|WLRoss is trying to take a wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia in the near future. Most likely, however, WLRoss won't be able to keep away from Wikipedia for that long, and will probably be back a lot earlier, possibly even making some small edits every now and then anyway.|
- 1 Disambiguation link notification for January 4
- 2 Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
- 3 Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
- 4 Australian Flag Debate
- 5 Justin Bieber RfC: second survey
- 6 FYI - Adelaide meetup on Wednesday next week
- 7 Myall Creek
- 8 Qur'an cite
- 9 Quick question for Tea Party movement
- 10 Your GA nomination of Bradshaw rock paintings
- 11 Invitation to Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group meetings
- 12 Talkback
- 13 Your GA nomination of Bradshaw rock paintings
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Howson (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bastard (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.
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
Hello, WLRoss. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is First Colonial Slave.The discussion is about the topic Anthony Johnson (colonist). Thank you. --Scoobydunk (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Scoobydunk:, @WLRoss:: I chuckled when I saw this. During our limited time (three years) at First Colonial High School, we all considered ourselves slaves. Dr. Hoo (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, WLRoss. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is John Casor and John Punch.The discussion is about the topic Anthony Johnson (colonist). Thank you. --Scoobydunk (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Australian Flag Debate
How can you use your POV to somehow determine my comments are POV on the Flag Debate page and not come across as a hypocrite? That's ridiculous. I can just as easily claim that many of the 'Pro Change Flag' points are entirely POV too, but I leave them in because it's an 'open debate'. Why don't you make yourself useful and delete those too then? This is a genuine question here?
ALSO...John Key said he MAY HOLD A REFERENDUM. It doesn't mean they're changing the flag! The fact that the Australian and New Zealand flags are similar AT PRESENT is a different matter to any possible future events, the point you deleted merely supported the fact of why they are similar at present and explains the historical reasoning as to why they're similar, a counter-point to the argument of saying they're "too similar" at present, it was a point to provide people with a basis of knowledge and reasoning to use to make their own decision on the similarities of the two flags. How can you not understand this, and then have the nerve to then say it's a POV? Honestly this is ridiculous and you're showing bias and poor judgement / logic if you seriously think the statement you deleted is a POV since it's 100% FACT!!! IF you deleted that then you MUST delete many of the points on the other side of the argument too please. I hope you're busy doing that now?
- The current version is the result of consensus after considerable discussion. You can't add arguments just because they make sense to you, they must be supported by references showing that the arguments have been used in the debate. Instead of edit warring, use the talk page to make your case. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Justin Bieber RfC: second survey
Hi Wayne, thank you for your contribution to the RfC on Justin Bieber's behaviour and legal issues. Some users have posted that the RfC is currently a mess, and that we need to be very explicit in what we agree to include and what we don't. As such, I have created a second survey, which cuts the content into points. Could you take the time to post your opinion on each point, whether you think it should be included or not, or summarized, or changed. It will be a bit tedious but we need your detailed input to move forward. Thanks again. (talk | ctrb) 05:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Wayne, sorry to bother you again about Bieber. Unfortunately, only 5 of the 16 editors who posted their opinion in the General survey part of Bieber's RfC posted again in the point-by-point survey. Progress simply isn't made - could you help to post in the responses to above points subsection to move it forward? Thank you very much. (talk | ctrb) 08:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
FYI - Adelaide meetup on Wednesday next week
Next: 24 Sept 2014
Last: 27 Aug 2014
Hi WL Ross
Happy to discuss any of the issues you have with Myall Creek.
One small point to begin with, Bruce Elder is predominately a travel journalist. trying to hide this fact appears to be an attempt to beef up his "credentials" to give his point of view more weight.
There are several factual errors in this article that you seem determined to maintain.
On Talk:Middle East Research Institute you say, "Al-Sebai is right and the Quran is clear on the subject. Muslims may only kill non-muslims if they are fighters. It is Allahs responsibility to punish them for being non-muslims if they are peaceful."
I am new to this issue and do not know how to find that. Can you give me verse numbers where the Qur'an addresses these issues? Also, I have read that later verses can nullify/modify earlier verses but that the Qur'an is not organized chronologically, so if the verses on this issue differ in chronologically do you know the order?
If this seems to be asking too much, do you know where the issue is discussed elsewhere? I'll check back here occasionally since I see you may be taking a break. Many thanks. —Blanchette (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
- It has been a long time since I last read the Quran. Surah (chapter) 2 deals a lot with disbelievers. Mostly how Allah will punish them. It also mentions believers fighting disbelievers such as 2:190: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities and 2:193: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers which supports what Al-Sebai said about not fighting "civilians." However, 2:194 The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you has been interpreted as permiting the targeting of civilians if your enemy had targeted your civilians first. Tolerance is contradictory, mostly the Quran exhorts believers to have nothing to do with disbelievers and these, 2:256 There is no compulsion in religion and 109:6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. seem to support that other religions will be tolerated if they don't interfere with believers. You need to remember that the Quran is very open to interpretation as Imams are not schooled in religion as are Christian clergy so tend to have various personal interpretations. Imams are usually appointed based on scholarship but sometimes simple acceptance by a congregation is sufficient. The Islamic doctrine called "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" means that in cases where verses contradict one another, the early verses are overridden by the latter verses. Unfortunately, the surahs of the Quran are not arranged in chronological order. Of the 114 Surahs of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that do not have verses affected by abrogation and as they are not removed from the Quran, only Imams understand which verses are cancelled as they know the chronological order whereas laymen don't because they are not dated. I hope this helps. Wayne (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Quick question for Tea Party movement
I just was wondering as to why you made the reversion of the edit I made on the Tea Party movement article, and I was curious if I could get an explanation. The comments made in that section were from Paul Krugman's editorial piece in the NYT, called "The Conscience of a Liberal", and he is very notably anti-Tea Party and generally anti-conservative in his writings. The other quote, made by Nancy Pelosi, who is in the leadership for the Tea Party's opposing faction in the House, seems to represent an opinion as well. I think presenting highly opinionated quotes from Krugman and Pelosi without any rebuttal from the other side of the aisle violates NPOV policy, and is far from encyclopedic. Could you provide evidence of the "consensus" you made reference to in the reversion as well? I have heard very little consensus regarding this myself, and I believe that we should at least present equally both views instead of one side's opinions.
Your GA nomination of Bradshaw rock paintings
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bradshaw rock paintings you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Redtigerxyz -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group meetings
Last: 6 July 2014
Hi, in case you're not already aware of it, a group of Adelaide Wikipedians has been meeting on a monthly basis since April, with the aim of improving the scope and quality of articles on South Australian topics. We meet at UniSA's City West campus, and our 23 July meeting will have a guest speaker from the National Trust of SA.
This coming Sunday, 6 July, we will be holding our first Edit-a-thon. This will be an opportunity for new editors to come and learn either basic or more advanced editing from very experienced wikipedians, so if you know anyone who would like to get some practice, please let them know - and beginners will be very welcome. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Bradshaw rock paintings
The article Bradshaw rock paintings you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Bradshaw rock paintings for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Redtigerxyz -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)