User talk:WLRoss/Archive 12

Ma'an news - RSN

You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News Ankh.Morpork 17:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Hello, I am not particularly interested in arguments around 9/11, but I am interested in the machinations of Wikipedia and its factual accuracy. To that end, I stumbled on a few sentences attributed to you on the talk page of the A&E for 9/11 Truth article, which I find extraordinary. Addressing a "new editor," you wrote: "9/11 articles are not edited by academics and as editors must not allow edits, even if factual or relevant, that give credibility to conspiracy theories..." I read this as editors are to not add--or if they find it they are to revert--factual material because it might add evidential weight to a controversial hypotheses about the attacks. I'm not sure if you were only referring to 9/11 or facts surrounding any potential "conspiracy theory," but either way I feel my interpretation must be in error, because of course the factual nature of any given information must trump other concerns. So could you please amplify or clarify on that statement? 74.73.161.125 (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at the comment in context, as an appendum to my previous post which was a reply to the concerns of a published mathematician regarding how Bazants paper is presented in the article. Few 9/11 editors are academics so only know what they read which most dont even understand. Many of these editors dont like factual material that gives even the slightest credibility to conspiracy theories so they reword them to avoid this. They tend to use phraseology that is beyond what the sources support in order to give the official theory greater credibility. A good example is this argument I had some time ago; Wikipedia stated that "WTC7 was hit by debris from the adjacent WTC1." I changed "adjacent" to "nearby" as there is another building (and a road) between the two because to me, "adjacent" implies they were alongside each other or at the very least, on opposite sides of the road. I was reverted on the grounds that "by New York standards they are adjacent" and consensus subsequently supported using adjacent. Obviously, despite it being a fact that it was hit by the debris, saying adjacent strengthens the view that WTC1 debris led to the collapse of WTC7. As consensus determines acceptance of the phraseology, and POV editors outnumber the NPOV ones, this is why Bazants paper is so over emphasised and given more weight in WP than the academic community actually gives it. Wayne (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful explanation. I understand your statement now and realize my problem was not with it, but rather the editorial status quo that it succinctly highlights. In other words, I mistakenly thought you were endorsing this type--for lack of a better term--consensus oriented groupthink. 74.73.161.125 (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ugg boots trademark disputes GA review

Hello WLRoss. I noticed that you are the primary editor for Ugg boots trademark disputes and nominated it for GA in September. About a week ago I started a GA review on it. I think that it will need some work (on at least one section) to get it over the finish line. Due to the time lapse I wasn't sure whether you were watching the article or cared to still be involved, so I thought I'd drop you a note here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I was watching but my computer packed up last week so I haven't checked the page lately. Wayne (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sepia apama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hamas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army of Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Hello, WLRoss. Do you recall this? I ask because I think you're an editor who looked at those issues previously. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, you're mistaken

Please post my four diffs, removing or adding the same material, within 24 hours.

You said I violated 3RR. That requires 4 diffs within 24 hours. Please post them here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You made six reverts in 36h. On the 12th, you made the original edit at 00:53, were reverted, then you reverted at 4:42, 6:20, and 13:13. On the 13th, 4:06 and 12:32. These are the times that show on the revisions page. You are likely using a different timezone. It doesn't have to be a full revert. A partial revert counts as well. I reverted you twice, MCK reverted you twice, Jojalozzo partially reverted you once and Dave reverted you once. Even if you had spaced them out a little more it would still have been a violation of edit warring against consensus. Wayne (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Look again. The content isn't the same in all these edits. Per WP:3RR it has to be the same content, added four times or removed four times in a 24-hour period. If you can identify some piece of an edit that was either added four times, or removed four times, in a 24-hour period — for example, the phrase you hate so much, "and well-known brand" — then I violated 3RR.

But you can't.

Because I didn't. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you said "Per WP:3RR it has to be the same content", P&W. The rule actually says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period" (bolded for emphasis). Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't report you, you were reverted by four different editors so I merely warned you so you would stop the edit warring. While AzureCitizen is correct, it was in fact the same material. Jojalozzo deleted only part of your edit which you reverted, as it was part of the original edit that everyone else reverted it counts as the same edit, quote:whether in whole or in part. Wayne (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice work on the UGG trademark disputes article

Hope you read my closing review comments there. You have done a large amount of excellent work at the article, including working to get it through the review process. I look forward to the article becoming GA once the dust settles and would be happy to review it (skipping the long wait) if you care to have me do so (just ping me) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Reviewer.

Thx. I'm quite happy with the work you did and have no problems with you reviewing it again at a later date. I posted a closure/abandon request some time ago had no luck with an admin wanting to close or abandon so it looks like I'll have to accept the consensus for the Rfc without the backing of admin authority and hope P&W will accept the result with good grace. I notice you are working on the Tea Party page so you have a better idea than most on how difficult an editor he is to work with. Wayne (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll wait for the problematic Rfc notice P&W posted to expire before removing the Tags so that he cant claim early closure etc, then wait a while to make sure the article remains stable. Wayne (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Buna–Gona

Nice quote, do you have a citation for it? Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Dang...I forgot to add it. It was an article about Katekar so I'll have to look for it again...shouldn't be too hard. Wayne (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Improper RfC closure

See my comments here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned you

I mentioned you and not so kindly at that, on an arbitration case that you are not a named party on...just a courtesy notice...the comment is here.--MONGO 19:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration case "Race and politics" opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 21, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Manila Bay may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• McCulloch (1897)|''McCulloch'']], the [[Collier (ship type)|collier]] ''Nanshan'' and the |steamer]] ''Zafiro'' (a supply vessel) were directed to keep out of the main action because of their light

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)