User talk:Veggies/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm YuMaNuMa. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Badrashin train accident, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, YuMaNuMa

Please dont move articles...

without thinking...there are two Hoseynabads in Zarandieh county, not one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 86e8899560b257d3056483a3474a910b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Alternate speedy deletion tag

On BestOfChinaTravel.com, I probably would have used A7, though both are valid. What do you think? I do new page patrolling sometimes, and I'm always interested to learn what goes into applying one tag over another. TheBlueCanoe 03:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That probably would have worked as well. The article just smacked of self-promotion to me. -- Veggies (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Boston bombings article

The image is actually pulled from a video, and it's a far more detailed photograph than the current image. The article is called the "2013 Boston Marathon bombings", no? Why is it that no photos of the actual bombings are shown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvguy348 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rarh region.png

Hi Veggies,
Thank you for letting me know the problem with the above-mentioned file.
First of all, I would like to let you know, that all that "copyright tags" are still quite complicated for me. So, it's quite possible that I used the wrong tag, although I remember trying to use the correct one.
I created that image by just taking a screenshot from Google Earth, when I'd positioned it to cover the extent of the geographical area known as Rarh. Previous to that, I'd searched google images and Commons files in order to find any map showing the area, however I'd found none. That's why, that map doesn't seem to be replacable to me (except if someone recreated a better image from Google Earth in .jpg format and drawing lines separating what is historically known as West and East Rarh and may be even the previous denominations such as Northern and Southern Rarh).
Well, may be I've tagged the license in a wrong way, that's quite possible. So, may be you could help me to retag it properly. :) This way, the problem would be resolved.
Friendly, --Universal Life (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocks

The section title "Blocks" on your user page is in violation of WP:POLEMIC. You are correct that my 5 second block was in violation of policy. As a new admin, I had a lot to learn and I made a few mistakes. However, keeping that around is clearly not in good faith.

If you want to memorialize your own epic sockpuppetry, and disruption of Wikipedia that led to the block instead, that would be OK. Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

9/11 Cellphone Calls

Can you explain why you censored attributed challenges to 'official' accounts in an article relating to alleged, but scientifically untenable, cellphone calls made on September 11? Is this a policy of Wikipedia? ~Chas Grav~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChasGrav (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the article, you'd see the vast majority of calls were made from airphones, not cell phones. -- Veggies (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI, it is not "conspiracy crap" to cite an FBI report on the Edward Felt phone call. Felt reported hearing an explosion and seeing white smoke. The most likely explanation is that the hijackers had some kind of smoke grenade. How is this a conspiracy? Geez. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The 911 transcript is available and mentions no explosion or white smoke. The family members have denied these reports and the 911 operator that took the call says nothing of it. It's only a supervisor who listened in on the call, couldn't accurately recall the caller's name, and admitted to hearing a bunch of static that made the only report of the caller mentioning these things. Taken altogether with everyone else's testimony, it's clear this account is an inaccurate outlier. -- Veggies (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"The 911 transcript is available and mentions no explosion or white smoke."

Link to this, please?

"admitted to hearing a bunch of static"

Link to this as well?

Also, you have no basis for crediting one account of Sandra Felt over the other. Jere Longman wrote the March 2002 NY Times article claiming that Sandra Felt didn't hear an "explosion and white smoke." He then repeated that claim in his book. But an April 2002 Pittsburgh article claimed that she DID hear those words. There is absolutely no evidence to prove that Longman's account is correct and the other account is false. So at a minimum, an encyclopedia entry, to be objective at all, should admit that the the evidence is murky here.66.193.253.212 (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

[1] -- Veggies (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that you should link to this. Perhaps you might notice that the transcript begins on Page 2 in the middle of a conversation with a note at the top saying saying "Continuation of FD-302 of 911 Call." Moreover, as anyone can see, Page 1 has a considerable amount of space that is blanked out. This transcript cannot be used as evidence to prove what was NOT said on the call.66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate (with proper citations, of course) that Felt actually said what everyone denies. -- Veggies (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous to claim that everyone denies it. 1) One of the two original people who heard the call says there was an explosion and white smoke. 2) An April 2002 mainstream press article on Sandra Felt listening to the audiotape says there was an explosion and white smoke.66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Also consider this: John Shaw and Glenn Cramer both heard the 911 call. Cramer says "explosion and white smoke," Shaw says not. Clearly one of them is wrong or lying. Without a full and unredacted transcript, there is absolutely no basis for definitively saying that Shaw is right and Cramer is wrong. The only responsible and honest thing to do is acknowledge the conflicting evidence and leave it at that. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

An article whose premise has been denied the Felt family [2], the 9-1-1 operator who took the call, and is not found anywhere on the transcript. Given the weight of the evidence against it, I would wager (under the principles of WP:FRINGE) that the Pittsburgh-Gazette writer made a sloppy mistake.

