User talk:WLRoss/Archive 4

WTC Error

Hi Wayne, it's been a long time. I'm still not editing WP, and still topic banned in re 9/11, but I'm curious to know why an error has been left to stand in the progressive collapse section of the article on the collapse of the WTC. It is not true that "The NIST report analyzes the failure mechanism [of total progressive collapse] in detail." It is only the initiating mechanism that is analyzed in detail (as the article once made clear). The paragraph is sourced to Bazant, not NIST, in any case, so I thought, minimally, a "cite" tag is needed. Where in the report is this "detailed analysis" supposed to be. I have tried to get it changed by various means within the constraints of my ban (see the article's talk page, for example). But to no avail. Would you have a look?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you still around. I took a break from 911 articles for a while to see how they developed as it looked like they were improving. Didn't work...neutral RS's are slowly disappearing and they now look like Cheney has started editing lol. I'll take a look at the sources and see what can be done. I know for a fact that NIST was very clear that they only analyzed the initiator and ignored the collapse itself, I just have to find where they said it. Wayne (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article and am gobsmacked lol. While I have no problem keeping conspiracy theory content to a minimum someone has been hard at work sanitising the page by removing any reliably sourced content that could be used by conspiracy theorists and giving undue weight to unsupported sources over official documents to again minimise material that can be used by theorists. I do admit the page is better than it has been in the past but a lot of it is at the expense of neutrality. Looks like I'll have to allow time to work on the article. Wayne (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Actually, I really have given up, and I'm sure it will take a lot of work to fix the article. It may even get you banned if you, as it were, "push it". But as long as it amuses you, by all means go for it. These days, I'm just an observer of WP. I look forward to seeing how it goes. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This conversation may interest you. It explains why at least one (to my mind) important fact in the article disappeared.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've started with edits of things that stand out most. I wont push any conspiracy theory content but will concentrate solely on due weight, relevance and neutrality issues. I'm being carefull to stick with reliably sourced facts so I doubt anyone can make a plausable arguement to revert me. Feel free to keep an eye on my edits and let me know if you have any concerns (or missed something). Wayne (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter's remark is a non-sequitor. The article implies that NIST analyzed the "total progressive collapse" of the towers "in detail". NIST did not analyze the progressive collapse at all. Whether or not NIST should have is not at issue. In fact, the following two sentences actually explain why NIST didn't have to bother with that analysis, so it's a bit strange to open that paragraph with the claim that NIST carried it out in detail. Peter is talking about the collapses. The sentence in question is making a claim about the NIST investigation.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A suggested formulation: "NIST did not analyse the mechanics of progressive collapse (your ref), but an early analysis..." But I really don't think you're going to have any luck with it. I think WP is stuck with that error. It is actually an interesting study in the ability of this community to correct errors. The article once said that engineers were suprised that the buildings collapsed (even under the circumstances) and that NIST did not study the colapses beyond the point of initiation. It now says that NIST studied the progressive collapses in detail and does not say that the collapses constituted an important engineering puzzle.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's getting worse. Even my edits correcting grammar are being reverted by the extremists!!! LMAO. Wayne (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just like old times. All the best with this. It will be interesting to see if you and Aude can (will be allowed to) work this out civily. Like I say, I'm not hopeful.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Gladiator

Hello! re: your hefty contributions to article, just notifying you of intention to copyedit. Citations, links to refs sought in particular: though by the look of your pages, you may well be too busy? Thanks. Haploidavey (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. You will find that the references and further reading links will cover just about everything in the article. When I did the bulk of the work I didn't know how to do multiple cites from a single ref so planned to go back later. It gets hard to spend as much time as I'd like doing it but I'll eventually catch up. Wayne (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wayne, thanks so much for the thumbs-up, it's much appreciated. I was beginning to feel I was just driveling into the dark! We seem to share an interest (mine borders on the obsessive, as in the well known phrase "a get life" - re-arrange as required). Resources here in Manchester UK's once splendid city library are a travesty of their former selves. It's amazing how many really core texts they haven't got. Not even the Cambridge history series; not even Hopkins. Fuh!!!! In part, that's because there's little demand for anything other than the internet; easy as bobs-u-like, but you know the downfalls. Cheers, David.Haploidavey (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Advice about MONGO

