| Revision as of 11:41, 1 November 2010 editTarage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,875 edits →Edit Request← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:50, 1 November 2010 edit undo174.89.59.40 (talk) →Edit RequestNext edit → | ||
| Line 356: | Line 356: | ||
| :The above IP...76.68.52.131 comes from the same location as blocked IP ]...check it out for yourselves......and...--] 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | :The above IP...76.68.52.131 comes from the same location as blocked IP ]...check it out for yourselves......and...--] 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::As I said above, it may just be time to block unregistered users from editing the talk page. It's pretty clear that the IP in question isn't going to be giving up and isn't getting the message that we won't be preforming the modifications he keeps requesting. --] (]) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | ::As I said above, it may just be time to block unregistered users from editing the talk page. It's pretty clear that the IP in question isn't going to be giving up and isn't getting the message that we won't be preforming the modifications he keeps requesting. --] (]) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::That's fine, I'll just keep returning until somebody fixes the article's neutrality. Everyone who comes to read this article knows how biased it is anyway - that is, the people who aren't brainwashed by America. Cheers. ] (]) 16:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:50, 1 November 2010
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about September 11 attacks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about September 11 attacks at the Reference desk. |
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the September 11 attacks.
|
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WikiProject September 11Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Referencing and citation: criterion met
 | September 11 attacks is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 11, 2004, September 11, 2005, September 11, 2006, and September 11, 2009. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the September 11 attacks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
WLRoss' edits to the Conspiracy theories section
In this edit , User:WLRoss appears to imply that National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the American Society of Civil Engineers issued their 9/11 findings without conducting research; the de-facto effect of such an edit is to de-value their conclusions. The edit summary used by User:WLRoss claims prior consensus for his position - this looks rather strange and even nonsensical to me, but I'd like to discuss the issue here before reverting. Nsk92 (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- The wording "after their research" may be somewhat confusing. In particular, it may be interpreted to mean that NIST did research outside of the official investigation. We could perhaps write: "whose investigations concluded". Did ASCE do research on 9/11 as an institution, or did ASCE researchers write articles based on their individual research? Cs32en Talk to me 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
- Both NIST and ASCE reports were official institutional reports. The NIST report says so directly in its title. The ASCE findings were reported in the congressional testimony of Gene Corley which is marked at the title page as "On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers". WLRoss writes in his edit summary "deleted text that carried the implication that CD was researched" which conveys the implication that their findings were not researched and were sort of just pulled out of the thin air - which is certainly not the case. I think a wording like "whose research concluded" would be fine. Nsk92 (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Archiving
As it states at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of September 11 attacks. Any such comments may be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about September 11 attacks at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Misplaced Pages policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk."...discussion NOT related to improving the article will be archived, refactored and or deleted...the article will NEVER go into any great detail regarding conspiracy theories so get used to that fact. Continued disruption of this page by those here to promote conspiracy theories can and will lead to possible sanctions including topic bans as detailed at the Discretionary sanctions section of the 2008 Arbitration Case.--MONGO 02:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing, including numbers of victims
This article has some sourcing issues, as I mentioned above before it got rather prematurely archived. Some of it isn't up to scratch (citing minor or college newspapers, or suspect ones (Fox, Judicial Watch), and some have simply been superseded by better sources, such as university imprints. I've noticed that there are several different figures cited for the numbers of victims. We have "almost 3,000" (Fox), 2996 (the Online Rocket, a minor college newspaper), and a slightly dodgy calculation (methodologically) made from various CNN figures to get 2753. There's also a 2752 unsourced for the total dead at the WTC alone (CNN had it at 2606). The info box has "approximately 3000". This has to be sorted out. Is there no official estimate available? In addition, I do not think MONGO's insistence that the UNSC statement should be linked to the lede statement about the attacks is valid. It was one day after the attacks. The books cited use the word terrorist, and if there really is controversy over the word terrorist (lunatics aside) then there should be a section on it. It's simply not a good source. It's just as bad as truthers using confused news reports in the days afterwards as evidence for anything. We have clearer, more reliable sources later after the events. The UNSC is a good source for what the UNSC thought, but not much else.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sourcing from reliable news sources depends on the date of issuance...the most recent news reports will likely provide the most up to date numbers...books not readily available to those not able to access them via a library aren't always as good for sourcing as a clickable URL for this web based platform encyclopedia...so perhaps both a printed book source and a web source for is best. There is no exact known dead...ABC News as of 2005 put the number at 2,749 at the WTC counting those on the two planes ...when you combine that with the 184 at the Pentagon counting the plane that hit it and the 40 on flight 93 ...that totals near to 3,000 and some sources do not list the 19 hijackers while others do....bear in mind that due to the unknowns (possibly illegal alien workers in the WTC) we may never have a exact number.--MONGO 05:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- In addition...we're surely not going to create a "section" in the article discussing the use of the term terrorist...look at the top of this page under the FAQ's and see why we're not going to do that.--MONGO 05:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh no - I wasn't actually suggesting creating a section on the use of the term terrorist. I was being a little sarcastic - my apologies if that didn't come across. I just don't think we need to worry about whether or not we attach the UNSC's description in the lede like that. Where it was, it looked like a source for the fact the attacks were AQ etc etc, and it isn't such a source. As for the numbers - the problem is, it's OR to add numbers together like that because they come from different sources, and different times, possibly using different methods. (It's not like adding up figures in a table produced by one source using consistent methodology, which isn't OR). If there are no exact numbers, then I suggest that we be more explicit about that, and give a few of the proper RS estimates as an example of the degree of uncertainty (i.e. not much) as well as the rough number. There is a page (Casualties of the September 11 attacks) to which people can be directed.
