User talk:WLRoss/Archive 8

Thanks!

Thanks for doing such a good job with the "Franklin...." article!Apostle12 (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'd hoped to clean out some of the poorly sourced material soon, but I can see you're probably busy helping out with the Brisbane flood article. We can proceed whenever that has subsided.   Will Beback  talk  05:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick Note

Hey I like your style... fast and flowing. Regarding "Obsession": the way it is written now it is a hit piece. The many positive reviews are buried in a short paragraph and from those you even deleted a bunch. Critical views dominate the article from top to bottom. Obviously if you silence all the proponents and delete their links it ends up being "widely criticized". Why don't you approach the whole thing from a NPOV :) Thanks. 69.118.250.184 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The films own website can not be seen as a reliable source for praise (See WP:QS) so a short paragraph at the start of the section using that source is sufficient. The links you accuse me of deleting number a total of one, the films own website and even then it is still used several times in the article where appropriate. The films notability is the critism which far outweighs any positive reviews it recieved so widely critisized is a fair description. WP:DUE requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint which the article currently does. Wayne (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The reference to the film website is used as a convenience - that page summarizes links to verifiable references in the media without any other interference. I used however original references nearly exclusively. You deleted at least 2 links (and 2 quotes) so far from what I can see.

And how exactly did you decide that criticism outweighs positive reviews? Avoid expressing your own opinion as fact.

I beg to differ. There is extensive support for the movie which is not represented at all or misrepresented in the article as it now stands. Allowing expression of these supportive articles (many by known public figures) will provide everyone with a more accurate balance before jumping to conclusions.69.118.250.184 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that the praise comes primarily from people with a particular viewpoint that do not usually review films or who are promoting the film and mentioning too many of them is WP:UNDUE. Anyone can round up any number of these people to give a good review and they are no more notable than my adding the review by Loonwatch and dozens of similar sites. We really need independant reviews from newspapers or sites such as this which states pretty much what most of the reviews I found said. Wayne (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The opinions expressed by movie contenders are not professional movie reviews either and could be summarized as well as a particular viewpoint (incitement to hate / islamophobia). Why allow each of these critical opinions to be expressed in a separate paragraph (10 paragraphs altogether) and compress all the supporting movie opinions to a single paragraph without allowing them to be expressed individually as well? Doesn't make any sense.69.118.250.184 (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Because the controversy is the ONLY notable thing about the movie. Without the controversy and inappropriate distribution it would not warrant an entry. The critical response to the films islamophobic content heavily outranks praise so again I point you in the direction of WP:UNDUE. The current layout is the consensus of a large number of editors. If you believe consensus has changed then discuss changes on the article talk page.Wayne (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like original research without RS: Controversy is the ONLY notable thing about the movie? No wikipedia entry without the controversy? Any references for these?69.118.250.184 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Bloody Benders

Hallo. I saw that you did a lot of working on the article of the Bloody Benders. I'm interested in this topic, maybe you can help me:

1. Do you happen to have the original court documents about the "Bender trial" in 1889/1890 or do you know where to turn to get these documents? I want to study the originals and I think there's a good chance they are still in an archive. The book from Towner James has some references, but not the whole file included.

2. Do you know any reason why one should believe that these infamous sketches were "for real"? I never found any legitimation that these sketches show the real likeness of the Benders (maybe they come from the court documents?).

3. Do you know other researchers specialised about the Benders and where to find them? (There are a lot of Billy the Kid researchers in the Internet but it seems no one really is interested in the Bender case) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs220675 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Contact the Cherryvale museum. They were given all the Bender memorabilia and may be able to point you in the right direction for anything they dont have. The sketches are likely not even close. Newspapers had their own artists and drew from descriptions. I have seen three different versions of what they looked like and they only look similar at best. As far as I know there are no researchers specialising in the Benders as the doumentary evidence known is limited and often contradictory, especially the newspapers who tended to exaggerate. Wayne (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer, I appreciate it. Unofortunately the Cherryvale museum doesn't have E-Mail and the people there don't like too much to talk about all that (I was there in 2011). But one interesting point: I wasn't aware that there are different sketches about the Benders. I thought the sketches from Towner James' book are the only ones existing. Is there any source where to find these other sketches (books, online)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rs220675 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Burkholder's 1955 collection of western stories includes a chapter called "Those Murdering Benders" and has different images for the Benders. Wayne (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What is your position on 9/11.

