User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 4

Please comment on Talk:Capitalism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Capitalism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle
Hello! Instead of edit warring, raise a question on talk page. As you are the person who is removing data from article, and disturbing status quo of it, you are the one who should raise the talk page conversation about it. :) Also, Happy New Year! All best! :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 00:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should the article about the battle need a big eyecatching box reciting the curse in full? This article is about the battle of Kosovo, not about subsequent nationalist mythmaking which has its own article.
 * Worse, the box simply repeated the words and presented them at face value, without making it clear that the curse is a modern invention. Now, I'd agree that the Kosovo curse deserves coverage; but that should be in the Kosovo curse article, where it could be dealt with neutrally, rather than distorting this article. Simply repeating the curse in the article about the battle is like copying the start of Genesis into an article about the Big Bang - it harms the article, especially if presented without context. bobrayner (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

CCI for Faizhaider
Hi, thanks for your post at my talk page and CCI. I have reposnded to your post at CCI which can be found here here.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 16:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying so quickly. bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Bouazizi in 2011
Please don't revert me. It's quite simple to figure out why this is relevant to your project, just click the link I provided. The issue is not the Mohamed Bouazizi article, it is the 2011 article. Year articles are some of the most edited on Wikipedia and need to be monitored for systemic bias. Wrad (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides, it's a talk page. I would appreciate not having my posts reverted. If you have a problem with my post, just say so underneath it. Wrad (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears as though you are content with ignoring me so long as I don't revert back, which I don't appreciate. I have been more than polite, here. I have a right to post on talk pages and not have my text altered, per WP:TALK. If you revert me again, I will report you to WP:ANI. However, if you want to talk about whether or not my post is relevant to systemic bias, I invite you to create your own post on the page, rather than altering mine. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

string theory paragraph
Hi bobrayner, I'm trying to work towards some resolution to the string theory issue. On the mediation page, I've proposed the following paragraph as a replacement:
 * There is dispute among researchers regarding whether String Theory can currently be considered to be a falsifiable theory . On one hand, all string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant,  unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit, and some researchers consider this to be enough to consider string theory a falsifiable theory .  Others disagree, claiming that string theory is not a falsifiable theory as it has not produced new testable predictions   .  On the other hand, string theorists such as Leonard Susskind have questioned whether falsifiability is currently an important criterion for String Theory to demonstrate.

This is an attempt to have a paragraph which represents both sides of the dispute... what we have now (just saying that string theory is falsifiable) is contradicted by too many sources to be reasonable, I think. I'm not sure what the other side thinks the best citation is for the sentence with the "citation needed" tag, but I'd be happy to even just put this in the article without replacing the tag for now, or put it in with any citation the other side feels is appropriate. Right now I'm just looking for a way to get the article into a state where we aren't contradicting lots of reputable sources. Any thoughts? I have't got any replies on the mediation page.Wpegden (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * update: I've now updated the mediation page to include a list of the sources I've used here, with quotes. Wpegden (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Signing
Looks like you forgot here. RashersTierney (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I was careless. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY
Howdy Bobrayner. I'm choosing to stand back from the discussion at WP:HOCKEY, per my mentor's advice. Also, I'm going to stay clear of Djsasso, from now on. FWIW, we should continue to respect the WikiProject's diacritics compromise, until English Wikipedia reaches a consensus on diacritics usage (which hasn't happened yet). GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

UN
Hi, Bobrayner, I was wondering if you've given any further thought to this? There's a discussion afoot at WikiProject Medicine re the use of ICD-10 codes, and any developments may be of interest, as the ICD is a WHO product. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl!  21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation
I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silver seren C 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Oxford English Dictionary definition". Thank you. --Encyclotadd (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Moody's
Hi bobrayner! Thank you so much again for all your help with the articles, I saw that you have finished taking the three separate articles live and sorted out the images. All your work is highly appreciated.

I think that the only outstanding issue as I see it is the hat note at the top of the article: "Not to be confused with Moodyz". Since I highly doubt that anyone coming to the Moody's Corporation article would actually be looking for the article on a Japanese adult video company, perhaps this should go? I am open to discussion on it and if there's a good argument for it to stay, then surely a similar hat note should be added to the Moodyz article redirecting back to Moody's Corporation. But my guess is that no one would be confused. What do you think?

Thank you also for the links to those two projects. I will think about joining them, although as you can understand I need to consider this carefully as I may need permission to do so. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK.
 * Moodyz probably isn't something you want to associate prominently with Moody's, but it is something that people are likely to be looking for (never underestimate the popularity of porn - versus ) and there's obvious potential for typos, so I think a hatnote is appropriate - but since the reshuffle, readers are more likely to be redirected to Moody's Investors Service so maybe the hatnote is better placed there..? bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at guidelines related to disambiguation hat notes, and I guess I don't think they are in any way ambiguous besides pronunciation. I also looked at the traffic site you linked, if you compare Moodyz with Moody's there is a much greater difference in traffic than your example. One reason I think is because Moody's Corporation is a global company, while Moodyz only seems to be in Japan. And Google searches for Moody's and Moodyz have no overlap. Meanwhile, there are a number of articles for things named actually named Moody, like the company founder, that are not disambiguated here. Of course you are right that I'd ratherr there not be an association, but I just don't think there is any confusion now. I won't press the point if you disagree, but if one has to stay I suppose it's better where it is. Mysidae (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are other things called moody, maybe a dab page would be better? bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much...
...for helping me compose the email to the author of File:House of John Connor (Terminator 2).jpg. He agreed almost straight away! Thank you thank you thank you :) --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure. Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Read talk page before making an edit
TRNC (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) protests are anti-Ankara and anti-TRNC government. They are unprecented, they were never seen before in Cyprus dispute. I have one primary source, the call for a gathering in Ankara for TRNC protests that say the protests are inspired by Arab World and North Africe protests. (http://jiyan.org/2011/03/02/ikinci-kibris-toplumsal-varolus-mitingi%E2%80%99ne-destek-cagrisi/). There's little coverage of this protests in English media (http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-234198-turkey-riding-high.html), however we cannot say there's "very little" coverage. So, Wikipedia can include this protests. These are the sources that show TRNC protests are inspired by Arab World protests: 1. http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/moi/PIO/PIO.nsf/a51d0d2b2ceb5e20c2257076004d03b5/d653d0f64b4677fdc225784800420f23?OpenDocument The movement is called Yasmine Movement. 2. http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/74782,news-comment,news-politics,tunis-yesterday-cairo-today-london-tomorrow "While Egypt's disturbances have made front page news the world over, Serbia's huge anti-government protests have gained far less media attention. And the Serbs aren't the only Europeans who are taking to the streets to express their disapproval of their leaders. In neighbouring Albania, 20,000 demonstrators took part in anti-government protests in Tirana last month (above), during which four civilians were shot dead, and 17 policemen injured. Large anti-government demonstrations were again held in Tirana and other Albanian cities on Friday. On January 28, in the Turkish-half of Nicosia in northern Cyprus, around 40,000 people gathered to protest against their government: a general strike was also held. " wrote Neil Clark. 3. "Northern Cyprus become yet another piece in a possible domino of popular uprisings that started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt" http://www.athensnews.gr/issue/13430/37538 4. "Cairo and Nicosia, I do not remember who used this metaphor recently but it fits perfectly" http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=cairo-and-nicosia-2011-02-13 5. Azadian E. writes: "Popular discontent and protests sweeping across the Arab world have also hit “The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” a client “state” created by Turkey after the invasion of the island in 1974. To this date no country has recognized that artificial “country” except the regime in Ankara." http://www.mirrorspectator.com/?p=4620 Kavas (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Please don't remove this part from the article. Thanks. Kavas (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Kavas (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
Hi Bobrayner, I saw that you have been involved in editing this article and I thought I'd notify you that I just posted a significant expansion. I think that all of the same links and sourced information in the old version is present in this one, but let me know if you have any concerns. I'd particularly be grateful if you could help with copyediting the article. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. I'm not a subject-matter expert - I got involved there through a mediation cabal case. I'm sure your work doesn't need a great deal of copyediting, but I'll have a closer look... bobrayner (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I actually had the draft mostly written before I saw that there had been a case on it. I tried to make sure the same links were in my draft as were in the article (since that seemed to be a big part of the issue there). Mark Arsten (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Skyeking reverted the whole thing. Discussion opened on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you could
If you could take a moment to look at the request posted here and make a response stating whether you think the draft should be inserted into mainspace, i'd appreciate it. Silver seren C 03:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

List of Wars and Anthropogenic Disaters
Looking at the dif here, it seems you reverted the article in an attempt to restore some content, but in the process ended up removing a significant amount of other content from intermediary edits, including a number of references. Consider going back to the version before your edits and manually restoring the content you wanted to add back in. — Zujine |talk 04:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! That's my mistake; I must have inadvertently edited an earlier version. Fixing it now. bobrayner (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm
Noel is an Anti-Serb, his opinion on Kosovo Je Srbija discredits the Serbs and is completely false. He is just being paid by the Vatican to help Demonize the Serbian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is an absurd conspiracy theory. Please try to maintain a neutral point of view when editing wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is neutral about jumping to harsh conclusions about Serbs, especially considering how sensitive the topic of "genocide" really is. On top of that, many people around the world dont really know the history of the Balkan region. If they hear about these ridiculous accusations that the Serbian people are being plastered with, they have no choice but to believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Malcolm is a reliable source. Do you have any reliable sources? Sources are king. bobrayner (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of flags from List of rail accidents (2010–2019)
The use of flags in List of rail accidents (2010–2019) and other similar lists has been discussed several times (here is one example) and the decision has always been to keep them, for a variety of reasons including lack of consensus to remove them. It appears that flags have recently been removed from all of these list articles. This causes problems in that, in many cases in this article and other similar List of rail accident articles, the flag is the only thing that identifies the country in which the accident occurred. Removing the flags removes key information from our readers, which certainly is not the goal of Wikipedia. So, there is a choice: restore the flags (which has been done several times in the past), or edit all of the lists to make sure that the country is clearly included in the text. Which choice is yours? Truthanado (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been discussed a few times. The last proposal to change the manual of style to allow flag usage in lists like this was unanimously opposed (That RfC followed from the talkpage thread that you link to). So, the manual of style continues to oppose flags in lists like this. My edit, replacing little flag pictures with the actual names of countries, was wholly in line with that consensus - if you disagree with it, you have my sympathies.
 * I replaced little flag pictures with the names of countries. I aim to make key information more readable, not to remove it. If there are any accidents listed without saying which country they were in, I didn't touch them; and if you feel that those entries should have a country named, it might be better to approach the person who actually added them. bobrayner (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Chossudovsky
Hi Bob, I had to reverse the changes you made in regards to HAARP again in Chosudovsky's page. Your wording contradicts what your source says. Please discuss if you feel the need to edit as I have already pointed out why it is inaccurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcefire page
Hi Bob,

Thanks for the feedback on the Sourcefire page - no problem on being very cautious regarding promotional information/"advertising" via Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielhgould1 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think most of this stuff is certainly worth mentioning in the encyclopædia, but we want it to be neutral, not promotional. (Some editors take a stricter line; it's hard to write a business article without somebody thinking it's promotional). Do you have any other good independent sources? It's a while since I worked with Sourcefire products. bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Military History of Serbia
The Wiki page Military History of Serbia does not include any information past the year 1920. Should I start adding to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoravaiDrina (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Do you have some good sources? bobrayner (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U on Skyeking
As you know, I haven't been very involved in the VHEMT article, but what I've seen is more than enough to get Skyeking restricted from editing the article and possibly the talkpage. Would you want to put together an RFC/U? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've also been asked this. My reply is at User talk:Mark Arsten, so that all such discussion is in one place. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know; will reply there. bobrayner (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize the Inflation article
Please do not vandalize the Inflation article as you recently did.ChangingPrices (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC).

