User talk:WLRoss/Archive 1

Thanks

Thanks for the interesting source, I'll get right on adding that. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Meetup on 23rd April 2007

Hi Wayne,

Apologies if you're already aware of this, but I'd like to let you know that the second Adelaide Meetup will take place on Monday 23rd of April at ZUMA Caffe, 56 Gouger Street, Adelaide. The meeting is at 7:30am for breakfast with Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 2 for more details and indicate if you might attend.

Thanks,–cj | talk 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your question on plague

Hi Wayne. Regarding your question on List of historical plagues, take a look at Third Pandemic which originated in Asia near Siberia, has been associated with marmots, and spread the plague worldwide. Your RD source might be very helpful in expanding the article. Hope that helps. WBardwin 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Pennsylvania

I reverted your edit on the etymology of Pennsylvania as it was unsourced and "Sylvania" means woods in Latin. If you have a valid reference, feel free to add this back in (properly sourced). Thanks for reverting the vandalism, Ruhrfisch 12:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply - every source I have ever seen says the "Penn" comes from William Penn or his father, so I think it would be a "most sources say X, but this source says Y". If you give me a citation, I can add it as an inline ref. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Since this will likely be a contentious edit, I am discussing it first at Talk:Pennsylvania. I think we should mention both etymologies as both have reliable sources for them. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and feel free to chime in, Ruhrfisch 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

your Kurt Nimmo edit

I liked your edit to the Kurt Nimmo article, you tried your best to take the two POVs and find a NPOV. If there were more people like you Wikipedia would be flawless. You deserve a

! 64.230.42.225 23:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Playford IV

I've reverted you here. The information you added belongs at wowser and Six o'clock swill. Cheers, michael ^talk 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Playford did not have anything to do with the implentation of these measures, and he did not have anything to do with their removal. The only thing he did was simply not to alter the-then status quo. It would be a pity if this was just an oppourtunity for some to give old Adelaide a good lashing because of its "conservatism". The fact that he lost the election because of a lack of social changes is already noted. michael ^talk 01:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see how your changes would do anything but sensationalise the article. They are emotional and one-sided in tone. I also just spotted your "notable quotes" bit. This is not the type of place to go on a mission against Playford and the drinking laws of another age. What silliness; for someone who I presume is much older than I, this just seems childish. michael ^talk 02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Silent 7th

OK, I have read that the Syria-Lebanon campaign was widely reported and recognised in Australia at the time, and that it was only a perception within the division that they were unrecognised. If you have a good quality source that says something different, then include it, with a reference. Grant | Talk 05:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Annoynmous

So that guy is Kurt Nimmo? I'm not surprised, but I missed that ever coming out as fact.... -- Kendrick7^talk 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That they are one and the same is a reasonable inference then. This article only popped up on my radar a few months ago, and with the near constant page protection since, I am happy to have gotten an AfD-in-egdewise, as it were. User:El hombre de haha very well summed up my sentiments about the disputed paragraph in his AfD post: if we were discussing Mr. Nimmo at a bar I may agree with you, but it just seems like inappropriate POV pushing. I don't expect the editors on the other side to see the light of day shine on this perspective though; my past experience with Tewfik in particular, there and elsewhere, suggested to me someone who would argue endlessly in circles and then once I threw up my hands, declare victory, with his allies swooping in declaring everything he was saying made sense, long after I got the distinct impression I was being Caveman lawyered. The way a flock of like minded editors can easily bias an article is remarkable; I know I have my own set of biases but I try to keep an open mind. I just don't find Nimmo of enough encyclopedic importance to be worth going to bat for here. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Project on global perspectives

Hi. I noticed you have been active on the Iraq war pages of late. I'm glad you are getting involved in the discussion on that really important article! Based on your user page and contributions, I thought you might be interested in a new project that someone recently proposed. The project would be called something like "the global perspectives project," and its goal would be to counter the U.S.-centric bias on key political articles, especially in terms of what sources are cited. As a reader of non-U.S. media and someone who follows current events, it seemed like this might be up your alley. Check out the discussion about the project here:

[1]

It would be great to have you involved. Cheers--Mackabean 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spartacus

Many of your recent additions are not cited in any way, and appear to be highly speculative. If they can be referenced and supported, great - I'd be interested in adding many of the details to the current version of the Third Servile War article. If they can not be supported, they should be removed - Vedexent (talk) - 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would a dead link make a difference?

