User talk:Aude/Archive7

Peter beter
thanks for the re-formatting of references dude!!!Grandia01 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * --Aude, you can't just add this note and dissapear from the discussion, adding it in the first place is highly overrated and there is nothing wrong with the links. if you won't reply then i'll erase your tag.Grandia01 20:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Aude, it seems we disagree with with who carried out the attack of 9/11. No credible evidence, to date, has been shown to the public that the 19 hijackers carried out the attack. What happened is that the US rushed into accusing these 19 hijackers and the media just followed them. If there is evidence, please show me. Do not show me journalistic articels, show me evidence, pls. I suggest you read: WP:NOT and WP:TIGER.

We must struggle to be neutral. If you live inside the United States, I understand that this is difficult to live with, but the non-US world (or at least Europe) is not subject to your propaganda, therefore, we share different views and opinions from you. Thanks, SeiteNichGefunden.
 * Comment, this message was placed on your user page by SeiteNichtGefunden at 8:49 on 7 May 2007 (UTC). No timestamp was given. I'm moving it here. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, sory for putting my message on your user page and not here. Second, it seems we are both reverting the Organizers of the September 11 ,2001 page. I would like to solve this disagreement. Once again, no evidence has ever been presented of the alleged hijackers. If you find some evidence and put it in the references, I will appreciate. However, writing "The US govt accused" seems more neutral from my point of view. What do you think? Let me point out that what is happening is that, after the attacks, the US government accused these 19 hijackers. But no evidence was ever given. What has happened is that the media has always presented this to us as if it is an obvious thing. If someone, like me, shows up asking for evidence, I understand that seems "ridiculous". But we must be neutral. Thanks for your time, SeiteNichtGefunden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SeiteNichtGefunden (talk • contribs).

Portal:Politics
Portal:Politics/Selected article/archive has run out. You and Feydey look like the likely maintainers, hence this short note :) --Quiddity 07:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Feydey is taking care of the portal, and looks like articles are now set up. --Aude (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Building the World Trade Center
I don't know if you want me to edit the article or pass corrections to you. I do have a really impressive and rare image of the architect's model of the never-built East River World Trade Center which I would like to add. patsw 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Something of the architect's model would be excellent and add a lot to the article, so long as the image licensing is okay. Feel free to edit the article, or however you want to help.  If you prefer to make suggestions on the article talk page or peer review page, that's fine with me too. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Complex
I have often seen the word "complex" used to describe the World Trade Center. This word seems to me to be a Wikipedia-created neologism to describe something that should have a more precise antecedent -- each usage should explicitly refer to (a) the two towers, (b) only the property owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, or (c) the Lower Manhattan development area (i.e., the area designated for construction of office towers in the 1970's and 1980's and given tax abatements).