Requests for comment/F&aelig;
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:F&aelig;. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

NNU Class Project - Winter 2012
Please consider adding your name at: School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I have a lot on my plate at the moment, but will try to lend a hand... bobrayner (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Atlanta Airport
If you add the airport links to all of the cities on any airport page again you will be blocked. There is no agreement made and again I WILL NOT tolerate any vandalism as you made, you will be blocked. Cali4529 (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna repeat it so I know you hear me, there is no agreement made and I WILL NOT tolerate any vandalism as you made, you will be blocked if you add the links in the cities again. Cali4529 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the thread over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports? I know you tried blanking it, but did you read it? Lots of people agreed that it can be helpful to wikilink destinations. I acted in line with that consensus. I realise that you feel strongly about this topic, but you do not own the article or the guideline.
 * Also: Please don't label good-faith edits as vandalism. bobrayner (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The conversation was stolen from a personal discussion I was having with another user. And until you see the words CONSENSUS MADE then there is none. That is it. Cali4529 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I was not aware of either of these magic rituals:
 * That changes to articles which are compatible with somebody's personal comments on style must be reverted - four times - if that person didn't like their comments being copied to a project page where lots of others agreed;
 * That it's only a consensus if somebody utters the special phrase "CONSENSUS MADE".
 * Could you point out which policy page supports those positions, please? It seems like very strange reasoning to me. Also, please stop calling people vandals just because they disagree with you. Neither that nor hammering the revert button, nor shrill threats of blocking those who disagree with you, will help your cause in the long term. bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not against the idea I am against my ideas from talk pages being copied. This is my protesting. Don't take this against you take this against User:Chaswmsday. He is the one that put my idea there and he is the one I am mad at and he is the reason for all of this. Cali4529 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A report has been submitted to WP:ANEW regarding your edit-warring at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. If you wish to comment, feel free to do so. -- McDoob AU  93  00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring? Meh, I have no intention of making a fourth edit, and I'm sure somebody else will be along to fix the article when the protection expires. Thanks for your help, anyway. bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, 3RR is edit-warring, but edit-warring isn't necessarily 3RR. The article is protected, and the two belligerents are now talking, and that's enough for me, so thank you for that. -- McDoob  AU  93  00:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately, I couldn't go so far as to call it dialogue:    bobrayner (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Airport Table Voting
Voting for the Airport Linking Format has begun please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports under the Airline/Airport Table Voting column. Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree
Do we really have to disagree on everything? The voting section is for voting, the discussion section is for discussing. I moved the discussing out of the voting and into the discussion area. If there is discussion in the same section as voting it gets un organized.Cali4529 (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand why you are insisting on a vote. The previous discussion was fine. bobrayner (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have been asked repeatedly not to delete or rearrange other people's comments. You just did it again. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes
I don't even care anymore, if you want to do it fine, I will go along with it. It will take time to get all the airports in the world to do this but we can do it. Cali4529 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Confucius Institute
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confucius Institute. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

comments on changes in GMO controversy
Hi Bob,

I recently made some changes on the "control of market" under GMO controversy. Thank you for your comments and your changes on what I've made. I saw you removed a majority of what I wrote because you mentioned it repeats some information that were already part of the article. It is my first time using wikipedia, and I am only learning so far on how to become a responsible and active user of this site. I have thus built on what you have left on my article. I am hoping you can comment on it again. This is all part of a homework for our class --teaching us how to be active but responsible users of Wikipedia. So any help would be appreciated! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog362 lim (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador ?
Greetings - would you be interested in serving as an ambassador for my Industrial Psychology class at Ball State University this semester? I am planning to put the students into groups of 3 or 4 to collaborate on editing an existing but relatively weak article relevant to the course content. I'll be happy to provide any more information, discuss specifics, etc. I'll watch your talk page for a reply. Thanks! Mjtagler (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Industrial psychology! Wow, that sounds interesting.
 * I really like the idea of improving an existing article - I think that will be more rewarding (some classes start new articles, but that has a steep learning curve).
 * Bear in mind that there is quite a long queue for assessment of Good Article candidates. I could help on the review side but don't have a great deal of GA experience (and it's possible somebody would think that's a conflict of interest).
 * Count me in. I've watchlisted everybody's talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ANI
Just brought Skyeking/VHEMT talk page up at WP:ANI. Your comments are welcome. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Industrial Psych @ BSU
Much thanks for your willingness to be an ambassador! I will be putting students into teams in approx. 1 week and assigning their articles. I will let you know when that occurs. There are a couple students who have yet to add their wikipedia names to the students section of the class page - I am working to get them up to speed and weeding out those who just need technological help versus those who are slackers! BTW, has agreed to be the 2nd online ambassador for the course.

Given your feedback and more understanding of wp, "good article" status may be too high of a bar for students to achieve in a single semester. However, I would like to provide some extra incentive (bonus points) to encourage high quality work--- any suggestions for how to do so?

Thanks again, Mjtagler (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, en.wikipedia has a slightly more complex ecosystem of article quality ratings - there's more than just "good" (GA) and "featured" (FA) although those are the main aspirations for experienced article-writers. This category contains existing business articles grouped by rating, which might give you a good idea of what to expect and what's achievable. Maybe get the articles up to B or C class? (These benchmarks are less glamorous among editors, hence there isn't a long queue of articles waiting to be assessed). bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hyderabad
Hi! You have re-listed the Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and Handley Page Hyderabad as possible candidates on the disambiguation page for Hyderabad. Since there must be hundreds of places containing the word Hyderabad in their name, should we put them all here? I haven't seen anyone referring to Hyderabad airport as 'Hyderabad' here in India. Similarly there's no reason one would type Hyderabad while looking for an aircraft named Handley Page Hyderabad.--Shashankgupta (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? The plane was called "Hyderabad" but you can't think why anybody looking for it might type in "Hyderabad"? That's what disambiguation pages are for. Similarly, a quick search of flightglobal &c turns up several mentions of "Hyderabad" which are actually referring to Rajiv Gandhi International Airport. Perhaps people very familiar with that specific airport see no reason for confusion, but the rest of the world would benefit from disambiguation. bobrayner (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

industrial psych teams have been formed!
Hi- FYI, I put my students into their teams as shown at the industrial psych course page. The two articles with only one student are graduate students, and thus they are required to revise an entire article. All teams have been instructed to submit a report to me by class next Tuesday, where they detail their initial plans (next 2 weeks). Specifically, Once I receive these I will also have the students share this information with you and the other course ambassador. What do you think would be the best way to do that? They won't be making any actual wikipedia page edits for some time - they are tasked for now to do research on the article topic and evaluate the existing article content. Thanks! Mjtagler (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Mail
from your friends at NNU Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

YGM
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Websense
Hi, the problem with your edits are they are actually making it more WP:POV when you remove dissenting statements but leave the Wikipuffery-like stuff and weasel words like "security gateway software" (as opposed to web filtering) in, NPOV does not mean no criticism is allowed, it means that all sides are meant to be represented!

You might be interested in checking this out, Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc. - most of that stuff seems to have been added directly by the company themselves! -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  09:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have ensured that one side is already lavishly represented. Does NPOV really require us to point out that software is used at guantanamo bay? Ooh, it must be evil, it's used at guantanamo bay! And then there's the nonsense about definitions of "security" and "censorship", and the huge controversy section (the lede is practically all "controversy" content, even after I removed the worst of the ranting). Who added that content? You can't blame pro-websense sockpuppets/meatpuppets for that. Neutrality does not mean giving the subject a repeated kicking. bobrayner (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Southwest Destinations
You need to stop coping attitudes on wikipedia or you will get no respect. I am sorry that on Southwest Airlines destinations page half the sources there don't work. I updated them to work but don't you tell me not to do something that was valid with the sources that weren't working. Get you act together and stop with the attitudes. If your not trying to be rude then learn how to write in English better because you are displaying yourself full of attitude. I am not trying to be mean by this, I am just telling you incase you did not realize it. Kairportflier (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're all human; we all make mistakes from time to time. When you deleted a list, claiming "not enough sources", even though every entry had an inline ref, that was a mistake. This is a community-built encyclopædia and we all have to get along; if you deal with your mistakes by getting angry with other people and blaming them, your career here may be frustrating, and shortened. It's better to just fix the mistake and move on. It would be nice if you could respect me, but I want to improve the encyclopædia, and if they are mutually exclusive then I choose the latter. bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to your comments on ANI
Due to my block, and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussion I have responded to all your comments from the ANI on my talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Account creations
Hello Bobrayner, I happened to glance at the logs and noticed your recent creation of 27 accounts with a similar pattern in rapid succession, may I inquire as to the reason of these creations? :) Cheers,  Snowolf How can I help? 11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * It's for School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012. Previous university projects have had slightly chaotic enrolment when students arrive on en.wikipedia (which has encouraged drama in places like AN/I); as this project has quite a large number of students we're trying a slightly more centralised approach, with all the accounts neatly lined up on a spreadsheet, every talkpage templated &c. bobrayner (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012
Hi folks. The students are going to become active soon. We could use some input in these areas:


 * Wikipedia talk:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012
 * (Input)


 * School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012/Article management
 * (Your ticks)


 * School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012/Article template
 * (Improvements)

Many thanks. (For those up to speed, pls consider this post just a CC) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Message
13:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Account creation
Bob, Just curious. How did you create these accounts? — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 12:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Got my answer. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 13:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Manually, using this and a Google Spreadsheet (with a few simple formulæ which manipulate strings &c). Account creation is usually throttled, so I requested the accountcreator bit. It's not a big chore for 141 accounts, but for a larger number (or for repeat jobs) I'd probably automate it.
 * The accounts are for students working on this project. bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 13:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

World Factoring Yearbook
I'm leaving this message as you're listed as a current participant of WikiProject Business. I was informed yesterday that the current World Factoring Yearbook (circa £150) is now free for download as an ebook. It's a matter of filling out this form. I'm not sure if you'll find this useful as a reliable source, but I thought I should let you know that it's freely available online. I apologise in advance if this doesn't interest you! All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

August 2010 in sports
For the August 2010 in sports article, do you suggest 32 articles, one for each day of August, and the collector article?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No; I would suggest trimming some of the cruft. I doubt that readers benefit much from an article which lists every disparate, obscure sporting event that happened in August 2010, complete with a frenzy of flags and medals and other templates. Instead, articles like this exist primarily for editors to perform thousands of ritual edits. Splitting it into 1 August 2010 in sports, 2 August 2010 in sports &c is just a continuation of the ritual editing. bobrayner (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. Your point is well taken, but at the end of the day, a page with all 31 dates does take forever to load and manipulate.  I am sure that the page was created for a reason, and if it was not, then maybe the entire page should be deleted.  For now, I plan to continue toward creating 31 additional articles until I receive additional feedback, which has been minimal thus far.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Our positions are not completely incompatible - I'm more vexed by the huge volume of decorative little images than by the collection of many links to existing articles on specific sporting events. Splitting it up will also help fix the size problem. Somebody has already created at least a couple of the "day" articles (with slightly different titles) so it could be a good idea to use those where possible, to avoid duplication/rework. I noticed them linked from the August article but they're easy to miss at the moment due to the sheer volume of other stuff. bobrayner (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are requested on the CHEMMOS
Hi. I've made a proposal to tighten up the WikiProject Chemistry Manual of Style a bit with regard to Accidents and Incidents as well as sources. Your comments would be most welcome. Thanks! USEPA James (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ bobrayner (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

On your offer to help...
First, thank you for your comments on the review of my user name.