But what the Pittsburgh Gazette writer says is also confirmed by the first FBI report. Rather odd, if it was just a journalist being creative. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And it's silly to say it's not found on the transcript, fully one third of which has been redacted. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally, the Felt family has obviously given conflicting accounts, and who knows if the version of the tape they heard was redacted too.66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And, no, Wikipedia isn't here to provide every point of view; it's here to establish notable, reliable, and sourced information--not speculation. -- Veggies (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're worried about the quality of evidence, and you reject a Pittsburgh Post-Review article and an FBI report, and instead cite an article from the "Pulp" that can't even get the passenger's name right (it says "David Felt")? Come on.66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't cite anything--just pointed out that there is evidence the family has denied it even after your vaunted article was published. And I think it's funny you'll criticize the Pulp for misspelling the name, but won't hold it against the 9-1-1 supervisor who thought the name was Ed Wart. -- Veggies (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I don't hold it against him. If you hear someone say "Edward" over the phone and immediately give an interview, you might think he had said "Ed Ward" or "Ed Wart." But a supposed journalist writing a year after an event getting a name completely wrong? That's a sign of complete incompetence. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So you admit he wasn't hearing clearly, but use his (sole, uncorroborated) testimony as evidence of something? Physician, heal thyself! -- Veggies (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to understand how he might have misheard someone's name. It's impossible to understand how he could have heard "there's an explosion and white smoke coming from somewhere" if nothing of the kind was said. Also, you can't deny that the transcript was redacted, so if you're going to cite it as evidence of what was NOT said, you have to include that 1 out of 3 pages were redacted. To leave that out is inaccurate. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

All other redactions in the document (even the one you cited) are noted with white boxes and side-notes. The transcript is the only place where you say that blank space constitutes cover-up. Sorry-- speculative. -- Veggies (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Two points: 1) In the document you link, John Shaw's interview says the guy's name is "Ed Wart." So both Shaw and Cramer thought that's what he had said. Therefore, getting his name wrong in that manner doesn't say whether Shaw or Cramer were telling the truth.66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

2) The transcript is OBVIOUSLY redacted. Page 1 is blank for no apparent reason. Page 2 starts off with "Continuation of . . . 911 Call." Page 2 can't be a continuation of the 911 call unless it had started on page 1. Moreover, the first thing on page 2 is the CALLER, whereas the first thing said in any 911 call is always the 911 center itself answering the phone. There is absolutely no way that page 2 is the actual beginning of the call. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

1: I don't cite Shaw exclusively as proof that Felt never said this. The family has denied he said it as well. But the most important piece of counter-evidence is the transcript of the 9-1-1 call, which, until the audio is released, is the most objective piece of evidence available to counter the confusion. I acknowledge the contradictory information in the article, but the weight of the evidence and the consensus of reliable sources points in the direction that the sole testimony about smoke and explosions is in the minority and, thus, less weighty than all else.

The family's story obviously changed! They denied it to a New York Times journalist, but confirmed it to the Pittsburgh paper. Who knows what the truth is, but it is dishonest for an encyclopedia entry to take one side.66.193.253.212 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

2: As for "obvious" redaction, that's pure speculation.. -- Veggies (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

You're the one speculating here. If the topic were anything else in the world, no one would deny that when a transcript begins in the middle of a conversation on page 2 as a "continuation" of blank space on page 1, the actual beginning of the conversation was probably on page 1. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If you scroll down in the transcript document that you linked, there's an FBI interview with John Shaw himself. According to Shaw, Felt said that "there were lots of individuals on the plane," and Felt was "apologetic because he apparently knew that reception on the cellular call was bad." Now, in your transcript that begins out of the blue on page 2, Felt never says anything that was apologetic. Also note that Felt says that the plane "was pretty empty," the opposite of there being "lots of individuals." So Shaw obviously got that 180 degrees wrong too. Kind of interesting that Shaw gets so many things wrong. But hey, we should trust his account more than Cramer, right? 66.193.253.212 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's more proof that testimonials in and of themselves are poor evidence for anything. I don't see anything in the transcript corroborating Cranmer's view either. I'm a little tired of repeating myself, but I want to make it clear: Wikipedia isn't about establishing the end-all, be-all truth-- it's about reporting the facts from reliable, notable, and weighed sources-- not fringe theories, speculation, or errant accounts. -- Veggies (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

His name is Cramer, and one possible reason you don't see anything in the transcript is that the first page is blank. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The only verifiable facts are these:

1. Two people heard the call, Shaw and Cramer. According to both newspapers and an FBI interview, Cramer says there was an explosion and white smoke. According to one newspaper story and a book based on it, Shaw says not. We don't know which version of this story to believe.

