User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 9

Corruption in Venezuela
I just kinda revamped the entire article of Corruption in Venezuela a week or so ago and wanted to know what you think since I haven't seen anyone editing since. I mades section about previous leaders to show a little bit of the history of corruption.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's looking good. Nice work! It might be a good idea to use some recent Economist articles on the topic, as they tend to give a slightly broader view of recent events and a clearer explanation of underlying problems, without getting too hung up on individual political events. bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan protests canvassing
I see you haven't been around as much and I'm guessing it because of your pretty new laptop :) However, I think we have a canvassing situation on the 2014 Venezuelan protests article that I need help with. Since I really don't know who to ask about these things, I just asked you since you're pretty intelligible with these things.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Malawian food crisis
Hi BobRayner! Hope you're doing well. You posted on the Talk page of Malawian food crisis a few weeks ago, and on my Userpage saying that you were interested in my article. I wanted to let you know that I completed the article and I took your advice and restructured it so it did not conflate correlation and causation. If you get a chance, I would love any feedback. Thanks! Avw1 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Trans Global Highway
Just letting you know that I have nominated Trans Global Highway (and thus reverted your redirect) for deletion at Articles for deletion/Trans Global Highway (2nd nomination). Per some of the other users I also agree that the Pan-American Highway is a poor redirect target due to its continental approach and the fact that the Eurasian Land Bridge is essentially the same thing (connection between two continents) and thus arguably as equal as the Pan-Am Highway for redirect. However, I also agree that the page (at the very least in its current form) is not notable and thus have taken it to deletion for a wider discussion and, hopefully, wider consensus. Ravendrop 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Doctor SK
I think we have a problem with Doctor SK, who might or might not be related to another pro-UFO editor calling himself Dr Fil (who seems to have gone dormant). FWIW, the Jerry Cohen site he keeps trying to push is not factual research but simply opinion, and much of it based on his own misunderstandings. But of course we can't say this in WP. Anyway, thanks for slugging it out with him. (PS: And, yes, I am Ian Ridpath) Skeptic2 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * He seems to have created an account just to attack skeptical explanations of Rendlesham and the Exeter Incident, so his POV is fairly obvious. Skeptic2 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a pleasure to meet you :-)
 * Thanks for all your hard work. bobrayner (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
Hi bobrayner, thanks for your support for the Global Economic Map IEG (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Global_Economic_Map). Do you know anybody else who might want to support the project or other Wikipedia projects that might want to get involved? Thank you Mcnabber091 (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm wary of canvassing; let's not ask for support in a vote! bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * okay that is fair, i won't send out anymore messages like this. thanks anyways Mcnabber091 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Lebrunia coralligens ?
Hello Bob, When you tagged this article with "needs expert attention" you did not explain in your edit summary or on the talk page what problems you felt were present in the article. It would sure make it easier to fix if you could give some indication of what exactly you think the trouble is. Do you think you could do that? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you could give me some sort of indication, no matter how general or "fuzzy". I don't really want to remove the tag without hearing from you, but I might have to do so If I can't work out what the problem is supposed to be. I am a mollusk expert and I don't know very much about sea anemones. Invertzoo (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am concerned that the article needs the attention of a topic expert who can read and understand the sources. I noticed that although there's quite a bit of prose with long words, which is likely to make lay readers think it looks very sciencey and authoritative, some basic facts were skewed or omitted. bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation
There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated: Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Gun_control
 * Commented. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with Venezuelan articles
Hello Bob! I hope you're enjoying your new computer. Wanna put it to some good use? :)

There are many things happening among controversial Venezuelan articles. Bolivarian propaganda is possibly up for deletion soon, Venezuelanalysis.com is being disputed as a reliable source again, just a lot is going on. Would you help by providing an input? I know about canvassing now and such (thank you for teaching me) and I am not trying it. The work is just becoming overwhelming to me. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the help you already provided!--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Sorry for the delayed response. I have a lot to catch up on. Don't worry; I haven't forgotten you! bobrayner (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads up
I don't want to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but I wondered, have you seen this ? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind suggestion, Roxy. You needn't teach me how to suck eggs; I'm hard-boiled.
 * PS. Did you know that in France they only have one egg for breakfast? bobrayner (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Serbian gang strikes back
JFI, the serbian gang strikes back with another attempt to revert Kosovo-related map to their view. As usual they called me and other editors (who revert their edits) vandals or cry Admin-abuse. --Denniss (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's already on my watchlist. I will reply when I have time. This is a long-term problem. bobrayner (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Air force improvements
Good morning Bobrayner You sent me a message on the 22nd of April in regards of my slight upgrades of numerous world air forces. I have since stopped. I was hoping that my slight upgrades would in inspire others to add pictures, more information and a general upgrade on numerous third world air forces that are never looked at. Take it easy Bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Much of your work is great, and I don't doubt that you're well intentioned; but the flag pictures have caused trouble in the past - they can look tempting but there are problems with nationalities and emphasis.
 * Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello bob, You have recently messaged me regarding an change that I had made to the List of aircraft of the Iranian Air Force. I appreciate you bringing up this topic so that we could discuss it and ultimately improve the article. ::Right now the page says that the number for the CH-47 Chinook that the Iranian air force has is around 10, I highly doubt that because they had bought around 90 of those aircraft and only 8 of them were lost in the war with ::Iraq (1980-1988) according to the approved Wikipedia article of the Boeing CH-47 Chinook and their service history with Iran. Also in this years recent military parade in Tehran, Iran's Capital, almost 20 of these aircraft ::were on display and performing and those were only a fraction of the full fleet. Having said all that, the number of operational aircraft left are a lot more than 10, around 80 with the ones that were lost. I also have to ::admit that I mistakenly had put around 90, I was thinking of the number originally bought. On another note, the number of F-1 mirages has to be 24 not 10, the got 24 from the Iraqi air force after the 1991 coalition invasion and there is no reason why 14 of them should be missing, they are all active as the other article suggest. As for the number of bell 214's and 206's and other Bell and Agusta helicopters, Iran used to make these aircraft before the revolution of 1979 and the numbers of those should also be a lot more, but for an exact number I will have to get back to you on that. Please take my information to your concentration and message me with any thought that you have on this issue.
 * To pick one example: SIPRI - the most reliable source we have on international transfers - shows that a total of 68 Chinooks were delivered to Iran, all in the 1970s. You concede that 8 were lost in the war with Iraq; you forgot to mention more losses in Turkmenistan; there have also been accidents; and reliable sources say that a proportion are cannibalised, or awaiting cannibalisation. However, you changed the article to say that there are "~90". 68 helicopters minus forty years of accidents, warfare, and sanctions does not equal 90 helicopters. These numbers are fake. Do not add factual errors to articles. Do not make up stuff just to make a list look good. This is a common problem with military articles. bobrayner (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here, you add bigger numbers whilst citing a source which actually gives lower numbers. I have very little patience for people who repeatedly and intentionally insert factual errors and fake citations, even after being warned. Do you understand why this is bad? bobrayner (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

