From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Who I am[edit]

Flag of Australia.svg This user is an Australian.
Rymill park path.jpg This user lives in Adelaide, where the time is 22:31.
Wales/Cymru This user is of Welsh descent
A This user is an adult.
Commons-logo.svg This user has a page on Wikimedia Commons.
Wikipedia Reviewer.svg This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
Editor - bronze star.jpg This editor is a Veteran Editor II
and is entitled to display this
Bronze Editor Star.
H This user has access to HighBeam through The Wikipedia Library
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 8 years, 8 months and 2 days.
Pencil.svg This user has created 15 articles on Wikipedia.
4490 This user is ranked 4490 on the list of Wikipedians by number of edits.
Star of life.svg This user scored 2353 on the Wikipediholic test (revision 183169873).
vn-13 This user page has been vandalized 13 times.
50 This user has 50 watchers.
Treetattoo.jpg This user is inked.ʰ
Unbalanced scales.svg This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues.
P history.png This user is interested in historical research.
Sna large.png This user is interested in anthropology and sociology.
MAGAZINE This user has had his/her work published in a magazine.
ACADEMIC JOURNAL This user has had his/her work published in an academic journal.
2kip.png This user is part of the Countering Systemic Bias WikiProject
X This user is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.
Yin yang.svg This user accepts Karma.
Peace symbol.svg This user advocates pacifism.
IAO-logo.png This user is interested in, but does not believe in, conspiracy theories.
This user's time zone depends on whenever they decide to get up today.
Crystal Clear app kalarm.svg This user loves deadlines. He or she loves the whooshing sound they make as they go by.
?met? This user prefers metric units and cannot figure out why Americans have such a hard time with them.
Lhota (Kladno), Millennium Tree.jpg
This user avers that the new year, the new century and the new millennium all began on
January 1, 2001. ( NOT 2000 ! )
FSM Logo white.svg This user believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as creationism.
According to Political Compass this user is:
Economic Left (6.75) and
Social Libertarian (3.69)
INTP This user has an INTP personality
per the Myers-Briggs typing system
UnderwoodKeyboard.jpg This user is old enough to remember what a typewriter is, and that's all you need to know.
Exquisite-Modem.png This user remembers using
a rotary dial telephone.
C+ Comedy Central has more credibility than Fox News

What interests me[edit]

Just about anything but a few things are prominent.

  • I have a large collection of Science and Science Fiction books.
  • I’m very much interested in all history. Not just the propaganda history you learn in school but the warts and all history you never hear about because it “may” offend someone or does not suit the agenda of the country teaching it. Res ipsa loquitur
  • I have written articles for history magazines for which I have been paid. I guess this means I can add author and historian to my resume.
  • In 2014 I received a certificate in Global Social Archaeology after passing a University course in the subject.
  • I’ve researched my family tree to 1630 and have my mothers from 1762 so genealogy interests me.
  • Religion.
  • Indigenous Australian topics

Although I am a pacifist, military history also has a place in my heart.

  • My grandfather served in the 2/10th Battalion, which fought in North Africa including Tobruk and New Guinea.
  • My father served in the 2/27th Battalion, which fought in the Middle East and New Guinea including Kokoda.

After he passed away I gained much admiration for my father from researching his war record. He was too young to join the army so he added 9 years to his age and joined in August 1940 without his parent’s permission or knowledge. Why he added 9 years baffles us as adding 2 was all he needed (he was already 6ft tall and pictures of him in uniform indicate he did look the age he used). Following the arrival of the 2/27th in Egypt my fathers true age was discovered and he was discharged and returned to Australia. He rejoined with permission in March 1941 and was returned to Palestine in time for the Syria-Lebanon Campaign in June 1941. In August 1942 the 2/27th was sent to Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea and took part in the Kokoda Track campaign and the following Buna–Gona campaign. By the time it was relieved in January 1943, from an original battalion strength of 945, 268 had died and 607 had been wounded. In August the reformed battalion returned to Papua and took part in the Ramu Valley, Dumpu and Finisterre Range campaigns, known collectively as the Shaggy Ridge campaign. The 2/27th arrived back in Australia in March 1944. The battalion left Australia for its last operation of the war, the Battle of Balikpapan, in June 1945 and from October to January 1946 was the occupation force in the Celebes. Due to problems with Malaria my father was discharged in November 1945. The 2/27th was disbanded in March 1946.