- I've tracked down what we can take as an authoritative official source for total WTC deaths - the New York Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. (I should have thought of going there before, really). They put out this, which details total recognised deaths. I suggest we use this where possible. The Pentagon death numbers seem stable, as do the other airplanes. I'll re-do the sourcing when I have the time to concentrate, as it'll be fiddly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh no - I wasn't actually suggesting creating a section on the use of the term terrorist. I was being a little sarcastic - my apologies if that didn't come across. I just don't think we need to worry about whether or not we attach the UNSC's description in the lede like that. Where it was, it looked like a source for the fact the attacks were AQ etc etc, and it isn't such a source. As for the numbers - the problem is, it's OR to add numbers together like that because they come from different sources, and different times, possibly using different methods. (It's not like adding up figures in a table produced by one source using consistent methodology, which isn't OR). If there are no exact numbers, then I suggest that we be more explicit about that, and give a few of the proper RS estimates as an example of the degree of uncertainty (i.e. not much) as well as the rough number. There is a page (Casualties of the September 11 attacks) to which people can be directed.
The sourcing REALLY NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. I just copy and pasted the numbers from this page to the "casaulties of 9/11" page because it had the deaths above 3,000 even though it sourced the same sources. The Rocket article really needs to be replaced by a more reliable source. Or simply add the sources for the pentagon, WTC, and UA 93 articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleveland84 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
September 11 attacks → September 11, 2001 attacks — It doesn't make any sense not to specify the year. Even if many people refer to it as just "September 11", it isn't specific enough. To someone who hasn't heard of the event, calling it the "September 11 attacks" makes it sound like an annual event. Compare 7 July 2005 London bombings. If the event doesn't have an actual name, then we need to give it a descriptive encyclopaedic name. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Or to 11 September 2001 attacks? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since this is a U.S. event, the U.S. date conventions need to be used in the title. In this regard "September 11, 2001 attacks" is preferable to "11 September 2001 attacks". Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Are the attacks ever refered to as such? It's common in the UK to say "September 11" in relation to this event, even though that is contrary to UK date conventions. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is common to refer to this event as simply 9/11. If there is to be a move, this would be my prefered choice per WP:COMMONNAME. PC78 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's the best title in my opinion because the attacks were so massive unless there are another set of equally large attacks on a September 11, then there's no need to move the page.
- The London bombings were on a much, much, smaller scale.
- It doesn't make any sense to specify the year, the date will be forever remembered as September 11, and is beyond commonplace when referring to the most devastating terrorist attacks in history.
- Everyone has heard of September 11, for those that haven't will realise what it is by clicking on the article, and will understand why it's kind of bad-mannered or blunt to stick a 2001 in the title.