COI Help
Hi Bobrayner. I was wondering if you had the time to review some of my suggested edits on the McKinsey & Company page here. Most of it is cleaning up some unsourced/poorly sourced content and moving a large list section to a pre-existing List article. CorporateM (Talk) 07:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am keen to help, but how urgent is it? I have a lot of work to do in real life over the next week. (I just got a new consulting gig in a different part of the country, and the first week onsite is always the toughest). If you can wait a few days for the toughest tasks, count me in. bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article's been in pretty bad shape for years - it can certainly wait a few days ;-)


 * I feel I should encourage you to focus on your new gig though; wouldn't want solving my/Wikipedia's problems to end up being a distraction for an important job opportunity and you'll probably be settling in for more than a few days.


 * As far as the tough parts, there are some pretty complex topics that I'll need to get to on that page eventually, including McKinsey's involvement in international environmental laws for example, but the current article-text does not set a high bar of making it difficult to make "an improvement" and a GA reviewer will also give it a second pair of eyes. CorporateM (Talk) 13:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points. bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Bobrayner. I've been poking around for someone to review this Request Edit if you have time and it won't interrupt with your new job. Hope it's going well! CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
You must immediately stop removing large amounts of edits from pages based on editor-specific targeting rather than content-specific, meanwhile giving no explanations. Such editing is highly disruptive and likely to be influenced by personal struggles or views rather than objectivity. Multiple times you have removed reliably sourced information and reverted back to biased versions of content. You stalk several users and destroy these users' large amounts of perfectly fine edits in several articles without any explanation, discussion or consensus. The degree to which you are doing this could be considered vandalism. Zozs (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you systematically distort and cherrypick sources, you'll probably get reverted. Don't blame me; other editors revert you too. You can see some relevant policies here: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:COATRACK, and so on
 * If you are unable to comply with those policies, there are other websites where you might contribute more effectively. bobrayner (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about here. You systematically stalk editors and remove the whole of their edits not for objective reasons but because it was THEM who made the edit. You revert _ALL_ of _SEVERAL_ edits in certain articles of me several times - articles which, apparently, you only found by stalking my edit history. In at least TWO instance you merely gave the edit summary: "post-Zozs cleanup", ADMITTING that you were doing this merely because it was me. Other users have accused you of the same thing in the past. Don't throw stuff like at me because you know exactly what's going on. I don't want to see you removing an obviously objectively positive edit of me (I had even been "thanked" by other users for it through the Wikipedia edit thanking feature) spanning several paragraphs again without giving a thorough explanation in the talk page. Zozs (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, you just tried to remove 25,000 bytes from that economic policy article again, merely using the the edit summary: "Post-Zozs cleanup", indicating that it specifically targeted my edits, even though every other editor in the article has opposed your edit, and immediately reverted it every time you've tried to do it. So this is at least THREE instances you're removing stuff merely using the edit summary: "Post-Zozs cleanup". If this is not vandalism then I don't know what is. Zozs (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Vanajan Autotehdas in peer review
Hi Bobrayner. I have taken article Vanajan Autotehdas to peer review, I try to make it featured article. The review page is here. Your views for further development of the article are welcome and appreciated. The end part of the article has not been checked for grammatical correctness I think. Cheers, Gwafton (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I helped work on the article (though you did almost all the work!), so I wouldn't feel comfortable as a reviewer - there is a slight conflict of interest. However, I'll watch that peer review page - if you need a hand with anything, just shout. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is in peer review for improvement, not for evaluation – that will follow in Featured Article review. So far the only feedback comes from a bot and I have made the suggested changes as far as I found them applicable. Either the subject is uninteresting or the article is as good as it can be. --Gwafton (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Trans Global Highway
Now that it has been decided not to delete Trans Global Highway I am going to have a go at renaming and reorganising this. Just letting you know as you seem to have edited it. filceolaire (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Have fun. I'm sure you'll do a good job, although it's not easy to build high-quality content in this area. bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Lenin
Good work. If you plan on removing any more flagcruft like that, this script I wrote for myself might come in handy. Cheers, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 14:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As a wise man once said: "We are opposed to national enmity and discord, to national exclusiveness. We are internationalists." bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey for editors who mentor newcomer
Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,

