User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 7

Swedish towns
A month back, you added a redirect for Degerby, Ekerö kommun, saying a row in a spread sheet is not evidence of nobility. Same person is back creating 20 more... Jaguar's contributions. As you are more knowledgeable on the subject than I, could you take a look at these. Bgwhite (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Equipment of the Iranian Army
Your recent edits at this page weren't useful at all you delete whole sections without any notice and only say that there is no source for example you deleted other vehicle section for having no source but for example Safir jeeps and naynava have their own pages with sources and for other vehicles you can see external links on iran trucks or light vehicles, so please stop tempering with this page i have already reverted many of your destructive edits(some time ago you have almost deleted the whole page!!), i believe your edits equal to vandalism and if you do it again i will have to report you for vandalism so please stop itFarzam1370 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Lots of our articles listing military equipment tend to fill up with unsourced content - some of which is speculation or even fiction. Removing unsourced content is not vandalism - it's protecting the encyclopædia against editors who want to add whatever they like without caring whether it's actually supported by evidence. Anyway, moving on to some specific problems, www.iranmilitaryforum.net is not a reliable source, and it's not a good idea to assume that target articles have sources supporting the content that you're adding - for instance, this edit adds eight items with links - but one is a redlink, one target article's only "source" is a dead link, and five redirect to a page which doesn't actually mention those items. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia; not a race to produce as much text as possible regardless of whether or not it's true, relevant, verifiable, or readable.bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not again!!, now you have even deleted sections which have a source like SPA section which have a source(global security) Anti-Tank Missiles(also global security and new ATGM have their own pages for example Dehlavie which is a copy of AT-14 and you can see sources at Kornet page) uav section(each uav has its own pages with sources) small arms(everyone knows that iran has weapons like G-3 or AKM and etc)Farzam1370 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also on external links there is hard evidence(pictures) of for example kraz trucks and etc,for mortars here and do you have any knowledge about iran military? if you dont please stay out of that page.Farzam1370 (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wine making
Please take the time to read my comments on the WINE talk page, to understand the nature of the revision. The Georgian hypothesis for WINE is entirely unreferenced. There is no verifiable and credible reference, which makes the clear conclusion that Georgia is the origin of winemaking. Please do not revert, without reading the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.88.228 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:AT.
Stop. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be very grateful if you could point out which part of our article title policy prohibits piped links in the body of articles; I've read the policy and see no such thing. Personally, I suspect you know that the policy doesn't mandate that, since the removal of piped links is very selective anyway. If you want to continue Evlekis' crusade to make everything in Kosovo look Serbian, that's may not work out well for you. bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And which part of WP:NPOV support pushing of Albanian names instead of article titles? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I keep on asking which bit of our article title policy means that names in Kosovo must be changed from Albanian to Serbian, but nobody ever justifies it. It's just something that people on one side of enwiki's Balkan disputes say in edit summaries whilst hammering the revert button; it's not an actual rule. Just look at the lengthy Evlekis thread above... bobrayner (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection 12 hours
Just ask any admin to undo if you don't want this, or if you want it extended. I figured you might appreciate a short period. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Groovy; thanks. It's not a matter of life and death, but I suppose semiprotection removes some of the distraction... sooner or later I can get back to work on real articles 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Added a week on the user page, no real need for IPs there anyway. That is the idea, just remove the targets quietly so you don't have to worry about it and can do what you do so well.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have a fan, too. :-) bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat common, actually. Blocking is useless, so I just try to dial down the drama, get them to see the futility in their actions.  I would recommend avoiding any thread with him and just send the other stuff to RFPP.  "Drama" is a reward, an incentive, which is why we are better served to quietly WP:DENY by reverting and protecting. I'm going to extend the semi-protection here for a couple of days for the same reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 11:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Requests for page protection
Stop warring over it and trust those that respond to see what's obvious. --Onorem♠Dil 00:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point :-)
 * Although I'm concerned that the need for page protection could spread very wide indead, because Evlekis has gone back to his old habit of following me round to other pages: ranting at RFPP is just an extension of that, I suppose. bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Names of populated places on Kosovo
Hello,

I noticed that you replaced English language common names of populated places with Albanian language names. It was already explained to you more than once that it is violation of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not repeat such violations. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Evlekis tried arguing that it was a violation of WP:AT, but WP:AT says no such thing, of course. Which policy do you believe requires you to change the name of Albanian border crossings from Albanian to Serbian? bobrayner (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect and straw man fallacy. I changed names of border crossings from Albanian to English language common names. This is English language wikipedia so wp:ue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Which English-language sources did you use to get these new names for the border posts? bobrayner (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Border posts were not wiki linked, but populated places. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the list of border posts on Border crossings of Albania, but you're using WP:UE to justify changing the names from Albanian to Serbian even though you haven't read any sources which name the border posts in English? I am disappoint. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't repeat your straw man fallacy and don't ignore my explanation. I changed wikilinked names of populated places from Albanian to English common names. Please don't continue with this kind of actions because you might be warned again.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)Nothing wrong with bobrayner's edits, however, I would say the opposite about your edits which are disruptive. No policies, no sources and given your topic ban I'd suggest bob take you to AE next time.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Bobrayner. I agree with what you are saying. Constantly Serbs are changing Albanian names to so-called 'English common names'. In fact they aren't English names - they are Serbian names. This needs to be stopped. Dirifer (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

MAI
I agree with your action here. A passing reference to the source is ample, without making him a dominant campaigner against the MAI (which he was not). The view attributed to Chomsky was actually conventional wisdom at the time, having first been expounded by a number of more prominent activists on the ground, eg, Martin Khor, Susan George, Lori Wallach, Maude Barlow, etc, etc. I happen to be an admirer of Chomsky, but my recollection is that his voice was first widely heard AFTER the demise of the MAI, at or after the time of the WTO Seattle. At the time, I was an assiduous collator of documents on globalism, a selection of which are still listed on my old website (though many of the links are now defunct). Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We would almost certainly disagree on most of what Chomsky says ;-) but hopefully we could agree that what he says should be framed as what he says rather than expanded into a bigger chunk of text framed as though it's the voice of "many critics" or, indeed, absolute fact. bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! You helped too, of course. Obviously there's a lot of sockpuppetry in the Balkans but I only saw clear connections around Evlekis when I gathered data like this for a response to the WP:AE request.
 * However, there are still other sockpuppets out there. One day I'd like to build something like a Gantt chart, to understand when precocious new editors appeared and see how those coincided with previous editors getting blocked/banned. I haven't built this chart yet, but it's overdue - there's already one that I want to look into. Can you think of any editor on these topics who got blocked / banned in February 2012? bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