Hi Wayne, maybe you don't need to be told, but MONGO is a bit of a special case. I think your comment is dead on. Now that MONGO has involved himself, no progress (of the kind you propose) can be made. Note that his user page essentially says that he's now an SPA that aims to "eliminate" the "folklore" related to 9/11. If I were in your position (and I have been), I would politely ask WP:AE to look at this latest exchange, in which MONGO blatantly introduces drama after you and Aude have developed a working relationship (his insults begin after you have complimented her). AE should lead to a warning. It will probably not, though. If it does, the act of warning MONGO will cause some sort of incident in which the warning will be retracted. This will confirm that MONGO's insults are deemed justifiable under the circumstances and you will therefore "officially" have become a CTer. In fact, you will then likely be warned (or just topic banned). I stuck to my guns in part out of curiosity about how WP works. If I had not had such curiosity, but had just enjoyed editing and supported the Idea of WP, I would have left long before I was finally banned. It really isn't worth it. It's just another drama-ridden website—just another battleground.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify: by "it" I mean the 9/11 related pages, which are all I really know something about. But the drama has been endorsed at the highest level in the project. Almost anyway: I'm not sure Jimbo has spoken.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Some prose

Hi Wayne. Interesting stuff about the tilted sections. I always learn something from reading your comments. Shouldn't a paragraph like this go in the article (under "progressive collapse")?

The top 19 floors of the south tower tilted roughly 20 degrees to the east as the collapse began, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it and the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse with its centre of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building entirely, it pulverised on impact with the ground. The north tower collapsed to the ground by essentially the same process, which has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse (ref to bazant & Verdure 2007).

What does "31g" mean? 31 times the force gravity?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time arguing in Talk. Some editors are so obsessed with owning the article they reject anything they don't understand even if its part of the official theory. All those idiots had to do was read Bazant. On the plus side the arguement revealed their POV bias to anyone who reads it so it may avoid scaring off good faith editors.
Force amplification of 31g does mean 31 times the force gravity. A clearer way of saying it is that the upper section impacted the lower section with a force 31 times it's own weight. Wayne (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now I'm getting it. I've edited the passage (originally based on your talk page comments) a bit more. I think it should replace the second paragraph of this section. (Using the references, I guess.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not much comes of the talk page. Peter was right when he remarked that all the talk was distraction from something that was "easily fixed". And you are right that much of it arises because some editors don't really read the talk page very carefully, or with an eye for improving the article.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've touched it up a bit more. Is there some reason you are not adding it to the article?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Cristina Schultz

I'm hoping to get more discussion about a proposal to delete Cristina Schultz. I'm giving this message to all registered users who have contributed to Cristina Schultz or its talk page, except for some with no WP contributions in the last four months, and one WP:SPA with no talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Peterson

Hello WLRoss...

Looking at wiki history on changes to the Michael Peterson page, it appears you took on the task of much of the editing. I would note that there are some factual errors. First off, the medical doctor who did the autopsies on Kathleen Peterson and Elizabeth Ratliff is correctly titled a medical examiner. Her official title is Associate Chief Medical Examiner for the state of North Carolina. In NC, coroners are not necessarily MDs, but are elected or appointed to the office.

From the NC OCME site [1]:

Deaths in North Carolina that are unattended, suspicious, or the result of violence (homicide, suicide, and accident) are investigated and certified by our State Medical Examiner System. Despite several attempts to improve the quality of medicolegal death investigation, prior to the passage of legislation in 1967, these deaths were, for the most part, investigated by an elected lay coroner. These county officials often lacked medical expertise and worked in isolation, dependent solely upon the resources within their individual counties to obtain medical input into death investigations.