Second, last June you offered to help me work through edits to articles. I've been convinced by the local culture that I should perhaps take you up on the offer! The topic is clothianidin and I've prepared a draft edit proposal in my sandbox that I would like to post to the clothianidin talk page. Before doing that, I hoped I could get input from you on the proposal. If you have time, please let me know what you think. Thanks, and have a nice weekend. USEPA James (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * bobrayner (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments on both issues. Your calm, neutral input is a welcome relief from my usual interaction with Wikipedians. USEPA James (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Berlin
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Berlin. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ball State University Industrial Psychology
Just a quick question about editing pages...If we start to make gradual changes to the structure without being completely finished, should we be worried about people trying to delete the changes? Mnshumate (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * It shouldn't be a problem. Few articles on en.wikipedia are truly perfect; it's still being improved, day by day. So, editing is a journey rather than a destination. If your edits take the article a few steps in the right direction, that's fine, and I doubt you'll run into any implacable opposition (though opposition is much more likely if you tried editing in some other controversial areas).
 * Sooner or later it's possible that a person would disagree with the changes you're making. It's more likely to be on style than on substance. Usually, the best way forward is to discuss it on the article's talkpage, over at Talk:Job analysis.
 * For new editors, writing a new article is much harder than improving an existing article (but practice makes perfect), and a new article is more likely to get deleted. If that did happen, ask the administrator (who deleted it) and they should let you have a copy. When writing a new article, the biggest hurdle is notability; this is a judgment call, and editors are only human so occasionally they disagree or even make the wrong call. The best way to defend a new article against deletion is to prevent other people even beginning to suspect that it's non-notable; right at the start, put in some sources which obviously discuss the subject in depth. This has the fringe benefit that it's also a good foundation for the rest of the content that you want to write.
 * I'm watching all the articles and will try to step in if anything goes wrong.
 * bobrayner (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of ViXra for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ViXra is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ViXra until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Groovy; thanks. I'm on the fence at the moment, leaning towards "delete" - it does seem to be a bit short of notability. bobrayner (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Other people have brought new sources to the AfD, so it's swinging more towards "keep". Personally, I'm still on the fence, and will leave it up to the community. bobrayner (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Monetary hegemony
Hi there, will you please restore the category links to Monetary hegemony, the links are all definitely related. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.84.159 (talk • contribs)
 * No; the Monetary hegemony article is about "an economic and political phenomenon in which a single state has decisive influence over the functions of the international monetary system". However, you added it to articles (and categories) about international institutions; freely-traded commodities; sanctions against miscreant states which were backed by a large number of other states; unrelated general concepts, and so on. It's important to maintain neutrality, and that means we shouldn't add false political labels to articles. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was planning to edit the main article last, I just started, so I wanted to do the category before I make the text changes. I am using the work Petrodollar Warfare: Oil, Iraq and the Future of the Dollar by William R. Clark. I can explain each article for you one by one, if you wish. But please restore them.
 * If your position is that William Clark is a reliable enough source to recategorise vast swathes of economics and commerce, you have my sympathies, but positions like that are difficult to reconcile with a neutral point of view and editors on such campaigns tend to have frustrating careers on en.wikipedia which are soon cut short. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will concede there is a possibility that the USA invaded Iran in 2006 in order to maintain global hegemony by, err, ensuring that commodity transactions use one measure of value rather than another; and that it's all been covered up by the men in black - but that's an extremely small possibility. bobrayner (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Clark is the source on monetary hegemony. I need to categorize the topics, before I edit the main article. All the links are important for the topic, as explained in Clark's book. It would be rather hard for me to work on the main text without working the cat too. It helps in my thought process. On Iran, I never made any claims and I can't make any claims, otherwise its OR according to your rules. Please restore the links? It took me some time to edit those links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.84.159 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In NPOV, it states Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This does not apply to my work of categorizing, I never made any claims in text. Will you please restore the links now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.84.159 (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me again why you deleted my edits? I can cite everything you have just removed, down to the exact source, if you would only ask. I don't know how I can continue with any contributions in text, without organizing the categories first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.84.159 (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

On Pretext, Clark explains the US government's effort to justify conflict against an external threat, instead of directly explaining the petrodollar recycling system to the American people, which is the reason of the military presence in the Middle east. In addition Clark states in page 158, The lesson is clear: the US cannot unilaterally overthrow sovereign nations at will under the pretext of an expanding war on terror without considering the potential economic retaliation from the world community by abandoning the dollar. If you want to check the book, its in google books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.84.159 (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Political rants like that are not reliable sources, and should not be used as the basis for mass recategorisation. Those categories are still visible to readers; we should not give readers the wrong impression. If you wanted to add text along the lines of "Clark argues that..." to some relevant articles, I cold probably live with that; but it's not appropriate to use wikipedia's voice to propagate those polemics. bobrayner (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to contribute to this thread. bobrayner (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. On Clark, he gave weight to both progressives AND neocons. Again, I suggest you read his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.84.159 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean wikipedians are going to have to vote on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.84.159 (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An update
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is now a featured article. Thanks for your help on the talk page dispute a while back, it all worked out well in the end. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast. Well done. bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

CREWE
Hi, I saw you changed "opposes" to "strongly discourages". That, of course, is accurate. Unfortunately, I can't find a ref that actually supports that and SilverSeren didn't think it was ok to link directly to policy as a citation. So we have either a statement which is accurate but not verified by the reference (which says 'opposition to') or a statement that is a bit false but is referenced. What do you think we should do? Ocaasit 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you were right to revert me on that. I had thought we shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source, but WP:CIRCULAR does state that it is okay to use it as a primary source when citing a descriptive statement. And WP:COI does clearly use the word discourage and never uses opposes. And i'm not going to get involved with Selina again, so one of you two will have to fix that. Silver  seren C 06:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, we shouldn't use wikipedia as a source; but when we're making a statement about wikipedia's stance, that's surely a special case. However, I'd like to avoid another disagreement with MSK... bobrayner (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ambassador Program Restructuring
Take a peek here. Long story short, the idea is to morph on the volunteer side into a wikiproject which should help show the difference between the WMF and the volunteer side (and give us a chance to try to shed some of the IEP issues, and focus more on what is going right). Anyways you are more than welcome to participate in the process, in particular if you want to help write the new OA selection process go here. Epistemophiliac (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The "OI-11" editors - Spanish school project
Hi Bob, did any of the students or their professor get in touch with you? The articles are truly a mess, although on notable topics. Full of copyvio and/or personal commentary, poor English to the point of incoherence, and totally unreferenced. I just rescued one today, Peña Bajenza, and another one a while back, FesTVal, although in that case, the student came back today and overwrote everything with their original (copyvio) version, removing references, categories, interwiki links, the lot. I left him/her a note at User talk: OI-11-e.diez where I saw your message. I'm wondering if this is an EFL school, otherwise, it would have made more sense for them to edit the Spanish or Basque Wikipedias. Actually, it still makes more sense for them to edit those Wikipedias via translating English WP articles. Oh well... Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody ever replied, which is really unfortunate. School & university projects can deliver really good results, especially if they accept some of the help that we can provide, but if students are left to their own devices then we often get serious problems. If a tutor unfamiliar with en.wikipedia norms sets students the task of writing a 1000-word article, then many students will write a 1001-word article the easiest way possible (copyvio, OR) and we get comments like "please don't delete this until after I get marked next week..."
 * We don't have any official ambassadorial coverage of most of the world outside north america. WMF suggest that this is down to local chapters but, if they're interested at all, those chapters would presumably focus on students editing their native language wikipedia. Personally, I think this is missing the point a bit (the reality is that ESL students do edit en.wikipedia; and it shouldn't matter which country an online ambassador is in, as long as they're anglophone) so I watch AN/I and try to step in every time a class gets into trouble.
 * Thanks for helping clean up some of the mess! That's really good work. bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. It is a pity about the lack of coverage ouside North America, but then there aren't enough OAs for that as it is, especially at the rate the WMF was (is?) recruiting university projects. Not to mention the completely over-the-top job requirements, which I'm sure discourages a lot of people (including me) from signing up as OAs. I do try to help students when I come across them, though, and spent virtually all of last October and November helping clean up after the folks from "please don't delete this...", an experience I sincerely hope won't be repeated. Anyhow, if you come across any other needy orphans, especially Spanish and Italian ones, let me know and I'll try to help where I can. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ping
If you have a minute, would you join me on IRC? Pine(talk) 07:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed
Hi. Input would be appreciated at an RfC regarding Foley Square trial. I randomly selected you from the Politics/Law section of the RfC feedback request list. Please disregard this request if you are too busy or not interested. --Noleander (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK; will try to contribute. bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Honeywell COI
Hi bobrayner. I was just realizing I should have posted on Wikiproject Aviation (more general) rather than Wikiproject Aircraft for my Honeywell COI requests. Wanted to let you know I cleaned up my Talk page requests, added request edit templates and added one to the turbocharger article.

The edit requests include:
 * On the turbocharger article I've offered a diagram we obtained with permission from Stanford that illustrates how a variable geometry turbocharger works.
 * On the NextGen article I've suggested a revised, well-cited Justification section to replace the puffy material currently in the article.
 * On the Avionics article I've sandboxed a plethora of word-smithing, images, expanding the glass cockpit section, etc.
 * The elephant in the room is the proposed Honeywell Aerospace article.

This is a lot for one editor to look over, but appreciate however much you can chip in. Don't mean to pester.