RTS
I see you're back to your old habits. I'm sorry what source says "demonised ethnic minorities and legitimised Serb atrocities against them"? I didn't catch that bit. 23 editor (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the sources that you're stripping from the article? bobrayner (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup, the BBC literally mentions what it said before you infected the article with your POV. The BBC says "At the time, Nato defended the air strike by saying the TV station was a legitimate target because of its role in what Nato called Belgrade's campaign of propaganda." The New York Times, on the other hand, talks about "Belgrade TV" (which one?) and is published 2 years before the events. How can NATO defend and calls its actions legitimate 2 years before the action even occurs? The third source also doesn't talk of the subject in the inherantly anti-Serb POV fashion in which your revision does, and the link to Judah doesn't have a page #. You've really got to pick up your game if you want to be a better POV-pusher. Just sayin' 23 editor (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you a psychologist?
Hi, currently need help from psychologists regarding editting of psychiatric articles. thanks Booklaunch (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know anything about psychology. Even the name Pavlov doesn't ring a bell. bobrayner (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bark! LOL. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, though: Booklaunch, you could try asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, they're a nice crowd, and they're more helpful and more intelligent than me. If there's any particular article you need help with, just say - I'll try to keep an eye on it. bobrayner (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably also a good idea to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point; I had completely forgotten that WikiProject Psychology existed. Amnesia again. bobrayner (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship
Hi Bobrayner. :) I know you were already asked back in January about adminship, but I think it's about time you were asked again. How would you like to take a shot at RfA now? I think you would pass with no problems at all - in my opinion you should have been an admin years ago. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am, again, very flattered by your suggestion.
 * However, I have enough drama in my life right now; an RfA would be excessive. I want to concentrate on fixing some problems in article-space which don't (or shouldn't) require a mop. Maybe later? bobrayner (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there's nothing to stop you fixing things in article space if you have a mop, and RfA needn't be too much drama. All you would have to do is answer the questions to the best of your ability, and then let the chips fall where they may. If you don't pass, it's no big deal - you can always try again another time. (But, as I said, I would be very surprised if you didn't pass.) Come on, give it a go. For Strad. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sooo, are you sure you don't want to run now? You would be a shoo-in, I'm telling you. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Anna Frodesiak would be a much better candidate than me; let her run the gauntlet of RfA, then when she rules with an iron fist has spread peace and love across en.wikipedia with her mop, that would be a good time for me to consider following in her footsteps. bobrayner (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If RfA were a deletion discussion, I'd link you to WP:OTHERSTUFF - but instead I think I'll just come back in a month or two. ;) Let me know if you change your mind in the meantime. (And I agree with you about Anna Frodesiak - I might stop over at her talk page now...) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Benz template
While I agree (mostly) with this edit, you broke the template and several useful edits afterwards means that I cannot simply undo it. Please exercise more care when editing templates in the future, or ask someone else for assistance before making such drastic changes. Thanks,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're thinking of this problem, it seems to have been introduced by a different editor. However, such large complex templates are inherently difficult to edit without breaking the layout, so there's not much point in blaming an inexperienced editor for letting a cell spill over to the right of the timeline when adding new stuff. It would be a good idea to simplify / split templates like this. bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

UK Wikimedian of the Year 2013/Nominations
The Wikimedia UK AGM will be held in June, and nominations for the UK Wikimedian of the Year are currently open. If there is someone who you feel has made an important contribution to the UK Wikimedia movement in the last year please go ahead and nominate them here by 09:00 (BST) on Monday 20th May at the latest. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