In 1955, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation to allow individual counties to appoint medical examiners and to identify pathologists who were willing and able to perform autopsies when the medical examiners or coroners needed them. Legislation passed in 1965 allowed individual counties to abolish the office of coroner and to appoint a medical doctor to investigate deaths within their counties. Only a few counties acted upon these bills. The Statewide Medical Examiner Act of 1967 however, insured that medical input into death investigations would be occur and by 1972, all the counties of the state either had physicians acting as county medical examiners or the coroner had been appointed acting medical examiner (and operated under the medical examiner statute with assistance and medical input from the Chief Medical Examiner's Office). Since that time, the medical examiner system has annually certified approximately 1/6 of all deaths that occur in North Carolina.

The North Carolina Medical Examiner System is a network of over 600 medical doctors throughout North Carolina who voluntarily devote their time, energy, and medical expertise to see that deaths of a suspicious, unusual or unnatural nature are adequately investigated. At the county level, medical practitioners are appointed by the Chief Medical Examiner for three-year terms as county medical examiners. In counties where there are no physicians willing or able to serve, non-physicians may be appointed to serve as acting medical examiners. By law, medical examiners must be notified when a death occurs in their county that falls within the statutorily defined categories. The county medical examiners take charge of the body of the deceased and conduct such examination as is necessary to properly determine the cause and manner of death. These duties are all in addition to their normal roles as private practitioners.

Therefore, Dr. Radisch was not the Durham County Coroner at any time regarding this case (Kenneth Snell, MD, was the original Durham County ME who responded to the scene and offered his pre-autopsy hypothesis).

The last line in the following graf is misleading and the source seems void of relevance to the contention that "the coroner stated she did not research criminal cases so could not comment." Obviously, as a forensic pathologist Radisch spends a good deal of time researching criminal cases in her work; however, in this case the defense contended that Kathleen Peterson died by an accidental fall, therefore Radisch researched accidental falls of NC women of Peterson's age/size/health to ascertain the prevalence of such falls and the injuries sustained. Since it was the ME's contention that Peterson was a victim of homicide, there was no reason for Radisch to research homicides (indeed that's why the defense researched them).

The Durham coroner concluded that Kathleen had died due to lacerations of the scalp caused by a homicidal assault. There were in total seven lacerations to the top and back of her head caused, according to the coroner, by repeated blows with a weapon similar to a fireplace poker. The defense disputed this finding as Kathleen's skull had not been fractured by the blows nor was the brain damaged. When asked by the defense if she knew of even one other similar assault that did not cause such injuries the coroner stated she did not research criminal cases so could not comment.

Also, as far as I can recall from following the case here in my hometown, the defense (US spelling vs. defence) never officially requested a Texas ME undertake the exhumation autopsy of Elizabeth Ratliff, nor objected to Radisch doing the autopsy (at least not before it was done). In fact, defense representatives were in attendance at the Ratliff autopsy. There are no sources cited for the graf that follows:

Before Peterson's trial, the Durham court ordered the exhumation of Elizabeth's embalmed body for a second autopsy in April 2003. The defense requested an independent autopsy by a forensic pathologist in Texas, pointing out that the state has no shortage of qualified professionals in this field. Over the defence’s objection, the autopsy was conducted by the same Durham medical examiner who had performed Kathleen Peterson's first autopsy. This necessitated that the body be transported under guard from Texas at great expense.

Thanks and best wishes.