(c) would include some neighboring buildings damaged by the 9/11 attacks such as the Deutsche Bank Building and 7 World Trade Center, not owned by the PA. However, 90 West Street was damaged in the attacks but was not part of the 1970's-era development. While One Liberty Plaza, also adjacent to the World Trade Center, was part of the area development plan and had only minor damage to its windows. So "complex" lacks a clear meaning to me and to readers. patsw 12:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have any better ideas... The term "World Trade Center complex" seems a fairly common way of referring to the group of buildings. For example, FEMA describes the WTC complex as 7 original buildings with the WTC name.    Also, Google search turns up numerous uses of the term. Where the article refers to the two towers, it can worded to specifically say that.  --Aude (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review - WTC
Great, I'll see if I can help out. --Jleon 23:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever you can or feel like doing would be very helpful. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fireproofing
Good catch! --Achim 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Medal of Merit
Wow...that is pretty good....nice work Aude.--MONGO 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Aude (talk) 07:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Criminal justice
Aude,
 * I was wondering if WikiProject Criminal Justice is still active ? If so, WP:CRIME and WP:BRITCRIME have been discussing a crime related Wikipedia newsletter in collaberation with similar WikiProjects and would like to know if your project would be interested in joining ? MadMax 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the WikiProject is just me, at this point. It's a better place for stuff I was working on than my own userspace.  I'm still working on criminal justice/criminology articles, but not sure I have time to help with a newsletter at this point. --Aude (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly understandable. You're certainly more then welcome to join WP:CRIME (which includes criminology-related topics) of cource, although I would understand if time restrictions prevent you from doing so at this time. I do appreciate your reply and I hope I havn't taken too much of your time. MadMax 07:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mount St. Helens
Do you want to ask Mongo? I'm sorry for being a bit touchy the other day; some of the Volcano Project editors (who've not yet helped out) were saying some things that seemed to question motives at FAR, so I was probably being overly sensitive. The article is in very good shape except for cites, so we could use Mongo's help, if he's interested. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll let him know. One source that would be useful is the USGS Professional Paper 1250, which provides very detailed information.  Also, many papers by those authors (DR Mullineaux, et al.)  Not sure I'll have the time to work on the article, though.  I just noticed United States Congress is a featured article with no inline cites and needs work.  I may spend time on that. --Aude (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really busy IRL over the next two weeks as well; I'll peek in as I can, but I'm sure this one is doable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please warn vandals after reverting their edits.
Hello. Aude, you might want to warn vandals after you revert their edits. You may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace quite useful for this purpose. Regards,  An as  talk? 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
That was one of the fastest, if not the fastest creation--->peer review--->FA processes I have ever seen...don't forget to add:

Building of the World Trade Center (242) - (or something like that), to your userpage...good work!--MONGO 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help with the article. --Aude (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes' RFA
Please note that GN has clarified the oft-misunderstood answer to Q4 here, if you wish to review the oppose viewpoint you placed on this RFA. If not, I won't bother you again about it. -- nae'blis 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jessops
Hi there - did I do something wrong with the speedy G6 that you removed from this article? I thought G6 covered a pointless dab page fairly well - or have I missed something? Thanks,  Eliminator JR Talk  17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You have an AFD open. That takes priority. --Aude (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, right - I've seen plenty of articles speedied from AfDs where they're uncontroversial, and thought this was another example. Not to worry, the result will be the same :)  Eliminator JR  Talk  18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering the same -- perhaps it would have been useful to mention the reason in the edit summary, or put a not on the AfD entry (or even the talk page) -- Ratarsed 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Bronx - Thonx
I Watch the Bronx article, but I couldn't figure out what changes you just made. Could you elucidate, for my WP:Education? Bellagio99 22:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bronx used to be called Keskeskeck by Native Americans, before the Dutch arrived (in addition to the other name listed in the article). Also added a cite for this.  The entire article needs more cites. --Aude (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly does, and in another life, I'd do it. But I don't even live there anymore. I do hope to interest a NYC urbanist friend with census interests to at least check the numbers.
 * Cheers, Bellagio99 00:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article seems in pretty good shape, so finding cites shouldn't be too difficult. Someday, maybe I'll have more time to work on it, or someone else will come along to help with it. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

davz
hello i am davz and i work in italan wikipea, yuo speak a very good english but the italian ... what yuo do in english wikipea? whereby speak english? ciao (buonasera=goodevening) --87.9.41.121 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan
Re: Ronald Reagan FAC photos

I think it's easier if I talk to you here rather than clogging up the FAC page. My goal of a perfect image for the "Death" section of Ronald Reagan's page, as well as on the Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan article, was one of Nancy Reagan (shown from the front) bent over her husband's casket saying her last goodbyes. The only pics I can find are fair use, plus many of the images on Commons are from the same high school website.

I like the idea of eliminating the stamp picture on the Reagan article and closing up the white space (it sounds like you know how to do that--I don't). If you could do that, it would be much appreciated. That leaves the fair use Image:REAGAN1996.jpg, the one of the Reagan's on their anniversary in 2000 (important pic -- one of, if not the, last known pic of Ronald Reagan), and I can added back the one photo of Mrs. Reagan saying her last goodbyes, making three fair use images. I think that's better than five.

