User talk:WLRoss/Archive 11

Wayne Madsen

- Wayne Madsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi - Scribd is not a en wikipedia reliable source - please do not replace without discussion and consensus support - thanks - Youreallycan 18:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NP I wasn't aware. I only used it as it was an online source. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - there are so many things here to get a grip of - I learn something every day - perhaps you can find the same content in a WP:RS and replace the content - regards - Youreallycan 18:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scribd is the only source that has the book online as far as I know so I'll just use the usual WP ref style and have a look around to see if it's online somewhere else. Wayne (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally for any contentious content I prefer the support to be accessible - but thats disputed in policy and guidelines - Youreallycan 18:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book is available as a free download from several sites and as an app from iTunes etc so it's accessable, just not available to read online. Wayne (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright vio at Milperra Massacre

Hello - I'm trying to work out who copied who here - perhaps you can help? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text on aussiecriminals.com is copied from Wikipedia, most likely in May 2012. The aussiecriminals website has the entire WP article exactly as it was from May 10 to May 15 2012, it does not include text that was added on May 16 and does not include any since deleted/altered text that was in WP versions before May 10. That section you linked was written in 2008. Wayne (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the wayback machine and no copies are archived. However, I noticed that the URL for the page is: aussiecriminals.com.au/2012/05/15/the-milperra-massacre/ which seems to indicate the page was created (or updated) on May 15 2012 as I noted above. Wayne (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much - I checked Wybackmachine too after posting the note above, but was too brain dead by that time to notice the date in the URL. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning, sugestion

Your recent editing history at Wayne Madsen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Wayne, you have violated the 3RR rule rather than try to reach consensus on the talk page. I removed self-published material that I had initially added. You have reverted and re-added material that is disputed multiple times. I choose not to be involved in an edit war and will therefore remove myself from this article until the fall, if not later. I suggest that you self revert your improper edits and consider carefully the aims of the Wikipedia enterprise. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: I have made three reverts in total over the last three days. We can also put those reverts into perspective.

22:44, July 1, 2012‎ Capitalismojo (you deleted text)
03:28, July 2, 2012 WLRoss (I reverted it)
08:53, July 2, 2012‎ Capitalismojo (you reverted but said it could be replaced if RS were found)
18:15, July 2, 2012 WLRoss (I found two RS so reverted/replaced)
22:05, July 4, 2012‎ Capitalismojo (you reverted on a false premise ie: claiming it was SP)
03:42, July 5, 2012 (I reverted and pointed out that it was written by a third party ie:not SP)

Secondly, the material you removed from the article is NOT self published as I have pointed out several times. Wayne (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are mistaken in your count.

17:58, 1 July 2012‎ WLRoss(talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,225 bytes) (+778)‎ . . You reverted me
18:36, 1 July 2012‎ WLRoss(talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,129 bytes) (+682)‎ . . You reverted Youreallycan
08:45, 2 July 2012‎ WLRoss(talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,625 bytes) (+1,088)‎ . .You reverted me again
18:12, 4 July 2012‎ WLRoss(talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,340 bytes) (+1,088)‎ . .You reverted me again