Cheers. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Operation Horseshoe
Some remarks about the wording.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Fairtrade Impact Studies
Dear Bob, Someone has done major edits to this, removing for example references to what the rest of the world considers to be an impact study. He has also put in his own idiosyncratic selection of 'Selections from the literature'. For the reasons I set out on the talk page I consider the results to be deeply biassed and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. And contrary to what is acceptable to academics, or what academics would accept from students. I should like to delete it in its entirety and replace it with what was there before - not perfect, but open to discussion. What do you think?AidWorker (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome...
...your Simpsons references. Mauritania is a fascinating place and thanks for the edit. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo Dispute
I would like to draw your attention to the discussion on the article on Kosovo (see here: Talk:Kosovo). I believe your expertise in the topic could help resolve the ongoing dispute.--Guraleci (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please help out at the Paid Editor Help page
While not a huge backlog yet, we're getting to it on the Paid Editor Help page. The sections that need replies include Colin Digiaro, Guy Bavli, Strayer University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and a general backlog in the Request Edits category. If you could help in any of these sections (primarily the first four), I would be really grateful. This notification is going out to a number of Wikiproject Cooperation members in the hopes that we can clear out all of the noted sections. And feel free to respond to a section and help out even if someone else had already responded there. The more eyes we get on a specific request, the more sure we can be on the neutrality of implementing it. Thanks! Silver seren C 03:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Essays
Thanks for trying to contribute to the WP:TENNISNAMES essay, but please consider that essays work quite differently from the rest of WP. For example they do not need concensus. I hope you can find time to read WP:VALUE and WP:WES, and then you are welcome to let me know what you think about it. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whoops
I mixed you up with Rob Schnautz. Sorry! Pine(talk) 00:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'll take it as a compliment. bobrayner (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Work Motivation again
Can you please give me any feed back on my article? Please and thank you. Work Motivation Jastha08 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewed. Sorry about the delay; it took me a little while. It's a great article and there are no serious problems, but hopefully you have a few more pointers now towards further improvements... bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mechanical Aptitude
Our mechanical aptitude page was deleted by Malik Shabazz because he thought it was advertisement and we got a message saying that we cannot get it back because it will be on speedy deletion but we need to get it back for our class project and we were wondering if you could help us out or let us know what to do. Caro2012 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Help us develop better software!
Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Radical Right
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Radical Right. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

SWOT
RE:. Yes, it was the second half of that addition that was the problem. I was being a little lazy. Kuru  (talk)  15:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

shiatsu
Hi Bob, I reverted your revert. You re-introduced a number of very questionable sources into the article and removed some cleanup tags which I think were legitimate. I share your concern that the article makes use of weasel words. These ought to be edited out, but lets not re-introduce the bad stuff which has also been edited out. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. The article has a bit of a complex history; I picked what I though was a better revision and then made a couple of additional improvements, but I could easily have chosen a flawed one. Agreed on the tags, I was going to come back and re-add them :-) bobrayner (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand. I hope you will find time to eliminate those pesky weasel words from that article. There are still serious problems with it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK.

Meeting at IRC
Come if you like.


 * Time: 17:00 China time. (about 40 mins from now)
 * Channel: /join ##NNU_meeting

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed it - I was asleep. bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Message
04:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Yobol seems bent on undoing my editing of shiatsu for some personal reason of his. He doesn't seem to have given any reasons for it either. I have used EXACTLY the same article (http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/shiatsu) that is given in wikipedia as a source. I just felt that choosing just the part of the article that he personally likes, without mentioning the rest, was not impartial at all. Since he is obviously more articulate than me, let him add something that reflects "Some people with cancer use shiatsu to help control symptoms and side effects such as poor appetite, sleep problems, pain, and low mood. They say that it helps them to cope better with their cancer and its treatment. After a shiatsu treatment a lot of people say they feel very relaxed and have higher energy levels." Since I don't think he is going to do it I need mediation - formal if possible - between him and me. I believe he is biased and opinionated Shiatsushi (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Moody's Investors Service
Hi bobrayner, thanks again for your help with the Moody's articles; I'm continuing to work drafts for related articles so I hope to be able to ask for your assistance once I'm ready with those. Meanwhile, I noticed that an editor has added some information to the Moody's Investors Service introduction that seems out of place:


 * The corporation, which reported revenue of $1.8 billion in 2009, employs approximately 4,300 people worldwide.

As I explained in a note on the article's discussion page, this information belongs on the Moody's Corporation article, and is in fact already included there, with newer figures. I don't mean to discourage well-meaning edits, as this clearly was, but I do wonder if you could remove this? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know the misplaced information has now been removed from the Moody's Investors Service article: an editor responded to my note on COI/N. As I mention above, I'm continuing to work on improvements to articles related to Moody's and I hope you are able to provide your input on those in future. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality fail
Please, try to be more neutral. Your POV is not everybody's pov... Also, try to follow consensus we have here on wiki about Kosovo. Republic of Kosovo is not in the same category with every other state on the world, like France, Brasil, etc, but in the category with other unrecognised or partly recognised states and entities... Thanks in advance! -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Skumin syndrome nominated for deletion
I have nominated Skumin syndrome for deletion; the related discussion is here if you are interested. Cheers, a13ean (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for missing your mediation effort
I only just now see that you had volunteered to mediate a BLP conflict I was involved in. Apologies for not joining in.

NetNus (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Prekaz
You were reverted on Prekaz massacre by WhiteWriter and an IP. If you check the source it says "On 14 December 1998, unidentified gunmen killed six young Kosovo Serbs in the Panda Bar in Pec. The attack was considered to be in revenge for the killing of 30 UCK members who had been shot while crossing the border illegally a few days earlier. i.e no connection to Prekaz etc. I explained the source misinterpretation on the article's talkpage too.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
... btw: I wonder if you know if there is a tool which will count how many articles are BLPs? It's easy enough to see that 50-60 BLP articles are out of line will real spelling (assuming that tennis and ice-hockey are the only cats, surveying other sports seems to indicate this) but what is the total BLP pool? 10,000? 400,000 (=10% of 4m articles)? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WikiProject Biography/Maintenance, there are 988482 biography articles today. I expect there are a few more out there which have not yet been tagged/categorised correctly, or substantially-biographical articles which fall between the cracks (for instance WP:BLP1E type stuff where the article is nominally about an event but substantially describes a person) but these are probably outside the scope of your question. "About a million" would be a good rule of thumb. We have a systemic bias towards the anglosphere, so in general the set of "foreign" people may be underrepresented, but the set of "people with foreign names who've been reported on by english-language media and maybe their name has been tweaked in the process" will be overrepresented. No? The frequency of diacritics-controversies will vary depending on topic - if an article is mostly under the wing of (say) WikiProject France then there's less likely to be controversy, but a sports BLP is more likely to be the subject of conflicts between rules (and the habits of active article-creators). I'd be very wary of making specific estimates! bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm surprised it's 988,482 - presumably only 200-300,000 will be BLPs. It's good to be wary. But, though I have occasionally encountered BLPs outside the sports stubs sphere, it's almost only with sports stubs that a revert of diacritics on Latin alphabets would happen. For culture/politics, even pop culture, diacritics if accurately added wouldn't be resistant. And the only two sports clusters I can see on WP are 40x tennis and 30x ice hockey. More if you count the hyphen disaster with Spanish maternal names in hispanic tennis players due to the ITF registration issue, even when the diacritics are correct. It seems like we are suffering a lot of noisy bad behaviour for articles which mainly should have been AfDed in the first place. When I gathered the participants in the last month to send out the Miss B. Knowles invite I counted roughly 90 saying "accuracy" and the same 10 saying "Sports journalists and fans don't like foreigner's funny names" (amazing, a jaw dropping revelation...). I guess I'm a snob. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. Personally, I think the problem transcends BLPs - anything with a diacritic in the (original) name is liable to the same problem, in principle. It's just that in practice english-language reporting of certain sports (or anglophone editors on a particular sports project) will adopt a default stance of removing diacritics from player names. The diacritic problem can still happen to the names of businesses / buildings / books / beetles &c in principle (occasionally there are controversial non-BLP RMs). So, I'd prefer any policy solution to be wider, but "All BLPs" is probably a wide enough scope for now - it's certainly better than trying to resolve the contradictions in individual project areas, one by one, and it's much much better than having the same debate at a thousand different talkpages.
 * Personally, I think there are a couple of other possible problems with some sports projects - they can fork from the rest of en.wikipedia in style terms (ie. a fondness for flagicons) and they can write their own notability guidelines. Neither is intrinsically wrong, I think, but when en.wikipedia rules and wikiproject rules contradict each other, it often fuels drama / timewasting. bobrayner (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Agree with both of the above comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are my principles; and if you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

YPF
Hi, Bob:

Thank you for your interest in YPF.

You don't seem to understand POV. A phrase may be sourced, but it may still be an editorial (particularly when it was written precisely as such). The op ed pieces you cited are not reliable sources and lest we forget, there are any number arguing for the (partial) renationalisation - yet would not be included in the article.

