User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 8

Petrodollar and Petrodollar_warfare

Your recent removal of the History section from Petrodollar was probably prudent, as it was delivered in a context consistent with that of the Petrodollar Warfare hypothesis. As such, upon reinsertion the History text, and your subsequent removal, it was then moved to the Petrodollar_warfare wiki entry.

However, your removal of the History section from the Petrodollar_warfare, labeling it a "conspiracy theory", was unwarranted. The Petrodollar_warfare wiki itself is describing a hypothesis (or theory). If we are to remove all hypotheses from Wikipedia, then your claim may be valid. However, removing one purely because you might consider it a "conspiracy" is attacking only the character of the one making the argument, and not content of the argument itself. It was, however, presented in a fairly contentious manner, so subsequent revisions have been made. All of the information presented is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.242.43 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Alas, the source fails our Reliable source standard by a long way. bobrayner (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, but that's a different reason. Next time please work to improve the possibly mis-referenced or contentiously worded content (e.g. update the reference or request a better one) rather than deleting pertinent information. The information presented was all still accurate (though previously worded contentiously) and is important to fully understanding the topic. The reference was updated to the appropriate page from the Author of the theory/book.

Accurate? I don't doubt that somebody on the internet once claimed it, but that doesn't make it true. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a double-edged blade -- just because you don't like an internet source doesn't make the information false. "Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true" is attacking only the character of the one making the argument, and not the substance of the argument itself. This information is indeed true. And now better referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.242.43 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

FTN

When posting about the Spengler stuff you mentioned an affected article, what's that? Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I... I'm not sure what page I had in mind at the time, and cannot now retrace my steps. Oops. It might have been a wild goose chase. Sorry! bobrayner (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

FlyAkwa and ownership problems on High-speed rail and TGV

Hello. You might be interested in knowing that I have opened a case at Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents (direct link to it) regarding FlyAkwa's behaviour on those two articles. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no ownership from me in the High-speed_rail page. But, alongside many other editors, I try to keep an ordered and clean article, and I heavily work on it by the past. All my edits have always been justified in comment, or in talk page. For heavy edits, I always began to propose the modification in the talk page.

Since 2 month, two editors try to put back a false information, about the maximum speed in CHina. To do that, they use only one (usually reliable) source, the Railway gazette, but that make, this time, an obvious error.

In the talk page, I demonstrated the error, and ask to find another source about the claim.

Instead, Bobyrayner and its acolyte Thomas.W only repeatedly put back the information, without searching or finding another source, and without proving the veracity of their claim.

It must be noted that Bobyrayner has been very often found to support Chinese claims or propaganda, in various articles, notably on the High-Speed Rail page and TGV page, leading to an "edit war" on year ago.

--FlyAkwa (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Bobrayner. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

International Monetary Reform

What is Positive money advocating if not monetary reform ?? --brandsby (talk) 17.00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

My concern is that the site is just advocacy. It's not really a reliable source. bobrayner (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Fast trains

I'm not sure about this. A question's been raised about the reliability of the source. I am not saying take it out, I am saying I really don't know what we should best do. We probably don't need the little flag in any case. --John (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's better sourced than most of the article! I'd happily remove flags but that tends to get reverted too - try fixing any of the other nationalist issues on that page and see how long the fix lasts.

Strangely, the editor questioning the reliability of Railway Gazette is happy for that article to cite other RG articles which say that French trains are fast. Apparently, Railway Gazette only becomes "Chinese propaganda" when it says that Chinese trains are fast. And that article has carefully arranged so it seems like French trains hold speed records in lots of categories. Oh well. I'm not going to add any new content for the time being (though RG is a rich vein to be mined), but I think it was appropriate to make that one revert. If any other sources appear, that would be interesting reading. bobrayner (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the email recently posted on Talk:High-speed rail, I think we should step back and wait for something concrete from RG or some other reliable source; but we still need to bear in mind that these articles have broader problems beyond that one sentence. bobrayner (talk) 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Followup: The RG source has been updated. bobrayner (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Quackwatch

BR: I have edited the Quackwatch page to better reflect the controversy that surrounds quackwatch. You continue to undo the changes that makes the page a reliable wiki source rather than a biased op ed piece. My question would be why? What portion of the editing are you having contention with? A quick review of the website does reveal that the majority of articles are Barrett's and those articles do in fact reference back to Barrett's own articles as source material! It is a controversial site and it is wholly owned by Barrett. It is supported by Mainstream news (I don't think you'll find naturalnews, mercola or others supporting it) and mainstream medical practitioners. I have saved for editing at a later date all of the information on controversy, including lawsuits that quackwatch and Barrett have been part of and which should be a fundamental part of the descriptive for quackwatch as it gives a more balanced perspective of this controversial website. There are too many glowing cheerleading type reporting in the current report and much of that should be removed as it gives a misleading article on the usefulness of the quackwatch site as well as its reliability as a resource. The current article on quackwatch is not unbiased or reflective of current information in regards to Barrett or his websites. What more do you want or are you just being a shill for him? Forgive me for my lack of knowledge when it comes to editing wiki, or on how to appropriately contact and initialize useful dialogue with you. I must admit that when I came across the wiki page on quackwatch, I felt compelled to try to take some of the pro-bias out, but there is soooo much there, that I had no clue on how to completely remove everything and put it back to the bare bones of "what they claim, what they've done, what their controversy is". In its current state it is not only false but pathetically biased! Since you have edited so many articles on wiki, please take a look at the current one for quackwatch and read it from a non biased perspective...imagine that you are unaware of any of the controversy surrounding Barrett or his websites and what influence wiki would have upon you as that reader of that page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.183.13 (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your input re the Wikipedia Astrology Project