Thanks so much with your helping out. Best, Happyme22 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some other choices, maybe something here or here. There are so many free use photos (maybe not perfect, but good quality) that we can't justify fair use.  See Fair use.


 * I noticed this is also not tagged correctly. The source is AP Photo/Carlo Allegri, Pool, which means the Associated Press holds the copyright.  The high school's use of these photos is not 100% appropriate, per copyright laws.  But, the AP is less likely to go after them.  Wikipedia is higher profile and we need to be careful about this. --Aude (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok well I'll look at some of those pics. Also, if you could please fix the data table in the "Legacy" section of the article, covering up the white space (I would, but I don't know how), that would be really helpful. Again, you are a huge help, and thanks so much. Happyme22 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Table is fixed. --Aude (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much. Happyme22 03:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Move to DC
Since you mentioned it in my RFA, I thought I'd let you know - I got a job with Food and Water Watch in Washington after getting fired from Wal-Mart. So now I finally have a job that puts my college degree to work. I like it. On my personal site, I mention the move in April and May. So yeah, I'm pretty pleased. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Providence, Rhode Island FA nom
Hopefully, I've addressed your comments concerning the nomination of Providence, Rhode Island for FA status. When you get a moment, I'd appreciate your input concerning revised article. Thanks.--Loodog 04:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The crime section was a good idea; it's been added. I've also moved the Neighborhoods section up to under Geography.  The only issue was I didn't really know what to add to Government.  Let me know if you see anything else.  Thanks!--Loodog 23:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Renominated
After discussion with Raul, he agreed to let me nominate again immediately. As such, here it is. Again, I'd appreciate as much feedback as you can give.--Loodog 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So, theres no way?
I'd really like to add pictures to the WTC Popular Culture page.

So TV Screenshots are not allowed? Because I know TONS on TV shots on wikipedia, dose that mean we have to remove them all?

The pictures where just off of Youtube Videos or MTV Music Videos. Some I even took myself. Are those against the rules?


 * You don't own the copyright to those images, even if you "took some yourself". These images fall under fair use rules, which has been a hotly debated issue, with the rules increasingly being tightened.  We may see the day that Wikipedia does away with fair use images entirely, as has been done on the German-language version of Wikipedia.  In my opinion, it's best to avoid them.
 * The question of fair use images varies from image to image, and depends on the context, which article it's used in. For each image, the uploader must provide justification for its use in particular articles.  For each case, there are ten requirements that must be met, including the following:
 * "Minimal use. As little non-free content as possible is used in an article. Short rather than long video and audio excerpts are used. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary."
 * "Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." -- for articles like Lower Manhattan or World Trade Center, the fair use image is definitely decorative and not at all needed. We have enough free use pictures (taken by Wikipedians) for those articles.  The WTC in pop culture article is essentially a list, which I think can convey the information without fair use images.
 * Though if an article is specifically about a television show, it may be okay to include just one image, which people consider essential to conveying the topic. But not more than one in those cases. --Aude (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

New York City
I have already started addressing some of the issues I had raised on the talk page, including regarding density. You may find some of the needed sources already in the Manhattan article. Please let me know if there is anything in particular that I can help with to improve the article; There's no reason we couldn't split up some of the outstanding issues, get them done more quickly and avoid duplicate effort. Alansohn 16:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for providing a ref Central Park, which should be easy to find, I have done the first seven. With your edits, pop. density and public television are now done also.  I can keep working down the list, and you can do anything you are interested in.  I'm not sure when I'll get time to copyedit the Manhattan article.  There are some other urgent things to work on, but will try to spend some time on it. --Aude (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

WTC in Pop Culture Pictures
Sorry I'm kinda slow, your reply is a little complicated.

So basicly if I post the images telling Where I got it from (Youtube), when it was made(1998), who owns the Show (Viacom), then its ok?

I mean if my images arent allowed, dosnt that mean all the images like for example, Episode pictures from the Simpsons arent allowed.