- John Cengiz talk 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - the current name is fine; the purpose of a page title is to describe the subject using a common and encyclopedic term. 9/11 is not suitable either as it is a nickname rather than an encyclopedic name. The title does not need to inform you of the exact date, you can look in the article for that. — Amakuru (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - Didn't we have this debate a while ago? I thought that had all the arguments we would ever need on this. --Tarage (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The date "September 11" is closely associated with these attacks; see this, for example. The year is unnecessary. Ucucha 23:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose as pointless shuffling. If the title needs changing in the future because of other attacks on the same day, that can happen.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Additional Comment I would oppose any move to 9/11. It's unencyclopaedic and parochial. (fine as a redirect, of course).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose for similar reasons as VsevolodKrolikov above. This is a solution in search of a problem. If there is a move, 9/11 is a better title, what with it being in actual use. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose per VsevolodKrolikov. Status quo is fine. --John (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support - In as much as 9/11 was a publicity stunt to justify wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to implement the Patriot Act, it deserves to be known by its brand name: 9/11. Oclupak (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cite, please? Powers 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Until a more significant event happens on September 11 I see no need to lengthen the name. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, who the heck "hasn't heard of the event"? (Among people who have heard of Misplaced Pages, that is.) Powers 15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose - totally oppose, according to a wikipedia policy i read earlier (I forgot which one, and I'm too lazy too look it up but WP:UCN will work too), it said to name articles by common name and keep them short, infact I would find 9/11 a better name to call it, much more common. --Poohunter (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
| Extended content |
|---|
|
Nothing new to see here. Move along, folks, and don't feed the trolls. Nsk92 (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Edit request from Develooper, 14 October 2010I would like to change the Belligerents to "Unknown" because there is no true evidence that al-Qaeda did it. Not even FBI hold Usama bin Laden as a suspect to 9/11. Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Reference: http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden Develooper (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Smithdennis, 21 October 2010
Smithdennis (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Tsbrewster, 22 October 2010Common, if this site wants real credibility then it must show the facts about 9/11 otherwise the site and its owners at as evil as those who murdered over 1 million people. That's taking into account those killed because of the 9/11 inside job Tsbrewster (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Factual OmmissionsThe authors of this article seem rather aggressive towards the so called "conspiracy theories" even when legitamate, foreign media supports the idea. The 9/11 Truth Movement seems mainstream enough to warrent at least a paragraph in this article, due to relavance of the topics. This is especially true in light of the videos released recently via the freedom of information act. (Available Online @ http://www.faz.net/s/RubB08CD9E6B08746679EDCF370F87A4512/Doc~E42B92739BDBE45AA877FBE5A5D988202~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html) The whole conspiracy theories chapter is more of a rant rather than a summary of the article 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, which is itself almost just as big as the main September 11 attacks article. This warrents a re-write by somebody who has educated themselves on the subject. Remember: if enough people believe elaphants to be immortal, it will become fact. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like to respectfully request for the following text, "Conspiracy theorists question the official version of the attacks, the motivations behind them, and the parties involved, and have engaged in independent investigations. Some of the conspiracy theories see the attacks as a casus belli through a false flag to bring about increased militarization and police power. Some proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories have speculated that individuals inside the United States possessed detailed information about the attacks and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks. Some conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crashing planes but was instead demolished with explosives. This controlled demolition hypothesis is rejected by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, who, after their research, concluded that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires caused the collapse of both Towers." to be changed to: "Some polls show that a growing number of Americans reject the official statements, either believing that President Bush or members of his administration had prior knowledge of the attacks and allowed them to happen or engineered the attacks as a casus belli to justify a war of aggresion in Iraq and Afghanistan and create support for martial law. Proponants of the conspiracy theory speculate that reports of secondary explosions by eye-witnesses at ground zero are consistant with archive video footage of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings One, Two, and Seven, depicting explosions and a collapse comparable to a controlled demolition. Although most mainstream sources dismiss these theories automatically without addressing or providing the necessary evidence to support their claims, some individuals, such as members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have aquired forensic evidence which, they believe, prove the aircraft impacts were not a factor of the collapse. The World Trade Center is currently the only steel-frame structure in history to collapse due to fire alone." The two sources from the previous text can be kept, along with the aforementioned link. There are many polls which can be used as a source for the first statement. Cheers. 76.68.52.142 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from 70.112.110.204, 29 October 2010{{edit semi-protected}} This Article is still under investigation and is not considered 100% accurate
{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to respectfully request that the following be added to conspiracy theories: Credible news sources prohibit the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories. 174.89.58.40 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Edit Request{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to respectfully request that the following be added to conspiracy theories: Credible news sources prohibit the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories.
