User talk:WLRoss

Welcome to my Talk page.
If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.

CT Bazzzant

Wayne, some good work lately. Kudos.

Two questions:

1) What happened regarding this:

...I've brought up your editing on WP:AE. Please comment there. Jehochman Talk 15:09, 3 Ma

2) Is Bazant peer reviewed or not so? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Use email if you do. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

1)
I received a 1 week topic ban for "Disruptive Editing" for this edit on the grounds "Removing the (fact) tag, without adding a source is unacceptable". I requested clarification for why a ban was appropriate for a single edit and was told that it was also because this edit "indicates that you're unwilling to work within community norms". I then requested clarification of why I was banned for the above edits, both made before I was warned, contrary to the relevant WP policy which states "a ban can be imposed if, despite being warned the editor continues with the bad behaviour" but the Admin declined to answer. I point out that what the admins said was my warning was not actually one at all but I thought it pointless to argue that I was never warned.
2)
The Bazant paper was what is called a "rapid communication" and is described by it's own authors as "a simplified approximate analysis" so was not peer reviewed in the way we expect. The peer review was apparently limited to the mathematics Bazant used. The paper has been updated four times since it's publication (some of the conclusions were contradicted by NISTs findings). Here you will find a peer reviewed critique of Bazants modeling and analysis that you will often also find on conspiracy websites. Wayne (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I vaguely recall Bazant being a source for the view that scientists reject the questions raised by truth researchers (or something). It would be ironic for an author deemed an authority on such a point to have to keep revising his analyses, perhaps due to problems in them. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it was a "rapid communication" that was written and submitted for publishing on September 13 (within 48 hours of 911) which is why he himself said his findings may be in error by a level of magnitude. The revisions were due to problems other engineers had with his analysis. The only way to prove Bazant's theory was to document and analyse the debris field, but unfortunately NIST relied on Bazant instead of doing all of it's own research and allowed the debris to be cleared so it remains only a theory. A big problem is that NIST explains the beginning of the collapse but does not explain how or why the collapse continued. Floors have collapsed in other buildings but this was the first time it led to total collapse so the NIST report should have concentrated on the collapse mechanism that followed from where it's report actually ended instead of ignoring it. This in no way makes CD or any other conspiracy more likely as there are other mechanisms that could have been involved but without the steel from the towers there is no way to prove or disprove any theory. The only conspiracy theory I fully agree with is the incompetency of the investigation which should and probably would have definatively excluded conspiracy theories. Wayne (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You could actually create a computer model that simulates processes that lead to the visible evidence that we have from the videos. Especially, the trajectories of debris at the outside of the clouds, and the clouds themselves should be analysed more thoroughly. The result is very likely that only a collapse associated with an increase in volume (i.e. expansion of gases through heating and/or creation of gases by explosives) can explain this visible evidence. The temperatures measured by satellite after heavy rainfall and the composition of the dust (iron spheres) are also available for further research. The steel would be quite helpful, of course, but it's not necessary to prove that more than jet fuel must have been involved in the collapse.

As for the Bazant paper discussion, I think that Gourley was not careful enough. By attacking Bazant head on, he gave him the excuse for the "Let me explain this to the layman" answer that Bazant wrote. It would have been more helpful to take Bazant's assumptions about the material constants etc. and then show how a calculation in 3-D that explicitly models the crushed zone of the building (a large part of which is actually thrown out, but you cannot model that in 1-D) would deviate from Bazant's results. It was a bit of a lost opportunity (and the ASCE probably wouldn't have published it if they would have seen it that way.)  Cs32en  23:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

NIST did create that computor model. In the NIST report it says that they could not get the building to collapse using the "more extreme" scenario so "adjusted the input" until collapse occurred "to the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports" (see NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 142). Not only is this the reverse scientific method that conspiracy theorists are often accused of using but NIST has never released data on what input was "adjusted" or by how much although they did say the adjustments were not outside the range of physical possibility. I'm not actually discounting any theory as solid evidence for any is lacking but CD is low on my possibility scale so will assume NIST is largely correct as a starting point, but this is also why I push NPOV so much for the articles...I don't care what the evidence supports, it needs to be in the article. As for Gourley, if I remember correctly he admitted he could have done better but the word limit was a big problem. A lot of Bazants closure paper snows the reader with maths. His maths do work but he uses the wrong equations. For example he uses load safety parameters for a standard highrise in 1968 (1.75X design load) rather than the over engineered specs the WTC used (up to 2.8X for core columns and 5.7X for perimeter columns) which can result in significant errors (not to mention that the live load of the buildings was 75% lower than designed for). Gourley said he will reply to Bazants closure but as it would be over the peer review word limit would need to be on a 911 website. I'm not aware if he has written it yet as I don't read the conspiracy sites unless a page turns up in a search for something specific. BTW, Gourley did request the opportunity to rewrite his discussion paper after finding out Bazant had no word limit but the ASCE declined. Wayne (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a preponderance of evidence pointing to the presence of materials that expanded during the collapse. The "explosive" visible evidence is the most important as there is no doubt about it's authenticity. Thank you for your further explanation on the Bazant discussion in the ASCE journal! (Bazant used questionable simplifications, Gourley didn't point them out as specifically as would have been necessary, and Bazant moved the goalposts in his reply - which is basically okay, just that he should have acknowledged the deficiencies of his initial paper, should have given 3-D or at least 2-D equations and should have used more realistic parameters.)  Cs32en  15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see that the link goes to a Bazant paper. Is the Bazant paper the one you have in mind when you refer to a critique of Banant's modelling (he critiques himself?)? --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My mistake I linked to the wrong paper lol. I'll look for the correct one when I get some time. Wayne (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link for the peer reviewed critique of Bazant (starting bottom of page 3) and Bazant's reply (top of page 5). You must keep in mind that peer reviewed Discussion papers are limited to a maximum of 2,000 words by the American Society of Civil Engineers as is the authors reply (called a Closure paper) to the discussion. This means the mathematics are usually left out to keep to the limit. However in this case Bazant was given permission to exceed the limit and wrote more than 7,000. Wayne (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge's Edit War

Hi,

I've reported User:A Quest For Knowledge on the edit war noticeboard. [1]

Since he repeatedly ignored your requests to use the talk page, I'd appreciate if you would add your comment.