I really want to include these images, so memory of the World Trade Center dosnt fade away. So for future generations who look at the page and realize how big the Twin Towers where in pop culture, listing just dosnt do justice. I'm sure many people would love to see images of the Twin Towers in cartoons and television shows.

They'e just meant for that specific page, thats all we are useing them for anyways. Plus I think the pictures make a great additon to the page, making it more vibrant. There has to be someway to add those screens. :)


 * You are correct, that fair use can be complicated. It's best to avoid uploading images that you don't own copyrights to, unless you really understand how fair use works.  With material from television and film, we don't own copyrights to those images.  Viacom or whatever company does.  Wikipedia doesn't have permission to use them, except in very limited fair use situations.  There are some episode pictures from the Simpsons, but only in articles about the Simpsons.  Those images are not allowed in any other articles.  Also, articles that are simply lists (even List of The Simpsons episodes) cannot use copyrighted images.
 * There are two reasons we can't use the images on the WTC in pop culture article:
 * It is not an article about this Simpsons (or any of the other television shows or movies)
 * It's a list.
 * The List of The Simpsons episodes may be less "vibrant", but it meets legal requirements on use of images which is more important for Wikipedia. Take a look at the fair use guidelines page for more examples and information on what's allowed and what's not. --Aude (talk) 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Ok I subbimited my Problem to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, hopefully they approve it.


 * That's a good place to ask such questions. --Aude (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Updating laws in Congress
Hey Aude, how did you initially update this page when you created the US gov't portal? I'm looking to do it, but hurting for ideas. Thanks.--Chaser - T 02:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would only include the most notable items in the list. Congress does a lot of trivial stuff. There is no ideal source for getting the important stuff, with the junk filtered out.  Maybe the best is Google News (search "House bill" or "Senate bill") and see what's going on.  Then, if  you want, go to either THOMAS - http://thomas.loc.gov, Govtrack, or some other site to find the bill number.  These sites are comprehensive and include a lot of very trivial items.
 * Right now, some of the more notable pending bills might include:
 * S. 1348 - Immigration reform bill
 * S. 1257 - would add two house seats, one for the District of Columbia and one for Utah.
 * H.R. 2337 - Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007
 * A bill was introduced today, regarding the value of the Chinese Yuan, which may not be notable enough to mention.
 * There's a house bill regarding student loans, but not sure of the bill number.
 * H.R. 2640 - And, the House has passed a bill on gun control
 * There may be others that can be found on Google News or elsewhere. --Aude (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Updated it a bit. Thanks for your help, Aude, and for the neat tabs on the portal.--Chaser - T 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
You undid my edits to the September 11, 2001 attacks page, when all I added were the words "allegedly," "reportedly," etc., in appropriate places. I submit that these edits were done in the interest of the "neutral point of view" espoused by Wikipedia's guidelines. I will take this matter up with Wikipedia staff, and I will win on the basis of the neutral point of view, if you continue to vandalize my edits.

The facts in question have not been proven in court of law, and are thus only "allegations." For you to deny this fact is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimist (talk • contribs)


 * There is no consensus for your version, with weasel words and POV pushing. Numerous reliable sources are provided, such as videos and statements from Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda members.  As well, DNA of the hijackers was identified at each of the the three locations, among plenty of other evidence that makes virtually all mainstream sources concur that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. You are close to violating the three revert rule on the September 11, 2001 attacks article.  You must stop. --Aude (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will take this matter up with Wikipedia in due time. And to correct you on a point... DNA of the "alleged" hijackers was "allegedly" identified. Unless you have personally seen this DNA and have testified in court about it, stop making ridiculous assumptions about what is fact, and what is not. The fact is, no court of law has convicted either the 19 men or Osama bin Laden of the "alleged" crimes. And in case you don't know, that is the standard we follow in the United States. The accusations are nothing more than allegations. No proof has been presented, Osama bin Laden and the others have not had their day in court.

