User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 6

Cook Inlet "natives"
I don't intend to undo your edit as it is a better wording, but just FYI "native" is Alaskan shorthand for any of the Alaska Native peoples, the way "Indians" was one used prominently in the lower 48. After living here for a while I discovered that Alaska has numerous variations of  the meanings of words that differ from American English, for example a garage is referred to as a "shop". (This led to some confusion for me when looking for a place to live, I couldn't understand why so many houses came with a shop). There are also numerous genericized trademark terms up here. Whoever sold something first in Alaska got their name permanently attached to that product, regardless of manufacturer. One of these days am going to compile all of these into an article or at least part of an existing article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's a good point. It can be difficult to deal with words which are common and have ambiguous/contradictory uses... bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

citations linking to 'third world traveler'
Dear Bobrayner, I understand the case you are making about linking to thirdworldtraveler as a copyright violation. Can I ask that in cases where you remove these links, you simply remove the link and leave the citation, which is of course still valid? I see that you consider the articles hosted on thirdworldtraveler to be 'fringey' but if you disagree with their use on Wikipedia, please discuss that on a case by case basis instead of removing important citations from 100+ articles. Thank you. groupuscule (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK; I'll have a look.
 * I'd be happy to retain the original citation in some cases, but my first priority is removing the WP:ELNEVER problem, and second priority is fixing content problems which seem to be common wherever thirdworldtraveler has been cited. Much of their content is fringey. I first stumbled across the site when I found a demonstrably false claim in an article, which nonetheless cited thirdworldtraveler (and when I removed it, somebody reverted, because the claim suited their POV). As I work, I've tried to look at the surrounding content and have tried to fix some related problems - quite often thirdworldtraveler cites appear in content which has problems with UNDUE, SYNTH, &c or even on-wiki copyvio, so there's more to remove than just a URL. If you disagree with any of those in particular, feel free to point out specific examples and I'm sure we can work something out.
 * Also, in a significant proportion of articles, thirdworldtraveler cites abut citations of other sources, so in those cases removing one cite entirely shouldn't be a problem, hopefully...? There are also cases where it's simply an EL rather than used as an inline citation - typically in an article which already has lots of better ELs - and in those cases I think that removing a link which points to copyvio is pretty uncontroversial, like this. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As an example of the duplicate citations, Criticism of the Israeli government currently has three different cites for the sentence "A notable campaign was initiated in 2002 and endorsed by South Africa's Desmond Tutu". Each of those sources appears to have basically the same text. The thirdworldtraveler one is apparently copyvio. Is there any reason I should spend extra time rearranging the copyvio one so that it points to a fourth source, instead of just deleting it? I am no less passionate than you about WP:V, so removing a "source" is no easy step, but sometimes it is the best step. bobrayner (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your response. And thank you for your efforts in protecting the encyclopedia by keeping it in the clear, legally—I realize that this is very important work. I suppose removing TWT links is not a big deal for claims that are well sourced. I got alerted to the change at American Institute for Free Labor Development, where the only citation for the whole article came from an American Prospect article and linked to TWT. So the change brought the number of citations for the article from one to zero. In my experience this is a precursor to someone coming through and deleting the article. Now: the article on the AIFLD should be much better, since it's an important historical entity, and I've been meaning to do an expansion for a while. But seeing that deletion worried me—and then I looked at your contribs and saw the same type of edits being made to many other articles. So I worried that the same thing was happening there. I didn't look at every single change. I would certainly say that many types of systematic changes, particularly deletions, set off alarm bells for me.
 * I think the most important issue here is: why not simply delete the URL in the citation? For example, at the AIFLD article, it would have been just as easy to delete the URL and leave the American Prospect citation intact. There is no conflict between removing the link to possible copyright violation and retaining the reference for a fact. I think it would be strongly preferable to do changes this way, instead of deleting the whole reference, unless the reference really is redundant. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Taking your comments on board, I tried this. Is that an improvement, do you think? (Alas, sometimes we still need an axe instead of a scalpel) bobrayner (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying about deleting the whole thing, if it's just a link or just a link and a title. I'm sure you can appreciate my reaction at the AIFLD page. Your recent edit @ First Indochina War is exactly what I mean, so thank you. Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bobrayner, I was a little irked to see your change at Crusade for Freedom today, but I do recognize you're going through a lot of material. And I accept what you're saying about sharing the chore, so before I do any more criticism I will see if I can be constructive on some of these pages that contained Third World Traveler links. groupuscule (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the thing to do is create a page in userspace listing the articles in question so we can solicit help from a larger group. groupuscule (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How are you with the history of the Puerto Rico independence movement? :-)
 * A surprisingly large number of thirdworldtraveler cites were in this area - often on the phrase - I presume the same phrases and sources have been copy & pasted around several articles, which is often a warning sign. Maybe there's a NPOV problem there, maybe not - I don't know! bobrayner (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I'm not knowledgeable on that topic, but I'd like to learn more. groupuscule (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a little mini-project: Third World Traveler cleanup project! Tell all your friends! groupuscule (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I saw that you were working on links from this site via another article. I just ran into one at El Mozote massacre while doing some clean-up there. Should all thirdworldtraveler links be removed? Here's the link in question:. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That page looks like copyvio, so we shouldn't link to it. One option is to change the cite so it points to "Covert Action Quarterly", which is what thirdworldtraveler copied from; but that opens another can of worms - I'm skeptical about the reliability of "Covert Action Quarterly" as a source, so it's a good idea to investigate the content where the cite appears. However, I'm no expert on El Salvador (or "Covert Action Quarterly") - what do you think? bobrayner (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm no expert here either. But alleging Reagan's semi-complicity in this is a big claim. (not impossible, but a big claim). I'll remove for now and post to the talk page. I'm hoping to work on this on and off through the morning, so if I find a better source, I'll restore it. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Covert Action Quarterly. Seems like an interesting story, but I can't tell you that much offhand. I know Phillip Agee is involved. groupuscule (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Income inequality
If you are going to remove my edit, you shoudl at least read it. AS it meanitons income inequality directly in the reference:

Rent-seeking
Economists have a name for activities that lobby for government policies to increase the entrenched wealth of the powerful and economic inequality: they call them rent-seeking: getting income not as a reward for creating wealth but by grabbing a larger share of the wealth that would otherwise have been produced without their effort.

Imersion (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hello, I have filed a Dispute_resolution_noticeboard case for Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains. Feel free to comment. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AE notification
There is a thread at WP:AE which relates to matters you have been involved in. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look... bobrayner (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Job done. Thanks for the heads-up. bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Offer of help for Wikimania London 2014 bid
Hi, sorry it took a (long) while for us to get back to you - as is usual with wiki-related projects, we've been a bit busy organising ourselves to begin organising other people. It'd be good to chat about how you'd like to get involved though - I'm edsaperia on skype if that works for you, or email me? edsaperia@gmail.com EdSaperia (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Duly skype'd. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's very kind of you; thanks!
 * Sadly, there are still plenty of socks out there, so we need more sock-hunters... bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hoax????
Sorry But there is no such thing is a "Hoax" about the "Malaueg Church" and nothing is wrong about it. This church is really lot older than the other churches it belong since the location of the church is so hard to explore and it requires hiking just to get there. --Lastbridge (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of the details seem improbable. In particular, you edited several articles to say that Malaueg Church is part of the UNESCO world heritage site; but it's not mentioned here, searching the UNESCO site returns zero results, and so on. Since virtually none of the article was sourced and we cannot trust any word in it, I have redirected it. Do you have any sources? I would also point out that this change to Emma Maersk is very different to what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian Authority issue
Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine, you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Neuro Linguistic Programming
Hey Bobrayner, I just wanted to apologize for the break in Wiki Etiquette earlier today. I am new to editing in Wiki. And while I still very much disagree with the way the article is written I now know enough to use talk and discuss our differences rather then getting into an edit war.

My "gripe" with the article is that it is biased. please allow me to illustrate. The Article makes reference to the term 'largely discredited'. I'm curious as to 'who has the authority to make that decision?' It may be largely discredited in some social/ professional circles but not the majority of them. The statement is extremely biased which is a violation stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. While reading the term 'largely discredited' may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, for someone who is 'pro' NLP, it is grating. And that is the meaning of biased. Neutral means that you and I should both be able to read it and see both pros and cons and then make up our own minds. Paragraph three of the introduction is completely angled towards criticism and does not belong in the introduction as it is an attempt to completely have the reader 'take a side' which again is not neutral and IS Biased. I truly believe that everyone has a right to express and inform people of what they think however that should be done under the proper heading and in the case of paragraph three that would be under criticism. The article is called 'Neuro-Linguistic Programming' NOT 'Warning Against NLP' which is exactly how it comes across. As you have no doubt figured out I am 'Pro' NLP and I also hold a degree in psychology and the way the article is written right now is NOT neutral. Let's work together to make the article perfectly neutral..so the readers can decide themselves. Mike00764 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Have you got some good sources? bobrayner (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

ARBMAC
That issue you raised at CCN last month with little response has popped up at ANI today. You might want to take a look and comment since you have been dealing with it for awhile. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Response posted. Thanks very much for letting me know - it's appreciated. I'm wary of investing even more time digging up hundreds of diffs, but if it's necessary and if it might help resolve the problem this time... bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Moody's
Hello, Bobrayner, I would like to bring to your attention an unhelpful edit which occurred on the Moody's Investors Service article last week, wherein an anonymous IP editor deleted all footer content in the MIS article from external links to interwiki links and categories. (Click here to see.) A short time later, an editor using AWB added a warning tag but did not fix it. I had inquired with another editor who has assisted recently, but this person has now been offline most of the week. Are you available to put this back how it was before? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This should fix it. Anything else needed?
 * Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that does solve the issue with the footer content and I am grateful for your effort. There is another issue in the Moody's Investors that arose earlier in the week, wherein a separate unregistered editor added a long paragraph regarding critical public comments from a former Moody's employee. (You can see this here.) This is a less straightforward situation than the deletion of footer content. While I do not wish to challenge the report, the level of detail presented, particularly with regard to the article's overall length and existing treatment of this particular subject seems undue. My concern is to ensure properly weighted context, not to whitewash the article. As with the other issue, I had inquired with the other editor who has assisted recently, but without reply to date, since they have been offline. I am interested to hear your opinion, as I do not have a revision to suggest at this time. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Bobrayner, I do not wish to appear pushy but having not heard back from you here, I have asked about the remaining issue on the MIS article talk. Your opinion would still be welcomed if you are available. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry about the delay - have been pretty busy (in real life, and in some Balkan problems on enwiki). Will have a closer look... bobrayner (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the MIS discussion page and also wish to say thank you here, I appreciate the boldness of your action. Mysidae (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

COIN
Thanks for your post on my talk page. Even if a COIN discussion is closed, you can open a new one to present new diffs. I moved your recent COIN posts to a new thread. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