ArXivist (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello WLRoss. Regarding your comment at WP:AN3:

1. Why do you think the report was closed after only three hours? The report was filed at 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC) and I closed it at 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC), 13 hours later.
2. The first two edits by AQFK that you listed are consecutive, so they count as at most one revert.
3. The original report was submitted by an apparent sock (five days old, with great knowledge of policy), and sock filings at noticeboards are inherently dubious per WP:SOCK and per Arbcom.
4. Please consider using the article's Talk page more. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I misread the time as 04:44, 8 August. Why does it matter that two of the edits were consecutive? I was recently blocked for 3RR when my three reverts in 24 hours were each for a different edit. Regardless of whether a sock submitted the report the fact remains that AQFK is being disruptive. The edits he is reverting are all minor and supported by the refs and additionally were originally long standing in the article (usually after much discussion) until recent work deleted them. I try to use the talk page for grey area edits but you should see how long it took and the abuse I suffered to get "WTC7 is adjacent to WTC1" replaced with "WTC7 is near WTC1". Blind freddie can see that between the two is WTC6 and a road. Can you believe the only arguement against my edit was that "by New York standards they are adjacent". For minor relevant common sense edits supported by refs I should not need to use talk. Those who oppose should do so if they feel there is a problem and I am happy to discuss it and modify the edit if needed. AQFK should have been reported to ARBCOM but I prefered he simply be told to refrain from edit warring rather than go through that and be blocked as I want no part of the games some are playing. Wayne (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please report me more. The more false claims we have and the more experienced admins we have addressing the situation, the better the result. As Jimbo himself has stated, Wikipedia is not a place to be promoting fringe theories. Please explain why this fringe theory is different from all the other fringe theories and why editors should be banned for agreeing with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. I look forward to your responses. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite you having repeatedly violated 911 ARBCOM I have not reported you. What Jimbo said is irrelevant as none of my edits have promoted a fringe theory. I have no problem with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. The problem is that you refuse to explain how an edit you revert violates these. Without an explanation they are just random letters to justify a personal POV. I use RS yet still get the edit reverted. I delete WP:OR and you revert. I make an edit that debunks a conspiracy theory and you revert it. I make a simple grammatical correction and you even revert that. Worst of all you often mass revert and delete the revert text in the comments and simply state "fix". Your apparent "ownership of the page" and refusal to work with other editors to improve the article is making it difficult to assume WP:AGF on your part. The whole idea of small edits is so that it can be discussed in detail if you have a problem. The page is a mess that would be unacceptable if it were an academic paper. Wayne (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Private email sent.

This is to let you know that a private email has been sent to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphenry (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wayne Madsen

Thanks much for your help with this article. It is much improved. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Albert Fish

I was wondering if you could possibly please add references to the content you added to the Albert Fish article? There are some partial and full quotes with no attribution and some other facts that really could stand sourcing. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I did add the ref to the end of the two paragraphs in question after making the edits but have now added it to each of the direct quotes. Wayne (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

apology for deletion of your changes

i accidentally undid 3 changes of yours instead of editing one. I see that you've since caught them. But I think I am doing right by letting you know my intention. I'll watch the sloppy editing. Carry on. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. As your comment only concerned one edit and was a reasonable reason for reversion I assumed you had tried to sneak the other two reverts in so I wouldn't notice. I apologise for not assuming GF. Wayne (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

3rr vio

WLRoss, it looks to me like you may have violated 3rr on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (keeping in mind that reversions of different material each count towards a revert). Would you mind self-reverting? Thanks. IronDuke 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you check above you will notice an editor admitted accidentally reverting 3 consective edits I made instead of the one he/she actually intended. I reverted the reverts he/she did in error and the one intended I accepted but modified slightly for accuracy instead of restoring my original edit. The other revert I did was to correct a false wikilink. I believe none of these count as reverts for 3RR. Cheers. Wayne (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're entirely right about that, but I appreciate and accept your explanation. Cheers. IronDuke 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

New Ned Kelly Information

If you are still interested in the Ned Kelly article you might be interested in this new information: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/farmer-ned-kelly-skull-claim and I'll send you a private e-mail as well. grifterlake (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)grifterlake (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Milperra Massacre

Hello, WLRoss. You have new messages at 220.101.28.25's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply

Hello, WLRoss. You have new messages at 220.101.28.25's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MILPERRA MASSACRE or how to screw Jane & save UR own neck

YODAJANE. As you know I'm in Adelaide. As I now know you're in New South Wales. As any reasonable person would believe, only STALKER would edit such an obscure Wiki page at four in the morning seconds after I wrote it. Boom boom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodajane (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

NIST

Can you add the specific reference to the NIST report at the AE911Truth article? (I would find some, of course, but I don't know whether I'd find the best one.) Thank you! Regards.  Cs32en  09:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

NIST Chapter 3.3 pages 22-23 covers their investigation of CD. NIST explained it's failure to test for evidence of CD by stating that testing for evidence of explosives would not necessarily have been conclusive. NIST did use a computor to simulate a single cutter charge which would probably make it irrelevant anyway as no one claims a single charge was used. They found that the sound of the actual collapse differed from the sound produced in the simulation. NIST also found that the CD simulation resulted in a different window breakage as was witnessed at 4:00pm on Building 7. From these and only these two points of "evidence" they concluded CD was not possible so never investigated further. An interesting aside is that if you read Controlled Demolition Inc's website (they supplied the computor simulation), it boasts that they can drop a building without blowing surrounding windows out at all as it depends on the placement of charges lol. Wayne (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the temperature issue is also quite interesting. NIST shows some figures of simulations in which the fire first heats up to 1.000 °C in parts of the northern side, then the fire moves to the south, heats up there, while the northern side is cooling down. The northern side did not collapse, but the southern side did (with minimal differences in simulated temperatures). At the same time, the buildings are supposed to have collapsed symmetrically due to a fire which was, according to NIST's own report, very asymmetric at the time of collapse. NIST also apparently overestimated the oxygen consumption of the fire by assuming that available oxygen would be burnt instantly (i.e. gaseous products of the fire would have to move away instantly etc.) It was a rather calm (i.e. not windy day), however, and there is no evidence of any "chimney" effect, i.e. much of the smoke is exiting the tower through the (broken) windows, which are also the entry point for the oxygen.  Cs32en  17:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Some info on the "you could not see the hot fire through the black smoke" myth:

