I wanted to draw your attention to [this ] portion on the CIA page. I, for one, am interested in your input. Please -- drop by and give us a nod, or a shake, or whatever. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It's an odd coincidence that you mention resources in Vietnam, as, in a different discussion, just today I was mentioning how I once had a research task looking for differences, on the same topic, in different issues of Nhan Dan. The change from the jargon of 1967 to the website of today is amazing.
As far as nominating CIA for FA, I don't have strong feelings about doing so or not. There are times where the checklists for perfect form, IMHO, get in the way of having the best-written articles. FA might make some of the controversies, resolved among one group of editors, start up again with a new group.
There are several red links, mostly for newly created executive positions, that would need articles -- not a major effort. One editor, IMHO, puts more text than I believe is needed -- and even hits WP:UNDUE -- about specifics of CIA and terrorism.
The section on investigations and reports is interesting but long. Personally, I felt it was of equal significance to the impact of individual directors on the agency, but there was a consensus to put the latter into its own article. Things do get blurry between the reports, and the authorization for operations.
Re: L. Patrick Gray
Dear Wikipedian, Thanks for the message in my talk page, and sorry for the belated reply as I was caught in the University, about your message; I don't think FBI project page is active now, primarily because Shane, the project administrator, is no longer an active Wikipedia use, still we can contribute to the project. Adding project tag is a good thing, whenever I create a project related to FBI I add the tag because it will guide others to do the same and the project will be alive. Let's make it active...Cheers, Cyril
Hi there, Morethan3words. I thought maybe we should move this discussion off the general talk page, since it seems to be just the two of us.
I'm happy to move the re-write of the Bob Woodward entry to my sandbox until we can come to some agreement on it. Would it be best for me to post the whole entry there for you to peruse when you can, or for me to add it section by section for review?
A peer review and any other steps you think appropriate are fine with me -- being somewhat new at maneuvering around Wikipedia, I'll leave that up to you.
- Posted. In addition to the points you raised, if there's any help you can give me with formatting, I'd appreciate it. I'm still learning some of the ins and outs, and some of the sections are, visually, a little dense. There are one or two internal links I'm having trouble with as well. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggie3027 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I do a lot of clean up of links. I just get annoyed at a sea of blue, especially linking words that lead to articles that really don't enhance the article being edited. I mean really, is there an English speaking reader that won't know what the United States is? But that CIA article was a long one...... if I'd looked before at the number of links, I might have thought twice about it. LOL. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
L. Patrick Gray "Exonerated"
L. Patrick Gray "Legal struggles"
Hello, I replied on the LPG Talk page to your temporary deletion and just wanted to follow-up to see if you've had a chance to reconsider the phrasing. I'm okay with dropping the speculative statement about his being "dangerously close" to indictable activities related to the Watergate cover-up although I believe it to be true. SBmeier (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)