Your userpage describes some kind of general divergence from the overwhelmingly supported account of 9/11, but you then say that you do not beleive what the conspiracy theorists have to say. This doesn't really leave you much room to squirm. Your questioning of the official account combined with not offering anything of your own backed up with evidence is the mark of many, many flaky idiots, a category of people that you do not seem to fit in to. Forgive me if i am jumping at shadows here on account of my intense dislike for your general lack of explicit allegience to the western world. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My position is that I am not a mindless drone who believes whatever I'm told by a government without evidence in support. Neither am I a conspiracy theorist who believes a theory that can explain a lack of evidence without evidence to support it. I believe what evidence, logic and common sense tells me. The problem is that several flaky idiots who support the official theory do not get banned for bad behaviour while percieved "conspiracy theorists", whether they are or not, are banned for the slightest offense. This leads to an article biased by the use of weasel words and inaccurate text which is what the majority of my edits attempt to correct and also is why most of my edits are still in the articles. A good example of biased editing by supporters of the official theory is one of my edits that was reverted with the comment: reverted conspiracy theory ridiculousness not supported by scientific or reliable evidence. The edit was a copy/paste (unedited) from the NIST report findings. That so many supported the reversion is a good indicator that many of these idiots have not even read the report they are defending. Wayne (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I greatly respect your work on Wikipedia, but don't you see what is right in front of you??? Al Qaeda operatives hijacked some fucking planes, piloted them into some fucking buildings, spilling out their full tanks of fucking jet fuel that set on fire and weakened the steel which collapsed the buildings. That's all there fucking is too it. You really think that this version of events is "without evidence?" All you have done is thrown some random doubt out there as if to say "look at me! I'm not a sheep!" The fact is you may as well cast doubt about who killed JFK, or who was the first to walk on the moon. All the evidence points to there being, for all intents and purposes, no motherfucking doubt about the official account. So shut up. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Vulpesinculta51, speaking in this manner to a Wikipedia editor is inappropriate (to put it mildly). Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for this kind of opinionated expression. Cool off, and spend some time becoming better acquainted with how the community works here. Editors are not expected to exhibit any "allegience to the western world". They are expected to edit the encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, and appropriate sourcing. Wayne is well experienced and does a very good job in this regard. Wildbear (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Bruce Wayne is a good and dedicated editor, this much is plain to see. He must however be taken to task for his tendentious views about 9/11 which are not consistent with the overall goal of wikipedia, to provide reliable information. As the Latin expression goes, "do not speak in denail of the sun." Suggesting anything other than the well known, commonsense, and absolutely confirmed account of 9/11 is to fuck up my wikipedia. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

And everyone else's wikipedia. Vulpesinculta51 (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing South Australian Articles, particularly Marble Hill, Kaurna & Ramindjeri

It has been interesting to see what you've written & edited. I struggle sometimes with YetiHunter's views as you will see sometimes especially in Marble Hill, Kaurna & perhaps the Hindmarsh Island Controversy. I'd like therefore given your apparent even handed approach I've been reading to work with you on reviewing things especially given the latest so called Ngarrindjeri Tendi Rupelle George Trevorrow died and hopefully that apparent nonsense will cease especially without confederate Ramindjeri support.Mifren (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help. I have edited Kaurna and I'm sure more can be done there but have not even looked at the other two yet. The Ramindjeri claims are quite controversial and politicised so we need to be careful with their article. Wayne (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Franklin coverup hoax

I'd appreciate it if you would participate on the article Talk page, rather than simply reverting. It helps to resolve our differences without this turning into an edit war. See you there, or WP:RLN. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read the talk page you may notice that I covered my edits there well before I edited the article. My article edits contain comments and I made several smaller edits rather than one big one so that problems with any are easier to deal with individually. I have little problem with your grammar edits but you usually include signicant unsourced POV edits along with them. Wayne (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:RSN here:[1] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My statement appears here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#Franklin_coverup_hoax Apostle12 (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Franklin story

What would you suggest we do about the wholesale reversion by Phoenix and Winslow? My statement appears here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN#Franklin_coverup_hoax. I have also posted on the article's talk page.Apostle12 (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it but compromised on the lead that he primarily objects to. The reversion has to stand unless Bryant is not considered a RS and I cant see that happening. Wayne (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My Edits @ Bacque

I made those edits to give the section on Crimes & Mercies a NPOV

1-Readers need to know that the book is ignored by serious historians and is praised by the leading Holocaust denial organization the Institute for Historical Review. When the readers see this they will be able to make balanced view of the book.