"The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions." (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

"in general, the size and movement of the fires in WTC 1 were limited by the supply of air from the exterior windows" (NCSTAR 1, p. 129)

  Cs32en  18:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

NIST's reporting of the fires confuses me. They estimated the maximum temperatures at around 250/300C with localised spots at higher temperatures (the highest temp NIST found evidence of was less than 600C) yet their simulation assumes much larger temperatures globally to explain the collapse (Quote page 125:"The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800C and 1,100C) and the report makes no attempt to explain the contradiction. Likewise their computor model assumed for it's calculations that any steel that lost at least 10% of it's strength automatically suffered a 100% failure which is rediculous. Then you have the fact that firemen actually reached the lower impact floors of the south tower and reported a large number of survivors and only two small isolated fires. If there were survivors on the impact floors then the temperature could not have been between 800C and 1,100C as NIST implied. You don't need to believe in CD to recognise that the NIST report is rubbish and any academic that accepts it without question is incompetent to put it kindly. Unfortunately too many mental midgets edit WP to allow legitimate critism of the NIST report, you don't dare point out mistakes unless you want to get banned because these idiots assume dissent means a belief in CD. Wayne (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, the lower temperatures are for the samples, and the samples are a small percentage of all steel elements. I have not heard about the 10%/100% assumption above. But NIST said that the oxygen had to reach the fire through the windows, and as the smoke also exited through the windows, so there was no or very little chimney effect. And it reported that the northern areas cooled off again, after having been heated to 1.000 °C (apparently without deformations). And of course, how could the firemen reach the areas if there were temperatures of 1.000 °C around (even with 200-300 °C, the reported lower temperature for the whole duration of the fire, it's very unlikely that they said the fires could be put out easily).  Cs32en  19:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Check the published responder transcripts. Firemen reached the impact floor of the south tower (they only reached the 50th floor on the north tower) and the captain stated that he only needed two firemen with a line each to put all the fires out as they were isolated and small. The tower collapsed around 15 minutes after that call. Wayne (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(Some references, for your convenience)

• New York Times
• Scribd, see 2:46:48

I don't recall seeing these observations covered anywhere among Wikipedia's articles. Wildbear (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And you likely wont. Anything that contradicts the official theory is pretty much out of bounds no matter how reliably sourced. I have actually had edits reverted as POV pushing where my edits were a direct copy/paste from the NIST report itself. Most of these official theory warriors are not even familiar with what is actually in NIST apart from the conclusions. Wayne (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The situation has already improved during the last few months. In part, this is due to some coverage that AE911Truth got from various media outlets. The problem here is that the responder transcripts are not mentioned in WP:RS in the context of "conspiracy theories", and they are considered WP:UNDUE in the September 11 attacks article. (This view may in fact be correct, but there is a lot of stuff in that article that is much more undue than that.) What would be needed would be an article "Fires in the World Trade Center towers". Alternatively, this information can be added to Rescue and recovery effort after the September 11 attacks. Don't forget that WP article do not just provide information, but provide guidance for further reading (anyone who can use google will quickly find non-official information about 9/11 on the web). It's not useful to cram articles with various bits of information, if it's not possible to put the information in the appropriate context and structure.  Cs32en  01:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what is stated above. Random bits of information are not helpful in an encyclopedia article; it needs the appropriate context and structure to be informative. There's still plenty of room for improvement, in presenting a view which is neutral, comprehensive, and informative. In general, I think that the articles, particularly the September 11 attacks article, possess a greater bias in favor of the official story than a person would gather by reading or viewing "reliable sources". Wikipedia editors have been cherrypicking content to prop up the official story, while meticulously excluding material from the same sources which illustrate problems with that story. Obvious and well-documented problems like hindrance of investigation by the Bush Administration are routinely dismissed as "conspiracy theory", even when it comes from "reliable sources". But... from a scientific standpoint, I don't think that the official story is going to withstand the test of time. Ten years from now, the typical kid's toy computer will probably have greater processing power than the computers which NIST and its subcontractors used for their finite-element analyses. There will be no excuse for not modeling the entire event sequence with great accuracy and detail, all the way to the ground; and somebody's going to do it. (I've tried myself, having acquired NIST's models of the towers and plugged one into the SAP2000 modeling program. Not surprisingly, I found that my computer isn't powerful enough to perform a practical analysis for this complex set of conditions.) Modeling only to the point of "initiation of collapse", and leaving out important parameters like the thermal conductivity of materials won't be (and shouldn't be) acceptable. And as the official story gets chewed away scientifically, Wikipedia will be compelled to document the changes, if it is to have any greater credibility than a dusty old book of religion. Wildbear (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wildbear's assessment of the September 11 attacks article. Most of the improvements have occured in the sub-articles and related articles. I'm not so sure whether more powerful computers will really help us. What we need to simulate what has happened is a multi-phase, finite-volume model, not a finite element model. In the end, it's about where the significant overpressure within the building (i.e. production of gases or thermal expansion of existing gases) came from, and why the concrete has been pulverized to an extent that seems very difficult to explain, even assuming the use of explosives to sever the columns.  Cs32en  20:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The following is a good example of a direct quote from the NIST report being rejected because it causes problems with the official theory. This was in the article for a few days but was deleted by the usual suspects who would not even allow a modified version.

New Civil Engineer magazine criticized the data used for the NIST computer models. NIST defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. The middle and less severe were discarded after it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. "The more severe case was used for the global analysis of each tower... To the extent that the (computer) simulations deviated from the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted until collapse was achieved" (NIST, 2005, p. 142).

