User talk:WLRoss/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:WLRoss. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Port Arthur massacre (Australia)

Responded to your edit at Talk:Port Arthur massacre (Australia). Cheers, ChrisPer (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wayne, you changed two of my edits; the older one re the far right groups is based on a careful reading of the source that you supplied. Your new wording is OK on how the Government used the support of the nutters, but the term 'gun lobby' is a rallying cry of the lynch mob, not an accurate description of those groups opposing the new laws. A neutral term is preferred.

You are mistaken that the conspiracy theories are not supported by your quote; the former Premier's words that there was no trial were misleading and help give traction to the nutters on this page. Due process was followed, there was a trial, but the guilty plea meant the evidence did not need to be presented. The use of the term 'admitted' rather than 'said' strongly implies that he was being defensive and was wrong to have done things the way they were done. ChrisPer (talk) 11:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Australian feral camel copyvio

Gday Wayne. i've tagged Australian feral camel for copyvio. Free licensing of software or documents requires freedom to use, modify, distribute and distribute modifications, with more or less no restrictions except the obligation to give the same freedoms to the next person. See WP:copyrights for details. If you want to contact the author of the Saudi Aramco article to try to see if he can free-license the text, you're welcome to try - see the talk page of the original copy/paste for practical details. Boud (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Middle East Media Research Institute". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 1, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

1rr

You are aware Hamas is under 1rr regulations? I could report you to arbitration enforcement for your violation. Please stop reverting sourced edits with ambiguous claims of "POV." I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan^{Be nice} 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I made the mistake of taking your word for it. I checked after self reverting and found it was 28 hours between edits so it stays. Wayne (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I will also point out that an edit comment for POV is not considered ambiguous when the comment includes the reason for POV. If you have a problem with English grammar please check before wasting peoples time. Wayne (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Middle East Media Research Institute, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

1rr

Please restore my edits, you have violated 1rr per ARBPIA. 1. 2. Source published by major publishing house, noted figure (son of a Hamas leader) and includes footnotes in the book. Notice the, "According to." Wikifan^{Be nice} 18:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The first revert was, as my edit comment notes, because it was the personal opinion of a person who has no contact with the HAMAS leadership, or with the middle east for that matter, so he can not be a RS for their current goals. While he himself may be notable, his opinion is not and his views are covered in detail in his own article.
The second revert was not technically a revert as I moved the edit to the brigades article where it is more appropriate so the edit still exists. There is no button for moving text between articles. The article is for HAMAS, not the brigades, so the HAMAS article should only have a summary with the detail left for the brigades own article. I understand that you are a WP:SPA with an emotionial attachment but please avoid inserting every bit of marginally relevant text you find. The article is already bloated with out of date, excessively negative and irrelevant material and is far too long. You should work to improve the article not turn it into more of a hit piece than it already is. Forget you live in Israel for a while and look at the article from the perspective of an third party not involved in the conflict and avoid fluff. Wikipedia is the world view of events, not the state view. Wayne (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your redline for notability is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Verifiability is what counts - the source is published by a reputable publishing house and the author is known associate (son) of a Hamas founder. It's becoming a pattern to see reverts of edits without sufficient reasoning. Subject has no contact with HAMAS leadership so is not a RS for their current goals. One does not have to be in contact with Hamas to evaluate their goals. The citation specifically says, "According to x." The figure is notable and the book is widely available. If you think the article is bloated, out of date, with excessive material feel free to edit it. I don't see the second edit being moved somewhere else, looks like two unique reverts thus violating 1RR. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability does not mandate inclusion. The source WAS a known associate, not IS a known associate and his knowledge of HAMAS goals is several years old. There are many people in intelligence agencies better placed to give a current opinion and the article already includes some of them. If you are going to include every "According to x" opinion we would have hundreds more reliable than that particular one. The other edit was moved to here. Wayne (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The origins of Hamas rely extensively on old sources, some dating back years ago. And your reasoning had nothing to do with the book (published in 2009), rather - the claim that the author isn't notable. Sorry, a son of a Hamas founder who had personal relationships with militants and future government leaders is certainly notable. The edit in question is posed as a direct quotation from Yousef, not stated as a fact. I suggest you self-revert, considering you have - I think - violated 1rr. Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Ngarrindjeri are not a tribe"

Interesting to see you've Commented Wayne Ross that "Ngarrindjeri are not a tribe" yet you despite your high IQ & years of scientific & academic experiences in South Australia, it's interesting to note then that you too have yet to similiarly comment on that "Ngarrindjeri" Article ...