An issue
Hi. I beleave that you piping all geographical names in Kosovo is wrong. (Here for exemple ,and I see you´re reverting allegedly a sock, but anyway, this edit is characteristic of yours. The articles are named the way they are because of a reason.  It would be more productive for you to make a RfM and see the outcome, instead of insisting to pipe all those links.  What do you think? FkpCascais (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You were canvassed by Evlekis. I would advise against following Evlekis' bizarre notion that WP:AT forbids the use of piped links (but only on certain kinds of articles in the Balkans, of course). That particular pov-pushing mission ended quite badly for Evlekis. The last time Evlekis canvassed you, you edit-warred to reinsert factual errors into an article; surely with hindsight you realise that reinserting factual errors just because you've got a grudge against the person who removed them looks stupid and vindictive? I'm sure that a clever and competent editor like you could find more constructive ways to improve our content, instead of just serving somebody else's grudges. bobrayner (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For me actually it doesn´t mean much if I was canvassed or not, and I wouldn´t do any edit which I wouldn´t agree with. The fact is that you have been piping those links everywhere. Instead of doing that, it would be much more usefull if you made a RfM for the titles you support where you would cite the proper policies and explain why you defend the change of titles, and that we´ll see what happends.  As far as I recall, there was a reason why those titles were in Serbian language, however that was some time ago, perhaps now a RfM towards the Albanian languages names would go, I just saying, I´m not sure.  Also, despite being a Serbian editor, I don´t have a dog in these disputes, as I have a bit of a particular view on the Kosovo subject, without having any strong inclinations towards any side, and I had a plenty of good cooperation with numerous Albanian editors on a number of subjects.  With this, I just wanted to tell you that I am on this simply because going around and piping all those links seems to me strange and not proper, and that instead you should try to move those article titles to the name you support and pipe all around.  Also, it is trouth that Kosovo status is still disputed, and that Kosovo is not a sovereign country as you insist editing it mostly.  Even I would like to see its status concluded once and for all (independent, or not, but solved) so the region could move on, but the fact is that it isn´t yet.  Cheers, FkpCascais (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the article history? I wasn't making up new names, just returning to the names used by the article creator and their sources. Every edit I made to that page was reverting a sock. Then another sock canvasses you, and you take up their baton. That doesn't look promising. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, this was not the only situation where you pipe article names. If you want to use the Albanian language names for those places, just make a RfM so the titles are permanently moved to the ones you are piping them.  Simple.  The fact that Evlekis and his socks are being hounted by you everywhere doesn´t mean we shouldn´t care about the articles and correct them. FkpCascais (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Penetration test
You have discussed this topic in the past and there may be something that you could add to the current ongoing discussion. Talk:Penetration test. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up! Obviously, pentesting is a modern industry with lots of SMEs so there's always going to be a profusion of sources that are product pages rather than some disinterested review or dusty old academic tome. Hmm... bobrayner (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Seralini affair page
I have reverted what I consider to be your vandalising edits to the page "The Seralini affair". You justify your mass deletions only on the basis of what you call "special pleading". However, it is clear that the wiki definition of "special pleading" accurately describes the article prior to my edits, which was one-sided, biased and potentially libellous, as well as being scientifically unjustifiable in many places. "Special pleading" also accurately describes your attempts to revert the article to that one-sided and biased state. I have complained about your actions on this page to the Wikipedia editors. Dusha100 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be a good idea to discuss the problem on the article's talkpage. Also, it's not a good idea to use the label "libellous" for various texts that you disagree with (example); and some folk around here would get very annoyed if you continue to use the label "vandalism" for edits that you simply disagree with (example). bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Right but unencyclopedic
I have to say that it's true. It really hits the nail on the head, but I think I understand why you reverted it: WP:TRUTH, and I have to agree with you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the wording is ambiguous. Some readers might read it the "right" way and some might not. Some readers might feel that the "right" meaning is different to what you or I think. There are neutrality problems around here, so we need to be careful with wording, even before we open up the WP:MEDRS can of worms! bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally, totally agree. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ANEW and socks
Bob, I have some advice for the future. Somehow I feel this may happen again. :-) I can't speak for all admins, but I would not have blocked you for breaching 3RR even if the SPI report had not closed as it did. You had a reasonable, good faith belief that the edits were made by a sock of Evlekis, and that's enough for me to apply the exemption, particularly because you backed it up with a report at SPI. I wouldn't want you to stop protecting articles from socks for fear of being taken to task by me or by any other admin. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't revert the addition of a report at ANEW, even if you believe that the reporter is a sock. Just comment on the report, and let an admin deal with it.
 * Make it clear in your comments on the report that you are claiming the sock exemption. The confusion you created in my mind as to a 3RR breach was a distraction and unnecessary.
 * Marking your edit summaries on your reverts as "sock" is a good idea, and, you did do that on your last revert.
 * OK; thanks for your suggestions. bobrayner (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions about place names in Kosovo
Hello Bob, Please see User talk:De728631 as an issue that may need future attention. Can you suggest how to find consensus on what names to use? I see that you have advocated for piped links in a section above this one at User talk:Bobrayner but it is hard to see why the same place ought to be referred to with a Serbian name in one article and an Albanian one in another. This sounds like postponing a solution instead of a straightforward approach. Admins are unfortunately familiar with wars over place names, and hopefully the problem can be resolved locally instead of being chewed over at WP:AE. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Personally, I have no great attachment to the placenames - I don't carry a burning Truth in my heart about which is the "right" name for these places, and have been more concerned with reverting socks &c. Personally, I would rather we went with whichever name was preferred by sources, but that's easier said than done, in practice.
 * Hiking in Kosovo is one of a recent crop of articles on Kosovo which were written by new editors who appear to be locals, using Albanian-language sources; and some of those new editors seem to have got a very frosty reception from established editors in the region - who made sure to explain to the new editors that there's some kind of policy against using the Albanian names even though that's what the sources had used. Of course, it goes the other way too; I imagine there are plenty of articles where editors have changed Scutari to Shkodër &c even though the former is preferred by anglophone sources until relatively recently.
 * My background is more historical; it's frustrating to read (or write) something about historical events in the region and then find that somebody's renaming old events just to reflect some much more recent dispute. I don't really give a damn about whether Đakovica or Gjakova or Yakova is the "right" name in the 20th or 21st century, but when I've got a nice reliable history book on my desk discussing events in the "Gjakova" in the Ottoman era, it's frustrating to see editors keep on reverting to Đakovica or Yakova, insisting that's the Right Name - whilst pretending either (a) that they've read the source and that it prefers their naming, or (b) that no such source exists. Seeking one single "right" name and setting it in stone is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Getting consensus to bulk-rename articles is a very high bar (an RM in this area would attract lots of drama), so ruling out piped links is basically the same as endorsing whichever side was quickest to mass-produce articles on settlements in any given district.
 * Again, I think WP:V can help solve problems. Would it be totally unworkable to ask for a relevant source for any name change? If that encourages people to slow down and bring articles into line with what sources say, rather than robotically copy & pasting and reverting names back and forth on various articles to reflect their personal Truth, that could help. (In much the same way, I feel that all the lame edit-wars over genres in the infoboxes of music articles could be solved if we just demanded an inline source for each and every change (or addition) of genre).
 * Presumably there are similar problems in other parts of the world; for instance, people trying to tweak names in middle-eastern history to reflect their positions on a much more revent Israel-vs-Palestine dispute, &c. bobrayner (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A move discussion is the normal way to decide on a name for a place if disagreement exists. Years ago we reached a compromise on the Gdansk/Danzig problem which was surely worse than this one. If you have a reliable book on Ottoman history it could be a useful input. WP:Naming conventions (geographic names) is the relevant guideline. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSKOS has some wisdom on this subject. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Heading text
Mr. Rayner,

One can see that you are 1) In love with your own words/ideas, and 2) very politically motivated in the editorial you have authored under the title "Labour Arbitrage".

One should be mindful before making condescending, patronising observations about strangers; calling their comments to balance a terribly biased, tone deaf, and fact deficient entry in Wikipedia "a rant".

Perhaps you wish to elaborate on what your specific qualifications are to be so pedantic with me, a complete stranger to you, and what your special qualifications are to make you the final word of expertise on such a wide range of topics, and in particular international economic models in Keynesian trade and monetary theories.

But to get to the point, perhaps you could *specifically* address your problem with any of the facts that I have added to your woefully one sided, and up until now political opinion piece on the nearly bogus, pro-elitist term "labour arbitrage".

Or you can continue to act as a 10 year old child and reverting my edit and name calling - but you may find that to be an ultimately embarrassing course of action. Others on Wikipedia have an equal right to place counterpoint into "definitions" and "articles" that are, in essence, bourgeois propaganda.

fudoki

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fudoki (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to make a few suggestions:
 * 1. Bring a reliable source which supports the points you want to make. More and stronger sources, preferably.
 * 2. Use the article's talkpage to discuss the changes you want to make.
 * 3. Insulting other editors harms your case rather than helping it.
 * Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi
You took part in Vučitrn → Vushtrri RM. Please see suggestion for follow up at MOSKOS RfC?. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass creation of accounts
Hi Bob,

Could you please take a look at User talk:Peridon and see what you think?

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up; I've posted a belated reply there. I'd be happy to help personally, but it's always a good idea to steer people towards official channels (the system has changed slightly since we worked on Nanjing Normal University, of course). bobrayner (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:WW2InfoBox
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:WW2InfoBox. 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) 01:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta
Tito Dutta (contact) 19:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Golden Cage (2013 film)/La jaula de oro
Can you move it back to the Spanish title? I will request move-protection. --George Ho (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but regardless of which title is "right" (and I don't have an especially strong opinion on that point), I don't want to get involved in a move-war. We've already been through BRD; I started a requested move discussion, because we need to do the Discussion stage instead of just doing BRRRRRRRR. Whatever result the RM delivers will on a better foundation than just changing the title by fiat. It seems like there has already been one more move after the RM discussion started, but moving it back isn't going to solve the problem. Consensus will solve the problem.
 * Move-protection might be appropriate to defend the consensus position against those who might move it unilaterally, so to speak, but not as a way of letting somebody move the article unilaterally and then nail it down in their preferred position. bobrayner (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

March Against Monsanto
Hi Bob,

Did you mean to remove this sentence from March Against Monsanto --


 * "Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment."

