User talk:WLRoss/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

The Wiggles

WLR, one of the things I appreciate most about WP is its collaborative nature. One of the things I don't appreciate about it is that information can be added while a story is being unfolded, like this one regarding Greg's return. We simply don't have enough information two days after it happened, so articles can tend to be one-sided. I wrote my entry on the talk page before your most recent addition, and my apologies if it came across as defensive. I've always been very clear that I'm protective about certain articles that I've worked on, and it's my opinion that sometimes we content editors can't help ourselves. This article is one that I've managed for many years; it's about a subject that's very near and dear to my heart (I have two kids with severe developmental disabilities, and The Wiggles have had a profound influence on my family); and it was my very first FA.

That being said, I appreciate that you're obviously trying to include both sides of this issue. With some tweaking, I think that it can present something close to the truth. If you wouldn't mind, I'd be happy to do that. Christine (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Source for Scissor (gladiator type)?

Hi. You had put into the List of Roman gladiator types some info about the "scissores", but without a source. This info is contradicting the Scissor (gladiator type) article and the Arbelas article, and I'm trying to resolve the conflict - most likely, it's a conflict between different scholars of the subject, but to conclude that I need to be able to cite both of them... thanks! I realize it's been a while since you put it in (2008), so I'll certainly understand if you can't dig it up. Allens (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember the specific source but the problem is likely the use of the same name for two different gladiators. The gladiator that Junkelmann calls a Scissor is definitely the Arbelas. Junkelmann found a single instance of the name "scisso" listed in a 1st century BC list of gladiators owned by a Lanista (with no description of weapon or opponent) and connected it to the Arbelas as scissors were not invented until some two hundred years later. There are several images of this weapon dated to the 2-3rd century, some with the name Arbelas associated with it. This picture may interest you. It seems to indicate that the Arbelas was only used to destroy the retiarus' net and was then discarded to free the hand up. The other "Scissor" was a gladiator that is mentioned from the 2nd century AD onwards and is sometimes described as using a sword with two blades. No examples or pictures exist so it is speculation that it looked like open scissors as this seems the most efficient arrangement for twin blades. Wayne (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting. I've actually seen that picture before - it's one of the ones in the article by Michael Carter that I discussed just now in the Talk:List of Roman gladiator types page - you might find the quotes from the article in there of interest. I can see the argument that the arbelos or whatever the name would be for it plus the arm-guard was used to destroy the net only and then was dropped, although it might just as well be that this was a tactic of only some arbelas. Allens (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CT article

You mentioned an RfC on the user of qualifiers in these articles. Would you mind going to the article talk page and providing the link?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I cant remember if it was a proper RFC or just a very, very, very long discussion to gain a consensus for the qualifiers used. I believe it was in early 2008 and was during a volatile period when editors such as myself even had grammar corrections reverted. I'll see if I can find it. FYI... The Bazant paper (Journal of Engineering Mechanics March 2007) actually reads: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering..." which is solid gold sourcing for the qualifier. Wayne (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We should probably keep in mind that Bazant's "generally accepted" is a peer-reviewed opinion which has survived five revisions of the paper and that there are no reliable authoritative sources that support saying "the civil engineering community accepts" which implies a universal acceptance. As such that statement is WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got around to looking here after several days of being distracted by other issues. Yeah, I noticed that it was a scientific journal saying this. It seems many people interested in debunking the conspiracy theories insist on WP:V when it means repeating skewed material in the editorial voice or sometimes even when it means misrepresenting what the sources actually say, but if the same source or another strong source says something they see as being too favorable to the conspiracy theories they insist that it is unnecessary, even undue weight, to use the exact words the source uses. Like here with the term "generally accepted" being used some are insisting the word "generally" is not even necessary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

During the discussion, the usual suspects alleged that belief in the official theory was universal among engineers and architects. It was brought up that the number who "publicly" dispute some aspect of the official theory actually outnumbers those who "publicly" accept it. This is because so few have made their position public. I have read an article somewhere on this issue where several engineers stated that they could not make their views public as it would negatively affect their careers. The trouble is that any criticism of the official theory is immediately taken as support for controlled demolition when most engineers merely object to particular findings. One example is that there is a peer reviewed article in an engineering magazine that condemns NISTs computor simulation as it "adjusted the input" until collapse occurred "to the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports" (quotes from NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 142). Despite requests from engineers, NIST has declined to release data on what input was "adjusted" or by how much although they do say the adjustments were not outside the "range of physical possibility."
Wording is particularly difficult as some editors dont like anything that could even be used peripherally by CT supporters. For example, 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" (adjacent▸ adjective: nearest in space or position; immediately adjoining. Near▸ adjective: close to someone or something). Blind freddie can see that between the two is WTC6 and a road. Can you believe the only arguement made against my edit was that "by New York standards they are adjacent". I suspect the adjective "adjacent" was prefered as it adds weight to the debris from WTC1 and 2 causing the WTC7 collapse. Wayne (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the word games can get pretty absurd at times. Amazingly, in articles I have been editing sometimes I get the same absurd battle-ground behavior on minor changes that have nothing to do with conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to laugh sometimes. I once had one of my edits reverted by MONGO with the comment: conspiracy theory ridiculousness not supported by scientific or relaible (sic) evidence. Consensus supported the reversion. I had in fact cut and pasted the text (unaltered) directly from the NIST report. Wayne (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Squadron definition