"The Ngarrindjeri (literal meaning The people who belong to this land) are a nation of eighteen "tribes" (lakinyeri) consisting of numerous family clans who speak similar dialects of the Ngarrindjeri language and are the traditional Aboriginal people of the lower Murray River, western Fleurieu Peninsula, and the Coorong of southern, central Australia."

Mifren

I'm just stunned. This is pretty weird stuff, even for him. The talk page at Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy has become, like all other talk pages he visits, a vast slab of impenetrable text. I'm beginning to think we should apply WP:TALK quite a bit more stringently and remove the more irrelevant of his contributions.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so instead of actually answering my question YH, you're stunned! LOL

I'll repeat, in addition to weirded YH, "I think that it's probably best then to 1st address your thus Wayne Ross' red herrings by 1st asking, What proofs, etymology evidence do you actually have, demonstrate that [so called] "Ngarrindjeri" actually exist, existed other than a linguist, South Australian Museum "compromised" anthropological "Native Title" legal fiction, complete with false protagonists "Ngarrindjeri" Elder women!?" I find it fascinating then that neither of you conveniently have yet to answer ... yet you both run off to criticising [now seek to censor ] me but more importantly, just like so many others before you, disrespecting, recognising, resourcing Ramindjeri pre-eminent enduring Original Sovereignty, why!? Would both of you be as equally cavalier with HM, Elizabeth II!?Mifren (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of simply removing content contribution YH, AGAIN! I'm now formally requesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Mifren (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ramindjeri fun

I see you're having fun with our friend User:Mifren as well. --Roisterer (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I just can't help myself.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

mmm cruelty, (malice?) perpetrated thus perpetuated against respecting, recognising, resourcing Ramindjeri pre-eminent enduring Original Sovereignty with --Roisterer allowing 'evil to happen while good people say & do nothing'?Mifren (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that you've all had your little fun, let's get onto the harsh reality that that legal fiction Kaurna was 2000 Native Title Registered for descendents of 8 apical ancestors, one of which includes the current Ramindjeri Callover so called "Ngarrindjeri" - "Kaurna". The point being here is that there is another "Princess" Con aka Sally lifepartner or wife or mother of William Walker's two sons ... there's a lot going on here and clearly you've both been born & bred South Australians seem amazingly ignorant or at best, lacking in awareness!? Please, let's civilly discuss this thus seek truth from which justice & consensus naturally flows?Mifren (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Further YH as it seems you have "fun" removing Contributions placed in good faith, I now simply seek to address your apparent concern/s Boyle Finniss' Account here:

From Adelaide City Council Records: "At this time I was a witness of a fight on the banks of the Torrens in front of Morphett Street. Seeing a number of blacks assembling at that point, I repaired to the spot and was met by my old friend Peter, of Rapid Bay, and his tribe. The tribe was in their war paint, each man carrying shield and spear. Peter endeavoured to explain to me that they came to prevent the northern blacks entering their territory, which seems to have been bounded by the River Torrens. However, Captain Jack, of northern celebrity, had already, with the northern tribes, crossed the river and were engaged in various tactical movements which threatened war. There must have been at least a hundred blacks preparing for the fight. I saw Captain Jack, spear in hand, capering up and down the river flat in front of his myrmidons, talking very loudly and gesticulating violently. Captain Peter retorted in language which I did not comprehend. At last Captain Jack shook his spear, not at any one, but at a pretended foe, and after a few exclamations threw his spear into the ground, apparently in a great rage. This seemed the signal for combat. Captain Peter warned me to retire as the enemy were about to throw their spears. A few spears came. I stood out of the way of the combatants and watched the result. My friend Peter was captain of the southern hosts, evidently the chosen warrior of his tribe.