2-I have read the book and Bacque does not back up his argument of 5.7 million deaths with solid analysis

3-The two sources I listed for the German population are reliable and relevant to understanding the topic.

4-The mention of those German provinces is trivia and needs to be removed

5-The figures of Germans dead in the expulsions is dispupted by historians today, this needs to be mentioned

Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

1: It is irrelevant that a Holocaust denial organization praises the book as they will support anything that has even a remote connection with their views. Unless Bacque accepts their support, mention of it carries pejorative implications and is POV.
2: Bacque does not claim solid analysis. His are "best" estimates based on his own research.
3: Those sources are only relevant if used by critics.
4: I'll check that.
5: The work is only an extension of his previous book and the majority of the article is already about the disputes so it is hardly without mention. Bacque has never claimed inerrancy. Some historians dispute the numbers and some support the numbers and this is already covered in the article with weight leaning to critics so WP:UNDUE comes into play. You also need to keep in mind that Bacques estimate on the Russian deaths was later proven to be accurate giving his estimates added legitimacy. You are welcome to edit and take part in discussions on the talk page but care must be taken not to include references and text out of context just to discredit the book. If it was relevant it would already have been used by his critics which will then make it relevant in the context of the claims. Wayne (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Taman Shud Case

wow! nice Decora (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent Franklin edits

Although I no longer have the stomach to deal with editor Phoenix and Winslow, I encourage you to resist his efforts to strip critical material from the Franklin article. His abridged version of the Bonacci Case, for example, does not clarify that King was adequately served and chose not to defend the case, which was a primary concern of yours. P. & W. has also stripped critical information regarding the named defendants, as well as the Judge's rationale for awarding Bonacci very significant damage awards. Anyway, I wish you good luck defending the content of the article from further erosion. Cheers! Apostle12 (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I voiced an idea on my talk page (last item, titled "Frustration") This is a serious suggestion, and I would welcome your input. Apostle12 (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Your conduct

Wayne, it is with deep regret that I must bring this to your attention. I have learned that in addition to your POV-pushing for conspiracy theories at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, you've also been POV-pushing for years at a series of articles on the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And at those articles, you again took the side of conspiracy theorists.

I'm going to conduct a complete investigation of your entire editing history, contact any other editors who may have additional information, and start an RfC that focuses specifically on your conduct over the past few years. My only goal is to protect the Wikipedia project and prevent it from becoming another version of Executive Intelligence Review.

I assure you that it is not my intention to harm or humiliate you in any way. Regretfully, that probably will become an unavoidable side effect in the proceedings. I encourage you to STOP IMMEDIATELY, review your behavior, and ask yourself what the community will most likely do when presented with an inventory of your behavior here. I will recommend a lifetime topic ban on all articles where conspiracy theories are presented, enforceable with blocks by any administrator.

Please review and modify your behavior immediately, and make this unpleasant action unnecessary. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I have started the RfC here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WLRoss, I have placed a deletion request on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WLRoss due to the lack of a second certification. However there has been input from other editors and I urge you to take their concerns into consideration. Just because the overall RfCU does not meet a standard does not invalidate their opinions.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Your conduct is also being discussed here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Question re: Franklin

Now that FloNight has deleted the Franklin article, what becomes of the case in arbitration? This really was a total hit job. Apostle12 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe Arbitration will continue and the article should eventually be recreated. Unfortunately, if it is not, then it will be a win not only for our friend Phoenix and Winslow but a win for pedophiles. Wayne (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Answer to message regarding the edits at bin Laden

Hello, WLRoss. You have new messages at Dijcks's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

This message is to advise you that the Arbitration Committee has declined a request for arbitration relating to Franklin child prostitution ring allegations, to which you were listed as a party. To read the comments made by individual arbitrators in relation to the request, see here. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 20:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Meetup 12 June 2011

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that Liam Wyatt is in town, so we were thinking of doing a quick meetup at Brunelli's cafe in Rundle Street (at the Rundle Mall end, near the car park) at 6pm on Sunday, with a possibility of drinks afterwards. So if you're interested we hope to see you there. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

USS Liberty "Incident"

Hi, could you please help me out with something on the USS Liberty incident page?