--71.111.240.80 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Rebekah (Dr. Radisch's sister)

Always interesting to hear detail on other countries systems. We dont have "medical examiners" and our coroners are roughly equivalent to Grissom and his team in the TV show CSI so your system is almost incomprehensible to me. In Australia, apart from those with natural causes certified, his office handles every death in the entire state (I assume because we have a relatively small population). We recently had a heatwave and the extra deaths meant a six week delay in issuing death certificates until they caught up so we must be close to changing our system. I'm quite happy with any corrections so feel free to comment on anything. I have an interest in crime among other subjects but not with any particular case. I read an article and get annoyed when it lacks detail so search for sources so I can expand it. The problem I think is media reporting which is not always accurate. Of course I am to blame as well because I assumed ME and Coroner were the same. Wayne (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

9/11

To the extent that you are familiar with the 9/11 conspiracy theory literature, it is helpful if you can guide us. The main things we need to do with the article are reduce the length to something more reasonable and cohesive, and try to find more sources in the mainstream press that cover the conspiracy theories. I recommend reducing reliance on primary sources, including research published by theory advocates, and research published by the government. We are better off with secondary sources, I think. Jehochman ^Talk 00:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer secondary sources as they are generally not tainted with the rhetoric that theory advocates tend to use. There are however notable aspects, based on number of proponents, that mainstream secondary sources avoid reporting. In these cases we should either allow the primary but make sure they are correctly attributed or if it is from a non mainstream secondary source make clear, if not already obvious, that they are theory advocates. For example I think the Bentham journal falls into this category and it should be mentioned in conspiracy articles due to it's significance in the truther community. I see no problem with mention if it is noted there is a dispute over it's peer review. We need to remember that peer review does not mean it's true, only that the science is sound based on the evidence claimed which is itself not part of a review. Please be careful when reducing length that context is not lost or you will get edit wars again. Wayne (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may be permitted to weigh in.. J, are you suggesting use of the very government reports which are the central focus of the truth movement's criticisms and analysis? Isn't that like asking the Dog to describe the Cat? Are you familiar with the analysis conducted by the movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy issues related to 9/11 articles

I do not share the opinion that article content must be limited to what all-purpose WP:RS sources report. To help clarify these issues, I have set up a brief collection of some excerpts from policies that are especially relevant to the 9/11-related articles.

The notability of the topic of an article depends on whether such sources have reported on it. However, once this notability is established, the guiding principle should be that to include those pieces of information that are most relevant for the reader to understand what the topic of the article is. "Notability guidelines [...] do not give guidance on the content of articles" (they give some indication, in my view).

Of course, we should use the best sources available, but "[s]elf-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Often, self-published sources do best reflect what the (self-)publisher is saying, one should just not copy the wording, because it may be self-gratifying in some way, while we need to use impartial language.