Why on earth would a dead link make a difference? It's still properly cited material from the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the first link, I didn't insert it, and didn't check it, so I've left it out now too. Regarding "attacks", the wording has been changed to accommodate that. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to just cite a newspaper article, giving the name, date, paper, and author, that would be a perfectly good citation - an article doesn't have to be online to be cited, and in fact, most aren't. These citations go even further, quoting from the article itself, and providing a courtesy links. Just because the courtesy link dies, it doesn't mean the article has disappeared from history. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "many of the references have sentences where the name of the article usually is for other pages". Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are quotes in the footnotes that confirm exactly what the source is saying. That's not "writting an essay", that's good practice. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of the sources say the attacks come from the "Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades"; can you list which ones do? Most/all don't say anything like that at all. As for the distinctions, that's like saying "I only hit you with my right hand, you must distinguish it from my left". Jayjg ^(talk) 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That source doesn't say that it that the "Brigades" are best known for the suicide bombings, it says Hamas is "[d]efined as a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and the European Union because of its suicide attacks on Israeli civilians." It also says:

The welfare arm also cares for the families of suicide bombers and others who have died fighting the Israelis, making suicide bombing a macabre form of life insurance in impoverished Palestinian communities. The social services performed by Hamas also create a pretext for the massive funding the organization receives from Muslim charities throughout the Persian Gulf and beyond.

In any event, we can't claim the sources make a distinction that they don't make, and they don't make the claims you are trying to attribute to them. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Masada

It's not that it's OR, it's just that it's uncited. If you want to improve the article, great, but since your information is obviously coming from somewhere, won't don't you reference each new addition so they won't be questioned and we'll have a better encyclopedia? Lexicon (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could use your input

We could really use your input/discussion here: [[2]]

structural engineers

Thx for the info[3] ! (I'm wikibreaking) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What Ahmadinejad actually said

The definition of each word according to WordWeb:

• elimination : The act of removing or getting rid of something
• destruction : The termination of something by causing so much damage to it that it cannot be repaired or no longer exists

Since Ahmadinejad is actually quoted as saying "although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime...", may I enquire why are you tolerating Armon's POV pushing? If for some unknown reason you reject attribution to the AP piece, it still should read: "Ahmadinejad again called for the removal of the Zionist Regime", and not the destruction of Israel. smb 04:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Point taken, but when you are dealing with someone pushing their POV regardless of facts you need to make one small change at a time or you'll be reverted continually, especially with this topic as the extremists tend to call in friends to swamp NPOV edits when they fail to make their point. Wayne 05:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Though in Armon's case the pushing is so obvious I don't think incremental corrections are the right way to proceed. After one or two small alterations a user could argue they have compromised enough, when in fact they had no solid ground to stand on to begin with. smb 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sulfur pdf

Do you have a source for the 240 kg figure and the rest of the chemistry? There is http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf but that's one person's calculations and assumptions. The pdf also mentions another process that he says (with a lot of "if we assume"s, "may have"s and "could have been"s) would extract an additional 3500 kg from the drywall, and a couple of additional processes for a total of more than four tons. The sentence currently in the article can easily be read as "NIST noted that 240 kg of sulfur was released". Maybe something like A paper by chemist F. R. Greening also describes several processes that can produce sulfur from materials present in the towers, and in greater quantities than thermate could have produced<ref>http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf</ref>. Weregerbil 08:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reporter turned truther

Hi Wayne. I just read your last comment here. I have not heard of this before. If you don't mind me asking, who is the mainstream US reporter you're referring to? Also, you seem to be suggesting that some foreign mainstream media do not support the "mainstream view" - again, who are you referring to? Thanks, Corleonebrother 14:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne. I've googled it and found this article which explains the complete u-turn made by the mainstream reporter, Ron Schott. How refreshing to see someone in his position recognising that there are different types of truther and its unfair to group them all together as one crazy group of "conspiracy theorists". Hopefully after he's done some research he'll write a fair article on the issues. Corleonebrother 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