-- that describes why the people involved were marching against Monsanto? groupuscule (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article already says why people were marching, repeatedly. However, the bit I removed seemed to be bookending the mainstream view - not of why people are marching right now, but of whether GMOs cause serious health problems and harm the environment &c. On that point, the evidence and the reliable sources point in a different direction to the slogans and placards; making it difficult to cooperate on writing a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Howdee
As someone with some expertise/interest in the area, how does Zoupan's draft Manual of Style/Serbia-related articles look to you? I must say it looks good to me. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
T C  N7 JM  03:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Wong (Hong Kong actor)
I've made additional comments along with Google results. Even when you already vote, you can alter your vote or keep it. --George Ho (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

TenMuses
Bob, thanks for leaving this message. I notified Cuchullain here as most familiar with the previous SPI, Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner/Archive, except that those were an IP cluster in Saigon and could not be Checkuser-linked. I also received this post on my Talk page. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The account is definitely a sock, but I don't know whose sock as I have not looked very closely at the pattern of edits. Bear in mind that a different editor in the diacritic wars was permabanned around the time that TenMuses account became active (although the match isn't perfect). bobrayner (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * That was my first thought too, but the other editor (you mean LittleBenW?) never moved articles, and certainly wouldn't know how to do a redirect lock.
 * First edit, conflict with WP Korea editors?


 * remove hangul from Korean girl band, = earlier remove hancha from same girl band
 * Edits No.2-8, conflict with User:The Emperor's New Spy over


 * key linking various Dukes of Wellington, = The Emperor's New Spy revert "(controversial categorizing method not helpful and rejected when Kauffner tried imposing them on categorization of US presidents)"
 * Then into bursts of Vietnam article undiscussed moves and redirect locks, perfect match with previous history of 800 geo moves counter Talk:Can Tho geo RM.


 * too many articles to mention
 * Timing suggests travel between two terminals/locations. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Then the other way there's this speedy contest to a restore of an article related to the endless 5-1 saga of efforts to merge Han-Nom ("Han and Nom") WP:FORK back into Talk:Chữ nôm. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a newsgroup...
Hi. Yes, flora.mai-not was just a newsgroup. However, it was adopted as an international authority; its content overwhelmingly consisted of relayed public documents (and some private ones, including the secret draft of the MAI itself). This was not a self-opinionated little blog for hotheads--its participants in many nations compared notes, circulated media and governmental reports, promoted conferences and reliable sources, exchanged ideas across the spectra of public policy, economics, world affairs. All was focused on the chicanery being foisted on the world by the OECD and the ICC on behalf of transnational corporations and their captive government organs. There were many other newsgroups worldwide, all of which tapped into the arterial source of flora.mai-not, whose leaders and contributors like the redoubtable Susan George and Maude Barlow maintained strict control over the rationality of proceedings. Somewhat reminiscent of how organisations of lesser intellect, like commercial newrooms, ride herd on their cub journalists. But then a newspaper, with its financial connections to banking, mining, defence industry, etc, is also really just a newspaper, isn't it? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

complementary medicine
Hi, Just wondering why you're changing "complementary medicine" to "alternative medicine"? They are quite different! - and most complentary medicines see themselves as that, a support to western medicine. Also, there are many accepted forms of evidence - RCT are only one set, and it's unrealistic to expect RCT's on any treatment that hasn't got the backing of a large pharmaceutical. Asprin and most psychology practice has never been proven through RCT's, but are still accepted mainstream treatments. Things are not as black and white as anti-CAM groups portray, and I say that as someone with involvement in both eastern and western medicine as well as a science PhD in western research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthmightsurpriseyou (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Hi Bob, just wanted to add that the references I've added on the Shiatsu page, are accepted by the British Advertising Standards government group as valid. Also, the world health organisation accepts shaitsu as a valid intervention. So I'm just trying to put a balance and fair piece of information on. The BSA is a reasonable reference point for all complementary therapy advertising standards as it reviews current research liternature, and is pretty vigorous at rejecting claims. Shiastu practitioners are legally able to claim that they can help alliviate back pain and stress because the research presented is accepted as demonstrating that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthmightsurpriseyou (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The link
Thanks! Hulkster1 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries; have fun. bobrayner (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Names of populated places on Kosovo
Although your edits were contested more than once by numerous editors who presented arguments to oppose to your position and although you were explained what is the normal way to decide on a name for a place if disagreement exists ("a move discussion") you still struggle to change English language names of populated places on Kosovo to Albanian language names (i.e. diff which redlinked wikilink to existing article). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A redlink in a placename is easily fixed.
 * More worrying is that your revert removed a key fact - the declaration of independence - and replaced it with fantasy. Which is a bigger neutrality problem: The spelling of Gjilanë, or reallocating an entire province to a country that it's not actually part of?
 * Are you able to support your position with RS and present a single source which says that Republic of Kosovo which declared independence in 2008 has a district which name is Kosovo-Pomoravlje District?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not my position. Perhaps there has been some confusion; I want articles to reflect reality, not nationalist fantasy. You said "Kosovo does not have this district. Serbia does". Why keep on using the current tense for something which ceased to exist years ago? bobrayner (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is not your position why did you add information that Kosovo has a district which name is Kosovo-Pomoravlje District diff?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Kind reminder.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!!
Hi! I just wanted to thank you for your help!!! I have who and where to turn if I need to. Take care!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosemizrahi (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask for help?Mosemizrahi (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. What's up? What can I do to help? bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing
Tell me, how is it possible that he was born in RoK, 53 years before it was established? RoK is obviously spreading across time and space... Fix that with fact, please. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 19:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was reverting yet another sock. That's not POV-pushing; these are.   . if the only purpose of your editing is to distort content, perhaps it's time to reconsider editing restrictions. bobrayner (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, sock was reverted. Will you now fix error hidden behind sock revert that you left in there? Regarding this, you are welcomed to edit again. All editors are. But then you may face AE, again. Rest of the diffs are only lame misrepresentations, as all of those edits are preceded by your POV national agenda removal of sources, or etc... Again, i will not try to talk with you any more, as your POV is so deep and closed that it is pointless for me to even try. God help you, all best, be well. P.S. You didnt respond the questions from here, under dots 2. and 3. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you (and perhaps an associate) take me to AE for replacing nationalist fantasy with actual facts, the case will obviously be very similar to your other associate's AE case. I think you have sufficient wit to look at your own pattern of edits, and realise how similar it is to Evlekis' pattern of edits, and notice how Evlekis' editing ended. Neither of us wants that outcome.
 * Since you mentioned the Serbian constitution, I added some new sourced content here. As soon as I get free time - a date which is continually postponed by having to deal with pov-pushers who want to pretend that Kosovo is still part of Serbia - I'd like to write a lot more substantial, sourced content on the region. bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

tb
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about a Mikefromnyc deletion
Hi Bobrayner, long time no see; I really appreciate your help with Global Automakers last summer. I've recently been working on behalf of MicroStrategy to propose some updates for their article, working along with volunteer editors on account of my financial COI, aiming to reduce promotional language and make it better conform to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Over the weekend, though, User:‎Mikefromnyc completely removed the Products section from the article. From his user contributions, it looks like this is something he's been doing across many articles. I also noticed that you had along similar lines. I wonder if you'd be willing to help out here?