In my view, we will not be able to develop the article in a reasonable way unless we adress the policy issues involved here. Jehochman and other editors have now changed numerous parts of the article, mainly by deletion, and with little or discussion or communication on the talk page. These changes were not necessacy because of Wikipedia policies and should therefore have been discussed before being implemented. --Cs32en (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand and WP policy does allow relevant questionable sources. You must remember that everyone needs to work together or it becomes a them against us situation and you know how that ends up. We try for the mainstream first then look at what less reliable sources say. Always remember that by doing a search for what the questionable source says you can usually find a reliable one that says much the same as the 911truth websites are only questionable because of the conclusion they draw from usually reliable information. When using truth sites do so as briefly as context/content allows. Too much detail and you invite a revert. Wording is important, never word conspiracy content as if you are encouraging others to believe, this is where too much detail can be a problem and this also applies to the talk page. Once other editors see you as pushing a belief you may as well give up lol. Stick to facts presented in an encyclopedic manner. Compromise, good faith, facts and civility is the only way to get content approved. I say compromise because if you can't then you get nothing. In my experience many editors reverting often only object to the amount of detail or wording but may accept a lesser version if you offer one instead of continually pushing for the original edit. Wayne (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any intent on "their" part to work together with us. Especially Jehochman has repeatedly used misleading statements to get his way. I also know that he must know these statements are misleading, so I would characterize much of his conduct as dishonest. The whole article is flawed conceptionally, i.e. abstracting from any potential position it may or may not convey on the validity of the CD hypothesis, it does not organize the information about its topic well. I fully support that we should limit the description to statements to something like, for example, "Propenents of the controlled demolition hypothesis have claimed that the WTC buildings collapsed at nearly free-fall speed, and interpret this as evidence that the lower parts of the building would have been compromised by demolition devices prior to the collaps. According to NIST, free-fall occured only during a brief period of time during the collaps of Seven World Trade Center." (accompanied by the references to the public comment to NIST and to the final NIST report on 7 WTC). We don't need a detailed description, because that can be found in the sources. I very rarely insist on my original idea (you can check this by looking at the few article edits I have done in the English Wikipedia). But unless we at least clarify where the differences in the interpretation of existing WP policies are, the editing process will always be confrontational, with all kinds of tactics taking precedence over rational reasoning and constructive discussion. (The page I have set up today is an attempt to start such a policy-related discussion. I don't know whether this can actually be successful, but I'll give it a try.) --Cs32en (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's hard but I've found in my own case that they often come around when they eventually discover I'm using reliable sources. In your case they do not trust you so go to extremes to prevent your edits. Jehochman does do some good work on these articles but is blinkered against anything that truthers could use to support a conspiracy no matter how reliable. I'm sure that he believes the misleading statements and it's more a case of being overzealous. 911 is controversial and rational reasoning has nothing to do with it. A couple of editors here will never bend and a couple will follow what the others say regardless of the edits legitimacy, then some will seem unreasonable but will eventually come around if you prove your case with reliable sources. Then you have a few who don't edit 911 who will sometimes come in an effort to mediate and are respected enough by everyone for their view to carry weight. Americans tend to be defensive of their country and are loath to believe they have been lied to. This problem also affects American topics other than 911 such as this one, the last paragraph in this section is mostly my work and you would not believe the battle keeping it in the article as most editors considered it "irrelevant" and as such should not be mentioned. In my own country we are the opposite and jump at the chance to prove corruption in politics. For example only last week one of our ministers was forced to resign because he didn't mention he had a couple of speeding tickets when he was appointed minister of transport. The newspapers ending up printing a list of all the ministers with their driving records which included the offense and date committed. Only two did not have any offenses, both because they had no driving licence and one of those had an offense while riding a bicycle. In his case someone rang a radio station and said they saw him answer his cell phone while riding so when he was told he turned himself into the police and asked to be charged. Can you imagine this happening in America lmao? Hang in there and you will work out how to deal with the subject. Wayne (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You have done really good work on that part of the United States article! (As a notorious NPOV pusher, I'd have to say that the wording "Despite ...," might be regarded as a comment rather than presentation of facts, however...)

As far as I can see, Europeans don't really understand why you could get charged for jaywalking. In fact, most would have no idea what that actually is. A relative of mine now lives in the U.S., and it took her some time to adapt. I'm fully willing to compromise. It's not easy to find a basis for determining where a compromise would be if someone like Jehochman explicitly declares that some of the people who disagree with him are "not part of the community". At the same time, the policy, which should guide the assessment of legitimacy of the various standpoints that enter into the determination of a consensus, is blatantly misconstrued by some people. The latest example is that, where the policy reads "as evidenced", some people read "as presented" or "as commented on". There is a reason why the policy uses the term "evidenced", which one would not use if one would write a text in a casual way. This is why I have set up the policy-related pages in my user space. (There are strong content disagreements on 9/11 in the German Wikipedia as well, and the discussion is not always friendly, but there is probably more agreement with regard to policies, or maybe everyone is just applying a common-sense approach to it.)