I think it's clear that you don't want any statements in any article that would go against your view of the world. I want to make it clear that I am going to take steps to include the other side. There have been a few occasions when I saw a source supplied that gives both sides of an argument, and the article only includes the side that you like. The extent of this on the Iraq War articles is frankly ridiculous. I insist on neutrality, and I refuse to engage in edit wars. I will go as far up the dispute resolution process as necessary. I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do so. The article is the product of many hundreds of editors and has taken a long time to get to where it is now through consensus. Let's keep in mind that I was not the only one reverting you. It is disingenious to include information in the lead not relevant to the specific topic to bolster discredited claims by association and then justify it by saying you added a mention that it was not what was claimed. If it is not what was claimed it has no place there supporting the claim. As I pointed out, the Rationale artical covers what you wanted to add in detail and the sources there are not only more recent than yours but rebutt most of your sources claims anyway making it even less of a RS. Wayne 16:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. Is your position that the weapons they found are not WMD? Could you provide a source to back that up? You should also keep in mind that I'm not the only one that accepted the change. The change you first reverted was made by Rise Above the Vile. He recently said that he still accepts the change.[4] Ursasapien also reverted to the version Vile and I agreed to.[5] I argue that it is disingenuous to disclude this information. In the cited speech by President Bush, he said, "Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction". Obviously, if some of them still exist, he didn't destroy all of them. I would accept "no weapons programs were found", but not "no weapons or programs were found". I would accept a large amount of bias, but it must be technically true. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While technically WMD all the RS are in agreement that they are pre 1991, degraded and no longer dangerous (if used as a weapon) and that it is probable the Iraqi government did not know they existed. This means that the article is 100% correct when it says none of the alleged WMD were found and Saddam effectively destroyed all WMD. You can't claim he didn't on the basis of some he missed that no one knew about. The unbiased sources accept this view and even Bush has admitted it. The only result achieved by mentioning them in the lead is that the ignorant will read it and say "Bush was right, they had WMD" a totally false statement. These are not what he told us about and they are rightly mentioned in the article on the reasons for the invasion. Wayne 13:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The point of an encyclopedia is to present facts, not to convince people to hold one belief or another. I asked you to provide a reliable source. You didn't, either because it's impossible because it doesn't exist, or because you don't want to bother. I'm not taking a side on the issue. All I'm saying is that since I have provided a source that explicitly calls them WMD, it would not be reasonable to ignore them and say that no WMD have been found. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 00:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The same one you provided supports my position: [6] Wayne 04:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how many times it states whether or not they count as WMD:

• Paragraph 1: "hundreds of chemical weapons"
• Paragraph 2: "500 munitions with mustard or sarin agents"
• Paragraph 8: "They are weapons of mass destruction."
• Last paragraph: "There is no evidence that insurgents have found the chemical munitions."

It never states that they're not chemical weapons or don't count as WMD. All it says is that they're degraded. The sentence, "It is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point," simply means that they're not as dangerous as they used to be. Kay never said they're not chemical weapons. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You are overlooking the most important facts. They are not the WMD mentioned in the lead, Iraq did not know they existed and they are reletively harmless due to age. To mention them in the lead of Iraq War gives the implication that the main rationale for the Iraq War was proven correct. As such it is very POV to include it there. If you dont think the mention of them in the article Rationale for the Iraq War is adequate then improve on it there. Wayne 06:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily advocating mentioning them in the lead. All I'm saying, and pretty much all I've ever said, is that the lead shouldn't have any untrue statements. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 06:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

As it stands the lead is entirely factual and true. You are trying to replace a true statement with an implication. Wayne 07:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You have not supplied a source that says the WMD they found are not WMD. I'm getting tired of this. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Daniel 02:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

need your email address

wayne, i have a couple of interesting papers to share with you, but i don't know your email address. can you drop me a line so i can email them to you? here is my business card. thanks. Peterhoneyman 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Iraq War. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Proposed addition of users and articles to mediation

Wayne, I thought it would be a good idea to add some people and articles to our mediation to increase the scope. I asked Daniel, and he said it would be fine as long as you agreed. I propose we add the following:

• User:Rise Above the Vile
• User:1of3
• User:Ursasapien
• User:Acct4
• User:Sideshow Bob Roberts
• User:Dwtray2007
• 2003 invasion of Iraq
• Rationale for the Iraq War

The issue would still be the same. Let me know what you think.

-- I. Pankonin (t/c) 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with anybody being allowed to particiapate within reason. It is a good idea to include those articles as they are related to the disputed content and can be used for reference and fact checking. Wayne 04:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War Mediation

Hi Wayne, A proposal for the lead in Iraq War has been put on the Iraq War mediation page. The other parties have already stated their opinions on it, and I was hoping that you would comment on it. Thanks. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

seffen

thank you!!!!! now i have something to read on the plane tomorrow!!! Peterhoneyman 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Reaction of the engineering community