Funny thing: I've actually been trying to replace that section myself, though response from editors has been very, very slow. You can see, and last Friday I posted a fairly detailed explanation on the Paid Editor Help page about situation on the article overall. You might want to see that. If you have time to help, I'd say it's up to you if you'd like to simply restore what was there or consider my new version. Let me know when you have a moment? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Never mind! Overnight another editor addressed the whole rewrite, rendering the above moot. All set. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. Sorry I couldn't help sooner. bobrayner (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick thanks
Your warm welcome, help, kind words, and words of encouragement were all unexpected and unasked for. To clarify the unasked part, that's not a bad thing - I'm not even sure how you found my talk page. Unasked, in this case, certainly means neither unwelcome nor unappreciated.

I'm not sure that I'd have continued with a registered username had you not posted. I was a bit overwhelmed and not sure that it was worth the effort. Your remarks made me curious, your links gave me information, and it appears that I'm going to stick around for a bit and will make my trivial edits in an accountable manner. Who knows? I may even make an article or two someday.

So, for this, I offer you a cuppa. Having been a curious sort, I have looked at your user page and talk page, I've seen mention of you elsewhere on the site, and I've concluded that you're a decent human being. While I'm not in a position to make suggestions I will say that, I think, you'd have made an excellent administrator but I also think commendations are in order for denying that opportunity as you seemed to indicate you weren't prepared for the responsibility. Congratulations are truly in order but, lacking a template for that (that I have found), I felt a cup of tea was also very appropriate and is certainly richly deserved.

Thanks again.

&#34;So long and thanks for all the fish.&#34; (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * How appropriate! It seems to have mangled my offering of tea. Oh well, the general idea remains.

&#34;So long and thanks for all the fish.&#34; (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You're very kind.
 * Templates (and substitution/transclusion) can be tricky. Don't fret too much about the wiki-technical stuff; practice makes perfect.
 * I found you because you did something useful on a page that I watch. If you care about improving articles, and if you care about sources, I'm sure you'll do lots more great work. bobrayner (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, now I know how you found me and I'm still appreciative. Anyhow, yes, I care a great deal about improving articles and quality sources. Being factual is very important to me and the project ideals are equally important to me. I'll delve into that on my talk page about that someday.


 * I'm not sure what this will mean to you but I'm hoping you'll take it as a compliment and with a good sense of humor. How to word this? You've given me motivation, if you will, or a purpose on Wikipedia. Improving articles and wanting well-sourced neutrality is important to me and, as I see it, important to the project as a whole. So, yeah, there's more "great work" to come. None of my edits have been reverted so I must be doing something right.


 * Anyhow, lacking anything better to do with my time, I'm going to try the "random article" feature and see what I can find that needs fixing. I've read most of the internal pages (I think) and might as well do some "work."


 * &#34;So long and thanks for all the fish.&#34; (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mapping out the global economy on wikipedia
Would you be interested to help on my project create a standardized Wikipedia article for all 196 countries?

Homepage: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map Mcnabber091 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

(What is anecdote based medicine supposed to suggest?)
Please see User talk:Yankeeharp. —Preceding undated comment added 11:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of Deadmaus
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Deadmaus. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "deadmaus, deadmau5". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 03:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Anna
What is this Anna fanclub? Hulkster1 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a fanclub. We just have a lot of editors who respect Anna. bobrayner (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Respond
You still didnt responded. Please, do. Do you agree that RoK independence is disputed, or you think that RoK status should be the same as any other state, and do you think that this source is neutral and reliable source for Wikipedia? -- WhiteWriterspeaks 22:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why focus on the disputed or undisputed nature of the declaration of independence? It's a non-sequiteur. I understand that you feel passionately about Kosovo's status, but that doesn't mean that thousands of articles on settlements all have to become a battleground for this one tangential issue.
 * Mamuša is an article about a town; it's perfectly obvious where Mamuša is; the town's website also says where it is; no big deal. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You didnt respond. Is this source neutral to use? Therefor i can use this source to back up info that Kosovo is within the Republic of Serbia. Let's stick to what the source says, right? That is your theory how to edit wikipedia obviously. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 14:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, respond to my question, in order to solve the dispute. Do you agree that RoK independence is disputed? I will ask you the same question until you respond directly to it. This is 6th time to ask this question to you. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 15:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop stalking, deleting and reverting my edits
Stop stalking, deleting and reverting my edits in many articles without ground. Your last edit was on basis I quote "partly fictional" without any explanation what is fictional. You are not involving yourself in right way to improve articles by editing or deleting something you don't understand and even you don't care to use Talk pages of articles to explain your behavior and what is not right in article. Is there something else behind your actions? I am here always if there is some misunderstanding about content so please discussion is first step on Talk page of article if you have wish for improvement and not something else on mind. Loesorion (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it stalking, if I edited both articles before you?
 * For the "partly fictional", I have explained that on the article's talkpage - but it's the same kind of fiction that you tried adding to the Orkan article. Unfortunately, it's always possible to find some nationalist source who says "Our stuff is the original! And the best!"; we should resist that urge. There are independent sources which do a better job, even if you're determined to overlook the evidence on FAP's own webpage. I see you're spreading the same fiction elsewhere; you should stop that. bobrayner (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It is stalking to edit, delete or undo everything I add in many articles almost immediately after i have don it. Nationalist should not be confused with technical achievement. When you talk fictional is it not fictional for you to add "thousands" of missiles with chemical warheads without any proper source in M-87 Orkan. Do you even know what is thousands warheads for missiles with chemical poison inside? You say and i quote:"Who says that the "FAP 18B was first domestically designed truck"? Isn't it a Saurer 5DF with a new badge?" Then only person who says is you, and not manufacturer?

In article I had given proper references, and you delete everything because you say:" isn't it Saurer 5DF with a new badge?" Why you have not just edited article and added with reference your claim and provided clear reference to that. If a manufacturer make some product and give it designation do we have a right to claim in encyclopedia that it is a new badge in question? Even it is such a case who gives as right to claim such thing here? That could be valid claim(your claim) for lawsuit by manufacturer in case that are published publicly without any proof or evidence.

Why you just don't delete everything in Wikipedia that is by your "humble" opinion a copy.

Why you just don't delete everything in Wikipedia that is by your "humble" is not technical achievement but nationalism. Why?

You ask "Who says that new military trucks are domestic designs?" Is there any proof for your claims again and is there any references that support your view. View is not a fact.

You are using only here-say for everything to justify your wrongdoings.