I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV

Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah

Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I started the survey and then gave up halfway through, because poor survey design undermines data quality; my effort would be wasted. Let's start with the first question: "Please indicate what mentorship program you participated/participate in". It is not possible for me to give an accurate answer, because I have used more than one (including "Other") but the survey form uses radiobuttons. Hence my first attempt at the first page failed with the profoundly unhelpful error message "#ValidationErrorCodes, VE_TEXT_ENTRY_HAS_VALUE_BUT_NOT_CHECKED#". And so on.
 * Well, I said "halfway through", but there are no cues as to survey length.
 * I would be happy to contribute a few minutes' time if it gives you useful data. I'm not happy spending my time contributing data which cannot be interpreted accurately. As an aside, if you need any advice on survey design, I'd happily help there too. bobrayner (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances
Hi, Bobrayner, Your edit summary here was not helpful, indeed. Could you please elaborate your view here. Thanks (AnonimEditor (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

Georgism
There is an RfC at Talk:Georgism concerning scope of the article. This is a neutral notification. Collect (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Please make a statement at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard
Hi. Your conduct is discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, at WP:AE. Please read that thread carefully and leave a statement. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

SPI
Hey, I've opened up an SPI for the accounts that edited in relation to Bioregulatory medicine. You can find the page at Sockpuppet investigations/Manastir65, if you want to comment on the editing behaviors. I think that some of the accounts are probably just a case of someone trying to WP:MEAT, but I was concerned enough to want to have them checked just in case. I wasn't one of the editors at the AfD, so I'd like to have someone who participated come in and comment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have replied there. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop and desist from your arbitrary edits!
I have noticed you have willfully cut text from the value-form article because it is not to your taste. A sentence such as "Thus, Marx aims to provide a brief morphology of the category of economic value as such, from the simplest forms to the money-form." is removed with the comment "synthetsis and bluster". This is not acceptable, and if you do not desist from your objectionable editing work, action will be taken.Jurriaan (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of websites where one might praise marxist ideas and present them as though they were fact. If you'd like to put the content on one of those websites, that could work - it's all CC BY-SA 3.0. However, such content doesn't belong on en.wikipedia.org, because content here is supposed to be accurate and neutral. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are an atrocious liar, Bob Rayner, and you operate with bad faith. I have never written any wiki "to praise marxist ideas and present them as though they were fact". That is just total crap. If I wrote in the value-form article I created that "Thus, Marx aims to provide a brief morphology of the category of economic value as such, from the simplest forms to the money-form." that is perfectly accurate and neutral. Because that is what it is. It is not controversial at all either. By contrast, your arbitrary vandalism of other's texts has nothing to do with accuracy and neutrality, but with your own perceptions, biases and prejudices what is acceptable or preferable. You are constantly fighting your own political propaganda war in wikipedia, as shown exactly by what you deleted and added across time. That's bad, but what makes it worse is two things: the evidence is that you frequently have no real experience or competency at all with regard to the subjectmatter you edit, and you provide no satisfactory explanations or discussions for cutting out very large parts of texts from articles written by others. I am therefore going to launch an arbitration procedure against you as soon as I get some time. Your highly objectionable political vendetta in wikipedia, disguised as "editing" ought to stop forthwith.Jurriaan (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead links at Weight of chains
Apologies Bob, I may have inadvertently complicated a 'revert war' on WoC ... There is also on that page a link to "Weight of Chains 2" ... a page written, modified and deleted within about 3 hours in October last year (deleted on grounds of being a direct copy of BM's webpage) ... that page link now redirects back to WoC1 .... earlier today UrVil reverted my removal of the pointless 'cyclic link' on the grounds of 'vandalism'. More on the talk page if you can bear to read it. Just notifying you.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Bioregulatory medicine
On delete review editors were very clear about what they think so that is fair conclusion as I needed wider views. I have not done page myself but tried to step in to to what I believe was right but realised in retrospect that I entered in a wrong way and reverting editors decisions. My sincere appology as I was inadvertently causing steer and on occasion un-Wikipedian ethos as I did not truly realise that is not the way to do editing; you probably realise that I am a total newcomer and just starting to understand how it works, but sincere apology to you and other editors for undoing or reverting some of their editing. But I love the Wiki concept and whole process ! I have opened page myself last year but did not resubmit as I was gathering more citations and was doing other things, but since it was a new approach of integrative medicine naturally need good citations. Do you think once I gather notations to reasonable level I should resubmit page from last year on same topic? best wishes Bogorodica (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft Template for WikiProject Globalization's 2014 Wikimania leaflet
Please comment on or edit the Draft Template for WikiProject Globalization's 2014 Wikimania leaflet. See the template and details here. Thanks! Meclee (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

New Global Economic Map homepage
Hi Bob Rayner, thanks for your support for the Global Economic Map project a few months ago. Just so you know the project homepage has changed to here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Economic_Map