SPI
I included a collapsed version of your analysis of UrbanVillager's edits as it is pertinent to the SPI. If you wish to change, add something, or remove it please don't hesitate. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 10:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. For the SPI it would be better to emphasise some interesting timestamps &c and how they fit with other editors. Whenever I have free time... bobrayner (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo
Hi thx. for your answer on the talk page of Kosovo. You mentioned other pages about Kosovos declaration of independence. I looked around and found an article about it. There I saw your last edit. You changed there the information "The Court determined that the declaration of independence was not in violation of international law" into "The Court determined that the declaration of independence was legal.". Even if you call it "weasel wording" that is actually a big difference and is not what the court said or the source says. The court avoided to review the international legal status of Kosovo. This is also something what was discussed in the german Wikipedia and almost everyone came to the conclusion that such an interpretation of the opinion of the court would not fit with the neutral point of view. Thats why we wrote it also like it was here before "not in violation of international law". Regards Seader (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The distinction between "legal" and "not illegal" is hairsplitting which could only be expected on Balkan articles 718smiley.png Secondary sources simply said the ICJ declared it "legal", or made no distinction in the wording - for instance   etc.
 * Of course, that article and many others are still dominated by the Serb government POV in other respects - note how the article you link to, and several others, retell Kosovo's history as though it begins in 1912. At the moment I'm looking at a separate problem, which is that most of our articles related to the Kosovo War use labels like "FR Yugoslav" for subjects which are called "Serb" by reliable anglophone sources. bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Canadians
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am removing your spam. Please don't template the regulars. It also seems you still haven't understood WP:NOTVAND despite repeated explanations. The best way forward for you now is to stop your promotional crusade. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop removing sourced material and engaging in an edit war. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

................Both to the talk page pls...no more tagging each-other - time to talk about the problem at the talk page.Moxy (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never tagged UrbanVillager (talk); meanwhile UrbanVillager continues to label |label legitimate edits as vandalism. I'll happily use the talkpage, of course, but past experience has not been good; a variety of noticeboards have been unable to solve the problem. bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this time you are over it. This can be easily labeled as nationalistic vandalism. Dont remove kosovo note, and only serbia related material from kosovo articles. This is really the warning. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And not to mention this. Article name is Đakovica. Use that name. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since WhiteWriter previously insisted that Kosovo-the-physical-region and Kosovo-the-disputed-state are completely separate topics which need separate articles, I am amazed that Whitewriter now wants to reinsert disclaimers related to the latter into physical-geography articles. Whilst also reinserting obvious grammar failures. It's a shame that blatant hypocritical pov-pushing has been tolerated for so long. bobrayner (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, i can use your own edit summaries! after the usage, i must notice that most of them are very unfriendly, something like this. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And i am afraid that you didnt understood me well. We use kosovo note on neutral article after all, as we can also list relevant article in the political articles. Then we have direct link with explanation, while territory remains neutral of linking... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on removing unsourced content. That's good. However, there is a lot more unsourced content on Serbia/Kosovo articles, some of it much more dubious. I will remove a lot more; will you help, or will you hit the revert button? It's never too late to change a bad habit :-) bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I dislike removing of content without sources, i am more for adding sources, then just blind removal. deletion of unsourced content it tragic loss for any article. Try better, and add sources, or remove both materials, serbia AND RoK related, and not just one. That is ARBMAC vio under GAMING. Also, this is good! That is the idea of this note, to be used in all directions, and not just one. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is also very much ok. Please, just dont push it in the other side, but leave it neutral. Lets agree to disagree on RoK sovereignty, and keep our edits in the middle. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Need caffeine?
You won't find better caffein than inside this:

Enjoy it.--E4024 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I am afraid the cup is a little too big; dunno how to make it smaller... E.
 * Teşekkür ederim!
 * I visited İstanbul a few weeks ago. Turkish coffee is perfect when you've spent 24 hours in planes and rental cars... bobrayner (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What little problem in the Balkans? We have the biggest of everything in the Balkans. Happy New Year, dear Wikifriend... :-) --E4024 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
WhiteWriterspeaks 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You are very kind; but you deserve much of the credit, not me! (Sadly haven't had time to revisit Puerto Rican history yet) bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Lets talk about the food sov article
Hi Bobrayner,

Maybe my revision could have been written slightly more neutrally but there is still a lot of valuable information. I don't think a professional edit just deletes everything that has been written, especially because I have made an effort, where possible, to include eferences to articles and research. I am new to wikipedia, but I'm still keen to update what is quite an outdated article. Please can you come up with some suggestions on how I can make this more acceptable as wikipedia information (and style).

I look forward to coming to an appropriate compromise,

Dan

Mental health
HI Bob, We need some help with our references. Penny Powers class under topic mental health. Thanks:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keosha-perris (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed - it should be OK now. Need a hand with anything else? (Sorry this page is so long, I've been pretty busy) bobrayner (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

NLP
Thanks for the catch and revert -- I mistook a deletion for an addition there. siafu (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's easy for problematic content to slip through the net when there's a series of back-and-forth edits like that...! Don't thank me - you were doing most of the work. bobrayner (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force
Hi Bob, regarding this edit, I wanted to point out that the website was already included in the main text before I made the edit. I knew it was out of place on the article which is why I moved it to external links, that is the part where it is fine to have relevant links for things whch might fall outside of WP:RS - as long as they are not being used to influence the article. It might just have been the tagline "targets" that needed changing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Signatures.... also the GPI header is still incorrect and I could not edit it
Ok. Not a problem. At first I was wondering as to why my work was edited and thought some random long time user decided to pick on the NooB Wiki guy. I did my research, before acting out of frustration, to see who you were and if you happened to be a mod or editor. Turns out I was correct in assuming this and I also rechecked the rules to see if I had missed something about the rules since initially I saw nothing on the page originally about not using signatures after work which I wrote and cited properly. After further review of the WiKi rules it was no wonder I had thought you could sign by work... it was on an entirely different page from the rules page hyperlink. I hope the work is to standard, I try to go above the normal.

A bit about myself… I do quite well in my University Papers utilizing APA 6th Edition Citations and impress most of my course instructors/professors. I am currently at Ashford University for the completion of my major in my Bachelors of Arts/Masters in Homeland Security & Emergency Management after 7 years of being Honorably Discharged as a Disabled Combat Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I also have a 3.6 GPA cumulative. I was also inducted as a member by invitation only for my merit of the National Veterans Honor Society S.A.L.U.T.E. I am aspiring to Minor in Entrepreneurship, Owner of an Armed Security Agency and Consultant of my Major. I am fluent in History, American Constitution, Sciences (Earth, Space, Chemistry, and Biology), Computers, Mobile Technology, Welding and Mechanics. Any corrections I would make or have had make will be the most factual and non-biased.

My work reflects upon myself, if I stick my neck out I am going to make sure I am right first before any action before jumping to conclusion or clicking the actual "save page" when posting guidelines and properly corrected meaning of the General Progress Indicator by chance  while researching  some background information to post for my course (even though Wiki is considered Unofficially a factual source since anyone can edit it) it does provide information on the fly or Definitions to cross reference  when I need it. One other thing... Please change the Title to its correct and actual meaning "General Progress Indicator" as I am unable to correct the title myself. I can verify any source to you upon request and it is my pleasure to make your acquaintance.MASPAG1685 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you!

Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom
Please cease ripping the central part of this article out without understanding it. Start a discussion on the talk page if you want changes. Without the table the article has no point. The price points are indeed 'cherry-picked' to illustrate the consequences of a slab tax.Tomintoul (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added more data points which will hopefully make things more clear.Tomintoul (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cherrypicking is cherrypicking; choosing your own data points to support your personal message is a Bad Thing. It's not the heart of the article; although it may be the heart of the point that you want to make. bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The data points match the SDLT bands. As stated, I have now added additional points, which will hopefully address your concerns.Tomintoul (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help!
Just wanted to sy thanks for your help on our wiki project this past semester. I actually really enjoyed learning some of the basics surrounding wiki articles. I was hoping you could give me an idea on how to get started on editing and creating some more wiki articles. Also I was thinking of trying to add some of the work I did for the project into another wikipedia article. Would you mind taking a look at my Sandbox Page and offering some feedback and suggestions on how I might go about integrating it into another article? Thanks again for your time.Mitkrow (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great news. You've got off to a pretty good start; I'm sure you could make some big improvements if you want.
 * Creating new articles is quite difficult, nowadays, until you've learned a bit more about some of the rules (if you don't want your new article to be deleted, you need to make it obvious upfront how it passes the notability guideline and that takes a little practice). When you write your first article, you get emotionally attached to it - it's your baby - and seeing your baby deleted (or threatened) is very discouraging. So, it might be best to avoid writing new articles at first.
 * That's not a problem, though. There are lots of existing articles which need improvement, in several different ways. It depends on your personality - what kind of work would you prefer to do? You obviously know how to add more sourced content, which is great, but there are other articles out there which need different work - typo and grammar fixes; linking related concepts; improving the tone and making the article look better; resolving neutrality problems and disputes; translations; and so on. You could even look out for vandalism. Which work do you think you'd enjoy most? If there's a particular topic area that you like working on, you might want to join a WikiProject and see if they have any other work which needs to be done. bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

List of indigenous people - Israelites
Bob, there isn't a definition of indigenousness that is accepted by all in the field. However, cultural histories are widely used as supporting evidence, particularly where these are evidenced in archaeological finds. It so happens that one of the unique aspects of Israelite culture, that's what the vast majority of today's people of Israel call themselves, not "Jews" or "Hebrews", is that it is one of the few cultures to have surviving textual records of their genesis as a people in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean, describing other indigenous peoples, and how they came to dominate the region as well as the later struggle to remain independent and the eventual multiple conquests of colonising empires. There is no contemporary record disputing this process, so any voices of dispute coming from the academia are called, and always will remain, theories. Unless you subscribe to cultural disenfranchisement? I lost my password, and neglected to add an email address originally as I didn't intend to edit all that much, so I'm trying to work out how to reset it at the moment, and therefore signing in with my IP address 220.238.42.127 (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo 2008 independence
When you make blanket reverts with the claim of neutrality, you make it impossible to rectify those that may be a case in point. I never intended to introduce POV onto the article and I cannot do this anyway since we deal solely with facts and not opinion. Here is a basis for my amendments so you know the reasoning.
 * 1) In 1989, Milošević was Serbian president within SFR Yugoslavia, I felt this worth mentioning so we establish his position which you removed.
 * 2) Kosovo's de facto status of exercising power akin to republics came in 1974, not 1971.
 * 3) 1971 was when the previous constitution came into effect and cancelation of the 1974 status reverted there, not 1963.
 * 4) In 1992, Serbia became part of FR Yugoslavia and remained so for the pronominal period. Whilst such, it was in partnership with Montenegro. Therefore any mention of "Serbian" authorities per se is inaccurate.
 * 5) "International community" is blatant POV when condemnation comes from a handful of high profile leaders; charity organisations were already listed separately so could not have been included in original author's plan.
 * 6) Anything affecting national security was conducted at state level and Kumanovo agreement concerned NATO and federal government, not federal + Serbian: that is nonsensical and implies that these were separate entities.