You reverted Youreallycan after he posted: "- please do not replace without discussion and consensus support thanks" Your references are in dispute on the talk page. Before reverting you should get agreement. And its not just me you were reverting. Please self-revert and find consensus on the talk page. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to post Youreallycan's entire comment: "Scribd is not a en wikipedia reliable source - please do not replace without discussion and consensus support thanks."
I did not replace the Scribd source, I replaced it with the original source which Youreallycan accepted. He had no problem with the text, only with the source.
BTW...you cant make a verifiably false claim about a source and then claim the source is in dispute due to that claim. Wayne (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree. You can not make a verifiably false claim about a source. You have claimed that the NJ ref was not self-published. It was hidden behind a pay wall. We then bought the access, examined the article, and lo and behold it was in fact written by Wayne Madsen. It is thus self published. Your reliable source isn't. The assertion that there is something in that column that had editorial oversight is entirely unverified, at best it is synthesis or assumption. Also, Youreallycan made no statement about your new ref either way. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this on Madsen's talk page. The article itself was written by Madsen but his involvement in the incident was written by the newspapers editor not Madsen and is separate from the actual article. I even checked to see if the editor had copied it from Madsens book and the wording and grammar is different so it is the editors own words. It is not an extraordinary claim so the editors comment should be acceptable. That the claim is factual is supported by the fact that Madsen would be liable for prosecution if it was not. This is all explained in talk and I cant understand why you are so determined to deny what is self evident. Wayne (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevent whether Madsen could or could not face civil liability for what he wrote in Jaded Tasks. I for one believe he was accurate. It is irrelevent that I believe that. Under WP policy we can't used Self-published material in the bio. We just can't. The NJ ref falls under the same rule. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to appologize for putting the three revert warning template up. While I think it is an accurate description of what was happening and I didn't want to see an edit war start, I believe it was somewhat uncivil of me to put up the template. As I think about it, templates should be used mostly for new editors or for editors who are unfamiliar with the wikipedia policies. You are a seasoned editor and it would have been better for me to have just pointed out what was happening rather than using the template approach. I appologize. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appology accepted. If you believe a newspaper editors description of the experience of an author is still SP, put it to the relevant board for a decision. To me, what an author writes is self published, what a third person writes in a RS about that author is not SP. Wayne (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Wayne, I need to give you a warning about Bibi Aisha. I totally disagree with your advice at the BLP page, to the extent that I have removed most of the material as BLP enforcement. I explain things there, but basically it is a question of do no harm. Though of course having mental illness is not something to be ashamed of, nor a behavior problems under her extreme circumstances, still the general diffusion of the details is not likely to be to her advantage. I see it as pure sensationalism. I had not realised at the time I wrote my comment that you were a fellow admin, but on looking it over, my opinion is unchanged, though iI might have worded things more gently. I have asked for an opinion on revision delete, so one of the BLP regulars will no doubt comment. Perhaps my interpretation of our position is too rigid. My attitude towards BLP has always been that some of our restricts were to applied only when necessary, not expansively to everything in reach, but when they do apply, they are meant strictly. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I took any notice of this article is that I have a mentally handicapped brother who I look after several days a week. He requires 24/7 care so I have not edited out of ignorance. I still feel that the new version, while better than that of the anon, is too sparse regarding her background since entering the U.S. and in fact now implies she was moved by her carers to Maryland when it was her own choice and without the knowledge of those caring for her. I believe WP:HARM supports inclusion of some of the deleted text and I'm happy for it to go to the BLP regulars for comment and will accept their suggestions regarding what should be used. As the News Ltd article is not available on the net I can email you a scan if you want a copy. Wayne (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I recognize that you were trying to be helpful. Your specific suggestion above is not a bad one, and I will adjust the wording. If you decide to take this further, please let me know on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Trevorrow

Hi Wayne - I would appreciate your input on an issue at Talk:Ngarrindjeri. Apparently Luke Trevorrow has been jailed for drug dealing in Arnhem Land - I'm looking for input as to whether this is appropriate to include under Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority. Cheers, --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Blonde Captive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (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) 12:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

taylor at FDA

Hey thanks for editing the genetically modified food controversies article. I am sorry but both those sources you cited are highly POV. I will start a Talk on this on the page - let's discuss there.... thanks!Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Thanks for the link to that image, it is much higher res and now I can see were the rust seep came from, not photoshopped Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sepia apama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology (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) 12:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

typo

On Talk:USS_Liberty_incident#Infobox, I fixed a typo where I accidentally put "Also, by that standard, should we not have [...]" on the wrong line. If you meant to respond to that, you don't need to do anything, but if you meant to respond to "I invited Wikipedia:WikiProject [...], could you put your post beneath that please. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Just move your critical remarks and innuendos as to Wiesenthal as being a liar from the description of facts to the last section, Criticism.

Firstly, they are not my remarks. Secondly they are not critical remarks or innuendos. They are reliably sourced facts supported by both primary and secondary sources that have been in the article for several years. They are not critism so belong as counters to false claims. You are welcome to discuss them in Talk. Wayne (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

‎Tel Aviv bus bombing

Hi, you just made an edit I believe to be incorrect here. You say "Delete POV implication synthed from reference" when the reference verbatim says: "Hamas praised the bombing without saying it was responsible. (emphasis added) As you can see there's no synth here since the reference explicitly displays that information. Could you please self rv? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The edit actually said without saying it was directly responsible which carries the implication that it was responsible. Even using the actual words used by the article is POV as the article goes on to say that the bomber was believed to be from the West Bank making Fatah a more likely candidate. Also, Hamas not saying they did it is a negative claim, mention of negative claims is tabloid journalism which has no place in an encyclopedic article. Wayne (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you make a good point. Cheers! Gaba p (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to discuss the edit. Too many are too ready to revert without thinking it through. Wayne (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pillar of Defense

Hi Wayne,

Witn your second revert in 24 hours you violated the 1RR rule applicable to that article. Kindly self revert and bring your issues to the talk page. Thanks, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry And Kay Danes

Hi Wayne. Could I refer you to my comments on the talk page of this article? I am somewhat concerned about the long term activity. Thanks. 106.187.42.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pillar of Defense

You have just made 2 reverts of the same material within an hour. Please self-revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a single revert:

I made an edit.

You reverted it.

I reverted you.