Have a good day, Mcnabber091 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:HARASS
The next time you accuse me of stalking we'll take it up at AN/I.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you want to do that? I have a few interesting diffs, ready to go, but is it really necessary to keep on escalating the debate? There is clearly no consensus to treat RT as a reliable source; sniping at the folk who disagree with you, and following them round to revert-war on controversial topics, isn't going to help.
 * It was quite funny when you derided me as a "new editor" on RSN, even though I have more experience there than you. And when you accused me of pushing an agenda on a topic that I have, in reality, carefully avoided. And when you asked irrational questions whilst also banning me from replying. The answer to that one is "You said it yourself, on your own talkpage"; if you're angry with me about things that you typed on your own talkpage a few minutes earlier, it might be time to step away from the keyboard for a bit.
 * bobrayner (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I never said that you were a "new" editor in the RS/N thread.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm about to log off for this evening, myself, and I think that everyone here would do well to "step away from the keyboard for a bit". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wise words from Tryptofish, as ever. :-)
 * I'll go offline for a few hours. bobrayner (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Compare and contrast:

And yet you accuse me of being incompetent. If you insist on starting another AN/I thread, I have many more diffs to offer. Including more stalking. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My reading is that Bob is taking it to mean new editing accounts, whereas Ubikwit is taking it to mean editors new to a particular discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your effort to pour oil on troubled waters; but those are four mutually contradictory complaints by the same editor - such self-contradiction can hardly be caused by different editors taking the words to mean different things. bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm right about the sense in which he meant it, then it's not contradictory. I'm not defending everything about it, by a mile, but just pointing out that you might not be hearing him correctly. (And, for the record, I have no connection to BP. { ) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tryptopfish is right. You were one of several other latecomers (newcomers) to that thread appeared to make derogatory comments without apparently having read the preceeeding discussion of the thread, which includes much about the guideline and policy. The article you inttroduced about editorial independence is not relevant as far as NPOV is concerned. I suggest that you read the entire thread if you want to contribute in a more meaningful manner. Interjecting peripheral matter that is somewhat irrelevant and diverts from the discussion can be seen as disruptive and a form of soapboxing.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 00:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can't stop misrepresenting my edits, then stop commenting on them completely. bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm glad that I could clarify the misunderstanding about the meaning of "new editor", but I also want to make it clear that, in what I could see of the discussion, Bob's comments were reasonable and consistent with what looked like the consensus. I certainly do not think that Bob was soapboxing. Anyway, just one fish's opinion. I'm out of here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government
I was wondering if you could check out Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government and see if any changes need to be made. It is pretty bare and needs more info so go ahead and add some more.-- Zfigueroa   ( talk ) 10:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, that could be interesting. I'll take a look. bobrayner (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: A question
Hi, I wouldn't be surprised if the user in question is a sock puppet of | Obozedalteima who was previously blocked for numerous attacks on the article and other users. If a sock puppet, the user has refined his methods and learnt to keep his calm, and is now trying to undermine the credibility of the topic (Rape in the Bosnian War) by introducing blatant POV which is worthless even in the sense of POV, and which all the more disturbingly is defended by established user:FkpCascais here and on the talk page.  Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 02:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the edit, and I beleave it should be in the article as it is sourced. It is said who says what and it is up to the readers to have all the info available. FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't cite opinions simply because someone has them. The person making them must be relevant to the subject, such as a scholar. Is that so hard to grip? Yet worse, the sources stem from a Marxist-Leninist partisan organization supportive of Slobodan Milosevic and who considers the US responsible for "destroying Yugoslavia". It is obvious that you sympathise with the largely "pro-Serb" POV emanating from these sources, but that is not a good reason to push the material and try to undermine the article's credibility by fringe POV.  Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 05:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue has been raised here.  Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 07:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Replied. Thanks for the pointer. I knew those edits were suspicious, but there are so many different sockpuppets... bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Michel Chossudovsky
Hi! I noticed that an edit war may have begun between you and an IP at Michel Chossudovsky. I started a discussion of it here and noticed that the IP is accusing you of authoring a quote yourself and crediting it to someone else. Just wanted to make sure you are aware of what is going on. Cheers! Johnny338 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure it counts as an edit-war if I only make one edit. And that's not just an IP; it's Ifersen editing whilst logged out. bobrayner (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Bobrayner. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Greetings from User:Phmoreno re Economic growth

From now on if you want to discuss something intelligently you may do so on the talk page. If you want to delete things for unsubstantiated reasons and without consensus, we will be talking on the NPOVN message board.Phmoreno (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

We apologized for you
Both Sergey and I were in contact with Benjamin Warr at the time of your deletion of the Ayres-Warr model and we apologized to him. Sergey and I were ashamed to be Wikipidea editors regarding this.Phmoreno (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You should be ashamed of your misuse of sources.
 * I didn't delete the article. User:DangerousPanda deleted it, after the community agreed that it fell short of our standards. If you want to make me a proxy for all the other people who found problems in your editing, or if you do not understand that other editors were involved even though you interacted with them, I can live with that. bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

RSN regarding Ungor
Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to find out what exactly your argument is. As you may know, the RSN is strictly used investigate sources and see whether they are reliable or not. Do you think that Ungor's source is unreliable? If so, for what reason(s)? Ungor makes no secret on page 132 that Sabanci took up the opportunity of the void of Armenian competition after the Armenians had suffered a genocide in the region. Bugra repeats the same information in her study as well.