I will work on his with you if you explain your reasoning. If something has been wrong, I shall change it myself. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


Snoozlepet (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Hope you have a very merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year! Snoozlepet (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Four words
you added to American Flyers Flight 280 caused me to lose an hour's worth of work on the article. Your edit coming after I started working on the article but before finishing the edit. Much more interesting details than Georgia and California, like details about the pilot having arteriosclerosis and the addition of three more references to the article were all lost....William 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Didn't you get a warning about an edit conflict? Did the back button in your browser help? bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Friendly suggestion: The method that keeps me safe is adding underconstruction then working in an off-wiki text editor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks; that's a helpful suggestion! Personally, I try to put a bit more detail into the first revision - nobody's going to edit-conflict with you on an article that doesn't exist until you hit "Save page" - but I realise that everybody edits differently... bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I tend to start articles with even less content than WilliamJE's American Flyers Flight 280. I don't know why. But certainly you didn't cause this loss. You edited the article after it was untouched for many hours. The cause was working in edit mode for an hour. That's just really risky. All sort of things can happen: power outage, browser crash, edit conflict, or even the dreaded blue screen of death. Sooner or later a loss is bound to happen. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of new articles: Anna, could you possibly help with sources for this? I am sure there will be good Chinese sources but I lack your formidable language skills. bobrayner (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look, but am not sure what I will be able to come up with. And my Chinese skills really aren't so hot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tiger Cub economies...
Re this edit - thanks! I cleaned up the article some time ago, but didn't have the courage to do the rest. --Merbabu (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It was a drastic edit, but... hopefully it's a net positive. There seem to be several similar articles which suffer from the same problem sometimes (CIVETS, MIKT, Next Eleven &c). bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Military equipment
Hello Bobrayner, you asked what source I had in mind for the aircraft Inventory section of the Hungarian air force page. One website I found was www.airvectors.net/avhind_2html#ml. This website indicates that of the 40 or so Mi 24 Hinds acquired in the late 70's most are still in service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.231.98 (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Technical Analysis
Hi, Maybe you like to know that the discussion in the Technical Analysis Talk Page is currently active. If you are interested to contribute in the present debate, your help will be appreciated. 177.33.146.101 (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kukri
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kukri. 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) 12:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Venus Project
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Border between Serbia and Kosovo
Hello,

I noticed that you changed big number of articles and replaced term Central Serbia with Serbia. By doing that you added assertions about border between Serbia and Kosovo and violated NPOV. Please don't continue with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What definition of "NPOV" did you have in mind? I was following this one. Most English-language sources simply discuss a "border", and do not hedge it with caveats like "administrative border", "disputed territory", "kosovo entity", "central serbia" &c which editors have added into several of our articles. Sticking strictly to Belgrade's line would be an NPOV violation; I am removing problematic assertions.bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For instance, here I removed text which referred to a territory which doesn't even exist any more, in order to have more neutral wording about a Kosovo-Serbia border without pretending that Kosovo is actually part of Serbia. You simply hit the revert button even though no source uses that wording, and it introduces an anachronism - in some desperate plea to avoid the suggestion that Kosovo might be anything other than Serb territory. There were kneejerk reverts of various other changes, regardless of what sources actually say. Why do you do this? bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, i came here with the same reason... Well, i also agree that you should not do that without agreement. You are pushing you national agenda, and that is a bit disruptive behavior on wiki. And i am not talking about Central serbia, but about implying that Kosovo share normal classical international border with Serbia, which is, by far, distorted fact. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 17:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I simply said "border". We have plenty of links and footnotes which point out the disputed nature of Kosovo, as you are surely aware (you added lots of them). And yet, amazingly, our article on Statistical regions of Serbia pretended that Kosovo is simply part of Serbia without any mention of controversy or the declaration of independence at all; and you have tried to keep it that way even when I add a crucial piece of information. This is blatant POV-pushing. You know it; I know it. Would you like to bring in some uninvolved editors and see what they say? bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, its not about that. i know that some of your edits are useful. Without that, you would be probably banned long time ago. I just cannot run over articles on my watch, and fix your (i would say purposely missed) pov errors. Please, lets agree now on several things. First. We also have sources for administrative line, and several other different names for that. Why dont we use name used in Belgrade-Pristina negotiations? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sooner or later we will get neutral content on these topics; it is unfortunate that at every step of the journey, you hit the revert button. For instance, here I introduced more neutral wording which reflected what sources say; you simply hit the revert button, reintroducing an anachronism, removing any hint that Kosovo is anything other than just another Serb territory, and of course taking the article even further from what sources say. This happens over and over again. Why do you keep on doing this? The tag-teaming is particularly frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is my goodwill. Now, lets talk. How we can find some neutral wording about this, and not to use only word kosovo-serbia border? Any proposition? P.S. I NEVER tag-team, nor i ever did that. We have only 3,4 editors in this subject, so it is logical that we all edit in the same time. Please, dont assume that anymore. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)WW, we use the terms that the sources use i.e. if they use Kosovo-Serbia border then we'll go for that term. There's no "neutral wording", but merely wording that reflects the sources, which all in all coincide with reality.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Will you please be so kind to provide a quote which mentions "occupying"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kind reminder.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder - there are so many different articles to work on. I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "The Venus Project". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! I didn't see a notification here, so I wanted to let you know before the discussion starts. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Tunisian Armed Forces
never modify or edit Tunisian Armed Forces wiki ok we Tunisian that our job only tunisians ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mootaz92 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't own the article. Do you have a source for the information you're adding? A lot of articles like this tend to suffer from unverifiable details - sometimes fantasy - being added by nationalist editors. If you have reliable sources for some of these details, it would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i'm not adding an new information i just making the info easy to read and  add an info that all Tunisians know and my source is reliable because he is the army it self and other sources is Arabic sources forum and i will add pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mootaz92 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC) so don't edit tunisi army — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mootaz92 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo border
I only hope you read this before you return to Republic of Kosovo where I have restored my edit. It is not simply because I am trying to save you from potentially violating a 1RR but because you need to take into consideration the content on my contribution. How it is now is close to how it once was if we delve into the history. Someone clearly removed the connection with Serbia which is why yes it had to be put back. Now what you did is not bad, and you are right that the frontier is widely referred to at the Kosovo-Serbia border even in Serbian press. If you read my edit however, you'll see that I did not revert you (with my first), I added extra information for the purpose of clarifying the point from two sides. By using one and not the other, we authorise a certain usage that points towards our own "final status" arrangement and as you know with sensitive issues such as Kosovo, care and precaution is exercised everywhere on Wikipedia even if we have to write out longer passages and that is what I have done. Once again, my edit does not deny your statement and your source is still there - not that this type of source was required for the point you were making - a plain old map would have been fine. Concerning my additional statement, you could if you wish place a citation tag compelling me to provide evidence that Serbia doesn't recognise Kosovo's independence but do you really need me to do that?! Please reply if you have any issues, thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we both want to reach NPOV; we just disagree on the best route to get there! :-)
 * I will pull a couple more books from the shelf and reply on the talkpage... bobrayner (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Message

 * For you message. Justice007 (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you do some more please?
Thank you for fixing the move of Exmoor pony back to the consensus title, though it appeared not to have stuck, only [{Talk:Exmoor pony]]. Now, could you help us at WikiProject Equine by moving several more articles back to their stable (pardon the pun) names? This editor moved these articles as "uncontroversial technical" moves and "salted" the original page so we could not move them back. There is a debate at WPEQ over the naming conventions of horse breed articles, (one user previously uninvolved in WPEQ), and there is a legitmate discussion to be had (I believe the editor is raising the issue in good faith, even though there is a longstanding consensus on the issue at WPEQ) but as we have about 400 of them, and only about 10 were changed, can we fix those few to the status quo until the debate is concluded? This is particularly important for the pony articles, as they are distinguished from horses by the word "pony" (they are only called an Exmoor, Dartmoor, etc. when comparing one pony breed to another) There is also a capitalization debate which is not really a huge emotional issue, but at the moment, we are complying with the overall MOS capitalization gods who prefer sentence case titles, though this user changed some capitalization on this as well. Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here they are:
 * Exmoor (pony) back to Exmoor pony
 * Dartmoor (pony) back to Dartmoor pony
 * Fell (pony) back to Fell pony
 * Dales (pony) back to Dales pony
 * Lundy (pony) back to Lundy pony
 * British Spotted, back to British Spotted Pony (it's definitely needing the word there)
 * Shire (horse), which is a GA, by the way, back to Shire horse

I think that's all that were moved. Like I say, we have about 400 breed articles, of which a good half probably have "horse" or "pony" in the name. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll have a look at the discussion... (I really don't want to get involved in mass moves - that's part of the problem, not part of the solution)
 * It's unfortunate that the smallest details (capitalisation, hyphens &c) sometimes provoke the strongest feelings! bobrayner (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I absolutely give up on the damn capitalization wars (other than fighting to keep Thoroughbred capitalized as a breed, not a generic word for purebred). But the parentheses, particularly for the ponies, are going to cause a lot of problems.  I'd be ever so grateful if you can fix this back to status quo if you have the tools to do it.  Seriously, we are talking about 7 articles out of several hundred at List of horse breeds.  Take a glance there and you will see why I am asking.   Montanabw (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Socks
As you may know the new account is a sock/meat of Funationalists, so revert freely: it's not a 3RR violation.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wary - I'd like to make it "official" first, and follow due process. I have bad memories of cases where some pov-pusher used "I'm reverting a sock" as a license to undo edits they disagreed with, regardless of whether there was any evidence of socking... bobrayner (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: A question of socks
Search for Vancouver in Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive. You have one guess :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahaha. That was my first thought, but 173.180.216.230's writing style is different. I don't know; there are several different people out there who have used socks or meatpuppets in the past, and after so much tribal editing in the past it's easy to jump to assumptions when each new editor appears... bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Serbian Youth League? :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sock
Whose sock is it Bob? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably VJ-Yugo, although it's difficult to be absolutely certain as it's just a dynamic IP which pops up, does a few reverts, then disappears the next day - never enough to really justify a checkuser. There is enough continuity in the pattern of edits that I can be reasonably confident, and of course they all geolocate to the same place, this isn't one of the Canadian ones. You may have met them before -   etc. Originally, the reverts were over some quite specific controversial claims about recent history in the Balkans, but the affected articles changed over time, and nowadays it seems more like this editor looks through my contribs for something recent and Serbia-related, and just reverts it regardless. It's quite flattering to have a stalker 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gold. No worries. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin
Hello there - we don't know each-other at all - that said was at a Wikimeetup this weekend and your name came up for possible adminship. Not sure if you have ever though of this - but over the next few months we are looking for people to nominate that are willing to go thru the long painful process of adminship request, Think about it let me know.Moxy (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, but we have met before!
 * I am flattered by your kind suggestion, but... not right now. Alas, I have lots of other work on my to-do list which doesn't require a mop. The interview might be difficult, but that's not an overwhelming problem; I would be more worried that my CV doesn't have enough of what the interviewers are looking for. Maybe later in 2013? bobrayner (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

World according to Monsanto
Please watch the film before you undo my edits and also take the time to read the document which has been cited. After that then we can talk. 174.7.189.221 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)nucleo

Godfrey Bloom
Godfrey Bloom - why did you edit the page? My additions were to clarify postings to explain the background of the articles and comments. Atkinson1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atkinson1962 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Problematic edits to Moody's Investors Service
Hello, Bobrayner. In late December, an unregistered user made a number of changes to the Moody's Investors Service article that I think are problematic. Given your previous help on this article, I'm hoping you might be able to take a look at these edits and see you what you think. I've summarized the edits below.