Rushed to the front and threw himself on one knee, covering himself with his shield in the left hand and balancing his spear at arm's length in the right hand, His warriors followed his example and ranged themselves on his right and left, receding so as to form a wedge, of which Peter was the front and apex. It recalled to mind my school-boy recollections of the Grecian phalanx, described in Polybius, and the Greek wedge formation. A shower of spears came from Captain Jack's party and the wedge grew restive. I could not see if any fell in this short contest, but I presume the northern tribes yielded to their fear of the southern prowess and began to disperse, while Peter rose up with his warriors and again entered into conversation with me, the result being that he was the victor. The northern blacks were tall, lanky figures, very lean and covered with white scales of a scorbutic appearance. I cannot say that they carried shields or that they fought like practised warriors. They were but a mob, while Peter's army were powerful, well-fed blacks, armed with shield and spear, and apparently well trained to use them."Mifren (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC) PLEASE! NOW Let's discuss!? Sincerely Mifren (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Interesting too to see, note Wayne that you've gone onto further wikiEdit, contribute to Ramindjeri without citing your source/s, let alone acknowledge, address my concern/s above? I've naturally thought about then decided to undo so that will be interesting, especially as I know from what you've written previously that you don't like that wikiEditing practice, especially also as it as interesting tactic of YH, to see what you will choose to do, next ... Furthermore, from Jenkins 1979 published,Conquest of the Ngarrindjeri we know that culturally, Ramindjeri are patrilineal thus to my knowledge, no other than the Walker family are directly descended from "King" Condoy thus daughter "Princess" Con. See too http://archives.samuseum.sa.gov.au/aa338/AA338-23.htm

AA 338/23/4 'Patrilineal Hordes of the Tribes of the Murray Mouth' [Sketch map; Accession No. 547]

Hand-drawn map shows 'tribal' boundaries in blue pencil in the upper Coorong and Lake Alexandrina district of southeastern South Australia. Names of 'tribes' (upper case) and 'hordes' (lower case) are written in red. Tindale's 1974 book, Aboriginal Tribes of Australia, contains a printed version of this sketch map: figure 6, 'Patrilineal clan areas ['ru:we], of the Tanganekald and some of their neighbors near the mouth of the Murray River in South Australia, illustrating placing of clans and concentration on areas of greatest abundance of marine products' (p. 25). The following groups are represented: Tindale Tribes: Jarildekald; Kaurna; Meintangk; Nganguruku; Ngaralta; Ngarkat; Peramangk; Portaulun; Potaruwutj; Ramindjeri; Tanganekald; Warki.

This item contains references to: South Australia.

Creator Dr Norman Barnett Tindale Control AA 338/23/4 Date Range c. 1940 - c. 1974, approximate date range - map undated Quantity 0.1 cm, 1 map, 41.5x53.5 cm Inventory Identifier AA 338/23/4 Series AA338/23 Hence http://www.theislanderonline.com.au/news/local/news/general/karnos-dreaming-of-recognition-for-his-people/1689200.aspx "“This is not an overnight thing. I am sick of people hiding behind policy when all we want is to be recognised and be allowed to speak for our own country,” Mr Walker said. “We’re sick of others speaking on our behalf.” Mr Walker said he spoke for seven generations of his family and he wanted to honour both his white and black ancestry.

“William Walker came here before official white settlement, with a Ramindjeri princess (Princess Con) known as Sally.

“The difference between us and the Ngarrindjeri and the Kaurna people is that we have wirrichin – blackfella-whitefella dreaming,” Mr Walker said." &

Former Kangaroo Island Council Mayor, now Queen of England Oathed or Affirmed "South Australia Parliament" "Member for Finniss Michael Pengilly said he had dealings with the Ngarrindjeri and the Ramindjeri in his electorate. “This is more about the dispute between the tribes than anything else.

“The Ramindjeri have been excluded by the Ngarrindjeri. The Ramindjeri have raised this issue to seek acknowledgement. The easiest way to resolve it would be for the Ngarrindjeri to give the Ramindjeri some representation on their heritage committee and other representative bodies,” Mr Pengilly said." eg Tendi!? Matthew 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

bourke shooting..