My father was affected by Polio having one leg shorter than the other that also had wasted calf muscles yet he was still accepted and eventually fought in the most physically demanding theatre of the entire war. Interestingly, due to his young age when he joined, he was four inches taller and his hair had gone gray by the time the war ended. Until late in life my mother was completely ignorant of his war service claiming that he never spoke of anything war related and in fact she never realised he went to New Guinea let alone took part in Kokoda. All the photos he sent home during the war show him drinking beer with army buddies, riding camels and similar standard tourist shots. He never sent pictures or letters from New Guinea and he never claimed his medals. My sister claimed them on his behalf in 2003 after considerable pressure to get him to sign for them.

My father was one of the wounded in the camp hospital mentioned in the infamous running rabbits incident.


What I’m doing here[edit]

I came across Wikipedia doing research and like the site although I can see its shortcomings. I like to correct obvious inaccuracies. I rarely actively hunt subjects to edit but do it by arriving at pages by clicking the embedded links while reading a topic and subsequently seeing something I am not happy with.

Advice for new users[edit]

Over 50% of all Wikipedia edits are performed by less than 1% of the editors. The most active 2% of editors, contribute 73% of all Wikipedia edits. This may sound daunting to a new editor but therin lies a story. The quality of Wikipedia lies in the information it provides, not the number of edits made to create it. The vast majority of edits are spelling corrections, formatting, adding links and adding categories etc. While these type of edits are extremely valuable, if you count only edits that have contributed actual content to Wikipedia, some 80% of the people who have written the actual content have done so as anonymous IP addresses and the majority of contributors have made few edits in total. People read Wikipedia because they want to know something, not because everything is spelt correctly and formatted clearly. New users will find many experienced editors are quick to critisize or revert their edits and many are driven away by this all anons are stupid attitude but this is counterproductive. Wikipedia content relies on new editors and whether you decide to register or remain an anonymous IP address, your contributions are more valuable than those of the most experienced editors. Don't be discouraged. Take the knocks and keep editing and hopefully you will learn and eventually register so you can interact more productively with the community.

What you can do[edit]

I accept that I can be wrong and wont get upset if reverted. I try to be neutral but I doubt anyone is entirely free of bias no matter how well meaning they are. Do not be afraid to criticize or debate me.

I’m happy to talk to anyone. You are welcome to contact me for discussion if you wish.

Be aware that I travel a lot and may not answer promptly.

Humorous behaviour[edit]

I sometimes see some strange behaviour so will post the most mind boggling here.

My edit: "...onto a nearby building."
An editor changed it to "...onto an adjacent building."
I pointed out that there was not only a road but another building between the two buildings in question so adjacent (dictionary def; "immediately adjoining without intervening space but not necessarily touching") was not correct.
This turned into a minor edit war with the other editor insisting that "By New York standards they are adjacent."

This is an example of how "involved" some editors can get if they don't like your editing. In April 2011, my 911 article editing was brought up in a WP:RFC/U with a request that I be banned from editing all 911 related articles. Seven editors supported the RFC/U but between them only posted this single diff as evidence. One of the supporting editors even suggested that my taking a NPOV position on the subject was proof of bias. The RFC/U failed and was subsequently deleted.

My edit: "...with analysts expressing concern that Ugg was losing its appeal."
An editor changed it to "...with some analysts expressing concern that UGG was losing its appeal." with the edit comment; "reduced other anti-Deckers spin with more accurate representation of what the sources actually say."
The exact wording of the source; "However, analysts have expressed concern that Ugg is losing its exclusive appeal."
It seems some editors have a problem with cognitive dissonance.