There is nowhere valid reference for anything you say so if we take your doings it is guided by lets behave like we think it should and not like we must. If goal is to improve article then why you use your views instead of facts. Everything you do currently is to edit, delete or undo everything I add. Loesorion (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I just have seen now that you have edited my inputs in FAP 1118 because I quote"Old Mercedes engine, old Mercedes cab, made by a Mercedes licensee... VTI did a great job!)" If that is not subjective thinking and stalking then I don't know what it is. It is obius that you whant to proclaim FAP trucks old event they are new and also using claims like Mercedes licence without any proof. And that is not enough for you so there is a need to mention VTI. You say VTI did a great job but still you delete my input about VTI in FAP 1118 article?

In this article there were no previous inputs of yours before mine and you edited it right after my inputs. Is there some kind of problem, am I not allowed to improve articles? Or it is something else?Loesorion (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AURDNAME
Hi Bob,

The point of this guideline is to contradict the existing guidelines in this area, as they don't provide good results for Australian Roads. US Roads already have a similar naming convention for similar reasons (though the kind of names produced from it differ due to regional differences) (See WP:USSH). Australian Roads naming already follows these guidelines, this is merely a formalisation of the existing consensus. Regardless, I would appreciate if you could expand on your comment left earlier, and perhaps we can more readily find a middleground.

Thanks,

Nbound (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fabrika automobila Priboj
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fabrika automobila Priboj. 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) 01:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI
I've started a discussion at WT:V about one of your edit summaries. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I hope this doesn't signal a reputation for provocative edit summaries. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn quote
Fantastic. It speaks so many volumes, like an impressionist painting that one can stare at for hours on end. Isn't it interesting how well Russian writers come across in English? Makes me want to learn Russian to read Nabokov (even though he wrote in English) and French just to read Proust. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * There's a mundane explanation. I wanted to quote something very similar that Primo Levi said in The Periodic Table, but I couldn't remember the exact wording. Sadly, I can't find my copy of the book (I'm moving house) and when I googled the approximate wording, I just got Solzhenitsyn quotes instead. Poor old Solzhenitsyn; having to serve as a stand-in for the half-remembered meanderings of an Italian chemist. It's interesting that they drew similar conclusions about humanity from their respective hells.
 * Many people say that Pevear & Volokhonsky's translations of the Russian classics are very good translations, although I'm not comfortable with them; what do you think? bobrayner (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, you're really taking me back. Last time I read Solzhenitsyn was in 1986, but now that you mention it, I believe I did read something about the translations, perhaps it was in the NYT magazine?  Well, you know what this means, we have to find the Levi quote.  Have you checked here? No sleep till Brooklyn! Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion; sadly it drew a blank. If you really need a good Primo Levi clipping, I promise to deliver one as soon as I find the Periodic Table. (Maybe Vanadium, if it's a post-war reflection on how evil comes from ordinary people). bobrayner (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Timeline of Sun Myung Moon
An article that you have been involved in editing, Timeline of Sun Myung Moon, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bun cha
Hi, you took part in the previous RM at Bun cha so may wish to be informed it has been submitted as part of a larger RM at Talk:Bun rieu, Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up!
 * I'm currently very busy in real life - moving house and starting a new project - will have a look when I've got a spare hour. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Narendra Modi
How this is relevant or notable? Everyday this or that, controversial or non-controversial, news keep appearing about him. That article was fully protected and after unprotection, just to make some edit they inserted trivial material. Controversial addition would have created uproar. I removed that edit because it is current temporary news, not because it is BLP issue. It doesn't deserve place in the article. It is added by users just to show their presence on that controversial article. I won't suggest anything to you. Just explained my understanding after studying the history. neo (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Olympus Tension Leg Platform picture available
There's a picture of Olympus TLP available here: http://i.imgur.com/Xd03jGN.jpg The picture was taken and posted to Reddit by "MrSlumpy", as can be seen here:http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1ikj8w/sitting_on_the_beach_when_this_monster_floats_by/cb5c1oy?context=3

I'd upload it myself, but I'm not a Wikipedia image lawyer and don't want to hop over the hoops required to upload images these days. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 22:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please help!
Hello Bob! Please help me resolve an edit war on the Population of Ghana! Thanks--Graham Proud (talk) 06:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get involved in edit wars, but I'll happily try to discuss the problem if we can get everybody on the talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Help with Center for Copyright Information article
Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of the Center for Copyright Information, and am reaching out to you because you are listed as a member of WP:CO-OP. Given my financial COI, I posted a note at Paid Editor Help last week, hoping that someone could help out with some updates to the article. It seems that no one has yet had a chance to look at the article, though. Do you think you might be able to take a look at my note at PEH and see if you can help out? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 21:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I was able to find another editor to look at this for me, so it's ✅, but thanks anyway! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Toluca Lake, Los Angeles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Toluca Lake, Los Angeles. 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) 01:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. bobrayner (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ottoman related article
You should have a look on this article Russo-Turkish_War_(1568–70), and it's talk page, the user seems to have invented a new term "commercial victory". Kindly suggest if it's right to do, or not. Capitals00 (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. Sorry for the late reply! bobrayner (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Protectionism
Dear Bobrayner

I admit i didnt check the paper of the professor Krugman, but Steven Coissard (Université de Genoble II) has reported it (p.838) in his own paper "L'économie internationale selon Paul Grugman":

http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/AFRI%2042.pdf

Moreover, i'm currently check the advantage of the FTCDA world zoning in building a international trade model.

If you agree with the Steven Coissard paper, could you insert again my paragraph ?