Hi - saw the edit you made to Burke and Wills expedition. The info you added, and the sentence you added it to seemed to be fully covered in the para above, so I removed the whole sentence for clarity. Hope this makes sense to you. --Inas66 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning

If you persist in editing the Ugg boots article to claim that IP Australia decided "ugg boots" is a generic term, I will report you for vandalism. The reliable sources do not report this. Phoenix reports that you have had problems at another article, where you edited the article to make claims that were not supported by reliable sources. I have looked at the other article and its Talk page. I have also carefully reviewed the sources for this article. Phoenix is correct. If you find a reliable source that says this, provide a link and we will discuss it on the Talk page. But I would like to see this IP Australia fact sheet that Phoenix and Factchk mentioned. They claim that it says the opposite. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow is a manipulative lier. See here for proof. The IP Australia fact sheet is not online so cant be verified. Most of P&Ws edits are tendentious and unsupported with the objective of pushing Deckers. Wayne (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the article does not say that IP Australia decided "ugg boots" is a generic term, it says: "Uggs-N-Rugs won the right to use the term UGG BOOT/S and variations such as UGH UGG BOOT/S" which is what reliable sources state so I have no idea what your complaint is about. I in turn warn you that replacing P&Ws edits may get you reported as they have failed to get consensus so are now regarded as disruptive edits. Wayne (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You have also been reported at the vandalism noticeboard, since you were previously warned. You reached the three-revert limit with three reverts just within the past few hours, and I suggest a cooling off period. For your information, I found an online copy of the IP Australia fact sheet for Ugg boots, and posted a link on the article Talk page in a new section. It states clearly that IP Australia does not have the authority to declare "ugg" or "ugh" as a generic term, and that only the Australian court system can do that. 63.171.91.193 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If I may: Your vandalism report disappeared into thin air b/c there was no vandalism. Regarding the 3RR warning: My advise is for you to get familiar with 3RR and edit-warring before handing out warnings. I see your reverts while there is a discussion going on as disruptive and yes, you are indeed edit warring against several editors.TMCk (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Hi! Being braindead today, I forgot to inform you that I raised Phoenix and Winslow's latests comments about you at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#User:Phoenix and Winslow. My intent is only to see if it needs to be nipped off now, before it progresses further, and as I'm clearly involved I felt that we needed outside eyes. My apologies if this is in error, but I found the various attacks to be frustrating, especially as they relate to a completely different article. - Bilby (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thx. My main complaint is the false accusations he is using to discredit me. Using those accusations to imply that anyone that agrees with any edits I make on the page are also bad editors is even worse and a continuation of his previous WP:OWN behaviour. Wayne (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.25.30 (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to it although it is a waste of everyones time. Got a link for it? Wayne (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Having just seen your contribution to the noticeboard I've posted this there:

WLRoss seems to like to make use of false claims.

1. I do not edit from Canberra, I'm in Brisbane and I believe that there is a way of confirming that from my IP address. Anyone who knows how, feel free to do so and to post your findings here. That being the case, and assuming that WLRoss is right about User:180.149.192.132 editing from Canberra, and assuming anything he says is right is a big ask, that would make it a little tough for me to be both users. I generally edit out of working hours because (a) I'm in the field most working days without computer access and (b) when I'm working, I'm not editing Wikipedia.

2. There is no relationship between me and User:180.149.192.132, I don't know who they are and unlike WLRoss don't consider it to be my business. I did jump into support User:180.149.192.132 on the article in question and he/she has acted to support me because I observed User:180.149.192.132 continually coming up against WLRoss knocking out properly sourced material he had put into the article in question using false claims about those sources. The primary false claim he has been making is that Moran's work is 'fringe'. I've cited him a number of sources to show that he's not. WLRoss has cited one book revue which makes claims that are easily proven to be fraudulent, to try and support his claim that Moran's work is considered to be 'fringe'.

3. Any similarities between my grammar and that of another user, I'm inclined to assume is due to us both using colloquial Australian English and from having read the same sources which we are then using to support our arguments about the same subject matter. A certain amount of similarity is inevitable in those circumstances, I think. But if anyone wants to bother looking into it, as I said above, please feel free to check out the IP addresses if you know how.