 * The user undid a revision that you made to remove a paragraph, based on a discussion we had on the talk page for Moody's previously.
 * The user also added a paragraph to the "Late 2000s financial crisis" section of the article. In my opinion, the paragraph is a quote which doesn't add any useful information, just one senator's opinion, and seems unduly negative.
 * Finally, the user added links for both Fitch and Standard and Poor's to the "See also" section of the article. However, these are both mentioned in the text of the article itself, and as far as I understand the Manual of Style, don't belong in "See also". The user also removed mention of Moody's Analytics from "See also", which was appropriately included because it is relevant but not already mentioned in the article.

If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at these and see what you think. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again, if you are too busy to look into this, that is no bother. I can reach out to another editor for assistance later today, although it will be several hours from this posting, in case you still are able. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay. It's been pretty busy. I'll have a look shortly. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed the gossip. However, I feel that it is helpful to have those two extra links to related articles in see-also.
 * Can you think of any other pages which ought to be in the see-also section? Maybe something technical rather than other organisations? bobrayner (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate you taking the action to roll back the gossipy additions. Reviewing WP:SEEALSO it both says that it "should not repeat links which appear in the article's body" however it also says it is "ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense" and so I will go with your judgment. I do believe Moody's Analytics should be returned to the list, because it is relevant and not mentioned in the article otherwise. Two other potential additions articles are Credit rating agency and Big Three (credit rating agencies). Neither are especially good (something I hope to have time to address in the near future) but they are relevant. I will keep the page watchlisted and check back here as well soon. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian air force
European defence suppliers claims Hungary operates 15 Mi 8s and Mi 17s, with 22 in reserve. It also claims Hungary has 15 modernized Mi 24 Hinds. Please check this out and talk about it on the Hungarian air force's articles's talk page. When you look up European defence suppliers this will be the first result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.231.98 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

New message
Hello Bobrayner, you have a new message here. Please have a look when you have some time. Best, Tito Dutta (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A new reply there! Thanks! --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the wikilove!
made me happy. thanks!Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Training the trainers - Newcastle
Hi Bob. I have started a discussion about the location of the February train the trainer course that you've signed up to. You might be interested in commenting - see. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Looks like a good idea. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Dear Bob, Please see this. As you did, I would also have removed that part of the sentence as it's the lead and the lead should focus on the book itself, rather than referencing to other writings of the author. And it is a more balanced writing when it's removed. Thus in the summary, you could've simply written "removed irrelevant info" or something similar.

However you've written "removed sarkarspam". And I've just seen that you've written the same sentence in many other places all over again and again. Are you aware of what you're doing? Are you aware that by doing this, you're actually insulting a spiritual leader who has at least tens of thousands of followers all over the world? Could you dare to write anywhere "removed mohammadspam" or "removed jesusspam"? It is very and very very rude to do so. You're insulting and defaming someone reverred most highly to many people. So please stop offending!

It doesn't matter what you believe and what I believe. Because respect comes first. I hope, you'll take my friendly advice, step back for a moment, take a deep breath and then return to WP refreshed, with a more neutral state of mind and continue in a non-belligerent fashion to your work. And aggression never solves anything in life. Everything in life can be solved by discussing gently and with a sweet and smiling behaviour.

Brotherly,

--Universal Life (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That content was spam. It was no declaration of faith; it was systematically advertising the work of a distinctly human author, across many pages. (And we have somehow got articles on everything he wrote even though there's rarely evidence that each text is notable). However, I will change wording in future. bobrayner (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad that you've decided to change wording. The founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales states, as a principle that we should treat anyone with the utmost respect and dignity. That's a sign of positive change and I'm happy about it. :)


 * However, coming to the issue of specifically this, it is not considered to be a spam in Wikipedia. There are three categories of spams in WP, namely advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. This was none of it, rather it was a passionately written phrase, going against the impartial tone policy under NPOV and more important than that, it was partially irrelevant. It could be removed or re-worded and re-positioned to a more relevant place.


 * A third thing, I want to express, is what WP says about "achieving neutrality" in it's NPOV policy.

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.
 * The reason of this quote is not the above removal, but to shed more positive light in order to change your removal attitude in general, while other much better ways are present in order to effectively improve our Wikipedia, even in the domains you want to contribute. Friendly --Universal Life (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the complaints of Universal Life. You are using a language and a way of doing not at all suitable and collaborative. I understand that you haven't any sympathy for Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. But here we are on a group and we have to maintain a collaborative and pro-active way of doing. It's not using this language and askin the deletion of all the articles related with Shri Sarkar like Caryacarya, Namah Shivaya Shantaya (and other articles too) or trying continuously to delete the sources that you solve the problems. You have to respect the work of the other editors and the persons. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to edit collaboratively when you keep on misusing sources and Abhidevananda keeps on reverting legitimate edits as "vandalism", whilst sniping at other editors. "Collaborative" does not mean that the rest of the community must stand back whilst you push through your desired content unchanged. "Collaborative" does not mean that you always get your way. "Collaborative" does not mean that anybody who disagrees with your version is prejudiced, biased, and bigoted. bobrayner (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian air force
Hello Bobrayner, the official table of equipment for the hungarian air force says that there are 22 Mi 8/17s and 12 Mi 24s. However only a few Mi 24s are ready offhand. This source can be seen on the AgustaWestland article at htka.hu/. I guess thic clears up the issues we had about reliable sources on the Hungarian air force page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.231.98 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that source completely supports that position. You didn't provide a link, but after a little digging I found this:
 * However, a blog is not a very reliable source. If we cant trust the numbers, we shouldn't put them in the article and show them to readers as though they were definite facts. bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * However, a blog is not a very reliable source. If we cant trust the numbers, we shouldn't put them in the article and show them to readers as though they were definite facts. bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Grumpy Old Man (not the film)
Please help to finish the simple Sinanoğlu article. It is as simple as tellling our readers the basic facts of his life and work. However, we need editors who do not have a "personal" affiliation with the subject matter. (Like me. I am his son... :-) --E4024 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I can't call myself uninvolved. I'm a member of the superracist "Sinanoglu Youth Movement". 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Photo
You are editing another editor's comment, discuss here first! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You said that having the photo on the template talkpage was no biggie, and that you'd nominated it for deletion in commons due to a copyright problem; but when I try to remove it from the template talkpage - where it is wholly decorative - you revert me? This is very odd. Why would you restore a photo if you know it's not benefiting readers, it has an incorrect license, and you yourself are getting it deleted? bobrayner (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Greetings, they used this photo as a reference in their post. I request to keep that for now unless it is really important (the atmosphere is not very friendly there, why unnecessaryly edit another editor's old post, though it depends on you, I'll not revert your edit if you remove the photo now, a photo in the template talk page is not a big issue). A bot will remove it soon. Yes, I nominated it for deletion, not only that but, all photos of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar which are not authorized by their organization to use! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ananda Sutram Redirect
Is the second time that you are doing a redirect from the Ananda Sutram article to the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar article. Please refrain from doing it again otherwise I will consider this as a pure vandalism. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing crappy unsourced content is not vandalism. You have repeatedly restored stuff even though there is no source for it; that fails WP:BURDEN. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on the talk page on a consensual basis and use a different approach.--Cornelius383 (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update
Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.
 * Please do these steps as soon as possible

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:
 * Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
 * Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:
 * Communication and keeping up to date
 * 1) The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
 * 2) The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
 * 3) If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the  IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)
 * Ambassador training and resources

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The World According to Monsanto (again - 2nd)
Will you please stop your permanent onesides interferences in this aricle already! This is an article about a documentary, so the content has to be WHAT THE FILM SAYS, not about what anyone outside of the film thinks. You can use your Monsanto-friendly inserts or external links to magazines subordinate to multinational big business corporations in a lot of other articles (if you have to) like Agent Orange, Genetic engineering, Glyphosate or Polychlorinated biphenyl. And you're repeatet deletion ot the content and statements of the movie is crossing the border to vandalism. Everybody knows that your are personally against this kind of critical movies (therefore your preposterous attempt for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_World_According_to_Monsanto&diff=507235316&oldid=507231329 ) and as a business-related guy you are clearly in favour of everything that is PRO big business therefore also PRO Monsanto. So maybe you better do your work in the business section and keep your hands off this topic, when you are unable to kepp your personal biases and dislike against a documentary to yourself? Anyway, in general you are not the best person to deal with an article about a film, if you have not seen the film in the first place. Think about it! --77.4.87.76 (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Bobrayner has been doing the exact same thing to me without watching the film. The article is supposed to be about the film and what is presented in it. You haven't even read the cited document either. Bobrayner, please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.189.221 (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite a coincidence that two different people simultaneously come here to make the same comment about an obscure article!
 * It's a good idea to read "Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment"; it's here. Articles should reflect what sources say. Removing a source to insert your own POV-push is a bad idea. bobrayner (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you read the IFPRI report? bobrayner (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

yes i have

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Emotional Freedom Techniques". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

SuperPOV biassed editing
Bob, I would like to see your objective participation in clearing of biassed POV editing the article Torture in Turkey. I bolded my only edit there, to show people how the sources are being used in BAD FAITH, not to say merely "falsified" for throwing mad on the country of one's anti-choice. Turkey articles need good-willed and objective editors like you. It is not enough to eat turkey on Thanksgiving; help me stop or at least soften this discrimination, please. I hope others who read this will also join us. Canvassing is encouraged (see WP:E4024 :-) when it is for a "good" reason; making WP a more NPOV encyclopedia. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I know very little about modern Turkey - my background is in Ottoman history - but I will have a look. Have you asked the good people at WikiProject Turkey?bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I knew I could count on you. Answering your question; the only good people I know in this area either do not have a level of English required for that level of contributions or are intimidated by some negative experience. (Could I express myself diplomatically? If you wish I can ask a redlink friend from above to say this in a more Ottoman way... :-) I am also sure some good people are following this page belonging to a good guy. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That article is a mess. It jumps backwards and forwards in time, it has a section for "reports on torture" but then lists some reports in other places, the methods in the "methods" section differ from the methods described in other sections... I would like to take the history back a little further but none of my books cover this topic. bobrayner (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What about this one? I know that this is a voluntary work, but Wikipedia needs your insight of the Ottoman Empire and objective contributions... --E4024 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

