User talk:Morethan3words

Hey, man!

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)[reply]

CIA article

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.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: L. Patrick Gray

That would certainly be better. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FBI Project

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

Woodward entry

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.


I appreciate your help with this, and the time you're willing to spend on it. Maggie3027 (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks -- that's very encouraging. I'll go ahead and post the rest to the sandbox this afternoon, and you can look at it whenever you're free. Maggie3027 (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

No problem

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)[reply]

Question

Do you have any featured or good content to your credit? Pls answer in that thread you started on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L. Patrick Gray "Exonerated"

I invite you to discuss the topic. [1] Dlabtot (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]