4.One more thing, Sir Francis Burt didn't refer to the existence of beyond reasonable doubt evidence, he referred to evidence, in particular to the lack of it. 60.225.253.209 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Terrific, it looks like Telstra has just reconfigured my IP address and I'm no longer User: 121.208.25.30. I'm confused now. 60.225.253.209 (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. When I last checked the program I use, for some reason it said Canberra but now says Brisbane as it also does for your new IP. However it now tells me that 180.149.192.132 is in the middle of the Simpson Desert. It's always been accurate before but with errors this big I'll have to find a new one. Anon IPs making major edits are always suspect as my last two content disputes were against editors that used socks to support themselves. I suggest you make an account, accounts are anonomous anyway but they give you an online identity that editors can interact with. Regarding Moran, you have to remember that he is on the revisionist side of the history wars and is not himself an academic so we cant give him undue weight. Windschuttle who supports Moran is an academic so we can give him more weight, but because their view is not mainstream we have to use rebuttals. Moran had undue weight in the original article which was getting far too long so he needed to be trimmed, a position supported by other editors. By splitting the article we made two articles of a managable size where we can give Moran more space in one, but due weight still applies.Wayne (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies accepted. My problem with online identities is that I've observed that when some people get one, their egos seem to go into overdrive. It becomes personal and they will defend their position inflexibly even when it becomes untenable. 'I, user Bob the Great cannot possibly be wrong and I'll fight you to the death on this issue.' Whereas if someone shows user 121.208.25.30/60.225.253.209 credible evidence that he's wrong, it is no skin off those number's cyber nose(s), I can agree and just move on. Seriously though, I suggest you get hold of both Massacre Myth and Sex Maiming and Murder and read them with an open mind. Then see how credible you think Green's position and his rebuttals are. It's what Green and others don't mention in the rebuttals that shows them up. 60.225.253.209 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Drivel

My first use of this word was with reference to the utter nonsense you added to the main Shakespeare page about the 1640 Marshall engraving. That was indeed drivel. Perhaps the word was too strong for the claim about Droeshout, but it is still untrue. You did not cite the British Museum. You cited the completely unreliable william-shakespeare.info website. The notion that he worked from a description is almost certainly false. You also added misleading information. It was not "normal practice" to work from description. in such cases, engravers were essentially copiers, and would typically work from a pre-existing drawing or painting. For this reason, whether or not Droeshout ever saw Shakespeare is completely irrelevant, but it is still more probable that he did than he didn't, as the theatre was near the engraver's workshop.

This information - about working practice - was already in the page, so what you added just contradicted what was stated below - cited to a reliable source. You appear to be an experienced editor, but you are adding false information, cited to unreliable webpages, contradicting content elsewhere in the article. You also added outright nonsense to a featured article. I have every right to use language that expresses my dismay at your behaviour. Paul B (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Droeshout information is on the British Museum website so if you believe it is false then take it up with them. Contrary to what you claim, your ignorance with the subject gives you no right to be uncivil. Your post is also confusing. What was I contradicting? Are you seriously stating that an engraver would refuse a commission if he had to work from a drawing taken from a description? Wayne (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean by my "ignorance with subject", since I am a professional art historian who has written about William Marshall. Indeed I created Wikipedia article on him. Your ignorance is spectacular. I'm sorry that you are not able to understand my post, but I don't think that is because it is not clear. You are contradicting what was written about the way in which engravers worked. Check the article. As I have said, you added garbage to a featured article. If you knew anything about engraving practice at the time you would know that the unreliable website you used should be ignored. Your last sentence is so obtuse - or disingenuous, I don't really know what to say. What would happen in the circumstance you describe is that a drawing would be produced. It would be approved by the person commissioning the engraving, and then it would be engraved. There was no need for any such procedure in this case because it is known that portraits of Shakespeare existed. Paul B (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said, take it up with the British Museum. They said Droeshout may have worked from a written description. I assumed the national museum would be authoritative. Your inability to conduct a polite conversation is rather worrying. You completely ignore WP:AGF and WP:civil. Wayne (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Canola Ban