I think the current dispute will in some way slow down after a while, when all the arguments have been expressed. — Cs32en (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment rather than presentation of facts is often the standard to get a compromise. Most of that paragraph was replaced with "Although income levels in the U.S. are high, income is distributed less equally than in similar developed nations such as Austria or Sweden." which had consensus for a long time while I argued it was not encyclopedic terminology and misleading.
We have jaywalking here. I was fined $20 for walking across a street a few years ago. It was 2am and there was not a single car on the main road let alone the dinky little side road I crossed but a cop was parked nearby and probably needed me to get his quota lol.
I often argue that WP policy is being misinterpreted and applied only against "truthers". Wayne (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The recent comments by Jehochman (about there being no WP:RS sources on an event in which the secretary general of the second largest party of a country participates) and Quest (the distractive comment on a presumed list that anyone would want to include in the article) are quite good examples of the generally dishonest nature of their arguments. Of course, it is seldom tactically wise to call things what they are, so I'll refrain from that in this section. It's also just too obvious in this case. — Cs32en (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

See. You are learning. Sidetracking a discussion to give the misleading impression you are proposing an edit that actually should not be in the article is a common tactic and you will find MONGO is the king and a joy to read as he gets you so annoyed you fall for it and reply instead of ignoring him. Wayne (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"POV pushing" section

I think your comment is a reply to Quest, so one of the indentation colons should be removed, to avoid confusion. --Cs32en (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx. I have a lot of trouble editing because I only have dialup with a speed of 28.8 kbps. You would not believe how many edit conflicts I get as it can take minutes to load a page lol. Wayne (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes set up the text in a text editor first, and then copy it when it's done. A personal sandbox is also useful, I sometimes don't save the text there, but use it only for preview. --Cs32en (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Needless hostility

I object to your implication I'm trying in bad faith to censor the article.[2] Similarly, this edit summary [3] is needlessly hostile, and is likely to make collaborative work more difficult. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No implication was intended. I simply stated that to delete the claims would be censorship as they form a major part of the articles topic.
I did not see my summary as excessively hostile as it was a reply to I was unable to find a WP:RS for quote, removed it from the article. A RS came up on the first page when I googled it so the revert did look disruptive as the same editor had only added the cite needed tag two days earlier and I had specifically told him I'd start looking for refs on the weekend. No one complains about the far more hostile and at times personal attack summaries I sometimes get for edits I have made in 911 topics so I've been taking my lead from them for what is permissable. Wayne (talk) 01:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Wayne, I've brought up your editing on WP:AE. Please comment there. Jehochman ^Talk 15:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

1-week Topic ban

You are banned from articles and talk pages which relate to the events of September 11 for 1-week, because of disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Pretty sure I am reverting your edits, it just happens to be the same thing odem is doing. (Madrone (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC))

My mistake. I didn't realise anyone else was trying to reinsert the disputed sentence. You have to understand that consensus supports deletion as it is not only redundant but WP:UNDUE. If this was the reason for their designation they would no longer be listed when you consider that they were relisted in 2007 which is two years after the last incident and also after they condemned the practice. Wayne (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of The Great Escape

Hi. Regarding your last two edits at Factual accuracy of The Great Escape, what were the sources for your info? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I just found some more info regarding Hilts that I posted at the talk page for the wiki, in the section The Real Virgil Hilts: A Man Called Jones (a video) Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add the link but had to log out so didn't have time. The link is here. Should also be good as a ref for other parts of the article. Wayne (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of photo of dead soldiers for Battle of Buna-Gona page

Hi, I noticed you've contributed to Battle of Buna-Gona previously. I've loaded a photograph on the talk page which I think would be useful for the article, however I'm conscious it may be seen as contentious. If you would like to express a view, it would be helpful. Thanks.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Undid Genetically modified food

I undid your changes to Genetically modified food, since they are biographical about Puztai, not about the topic. --Zeamays (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Messing?

Is this user here (new at CD) serious or just messing? END

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If I had to guess I'd say a bit of both. He has strong views and is not afraid to express them. Wayne (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR noticeboard report

I've asked for clarification about one of your edits here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

statistics

got to go. will look at it later when i get time. thanks. --Like I Care 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed again

See Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Genetically_modified_food_controversies_2. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)