All the best, Sherlock4000 (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Status of Međugorje copyvio removal
I couldn't find a source for the material you removed, and you didn't give one. Where do you think it is copied from? Mangoe (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the sentences towards the end was a giveaway - "later on (and because of my recommendation) has become popular as a means to highlight the individual changes, and has been massively adopted" is not the kind of thing that should be written in wikipedia's voice. The rest of the section I removed seems to be mostly from the same source with only very light paraphrasing. No? If you disagree, feel free to restore clean bits... bobrayner (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I searched for a different phrase which didn't hit. You were quite correct. No problem. Mangoe (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; have fun. bobrayner (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:Defamation
If you'd like to support the insertion of the word Conservapedia before the sentence, I suggest that you find a source that states it. The source within the article does not contain the word Conservapedia. If you'd like to look at the appropriate policies regarding the matter, see WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Flags in rail accident lists
I've put it as plainly as I can, if he does it again the banhammer will be exercised. Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating. You could understand why somebody keeps on revert-warring on some politics/religion article &c., but why is it so essential to put flags on those articles? It's not a matter of life and death.
 * I think Kristijh may have edited once whilst logged out; the IP address suggests that they might not be a native English speaker, so there could be a communication problem here. They're not emailable. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm going to back off - inadvertently got too close to WP:3RR. It would be silly to have an edit war over style rather than substance. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I wouldn't have sanctioned you if you had inadvertantly gone over 3RR. You were communicating with the other editor after all. That's not to say that another admin would have been as lenient. Mjroots (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Shiatsu (part 378)
Since you have undone my last additions to the article on shiatsu saying that thos studies were about acupressure and not shiatsu, Would you care to explain the difference to me? Would you care to explain how if shiatsu is about pressing certain points on the body, it doesn't apply to shiatsu? Shiatsushi (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, since one of the references says: "The same massage routine was used in the acupressure group" as you can check on http://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/ub/citation/10496543/The_effectiveness_of_acupressure_in_improving_the_quality_of_sleep_of_institutionalized_residents_, I'd like to be more specific. What is the difference between acupressure massage and shiatsu massage? Shiatsushi (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Aren't you going to reply to me? You were very quick undoing my edits. I hadn't finished getting the knack of adding references, when you had already deleted my edits. Don't you think I deserve a reply? Do you intend to reply? Shiatsushi (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm at work. Since it's apparently urgent, I'll interrupt my work and reply now.
 * I removed that text because the sources were talking about acupressure, not shiatsu. Admittedly, woolly thinking and vague claims are common in this area, but if a source very pointedly calls something acupressure rather than shiatsu, that source is hardly reliable for claims about the efficacy of shiatsu. For instance, the one about morning sickness involved giving people special wristbands. Are special wristbands at the heart of shiatsu? The article doesn't mention them. You should know that it's a bad thing to rely on a source which doesn't even mention shiatsu.
 * I have also fixed the ref tag for you on that page, and the section heading and indents on this page. The remainder of the text that you added to the article is also problematic - I'll come back for another look at that when I have more free time. bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the urgency, but, as I explained, it wasn't more urgent than removing my posts. I agree with you about the wristband not being part of shiatsu, and therefore that source is not valid for shiatsu, and I'm sorry to have included it. However, if we are going to be clear about words, acupressure does not exist, since the meaning of the word is needle pressure, so unless you are pressing with needles, the word is used incorrectly. Almost everyone has agreed that the word is used for pressure on acupuncture points. So I believe that, when a source mentions acupressure massage, it could be used for shiatsu, since shiatsu, in part at least, presses acupuncture points. By the way, it would be very pleasant if you checked all the other references in the article with the same scrutiny that you have done with mine. Shiatsushi (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Now, when you have time, I'd like you to have a look at how IRWolfie has undone the addition to the shiatsu article which you admitted. Not one of my sources is reliable, according to him. Not even citing things from the sources he mentions, is acceptable to him. I know he is the self-appointed overseer of which sources are reliable for this article, and even which bits of those sources can be used in this case. However I think he is going a bit far when he uses the page of a currency exchange company for shiatsu on horses (http://www.equineshiatsuassociation.com/) (not even a picture of a horse). He also places a complete confidence on a source "Ernst & Singh (2008). Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. p. 326." which doesn't cite one single source or reference for its claims. Now, I wonder how this book, without one single source or reference, is more reliable than a published study which he considers very small and subjective. Shiatsushi (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Balochistan conflict
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Balochistan conflict. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Well, thanks for your voice at WT:BLP, a shame how the 90 to 10 wilted when faced with such dug-in opposition to a (one would have thought) quite simple guideline, given that the 6 at Talk:Stephane Huet was closed/frozen 8 to 5 with a request for wider discussion, at that Mike Cline is favourable to reopening no consensus RMs, at some point someone could ask reopen. But I don't think original proposer can. Or leave it there as a legacy of "tennis names" :). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to revisit this question. It's a controversial topic, there's lots of back-and-forth editing going on, different policy/guideline docs contradict each other in some corner cases... definitely something that needs tidying up. Maybe an RfC would be a good idea. I can understand why some objected to the framing of your proposal but there's no reason we couldn't have a productive debate on a second attempt. bobrayner (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, some months later perhaps. In the meantime thanks for this, I wasn't paying much attention to it and it was mensch-like of you to stand up. I kind of feel sympathy for Fyunck since he's obviously a true believer in his faith (the ITF) and not party to xenophobic undertones, that I've seen. The Serbian Dj and projects, agree with your welcome but-in on my Talk page. Wise words. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; have fun... bobrayner (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WhiteWriterspeaks 23:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hello Bobrayner, I am sorry if you feel that topic banning me is the best option because I am willing to work with administrators on my work. I would appreciate, however, if you could at least define the topic ban, rather than making it indefinite. Perhaps one year? Two years? Five years? I do not think that proposing an indefinite topic ban i s helpful here. Thanks, AnupamTalk 00:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I see that your wording of the proposal is not neutral. Could you please reword the proposal, leaving a neutral sentence as the proposal such as "I propose that anupam is topic-banned from editing on atheism or religion, broadly construed."? I thought I would ask you before pointing this our to an administrator. You can add your personal views to your "Support" comment. Thanks, AnupamTalk 04:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering the long-term dishonesty, I don't think that adult supervision is sufficient. If an honest and neutral editor is needed to watch over your shoulder, that's still a net negative for the encyclopædia. I'm surprised that you are now "willing to work with administrators", considering the previous deception across the board (including administrators); it's difficult to trust you on that point. I think a topic ban would be best. It has no deadline, because deadlines can be gamed; a topic ban could easily be overturned if/when you demonstrate to the community that you're able to edit neutrally. bobrayner (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For any other passers-by, I'd like to point out anupam's conservapedia page. A wide range of perspectives is welcome, but en.wikipedia shouldn't have to put up with crusades - or crusaders - like that. bobrayner (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shame on you User:Borayner. That is not my account. I am not User:Conservative; I am User:Anupam. If you noticed my words there (one, two) you would find comments that accurately characterizes me, as espousing neutrality. I am not responsible for what others post on my talk pages. Congratulations on trying to distort my image and frame me for words that are not even my own. What you are doing here is between you and God at this point. You have lied and deceived the public in order to try to impose a ban on me. I've tried to be nice and reasonable with you but you continue to make unproven accusations and distort the truth. You don't even conduct RfCs properly. Your refusal to reword the topic ban proposal demonstrates this and does not allow any users a fair chance at making a decision. --AnupamTalk 12:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How strange! You act all innocent, but now a helpful administrator on Conservapedia has hidden the evidence since it was mentioned here. I thought that incessant lying and manipulation and cheating were considered bad things in christianity? Speaking as an atheist, I hate that shit; but they seem to be standard tools in your crusade. bobrayner (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A helpful administrator? Answer me this, why would I provide two diffs and then have my talk page removed? The administrator did not appreciate being discussed on Wikipedia so he blanked my talk page on his own accord, not me. In fact, I received a message from that admin reprimanding me for discussing him and Conservapedia on Wikipedia. At any rate, I posted the differences several hours earlier where you were able to view them. You very well know that you misrepresented me and used the words of another user to try to convict me. How would you like it if someone commented something negative on your talk page and then I said that that was a reflection of your opinion? I am sure that you would not appreciate it. This is another example of how you try to frame me. Besides, my work on other websites is irrelevant here. If you were involved in Rational Wiki (which is used to criticize religion), that would not affect your status here. As long as I am pledging to uphold WP:NPOV here, that is what I should count. Yes, I do sometimes edit Conservapedia. Many of my contributions, such as Saint Brigid of Kildare Methodist-Benedictine Monastery or Qaisar Bagh are also featured here as they meet the criteria for WP:NPOV. Obviously, I know well enough that some users there write articles favored towards a conservative viewpoint; I know that that information is not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. The same applies for Rational Wiki. I have been an editor since 2006 and you act that I don't understand these basic principles. It is a huge shame that you and others are trying to forge a story together that I am trying to "lead a crusade." If you knew me in real life, you would know that many of my friends are atheists (as well as agnostics, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims). Being of Indian origin, I was exposed to many religions and cultures and therefore understand and respect the viewpoints of others. Attempting to ban me from Wikipedia because you think "I cherry pick" from sources is inappropriate. Have you even looked at the latest RfC I opened? I attempted to add a study in a five sentence paragraph which discussed an inverse correlation on religiosity and intelligence. I thought that adding one sentence from a study which demonstrated a direct correlation between religiosity and education would help balance the other five sentences, also meeting WP:DUE (since I only proposed adding one sentence). What do I get in return? I am accused of misrepresenting the source, cherry picking, etc. despite the fact that three mainstream media sources (CNN, Daily Mail, and CP) published a news story on the academic study, reporting the same facts that I did. Nevertheless, consensus was against me after the RfC and I did not protest or anything. Like usual, I accepted the outcome of the RfC. Now, I am being banned for simply discussing an addition. This kind of behavior is not only unjust, but it is outright hurtful. Anyways, it seems like you and your friends have voted to ban me. I hope it makes you happy when I am banned. You can know what kind of game you played with an innocent editor. Yes, I realize that I should have done a better job of paraphrasing and I was willing to work on that. You, however, thought it would be a good idea to ban me altogether. Enjoy yourself, AnupamTalk 19:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any new excuses, take them to AN/I. The old excuses are fictions, and I don't want fiction on my talkpage. (Either way, further discussion here is not helping either of us). Even if you switch to the "I write articles!" exuse, it's been shown that your articles contain plagiarism, which you refused to address even though it was pointed out to you long ago. Coatracking, too. But you and I both know that plagiarism is not the main problem; I'm more concerned about the deception, cheating, and distortion. I particularly dislike lies and sockpuppetry and vote-stacking. If you are unable to voluntarily end your crusade, the community will end it for you. bobrayner (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Anupam
Hi Bobrayner, User:Anupam is edit-warring the comments you added on WP:ANI and left me a message atUser_talk:Abhishikt about his raising the concern to his preferred admin at User_talk:DGG. You should have been informed, but I am puzzled as why Anupam didn't inform you. Have a nice day. -Abhishikt (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Thankfully AN/I has a lot more eyeballs on it, so anupam couldn't get away with using an IP or an associate to go beyond 3RR. Unfortunately, they're now lying and mudslinging on AN/I - accusing me of canvassing (whilst avoiding the proven canvassing in anupam's defence), and blaming some made-up tag-team. I am disappointed that the community has tolerated this behaviour for so long. bobrayner (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Shame
+
 * Evidence is evidence. If you don't agree with the evidence, it might be a good idea to engage with it and propose an alternative explanation for the diffs of distortion, sockpuppetry, canvassing, pov-pushing, lying, edit-warring &c. Tying to subvert the evidence by tweaking a section heading or waving it away with "other editors are biased too" or "Anapam seems like a decent chap" only discredits you further. I used to admire your energy in dealing with BLP violations, but now they're not even acknowledged. What a shame. (My standard offer stands; if you think any part of this comment is false, I'll happily supply a diff). bobrayner (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't host confrontational and attack style posts on my user page = You  really  can  11:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What a shame. If you ever want to look at the evidence, instead of waving it away, that would be very helpful. Needless to say, in the meantime your !votes supporting anupam and your complaints about partisan editors still stand; a less civil editor might complain about rampant hypocrisy. My offer remains; if you think any part of that comment on your talkpage is false, or if you doubt any of the problems that I pointed out on the AN/I page, I can supply diffs. The best way to defeat pov-pushing and partisanship is with evidence. bobrayner (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't mention that you were canvassed by anupam. I'm now avoiding that thread, because every new piece of evidence provokes even worse lies and deception and red herrings by anupam; it's increasingly stressful to see people make up malicious lies about me. It's up to you whether or not you tell the community that you were canvassed, like other anupam supporters. I leave it to your conscience. bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Canvassing seems an excessive portrayal of a polite request for comment. I came to the position of supporting a two month topic ban and a 1RR restriction against user Anupam and a suggestion for him to address and improve his contributions in the areas users had commented about the issues raised. This is a severe enough place of faceless people and I have suffered mounted and lengthy pressure at the ANI board and I feel recently that we should be less punishing to our volunteers and try to create opportunities for them to learn and contribute rather than piss them off and have them sock and vandalize the articles. - You  really  can  15:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

advice
I do not know who a's favorite admin is, but it's not me--at least not any more. that's an extremely strong accusation against whomever it might be; if you really say things like that, you should be sure to have enough evidence to bring a case to RfC, and then arbcom. I warned you about using the word "lie", and if I wasn't clear enough I intended it to mean any form of that word, and if you use it again I shall block you. It's inherently disruptive--other people at the discussion have found alternatives.

You asked what you should have done. You should have posted the notice you did either not at all, or once.