2. According to one NY Times journalist, Sandra Felt didn't hear her husband mention an explosion or white smoke. According to a Pittsburgh journalist, she did hear that on the call. We don't know which version of this story to believe.

3. You've shown a 911 transcript that has a huge blank portion on page 1, and then picks up in the middle of the conversation on page 2 (instead of with the 911 dispatcher actually answering the phone, as is always the case with complete transcripts). It is illogical to say that a redacted transcript can prove that something was NOT said on a call.

So at best, we're left with equally balanced evidence on both sides. Only wishful thinking would say otherwise. Anyway, what's your complaint about there possibly being a smoke grenade on the plane? Why does that get you so bent out of shape? 66.193.253.212 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

1: Transcript weighs Shaw's denial of "smoke" and "explosions" over Cranmer's.

2: Actually, Sandra Felt never acknowledged anything related to smoke and explosions—even in the Pittsburgh-Gazette. It's all the work of the journalist.

She isn't directly quoted, but it is inconceivable that the journalist wouldn't have run the story by her in advance, especially given such a sensitive topic. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

3: Speculation.

Only in your mind is this evidence "balanced." -- Veggies (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your theory for the huge blank space on page 1? Why is there not any transcript there? 66.193.253.212 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What's your theory for why the 911 dispatcher doesn't even answer the phone in the transcript that you supposedly think is complete? 66.193.253.212 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

My theory is Osama bin Laden ate it. -- Veggies (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Smart-aleck responses are an indication that you can't figure out even a remotely plausible theory by which this transcript could be complete. It just can't be -- the transcript obviously is missing SOMETHING from the beginning of the call. Anyone would know that just from looking at page 2 and how it starts mid-conversation, but the large blank space on page 1 confirms it beyond any rational doubt. You need to check your biases here. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A man on the way to his death called 9-1-1. 9-1-1 begins recording before the operator picks up his/her line. He was probably crying into the phone as soon as he hit 'send.' There was no reason to say hello, because Felt was already giving her information. She asked where he was, and the conversation continued on from there.

Nothing about smoke grenades, FBI cover-ups, or duplicitous family members needed. -- Veggies (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The family was not duplicitous, but given that the transcript was redacted, the audiotape might have been as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.253.212 (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

So your theory is that unlike every other 911 transcript ever, someone just inserted a bunch of blank space on the entire first page for no reason. And then the caller was just sitting there saying "Hijacking in progress" constantly so that the recording picked that up as the first line, without the operator ever having the chance to say "911, what's your emergency?" Talk about sheer speculation! 66.193.253.212 (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your most recent edits are biased. What I had there was completely accurate -- early news reports were based on what the 911 supervisor said (and it is dishonest to leave this out, as if the news reports were just invented by some journalist), and the later news story was obviously based on an extensive interview with Sandra Felt. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I want to be clear... are you saying that you edit as 98.201.4.16 as well? If so, you may want to create an account to avoid the impression of sockpuppetry. And what I had on there (and what has been on there since the article became FA-quality) is also accurate. -- Veggies (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I have a computer at work, and a computer at home. Amazingly enough, they don't have the same IP address. Not sure why that would be -- aren't IP addresses assigned to human beings no matter what computer they use? 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

What you have is technically "accurate" but it is obviously incomplete. There is no good reason to omit the fact that the initial reports were based on what the 911 supervisor said.66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just making a suggestion. I don't think you're editing deceptively, but multiple accounts on a controversial topic can seem like sock-puppetry. If you wish to take your concerns to a dispute-resolution committee, you can argue you case definitively—you're never going to convince me. -- Veggies (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, although editing from two different computers isn't even remotely the same as sockpuppetry (creating two different accounts and then logging in/logging out deliberately). 66.193.253.212 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please dont move articles...

