User talk:Veggies

Welcome to my talk page! I will reply here to all your comments, so please keep an eye on this page as I will probably not notify you. Please remember to sign your posts!

Dude

The article I read claimed he was killed in the attacks, so when I used Wikipedia to look up this dude's background, I thought I might change it. I guess Yahoo! isn't always right.

If you're going to block me for that, go ahead! I hardly ever edit anything anyways, unless I see a grammar issue.

Whatever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.29.216 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre

Hello VegitaU,

I was just typed in the words "BMB Group" which is a clothes retailing company group in the UK and although it's not got a page I did have a message for me which I thought was strange as I've never ever had one on here. I opened it and got this:

"May 2008 Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to :Image:Google Earth.png. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. VegitaU (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)"

I've never in my life seen that image from Google Earth and so far I've made hardly any edits to anything on Wikipedia (ones I have done were political articles). Anyone else who has used the PC has never edited anything on Wikipedia so I'm just perplexed that I got a message that should be directed at someone else. Also congratulations on your military service to the USA, and to your helping Wikipedia it does you credit :) . Mr Frostie 82.20.6.101 (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Hi, VegitaU. I just checked my User Talk page and I got message and quote: "There you go again; nominating articles that have no business being nominated" What does that mean? 24.1.4.241 (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It means you're repeating the same mistakes you were blocked for yesterday. Nominating pages that don't fall within GA or FA parameters by any stretch of the imagination. If you said, you learned your lesson yesterday and weren't going to repeat your mistakes, why do I see you repeating them? -- Veggy (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

veggy

hi, why you called veggy? Does that mean vegitarian? Kaaskop6666 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Nickname of my signature. -- Veggy (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

I am disgusted by the way you talk to people who don't share the same opinion as you on the talk page of September 11th, 2001 attacks article.

I feel you have attempted to take dictatorial control of the article by demeaning anyone who puts forward a suggestion you disagree with.

It is in the spirit of Wikipedia to value all contributions to improving the encyclopedia; even if you may not agree with all of them.

You will probably scoff at this post and reply with a patronising and probably intimidating comment but if I was an administrator, you would be apologising.

81.151.140.33 (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The "genius" may have been over the top, but I'm not going to hold back on people who constantly refuse to acknowledge past discussions and consensus and repeat tired old arguments. -- Veggy (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

9/11 'Warning's

Hey man, just wanted to point out that perhaps you shouldn't post warnings about edit wars or the abcon ruling on people's talk pages. It's usually better to report the person to an ourside admin and let them do it. That way you don't appear to have a conflict of intrest. Just a thought, I might be wrong about this. --Tarage (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right about that. I definitely have a history of short-fusedness here. I'll try and be cool. -- Veggy (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Raid article

No problem...I even got the article on ITN! Did I respond already? I though I did, but if not, thanks for the barnstar. Cheers, Spencer^T♦C 19:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

takbir

Sorry, I didn't see the previous link. Must've been something in my eyes... :-( —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For improving United Airlines Flight 93. You should feel great about yourself, you have restored honor to the passengers who gave their lives' names. —Sunday Scribe 19:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

UA93

Re a revert, you wrote: "They were remains, read the aftermath section to see they were fragmented; All incidents are reconstructed from evidence, wordy"

That first phrase complex comes across as condescending, but I don't see why it should be. Yes, the aftermath section does mention fragments, but it's many paragraphs later. A summary should fairly reflect the article as a whole. As noted in the comment, the summary's wording suggests that there were whole (or mostly-whole) bodies left, while there were really (as revealed much later) only very small parts (the largest would fit in your hand), scarcely fitting the image of "remains".

Most incidents are reconstructed, in whole or in part, from eyewitness accounts. By contrast, this one was reconstructed entirely from forensic evidence and, as the article suggests, there is considerable room for disagreement as to exactly what happened. An up-front reminder/caveat seems appropriate. As to "wordy", that's an odd criticism of a five-word addition to a 10,000 (or so) -word article.

As to the renumbering, other airline disaster articles in Wikipedia cite the new numbers of the flights. Citation observation duly noted; citation added.

--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

WTC collapse photo

Just to let you know the photo, Image:Wtc collapse.jpg, is not attributed correctly on Flickr. This is one of a series of photographs taken from an NYPD helicopter, thus the NYPD holds the copyright. I highly doubt ComerZhao, a Flickr user in China, took the photograph. I'm having trouble remembering where I originally found these pictures, in order to give you a link. But, I'm quite sure these are not free to use (except maybe fair use). --Aude (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Darn. I'm floored by the fact that hundreds, if not thousands, of people in New York photographed the events, but no one wants to release their footage under a free-use license. -- Veggy (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You would think that the NYPD would allow use, but they copyright everything. I also had to take out Image:White House photo by Eric Draper.jpg, which is an AP photo and not public domain. Arguably that photo could be justified as fair use, but it needs to be taken of commons which doesn't host fair use material. --Aude (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Islamic terrorism

Hi, as you can see here, then here and here there isn't any consensus over the title of the article and I think it's the worst title which could be chosen.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit help needed

I know you are busy. But if you have some spare time, I have one of the 9/11 hijacker articles at FAC - Khalid al-Mihdhar. The article needs someone to go through and copyedit. You did a great job with the Flight 93 and other articles, so hoping you might help with this one. Of course, if you see any substantive issue, please bring them up. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:October 2008

I am unsure to which edit you are referring. Could you please enlighten me as to what material I uploaded that was copyrighted? Jfingers88 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

9/11 Pull-over location

I've undone this edit of yours because the cited ref does support the claimed statement. Wikipedia strongly depends on verifiability even more than claimed truth, and editors can't be forced to choose "who is right". If you have a reliable source that supports a different location, please add that information and let readers see "what we know". DMacks (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted back to VegitaU's version, and left a note on the article talk page with sources. --Aude (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not leave any messages on my talk page.

the title says it all.

I am starting to consider you posting unwelcome messages on my talk page to be harassment, if this continues I will report it to ANI and request that you are blocked from editing.

This message does not require a response.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to do whatever you want. I'd love to discuss the issue if you feel like bringing it up. -- Veggy (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: You Need to Preview Your Edits

Hello, Veggies. You have new messages at Darth Panda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Veggies. You have new messages at Darth Panda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Pointless image" is not pointless at all

I noticed this at American Airlines Flight 77 [1]

Isn't it a service to the reader to show an image of the aircraft or a similar build of the aircraft involved in the incident? An image of an AA 757 in an article about Flight 77 is not a "pointless" image. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

HistoryLink.org is a "malicious link"??

What's Google's rationale for this? HistoryLink,org pages often contain bits of history nobody else covers, and in scanning this article I do not see what is offensive about it. Google is not the arbiter of moral judgements on content, if tha'ts waht this is about. Please explain.Skookum1 (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

reply on my talkpage.Skookum1 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed proposal for deletion at Murder of Eve Carson

Explanation given in edit summary. Fletch81 (talk) 06:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod tag on Wrap rage

Explanation is in the edit summary; note that I will be improving/adding sources. tktktk (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

DRG Flight 77 Page

On the flight 77 page you reverted *all* of my edits citing David Ray Griffin as an unreliable source, yet my edits outside the Conspiracy section cited Goldberg et al. as a source.

Regarding DRG, reliable sources are:

credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

---

I only used DRG in the conspiracy section of the flight 77 article and he certainly is regarded as trustworthy in relation to conspiracy theories. Other DRG books are cited in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page that is linked to in the flight 77 conspiracy section. Therefore, I'm undoing your revert. 97.104.226.129 (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)