So can you tell me how the text in the bold:

Here's another proposal I am willing to put forth:

Is any different from what Ungor states:

Or what Bugra states:

And if you think Ungor says something entirely different, can you please let me know what you believe he's saying? In other words, can you find a proposal sentence that will convey what you believe Ungor asserts? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to write content for you. I merely responded to a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard. Let me correct any misunderstanding: Editors on the Reliable Sources noticeboard are likely to investigate whether particular wording is supported by particular sources, and when there's a sourcing dispute that will often intersect with neutrality problems too. In this case, there is unseemly enthusiasm to say as directly as possible that a group of people profited from genocide, when the sources are a little more circumspect. bobrayner (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and it appears that this has more to do with how the source is presented rather than the source itself. The wording in the article is as close as it can get to the wording of the source. In fact, the exact same terminology is used (i.e. "benefited", "taking part in takeovers of old minority-run ventures", and etc.) I actually think that the terminology is so alike that there can be paraphrasing issues here. My proposal sentence uses much softer language and avoids such paraphrasing complications. In fact, I find the language even softer than the sources themselves. So since there's no issue in terms of reliability with the sources, the proposal sentences can be a suitable compromise. The proposal clearly states that it was in the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide and that it was a suitable environment to build businesses due to the lack of competition from the Armenians who had formerly worked the region. If you find any further discrepancies in the proposal from what the source says, please let me know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
I've just filed a dispute resolution request regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. In eight years, I've never been as close to quitting this site entirely in the face of POVpushing. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI
See this edit and the wikihounding here. Evidence is piling up for an ANI. I'm getting fed up with this.  Praxis Icosahedron ϡ ( TALK ) 10:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know both of you love me very much, but I wan´t be able to be much around in the next few weeks because of personal issues. That edit was becaue of lack of time, I confused him with another Cohen, apologies, o right? That is why I will only return to edit those subjects when I find myself with more time to analise properly all sources. You can report me if you have nothing better to do. Regards to both, FkpCascais (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete the "Spengler's civilizational model page"?
I would like an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic12345 (talk • contribs)
 * Various other editors were involved. The page failed Wikipedia's standards. We still have articles on the book and the author, which is more than enough. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The table summarizes the whole book. This deleted page has been cited at multiple blogs. I myself must have cited this page over 20 times.
 * "We still have articles on the book and the author, which is more than enough."
 * This table is VERY useful. I think you and the editors have arrived at a subjective opinion regarding the lack of importance of this wonderful and highly insightful article.
 * Where can I discuss about this with all the editors so we can come up with a resolution.
 * [I really need this table. I cannot find it anywhere else on the internet] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic12345 (talk • contribs)
 * If you can't find it anywhere else, that's a very good reason we shouldn't have it on wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

List of acquisitions by Qualcomm
Hi Bobrayner. I was wondering if you had time if I could ask you to take a look at this. I put together an acquisition table here like the ones you see on many of the "List of acquisitions" articles for a company where I have a conflict of interest and was hoping an impartial editor will find the best way to incorporate it (separate article, sub-section, etc.). CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've responded there. Thanks for chipping in! CorporateM (Talk) 23:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I miss working on business and strategy. Now I seem to spend half my life dealing with political POV-pushers; the watchlist has become a chore, and Qualcomm is blessed relief. Am happy for that list to go live with minimal change - will do that shortly. bobrayner (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I was recently pretty rude to a couple POV pushers. I spent three months fighting off a political POV pusher on one page and another 3 months fighting off an army of paid accounts on another (including established editors that were bribed) and my patience has grown thin. I've also gained an extremely jaded point-of-view after seeing so many complex manipulation schemes by POV pushers - but I need to hang around user:Atama a bit more so their AGF can smear off on me and I can regain my innocence a little. I have to remember that I was basically a POV pusher myself once.


 * I also have a bunch of other articles where I have a COI and could use your help. This one will be a monster, but I've also got an easy Request Edits here and a discussion that I think needs an AfD nom to figure out where consensus lies (or at least some pretty heavy-handed trims to see what's left) here - a re-write of a POV-pusher-written section proposed here with a side-by-side comparison of the current and proposed versions. But my needs for collaboration on articles where I have a COI are so bottomless, I could keep an editor busy all day ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 18:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Atama is an inspiration to us all. I'll have a look at those links. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of my complaints of having such a hard time finding editors to collaborate with since North8000 was banned and candle blocked, etc. someone already answered most of those, which is actually extremely prompt and makes my whining make me look like kind of a jerk. The the Adreno discussion is still one with unclear consensus and no clear go-forward item. I think an AfD is needed to find out where consensus is, though Atama suggested trimming all the non encyclopedic material and seeing what's left. CorporateM (Talk) 16:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, there are a few people around here who look like jerks, but you're certainly not one of them. 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well... sometimes I am one of them ;-). You may have noticed it if you added Qualcomm to your watchlist, but this IP edit seems to be adding criticisms of Qualcomm citing a blog post, a forum, and what appears to be a one-man Linux enthusiast site. CorporateM (Talk) 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