Sincerely

Rb1961 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reinserted the text with slightly different wording. Is that an improvement? However, I'm concerned that this is a very small minority's position, and the article should mostly reflect the mainstream view. bobrayner (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help Bobrayner.
 * Rb1961 (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethecon Foundation
Since you reverted my addition with the same condescending explanation twice, and ignored my rebuttal, i'm resorting to contacting you on your talk page. Can you please explain why we cannot state what an award was given for? The 2010 award clearly states BP was awarded the Black Planet award for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The 2011 award clearly states it is for the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. So why can't we state the 2007 award was for "proliferating contaminated baby food..." etc. As I explained in my edit summary, what the award is presented for is clearly and simply the opinion of the award presenter; it is obvious that what the award was given for is debatable, just like any other popular award. I'm sure BP don't like the fact they are accused of the atrocity of the Deepwater Oil Spill, but that doesn't change the simple fact that that is the reason they were given the award. It is not very helpful to the reader if it states somebody won an award but it gives no indication whatsoever as to why. This list is purely there so the reader can gain an understanding of what Ethecon perceives as being worthy of receiving the award; I am not trying to pass off Ethecon's view as accepted fact. I don't understand why you are removing this, and I really don't understand why you are only removing this explanation and not the other explanations for awards. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could reply to the concerns I raised on the article's talkpage.
 * Just in case you were genuinely unaware of the problem: Just because the Ethecon Foundation says things happened a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean they actually happened that way. So, when the Ethecon foundation systematically issues awards for what it thinks evil, such as "shocking contributions to the destruction of the planet", we shouldn't use wikipedia's voice to say that all the recipients are evil. It should be framed more neutrally, or removed. They're making a political point, and you seem happy to propagate it, but this encyclopædia should not be a vehicle for such posturing and polemics. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
WhiteWriterspeaks 18:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of Serbia
Pleasure, keep up your good work too. The Big Hoof! (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to work in these areas, and every change will be considered controversial by somebody, but we'll get there eventually... bobrayner (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Following up on a comment that you made
Hi Bob! I read with a lot of interest the comment that you made at the recent discussion at ANI about the March on Monsanto, and I looked into it and saw the comments that you had made earlier at Viriditas' talk page. I'm considering whether to start an RfC/U on Viriditas. I would like to ask if you would be willing to be the second editor certifying the RfC/U. I will do almost all of the writing of it, so you would mostly just have to check it to see if it's acceptable to you, and it will take me some time, so it won't happen particularly quickly. Is this something that you might consider? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I would consider, maybe, reluctantly.
 * However, I have long respected Viriditas, who I think has done a lot of good work in difficult areas, over the years. Earlier in the MAM dispute I drafted a couple of plaintive talkpage messages along the lines of "Seriously, does it have to go this way over one article? I disagree with you on this but let's focus on the content"; most of them I got rid of because others would have thought them mawkishly manipulative, but I can't remember whether I actually hit "Submit" for one or two of them. We've all worked on other topics with neutrality problems; so I'm used to being called a shill (or worse: Holocaust-denier, Albanian terrorist, fascist, &c., depending on the topic), but that's so easy to compartmentalise when it's from some redlinked ranter. From an established editor, it's more problematic.
 * This probably makes me a hypocrite - I have always been wary of how personal allegiances, cliques, and friendships can affect other people's editing, and especially how people respond to conduct disputes. However, I've seen some principled editors go into a downward spiral - minor dispute, make a stand, AN/I thread, RfC/U, dig in heels, bigger dispute, a longer block, more defiance, angry criticism of the admin cabal &c and the journey ends with indef block or ban. There's something bigger at stake than just one article. That downward spiral is unlikely here, but it's the last thing I'd want for Viriditas, who I greatly respect and who can surely do as much great work in future as in the past, so I've arrived at this question: Would an RfC/U increase or decrease the risk of a downward spiral?
 * Sorry, I must borrow Pascal's apology - this comment is too long because I don't have time to write a shorter one. bobrayner (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that thoughtful and nuanced answer. In the time since I asked you, Viriditas has been blocked for a pretty long time because of the most recent issues (you can read about it, if you have the stomach for it, at his user talk and at mine, where there is a case that the spiral has already begun). So that means that anything else that I might do will go on hold for a while anyway.


 * I very much hear you, about recognizing that Viriditas has the potential to do a lot of good, and that we should not loose that. Here are some of my very preliminary thoughts about what might eventually go into subsequent dispute resolution, specifically in that regard. I want to draw a distinction, that Viriditas is actually not, strictly speaking, a POV pusher. There are diffs demonstrating that he has made multiple edits to the MAM page, representing the "other" point of view. Instead, it's a problem of WP:RGW and WP:AGF. I will show numerous diffs in the content dispute where I actually agreed with him and disagreed with other editors on the other "side" of the content dispute. I recognize that RfC/U does not deal with sanctions, but I've been giving a lot of thought to them. At least at this time, I am opposed to a site ban for him. Instead, I think we might need to consider a topic ban and an editing restriction against certain kinds of accusations against other editors, while directing him to pursue those accusations at the appropriate noticeboards. In fact, I seriously consider the possibility that some other editors may actually, as Viriditas appears to believe, be acting as secretly paid shills, and I have been closely watching one editor whom I believe may be a question mark in that regard. So this isn't going to be a one-sided attack on Viriditas if I have anything to say about it, but rather a last attempt (before taking this to ArbCom for scrutiny of all involved, if need be) to show Viriditas the right way to get back on track.


 * So, there is no rush about any of this, and I kind of suspect that my approach will be compatible with what you are thinking about, and in any case I'll only ask that you look at what I might draft, and you'll be free to decline to be associated with it if you feel that my approach ends up being wrong. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh no. I had not seen Viriditas' talkpage until now. This is not good.
 * You make good points. There has been various problematic behaviour from multiple editors, on both sides of the debate, I feel. There may well be a real "shill" out there among all the other editors, but if it is who I think it is (we may or may not be thinking of the same person), they have been thoroughly source-based in article-space and quite civil in other namespaces. If their editing is in line with the encyclopædia's core rules... this springs to mind. Also, I'm concerned that Viriditas has been "egged on" by somebody who does not realise that encouraging an ally to go too far may lead to their ally being lost to the cause.
 * I had toyed with the idea of offering some kind of "deal" to Viriditas, to stave off further drama; that we both agree to avoid that topic and in return I would collaborate on improving some other topic of V's choice, and invest quite a few hours in it. Hopefully everybody wins, that way. (Taking one "pro" and one "anti" editor out of a tit-for-tat war might be seen as acceptable to both "sides" of a polarised debate). Maybe that's a childish idea. An RfC/U is certainly the more conventional choice... bobrayner (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My recent experience suggests to me that offering a "deal" might possibly be met by a reaction along the lines of no way am I going to make a deal with you. Actually, the "shill" I was watching is a single purpose account who has become completely inactive, but I'm keeping my eyes open and I'm receptive to having anything I've missed pointed out to me. I've remained neck-deep in the March Against Monsanto page, and I sometimes feel like I'm the only adult in a room of squabbling children, so this definitely does increasingly look to me like something where parties on all "sides" will need some scrutiny. FYI, it's even spilled over to Jimbo's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift reply!
 * The thread on Jimbo's talkpage is not good, but I'm trying to avoid the urge to respond. It's really not worth the drama for such a minor article. I have no interest in spending more hours reading through sources only to have any work discarded (or vilified) because somebody has labelled me as a shill. (It's circular; if you try to represent what sources say in an even-handed manner, that inevitably means you disagree at some point with the person handing out the "shill" labels - conspiracy theories are conveniently easy to sustain). The atmosphere is corrosive - even an inherently "good" editor will start doing "bad" things (ie. WP:ABF) if they spend too long in that atmosphere, and neither you or I are immune to that. If you keep on working on MAM, I can only admire your determination and stoicism. bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The swiftness of my reply just means that I happen to be logged in now (and will log out very soon, as it happens). Determination and stoicism? I like that! People who know me personally might point more to stubbornness, but whatever. In fact, I recently added a sentence to that page, from a news account covering the March, describing what one of the marchers said. My thinking was that this would add to the content about what the protesters themselves believe. I was reverted by an arguably pro-protest editor, who complained that the quote was part of an effort to make the protestors sound, and I quote directly here, "loony". (It didn't sound loony to me, for what it's worth.) So if we leave the protesters' views out, it's a conspiracy to make the protesters look bad, and if we put the protesters' views in, it's a conspiracy to make the protesters look bad. (Thanks for letting me vent. Well, actually, I'm laughing about it. Maybe it's a sick sense of humor instead of stoicism.) Yes, you are correct, the ABF becomes corrosive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove protection template
Can you remove the expired protection template from User:Bobrayner/EditCounterOptIn.js? Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the pointer. bobrayner (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper#Requested move (again)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Microsoft Minesweeper. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Protectionism (again)
I have been restoring the section on Arguments for Protectionism which has been defaced. Why are you undoing my work on this section? Read both versions. Check the history. Before undoing my and other's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaser47401 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there are serious problems with the text you added. Let's discuss it on the article's talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Socking
Hi Bob. Yes it's likely there will be other sleepers as per Reaper Eternal's Checkuser request to which I have suggested a likely active location. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I'll keep an eye open. bobrayner (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI
forgot to notify you that i mentioned you at an ANI about accusations of COI editing, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#My_own_issues Sorry about that!Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK - I'd already seen it and it was only a passing mention. Thanks for the heads-up nonetheless. Try to resist the temptation to get absorbed in drama; ultimately we're here to improve articles. bobrayner (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted
I notice you catching. I had removed it myself,, then managed to mess it up again in the next edit: ! IRWolfie- (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm spending less time looking at the watchlist these days; hence reduced to picking up the crumbs that you leave behind! bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Reversion of edit to Geographical Pivot of History
Hello, Bobrayner. You recently reverted an edit I made which provided a cite for a document referenced in the article The Geographical Pivot of History. The comment you appended to your reversion stated "(looks like copyvio)".