Heres a RS criticising the investigation and it also has an interesting interview with Richard Gage plus an article on WTC7. It then follows up with all the major high rise fires for comparison. It also makes a good point in regards to conspiracy theorists ie: To label anyone a conspiracy theorist is an ad hominem argument and has no factual value...It is amazing how often this chicanery is used to refute the cause of truth and those sincerely interested in a factual, legitimate, independent investigation of 9/11. Wayne (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiBirthday

I saw from here that it's been exactly three years since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hattie Jacques link

Hello. You say it works fine, the Telegraph one after 'Massachusetts' - I just get a 'Sorry' notice. Are you sure? Is it normal for one person to get a link and not another? Never happened to me before. Puzzled - Rothorpe (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Try this. If this works then it may be format error in the link on the page. I'll check shortly. Wayne (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Eduard Vogel

You made some interesting additions to the Eduard Vogel article in Feb. 2009, but do you have a verifiable reference for them? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems I overlooked adding the reference which covered all my edits to the article. Thanks for pointing it out, I've added it to the references section now. Wayne (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Storm

Hi, "(2007,2009 premierships stripped.)" in the infobox. Since it's very unusual (unique?), perhaps a little more info, like "stripped by NRL ?21 April 2010"? And why not "2007 and 2009"? The jammed up comma is odd, too: is there a special purpose? Tony (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Taman Shud Case

FYI: I saw that an editor in only his/her second Wikipedia edit changed a date within Taman Shud Case that was originally put in place by you: [2]. Without an edit summary justifying the change I have no way to verify whether it is correct and I suspect it might just be vandalism. I thought I would bring it to your attention. Cheers~ Location (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have done some research and found both dates have been used. The 1945 date is correct as it is more reliably referenced by both the contemporary media and current Abbott investigation.Wayne (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Hindmarsh Island

While there are several of us interested, would you be interested in making a push to get this article to FAC? I think it is quite capable of becoming one, especially since the issue has now reached some closure with the Ngarrindjeri formally coming to terms with the bridge earlier this month. Keen? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is doable but I also feel there is probably quite a lot more that can be added to make the current artical clearer. ATM I'm reading Simon's "The Meeting of the Waters" (which is pro dissident) and I'm sure there will be information there that was not included in Kenney's pro proponent book. Although I have primarily used Kenney's book as a source I have done so sparingly to avoid POV so on finishing Simon's book I will have to cross reference both to find relevant material for inclusion.Wayne (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have thought that the article doesn't flow as well as it should - I guess this is always a problem when wiki articles are added to piecemeal over several years! I'll think about a better structure as a basis for rewriting the existing content into something more easily readable.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

List of massacres of Indigenous Australians

Hi, I've posted some questions regarding changes you've made there on the article's talk page. Webley442 (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy

Hi there. I have removed the notice you added to this article here: [3]. This is because I believe it violates our longstanding guideline, WP:No disclaimers in articles. Many Wikipedia articles contain material which is potentially offensive to many people; however, warnings in individual articles are discouraged, as all pages on Wikipedia link to the WP:General disclaimer already. Robofish (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NDA discourages but does not prohibit disclaimers, they are allowed if they have consensus. There is currently a RFC on the talk page discussing it.Wayne (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Taman Shud case

Regarding this and this edit, wherein you noted as a reference the use of Baths/Swimming Pool, needs more referencing. Otherwise, it seems like you are drawing on synthesized data to illustrate a point, and we cannot allow that. I am aware of your other edits and feel confident that you can instead write the information as article text, referencing with citation.
If you need to address my concerns, could you drop me a line? If I don't hear from you, I will likely revert the info as uncited. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

discussion

join. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Request board

Regarding your post here: since there are more than two editors involved in the dispute and it does touch on the Israel/Palestine area I believe an RFC would be the appropriate way to move forward. Would you like me to go ahead and set one up or can you? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I posted the request, three more editors entered the dicussion. With the added input the editor in question has apparently accepted the reverting of all his edits which was actually more than I was arguing for. From comments made in talk it appears possible that the editor was not prepared to conceed to me personally (we have opposed each other recently in another article) so I stepped back to see if it could be resolved without my input with the new editors, which it was. The article has been stable for a few days now so I believe the request is no longer required. Thx for the input. Wayne (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry for the delay in getting around to your request. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

So this time I'm getting around to your request in a timely fashion, but I'm rather busy with my day job today: Are you able to provide a brief (e.g., one or two sentence) neutral statement which outlines the issue(s) in contention? If you can then I/we can go ahead and start an RfC to try and attract more attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've gone ahead and used your proposal with a few tweaks and placed it at Talk:Norman Finkelstein#RfC: How much detail is needed to maintain NPOV?. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

• Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you misread the source. Marking it as a revert was a honest mistake. Marokwitz (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. Mistakes happen and I've started out doing a revert and ended up rewriting something instead myself. To clarify my position on why it should remain about Farfour (edit summaries are too short to do so properly), the section is a summary of the programs so what Farfour was doing/saying is important. What a call-in guest said may have been important if it didn't have it's own section elsewhere in the article. The controversy for the translation alsdo makes inclusion a problem without explaining the debate and to add that debate is innapropriate for that section.Wayne (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Arpad Pusztai and statements about the RS

Hi there. I have reverted your reversion. This is due to two things.

I cannot find the statement anywhere where the RS has stated it is at "the forefront of defending GM". If you disagree please cite the source. Please also note that if this was stated by another source, the context it was used in questions the NPOV of nature of the statement.

Also note that the RS do peer review, as is evident from the numerous peer reviewed journals they publish. Therefore both statements have been removed. Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society#Publishing

To be honest, these are very minor changes in a very non neutral article that needs major rewriting. Hopefully I'll have the time in the future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craptree (talk • contribs) 18:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I no longer have that source so cant check. However the fact that the society peer reviews work it publishes is irrelevant as it does not peer review work by others that it does not publish which it did in this case. What exactly do you think needs rewriting? The article pretty much follows what the sources say and includes rebuttals. There is enough data available that the article could easily be made to lean towards an anti GM stance but it has not done this.Wayne (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