At the moment, you have the advantage--or at least you had it until your last posting. I normally block both sides to a dispute like this to stop escalation, because otherwise Wikipedia quarrels tend to be won by whoever can get the other person to say something inexcusable. I held off this time, to avoid adding to your sense of injury, but I see I may have been mistaken. I am blocking you for 12 hours to prevent further escalation.  DGG ( talk ) 16:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is awful. I can't even reply to this torrent of malicious deception. Please don't do this. I don't know what to do any more :-(
 * I can't even use that thread anyway. What's the point? :-(
 * I have diffs. I just don't want any more drama. Why? :-(
 * Look at how many an/i cases there have been, look at the canvassing and the sockpuppeting and the deliberate attempts to discredit anybody who stands up to it... and you block me? I plead with you; please don't block me. If there is any allegation at all that you think is unproven, I'm happy to provide more diffs. I provide diffs. Anupam does not. Please think about the evidence. bobrayner (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is unfortunate, and I have to say I disagree with it. @DGG, considering Bobrayner said that he was stepping away from the discussion, what disruption is this intended to prevent? If Bobrayner agreed to self-revert his last message at ANI, would you consider an unblock? I understand his frustration, even if his choice of wording was less than apt.
 * @Bobrayner, I wouldn't become discouraged with the whole mess. I don't think it's an accurate characterization to say that other editors are standing by and doing nothing. If the closing admin doesn't see consensus for a community ban (which could go either way), an indefinite topic ban is the minimum sanction that will be imposed. I think that's a good step, and will likely turn out to be an application of WP:ROPE. I've been dealing with this editor for a long time, and this is more than I thought would ever happen. I think stepping away, as you seem to have resolved to do, and just letting the discussion settle, is probably the best bet here. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Had he wanted to step away from the discussion, he wouldn't have continued to post about it. Actions speak.  DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I can empathize with his frustration, and understand why he may have posted a final message in an effort to respond to you, without meaning to step over any line in the sand. If he agreed to self-revert his last contribution to ANI and stay away from the topic/language, would you be willing to consider an unblock? Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Shocked
I am genuinely shocked that you blocked me for pointing out that lies were lies. What on earth are we supposed to do? Just stand in the torrent of shit and say it tastes like chocolate? I was justly proud of my clean block-log, despite spending years working in controversial areas dealing with a variety of pov-warriors; but now that clean log has been stained just because I tried to stand up civilly to a long-term pov-pusher, edit-warrior, sock-puppeteer, and liar who pushed people's buttons right until the end. (I am happy to support any of those labels with diffs, by the way).

I tried to exercise restraint but the baiting got worse. I tried to stay away from the page but anupam used that opportunity to make up even worse stuff. I explicitly said that I was leaving the drama-board but you blocked me anyway.

It's a disgrace. "escalation at an/i", indeed. I kept on trying to steer threads away from the drama and partisanship and back to the concrete allegations and the evidence. bobrayner (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not do that. I blocked you for 12 hours because you kept posting the same accusation repeated and disruptively. You had said it enough times, and saying it once more after I blocked the very person you were fighting with for disruption, and warned against trying to continue to attack people who couldn't respond, is really outrageous.

The real issues will be dealt with by the community, but your interference has made it considerably more difficult to do it as it should be done, dispassionately. If you cared about stopping him, you should have not tried to show that you were the more disruptive of the two. People who go to an/i with a good cause can show such poor judgment there that it interferes with actually dealing with the person who originally needed to be dealt with.

If you return after the block and cause further disruption i shall suggest you be blocked for a longer period. Leave well enough alone! Unless you behave very foolishly indeed, you are going to accomplish successful what you set out to accomplish. When it's clear who's the party at fault, insulting them makes it look like you were carrying out a vendetta, not trying to achieve justice. You need some time to stop and think about this.

Now that this has foolishly been brought to arb com, it's their problem. I suggested that they should block you, (and A and Hipocrit) until the original matter is dealt with, and I'm not going to block further myself. As I said there, I made an error: I thought a short block would be sufficient, but Hipocrit proved me wrong.  DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case
I have filed an arbcom case related to the mailing list that you are alledged to be coordinating with. You can review the case at Arbitration/Requests/Case and provide a statement. Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying me.
 * It is a lie. There is no such list; anupam makes up malicious shit. I will happily say the same at arbcom; it's a lie, there is no such list, I only know those other editors to the extent that I've interacted with them on the usual talkpages and on anupam's many RfCs; there is very little else to say. Will I get blocked again for such honesty?
 * It's quite hard to prove a negative, although I would readily let a trusted third party look through my mailbox or do whatever else is necessary to check my background. Since anupam's absurd claims are still given credence, it appears increasingly unlikely that anupam will ever be held accountable for their actions.
 * Needless to say, I am not happy about being blocked, and then brought before arbcom, just because of the disgraceful conspiracy-theories hatched by a long-term problem editor who couldn't think of any other reason why lots of people might be !voting for a block or a topic ban. In the unlikely event that anybody finds a diff which they think supports anupam's claim, I would love to see it.
 * Feel free to copy this response to anybody who might want to see it; but I'll be able to edit again shortly. bobrayner (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Support! DGG is bending over backwards for "fairness" (and perhaps there was some unnecessary repetition), but unless someone takes the time to expose the nonsense, the walls-of-text will descend as they always have in the past, to enable further disruption and time wasting in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion with DGG
I disagree pretty strongly with DGG's warning and subsequent block of you, Bob. I will be discussing this with him on his talk page. Pine(talk) 06:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel that the block was inappropriate, but then again prisons are full of people who claim to be innocent.
 * I think that threatening a block of hipocrite, for taking serious allegations to arbcom, is similarly inappropriate.
 * However, this is a difficult time and few of us respond perfectly under pressure. There are a number of points that I could make about DGG's block, but now is not a good time for more drama; I think it would be better to focus on the main problem and then focus on cleaning up the mess later.
 * "Right" and "fair", and "good editing" and "bad editing", are not boolean; they're continuous variables. Acceptable responses by other editors also fall on a spectrum. If you picked a hundred random editors and put them in the same position (and the same stress) that I had on the AN/I thread, maybe fifty would have responded in a similar fashion to what I did. If you picked a hundred random admins and put them in the same position (and the same stress) as DGG, well, maybe not fifty but at least a few would have blocked.
 * I think that wikipedia's processes and defence mechanisms are relatively weak when it comes to coordinated civil pov-pushing; I think the block was ultimately a side-effect of this. (In the same way that you can say one car crash was caused by excessive speed in a corner, but if you look epidemiologically at lots of similar car crashes, it becomes clear that there's a higher-level cause which is "young males tend to drive recklessly" or "the speed limit is too high in some places" or whatever)
 * Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting. To be fair I think there are things that you could have done better in that discussion also. I think you may have let yourself get too invested in the outcome and you may have lost sight of when not commenting or limiting comments would be more productive. I think that some of DGG's points are valid but that in his role as administrator there are things that he could have done better. Hopefully he'll be open to discussing his choices with me. Pine(talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both points. bobrayner (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Random comment
Update: Staying away from articles has created a new source of stress; my watchlist. It gets about 5-10 changes an hour, so a week's backlog is terrifying. #firstworldproblems bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries
It's a pleasure; thanks for telling me! Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks
Hi, I hate Wikipedia. I've had some really unpleasant experiences here before. But your gentle words (off WP) persuaded me to give it another go. I'm gently gnoming around, fixing a few really obvious uncontroversial typos and spelling errors; adding a reference here or there. I'm having a much nicer experience this time. So, thanks for your gentle persuasion. I'm signing, but my IP is dynamic, so who knows what IP I'll be next time. (I'm not going to sign up for an account - that experience was thoroughly toxic last time I tried.) 178.103.147.175 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good luck, and have fun. I would recommend creating an account. If you need a hand with anything else, just shout.
 * The unpleasant experiences often seem to be correlated with controversial topics, where there are other editors who carry a burning truth in their heart (and perhaps a source which supports some of it). You could spend years editing articles about aldehyde reactions or squid biology, and feel good about making a difference, without ever having the slightest friction with other editors; but if you started editing on (say) Israel-vs-Palestine you'd be immersed in drama from day one. Might be a good idea to avoid religion, politics, and/or nationalism for a while if you have a sour taste in your mouth. I rarely mention wikipedia in other parts of the internet - perhaps you're a BSer? In which case, alt-med and pseudoscience topics aren't too bad at the moment; the flipside being that a lot of the worst content has been cleared up recently so there's less work to do.
 * Alas, I have no idea who you are - and I'm usually an antisocial arse, so any gentle words were probably the exception rather than the norm. :-) bobrayner (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are too modest, Bob. Pine(talk) 08:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

3 May post re User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam
Sorry for the delay in responding. I cannot find the linked threads, nor do I know off-hand what edits of mine might be at issue. If this matter has been concluded, my apologies for bringing up again. Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk  06:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was this. bobrayner (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * You are very kind. Instead of fixing up silly lists of African military procurement on en.wikipedia, I've done some tax paperwork and cut lots of firewood; that feels much more productive. Might edit more later. I'm trying to ignore the resumption of editing by somebody who got off lightly with promises to leave wikipedia. But if you ever need a hand on diacritics, just ask...
 * If I ever turn into one of those drama-queens who gains vampiric sustenance from other people saying "Please don't go! We miss you!" then you must put a stake through my heart. 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't think there's any danger of you needing a staking, I caught a glimpse of the interaction at ANI and it being outside my editing area didn't follow but definitely thought a beer was earned. As for the anglicizing of Czech and Serbs, I'm getting a little tennis/hockey stalkback to disrupt normal editing of French political bios but as long as tennis/hockey crew don't start anglicizing composers it's more amusing than too bothersome. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "need a hand on diacritics" apart from the current RM to anglicize the pretty Serbian are you aware of any notable bio on wp where current nationality/place of activity and native language is crystal clear which has been tabloidized? (not talking about a stagename, just simple low-MOS diacritic stripping)? I'm struggling to find any other example.?

cornucopian
Hello!

I see you've made a number of edits to the Cornucopian article. I'd like to discuss them as I think you might have, with the best of intentions, emasculated the article almost to the point of uselessness.

The old version was admittedly slightly POVish, but in my view it was a decent starting point for a curious reader to find out more and make his own mind as to his position on the issues.

The article as it stands now is bare-bones and incomplete. For example, Julius Simon is an important figure in this context but he isn't even mentioned.

What do you think? My first impulse was too roll back the changes, but I'd really like to discuss this.

Thanks! Bazuz (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many of our articles on the fringe of economics have serious neutrality problems; unsourced rhetoric, cherrypicked examples, special pleading, and the mainstream view is omitted. Removing such content is a good thing, not a bad thing; it brings us one step closer to being an encyclopædia rather than the world's largest collection of prose which somebody, somewhere believes in. If you want to add some other content which is sourced and neutral then go ahead. bobrayner (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I'll give it a try. I'll try to keep you posted. Bazuz (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Assistance with editing the Zeitgeist movement
Bob, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding(s) we had. I apologize. Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate with you on improving future articles. Regards and best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In case you were wondering...
I saw your edit summary at New Atheism, and I figured I owed you an explanation of my own edit, that probably looked a little odd. I actually agree with what you said about removal, and I don't have any problem at all with your removing it, all good. What made me do that is that I've seen multiple editors or IPs suddenly take an interest in that particular sentence at more than one page in the last day or so, after no attention for around a year, and I have a feeling there was some off-site canvassing. But no problem with leaving it out until I or someone else adds the sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I don't know why that sentence holds such interest. Personally, I think it sounds plausible and there's probably a source out there which says something similar; but surely by now we've learned to be careful about sourcing in this subject area... bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo, again
Hi there. I'm a returning user interested mainly in clearing up nationalist historiographies from wikipedia Ottoman Empire related articles.