IEG Committee invitation
Bob, since you and I seem to be among the few people posting in WikiProject Business and I generally find you to be a nice person to talk with, I'd like to invite you to consider applying to join the Wikimedia Individual Engagement Grants advisory committee on Meta. --Pine✉ 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind invitation; I've signed up. Hopefully it won't end up like some kind of good-cop-bad-cop committee where somebody else says "Yay! WikiLove over AJAX for Blackberry users sounds really cool - let's dispense lots of money!" whilst you or I gripe about proposals being realistic in technology & timeline, expecting to see tangible results, satisfying other criteria &c. bobrayner (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Right Livelihood Award
You've clearly got some personal beef against the Right Livelihood Award. Can I ask that you take your political opinions elsewhere? Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I feel that the Right Livelihood Award should be described as the "Right Livelihood Award". They may promote themselves as the "alternative nobel", but that is already adequately covered in our article on the Right Livelihood Award. That slogan does not need to be repeated at face value in every article about every recipient of their awards; it does our readers a great disservice. Can I ask that you take your assumptions of bad faith and bias elsewhere? bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you've made a series of reverts, reintroducing promotional comments about RLA to various BLPs, with the edit summary "Rv political edit". This is unhelpful. You should stop it now. bobrayner (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the term "alternate Nobel prize" is near universally applied to the RLAs. I don't see it as a disservice to use that term. WB:ABF or not, I see some sort of grievance in someone trying to hunt down and expunge its use. Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 16:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is nearly universally applied to these BLPs; a testament to efficient editing by whoever might want to promote the RLA (or, of course, editors who want some BLPs to look nicer; an RLA is surely a fine addition to your trophy shelf but "alternative nobel" looks even better). In reality, the award is a "Right Livelihood Award", not an "Alternative Nobel". I am just trying to get neutral content; that you see it as some sort of grievance - and personal beef, and "political" - is a textbook case of WP:ABF. Nothing personal; I spend a lot of time working on controversial topics so I'm used to this kind of thing. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Still looks like a personal beef to me no matter how you dress it up as "neutral wording". But whatever. You win because you have stronger feelings on the subject and I couldn't be bothered with an edit war. --Chuunen Baka (talk  • contribs) 10:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Bobrayner. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (this is the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Emotional_Freedom_Techniques)Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
I should be most grateful if you could advise me. Someone keeps deleting what is on the “Fair trade coffee” page and replacing it with their own input. They make three major errors of fact in their first sentence and then continue to produce error after error. There is no attempt at producing verifiable evidence – the only sources cited are advertisements, blogs and journalism (usually unpublished) evidently found in a half hour search of the internet. The errors are contradicted by what was already on the page, which was supported by citations over a hundred person years of research by many independent researchers, published in a range of academic journals, as well as by the formal standards of the Fairtrade Labelling Organization. The editor gets over this contradiction by deleting the sections with verifiable evidence or just garbling them to make them incomprehensible. These problems have been pointed out repeatedly but the vandalism continues. And they do not reply on the talk page.

I emphasize that this is not an argument between people accessing different research, or analysing it differently, nor is an argument between researchers, and that I am anxious not to delete the contributions of people who do have something verifiable to add, or who have a different perspective.

What should I do?AidWorker (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

New message
... at User_talk:Abhidevananda. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC) .... One more reply there! If you want you can handle the DR now. I'll tell you the current status and the important points in brief! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Logo deletion nomination!
Too fast! You could wait for my reply! The file will not be deleted, I think! See permission. I have posted a detailed reply at. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the permission come from the actual owner of the content instead of Abhidevananda telling us that it's OK for Abhidevananda to copy any images from elsewhere? bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The permission (link above) is signed by Ac. Nirmohananda (not Abhidevananda), central public relations secretary of the organization). Behalf of the organization he can give such permission. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The website is run by Abhidevananda, not Ac. Nirmohananda, not Sarkar, not Ananda Marga. Nobody mentioned this. Abhidevananda got caught uploading somebody else's content, and now "permission" appears on a site run by Abhidevananda (rather than by the content owner), and some of those "own work" claims may change too. This worries me. (A separate issue is that our processes sometimes allow original research by the back door, because enwiki asks for sources for any text that an editor adds, but we rarely ask for sources for any commons image - although Commons doesn't assess verifiability on our behalf) bobrayner (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At that time I was working hard on these articles. Parabhat Ranjar Sarkar copyedit, Nohumanism copyedit etc. And these images or the permission was a part of that work. I told them about the detailed wording of the permission too (like don't just write "we allow", write "license CC etc", mention uploader owns a Wikipedia account because if a letter says Bob Rayner is authorized to upload images that does not prove that this Wikipedia account holder is Bob Rayner).
 * After preparing the permission, they sent a mail to OTRS. Don't know what happened then, but, they didn't get any reply!
 * So, I asked to add such a permission notice with each upload see here. At that time I asked them to upload the copy to Commons, Google Docs or any online site so that we can easily link to image description page.
 * Their personal site.. that will not be an issue for two reasons 1) simple Goggle search with query "Abhidevananda" name shows he is a senior member of that organization, 2) It is understandable that the head-quarter gave him the permission (paper) so that he can use it wherever he needs. Now he can upload it to his own website if he wants. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Asaram Bapu
... and please keep an eye on this article too if possible. This is now becoming a headache. I have reported at BLPN. ---Tito Dutta (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The BLP noticeboard is quite effective, so there are probably lots of extra eyes on the article now. bobrayner (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has replied there! They have again added the material. I have reverted twice today, so, can't revert more now. Though I can say I have reported at BLPN and again requested for help when no one replied. I have submitted a request of sockpuppetry investigation too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to close a requested move
Regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units where you made a brief comment. I'm writing to you since I am planning to close this move request, and it seems to me you know something about it but are not one of the main disputants. My thought is that putting it under MOS (as requested) is a relatively harmless step and should not harm the bargaining positions of the people who still disagree. Would I be wrong about this? Would proceeding with the move be against any current standards? Thanks for any opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question! My comment was simply exasperation that we might need to encode some kind of enwiki standard for units of measurement in a tiny windswept archipelago - which is not known for metrological strife in the real world - and embed it into our manual of style which is usually concerned with consistency across millions of different articles. Although it's not explicit, I think it likely that the intractable dispute over units in the Falklands goes hand in hand with the broader territorial dispute - MOS disputes are no less bitter than territorial disputes, and I worry that entangling them might make disputes worse. But, hey, if you've read through the many comments and weighed up the policy-based arguments &c you surely know better than me, and you're probably right that it would be harmless. Don't let me stand in your way! bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

108.209.50.246
Hello i am very glad you deleted what i put. It was very helpful -_-. Question: Are you in charge of editing an deleteing what people put on wiki, cause if you are it would really help me understand why you would delete what i edited, because you MISS SPELLED somthing. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.50.246 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not in charge. Do you need help with something? bobrayner (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Miloš Obilić
Please refrain from unbalanced opinion and undue weight. See the talk page. Name-theories are not to be inserted in "early sources".--Z oupan 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources devote considerable space to Kobilić's origins (and his name), so it is not appropriate for us to brush over that and pretend that Kobilić is some well-attested historic character. He may well be important to later nationalist mythmaking, but we have to be honest. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that there are many sources which are used for the kopil connection.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No reliable sources have been brushed over. The intro clearly says: "It is not certain whether Obilić actually existed". Kopil does not, in any case, gain primacy over theories regarding this figure's name. Continue at the article's talk page.--Z oupan 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Progressive utilization theory
FYI: Per your previous involvement in the discussion, I thought you might be interested in commenting in Talk:Progressive utilization theory. Thanks! Location (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Reichstag (building) RM
You previously participated in a RM discussion regarding the Reichstag (building) article. I have proposed another move of the article at Talk:Reichstag (building) if you care to participate in the new discussion. —  AjaxSmack  19:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Restoring personal attacks and a reminder regarding WP:3RR
Please stop restoring personal attacks that have been removed. Also, it seems that you are engaged in edit-warring and therefore I'd like to remind you of WP:3RR. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 12:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning about edit-warring. Perhaps you should take your finger off the revert button. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like how you've attempted to discuss the issue out. Clearly you're a very productive member of the wikipedia community. Good work. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 12:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Three times you have edited somebody else's comments; two times I have reverted that. Then you came here and complain that I haven't tried to discuss - again, I started the talkpage thread, you just keep hitting the revert button. It might be better to concentrate on improving articles instead of creating drama. bobrayner (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Timestamps are fun! &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 12:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Circular sourcing"
Stop to [ destroy infoboxes] and to [ damage lead sections] now. If you feel a problem about the sources, then post it to WT: WikiProject Color, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been a lot of discussion at WT:WikiProject Color; I raised the bigger problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 7 and the most recent relevant thread is WT:WikiProject Color. There has been a persistent problem with an editor making up infoboxes and templates with poorly-sourced "colours", often with made-up names and RGB triplets. Then other sites scrape content from our pages, then I remove the poorly-sourced content, then somebody restores it citing the source which copied from en.wikipedia... bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a legitimate concern, but you should point to a specific problem in edit summaries. Make something like WP:i-freeware-download.com to redirect to an appropriate discussion and link it from wherever will you delete a poorly-sourced infobox. A redirect has a potential advantage that it may be later retargeted to an essay or, if situation changes in some way, to another discussion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point, thanks! I have done some work with several other "sources" which are really just scraping enwiki content, so a few links (possibly to somewhere like the listing on Mirrors and Forks) might be helpful... bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Mention at AN/I
I have mentioned you at AN/I with regards to a request to block User:Danjel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

New Orleans crime family
Thanks for the compliment and yes, I did find it oddly flattering to get a custom-named stalker. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Regional Organiser
...for RMT until a few years back...? Basket Feudalist 14:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sadly not. I have several namesakes, and the others are all more interesting than me. I might be one of the following people:
 * A sailor on Henry Hudson's second voyage who saw a mermaid;
 * A director of Diageo Australia;
 * Wardrobe supervisor on many films in the mid-20th century;
 * Some guy who drove across Europe and Africa in a Jeep;
 * A former mariner who now runs an IT business;
 * The manager of Risborough Rangers FC;
 * A journalist with the Richmond Times-Dispatch;
 * A British diplomat, now in Hong Kong;
 * An RAF officer in world war 2
 * Or maybe somebody else entirely. bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! I won't ask you about mortgages either Take care!  Basket Feudalist 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced information in Moody's article
Hello Bobrayner, yes it is me again. Sometime this morning an unregistered editor added a note about the U.S. credit downgrade to the MIS article, although this was not Moody's but S&P, so it really doesn't belong here. In addition to asking if you will fix it, I also realize I have been coming to you with changes often, and I do not wish to take up your time, so if you would prefer I ask somewhere, please suggest and I will make that my first recourse when necessary. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I just went to fix it, and somebody else had got there first! Still, I should have acted faster (have been quite busy recently).
 * Feel free to come back here if you need help with anything, but if you're tired of waiting for me, I'm sure there are other people over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business who would be happy to help. Is there anything else you're working on? bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

KDOM
I deleted one source and the number of KDOM monitors here. I hope I was right. Maybe the deleted number of monitors was correct. I just could not verify, since the cited source is referring to OSCE-KVM. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks. I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You are very kind; but I don't deserve it - you're hauling bushels of corn, and I just pick up a few grains behind you. bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts‎
Hi Bob, I am sorry to tell you that your revert at that particular article is factually wrong, despite using a source from a quite controversial Malcom. The sentence is unsourced, but you can check by yourself that the claim that "Vojvodina and Kosovo were never part of modern-day Serbia" is wrong by itself. We can either remove the entire sentence as unsourced (although there is nothing uncorrect neither controversial in my edit), or, you could at least chack the facts about the history of Vojvodina and Kosovo and see by yourself when both of those territories became part of Serbia. For any clarifications I will gladly help you if I menage to have time, but please check the corresponding articles about the history of those specific teritories. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Malaueg Church
Hey! Listen to me! Instead of bragging things that you don't even know, why don't you just ignore what I write because I worked on it really hard. I did found a lot of researches about the article and since you do not see this in person, you don't have the right to remove or delete any articles that you don't know! I tell you get out of my watch!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastbridge (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You wrote about the church being a world heritage site, but it's not in UNESCO's list of world heritage sites. I think it's a hoax. If what you wrote can't be trusted, it does not belong in an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the IEG Committee
Hi Bobrayner, Thanks for signing up to join the Individual Engagement Grants Committee! It is my pleasure to confirm your membership. We’ve got a lot to accomplish together, particularly during the next 6 weeks, and it will be awesome to have your help. Here is how to get started:

To make your membership official, please do 2 things by February 11th:


 * 1) Introduce yourself in the IdeaLab.
 * 2) Send your email address to IEGrants@undefinedwikimedia.org, so that we can subscribe you to the committee mailing list.