Just in case you are not aware of the above ArbCom decision, particularly the discretionary sanctions part of it, please take a look at it. Any attempts to promote fringe/conspiracy theories related to 9/11 on Wikipedia in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE may be reported at WP:AE and may lead to discretionary sanctions being imposed. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this when I have made no edits regarding any theories? The edits I have made to date have all been grammatical corrections which can be seen by my edit summaries. I find it rather offensive when editors try to scare those they dissagree with away from editing certain articles so I hope this a mistake on your part. Wayne (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please. Feigning naivete here does not sound particularly convincing. This edit[4] here, where you changed "Conspiracy theorists" to "Some theorists" is a classic example of substituting plain language by a watered-down euphemism intending to legitimize fringe views. In the next edit[5] you appear to claim that National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the American Society of Civil Engineers issued their findings without conducting research. Nsk92 (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no need to feign anything, I am very experienced with 911 articles (see sections 1, 2 and 10 above) and posting a notice such as above is uncalled for when there has been no violation. In the past it has been used as a sledgehammer by some POV editors to discourage editing so I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. My comments are very clear as to the reason for the edits and you need to draw a very long bow to claim any were pushing conspiracy theories. "Some theorists" does not water down anything or legitimize fringe views. The article is not on Conspiracy theories and some of the theories covered by that section are not conspiracy theories or even fringe so saying "Conspiracy theorists" is casting too wide a net and thus POV. The conspiracy theories are already identified as such. I did not claim or infer that NIST did not conduct research which can be seen if you read the edit comment. NIST conducted no research into CD which the sentence as it stood implied. This particular edit was there more than a year ago and was removed then for the same reason I gave in the comment. Not including those words does not change the meaning of the sentence one iota. Perhaps understanding of English is at fault and if so I apologise for assuming you may have had a POV motive.Wayne (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

+ The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Final decision. WLRoss, I'm not an admin but I can find a neutral one if need be. Placing this here so you are aware...--MONGO 03:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Holisticmed

Hi WL. I reverted your edit to Showa Denko becouse I do not think http://www.holisticmed.com/ge/ is a reliable source. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is or not is irrelevant as a reason to revert the entire edit as it was only one of two references used for the edit. The edit itself is not controversial or disputed.Wayne (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry missed the seeds of deception ref. Although I would argue that is just as unreliable as holisticmed for the sentence as written. This is from a journal (although it is a point of view and will have to be attributed to the author) and it says they were reportedly destroyed. I will see if I can find a review which has more information. AIRcorn (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thx. The claim is important for the section as it explains why several ideas have been put forward but none proven. Wayne (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Woggabaliri

Has it occurred to you that Woggabaliri is a massive piss take that has gone horribly wrong? The evidence, apart from ausport, seems incredibly thin on the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.14.81.49 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked a number of reliable sources and if it's a hoax then it is incredible (not to mention dissapointing) that it has lasted so long without someone picking up on it. Assistant Professor of Education, Ken Edwards of Bond University included Woggabaliri in his 1999 book Games from the dreamtime and again in 2008 in a guide to Australian and Torres Strait Island games published by Bond Universities Humanities and Social Sciences dept, Yulunga: Traditional Indigenous Games. Edwards claims all the games are either taken from original 19th century accounts or provided by the Indigenous communities themselves. In 2000 it was mentioned in an ABC program as being taught by a non profit Indigenous organisation in Queensland to encourage Indigenous children to take up sport, which I believe predates Ausports first mention. In 2008 it was included in a book International games: building skills through multicultural play published by Human Kinetics in the U.S. The game is included in several guides to Indigenous games other than those put out by Ausport. An entire page in the sports secion of the Advertiser was dedicated to Woggabaliri some weeks ago. The FFA included it in their bid to host the World Cup so it would be very embarrassing indeed for them if it was proven to be fake. Last but not least, the Wiradjuri people are the largest Indigenous group in Australia and I find it hard to believe, given that the game is promoted in NSW schools, that none would have spoken up if the name did not mean play in their language or if they did not know it existed. Wayne (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I did some research and found a 1904 dictionary of the Wiradjuri language. Woggabaliri is the actual Wiradjuri word for play. That doesn't rule out a hoax of course but it does rule out the name as a pun of Wog Ball which is the main evidence cited to support the hoax claim.Wayne (talk) 11:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a wiradjuri word (central NSW), but a Queensland organisation was playing it in 2000? How did that happen? And how can an etching from Victoria have anything to do with the story? (as shown in the article) - honestly, this story is all over the shop, and everything leads back to the ASC and this book written by the bloke they hired - there is absolutely nothing else on the game - NOTHING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.213.166 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to re-read that dictionary, it's not a wiradjuri word, it's a ngunawal word, the wiradjuri word for play is wagagi. As I've said, this whole story is all over the shop and is fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.213.166 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We have to go with the sources and they say it's real. If you believe the story is fake please find some evidence as I've looked myself and the only claims of fake I can find are AFL related website forums which provide no supporting evidence so are hardly reliable. My mistake with the language though as I only scanned the page to find the word. It doesn't alter anything as the Ngunnawal border the Wiradjuri lands. As far as I can tell Edwards 1999 book was written before the ASC became involved with Bond University but I could be wrong and the Indigenous organisation in Queensland was affiliated with QUT where Edwards worked at the time so that could explain why it was promoted in Queensland before NSW. As for the engraving, the sources say it is "more likely" the game is Woggabaliri than Marn Grook, partly because of the name of the engraving and partly as it was a scene near Merbein which is around 400km from the area where Marn Grook was played but only 100km from where Woggabaliri was played. It's quite possible it is another game entirely or a variation of one of those but again we have to use what the sources say or we get into WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole story is riddled with holes. Nothing existed before Edwards' book - nothing. He claims the name of the game is the Wiradjuri word for "play", but he's wrong according to your source, that's Ngunawal word. And all of a sudden, an etching of a game played in Victoria is picked up as proof of the exsitence of Woggabaliri? The name of the picture is "never let the ball hit the ground". Hasn't it occurred to you that that might describe Marn Grook as well?? How is that there's stacks of documented evidence of the existence of a game called marn grook, but absolutely nothing on Woggabaliri - I mean absolutely nothing. And what's worse, the ASC has grabbed the language of marn grook, run with it for their own agenda, and now are claiming it's the oldest recorded indigenous game - how can they say that? The whole thing is a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.213.166 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot beliave how gullable some people are. Why should Australian football supporters have to find evidence that this game DID NOT exist? There is not one bit of "evidence" that predates some dude called Ken Edwards - absolutley nothing. And yet your WIKI page claims it is recognised by the ASC as the oldest indigenous game...go figure.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.122.14 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict:The claim is made by the ASC so the wiki page is just following the standard practice of basing articles on RS. Who do you want to find evidence? I've looked and found none so it is up to those who believe the game doesn't exist to find it. In the decade since Edwards' research was published there have been no doubts raised and I can site dozens of more recent findings in Indigenous anthropology so it is not at all unusually for something to become public knowledge so recently. The only reason doubts have been raised now is because this article has brought it to the attention of a website for AFL fans who based their claim on the name being made up. We now know the name is real so the claim has changed to no whitefellas have heard of the game before 1999. Can I point out that the first mention of Marn Grook was 10 years after Blandowski's 1857 book was published with the etching, Blandowski had never heard of the game yet we dont discount that it existed. That we now have a wiki page is actually a very good thing because having the information out in the wider community should expose any problems.Wayne (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So now, Wayne you have taken down the picture of the game of Marn Grook at Merbein despite claiming it was "more likely" "woggabaliri" above. I assume you have discovered that your "sources" (Kenny Edwards??) above claim, that merbein is 100km from where "woggabaliri" was played is a nonsense, in fact it is at the north end of the regions where Marn Grook was witnessed by many. It is 800km where the word "woggabaliri" came from!

