits with the head looking to the reader’s right should be left-aligned (looking into the text of the article) cheers Raasgat07:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GIS
Hello, I see that you to be occucied with GIS, perhaps you have a chance to present the datas of Wikipedia-World in a better way like OpenLayers or so. OpenLayers would good to work together with openstreetmaps. This would be also interresting for Commons:Commons:Geocoding. --de:Benutzer:Kolossos 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Yikes - if he left, that certainly wasn't my intention...it was just a kneejerk reaction as I was on RC patrol at the time and when I see a new article, I tend to have a look at it, and either tag it or do a bit of cleanup. Will(talk)14:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging it is the way to go. I have cleaned up the article, nominated it for WP:DYK and left him a message about that. Hope he will stick around. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
Did you know? was updated. On 23 August, 2007, a fact from the article Ninoshima, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Aude! I saw your comments and beautifully taken pictures a lot. It would be grateful if you could change the name of this image to The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Other users say so on the talk page too. Thanks. Oda Mari15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The procedure for changing the name is to re-upload the image with the new name. I went ahead and did that step, and a copy of the image is now available at Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg. Now, the new name can be used. Though, keep in mind that the image is used on a lot of articles in English Wikipedia, as well as numerous other languages, still linking to Image:Tsunami by hokusai 19th century.jpg. Those links need to be updated to use the new name. Once the old image is orphaned, then it can be deleted from Commons. --Aude (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the copy edits. The article reads much better. I'll let User:Tony1 know. I'm not sure how much longer the article will stay listed at FAC. It's been there two weeks already, due to low amount of feedback. It should be ready to pass soon. --Aude (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User talk:Coren. This is a false positive, which I reported to him/her. Also see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. I'll be opting out of the bots and suggest regulars and especially admins be opted out. The community has entrusted admins not to violate policy, and the bot needs to respect that. I just wasted 15-20 minutes fixing this mess. --Aude (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being dense, but why is it a false positive? I ask because the article at debunk911myths.org was created in March (history), and the article here was created today, with the exact same wording as the article at debunk911myths.org. --Iamunknown18:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explained on User talk:Coren. The more likely explanation is that I hold copyright to material there, and thus free to copy material. I expect admins to be cognizant of copyrights. It would be best to opt me out of the bot. This is a huge waste of my time. I think I'm done for the day with Wikipedia. --Aude (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith is a good thing. So is following copyright policy, which you have not. There is no indication that the site is yours (whether I believe you (and I do) is immaterial), and there is no permission for copying on the copied page. There is a procedure for requesting permission to use copyrighter works on Wikipedia which must be followed, even if you are the author, and therefore will likely give yourself permission :-)
Either a note on the copied page placing the contents under the GFDL (or a compatible licence), giving it to the public domain, or (less favored) an email to OTRS (at permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org) is required.
So, to respond to your original comment, that was not a false positive. It was a correct match of a copy of external copyrighted work used without attribution or verifiable permission.
As for excluding admins or "experienced editors", that is obviously out of the question. A full third for copyright violations are commited (usually unwittingly) by experienced editors, including admins. The tags take seconds to clean up, and almost always lead to the copyright violation being corrected (or proper permission being secured). That's a good thing. Besides, there is a very obvious technical hurdle about how a bot is supposed to guess at an editor's experience, especially as regards to copyright matters (almost all editors, regardless of quantity of contributions, have no true understanding of copyright matters— even when they think they do).
As for excluding you personally, I can do that if you usually copy large amounts of copyrighted text with permission (although you really should put a GFLD permission notice on your original web site).
Some problems with all that. Wikipedia:Copyright violations says "Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL." So, yes this is a false alarm. As always, I agree to license your contributions here under the GFDL, but doesn't mean I have to make everything on my website GFDL for anybody to take and do anything with. I don't see the need to go through formal procedures, per WP:SENSE and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If you need proof, see the Flickr link here and same links here: User:Aude and User:Aude/Images. --Aude (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly not obligated to go through formal procedures; this explanation is more than sufficient to, for instance, satisfy me that you are the author and thus can donate your prose to Wikipedia. Thing is, the formal bit will alleviate the need for you to make that same argument over and over again— that red tape is a pretty much unavoidable price to pay.
As for your site, perhaps the simplest thing is to add it to the list of exceptions— this would mean that things you copy off the site will not trigger bots... but also that someone else copying an article off your site would also not trigger it. This is, arguably, status quo with no bot, so you are no worse off. — Coren(talk)23:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all interfering. Please feel free to edit and improve. The article just needs to be expanded. Also, though it's attracted a lot of discussion on the talk page, I think the Ronald Reagan article looks great thanks to your hard work on it. --Aude (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Aude! I'm Arknascar44, and I was wondering if you're still interested in helping out over at WP:WPEL. I've done some work on the project page and created a couple subpages and some templates, and am really interested in reviving it! Cheers, Arky¡Hablar!16:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see the project pages improved. The wikiproject was started the same time as WP:WPSPAM, and overlapped some in the goals. But, now I think the WikiProject could do other things. I don't know if there is a bot existing to check for dead links, for example. Broken links need to be updated, perhaps linked to Internet Archive, or altogether removed. And, of course cleaning out spam and trimming list of links. And make sure WP:EL guidelines are maintained appropriately. I don't have lots of time to work on all that, but always on the look out for such problems, can report articles that need attention, and perhaps help in other ways. But, please go ahead and take the lead on this if you wish. --Aude (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can do other things, as dead links and spam are indeed certainly different :) Oh, and User:Ocobot takes care of dead links, and is a really great bot; one of the best. Just help when you can, but no need to overwork if you haven't got the time :) Cheers, Arky¡Hablar!16:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on a revision of this article for a while and probably should have noted that on the article's discussion page. I am about ready to add what would be a major revision but I noticed that you were in the process today of making improvements. Please check out what I've done so far at User:North Shoreman/Sandbox and let me know how you think we should proceed. Tom (North Shoreman)19:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's in your sandbox is a tremendous improvement over the existing article. Excellent work! I suggest it go into the article. Not sure there's a lot I can do to improve on what you have, except maybe add some references. Do you have anything for Stamp Act Congress? That's mainly what I'm interested, but then noticed the whole topic needed work. I'm spending time on the History of the United States Congress and United States Congress articles, the latter one at WP:FAR now. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I have on the Stamp Act Congress comes from the Weslager book listed in the bibliography. The book includes about forty pages of the actual journal of the Stamp Act Congress and generally goes into fairly good detail on the proceedings. I don't know how easy it is to find the book however. Anyway, thanks for your comments. I need to expand the Lead and the Later Effects sections, integrate your recent additions, and then the whole thing should be ready to post.Tom (North Shoreman)20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind comments on my mcginnly talk page - I've been editing under joopercoopers in dealing with Taj Mahal articles. I've also requested that Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal be deleted but it seems to have met some resistance, I'm the sole author and it was my understanding that I could request its deletion. Do you know/are you an admin who might oblige me, I'd be very grateful. I'm afraid I've come to believe wikipedia is a busted flush in terms of quality and its major draw appears to be incessant bickering. It would be great if you could find someone to maintain the portal, it needs FA's and GA's updating and the featured pictures and articles setting up. Kind regards Aude, take care. --Joopercoopers22:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