The article on Kosovo is very problematic as there seems to be a concerted effort to stop the debate about merging the article with the Republic of Kosovo. Some users take it upon themselves to archive the discussion as if its closed. What are the options for someone interested in a wikipedia where nationalists do not prevail?Ottomanist (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Concurrency
Hi. I wonder if we ought to limit the discussion to the Chinese stubs until the ani–afd is finished. I too had a look through the user's history last night and a number of things were "interesting". If we bring up Spanish or Serbian pages and try to alter the scope of the deletion discussion before it's closed, I'm concerned it'll only cause confusion though. I think it's better to wait, which really can't be very long, and then add any sections once that closes. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You make a good point.
 * I was in two minds about adding it, but it was kinda hard to ignore the scale of the problem after I started digging deeper. Personally, my emphasis is on fixing problematic articles wherever they are, rather than ensure a particular thread is Closed The Right Way... but I'll hold off for now. The ani-afd does appear to have a consensus.
 * Later on, is it worth trying to improve our process for mass-deletion requests, generally speaking? There have been other messes in the past. Or can we muddle through with the current system? (I realise that en.wikipedia isn't very good at process change). bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it certainly has a consensus, we've both voted the same way, and I'd guess it probably would've closed (as delete) within 24hrs. I don't think there's a problem adding it per se, I was more thinking how with ani, the more issues that get added to a thread at once, the more likely it is Chicken Little makes an appearance and/or some of the items get forgotten or dealt with less efficiently.
 * What's more interesting, is what failed here. We've existing policies and processes that would've made this go a lot better than it did or prevent it happening in the first place. That's a new section I need to add. Mass deletions of this scale are rare, although I can think of a few. I'd have to have a longer think about the question to give a decent reply. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There have been some basic failings for a long time, and it's disappointing that the problem was only really grappled with now. It's also bad for Jaguar; if somebody makes a mistake once and gets corrected, they'll be a happy and productive editor afterwards (I've certainly been corrected in my time); but if somebody makes a mistake and repeats it ten thousand times, and gets barnstars for it rather than accurate feedback, they'll be much angrier & more resentful if it's later discovered that a treasured part of their career is unpopular with the rest of the community.
 * My pet hate is that the GNG goes out of the window when somebody sees an opportunity to copy & paste thousands of geographical stubs and climb the ladder, but I realise that expecting these articles to be notable puts me in a very small minority. 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well said. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Substub places and the GNG
The GNG is not enforced because no admin has the stones to block Blofeld. Hipocrite (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's because I'm the Chuck Norris of wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Chinese townships
Mmm would you or Fram consider this a reliable source? It appears to have information on all of the townships. It has area and population, lists of villages and Chinese names. Potentially the Chinese names if retrieved could be used to find other data. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just picked Guangdong at random. It says:

Guangdong was far away from the centre of ancient Chinese civilization in the north China plain. It was populated by peoples collectively known as the Hundred Yue...
 * Our article on Guangdong says:

Guangdong was far away from the centre of ancient Chinese civilization in the north China plain. It was populated by peoples collectively known as the Baiyue...
 * Using that site is likely to cause circular sourcing problems. bobrayner (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to only use wiki text as an overview of the provinces. The data is obviously extracted form somewhere. Goolging the Chinese names turns up potential government sources in places but just expanding and sourcing ten is a push 8000-10,000, well...13:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A. Well, where else does it get the data from? I don't know, and am not inclined to trust it now.
 * B. Please try to indent your comments. When you get involved on a talkpage, it often becomes quite a long back-and-forth thing, and that's harder to follow without proper indenting.
 * C. If just expanding ten is a push, then surely it's not possible to fix 8000-10,000 any time soon. A determination to keep flawed content at any cost is part of the problem, not part of the solution. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not a reliable source. Lacks a reputation for anything, let alone fact checking and accuracy. Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Georgian Land Forces
It would be rather more polite and decent if you just noted something down on the Talk section instead of deleting everything. Besides that, the listed inventory is obvious equipment of the GAF and there is no reason to delete because there are no citations for the obvious. If you are on citation hunt however, then just gather some ( there are plenty of sources around ) yourself and add them. Stop simply deleting everything, thank you.TheMightyGeneral (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Lists like that often fill up with cruft and sometimes get false additions (added by vandals, nationalist ranters &c) - if content can't be trusted, it shouldn't be in an encyclopædia article. Repeatedly removing unsourced-section tags (and restoring unsourced content) is a Bad Thing; stop it. If you have sources which support anything in the article, that would be helpful. By the way, WP:MOSFLAG opposes the use of little flag pictures for objects which aren't explicitly national (ie. a type of vehicle). bobrayner (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Sources added TheMightyGeneral (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hi! I added you to an ongoing dispute resolution on the Dispute resolution noticeboard as you have been one of the four people reverting IjonTichyIjonTichy's edits on Resource-based economy back to a "last good version". The thread is "Resource-based economy". You don't have to participate if you don't want to, so feel free to ignore this. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

 * Hi Bob, I second that... Thanks! (And I agree, much to come.) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are most kind - but I've barely done anything! There's much more work ahead of us. bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist movement
Re: Removal of Picture and info-bar

Dear Bob, from the first sentence of the article (and also from the main website of TZM, which states: "Mission Statement --- Founded in 2008, The Zeitgeist Movement is a Sustainability Advocacy Organization ..."), it would seem OK to include pictures of nature. Also, TZM advocates for a resource-based economy, and oceans are considered a resource. Would it be OK with you if I re-instated the picture? Was there something else about the picture that was problematic? If you feel it interfered with the text, I'll try to shift the picture to another location in the article. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture wasn't actually about the Zeitgeist movement, was it? It was just a pretty nature picture. No doubt TZM claims green credentials, but so do a thousand other organisations, movements, ideologies, and ranters nowadays. bobrayner (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, user:OpenFuture also explained the issue in some detail on the talk page of the article. After reflecting on his explanation and yours, and studying WP:Images, I conclude your (and his) removal of the image(s) was the correct action. Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate with you on editing future articles. Regards and best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The following is a copy-paste from TZM's official Q&A website. Is this potential legal trouble?

Question (11) - Is The Zeitgeist Movement related to Peter Joseph's Film Series?

No. While the word "Zeitgeist" is also associated with Peter Joseph's film series, "Zeitgeist: The Movie", "Zeitgeist: Addendum" and "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward", the film series based content isn't to be confused with the tenets of "The Zeitgeist Movement" here. Rather, the films were mere inspirations for "The Zeitgeist Movement" due to their popularity and overall message of seeking truth, peace and sustainability in society.

The term "Zeitgeist" is defined as the ‘The General intellectual, moral and cultural climate of an era." The Term "movement" very simply implies ‘motion" and change, Therefore The Zeitgeist Movement is thus an organization which urges change in the dominant intellectual, moral and cultural climate of the time.

The Movement is not about Comparative Religion, False-Flag Terrorism, Economic Hit-men, Fractional Reserve Banking or the Federal Reserve. The films are unrelated to The Movement in detail and are personal expressions of Peter Joseph. There is often some confusion in this regard and in the most extreme cases some people have the knee-jerk reaction that TZM supports forbidden "Conspiracy Theories" or is "Anti-Religious" or the like. This type or rhetoric tends to be of a pejorative/insulting nature, used in the context of dismissal of The Movement by an erroneous and "taboo" external association. The fact is, there is no direct association whatsoever.

If you are not familiar with what TZM actually is, please review our extensive literature and video/lecture materials on this website.

There may (or may not) be a legal issue here, as our article seems to claim things that directly contradict this official TZM statement.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * For what it's worth, we should try to stick to what independent sources say. Sometimes these might contradict what TZM itself says (in which case it might be worth contrasting different claims) but I don't think this alone is likely to cause any legal worries for wikipedia. In some WP:FRINGE areas we can't get independent sources, and this makes for problematic content as it's easy to take fringe sources at face value. bobrayner (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eddie Rocket's
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eddie Rocket's. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Alleged exil of the French Marianne
On May 30, 2012, you asked why is this detail (of the date) important/relevant?

You removed the French reference L'Expansion indicating from where did the rumor come, what day and the mechanism of the propagation of the rumor by the newspapers quoting themselves. The best day to propagate such a hoax was the first April Fool's Day of the millennium. The same British newspaper published again the quoted communication about the same Marianne eleven years later always an April Fool's Day. In the meantime, other Mariannes have been elected. So the initial date was not a simple coincidence.


 * {| class="wikitable"


 * This detail of the date should disqualify the rumor because it is a hoax!
 * }
 * }

See also the conclusion in 7. As Marianne of the talk page. Instead of a simple deletion, I will be interested in reading your own reformulation.

Nimmzo (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ayres Warr model-USeful work
Bad faith was assumed from a comment you made on a related talk page about this article. My apologies for any misrepresentation about editors; however, the other person involved has made statements in a related article that showed a counter point of view, and was called out for trying to promote his view on talk instead of following my talk topic calling for appropriateness of edits.

I think Wikipedia notability is designed to keep out true fringe theories (paranormal, space aliens, conspiracy theories, etc.) and not works of serious scientists with perfectly logical arguments and presentations. I have read many volumes about productivity and economic history, and find Ayres-Warr's argument consistent with economic history and my background in engineering, from which I have a first hand understanding of the topic. Besides that, no notable articles refute the argument, which contributes to lack of notability.

Because of this ordeal I am planning to finish Steam engine, for which I have already done 90% of the research, and step away from active participation in Wikipedia.Phmoreno (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you edit as 89.242.62.151 too? bobrayner (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixing military tables
Good morning Thank you for reviewing my work in reguards to military tables. No i havn't added any new information i've just reorganised military equiment into neater and far most interesting to read formats. Do you know why flags have been removed from airforce equiment tables? If there any this else i can try and improve just say so. thankyou Lovetravel86 (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2012
 * Thanks for replying. Maybe those URLs were just a copy & paste error.
 * I think the tables can be a good move, and many of the articles look a lot better now, but we don't have to recreate exactly the same table structure across hundreds of different articles - for instance, there are some tables where an entire column is redundant because we often lack any notes, or details of subtypes, or whatever.
 * I removed the flag icons per WP:MOSFLAG - individual vehicles or military assets don't represent the "country" which manufactured them, and quite often their origin doesn't fit into neat national pigeonholes.
 * A lot of these lists are unmaintainable - they were often created by rote so the article creator can't realistically watchlist it and has no subject-matter expertise, and lots of passers-by think it would be great to glorify their home country by increasing some numbers or making up some new items to add to the list. Turning a bulleted list into a table is often an improvement, but if the list isn't actually true then we're rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic! If you can think of any way to combat this problem, it would be very helpful. Maybe it would be a good idea for tables to have a "Source" column?
 * Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

MCS
Bob, you inadvertently removed clinical trial info I'd just added. How about I try rewording the part you want in and see if we can reach concensus; in the mean time I'm restoring the clinical trials. Zentomologist (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK; I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for posting this source (on talk:praha hl.n.), been wanting to write an article on this for a while - it's what the pic on my userpage is :) - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  09:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Groovy. Thanks! bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Good job on the coatrack!
Good job finding--and excising--all those instances of the coatrack! A few of those articles are on my watch list, but I had no idea how pervasively it had spread. Take care! &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 11:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gift economy
Bob: You've reverted two edits on the gift economy page and I think it makes more sense to put this on the talk page than in the edit comment box. I'm an anthropologist teaching a class on this topic and am encouraging my students to edit wikipedia. The page needed a lot of work. I obviously am in disagreement with you about the relevance of blood donation to this topic. However, if you could move your concerns to the discussion page, it would be a lot easier for my students to engage you. They are very sheepish about editing wikipedia already. It's in fact quite interesting how shy they are about it. Thanks.--Girl2k (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh! I'm sorry if it was bitey. Will go to the talkpage. By the way, have you engaged with an ambassador? That can be helpful for both parties. bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo border
I've made an amendment to your edit on Republic of Kosovo as this is a difficult case. The situation is so complex that even the sources can be faulty. It is by far the easiest definition (Kosovo-Serbia border) but proffering this is without consideration for the pro-Belgrade position whose sources may be the only ones not to refer to this area as such. I have extended it to include all. One more thing but just in passing, I read a brief conversation between you and an IP from January 2012 on Noel Malcolm. Malcolm is the type of reliable source that needs to be treated with caution, so yes it is fine to use him but don't be surprised to find an immediate counter-statement to refute his verses. The assumption is that because this is an Oxford scholar, his works are praiseworthy but in the Balkans he is famous for plagiarising older Albanian commentators including those who voiced doubts one century back when the Kosovo crisis entered its modern stage. Suffice it to say that if Malcolm were Austrian, Serbs were Jews and the Great Migrations were the Holocaust, Noel would be in an Austrian prison! This doesn't mean I agree with the other editor about being on the Vatican payroll. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Meeting the intent of WP:OR
Following up here since this really is not an appropriate discussion for an AfD.