The most plausible event now is that someone has plucked the name "woggabiliri" out of an old dictionary - perhaps the online version of your link - and fraudelently built a game like soccer around it. Unless ONE other source is found that speaks of a game in that region where you volleyed a ball without using your hands, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn. The guy who wrote the book is still alive so we should be able to work it out.

And do you seriously, seriously believe that Australia' indigineous would have invented a game that forbid them from using their hands?

I think it is now time to remove this silly Wiki entry completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything so obviously it was vandalism which I'll fix it shortly. What difference does it make that the name came from any particular part of the area where the game was played? BTW it's 600 km not 800. Marn Grook is Gunditjmara for game ball and they lived around Portland which is 470km from Merbein. If you base the distance on where the games were actually played, Woggabaliri appears to be closer to Merbein than Marn Grook as I mentioned above. Not that the Merbein game is proven to be either of them. If you want to have the article deleted you can do so by making an AFD request. Wayne (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done some more research and historian Gillian Hibbins states that there is no evidence Marn Grook was played north of the Grampians (and that it is extremely unlikely that it was played in the Grampians either) which rules out Merbein which is 400km north of the Grampians. Basically Marn Grook was played in the coastal regions from Portland to Melbourne. On the other hand, apparently Woggabaliri was played by Indigenous people around Balranald which is around 120km from Merbein. This supports the theory that the Blandowski etching is more likely to be Woggabaliri than Marn Grook. Hibbins research also supports that much of the Marn Grook article is considerably more suspect than the Woggabaliri one. For example the article says Evidence supports such games being played primarily by the Djabwurrung.... yet Hibbins says there is no evidence at all that they played it and they are too far north of the games extent. Wayne (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So GH says there is no evidence that "marn grook" was played north of the grampians and that is enough for you to dismiss it....yet you now assert Woggabaliri, was "apparently" played around Balranald yet you provide no evidence whatsoever. What do you mean by "apparently"? Surely if it was credible you would have posted it on your WIKI page given some of the nonsense you have had up there? Where is the evidence that a game was played AT ALL, ANYWHERE, that invovled volleying a ball around without using your hands? Any quote at all that pre dated Ken Edwards? Anything? Why do you morph from a gullible fool when you are "researching" "Woggabaliri, into a forensic scrooge when Marn Grook is the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If it was enough for (me) to dismiss it I would be editing the Marn Grook article but I am not doing so. There is no requirement that any source pre-dates Edwards and to demand one is rediculous. If you have a problem with the article go to WP:AFD instead of vandalising it. I'd also suggest you read up on WP:NPA and I point out that a "gullible fool" is more likely the one who is making claims based on personal opinion without providing a shred of evidence for their position. I'm only too willing to accept any evidence you have but a consensus on a football fansite is not a reliable source. Wayne (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You are not providing a shred of evidence. Others have demonstrated that there is no evidence. Everything stops at Ken Edwards and there is ansolutely nothing else. I don't go for this line of argument on metaphysics however here it is apt - how do we demonstrate something doesn't exist? Surely the best we can do is point out the complete lack of evidence?

and again "apparently Woggabaliri was played by Indigenous people around Balranald" and why isn't it up on the WIKI page? if there is evidence of it than that would be at least SOMETHING. If Ken has just gone down the local at Balranald and som bar fly has told him a family anecdote, that's not much to base it on is it..? also: "Popular with the Wiradjuri and surrounding peoples"..what is this based on? Is it a quote from Ken's book? and: "Woggabaliri is recognised by the Australian Sports Commission as one of the oldest Indigenous ball games" where do they say this? And "vandalism"? Apologies if you interpret correcting for a complete lack of evidence constitues "vandalism" good for you but I am actually far more concerned with the fabrication of history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

All spot on Bazza. The orignal author of this article has been found out peddling his POV big time. He initially started this article with "Often confused with marn grook" - yeh, right, a game that no one has ever heard of and for which there is zero documented evidence - absolutely zero. I suggest people have a look at Edwards' bood on and the entry on Woggabaliri. Not only are zero references supplied, not even an indication of who he got the story from - nothing. And according to his "variations", they clearly all have a modern ring to them, right down to numbering the players!! It's a massive hoax, all exacerbated by the ASC for running with the claim for the sole purpose of creating a narrative for which they feel they will get government funding. I also hope Australia's rivals start to take a close look at this claim of woggabaliri showing our heritage in soccer - they will be able to make mince meat of that claim in five minutes flat! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Figghiu Beddu (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Figghiu! So we are still waiting on evidence. We need three accounts to back the assertion that this game exists and that the etching at merbein was the one and the same game:

1. That the ngunawal played it (the nation whose language the name was derived) 2. That the Wiradjuri played it (the large nation the original claim was made) 3. That the Madi Madi played it (the nation that is two nations from the Wiradjuri around where Balranald now is that is central to the possible hijacking of a picture showing aboriginal kids around Merbein - a nation a further two nations away and on the other side of the murray...............) All these accounts need a significant ingredient - that the game forbid the use of hands. Right now, all we have discovered is the "woggabaliri" is the Ngunawal word for play. That is the only fact in the entire "history" ,oh , and the FFA's use of it in the bid book.