Then there are 2 first tasks' for active committee members to start on right away:
 * 1) Review information in the Committee Workroom (your new organizing hub on meta), including responsibilities and the review process.  Feedback and questions are very welcome at this stage.
 * 2) Start giving feedback on open ideas, drafts and proposals. Asking questions to gather information you’ll need to make a recommendation helps prospective grantees think their projects all the way through, and will give us more great proposals to choose from.

Our formal review of proposals starts February 22nd. I’ll be posting information about scoring and selection of proposals on the committee mailing list and in the Workroom soon, so please keep an eye there!

Thanks again for joining this new grantmaking program...I hope we’re going to see some amazing impact from these grants! :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

71.103.231.98 and Hungarian Air Force
I am sick of the editwarring on this page, and editors' refusal to cooperate or communicate. Does this guy above need a block? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm no admin, but if editors persist with a slow edit-war to reintroduce unsourced or poorly-sourced content, then a block is definitely one of the options, yes!
 * Semiprotection might be appropriate too, since I think there may be more than one person (and more than one problematic version of content) too. What do you think?
 * I'd taken it off my watchlist because there's nothing else I can do. I only stumbled across it via Qwyrxian's talkpage, I'm hardly the greatest expert on Hungarian military inventory :-) bobrayner (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I had blocked one of the two edit-warrers, and blocked the page to anon/new editors until 1 May 2013. Please do inform me if other military pages are in the middle of edit warring over poorly sourced content, and I will hand out more... Buckshot06 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Heterophobia
Hello Bobrayner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Heterophobia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required.''' Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 12:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks. I couldn't see the old version; if there are significant differences then I'm happy to stand aside and let other editors decide what to do with the current article. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparent mischief on Moody's articles
Hello, I apologize if I have bothered you a bit too often, although over the weekend some more drastic changes were made to the three primary Moody's articles. I have already asked for help at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but because of the nature of these changes, it seemed to me this was worth bringing to your attention as well. Many thanks in advance, Mysidae (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I've replied on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I have undone some of the changes but not all. bobrayner (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have replied at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard about the remaining neutrality tag and the information removed from the MIS article's history. Would you be able to look again? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bacon number
I saw your request at REWARD. If it helps, I think I have a low Bacon number - my fiance produced a short film that was featured at the Cannes Film Festival. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. DVMt (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We each made two reverts; I stopped short of a third. What do you hope to achieve by slapping a template on my talkpage? Perhaps it'll make the uncomfortable evidence and sourced content go away? bobrayner (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hijama
Your revert for the statment that cupping has no known benefits at the lead of the hijama page belongs in the body of the article. I am not certain why this is even a debate, it is so obvious. I did not delete it, I moved it to the approriate palce in the article. It really should be removed as the citation is very weak and does not name any source or studies. It is just a general statement with no supportive evidence - not a valid source. Why not research the many heew studies out there instead of fighting to include such a weak citation. I will be revamping this entire page and am likely the most renownedexpert on this subject for which few western people have a good understanding of Prophetic medicine. The boas imposed on these "Islamic" pages is clear and pervasive. Why not contact me before reverting evidences. Multiple reverts I believe is a violation of Wiki rules, I will ahve to investigate. UmarRab (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent issue related to the Flag of Western Sahara
Hello,

Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

Regards, --Omar-toons (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I recently noticed that you linked my article on "Overunity", to the term "Perpetual Motion". Even though I went to great lengths to draw a distinction between the two terms. Why did you feel that there was no good reason to make the distinction, or to give valuable information regarding the subjects. "Overunity" is not a theory (fringe or otherwise). It is a term that has gained popularity, of late. It deserves a mention and an explanation. Firstmm5 Firstmm5 (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

ARBMAC general sanctions warning re: Kosovo
For the sake of thoroughness, I am posting a copy of the standard warning for Balkans-related articles here on your talk page. I am not taking sides here as to who is right and who is wrong; everyone needs to be on their best behaviour here, and edit warring is not an acceptable procedure in any case, even if you are convinced that you are right and others are wrong.

I realize you are an established editor, and I hesitated to "template" you on that basis, but I decided it was necessary to post the same notice both on your talk page and also on the talk page of the other user (23 editor), so that no one can accuse me of playing favourites or of not adequately notifying everyone currently involved in the dispute that special "article probation" measures were in force here. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK; thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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) 13:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Advice on socks
I started an SPI for the socking behavior we're seeing at the Sarkarverse AfDs. I had wanted to keep this discreet, both because I don't like flinging accusations around and also because I didn't want the extra battle. However, with the SPI backlog I don't have any great hope this will be resolved before the last batch of AfDs are closed. Should I go ahead and mention the SPI on the AfD pages? Or is discretion the better part of valor here? (I know that if any of those articles make it through we can renominate them after the SPI closes, but that seems like a lot of unnecessary bother). Your thoughts? Garamond Lethe t c  16:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it could be a good idea to mention the SPI on the AfDs.
 * Don't worry too much about future socks. An unused sock is a useless sock; it's easy to spot them when they start to defend an article.
 * Some AfDs have been closed as "delete" despite multiple socks saying "strong keep"; so the tactic isn't 100% effective (closing admins are likely to see the warning signs most of the time), and the worst outcome is that some obscure article on a non-notable book is kept. That's not a disaster. I would be more worried if socks were used to defend problematic (ie. non-neutral) content in a higher-profile article, like Progressive Utilization Theory. If problems persist, and it's a mixture of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, misuse of sources, tag-teaming, NPOV &c, and if intervention by an uninvolved admin would help solve the problem, then it might be a good idea to start a new thread on AN/I. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reality check. You're absolutely right&mdash;the worst thing that's going to happen here really isn't that bad.  I've mentioned the SPI on both remaining AfDs and will leave it at that.  I appreciate the detailed response; it helped.  Garamond Lethe t c  20:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work! bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I did some analysis and put a table in the SPI. There are other techniques (non-checkuser) that could be used to pin down sock editing more precisely, but it can be quite time-consuming - is it worth putting much more effort into this? bobrayner (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know. I'm still new enough here that this is the first meatpuppet SPI I've seen so I don't know if the extra work would be required to get them blocked.  Given your message below I'd say don't worry about it.  Garamond Lethe t c  15:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a good day
I'm not having a good day, as you can see to the left. Luckily, nobody was hurt, but I drove home covered in glass shards. Dear readers, please be patient with me; I might be a little stressed. Things will return to normal in a day or two... bobrayner (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear you're ok. Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: My only injury is a tiny shard of glass stuck in my foot; the insurers have given me a new Volvo to play with, but haven't yet done anything about my (broken) car; crisis over. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ananda Marga
Please discuss on the talk page of the article Ananda Marga your opinions. You can't revert without discussing.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

white elephants
You are obviously referring to one of the two examples you deleted. Why then you keep deleting both?

Plus examples are not articles. It is a usual tactic in book writing when you give examples to use phrases taken as they are written originally as long as you are giving your source. Clicklander (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clicklander (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
for the barnstar. Rather belated - mainly because I've been mulling something over. We have FTN, but my problem is that my main interest is in fringe archaeology, and we already have too few editors interested in archaeology, let alone fringe archaeology. I was thinking of proposing a fringe archaeology work group at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology. Of course, this would have to be open I believe to everyone, but hopefully the upside would be bigger than the downside. No particular reason to mention it to you and I don't even expect you'd be interested, just wanted a comment from someone who knows me but hasn't interacted with me a huge amount. Thanks for listening. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That sounds like an good idea. I'm no archæological expert, but concentrating effort on "fringe" topics in a workgroup close to the "parent" subject (like setting up an alt-med workgroup in WikiProject Medicine) could be quite helpful.
 * FTN is the starting point for a lot of good work on enwiki's most difficult problems, but part of me thinks that it encourages editors into a defensive mentality - there is a risk that FTN stalwarts (including us) start to see themselves as defenders, standing on the city walls with sword in hand, fighting off barbarian hordes of fringe editors coming from a dozen different directions... it could be helpful for wikiprojects to take a more nuanced approach, bringing in more expert editors (and a broader knowledge of the sources and their limitations).
 * Before setting this up, can you think of any potential downsides? My only concern would be that the scope could be too narrow - people don't do Bad Archæology for archæology's sake, it often goes hand-in-hand with other flavours of Bad History (though this could be my personal bias), so maybe a workgroup at WikiProject History could work better? bobrayner (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, hadn't thought of what you say about people not doing Bad Archaeology for archaeology's sake. That's a good point. This sort of stuff is always about history in some way. Any suggestions as to who else we might ask? Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I pinged the awesome PatHadley but he's not been active recently. Any other suggestions...? bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

3RR
Mentioned a comment of yours here-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
<span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;text-shadow:#AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;class:texhtml"> kashmiri 20:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I have to involve you in this
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Don't apologise; you didn't involve me, I was already neck-deep. Thanks for all your hard work... bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template
I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Western Sahara/SADR
Hello,

There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic.

Regards, --Omar-toons (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mauritania
Hello,

please take the time to read my edits about Mauritania and note that all my claims are backed by easily verifiable sources. It is frustrating that my changes keep being undone by admins who don't know anything about my country and insist on perpetuating a page full of lies and distortions. I am more than happy to elaborate and justify all my edits.