MCS
I notice that Bn has been making extensive edits, including large deletions, but the amount of material (bytes) doesn't add up. I suspect that the edit summaries are incomplete/deceptive, and maybe an examination of what's really happening is in order. His/her expressed reasons for being here aren't very encouraging either. I don't have time to do it, so can you take a look? history. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Whonix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TOR. 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) 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Movewarring
You dont use the talk pages (Kllokot-Vërban/Klokot, Strellc i Epërm/Gornji Streoc, etc).--Z oupan 03:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop movewarring. If you want to make a controversial move, use WP:RM. You know the rules; other people follow the rules; it's time for you to start complying too. bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit war assistance
Hello again Bob. Not trying to canvass or anything but I need assistance with some edit warring between a user named Riothero and I. I have went to the boards and seeked assistance but they didn't really assist at all. Since you are one of the first users and most trusted, I figured you could assist me. Thanks for everything already.-- Zfigueroa   ( talk ) 22:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If I'm doing something wrong, let me know as well. I always have something to learn. If you could, please check some of my edits and see what is going on.-- Zfigueroa   ( talk ) 22:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to WP:FORUMSHOP. I am the one you should be talking to. I confess I am also sometimes too quick to dismiss this as an option. Although I provide you with what I think are valid reasons for reverting those edits in my edit summaries, I will make an effort to explain my concerns on an article's talk page. All we need to do is follow WP:BRD more diligently. (FYI, edit wars begin when one responds to a revert by reverting again, rather than taking the discussion to the talk pages.)--Riothero (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you Riothero.-- Zfigueroa   ( talk ) 20:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier - I've been busy at work. Please be careful to avoid canvassing. bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I tried to just ask for advice, that is why I said I wasn't trying to canvas above. I know you have been here longer and have gone through this so I decided to ask you. Anyways, I think we figured things out, but thanks for replying.-- Zfigueroa   ( talk ) 23:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Baltic Shield &rarr; Fennoscandia
Hi, I noticed that last September you had erased the article Baltic Shield and made it to redirect to Fennoscandia. Problem is, the Baltic Shield is a geological feature, and Fennoscandia a geographical. Your comment was "seems to be a copy & paste job"; the whole article was copypasted? From where? &mdash;Nelg (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * It's part of this problem. Unfortunately, User:Valich's only recent edit has been to blank copyright warnings from their talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Cretan Resistance
Bob, this isn't about 'Weight of Chains', though thankyou for your involvement there and across Malagurski-land.

I'm contacting you as to ask for advice about Cretan Resistance. I first noticed serious issues over a year ago. The issues are (I think) blatant synth, coatrack (devoting half the article to how really the British caused the Gk Civil War, which followed), use of questionable sources (all translated by the editor himself) and definite PoV in both presentation and choice of material.

I'm reluctant to simply 'mass delete', partly because of feeling out of my depth on the subject itself, but also because there may be wheat among the chaff. I've put out a call for help on the Greece project page, but so far no response. Any suggestions as to how to get some help? This isn't an 'edit conflict', since the editor responsible doesn't respond to questions, (having done his damage, he seems happy to disappear, though he is still an editor), but there is a need for help from someone who knows more about the subject than me and knows more about what (in a Greek context) is/is not a RS.Pincrete (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. I think you're right.
 * Simply cutting out problematic text is easy, unless (a) the pov-pusher is actively reverting, or (b) it's misrepresenting sources and you want to replace it with something better. We have problem B here. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob, thanks, I tried to start removing synth but, in places, whole sections of the page are dependent on that synth. No the editor isn't around and hasn't responded to my attempts to engage (he isn't Greek by the way, but appears to have the 'zeal of the convert').

I don't know if you had time to look at the talk page, but I attempted to detail there the problematic sources (in one case the source IS a noted German-Greek historian, but the text is cited (in Greek) as the abbreviation for the Public library of Heraklion, who's the publisher? when/if published? etc., but most of the sources are simply blogs).

It's more a question of finding someone who knows more about the subject than me (and preferably is fluent in Greek). If no 'white knight' appears, I may have to delete whole sections and see what happens!Pincrete (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC) … … UPDATE, I took the 'drastic route' (major surgery), but thanks for taking a look.Pincrete (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning
Next time you make major controversial changes without consensus as you did in this edit you´ll be reported. FkpCascais (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, next time I see you removing the status label as recomended there, I´ll also report you for that as well. The consensus is clear by now, and all should apply it. If you dislike it, open a discussion first. FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, we know you can hit the revert button repeatedly. That does not make a consensus. There is no consensus for the guideline to require that template. bobrayner (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Middayexpress
I've just filed a RfC-U regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. The issues raised are serious and concern WP's fundamental rules, including NPOV. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Desk redirect
In October 2012 you contributed to the discussion that led to Wikipedia Reference Desk becoming a redirect to Reference Desk (Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 8). The redirect was nominated for deletion on 22 August and you are invited to contribute to the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 22. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows). Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Weight of Chains
Blimey ! Even looking at your talk page gives me a headache !

Now this IS about Malagurski-land. I don't know if you've been following the latest dramas, but I would welcome any input you feel able to make. I'm considering some kind of Admin intervention on the 'owner' of The Weight of Chains. Pincrete (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support that. Others have tried it before, although the closure of the thread at WP:COIN was just bizarre; for instance Uzma Gamal's insistence that we have to WP:OUT an editor before any action can be taken on COI editing. bobrayner (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes I got 'sucked in' at the periphery of the COIN enquiry and knew about it (and another one around the same time). At the risk of 'tempting fate', the knee-jerk reverting has slowed down in the last few days, and the abuse quotient slipped also. If normal behaviour patterns return, I think there are grounds for a behaviour complaint, of which one-sided editing would simply be a factor.