That they are allegations is not a matter of "consensus." It is a matter of fact. The "reliable sources" are nothing more than news articles and the highly controversial 9/11 Commission report. No one with even grade-school intelligence accepts the 9/11 Commission's versions of events. And all each "reliable source" does is ALLEGE something. Editing the accusatory statements to include "alleged" does NOT defy the consensus. It just clarifies that these are allegations, and NOT convictions in a court of law.

Are you suggesting to me that if the "consensus" on Elvis Presley was that he is still alive, Wikipedia's article on him would state that he is alive? Ridiculous. Stupid. Asinine. I'll leave the article as-is for now. I'm not going to give you what you want, which is to stifle independent voices. But it isn't over, not by a long shot. 9/11 truth will prevail, and traitors such as yourself will be dealt with appropriately. Interpret that however you wish, bub. If you represent the mean intellect level of Wikipedia's admin's, it is no wonder Wikipedia is fast becoming the most ridiculous and inaccurate "reference" on the net.

If you truly wish to involve Wikipedia in the 9/11 coverup, and the implications and consequences that entails, by all means have your way. The truth will have its day eventually, and you're not going to be very happy.

If you would like the 9/11 Truth movement to target Wikipedia, with 1000's of us signing up and editing all sorts of pages relentlessly, making it impossible for you to pinpoint any individual... then keep up your criminal censorship, traitor.

Oh, and you had better look a little closer at some of those videos of bin Laden... Get new glasses or something, because the most important video to which you refer is NOT EVEN HIM!

I had to add this: "virtually all mainstream sources concur that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11" --- WTF? Are you joking? MY GOD. You are accepting the mainstream media's account? Do yourself a favor, kiddo, and don't quit high school after all. You obviously need more education than you received previously in those remedial classes. "Mainstream media sources agree" is your idea of verifiability, of reliable sources? LOL!

Vandals
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made, you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. --AW 16:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Warnings are not always needed. Sometimes it is clear they have moved on, as in this case.  --Aude (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A block you made in May
Hi Aude, could you please review Talk:Hurricane Katrina. You blocked this user back in May for the same thing he's doing now - 3RR violation by re-introducing his POV. Could you please comment (either on his content, or his conduct)? Thanks. – Chacor 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From HoppinHill
You say: Please stop edit warring, and respect the three revert rule.

I say: I have not violated the three revert rule. (I did months ago when I didn't know about it.) Chacar violated the three edit rule yesterday. How is he/she immune?

You say: The Hurricane Katrina article has been developed through extensive discussion on the talk page, reaching a consensus for the present version of the introduction. Please respect the consensus and work with others on the talk page.

I say: New information continues to be released constantly. The current article is outdated and needed revamping. H. Katrina was less than 2 years ago, and new information continues to arrive, and will continue to do so for years.

You say: There are also numerous subarticles that discuss specific aspects of Hurricane Katrina in more depth, which may be more appropriate places to talk about Federal government involvement and responsibility. Though, WP:NPOV applies in the subarticles too. If you continue to disregard consensus and keep edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop.

I say: How do I gain consensus? I have been using the talk page. And I back up my additions with facts. And again, I have not violated the three-edit rule in a 24 period (other than months ago). The rules of wikipedia say: "If you don't want your work edited mercilessly, don't contribute." I don't mind my work being edited! I don't even mind it being deleted; I'll just put it back. But I don't understand my wiki editing rights being threatened as I am breaking no rules, using the talk page, not ever using "revert" and honestly trying to work within the system.

Hoppinhill HoppinHill 18:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What you added is not "new information", but is already covered in the intro where it says "The storm also prompted Congressional review of the US Army Corps of Engineers and the failure of the levee protection system." The article also includes a section on "Analysis of New Orleans levee failures", along with an entire subarticle on 2005 levee failures in Greater New Orleans.  If there is not consensus for particular changes to the article, then don't keep adding them anyway.  Repeatedly doing so is edit warring, which the three revert rule helps guard against.  We all need to work within these policies and guidelines when editing.  --Aude (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessments
Sorry, I'm not very experienced in assessing. Thanks for telling me =P Wikipeep 494 18:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk page. --Aude (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After doing a little reading on good article criteria, I'm guessing it has to be nominated as a GA before I can assess it as such? Wikipeep 494 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture WTC
Ok, this guy BetacommandBot, brang like all my picutres back to life saying its ok to use them.