Respectfully,

Rimman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.91.235 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

IEGCom move
Hi Bob! I wanted to let you know that I moved you to the inactive list for the IEG Committee, because we haven't heard from you during the committee's formal review period. But we still love you! So, if and when you've got time to participate again, please feel free to jump back in and add yourself back to the active list. Thanks! Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Janicar and his IPs reported for edit warring
See here. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Request
Hi. Please verity and watch theses articles: Great Seljuq Empire, Khwarazmian dynasty, and Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed reply; I've had some problems offline.
 * I will have a look, but most of my interest is in the Ottoman empire rather than the people who came before them. I recognise that a lot of articles like this can suffer from neutrality problems, caused by modern attempts to rewrite history and reclaim ancient empires & ethnic groups for modern states... bobrayner (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Palm oil and Malaysian Palm Oil Board query
Hi Bobrayner. I see you are a project participant at WikiProject Cooperation and I'm hoping you'll be able to help with a recent request I made on the Palm oil talk page. The first part of this request has been resolved, but I would like my proposed draft for the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil section to be reviewed. So far one other editor has reviewed it and seems to indicate that it looks alright. However I have prepared this draft on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council and would like another editor to review before it is added to the page. I have also prepared a draft for the Malaysian Palm Oil Board article, but not received any responses to date. Would you have time to look at either of my suggestions? Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK; I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, hope you're well. I saw the MfD. More important than how I'm honoured, and unrelated to that User, would you mind giving input at my proposal on WT:NPA, see if it would add any value. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Who is
User talk:80.112.146.109 that I just reverted? Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe it is User:Janicar. Judging from the slow edit warring done by Janicar and his IPs, I would speculate that "Janicar" is actually a permanently blocked editor that violated AA2. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears IP:145.94.17.223 is another sock of Janicar. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes; looks like Janicar. Thanks for the swift response, Kansas Bear! bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fort Hood shooting
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fort Hood shooting. 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) 14:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis
Hi Bobrayner, your contribs are wrong. You should read the source or add others who prove this sentence. But I don't have the patience to quarral with you about that. If you are interested in what the source sayes about that issue. Please let me know. -- WSC ® 18:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Philosophy" of chiropractic
I completely agree with you about Philosophy of Chiropractic. I have supprted your move, and I reverted the revert of that move. So we have a game going on here. I left a note on the talk page, because this issue doesn't seem to be going away. I'm not sure why they insist on capitalizing Chiropractic either. Perhaps it's insecurity. Greg Bard (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up! I've been offline for a while, so I have a lot of catching up to do... bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Rewriting history"
This is unacceptable. I worked hard to improve the article and you are once again introducing synthesis in order to push your slanted viewpoints and are continuing to use the now unctuous summary of "sources". You are a denier of the facts, you choose to obey your own viewpoints and are deliberately taking every single opportunity to sling mud at the Serbian nation on every page you come across - it seems to be your only ambition here. It makes precious little difference to you that "Serb forces" is highly controversial and vague in light of ther fact that it formed part of a sovereign nation and it was indeed that sovereign nation against whom its agressor was waging war in 1999. I am inviting you to revert your apologetic contributions and stop this disruptvie behaviour which has been going on for weeks. I am not here for the same reasons as you, I am here to write an encyclopaedia, not add irrelevant information to "see also" sections on matters not concerning the subject. There is an agreement on how we present the delicate situation of Serbia/Yugoslavia in the late 1990s and if you do not start to respect these guidelines, I shall involve the admins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of your comment is an obvious lie; I need not reply to that part. However, feel free to involve an admin if you want. Do you think you can find an admin who will give you carte blanche to ignore sources when they do not fit your beliefs? If a wide range of reliable independent sources say "Serb", then so should we. WP:V is not optional. If you are unable or unwilling to read the sources, or if you are unable to assume good faith about editors who are driven by sources rather than by nationalist passion, then step back and leave editing to other people who can. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Summary for uninvolved editors who happen across this discussion: Like on many other articles about atrocities committed by Serbs during the breakup of Yugoslavia, Evlekis has worked very hard to change several instances of the word "Serb" to say "Yugoslav". I'm sure that long-term campaign takes a lot of effort. My edit audaciously changed a few instances to say "Serb" again, because that's what sources say. If that makes me a "denier of the facts" then I will revel in this rather odd new title, and add it to the list. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Other people who can" - I presume you speak of Antidiskriminator, WhiteWriter and 23 editor. You can't have meant yourself reading your own comment back to yourself, prating about WP:V and introducing deliberate factual errors. Of course, your edits would be perfectly fine had you not have known Serbia was part of Yugoslavia and it was a national war but there are stacks of evidence from your own edits which show you were aware of of this, so it is indeed your gross "nationalist passion" when pushing Albanian principles which governs your contributing. You have never produced a "factual source" to support your delusion that Serbia was independent or that it has a separate military from Montenegro yet you have had months to find one. The fact is that sources are not supposed to be copied verbatim for one and for another, encylcopaedic editing has the monopoly over reporter style, especially in tendentious areas. When an editor does the right thing by stalling on the issue, using terms which do not detract from the facts - terms which mediate where there is ambiguity "national in place of Serb or Yugoslav", you deliberately go back to the POV-version. Well BR, "independent" sources refer to the Milošević regime and call him Butcher of the Balkans, so will you add these onto the encyclopaedia when using those sources? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW

 * I am not responsible for this need for reverting per the summary. And I cannot restore it because I am limited to 1RR. Original edit: Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not the author of this reverted entry either. Apart from that, no source says anything at all on which institution within the FRY carried out the investigation. They only talk about Yugoslav authorities and their qualms with the Finnish forensic team. Original edit:. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

plus - taken from the source YOU are using

"The Chain of Command

The government forces involved in the conflict were a complex combination of the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs police and special police, Yugoslav Army soldiers and special units, paramilitary forces, local militias, and an assortment of gunmen from abroad, all operating under orders from the government in Belgrade.

The Yugoslav Army had overall command during the period of NATO_bombing, with the police and paramilitary forces subservient to its orders according to law, although top officials in the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs clearly exercised significant influence over the campaign. The army controlled the main roads and the borders, coordinating and facilitating the "ethnic cleansing." The police and paramilitary forces were more involved directly in the expulsion of civilians and destruction of villages, with artillery support from the army. It is during these operations that men sometimes were separated from women and children, interrogated about the KLA, and summarily executed.

According to Yugoslav law, the Yugoslav Army (Vojska Jugoslavije, or VJ) is under the command of the Yugoslav president in both wartime and peace. Until October 2000, this was Slobodan Milosevic. The controlling body of the VJ is the Supreme Defense Council, comprised of the presidents of Serbia, Montenegro, and Yugoslavia and chaired by the Yugoslav president. The chief of the army's General Staff during the war was Gen. Dragoljub Ojdanic, who was appointed after the war to serve as Yugoslav minister of defense-the position he held until October 2000.

The VJ is divided into three armies. The Third Army, commanded during the war by Col. Gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, was responsible for Kosovo and southern Serbia. As of August 2001, Pavkovic was Chief of the Yugoslav Army's General Staff. Under Pavkovic, during the war, was Maj. Gen. Vladimir Lazarevic, who commanded the Pristina Corps of the Third Army that was based in Kosovo. Under Lazarevic were five brigades, one military police unit, and one aviation regiment. All of their commanders are named in the chapter Forces of the Conflict.

The structure of the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ministarstvo Unutrasnjih Poslova, or MUP), run during the war by Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic, is more complicated than that of the VJ, which has a transparent chain of command. Within the MUP were the regular police in Kosovo commanded by Sreten Lukic, the special police (Posebne Jedinice Policije, or PJP) commanded by Lt. Gen. Obrad Stevanovic, and the Anti-Terrorist Forces (Specijalna Antiteroristicka Jedinica, or SAJ) commanded by Col. Zivko Trajkovic. Col. Gen. Vlastimir Djordjevic was head of the public security sector of MUP, as well as assistant to the minister of internal affairs. The new Serbian government replaced Djordjevic and Stevanovic in January 2001, but promoted Lukic to chief of public security as well as deputy minister of internal affairs.

The Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs also contains the state security service, or secret police, which played a major role in Kosovo. In addition to covert activities monitoring and harassing ethnic Albanian political activists and the KLA, state security also deployed its special operations unit, the JSO (Jedinica za Specijalne Operacije), and assisted various paramilitary organizations. Also known as the "Red Berets" or "Frenki's Boys" (after Frenki Simatovic, a key personality in the Ministry of Internal Affairs who allegedly founded the group), the JSO was commanded during the war by Milorad Lukovic, a man better known as "Legija." Until January 2001, the head of the Serbian state security was Col. Gen. Radomir Markovic. He was dismissed in late January and arrested one month later by Serbian police for his alleged involvement in a 1999 attack against a Serbian politician, Vuk Draskovic. David Gajic was the head of state security in Kosovo during the war.

Lastly, various paramilitary forces as well as foreign gunmen were active in Kosovo, largely under the control of the central government. Aside from being among the most violent forces in Kosovo, one of the paramilitaries' primary activities was looting and theft.

Although the precise lines of command and control of these paramilitary forces remain unclear, they clearly cooperated closely with the Yugoslav Army and Serbian police. Paramilitary members who spoke with the international press after the war said that local officials had sometimes given them lists of ethnic Albanians to target for murder. Some men were released from Serbian prisons if they agreed to fight in Kosovo. At times, individual members of the police or army tried to warn or protect ethnic Albanian civilians from paramilitary forces, although this was rare; more commonly, regular militias and police personnel worked closely with paramilitary units, often maintaining a cordon around targeted communities while paramilitary troops moved in.

The various units and groups within the MUP make the chain of command less discernible than with the VJ, although it is clear that ultimate authority for the MUP rested with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. According to Yugoslav law, in a declared state of war, the Yugoslav Army has jurisdiction over the Serbian police, thereby making Slobodan Milosevic the de facto and de jure commander of the police during the period of NATO bombing. Then-Yugoslav Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Sainovic also played an important role."

Now is everything clear to you?? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Kind notice
Thanks and best regards,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you use edit summaries to communicate a specific view and to address other users, like you did here and here. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt other users and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period. I kindly propose to you to consider not doing this in future.