Thank you for your edit to include Danny's analysis. I still have issues with the this section and the phrase "is unambiguously rejected by mainstream investigators and structural engineers." Please see talk , perhaps you could suggest a better phrasing? Tony0937 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It used to read "is unambiguously rejected by most mainstream investigators and structural engineers." The problem is that biased editors vastly outnumber those who want the article to give both sides. I expect that Danny's view will be reverted but it is wrong to make it sound like no experts support CD so it needs to be included. Wayne (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that might be the case at this moment in time. But that should change over time. The way the article is worded today does not reflect reality. ae911truth really is making a difference to the situation here in Canada. We still are influenced by US media and their "Normative influence" but it is not overwhelming. My question for now is what happens next with the page being protected? Tony0937 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We are in a better position here in Australia as it is illegal for the media to knowingly lie. For example FOX was once fined a six figure sum for lying about the Iraq war even though it only copied an article from the US. Another example is the "stolen" US elections which even FOX in Australia will not deny were stolen lol. Possibly due to this our media NEVER discusses the CT disputes as the majority of Australians probably believe the government was involved if someone were to do a poll. Protecting the page will only slow down the process of making it NPOV. It's been done before and the page is much better now than it was the first time I saw it. I don't believe nor disbelieve the CDH myself but I do believe it should be given equal weight and to me the arguement against CD is given more prominance than it deserves in the article. Wayne (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

I the talk page for the September 11th attack talk page you mention that Alex Jones claims the attack could have been carried out with as little as 5 people. I do not know about that number but for German Defense Minister Andreas von Bülow in an interview with Alex Jones has said that "it must have been a very small group within the CIA with the help of Saudi Arabian and Pakistani secret service intelligence" [7].Edkollin (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I remember many years ago reading that LIHOP could have been achieved by Cheney and Rumsfeld alone as they had ultimate control of every aspect that failed. I'm not saying that happened and if it did it is likely they had a few more in it with them but that would be the most basic "conspiracy" and is nothing like the "massive" operation that OCT supporters claim was required for any conspiracy. A telling point is the number and type of exercises being carried out that day would have made it difficult to expose "mistakes" by a small group. Wayne (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PM

I got the impression PM had talked to Romero themselves. The PM article represents his most recent statement on the affair.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But the whole point is that Romero claimed, when interviewed by PM, to have misquoted by the AJ. So obviously the original AJ quotation will conflict with the PM statement. It's best just to leave it at "he later said he had been misquoted", which leaves open whether or not he actually had been.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(PS I'm noving this discussion to the article's talk page.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

Seffen

I had a hard time making sense of Seffen's paper. It was difficult to reconcile it with the anti-CD rhetoric of both the press release and the BBC piece (he mentions CD only obliquely in the last sense). I thought it was strange that he refers neither to NIST nor to the Bazant and Verdure paper, but makes statements about the state of research on the topic. I'm sure it's in part because I don't have an engineering background, but I don't really see what puzzle he is providing a solution to. He seems to me to be providing yet another calculation that arrives at the same results Bazant and Zhou arrived at and which are rejected by Cherepanov (whom he doesn't mention).--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Charges of POV-pushing

Hi Wayne, just a friendly note to present my take on the conspiracy rhetoric. In my experience charges of POV-pushing don't help. Keep in mind that most people who are accused of it believe that they are counter-pushing some previous instance of POV-pushing. (This is clearly the case in the WTC articles.) Once both sides develop this image of themselves, the article is converted into a battleground. As I have now said on the talk page, this is not about "CT" vs. "OCT"; it is about getting two simple facts as accurately presented as possible. First, what sort of fire protection did the building have/should they have had? And, second, what was done to make them resistant to aircraft impact? Those questions can be answered straightforwardly: not as a debate (even an implicit one) between supporters of CD and their debunkers.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Mongo did wholesale edits of multiple sections and gave spurious reasons. It was obviously a case of "I don't like it" as some of the edits were to long standing content. If he wanted changes he should have done smaller edits or justified the one he did. Mongo is very anti CT to the extent he oftens manipulates text if it in any way can be used to support a CT. He rarely uses an articles talk page for anything other than abusing editors so he is one of very few editors that I have trouble assuming good faith for. Wayne (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about this. I still think we should stick to content issues and insisting on civility rather than making counter-accusations of POV-pushing. I have filed an WP:ANI, as always not expecting much.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like every man and his dog is reverting to Mongo now and claiming it has to stay because there is no consensus for the original text. Amazing how these editors you never see on the page before suddenly pop up from nowhere isn't it lol? I'll try to be civil but it is not easy when you are dealing with editors who are so biased that they justify their edits by arguing anyone who doesn't support their view is an idiot instead of using facts. Wayne (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)