Plus I read the image uploads page, and they all meet requirements, look yourself, each image has everything you need to know about them.

I dont see why they need to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pag293 (talk • contribs)


 * User:BetacommandBot tags images for deletion. The bot does automated tasks like this, is not a human being, and can't say that it's okay to use the pictures.  BetacommandBot is operated by User:Betacommand, so you need to ask him questions and not the bot.  As discussed on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, the claim of fair use is not valid.  We only use fair use, copyrighted images in very limited situations, which does not include articles that are lists, such as list of WTC pop culture references. Also, take a look at List of The Simpsons episodes and tell me if the list is really terrible because it does not contain images?  Notice that list has a gold star at the top right corner.  That indicates the list is a featured list (the best of Wikipedia), having been judged by Wikipedians as meeting featured list criteria.  If WTC in pop culture is ever to be a featured list, we can't have copyright problems on the page. --Aude (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan Photo Image:Nancy Reagan RRPL debate April 2007.jpg
Hi Aude. First off, I want to start by saying that I don't want to get into an argument with you, I don't want to create any harsh feelings between us, I respect you and your adminship, and I think you get the point. I do, however, feel that I have the right to argue against the tag which you placed on Image:Nancy Reagan RRPL debate April 2007.jpg for two reasons. (1.) I know that the image is not a free-use one, the kind that Wikipedia prefers, but it definitely worth having. I know that you displayed a few examples of somewhat recent pics of Mrs. Reagan, but what I was looking for when search for photos of her was something very recent, as to say something in 2007. We have a picture of her from the funeral in 2004, now I wanted something recent. The pics you listed for me were from 2005, so we would have one from '04 then from '05--I was looking for something more recent, which leads me to the second point. (2.) Recent (2007) free-use pictures of Mrs. Reagan are hard to come by, and I don't know if there's any at all. That's why I'm hoping that fair-use will please be allowed in this case, for 2007 pictures of Nancy Reagan are very rare, if there are any. I hope to give readers a look at Mrs. Reagan right now, something that will not happen if this photo is not allowed to stay.

This is my reasoning which I will also post on the image page. Best, Happyme22 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the non-free content criteria. I don't think the photo meets #1, which says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose".  We do have free equivalents available, such as the photos from 2005. It's not necessary to have a more recent photo, when suitable free alternatives are available.  Using one of those free images is the best option.  The second best option, from Wikipedia's standpoint, would be to use no photo.  Wikipedia now has a policy of not accepting fair-use images of living people.  Mrs. Reagan is still living, so it's still possible for a free equivalent to be created or provided to us.  If it's important enough, maybe the Reagan Library would be willing to donate something under GFDL, if you contacted them?  Or just be patient.  Surely, Mrs. Reagan will appear again at another government event, with new public domain photos. The fair use justification for the image is simply not valid, given all the possible alternatives. --Aude (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Providence, Rhode Island FAC
Aude, I believe I've addressed your latest comments on Providence's FAC. Let me know if there's anything else. Thanks.--Loodog 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