 * As I understand it, 2 editors need to have raised behaviour on talk for a complaint to go forward, you have implicitly criticised and in your 'pithy' edit reasons implied behaviour issues, but not explicitly commented in recent times. I have recently, repeatedly and clearly complained of behaviour.Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Me again, I was intending to contact you anyhow re: firstly whether it is STILL your conviction that 'Canadian' should be removed from description on WoC page (UrbanVillager having rejected or ignored several compromises)… … secondly, to ask if you have any advise as to how to proceed (I think there are ample grounds for complaint on user behaviour, this seems the appropriate section). BUT, before I did that, events got ahead of me, here:-. I had anyway called a 'truce' with UV as he was getting totally out of hand in removing whole sections of the article. If you can bear it, 'discussion' is here:-, Here:-, and (longest, oldest) Here:-. Pincrete (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Pincrete, I'd like to inform you that what you're doing here is Canvassing. I think Bob Rayner is well informed regarding the discussion on the topic of Malagurski-related articles as he or she himself jumps in from time to time to remove sourced content or revert when you've done it too many times and you're clearly in violation of Wikipedia policy. You're compromising the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore what you're doing is disruptive behavior. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * UrbanVillager, I have a talk page you know! I came here to inform Bob about a noticeboard and ask his advice. I'm sure Bob is old enough to reach his own judgements without your help. Would you like to see your own canvassing record ? … … ps under NO circumstances will I reply here.Pincrete (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good, I just wanted to make sure you read the warning. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bob, you made a (minor) error in one of your recent posts on ANI, I've posted a correction two paras down from your post. Pincrete (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As Opbeith used to say "UrbanVillager, you're always good for a laugh!" :-. Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Stop
Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. I wanted to warn you, but some system filter tel me you are been warned a lot of times before. --Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ )  16:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By "some system filter", you mean an editor who was banned for making controversial edits that push the same POV as yours? Good luck with that. bobrayner (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There was a warring above, with some info "system filter noticed that you want to give a warning, bla, bla, bla, this user is already warned... ... and like that. It was in red box. --Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ )  19:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? No "system filter" said this.
 * Quit stalking me. If you are unable to edit neutrally, the ability to edit may be removed entirely. bobrayner (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You obviously didnt understand again. You should be warned with the same thing you wanted to give me, but wikipedia does not allow me to send you that by some system filter. First sentence is from the thing i found about the thing you want to call stalking. violations of Wikipedia policy are not stalking. So, you should stop follow thing i read on wiki, and you will not should edit against wikipedia policy. --Ąnαșταη ( ταlκ )  20:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop stalking me. It's quite simple. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Participatory Economics
Hi Bobrayner, I responded to you on the Participatory Economics talk page. I don't know if you got a notification or not and I didn't know another way to contact you so I hope you don't mind me leaving a message on your talk page. I believe you are misguided in reference to the link I would like to add. Could you please respond to me so we can clear this up? Thanks, River Orange. --River Orange (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * kindly have the decency to always sign your contributions with the four tides.You commited the same blunder here but am ready to forgive you today. Regarding participatory economics, every discussion related to the article should be on the article talk page. just leave your comments there. If you need the attention of a specific editor simply ping him/her with { {Ping|name of editor} }. Wikicology (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikicology, no need to be so firm. River Orange isn't very experienced around here, and wikipedia has a steep learning curve. I might disagree with River Orange on a bit of content - and content is the most important thing of all - but I'm not going to criticise minor wikitext issues. By the way, are you familiar with Muphry's law? By convention, the first reply in a thread should be indented with a single colon, then the second reply with two colons, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * am uncertain as to your understanding of Muphry's law. My initial comment here has nothing to do with critisms but correction. Kindly note that Experience come into play when you make a mistake learn from it through correction.Wikicology (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh! I had assumed that you understood what you were typing. Let me simplify.
 * You criticised River Orange for forgetting to sign the first talkpage comments they ever made.
 * In doing so, your comment here failed WP:THREAD, as well as giving River Orange misleading guidance about talkpages - and you even fail to comply with your own made-up rules.
 * You complained about River Orange failing to use markup which you can't even spell.
 * You also failed to transclude the welcome template which you put on their talkpage.
 * Your latest comment here includes a remarkable series of blunders, failing to satisfy the most basic principles of English-language spelling, punctuation, and capitalisation.
 * I would not normally point out such blunders, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Am ready to forgive you today, but the next time I catch you biting new editors, there will be trouble. New editors are the lifeblood of wikipedia, and you do not score any points for criticising their newness. I'm sure you do other tasks which are a net benefit to wikipedia; perhaps you could concentrate on those instead. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How was your night my friend ? I guessed it was fine. Am sincerely sorry if you find my behaviour annoying last night. It is not in my character to bite newbies, having understand quiet well that they are the bedrock of wikipedia and wikipedia vetrans were at one time new editor. I appreciates your corrections and I will learn from it. Once again, accept my unreserved apology. Wikicology (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bobrayner, hope you are well. Could you please reply to me on the Participatory Economics talk page to discussion the external link suggestion? I think the link meets wiki guidelines and so does Wikicology. Also, I don't think you've given an argument (or a good one) to not include it in the external link section. All the best and I look forward to hearing from you.--River Orange (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Argentine debt restructuring
Had a go at a basic restructuring and putting "Like with like".

Hope you like it. It's a bit rough still, but makes clearer what's missing.

One detail that * is * missing, is the names of the holdouts, I know it's not just NML. Can you add those, where I put _____, as I have to go out unexpedctedly!