What I hate[edit]

  • Editors that delete content because it has no cite. I don't care if you do not agree with the claim, unless it is obviously wrong, tag it or look for a cite yourself. Delete it if you can't find a cite after a good faith search.

First scientist: What are the odds of an asteroid making an impact on Manhattan?
Second scientist: Astronomical.
First scientist: Then it can't be an asteroid! (In the movie this sets her up as the "expert" but in reality it sets her up as moron who doesn't deserve to be on the team!)

The Infamous 3RR[edit]

Be Aware! 3RR can be ambiguous. You will know that 3RR means getting blocked for reverting an edit three times in 24 hours. What is ambiguous is that it doesn't have to be the same edit you revert. Reverting any three edits made to a page even if they are not the same one can get you blocked.
Be Careful! If you are correcting false information by replacing it with what the source actually says, this still counts as a revert. Even if it is not a true revert because you just reworded the edit for grammar or clarity, it still counts as a revert if you use the Undo button to remove the original text, only use the button if you intend replacing the original text with a highly modified version.
Note! 3RR will not always apply to other editors in certain "cliques" so try not to get in a dispute with them in cases where your reversions would normally be seen as undoing vandalism which are exempt from 3RR.

CT Beliefs[edit]

I DO NOT believe in 911 conspiracy theories. I do not believe the entire official explanation either until investigations are completed, so until then I'll sit on the fence (see [1] and [2] for the "conspiracies" I think need explaining.). I believe Popular mechanics is discredited BS (see here) and NIST cheated to get it's results. They admitted they manipulated the results, (see NCSTAR 1-6) and were critisised by peer reviewed engineering publications for doing so, but that does not mean I believe in CD. There has to be some as yet undiscovered factor that caused the towers to fall but then that is OR. For example, a 1990s building collapse similar in appearance was attributed to a fault the engineering design. Unfortunately a design fault can never be positively determined as the WTC blueprints were destroyed in the WTC1 collapse and the only copies were lost in WTC7.

While my first Wikipedia edit was in December 2006, my first edit to a 9/11 conspiracy article was in August 2007 as this was the first time I read any of the 9/11 WP articles and to my amazement discovered that instead of the expected CT bias I found far more anti CT bias. I believe conspiracy theories should be treated in a NPOV fashion based on the evidence available. I have made edits debunking some but I do not make edits supporting any unless it is reliable material. Just because a fact supports a CT does not make the CT true. I would prefer not to edit the subject at all but there are too many editors deleting any fact that remotely lends support to conspiracy theorists. These biased editors make WP a joke so I will strive to maintain some semblance of NPOV. I let my record talk for me. I've made over 200 edits in 911 articles, some support the official theory but most involve alternative theories. Over 90% of these edits received consensus and are still in the articles (albeit some took months of arguements to get consensus). I've been lied to, threatened and had edits misquoted. In one case I had an edit reverted with the comment: conspiracy theory ridiculousness not supported by scientific or relaible (sic) evidence and was warned I could be banned if I tried to add the edit again. Consensus supported the reversion. I had in fact cut and pasted the text (unaltered) directly from the NIST report findings. If those with a debunking agenda do not like it then tough. While these editors are useful for keeping out blatant CT pushing they should get a life and put their own bias on the backburner in the interests of NPOV. For an example of why some of these editors should not even be allowed to edit at all see here.

For a more in depth look at how I view Wikipedia 911 articles you can read this: Evidence presented by Wayne.