I find it quite disingenuos to call it a mere INCIDENT, when throughout the ENTIRE article, it is called an attack.

I fought in 3 wars for this beautiful country and find it rather insulting that Wikipedia would consider 171 of my fellow soldiers deaths just a mere INCIDENT.

Can you please change the word INCIDENT to ATTACK so that it holds some form of uniformity throughout the article? Thank you.

Respectfully, Staff Sergeant Daniel E. Benson, USMC — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsMEEE69 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that calling it an attack implies a deliberate act. Officially the attack is accepted as an accident i.e. an incident. Although a deliberate attack can also be by accident, if the title were changed it would lead to an edit war. There have been similar edit wars in the past over wording even more minor and you may have noticed the current dispute over inclusion of wording from an article in the Chicago Tribune. Although the wording from the article was used it is being reverted with comments such as "Opinionated source" and "The article does not even say "most", read it" when in fact it does say "most". Feel free to use the Talk page to discuss changing the title but I doubt it would get consensus. Wayne (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Great Adelaide earthquake

You mention in your potted autobiography that you were born just before the Great Adelaide Earthquake. I had never heard of the GAE and would like to know more. Next time you have half an hour to spare, might you be moved to kick off with a couple of short paras on what you know of it? (Date and damage...) If you live in SA, there's probably a good deal of stuff that's in the folk memory for you, but that for those of us who only visited the place and liked it (and then, in my case, not since 1991) would be educational and interesting.

But of course I would not presume to try and influence you over how you should wish to spend your wiki-time.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

South Australia is geologically stable (as Australia is in the middle of a tectonic plate) but there are around 20 tremors up to magnitude 3.5 every year. These do no damage and maybe one a year is actually felt by people who generally dont realise what it is. The state has recorded six major earthquakes, five of which caused significant damage.

• Mt Barker in 1883 (mag 4.5).
• Beachport in 1897 (mag 6.5). There are reports of spectacular liquifaction from this quake and damage was recorded in Adelaide which is 379 km to the north-west. It caused major damage to Beachport and Mount Gambier and destroyed most of the buildings in Kingston and Robe with large aftershocks continuing for six months.
• Warooka 1902 (mag 6.0). The epicentre was in the St Vincent Gulf so damage was on was both sides. Particularly Warooka in the west and Yankalilla in the east. There was widespread damage in Adelaide and two people died, the first known deaths from an earthquake in Australia.

• 3:40am March 1, 1954. Magnitude 5.6, the epicentre was the suburb of Darlington, about 12km south of the city centre (around 4km from where I lived at the time and 1 km from where I now live). Lights in the sky were reported and there was only a single very small aftershock. Damage was estimated at around £17 million (2010:$500 million) but only £3 million (2010:$90 million) was paid out in insurance for more than 30,000 claims as Adelaide was still subject to wartime rationing and people generally couldn't afford luxuries like insurance. There were only 16 reported injuries. The Victoria Hotel on Tapleys Hill (had been a hotel and relay station since settlement and still remains one of the only buildings on the hill) collapsed and other major buildings severly damaged were St Francis Xavier Cathedral, the Adelaide Post Office tower and a newly completed hospital in Blackwood which lost all it's wards and offices (apparently only the operating theatres survived). This was Australia's worst earthquake until the Newcastle Earthquake in 1989 however, if the Adelaide earthquake had happened today, it would have been worse than Newcastle. The Britannia statue in Pirie Street, Adelaide was badly damaged in the 1897, 1902 and 1954 earthquakes, as a result the clock in the statue was permanently removed in 1954. The local church (19th cen) up the road from me was badly damaged and my grandfather rebuilt it. The damage actually led to my father starting his own business in the building industry as he got a lot of repair work from it.

• Marryat Creek in 1986 (mag 6.0). Just a little south of the Northern Territory border, there were only a few cracked walls but the quake caused a 14km long fissure.

• Mount Barker in 2010 (mag 3.8). Not spectacular but a lot of minor damage. Wayne (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you much. Charles01 (talk) 08:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of kicking off an entry. Should you, in due course and in your own time, feel an irresistable urge to correct my errors, sweeten my bumpy syntax and/or add the bits that I should have included but didn't ... thank you. Either way, I just learned something. Thank you for that. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)