User talk:WLRoss/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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: [1]. 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)