Be aware that editing 911 is a minefield. Be careful to be civil and remember that WP policy is very strictly enforced by elected Admins who may not have legal training. For this edit (on the grounds that it "indicates that you're unwilling to work within community norms") and for removing a {{fact}} tag without replacing it with a reference, which my edit comment notes I did as the sentence already had a reference, I was reported five days later by an admin I had previously been involved in a [dispute with on the basis that this ambiguous post that makes no mention of it being a warning was actually "a warning with a link to [the ArbCom] decision" per the ArbCom decision "Discretionary sanctions" as required before sactions can be implimented and I received a 1 week topic ban for "Disruptive Editing" (my only ban to date). I requested clarification for why I was banned for two edits made before I was allegedly "warned" contrary to 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 so I assume policy interpetation is remarkably fluid. A favourite ploy of my opponents in disputes is to mention that I was reported to WP:ARB9/11 for my editing and support of conspiracy theories as if this supports their case in often unrelated disputes. However, they always neglect to also mention the Arbcom's outcome hoping that editors will assume my guilt. This is the Arbcom case in question, showing it was closed after no evidence of disruptive or POV editing was found.


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For consistently striving to improve the level of conduct and decorum on 9/11 articles, and for being willing to step up and make a good faith effort to resolve conflicts civilly. Haemo (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Nothing gives a better idea of an editors interests (and POV) than the articles he works on.

  • Average daily page views in brackets.

Articles I created

David Granger (5) Historical deviations in Gladiator (2000 film) (84) Forrest River massacre: Investigations and Royal Commission (4)
Arthur Stanley Brown (19) Poltpalingada Booboorowie (4) Ugg boots trademark dispute Symbol support vote.svg (39)
Thomas Sidney Dixon (3) Meadows Technicolour Fair (4) Mystery of Celtic Wood (45)
White noise (16) German submarine U-1206 (62) (Work in progress)
Woggabaliri (34) Sarah Francisco (9) (Work in progress)
Frank Pearson (6) Manuel Blanco Romasanta (41)

Articles that are predominently my work. ie: from stub to article (S) or a major rewrite (R)

SMasako Natsume (65) SKapunda Road Royal Commission (4) RTruro murders (93) RList of Roman gladiator types (300)
SWomen in piracy (223) SHindmarsh Island bridge controversy (19) RZoot Suit Riots (672) RO'Halloran Hill, South Australia (9)
SDujail Massacre (64) SCanning Stock Route (51) RRoscoe Arbuckle (944) RWild Bill Hickok – Davis Tutt shootout (22)
SElizabeth Woolcock (17) SMurder of George Duncan (6) RMichel de Grammont (11) RMcCanles Gang (44)
SEduard Vogel (4) SGatton murders (31) RMax Stuart (29) RGladiator (3188)
SNgarrindjeri (22) SOwen Chase (34) RConiston massacre (23) RForrest River massacre (13)
SNemi ships (137) SMartha Needle (29) RBloody Benders (289) RBattle of Brisbane (153)
SKatherine Knight (275) SJames Ryan O'Neill (17) RCaptain Starlight (18) RBattle of Manila Bay (1898) (63)
SReginald Roy Inwood (2) SSepia apama (62) RMudrooroo (20) REssex (whaleship) (346)
SAdelaide Gaol (20) SMilperra massacre (227) RPlebidonax deltoides (31) ROrange roughy (402)
SThe Blonde Captive (7) SHallett Cove Conservation Park (6) RLaconia incident (270) RAnthony Johnson
SBill Wilson (5) S2000s Australian drought (45)
SGabarnmung (4)

Articles that I have contributed substantially to.

Impressment Tasmanian Aborigines Eisteddfod Genetically modified food controversies Principality of Hutt River
Pusztai affair Percy Grainger David Unaipon Roman naming conventions Battle of Coronel
Gary Dotson Masada Wild Bill Hickok Kokoda Track campaign Colossus of Rhodes
Bonus Army King O'Malley Stalag Luft III John Ernst Worrell Keely Julius Sumner Miller
Martin Bryant Helepolis Jesus' sexuality Happy Valley Reservoir Taman Shud Case
Rolando Cruz case Vegemite USS Liberty incident