Edit Request{{edit semi-protected}} I would like to respectfully request that the following text: "Some conspiracy theorists claim the World Trade Center did not collapse because of the crashing planes but was instead demolished with explosives." Be changed to: "Conspiracy theorists reject any official reports and preform their own independant investigations. Proponants of conspiracy theories believe that the official reports on the collapse are not consistant with video footage of the World Trade Center collapse."
|
Not done for now: please establish a 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a 
Not done: as above. Thanks, 
Archiving and or deleting, again...
The conspiracy theory proponents have the same old tired and yet still intellectually incompetent rationales to incorporate more of their nonsense in this and related articles. I strongly advise following Mark Twains advice: "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"...if you waste time responding to conspiracy theory single purpose accounts or advocates too lazy to register an account, then all you do is provide them with a platform...we already have 53 pages of archives and my bet is 70-80% of the fodder in those archives is rebutting the wacky conspiracy theory advocates. I suggest that rather than giving them a platform, simply archive or delete their comments, as it clearly states we have a mandate to do based on the findings in the 2008 arbcom decision and that is posted near the top of this page...--MONGO 19:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a prime example of why you can see you're wasting your time dealing with IP single purpose accounts (IP 174.89.58.95)....nothing but a troll and now blocked...he/she starts out first sounding somewhat sane here and here, but shows his/her true colors in last postings like this and lastly with this wonderful edit summary...all in just one day--MONGO 20:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Quickly archiving and collapsing such threads is a good idea, but removing talk page comments is more problematic and, IMO, should only be done in case of clear disruption - vandalism, soapboxing etc. As you say, 174.89.58.95 started out the above thread sounding reasonably sane and at that point still deserved to be treated as a good faith editor; simply removing his/her comments would have been inappropriate at the time. I have little patience and little sympathy for conspiracy theories proponents, but at least some of them are attempting to act in good faith here, and while they do that, they do deserve at least a minimal modicum of polite treatment. Of course, once someone becomes clearly unhinged, like this edit here, they should be quickly blocked (in fact I would give longer blocks in such cases) and any threads they might have started should be closed, archived and collapsed. Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the advocacy (signal to noise ratio, etc.) exceeds the effort, then all we end up with more talkpage archives and no article improvement...it is unlikely that CT proponents will be formulative in getting this page to become a featured article....but I appreciate your desire to maintain decorum, even in the face of sometimes overt wackiness....that is a skill I do not have.--MONGO 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect our IP friend was a sock, perhaps Tachyonbursts. The manner of speech was quite similar. It doesn't really matter though, this was the right course of action. Either way, if things get too bad with random IPs we could simply lock the page from IP editing. I doubt we would lose any valuable contributions. --Tarage (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If the advocacy (signal to noise ratio, etc.) exceeds the effort, then all we end up with more talkpage archives and no article improvement...it is unlikely that CT proponents will be formulative in getting this page to become a featured article....but I appreciate your desire to maintain decorum, even in the face of sometimes overt wackiness....that is a skill I do not have.--MONGO 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about September 11 attacks. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about September 11 attacks at the Reference desk. |
Edit Request
{{edit semi-protected}} Can somebody please change the opening sentence to: The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of controversial coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
The attacks are very controversial, and many citizens and politicians alike are still divided over this issue. I would like to see this expanded on in a new or pre-existing section since this is on topic and sourced. Thank you for your co-operation. 76.68.52.131 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- No.--MONGO 19:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The above IP...76.68.52.131 comes from the same location as blocked IP 174.89.58.95...check it out for yourselves...here...and...here--MONGO 19:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, it may just be time to block unregistered users from editing the talk page. It's pretty clear that the IP in question isn't going to be giving up and isn't getting the message that we won't be preforming the modifications he keeps requesting. --Tarage (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's fine, I'll just keep returning until somebody fixes the article's neutrality. Everyone who comes to read this article knows how biased it is anyway - that is, the people who aren't brainwashed by America. Cheers. 174.89.59.40 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I said above, it may just be time to block unregistered users from editing the talk page. It's pretty clear that the IP in question isn't going to be giving up and isn't getting the message that we won't be preforming the modifications he keeps requesting. --Tarage (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Unassessed Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- Unassessed Terrorism articles
- Top-importance Terrorism articles
- Terrorism task force articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Disaster management articles
- High-importance Disaster management articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Mid-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- B-Class New York City articles
- Top-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class Skyscraper articles
- High-importance Skyscraper articles
- WikiProject Skyscrapers articles and lists
- B-Class Pennsylvania articles
- Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- B-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Unassessed software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unassessed Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Software articles
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Old requests for peer review
- Selected anniversaries (September 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)