User talk:WLRoss/Archive 3

An apology for this comment
I think you owe me an apology for this comment in the edit history "Undid revision 227976979 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk)Please check what you revert." I did check and you did not provide a citation with your first edit as this diff shows. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave the reference in the edit comment and stated I would add it later. I had to format the ref before I could add it and found I didn't have time to do it immediately. As I did give the refence in the comment you should have tagged it instead of deleting if you thought it could not be referenced. Wayne (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Hi, I notice you were talking on one post relating to YouTube. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion here and  here. —Slipgrid (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Billy the Kid
Hi Wayne,

I agree with you that the section on the Lincoln County War needs more detail. As you've probably noticed, however, I've been taking serious steps to clean up the article and ensure that the bulk of the material is sourced. When I started contributing to this piece, it had a handful of inline citations--none of which was properly formatted. Your contributions struck me as good faith edits, and I tried to incorporate sourced material into the article that overlapped with some of your observations. The fact that Dolan's posse made light of Tunstall's murder certainly helps to explain the McSween faction's feelings of moral outrage. However, your decision to include a partial quote observing that the posse "made drunken sport" over the corpse, without citing a reference, will not help this article achieve GA status. I also agreed with you that McSween's dislike for violence and clear preference for legal means needed to be highlighted. I included sourced material that indicated as much. At the same time, I was unable to confirm that McSween threatened to hand over his own henchmen to the law once the conflict had ended. I also included sourced material that described the prejudices of two of the law enforcers involved in the conflict, i.e., Copeland and Peppin. I agreed with you that this was an important detail. Finally, I attempted to properly format the single reference you included. Unfortunately, it lacked an essential detail--the page (or pages) on which the information appears.

Believe me, I am as frustrated as anyone by my current reliance on one source (although Wallis' account has been praised for its evenhandedness). At this point, several books on the Kid and the Lincoln County War are en route. In my defense, I did cite a published source rather than claiming to re-state "what historians say," without actually citing them.

I wanted you to know that I didn't simply ignore your contributions. As noted earlier, I attempted to re-state some of your observations by referring to material that could be attributed to a published source. I regret, however, that I didn't send you a message explaining my actions, and my concerns.

Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your edits, just the removal of detail. The quote came from the same source I provided (page 78) and was written by E.B. Mann who claimed it was one of several similar versions told of the murder. As for what McSween said regarding Brady's murder, Mann states "It is said that..." I used other sources as well but had not finished the edits I wanted to do so had not worked out what or where to use refs (I mostly raid historical society collections or sources that use them). As there is no Licoln war article the detail should be considerable in this article as it is more complicated and extensive than people believe. For example most people think it was like in the movies and involved a handful of cowboys in a single McSween house when it was much more. Wayne (talk) 06:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW. I want to expand on the likelyhood that Bill was not killed by Garrett. Wayne (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WTC error
As far as I can tell, the following sentence in the Collapse of the WTC article, inserted by Weregerbil, is incorrect:

"The cores of the buildings began to fall 15 to 25 seconds after the initial start of the collapse."

It seems to be an attempt to paraphrase this sentence from the NIST FAQ:

"... significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse."

But there's an important difference between the cores beginning to fall 15-25 seconds after the collapses started and parts of the cores remaining stading 15-25 after the collapses started.

I'm not allowed to edit the article or talk page myself, as you know, and Weregerbil hasn't been around for a while (I notified him first). Perhaps you could correct it. I'm still happily retired.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New ref for article (BoC)

 * Good find for the reference on the Battle of Cajamarca article. InternetHero (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It will come in handy for other parts as well because from what I've read there are small but significant differences. Wayne (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WIKI BREAK
I am on holiday from August 27 till my return in October/November. I wont be using a computor during this period. Wayne (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West
Hi Wayne,

I saw that you an article to  External links. Such that I've noticed, articles rarely go in External Links (see WP:LINKS). The article seems more about Aish HaTorah, and an opinion piece (see WP:RS). -- davidz (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was torn as to where to put it. I thought it relevant for Obsession as it gives more insight to why the DVD was made but I also thought it might cause problems if used as a ref for text because it is an opinion piece. However it does give the backers connections which is relevant. Wayne (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide is still great but the drought is biting harder. We are now building a desalination plant for drinking water. Wayne (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have doubts about an author that starts: "I've only watched the 12-minute version of 'Obsession'". Putting it in external links doesn't solve the opinion problem, and it seems out of place. I'll move it to Sources. If you attribute it and use it carefully, you might find a home for it.
 * I'd appreciate your external perspective. For the first time since '96, I've spent an entire quadrennial election year in the US. A mistake. How's Adelaide? I have fond memories of the wine bars. -- davidz (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest the DVD seems to be no less legitimate than the Protocols. Why is it not condemned more passionately? Double standards at work?