You wrote:


 * Policy is not anti-intellectual. If intellectuals and researchers can get their ideas through peer review &c then their ideas are more than welcome here. In reality, policy is anti-unpublished-intellectual, in order to keep out the cranks and the ranters who are not taken seriously by the mainstream. En.wikipedia is not a place to publicise ideas that you couldn't get taken seriously elsewhere. If this disgusts you, then your departure might benefit all parties.

You are missing the point of my complaint. I couldn't agree more about the need to keep out cranks and ranters. The problem is that WP:OR leaves no room for judgement about whether a given statement actually is crankish or not. It positively encourages blind application of the policy with no consideration of that intent, or even abuse of the policy as a weapon to obtain results that could not be obtained by legitimate means, such as baloney-slicing an article someone dislikes but is unable to get deleted. And that is anti-intellectual.

Your deletion of the Definitions section of the DfA article is a clear case in point. [To be clear, I am not accusing you of any dark motive in doing so, I just think you, like too many other WP editors, were being thoughtless.] You described it as "blatant OR". Yes, I drew some conclusions myself based on my own observations of certain pieces of evidence and neither I nor, so far as I know, anyone else has published it anywhere else. But what were those conclusions? That the meanings of both "descent" and "antiquity" for genealogical research covering long periods of time and possibly very different societies may be context-dependent; and that documentary or genetic verification of descent are both subject to some significant uncertainties. These are not crankish or ranting conclusions. They are statements of the obvious, once one thinks even a little about the epistemological problem at hand. So, yes, that discussion may meet the letter of WP:OR but it hardly meets the intent.

To put it another way: the fact that an idea or statement hasn't been "taken seriously" (i.e. published) elsewhere is no proof that it couldn't be published elsewhere. Conversely much that is published elsewhere, even in refereed publications, is still rubbish, or just plain wrong. Yet WP:OR, as currently written, leaves no room to assess an idea or statement on its merits. That is a very serious flaw, which can only be countered by informed editors who are willing to use their good and independent judgement to ignore WP:OR when appropriate. Other WP policies increasingly encourage similar mechanistic application -- WP:NOT and WP:REF being good examples. That is an anti-intellectual trend. --Chris Bennett (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Still need reviews for the Wikipedia Education Program research project
Hey, Bob! If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.

I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.

If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 foxconn suicide
Dear Bob, why did my text box warp around like that? I also agree that was freaky how it somehow merged two sections. I just followed what others used as a template... anyways, why did you state that "falling down while eating dinner does not equal suicide". (can you please back up your statement, when all other news sources stated he JUMPED). There were a couple of youths in 2011! who were having dinner and had an accident I seem to vaugly recall. Did you by mistake confuse these two cases?

Hijama
Anyone saying hijama is not intricately linked to ijaaza has no understanding of Islamic education. Hijama without ijaaza is only cupping. If not the two sections, cupping and hijama should be combined, which they certainly should not. As clearly covered in the ijaaza section, if it were not for the ijaaza system anyone could claim to be an expert about anything. Your edits amount to vandalism and you must clearly have an agenda to destroy authentic Islamic teaching methods. Any further vandalism will be reported. HacksBack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the article's talkpage and on your talkpage. Please bear in mind our conflict of interest policy, and please don't label good-faith changes as vandalism. bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

thanx

 * Thank you for your contributions on Talk:Criticism of capitalism regarding climate change (global warming) as “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” (Stern Review) in the Naomi Klein article. Please see wp:Tea.  99.119.131.192 (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You

 * You are very kind! However, I scacely deserve credit - you did most of the hard work. bobrayner (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good of you to help out with above. Can you please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) ‎In ictu oculi (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Competition Between Boeing and Airbus
I put the value of gross orders by both companies and you keep removing this information. I put the sources and your are still removing it. "Because you don't know doesn't mean it does not exist". Because you can not find the information does not mean it is not there. You have to look for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 14:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. I have repeatedly provided multiple sources which contradict those numbers. (Unless you're using some novel definition of "orders" which is itself deeply misleading). You have not provided any source which actually includes those numbers. Can you please explain how you calculated order values four times greater than the total revenue reported by BCA? Please use the article talkpage instead of hammering the revert button. bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at this link paragraph 3 states very clearly how much money those 1,608 gross orders mean for Airbus. It does not itemized per family plane but, it gives the bulk amount. Boeing reported 921 gross orders for 2011 and if you multiply those orders (which you can see them in their company's website itemized) by the 2011 price per plane, you have the numbers I put. We are talking about value of orders not company's revenue (don't forget that companies like Boeing and Airbus include their other businesses they have in their revenue).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When you multiply by the "2011 price per plane", are you aware that you're multiplying by a "list price" which is not the actual price of those sales? This explains why reliable sources give a number much lower than your number. Conversely, if reliable sources were distorted by including revenue from other business, that would make them much higher than your number. bobrayner (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that price. Neither Boeing or Airbus give the "real" price at what their planes are sold. When ever they release their news, always are at list prices. If you read their news you will always see the wording "value at list prices". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Airbus and BCA both report total revenue, which is accurate and which allows a fairer comparison because that's how much they actually earned by selling planes. Because financial reports have to be accurate, they don't involve "list prices". If you would like more sources which include these accurate and explicit numbers, in addition to the ones I've already provided, I would be happy to provide them. There is also some simple guidance on how to find their total sales figures, at the top of the article talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be impolite but I feel I'm talking with a person who is not an aviation geek. I'm not talking anything in regards of company's revenue. I'm not putting anything in regards of their financial numbers. I'm just giving the numbers of how much business they grabbed in a given year expressed in dollar figures. If you want to understand more of what I'm talking here, I would recomend to check www.airliners.net forums. It will illustrate what I'm referring to. Please forget revenue and financial information. Again, I'm not even mentioning any of that.Alainmoscoso (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using the a.net forums a decade ago; I gave up when they filled up with fanboys and inaccurate fluff. Not trying to be impolite, but even if you feel ad hominem is the best tool to use in debate, you really ought to get it right. Back to the point: If you're "just giving the numbers of how much business they grabbed in a giving year expressed in dollar figures", that is revenue, and is already explicitly stated in the reliable sources I pointed out. These sources give very different numbers to the ones that you have extrapolated. bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems you did not read the the link I gave you where you can find those figures. It's Airbus and Boeing own websites. I believe going to the main source is the best source and not third parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me what is your issue??? Do you think you are the only one who has the truth??? I already gave you the sources of this information and you keep coming up with revenue facts. Revenue in aviation only comes once the airplane is delivered not when they are ordered! If you read the Title says "Orders by value" not revenue! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, but it's not actually order value, is it? Those orders were not actually made at list price. And some orders get cancelled anyway, so it's a doubly inaccurate way of "giving the numbers of how much business they grabbed in a giving year expressed in dollar figures". Revenue, on the other hand, is known to be accurate.
 * If this were retail, A and B would not be allowed to advertise claims like that in many developed countries, due to consumer-protection regulation which stops retailers shouting about some pre-discount price which nobody actually pays. bobrayner (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Airbus had a record order intake of 1,608 (1,419 net) commercial aircraft, worth US$169 billion gross (US$140 billion net) at list prices". That's from Airbus own website. I hope that clarifies what I'm referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.216.166 (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know what you're referring to. The numbers are still wrong. The "list prices" are not what Airbus or BCA actually take from their customers - that number can be found in their financial reports, and in lots of secondary sources such as this. Calculations based on prices which they don't actually charge will mislead readers. bobrayner (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for help at WP:CO-OP
Hi there, Bob. I've had a request up on the Paid Editor Help page of WikiProject Cooperation for about a week now, and I'm afraid the page has been very quiet since then. Because you're a listed WP:CO-OP member, I've thought to reach out and see if you might have a chance to look at the issue. It's a bit complicated: I'm trying to restore and improve an article that was a matter of contention back in the first part of the year, and I've aimed to be both comprehensive and concise about a) the background of the matter, and b) the proposed article changes. Full details at the link above. If you have an opportunity, would you mind looking at the article and weighing in? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll have a look in the next couple of days. Sorry for delayed response - high workload. We'll get there eventually... bobrayner (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again, any chance you'll find time to review my post at some point? It's been awful quiet at WP:CO-OP lately, but no rush. And if you're too busy, I'll understand. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have reviewed; will reply over there too. Are you planning to take your proposed version into mainspace or would you prefer me to do it on your behalf? bobrayner (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

African articles
Buckshot06 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your help! There's a lot of work ahead of us, though.
 * Unfortunately, if you want to take further action beyond just cleanup, we'd need a good evidence base, and people seem to have been reluctant to provide diffs (I'm as guilty of that as anyone). So, I've underlined the importance of diffs in this proposal - hopefully we can get a clean sweep, by fixing the bad content and also getting a clear picture of what needs to be protected/watchlisted/whatever, so we can stop the rot happening in future. bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alea iacta est. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Asexual Visibility and Education Network
An article that you have been involved in editing, Asexual Visibility and Education Network, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ritchie333  (talk)  14:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you around, Ritchie!
 * Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't really involved in the article, just trimmed a little dubious unsourced stuff about a forum. Have replied on the merger thread. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've got the hang of this place now. I think I just picked you as you were one of the only two non-IP editors who made significant changes (though in your case it was significant deletion). -- Ritchie333  (talk)  15:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

News!

 * Well done. There's a few details I'd like to sort out - starting now! bobrayner (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My favorite recent edit summary
Your edit--cheap, yes...easy, yes...fun, YES! Thanks. :) --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service! bobrayner (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire
There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interesting comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). On reflection I've decided a French name rather than a Turkish one will acheive the same result (promoting "best such sources," consistency, and accuracy), particularly given Manual of Style/France & French-related being well established. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just FYI, I also created one for "Globalization", since that is the spelling under which the project was proposed and created. Meclee (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Confederate States of America
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confederate States of America. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service.'' — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)