You guys all need to read what is meant by reliable sources. From what I've seen of his other work Edwards seems to be a legitimate scholar so we have to accept him as a RS. If it is a hoax it will eventually come out but lack of evidence of something before someone researched it is not proof. Deleting text based on a personal belief is vandalism. My personal belief is that the etching is not either game but I'm not allowed to put that in the article because that it my personal opinion. If I leave out mention that a group believes the etching is Woggabaliri then that is POV pushing of that personal belief. The minute any actual proof of a hoax is discovered the article will be deleted but until then it is a legitmate sport.Wayne (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand fully what a reliable source is. When everything hinges on the research on one "academic" and the same refuses to respond to people let-a-lone provide the "unpublished evidence" that apparently supports it, I would suggest we have an unreliable source. And you? Why do the words "popular" still appear on this page. Where does the ASC refer to it as "one of the oldest" indigenous games? Have you even TRIED to get into contact with the Faux-historian, who's research constitutes the entirety of the "evidence" of the existnene of this game? You've claimed that "apparently Woggabaliri was played by Indigenous people around Balranald" but refuse to, even here, tell us what you are basing that on...I don't know WIKI as well as you, clearly, but I know what a reliable source is and you and Ken clearly are not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazza773 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You can suggest he is not a reliable source all you like but that is WP:OR and not permitted. Why do I need to get in contact with Edwards? If you have a problem you can contact him. As far as I know Edwards never claimed to be a historian but he did do the research which was in his area of expertise so that makes him a reliable source. What is the problem with him being the primary source? Do you know of anyone else who has done the research? Do you know of any reliable sources that dispute Edwards research? I have never claimed to be a reliable source but Edwards is until proven otherwise. You fail to provide any evidence for your position other than a personal belief. If there are problems with the source they will eventually come out but "I dont like it" carries no weight whatsoever. Check out the Marn Grook article for unsupported claims....the only evidence linking it to Wills is a story passed down through his family and in fact a historian found that the Djabwurrung and Jardwadjali never played the game yet you dismiss Woggabaliri out of hand despite it at least having some research supporting it. Do I detect a double standard? I picked Balranald as an example as it is on land adjacent the Wiradjuri and large enough that the name would be recognised. It's still not close enough to say that the game is Woggabaliri and I'd put money on it that it is not but it is 4X closer than Marn Grook so if it has to be one of them there can be no dispute it is the closer of the two that has the greater claim, a claim which has been made by the source so we can say it in the article. Wayne (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Care to explain your revert? Editors have had more than three weeks to justify denying the inclusion of cited material. So either be involved in the talk, or don't be - but you cannot remove edits on the pretext on the lack on consensus when the discussion is no longer active. Editors cannot control and own the article this way. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you were the only one who supported your edit while everyone else was against it you cant just add it because no one has commented in three weeks. Wayne (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentically Modified Food Controversies

You deleted my comment and reference recently [6] on the grounds that the reference had "Pro-GM bias and contains 3 false claims." What was pro-GM about the article and what were the 3 false claims? SylviaStanley (talk) 09:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As Pusztai had no part in the memorandum of support, a statement in a Pro-GM article that the 22 were "mostly friends" needs support from another source. They all probably "knew" him but that to carries POV implications. As for the errors in the newspaper:

• "The six specialists were selected... [for] their independence from the Pusztai affair."
  Rebecca Bowden chose the "independent" reviewers. She now heads a pro-biotech rebuttal unit to counter GM criticism. The reviewers had COI problems. Several had publicly condemned Pusztai in a letter published in the Independant newspaper several months before the review. Two were members of a 1998 Royal Society working group that was pushing GM foods to the government. One was chair of the Roslin Institute. One was the wife of the founder of Biogen.
• "None has commented publicly on the controversy."
  In fact every single one of the six had previously commented publicly in opposition to Pusztai's findings.
• "It is almost unprecedented for the Royal Society to establish... an independent peer review of a scientist's unpublished work."
  In fact it is not "almost unprecedented". It is completely unprecedented as this is the first and only time in the Society's history it has done this. The Society also broke with peer review protocol by only publishing it's criticism without the data it reviewed. Publishing the data allows other scientists to see that the review conclusions are valid.
  The Royal Society is given too much authority in the controversy. Has everyone forgotten that the Society once insisted that acid rain was a fiction discovered by a scientist using flawed data. They even dismissed that people could catch BSE because the research was "flawed." Wayne (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your explanations of why you deleted my comment and reference.

However, you are wrong with your "`3 false claims" in the Independent newspaper article.

1) As I am sure you know, In early 1999 the Royal Society organised a Working Group of six (named) people chaired by Professor Noreen Murray. Their official remit was to look at research at the Rowett Institute to see if there should be changes to the Royal Society September 1998 statement on GM plants for food use.[7]

2) They found 13 sources of information on the Rowatt research.

3) The Working Party sent this information to six "independent,impartial" reviewers. The Royal, Society selected them based on their expertise in statistics, clinical trials, physiology, nutrition, quantitative genetics, growth and development, and immunology and their independence from the Pusztai affair. They were asked to report on the scientific merit of the research done. These reviewers were to remain anonymous. As far as I can find, the names of these reviewers were never published anywhere. None have any commented publicly either before or after the review.

4) I found a copy of their responses on Puszai's personal web page.[8]

5) Based on their responses, the Royal Society Working Group issued their report "Review of data on possible toxicity of GM potatoes" in June 1999.

The 11 March 1999 Independent newspaper article referred to the six "independent,impartial" reviewers. The paper was therefore absolutely correct in saying The six specialists were selected... [for] their independence from the Pusztai affair." and "None has commented publicly on the controversy.". You were mixing up the six-member Working Party with the six "independent,impartial" reviewers.

(Incidentally, where did you read that Rebecca Bowden the secretary of the Working Group chose its members? It seems much more likely to me that the President and members of Council of the Royal Society would chose such high powered members for the Working Group.)