Nomination of Joel D. Wallach for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joel D. Wallach 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/Joel D. Wallach 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. MastCell Talk 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I've only edited it a couple of times though. Notifying recent editors that a heavily-edited article is going to AfD can be a minefield, though - where do you draw the line? Sooner or later somebody might see it as canvassing unless you notify every editor. bobrayner (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I just picked the last few relatively active editors from the edit history. I'm sure someone, somewhere will be able to spin that into a canvassing charge. But, of course, if I didn't notify anyone then I'd be accused of trying to sneak the article through AfD without notifying people. It's the standard Wikipedia catch-22. :) MastCell Talk 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work with this stuff 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Đakovica
Take note regarding this edit that the city of Đakovica was part of the Vilayet of Kosovo which in turn was Ottoman Empire territory for the time in question and subsequently, the name of the settlement in English was in line with its Turkish counterpart, Yakova. The Ottomans did not lay claim to the Kosovo vilayet but administered it legally as had done for centuries; even sympathisers of their opponents viewed the various anti-Ottoman forces as rebels all be it in the name of liberation. The area remained Ottoman until the aftermath of the First Balkan War after which most of the region went to Serbia with the remainder to Montenegro. To this end, Gjakova was never commonly used in English secondary sources. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? The meaning of "vilayet" shifted over time but even at first it was emphatically a taxation district paying tribute to the Porte; parts of Kosovo were intermittently included in the eyalet of Buda, rather than Rumeli but that's another story. Sancaks add an extra layer of complexity. Returning to the main point, though. it's easy enough to find Anglophone secondary sources which call the town "Gjakova"; for instance the first one I pulled off my shelf says "Smaller slices of Kosovo were included in other neigbouring units; in particular the sancak of Dukagjin, which covered part of north-central Albania and in some periods included the Kosovo town of Gjakova (Srb.: Djakovica) with its nearby district of Altun-ili". It seems especially dishonest that you argue "Gjakova was never commonly used in English secondary sources" when you have removed a citation of a reliable source which calls it Gjakova, and replaced that with... the website of a Korean boarding school which is not a reliable source. Presumably you googled for "Yakova -Gjakova". Would you like to take this problem to the reliable sources noticeboard and get laughed at, or could we just skip that step and revert from your version to mine? Sooner or later articles on Kosovo will reflect what the more reliable sources say; by undoing my edits you are postponing that date, but the articles will get there eventually. bobrayner (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In 1868 it was not Kingdom of Albania or Principality of Montenegro, it was Ottoman Empire, full stop. The town may be referred to by a number of names but its name was Yakova, full stop. We observe historical accuracy, regardless of whether Noel Malcolm does - a man who famously plagiarises Rexhep Qosja who in turn wouldn't call it any other way. In Britannica 1911 it is referred to as Yakova, never mind the revisionist theories published later. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have checked your sources and they fail to substantiate your claim. They were published in 1969, 1979 and 1999 respectively and the first two are in Albanian. You need a source to show that this was the English name at the time in question, otherwise we use the name per WP:AT, I'm all right either way. Choice is yours. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop making stuff up. I recognise that the two of us are unlikely to agree on anything any time soon, but there is a risk that a passerby might read what you write here and believe it, and that's not a net positive. The source I used was written in English, by an anglophone expert on the region. Why would I use an Albanian source in a dispute about how to write a name in English? That's just another bizarre fiction. I would also point out that WP:AT is our policy on article titles; either you haven't read the policy page you're citing, or you believe that a word in the middle of an article is actually the title. Just for clarity, I'll repeat the first sentence of that policy: "An article title is the large heading displayed above the content of any article". The title of the article is "Timeline of Kosovo history"; not "Gjakova", not "Yakova". Neither you nor I are changing that title. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, but if you consistently average more than one blatant fuckup per comment it's probably best for your blood pressure - and mine - if you stop commenting on my talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! If you believe that we should report Gjakova when referring to the city in Kosovo, collate your sources and may I wish you the best of luck in obtaining consensus to move Đakovica to the target. However where you are concerned this is irrelevant as we were discussing the name of a city for 1881 and in this context we observe historical accuracy. If we didn't, you would not see Dardania presented early on in the same article. You may be interested to know that the Albanian script and written standard did not come into being until 1908, something I myself had forgotten until recently. To this end, giving Kosovan towns names in modern Albanian for events during the Ottoman period is deliberately introducing factual error. Furthermore, just you watch your language when talking to me and if you believe you have ownership of this page and that I should not leave comments here, you are welcome to report the incident. In the meantime, you are free to delete Evlekis contributions here by reverting. On that you will not be challeneged. Just remember, the sources you use merely support the statement but have no relevance to Naming Conventions which is the issue at hand. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that there are sources which use Tetova for Tetovo published in English. Doesn't change a thing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Reliable source calls it Gjakova. Not an Albanian source, not a source about the current day, but a source discussing Ottoman history of the region. Yes, that name is the same name as current-day Albanian - but avoiding the name for that reason is just unfathomable. If modern-day Albanian speakers used a different name, would you then be happy to accept what the source says? bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, I don't know if it is just me not able to get my point across. All right, forget Gjakova, let's try from a different angle. Sources may use any of the available names for a settlement not just for Kosovo but anywhere in which variation exists. Now if we as editors feel the source is good enough to report Ferizaj and not Uroševac, the key issue is not simply reporting Ferizaj in that instance but actually having Uroševac moved to it. What we cannot have is "selective naming", referring to Gjilan here and on the next paragraph Gnjilane simply because that is what the source for that statement is doing. What happens when you have two sources, one using Gjilan, the other Gnjilane? There needs to be some form of permanent order, and this is another reason why historical accuracy is widely favoured. I am about to go to the page again after posting this because I just noticed something, the edit to follow will surely confirm my honesty. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Flag Icons (List of current systems for electric rail traction)
I would advise you to tread carefully. This page has used flag icons for a very long time, and there has been little or no opposition to them. Also, I have read the manual of style and see little in there to support your claim. I will continue to revert your edits to remove them, and if it comes to a wheel war, then I see you as standing on very thin ice. Please do not say that you have not been warned. When a page has used flag icons for a long time, you need to be careful in making your argument to have them removed. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and? Just because a problem has been around for a long time doesn't mean we have to live with the problem indefinitely. You seem to be suggesting that you'd revert anybody who attempts to bring your page in line with the manual of style; that would be a Bad Thing. MOSFLAG says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams" but, to the best of my knowledge, catenaries and third rails aren't flag-waving nationalist totems. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What problem? The page has used flag icons without any objections for several years. The only problem would appear to be you and your slavish devotion to the MOS. Wikipedia is meant to be about working to produce a factual encylopedia.  All I see from you is format and style, but no substance. It really is a shame that Wikipedia has created people like you that are more concerned with appearance rather than facts. Please, if you have no interest in creating something worthwhile and valuable, try to spend your time doing something else. Leave Wikipdeia to those that wish to add factual information. Style and presentation is for people who lack the ability to do research and add useful information to this project. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're going to spout irrelevances and personal attacks, at least try to make them plausible. On the charge that I'm all style and no substance, I have written 250 new articles and you have written zero. Apart from the fact that this article's problem has not been noticed for several years, is there any real reason you feel the manual of style shouldn't apply? bobrayner (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate of Kosovo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peja and Kamenica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Small help with another financial article?
Hello there, Bobrayner, I hope you have been well. I have recently begun efforts to improve the quality of information on the "Credit rating agency" article, which is now very long and difficult to follow. I've recently listed (on the article's discussion page) a proposed update for a section of the article about agency business models (proposed new draft in my account's user space). I have had no response in more than a week, despite including a request-edit template, also having asked the last active editor if they would look. As before I am making suggestions on behalf of Moody's, and while the company is only discussed as one agency among many, here too I would prefer to not edit directly. Might you have availability to review the change and consider replacing it in the current article? Mysidae (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

?
Hi, Bobrayner. What does "Don't link to copyvio" mean ? The publications of the Global Vision Publishing violate the copyright of anyone ? Takabeg (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes; links to Global Vision are generally links to copyvio. You can get more information at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Individual Engagement Grant reviewer survey
Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on Individual Engagement Grants! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the IEG program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you served on the IEG Committee.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the IdeaLab soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Jonathan, Grantmaking & Programs, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Sukhoi Su-35/GA2
I've replied to your post. Perhaps you could close the GAR? --Sp33dyphil ©hat<sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>ontributions 04:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks a big bunch for the baklava and the kind words. It really means a lot to me. Working with you has been a plasure, and I only wish I had a lot more time to spend on WP working with edirots like you. Thanks again, and tons of luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob
Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How would this project overlap with something like wikidata? bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Credit rating agency
Greetings, Bobrayner. Earlier in this m\month I posted a note asking if you might consider reviewing what I believe is a much-improved section for the "Credit rating agency" article. I have asked for help with others and at more than one discussion board, however I have not been successful finding anyone to respond. I will continue asking elsewhere, however if you might have a small amount of time to review the suggestion, the full explanation is on the article's discussion page. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry; I've been offline for a couple of weeks. bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Bobrayner, thank you for the reply, I do understand and it is no problem, I am grateful for any time you can spare. I would very much like to work on improving the CRA article, however first my request on the page has gone unanswered, and further efforts to raise the issue have received little to no conversation. Last week, I brought the issue to the Help desk, where two editors suggested that my COI regarding this article was weaker than regards Moody's articles, and suggested that I edit "with care". However, I am not so certain this will be accepted community-wide, and it is my sincere interest to make no edits that may cause concern about Moody's involvement. I still would prefer to find consensus and another editor to implement edits. What is your feeling about this? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello there again, this note will be very brief only to say: another editor has answered the request! I hope all is well. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI - Audit
I added an image to a page you started; what do you think of ? Are such reports not public by definition? --Elvey (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, a statement like that shouldn't have an especially restrictive protective marking (though some underlying docs certainly would), but the copyright status is a difficult question which I've never really considered. ITHCs tend to be for internal consumption (or, more precisely: For the use of several different stakeholders who are huddled closely together). I don't know... bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Back again
Hello all! I've been offline for a couple of weeks. Editing en.wiki had been stressful and frustrating; so I took some time off to concentrate on a training course, buy a new toy to replace the one damaged in a recent accident, and play some games. Now I'm back, hopefully refreshed, but facing a very long to-do list. If you think there's anything else that ought to be on my to-do list, your suggestions are welcomed. bobrayner (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, please take notice of this grievance. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi
Just wanted to drop by and let you know that I appreciate your contributions, you know where to find me if you ever need anyone to discuss with. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 22:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE
Hello. In my preliminary assessment of the request, I conclude that you are editing tendentiously, in violation of WP:NPOV, by consistently making edits that are in opposition to the position of Serbia in the dispute about Kosovo. If you would like to rebut that conclusion, I invite you to submit evidence in your statement at WP:AE that shows recent edits by you that change Kosovo- or Serbia-related content to give more prominence to another point of view. I ask you to do so as concisely as possible, in a bulleted list of dated diffs, and no later than within 24 hours of your next edit. I'm making the same request to Evlekis. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello
I was just wondering what happened to my contribution to the cross-cultural competence. It said that an addbot had removed it and I had everything the way it was supposed to be. I don't know what to do. Can you please help me? Thank you so much for your time! Saifalz (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * Thanks for contacting me. I guess you're talking about this article?
 * It looks like Drmies undid your changes, concerned that it might overstate the importance of CCC. It might be a good idea to start a discussion on the article's talkpage, and invite Drmies (Drmies is far more helpful and more intelligent than me, and won't bite). Personally, I think the article really deserves expansion but the tone of the text you added could be improved (so it looks more like an encyclopædia article - we should be neutral, rather than positive or promotional). If you want to give it another try - either try writing more neutral text in Cross-cultural competence, or discuss it first on the article's talkpage - I'll try to help (I've just added the article to my watchlist).
 * It looks like addbot made the most recent change to Cross-cultural competence, after Drmies, but addbot just does minor housekeeping tasks - don't worry about that. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jerusalem
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jerusalem. 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) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Bobrayner, in spite of supposed differences, I would like to express my gratitude to you. I love you.

Thank you for having been a part of my evolution.Pottinger&#39;s cats (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say, but... thanks.
 * Obviously we have disagreed on some content, but we're both human beings. bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:AE request result
The above warning is given as a result of this request at WP:AE; specifically, for repeated misstatement of a source at Koriša bombing and for edit warring on a variety of pages. Please avoid such behaviour in future in order to avoid further possible sanctions. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

AN/I thread
Hi. All I got in the link was one of my revisions, not a place where I am mentioned. Either way, I cannot at this time discuss anything on what we've edited or argued over. I am banned from the topic so I would have to give it a miss. Sorry about that. If there be a change to my circumstance, I'll get straight back to things but we're both going to have to go easy after that - more talk, less editing, even if it goes on over days and days. Agreement is better than what we were doing until now. Cheers. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)