Responsibility for the assassinations was discussed in Talk on November 23. It was accepted that the assinations are attributed to the Brigades not Hamas per the sources. You took part in that discussion so should be aware of this.
On the other hand I point out that you have violated 1RR. As well as this revert you also made this revert three minutes later. I suggest that you self revert.
If you need a reason for the second edit. The article is about Operation Pillar of Defense, not Hamas. The article mentions why Badawi confessed. It is irrelevant to include the details of his seven months in custody. People can read the reference supplied if they want to know. Wayne (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a serious misunderstanding of what reverts are and how 1RR works. You removed material twice. Those were both reverts. Consecutive edits are counted as one edit. I gather you're not going to self-revert? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I deleted no material, I corrected names per sources and the Talk page discussion. You must have known this yet you used a dishonest comment to justify your reversion. My first edits were not "saved revert edits" so dont come under the exclusions. I can even justify the only revert I made as reverting a violation of item 7 of WP:3RRNO by a SPA. Wayne (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See two sections above where I similarly warned him about a 1rr violation, which he ignored. I think you were involved in that matter as well. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I stand corrected. He did self-revert.[1] My apologies.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reported here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Hello WLRoss. An editor has claimed that you have broken the WP:1RR at Operation Pillar of Defense. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WLRoss reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of responding if I'm found guilty and penalised 14 minutes after being told I can respond? Wayne (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified of the discussion at WP:ANEW in the section above, much earlier than Ed's additional notice. You were even given a chance to self-revert, which you declined. Your first edit constituted a revert under the plain language of WP:3RR, and your claim of an exemption pursuant to Item #7 is incorrect. There is no BLP violation, and whether the other editor is a SPA is irrelevant. You don't have to delete material for an edit to count as a revert. You have to change pre-existing material, which you did. After the block expires, I strongly urge you to discuss content that you dispute on the article talk page, not battle in the article, particularly in a sensitive and controversial article such as this one. From my perspective, your second revert was a clear-cut violation of 1RR, but, even then, I might have given you some leeway if in the conversation with the other editor you had not taken such a pugnacious attitude, evincing a clear misunderstanding of policy in this area and an unwillingness to listen. The same is true in your e-mail to me (pursuant to WP:AEBLOCK), which triggers these comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I declined to self revert as this would have allowed false information not supported by sources to remain in the article.

The basis for the edit was discussed in Talk on November 23. It was agreed then that actions would be attributed to the perpetrator named in the sources. Even User: No More Mr Nice Guy agreed to this in that discussion. Does content already discussed have to be discussed again every time the same editor decides he wants to push the article in a particular direction?

How is it not a BLP violation? We have a crime committed by the Brigades who acknowledged their involvement and which was condemned by Hamas. The sources support this. The article attributed the crime to Hamas. A clear breach of WP:BLP.

That the other editor is a SPA is relevant. Having only been blocked for 3RR twice in six years should give me more credibility that a SPA pushing an obvious POV.

My taking "a pugnacious attitude" has to be seen in light of the actions of an SPA reverting against consensus and then threatening me for correcting him. Wayne (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Construing your comments here and your e-mail to me as an unblock request, it is declined. Although I'm not an expert in the subject matter, I did take a look at the cited source, and I don't see any clear BLP violation in the material before your changes. Although it's wholly irrelevant to your block, I might add that the other editor has been here for about 4 years and has never been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

A reminder

WP:BLP takes extreme precedence over WP:COI and so your editing and (especially) discussion with the subjects at Talk:Kerry and Kay Danes is poor. Rather than defending a poorly written article against the apparently legitimate complaints of the subject, you should be helping to completely remove the contentious material first, and then working with kindness and love on the talk page to reach consensus before adding any of it back. I'm about to take a chainsaw to the article, and I would appreciate your help in keeping it stubbed until such time as we work out a high quality solution.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are being way too harsh. After Kay Danes posted her concerns on October 4, the only edits I made were two alterations per her concerns. I didn't feel confident handling a BLP problem that was primarily legal issues so on October 9, I requested the Wikimedia Foundation to help out. I was very clear on the Talk page that I had asked for help. I then made two edits specifically requested by Kay Danes. As I did not see anything in the article that implied that the Danes were guilty of anything or did anything wrong I saw no need for me to make any further edits. I have not taken part in editing since. On December 8, I received an email from the Wikimedia Foundation saying that the help I requested was not a "specific actionable request" and it was suggested I list it on the BLP noticeboard, which I did. I specifically noted on the noticeboard that some of my replies to Kay Danes may be wrong and effectively handed the issue to more experienced editors. Wayne (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then who added the material that led to the BLP complaint? [2].--MONGO 18:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh... my favourite stalker. I should have guessed you wouldn't miss a chance to stick a knife in and follow me to a subject you had no involvement with or knowledge about. The material was in the article for almost four years. When the BLP issue was brought up I was civil, I admitted I could be wrong, I recused myself and I asked for experienced BLP editors to take over. What more do you want...blood? Wayne (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name popped up on a BLP issue at Jimbos page which I have always had watched...I simply asked you a question.--MONGO 03:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]