Hey thanks for you contributions to 2014 Michael Brown death and aftermath in Ferguson Missouri, but I specifically asked on the talk page for people to discuss the name before changing it. I would appreciate it if you would make a few comments on the talk page so people can understand why you think it should be called Shooting of Michael Brown. In my personal opinion, your title is pretty good but the looting is part of the scope of the article too. I def want to hear your opinions. Peace, MPS (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I'd like to ask you a question. Please reply at MY Talk Page. Before doing so, can you please take a moment to read this Talk Page thread here: Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#A simple request. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What is it? -- Veggies (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. (Update Note: I think it makes more sense to have this conversation on YOUR Talk Page, not mine.) Our messages are crossing over each other. It seems like you already replied at that Talk Page section. I was going to ask if you "warned" him due to the "striking" matter? (Which I would find hard to believe.) Or for some other matter? So, it seems like that question is answered. So, a totally different question. That user is brand new (two weeks old). Obviously, he does not know all the "ins and outs" nor all the "policies and procedures" of Wikipedia. I think that his blunders are not due to being malicious or disruptive. I just think he is unaware of what the purpose of Wikipedia is (i.e., the Talk Pages) and how an editor is supposed to go about getting things done here. That is my sense. And, you can see how a brand new editor might think that a "Talk Page" is a page on which we all "Talk" about that issue (as opposed to talking about that article). It's an important (but subtle) distinction. Which is very obvious to you and me and any experienced editor. But, not so obvious to a new-comer, I imagine. Anyway, my question: I thought that there were some "resources" available to brand new users? I don't recall off hand. But, I think I remember three things: (1) They usually get some sort of "Newcomer" template on their Talk Page. (He does not have one.) (2) I thought there was some type of "mentoring" program, with a more experienced editor. (3) And I thought that there was some sort of "tea house" (?) for new people. I have no idea. But, I'd like this guy to be "set up" with some resources for a new comer. His experience has been very negative (yes, due to his own doings). But, he is quite unawares of that. His experience has been that he is constantly rebuked and scolded for infractions that he was not aware were infractions. (It seems like all of the experienced editors are "biting" him. Or, at least, that's his perception.) In short, he has not been "properly" introduced to Wikipedia. So, what are some resources that we can get to him, so that he can start off on the right foot? I believe he has good intentions and can be an asset. You see that he has a lot of interest and a lot of passion. So, those are great attributes that can be directed and channeled into being a good editor and an asset to Wikipedia. So, please let me know what you think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at annealing this situation, but this editor has had a petulant attitude since he began.

1. He most certainly did get welcomed to Wikipedia and chose to delete that welcome template.
2. Regarding mentorship, new users can request assistance or advice at the Teahouse, sure, but other users have repeatedly advised him not to continue his disruptions and he has likewise ignored them.
3. The Teahouse or Adopt-a-user may be a solution if he wants to change. I'm not an admin, but you might want to ask over at Requests for comment for the best advice. -- Veggies (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. All of that (above) is new info to me. And, of course, sheds more light on the situation. Thanks. I had indicated (above) that these were my "gut feelings" about this editor. And, of course, my "gut feelings" could be wrong. I will attempt to engage him a bit and see if he wants to proceed (and "change" his attitude and approach). I may direct him to some of those resources you outlined, if he is interested. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Emma Vu

What the heck! I worked so hard on that page why do you want to delete it?! It is a real book just look up " Emma Vu" and there it is. I thought the world should know about the book because barley anyone reads it, I read it and loved it i won't say the same for everyone else , but COME ON! ------- Night Wolfsister (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Emma Vu Editing

See it was PAYBACK for what you did to me! Night Wolfsister (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Advice

Fine i will take your advice if you can tell me hoe to join projects! Night Wolfsister (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit

Sorry i mean how. Night Wolfsister (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola map

Veggies, could you make a map with dots showing the biocontainment units? If so, I'd like to place it in the biocontainment section of the article here. This way, readers can look at your map and see where these units are. Lots of readers aren't familiar with the various states in America. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Parliament Hill Shooting Maps

Hello Veggies,

I really appreciated that you made a map for the 2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa page. I wanted to give you this barnstar.

		The Mapmaker's Barnstar
		For making a concise and informative map - A Canadian Toker (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC))

Attkisson

OK, how about now? Yours, Quis separabit? 14:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Previous revision

The change I made added the table format to the infobox. I looked to see if I could find why the map was removed, but nobody left a summary as to why it was removed, so I added it back thinking I was doing a good thing. I will make sure that next time the map is up-to-date, and that people will hopefully add more reasons to their edits. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 00:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You're broken ITN on the Main Page

Could you please undo the article title change you carried out on Charlie Hebdo massacre? You've just broken the link from In The News on the Main Page, and you should really have discussed the change before carrying it out. Prioryman (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)