I provided the Scribd link because the link to the doc on the NDU website was no longer good and digging around on that site failed to find a fix.

On page five of the doc (as Scribd reckons such things), it is stated that: "Except for the Introduction, this text is copyright © 1942, Constable Publishers,London. Used by permission."

Further down the page we see: "Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data" followed by LOC data.

Are you willing to reconsider your reversion of this cite? If not, would you be willing to comment as to why you are not satisfied? Perhaps the cite itself needs to be reformed?

Thanks, in advance, for your consideration of this matter. NorthCoastReader (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I had concerns about copyvio - alas, all too many editors try citing Scribd pages which are either their own writings or a copypaste of somebody else's copyrighted work - but I just had another look at the date the original work was published, and I'm satisfied that isn't a problem here. Sorry for the hassle! bobrayner (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Thanks for revisiting the material and reconsidering the issue.  NorthCoastReader (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dunav osiguranje
It is interesting that you tried to remove the sentence that you do not like about Serbian institutions in Kosovo. Despite sources! I am warning you that removal of sources data under false edit summary is very disturbing and punishable under ARBMAC. Wikipedia should not be used as propaganda tool. Please, dont do that anymore. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that your headlong rush to revert my edits leads to such frequent bungling. This edit removed unsourced WP:COATRACK which is not about Dunav osiguranje. You know what coatrack is; you've been warned about it before. You reinserted unsourced coatrack, with the baffling suggestion that you were building a different article. My edit summary was true, not false. For the benefit of my blood pressure and yours, I suggest that you stop editing my talkpage until you understand basic wikipedia policies and understand the difference between "true" and "false". For the avoidance of doubt, the article at Dunav osiguranje is about Dunav osiguranje. If you want to write an article about insurance in Serbia, follow your own redlink and start it at Insurance in Serbia. If you really must stalk my edits, try to take your finger off the revert button until you know what you're doing. bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaaand, you didn't address the question, as every time before. Article is created, but DONT remove sources content anymore only because you DONTLIKEIT. That is serious problem. Also, i must state. You gave me a laugh with your edit summary, despite being misleading. We (you) should do that attitude more often. Fun and laughter is salvation. All best. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you've now started Insurance in Serbia. That is a good outcome. I know better than to expect you to apologise for this, but since you mentioned ARBMAC, here's some friendly advice: think about what happened to your ally  who recently stalked me, and how it reflects on you when you consistently defend serious policy violations by "your side". That was a bad outcome. Think about which outcome you would prefer; good or bad?  Consider whether you really want to defend Mihailo79's work, which I had tried to clean up.
 * I was serious; it would be better for both of us if you stopped editing my talkpage until you understand basic wikipedia policies and understand the difference between "true" and "false". This edit removed unsourced WP:COATRACK which is not about Dunav osiguranje. You reinserted unsourced coatrack, whilst seemingly under the delusion that you were building a different article. This is not a new phenomenon. When you follow me round and try to find excuses to revert, the bungling doesn't help anyone - least of all you. bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, do not play innocence. I was speaking about THe one sentence about bank in Zvečan, and not about the content now in Insurance in Serbia. And i was talking about constant attempts to remove things YOUDONTLIKE, hidden in false edit summaries, like this one. I saw Mihailo79's edits, he did it also on sr wiki, that is just problematic edits by new user, nothing special, and easy to fix. But pro-national agenda on the other hand is very, very problematic. Going to sleep. I agree, i will stop editing this page. Its obviously pointless anyway... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 00:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kaliningrad
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kaliningrad. 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) 02:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (characters)
I hope the current version is better. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Bosnia blanking
I would like to express my dissatisfaction with your removal of vast amount of information from the Equipment sections of Armed Forces of Bosnia and Bosnian Ground Forces articles. Thanks to your changes they were as good as useless.

Just because said sections were unsourced you had no apparent justification to blank most of them and I would welcome if you could remedy that. Please, don't do that again in such a large scale. Either improve Wikipedia by doing the research and sourcing yourself or just point out that it is not sourced.

Unsourced information is better than no information whatsoever.

Mirbis (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No information is better than unreliable information. This is an encyclopædia, not a mission to generate as much text as possible regardless of trustworthiness; and, alas, military stuff is particularly prone to problematic editing. Just because there's a big pile of text doesn't mean that it's true. Until somebody actually checks the content against a good source, it shouldn't be presented to readers as fact. bobrayner (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How can something be checked if you delete it?! Much of content on Wikipedia is unsourced but that does not mean it is not true! Either give source that Bosnian Army does NOT have such equipment or leave it be!
 * As I said before you should point out that is not sourced and potentially unreliable, but not remove it, especially when there is no alternative. With the "unsourced" notice reader is warned that it may be outdated or not factual. It should encourage contributors to improve it. Mirbis (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Mirbis
 * I'm not familiar with the article or the subject matter, but the applicable policy seems to me to be WP:BURDEN. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mirbis, I appreciate that you want to improve the article. I'm not here to be mean - we just have slightly different perspectives on how to improve content. Have you tried SIPRI? It's a very comprehensive source in this area. Janes is very good too. Mainstream media has rather patchy coverage of procurement; Defense Industry Daily is mostly USA-focussed but coverage of other countries is reasonable (alas, DiD is not especially user-friendly). bobrayner (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your 2 reverts at Vaccine controversies
You recently reverted 2 edits from me and asked to post the reason on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vaccine_controversies#Missing_citations Done. Prokaryotes (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)