where to find?
Dear Aude, I would like to learn. I can never find the right debate on wikipedia. How did you learn about the current debate on TerrorStorm? Thx &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Found it on the deletion review page. --Aude (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Building portals
Aude- I would like to create a portal for the ongoing war in Iraq and possibly others and I am trying to figure out how to create one. Is there an application that I can use to do this or do I have to program it all in (very timeconsuming)?--Langloisrg 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are instructions here: Portal/Instructions. It's fairly easy to set-up a portal.  You can use , which creates the main portal page with a bunch links to subpages which you need to fill in.  These include box-header and box-footer subpages. It might help to copy contents of Portal:Biography/box-header and Portal:Biography/box-footer to those subpages on your new portal.  Then you can fill in the "Intro" subpage, "Selected article", "Selected picture", etc.  With those, you can look at examples on other portals. If you have difficulty following the instructions, I don't mind helping. In addition to creating the portal, it's very important to follow up and update the portal on a regular basis.  Out of date news, for example, doesn't look good on a portal.  If there is enough interest in a topic, as I image there would be with Iraq, you may have enough people to help keep the portal updated.   Also, keep in mind, we already have Portal:Iraq, which is more general and about the country. --Aude (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help--Langloisrg 01:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Please let me know if you have any difficulty with the instructions or any questions. --Aude (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aude
Hi Aude, I saw from the Wikiproject Geography that you are interested in geography, so I was wondering if you could help me out. I read a WWII German eastern front soldier's memoirs and he described a geographic feature on the steppe he called a Rachel. He described it as a sort of depression in the ground, totally unexpected, deep enough often to hide a company and vehicles in. I got the idea that it was kind of like a cliff lined pass that randomly occurs in the steppe. I have no idea though, so I was wondering if you had ever heard of anything like it? the book is "Blood Red Snow" by Gunter Koschoreck.

--Jadger 07:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about that. Can't find anything on Google or Google Books, besides that book. --Aude (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

alright, thanks for looking into it anyways. I'm not a geography specialist, but this has definitely picqued my curiosity... I always thought Steppes were flat land, with very little features. I wonder what it could be, hmmm.

--Jadger 08:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not always flat. The main characteristic is lack of trees.  Look at pictures on these sites:    --Aude (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RS
I'm not aware of anything that was in RS (that was useful and correct) that wasn't in V or NOR. Can you give an example of something that was helpful but was missing from the others? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you object to it existing as a subpage of V e.g. Verifiability/Reliable sources, with the title Reliable sources redirecting to it? The reason I feel it would be better that way is that people currently get confused by it, and wonder whether it's the policy. It's been a source of confusion for nearly a couple of years now. To make clear that it derives its authority from V might help.


 * But are you sure these pages aren't listed on V and NOR? I seem to recall that they are, and if they're not, they easily could be. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Iraq War
Thanks again for the advice on how to create a portal. I have a long way to go but I was hoping you could take a look. Any advice you can give is greatly appreciated. Additionally, I created several Templates for the Miltary Operations.--Langloisrg 02:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis

 * Really don't deserve this. I made one edit on the article two years ago, which was probably just reverting vandalism or spam.  But, you did very good work on the article. --Aude (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. You know, I don't think it is possible for everyone who edited it to have a barnstar. Some people like them and some don't plus I am running out of time and ability to look at the edit history. Anyway thanks and I think you do deserve a barnstar (if nothing else for putting up with my 1694 edits at the moment). Thank you. -Susanlesch 23:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

W. Gene Corley
Hi Aude. You are off to such a great start on the article W. Gene Corley that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal: Iraq War
Thanks again for the advice on how to create a portal. I have a long way to go but I was hoping you could take a look at the Iraq War Portal. Any advice you can give is greatly appreciated. Additionally, I created several Templates for the Miltary Operations to use.--Langloisrg 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Portal looks good. Not sure how much advice I can give, but only can suggest that you take boxes off the portal for things you won't be doing.  You don't have to include all those things, such as quotes.  You might want news on there, but only if you will be updating it regularly.  Not sure about the others.  It's really up to you.  For examples, you can look at any of the other portals and see what they do. --Aude (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the help--Langloisrg 00:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia
I am editting Georgia, if other editors do not want it to be that way they can revert it to the way it used to be. Thanks for telling me about the talk page, Sincerely Yours, Serminigo


 * Wikipedia worked through consensus, which is reached among editors on the talk page. I personally do not have an opinion on the matter, but know the question of what to do with the Georgia page has been subject of extensive discussion and debate.  In such cases, page moves definitely need to be discussed with others first. --Aude (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Community portal - firefox kmf164.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Community portal - firefox kmf164.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * deleted. --Aude (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Community portal - ie kmf164.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Community portal - ie kmf164.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * deleted. --Aude (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)