Are you sure that the Royal Society has never "..established... an independent peer review of a scientist's unpublished work?" Have you looked back at all the documents issued by the Royal Society since it's founding in 1660? Personally, if I were an editor of a major reputable British newspaper like the Independent, I would hedge my words, just in case such a thing had happened before. Incidentaly, if you read the Working Party's report, they say that the Pusztai reports that they looked at had already released into the public domain, both through the media and on the Internet. Once again, the stated objective of the Working Party's report was to see if there should be changes to the Royal Society September 1998 statement on GM plants for food use in view of the "Media frenzy" (Wikipedia's words).

In conclusion, your description of the Independent newspaper article as pro-GM is just plain wrong. It is absolutely neutral and factual.

If you look at Pusztai's CV on the web,[9] 12 of the 22 scientists who signed the memo supporting Pusztai[10] have co-authored articles with him. Also Professor Maarten Chrispeels has been described as a friend of Pusztai[11] as was Stanley Ewan, Pusztai's co-author of the letter to Lancet. If the science editor of a major reputable British newspaper like the Independent wrote that the majority of the scientists supporting Pusztai were friends of his, in my view this is a far more relieable than a large number of other references in Wikipedia about GM plants. Nevertheless, in view of your comments, I will change my entry to "mostly friends or acquaintances" and add the information about 12 people who co-authoured articles as a note/reference.

I know nothing of the Royal Society's previous attitude to acid rain nor BSE. However, it doesn't surprise me that they have got some things wrong in the past. However, from my science classes at school over half a century ago, that is the essence of the scientific method. Based on the data one has, one formulates a theory. As you get more data you refine or change your theory compeletely. Even such an eminent body as the Royal Society still has to work via the scientific method. Who knows? Maybe one day, if there is sufficient contra evidence, the Royal Society might change its stance on GM plants. SylviaStanley (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I may have confused the working party with the reviewers. Rebecca Bowden was named in a Guardian article as putting together the peer review. The reason I believe she was chosen was that all the Societies councilors and most especially Lachmann had financial interests in biotech companies. Bowden probably had a COI as well because the previous year she had worked for the government promoting GM. I have read several sources that state that this was the first independent peer review of an unpublished work conducted by the Royal Society. At the time of the review only the results had been released into the public domain. The design and methodology of the experiment was never given to the Royal Society who based their peer review solely on Pusztai's results and some Rowett internal reports.
Although it is likely they were, signatories co-authoring articles does not mean they are friends. I've co-authored work in the past with people I detested, because it was my job and they were the best (or only) people available. Including mention of it in the article implies they supported Pusztai ONLY because they were friends. The article already says the memo was "orchestrated" by Friends of the Earth which is POV in itself as the word means organising something to achieve the results you want which in turn, in this article, implies manipulation. Wayne (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you check the Royal Society report you will see it states we have reviewed all available data and checking further it lists what was reviewed. The methodology and design is not in the list. The report also states The structure of the experiments was changed as they progressed. Pusztai has responded that this is a false claim and that it is obvious from reading the data that this did not happen. The report states A particular difficulty is that the experiments were not well designed. Pusztai has responded the Royal Society never asked to see the design (or methodology) of our experiments. The report summary is rubbish as well. It makes six points....point one is ambiguous without all the data being reviewed, points two and three have been discredited, point four is irrelevant as the numbers were a standard industry practice, point five is a subjective assessment and point six is problematic as Pusztai had already stated that there was a lack of quantitative correlation that he found puzzling but that it didn't effect the overall findings. The Society report was obviously lacking in objectivity.Wayne (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

As you say, a person co-authoring an article with Pusztai does not necessarily mean they are friends with Pusztai. However, by putting their heads above the parapet and signing a very public memo supporting him in this highly contentious issue, means it is likely they were.

Kenneth Lough, another signatory, did not co-author any articles (that I could find on Pusztai's CV), but he was a colleague of Pusztai at the Rowett Institute. Similarly you could argue that a work colleague might hate your guts but Lough signed the support memo and has supported Pusztai elsewhere in the media.[12][13][14] Again, it is likely he was friendly with Pusztai.

I think you are reading too much into it when you say that "Including mention of it in the article implies they supported Pusztai ONLY because they were friends." To me it only implies that the majority of memo signatories were people who knew Pusztai personally and were in favour of his stance. Most members of the general public would have probably assumed this already.

I do not think that when the article says the memo was "orchestrated" by Friends of the Earth that this was anything controversial or POV. I think it is now clearly out in the open that Friends of the Earth organised the memo and the press conference announcing the memo that kicked off the "media storm." For example, Berger in an article in the British Medical Journal on 27 February 1999 [15] quoting from an article by Fenton and Irwin in The Daily Telegraph on 15 February 1999. And Dixon in 1999 articles in Healthwatch [16] and in the IOS Press [17]. SylviaStanley (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Flag_of_Australia_article

As requested. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Wayne (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A look please

Can you have a look at this:

• Talk:Non-lethal weapon#Mediation sought on inaccurate name

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dad..! ‎

Hi! The content was pulled from a lot of sources, but in most cases the wording was almost identical to the original. It was understandable, as we want to be very careful about the wording in this sort of situation, but in this case it was overly close. With copyvio the normal approach is to remove it asap and to rewrite later - I did rewrite the sections that were core, but at the time I saw the "who knew what" stuff as secondary. At any rate, I've rewritten the material about Reilly and Buchanan. More generally, I think we might be heading into undue weight territory, given that there are still no charges laid, but that's not my primary concern. - Bilby (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It looked a bit as if only certain information was being taken out. I think undue wont be a problem as it is what was reported by those involved rather than speculation based on what they said. If anything proves incorrect or of less significance after the investigation is completed the text can be reworked to eliminate anything that has become undue.Wayne (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - and it would have looked that way. It was more of a case of rewriting what I thought was most important, rather than deliberately leaving things out. :) Hopefully it is better now, anyway. Given the time it has taken, I'm not expecting much to eventuate in the case, but I guess we'll see how it pans out - they'll probably have to make some comment or other once twelve months have passed. - Bilby (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

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:[18] 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.