Hi WLRoss,

You recently reverted an edit of mine on Battle of Coronel regarding the last defeat of a British squadron prior to that battle. By your definition a squadron must include "3-4 major ships (line-of-batte ships) larger than a frigate." Would you let me know where you got that definition? Ironically, it would seem to exclude the Battle of Grand Port mentioned in the article, as that was a defeat of a group of British frigates.

Also I would note that the Battle of Lake Erie is commonly viewed as the defeat of a British squadron, and that also took place after Grand Port (in 1813).

I'll await your reply before editing the article.

Respectfully, Jrt989 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The definition of what a squadron is has changed significantly over time. Today the British Lake Champlain and Grand Port fleets would both be called flotillas but at that time, only the Lake Champlain fleet was. Additionally, different navies have different definitions, using the American definition of squadron, the British fleet at the battle of Lake Champlain was indeed a squadron but the British used a different definition. To the british, a squadron is three or more major warships (frigates or larger) with or without accompaning vessels. When there are less than three (ie:frigates) the fleet is called a flotilla. The Battle of Grand Port involved four British frigates so it was considered a squadron by the British although the definition can be fluid as a fleet of frigates can be either a squadron or flotilla because they were not generally considered to be ships of the line. If the section was written from the American perspective (or indeed that of many other countries) then your edit was correct but the section is titled "British response" so we should use the British perspective and that paragraph reflects how they saw the battle. If you check early books such as Chambers's encyclopaedia (1868) or The Naval History of Great Britain (1847) you will find they use the term flotilla for the British fleets at both Lake Erie and Lake Champlain. The Encyclopedia of American literature of the sea and Great Lakes (2001) is an American publication that also uses the term flotilla for the British fleet (see page 57). Wayne (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you that the definition of squadron has changed over time, and also agree that the British ships at Lake Champlain are probably more properly termed a flotilla, I respectfully disagree with you regarding the Battle of Lake Erie. The very first page of the Court Martial proceedings against Commander Robert Barclay makes plain that the British regarded his force as being a squadron. Please see [1]. In addition, Oliver Hazard Perry's letter to the Secretary of the Navy following the battle refers to the British force as a squadron, so it is clear that there was agreement on both sides of the Atlantic at the time the event occurred. Jrt989 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read the court-martial and am unsure why it refers to a squadron. There are mentions that the British Lake Erie fleet was a squadron, but these sources always refer to the same fleet as a flotilla when it was engaged. One contemporary book (History of Europe from the commencement of the French revolution in 1789, to the restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, Volume 4) in particlar calls both the British and American fleets squadrons when comparing their strengths, but then they are both flotillas during the battle itself and then squadrons again after the battle ends. It's possible that terminology varied depending on what the fleet was doing? Perry was American so to him it may have been a squadron but as far as the 19th century British Admiralty were concerned it was a flotilla as it contained no ships of the line. The largest British ship in the battle was a sloop. Wayne (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Family Murders

Hello WLRoss. Please take a look at this version of the article as revised by User:Collect. As an admin I have some duty to watch BLP articles and be alert for possible violations. While opinions may differ on what conforms with WP:BLP, Collect seems to have produced a very safe version of this article. If you are not happy with Collect's work, I recommend that you obtain a consensus at WP:BLPN#The Family Murders before restoring any of the contested information. If there are not enough participants, it should be OK to leave a notice at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board or any other relevant project. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Robt Zimmerman Sr.

Hello. I just undid your edit that you described as "add full title". What you added is not in the source cited. (I do apologize for calling it vandalism as it may not have been). --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what happened there but I've now added two references for the title. One for both father and mother and one from the Supreme Court itself confirming he was a magistrate from 2000 to 2006. Wayne (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello WLRoss. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

AE

[2]

Talk:Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Information_from_IDFBlog_doesn.27t_count_as_an_RS

Hi , I've started a discussion on Talk:Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#Information_from_IDFBlog_doesn.27t_count_as_an_RS about the removal of idfblog.com as an RS could you add your point of view as why it should be removed ?109.226.51.46 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29

Hi. When you recently edited Phuong Ngo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker of the House of Representatives (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)