Thanks - FT2 (Talk 12:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll have a look. At weekends, I don't have the best sources to hand, but I'll try to help. You've done great work. bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies ?
Bob, there is a 'new kid on the block' at Weight of Chains … user:-RichardWilson78, just letting you know and expressing NO opinion on the matter, I've left him/her some friendly advice on talk. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is Bob and why am I notified of this? RichardWilson78 (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Deborah James
Hi Bob! Just wondering if you could take a look at an article I created about Deborah James. I'm having difficulties finding basic information on her other than the organizations that she worked for.-- Zfigueroa   ( talk ) 16:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Prices
I see you have made this edit. I'm not sure of the meaning. I followed the link to [http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civil Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal] only to find at page 41: Moreover, the thorium cycle that India plans to develop in the third stage of the plan will be commercially viable only if the price of uranium increases by several orders of magnitude. supported with: As the World Nuclear Association therefore concluded somewhat laconically, “much development work is still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be commercialized, and the effort required seems unlikely while (or where) abundant uranium is available. sourced from ''33. World Nuclear Association, “Thorium,” November 2004, available at www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.htm.''. The old link is dead, but I found Thorium (Updated September 2014) and in section India's plans for thorium cycle, I can't find the text cited by Tellis. Perhaps it is no longer current? The question: are you meaning that thorium prices are too high ? (no reference) Or are you meaning that the thorium cycle as implemented is to costly at actual uranium prices ? (not explained) The program is definitely expensive, but so all the prototypes. I don't see any explainations and proofs that once the program is tested and operational, thorium will still be more expensive than uranium. --Robertiki (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Industrial planning
I see you have made this edit. Following the link to [http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf Atoms for War? U.S.-Indian Civil Nuclear Cooperation and India’s Nuclear Arsenal], Tellis words put in context are:   The maximalist claim that U.S.-Indian civil nuclear cooperation would underwrite the rapid expansion of India’s nuclear arsenal hinges on ... that the Indian desire for a large nuclear arsenal has been stymied so far by a shortage of natural uranium, which would now be remedied by the implementation of the proposed nuclear cooperation between the United States and India. So Tellis is only stating that India ha enough uranium for the armament program. But if you go to pp.40, that you browsed previously, I read: As a first approximation, it is accurate to say that India possesses a limited quantity of natural uranium. and more ''Given such comparisons, it becomes obvious that India’s known reserves of uranium are simply not so abundant as to support the largest possible expansion of nuclear power as might be necessary for a country of India’s size and population over the secular period. The Indian DAE, for example, estimates that its reasonably assured reserves of 78,000 MTU suffice to produce only 420 gigawatt-electric-years (GWe-years) of electricity when used solely in PHWRs.'' The article is not about nuclear armament, but about nuclear power for the future of India, and in that perspective, India has a sortage of uranium already in the medium term (2020 ?). So, if your wording is to imply that India does not need to use thorium because it has all the uranium it needs, you need another source. --Robertiki (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Projections
I see you have made this edit. Originally the text outlined the progress of the three stage program and future projections: As of 2012, the first stage consisting of the pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWR) is near completion of its planned goals, the second stage consisting of fast breeder reactors (FBR) is poised to go into operation within one year, and the third stage consisting of advanced heavy water reactors (AHWR), as one among several technology options, is slated to begin construction so that its commissioning can be done by 2020. Your edit reduces all the information to a failure of the second stage projections: As of August 2014, India's first Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor had been delayed - with first criticality expected in 2015 - and India continued to import thousands of tonnes of uranium from Russia, Kazakhstan, France, and Uzbekistan. I feel a better update could be: As of August 2014, the first stage consisting of the pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWR) was completed, but the second stage consisting of India's first Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor had been delayed - with first criticality expected in 2015, and the third stage consisting of advanced heavy water reactors (AHWR), as one among several technology options, is slated to begin construction so that its commissioning can be done by 2020. And sorry, but I don't see relevance of India continued imports of thousands of tonnes of uranium from Russia, Kazakhstan, France, and Uzbekistan with the matter of the article. --Robertiki (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tragedy of the comons
Sorry I had to revert your edit. Please have a look on the sources and the talk page. There is no evidence at all that Hardin invented the example, he might have claimed it, but, so he did about Population regulation by genocide, the bell curve and interdiction of food aid for ethiopia. To describe Radkau as fringe Kraut scientist holding minor opionions on the topic is not based on evidence. As well Grove and Rackham describe Hardin as an ignoramus without any idea about actual commons or the background of the metaphor. Serten (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Chossudovsky
So you want to report me about reverting a quotation that you originally put on Chossudovsky's page where you attributed a quote in a book that does not exist? I am more considered about wiki users engaging in fraud then reverting edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifersen (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't do that. Stop. bobrayner (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Template
The Template Template:Numrec/Kosovo links to "International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo" which is a redirect to "International recognition of Kosovo". Also the template uses the term "recognitizers" which is not a real word. I'm unable to sort it out, any idea how it can be fixed? Regards IJA (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! The typo was in Numrec/subdoc; I fixed that. It looks like you bypassed the redirect, although you may see some pages with that template continue to use the old link for a while - you can force a refresh if you want, but I believe it's strictly at the client side so other readers get the new look straight away. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate IJA (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture source
Hi Bob -- re your revert, actually  is correct that there was a broad consensus (in July) to use the more complicated wording, cf. article talk. But even though it's a faithful reading of the source and was supported by consensus, it's always going to look screwy, and the source is less than ideal for our purposes. For support for these statements and more detail, please see Doc James' user talk here. Have proposed improvements here. regards, Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 15:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Update -- Sometimes one gets too close to an issue to see the simple and best solution, which is what happened to me and others in this protracted dispute over parsing Ernst '11. Per Doc James, just citing the abstract makes much sense. .  --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 03:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, deletions, and POV-pushing on Argentina-related articles.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sherlock4000 (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this
you? FkpCascais (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not. What a laughable idea. However, the IP address does belong to an ISP used by one of your allies.
 * If I have time, I will review some articles edited by 94.197.120.*; maybe some need to be fixed. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)