Ignoring the non-neutral way this is written, none of it is supported by the source you give[1]. In fact if you read the article you will see it is saying virtually the opposite of what you are insinuating. This is not the first time you have incorrectly interpreted sources. Looking at your talk page it is not confined to articles of interest to me either. I suggest you take more care in the future. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring that the link you provided contains only half the original article, in what way is the edit not nuetral? Every word is factual, the mainstream view in SA and I can supply a host of additional refs if you need more to support it. In fact I originally had another ref with that edit and I have no idea how it was left out. The missing half of the article has a half column making the case for GM and a half column making the case against and a quarter page discussing GM in the different states. Then there is an entire column condemning Bussiness SA's stance as ideological and calling for public debate and scientific investigation before any ban is lifted. I used the contents of the article that is relevant to the section. What is in the article concerning contamination that you feel I have left out? The only extra text I added is about the letters to the editor which obviously was in the following newspapers every day. I suggest you refrain from using personal attacks to support your case. Wayne (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I was using the fact that your reference does not support what you inserted into the article to support my case. If there was so much other information in the newspaper why did you not cite that. I can only work off what you use in the article.

I take it that this statement "the following weeks saw newspapers Letter to the editor pages overwhelmed with letters from angry farmers and the public in support of continuing the ban" was supporting by the lots of letters sent to the paper in the following days that you did not cite. You have been around long enough now to know that even if you did cite them it would still be original research.

As to the information you left out; the article you cite says "Advocates argue the benefits would particularly help SA through increased yields in a dry climate as well as more pest and drought resistant crops", "the SA ban was politically motivated and did not make sense" and "crops developed with biotechnology allow growers to manage pests, disease, weeds and crop nutrient requirements with less use of chemicals resulting in improved health of the soil, biodiversity, waterways and people involved in the growing of these crops". It says nothing about Steve Marsh, a truck spilling canola, controversy errupting or pretty much anything you wrote. Even if you did find a source saying all this you would need to attribute it, not just say "contamination is a problem for farmers..." AIRcorn (talk) 14:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The article section is on contamination issues, not on why GM is good for everyone. This issue is VERY BIG in South Australia and controversial because the state government supports Bussiness SA to lift the ban while publicly stating they support keeping the ban. This is the ideology the article talks about as the government takes this hypocritical stance because the public overwhelmingly demands safety testing of GM foods (GM with medical benifits is the exception and is safety tested) and labelling which the government refuses. I notice you are in WA so you should be aware of the contamination issues there over the Williams spill and the finding of GM plants along roadsides that grew from seeds blown from trucks transporting the GM crops. You now have teams of volunteers walking the highways pulling up stray Canola plants. Wayne (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding information about the concerns of GM canola. It needs to be sourced to an article that verifies the information though. However, I strongly disagree that we can only add negative information. It is controversial not because it is bad, but because some parties see it is extremely bad, while others see it as extremely good (plus a whole lot in between). A neutral article will present both viewpoints without going into undue for either. I am not sure what you mean by safety testing GM products. They are the most regulated and tested food on the market[2]. Also Australia does label foods made from GM products[3]. AIRcorn (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

The Ugg fiasco is very tiresome, and I'm sorry to burden you with motherly advice, but please don't describe edits at WP:NPOVN as "vandalism". I don't know how much time you have spent in the drama sections of Wikipedia, but WP:VAND spells out that adding "poop" is vandalism, but misguidely removing templates is not. That kind of trivia becomes important when issues get escalated to admin noticeboards because onlookers would find it hard to wade through all the dross to determine the issues, but they would find it easy to see inappropriate "vandalism" labels—that word has a technical meaning here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but keep in mind that I had already warned Liangshan Yi about removing the SPA tag after he removed it last night. I also explained the policy behind it's use to him. He then removed the SPA tag from Cowboysforever's signature. As Cowboysforever has only edited this article and no other the tag is appropriate. Liangshan Yi's removal of the tag was not misguided and in the full knowledge that he was not allowed to remove it... and for the likely purpose of disguising SPA accounts to uninvolved editors. I'll do my best to be more polite. Wayne (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Please_see_WP:NPOVN. Thank you. Liangshan Yi has forgotten to advise you, as was required of him, so this is just to let you know. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)