Kokoda track battalion sizes
Hi, I've reverted your last edit to the Kokoda Track campaign article. The Australian Army did have standard battalion sizes during the war. While disease and casualties meant that the battalions on the Kokoda Track were normally at a fraction of their establishment, the figures you provide are not correct as they don't include the battalion's headquarters and support company. Militia battalions also had a machine gun company ('E' Company) during 1942. Please discuss this on the article's talk page before restoring the text to the article. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation
Wayne, you have now reverted the USS Liberty incident page 5 times in less than 24 hours. I strongly recommend you revert yourself before you are blocked for a WP:3RR violation. Jayjg (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know different edits are not tallied for the 3RR rule just because they are in the same paragraph. The first edit was replacement of text with a new edit. The second was replacement of a reference with a fact tag. The third was adding a legitimate edit to the original text I had previously replaced instead of just reverting it. The last two were restoring text, that had talk page approval, that was deleted under the claim of "restoring a cite", you will notice I left the cite in. Those last two are exempt for 3RR under WP rules. Wayne (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In each case you undid the edit of the previous editor. The fact that you used the "undo" function should be indication enough that it was a revert. I quote from the lede of the policy: "A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." I'll give you a few more minutes to revert yourself before taking further action. Please take advantage of this opportunity. Jayjg (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know different edits are not tallied for the 3RR rule just because they are in the same paragraph. Wrong. All reverts count. 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. so now I'm blocked so that I can't even defend myself against the false accusations and outright lies being made against me on the talk page in the knowledge I can't do anything? Wikipedia needs a wakeup call. Wayne (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wayne --- Its called bullying and harassment. --HENRY WINKLESTEIN (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can request an unblock, though I don't know the code off hand. The block expires in 23 hours so, you can just wait it out and respond then. Though a breather from a 'battlefield' article can be a good thing. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at Mediation
I am attempting to help with the dispute regarding the USS Liberty incident. If you are interested in participating, please add your signature accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 20:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty
I've tried to refactor and put that Ennes thing into the main paragraph, just to stop us lurching around. I've also tried to alter the ADL wording to avoid the clumsy however. Take a look and if you don't like it, feel free to revert. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks ok. I still have a problem with the ADL reference though. Not just because it is not generally a RS but that the claims it makes are lies unsupportable and contradicted by the public record. Wayne (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be perfect would be a public denouncement of their work by someone of note. Could be cited and put in then. As I say though, I imagine the inclusion of many sources will be looked at in mediation. As well as how the article is laid out hopefully. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 11:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There are so many serious problems with the ADL as an RS that one doesn't know where to start. Here's something else I just came across that should instantly render it completely out of contention: "black Americans remain considerably more likely than white Americans to hold anti-Semitic views ... blacks (34%) are nearly four times as likely as whites (9%) to fall into the most anti-Semitic category ... expanding the racial gap in attitudes" So on top of falsification (re Boston) more blatant than David Irving we also have race-based discrimination at least as extreme as him. Now why was I (noted for a strong aversion to this kind of thing) bothering to examine this nasty piece of work? Because an African-American commented on it that "I OFTEN hear blacks speak among ourselves regarding issues of race but i almost never hear anyone mention jews" and "jews almost never come up in disscusions of race with other blacks" and "I do not believe that the vast majority of black americans even has a consciousness of jews apart from that of whites". PRtalk 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Pencil abuse
Happy New Year, fellow collaborative obsessive! Whilst reminiscing about the article on thumb twiddling, I realized that we seem to cover nail biting but not pencil-chewing. I intend to rectify that situation in the indefinite future by starting a new article, in part because there seems to be a surprising amount of content that's completely unrelated to the article pencil, and in part to be weird. (Besides, I slid down the list of WP:UNUSUAL starters when it was found that there are only primary sources on exploding heads.)

As a non-English speaker, I don't know the proper English name for this activity. Could you check to confirm that we indeed have no content on pencil-biting, and let me know of the term and any popular synonyms while you're at it? If you're busy, feel free to reply with the word "fruitbat" and continue your own business. Thanks, Kiz o r  08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to start an article on pencil chewing as it is worthy subject. Pencil chewing is a major problem for autistic children so plenty of literature in that area. There have been scientific studies on the subject and you can buy pre chewed pencils. Go for it. Wayne (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created, Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film) maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film).

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:
 * 1) List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2) You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 3) When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept. Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
 * 4) You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article are the very best way to keep an article.


 * Find sources for Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film): google books, google news recent, google news old, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)