Hi Bobrayner

I have joined the Wikipedia Astrology project today and am contacting you as a listed member of that project. There has been a proposal to consider the project dead and merge it with 12 other alternative subjects into a new wiki project which would oversee all aspects of fringe. I think it would be a shame to lose the astrology project on the basis that it has no active participants without contacting the members directly and exploring ideas for new ways to work together on astrology-related pages. It would be very useful if you would visit the discussion and let us know if your interest in the project is still active, or what it might take to rekindle it. Regards Tento2 (talk) 09:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom

You have resumed editing warring on this page. Please do not delete key sections again without debate.Tomintoul (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker comment)@Tomintoul: I see no edit warring from Bobrayner on that page, in fact the only one who seems to have been even close to edit warring on that page is you. I also sense a bit of an ownership problem there. Also involving you... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Tomintoul, here you add cherrypicked numbers whilst saying "Stop deleting without discussion - go to talk page". In reality, I raised the problem on the article's talkpage a year ago.

Now, you've demonstrated you can press the revert button, but that's not the best way to determine what content should be in articles. Can you give a policy-based reason for adding cherrypicked numbers which deliberately give readers a skewed message? bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

They are not cherry-picked numbers – they are the numbers at the break points illustrating the effects of a slab tax. The break points are set by the Government. I have not cherry-picked them!Tomintoul (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Could you elaborate on why including a quote from Chomsky in Tragedy of the commons is inappropriate? This is a section of individual criticisms of Hardin's essay by various intellectuals, Chomsky is described on wikipedia as 'a key intellectual figure within the left-wing of American politics', 'one of the most globally famous figures of the left' & the 'world's top public intellectual'. It seems reasonable that this long article could contain a single criticism from him. JMiall₰ 22:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

SANU Memorandum

You really must be joking by picking Malcolm as source to claim that Kosovo and Vojvodina were never part of modern Serbian state. Malcolm was already found suspicious for being used as source as he is not an historian and his works were highly politicized when published during the Yugoslav wars. Even so, I didn´t removed him as source, but his claim is plain wrong. Just go then to the articles and claim both territories were never part of Serbia. Modern Serbia begins in XIX c. and Kosovo became part of Serbian territory in 1913 and Vojvodina in 1918. So how more wrong can he be in his claim? FkpCascais (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

At the time that Serbia conquered Kosovo (in 1912-1913), the 1903 constitution was still in force. This constitution required a Grand National Assembly before Serbia's borders could be expanded to include Kosovo; but no such Grand National Assembly was ever held. Didn't you know? bobrayner (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe you have access to some kind of superior source which provides evidence that a Grand National Assembly was held (to rubberstamp the annexation), which other reliable sources didn't know about? That would explain why you feel that existing sources are "simply wrong". If true, that would be a dramatic change to Serbian constitutional history. bobrayner (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The Treaty of Bucharest (1913) recognises Serbia with its expanded borders. The fact that the Grand National Assembly wasn´t held and didn´t rectified the constitution becomes a technicallity, as de facto Serbian "occupation" of Kosovo begins in 1913 and lasts until 1999. Even so, what about the period 1918-WWII? It´s missleading to claim what Malcolm claims, why do Albanians clain occupation and so then? It just can´t be simplified like that. On one side "Albanian population of Kosovo suffered under Serb domination since 1913" but now suddently "Kosovo had never been part of modern Serbia"? FkpCascais (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We have two aspects here: international and internal. The international one is clear, internationally Serbia was recognised with its new borders by Bucharest Treaty, and so was Albania. The internal one you say that Serbia didn´t got in time before WWI to rectify its constitution in order to include the expanded territories, but you certainly know Serbia dealt with Kosovo as its own land since 1913 and applied its law there. Even so, Serbia joined Montenegro and the State of SCS to form the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and Kosovo entered Yugoslavia as territory of Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A treaty? That looks like clutching at straws. Try updating a few articles to say that much of the Middle East is Ottoman and the Gulf is British - per the 1913 Anglo-Ottoman treaty - and see how swiftly that is reverted.

I recognise that force of arms can steamroller over constitutional "technicality". It's difficult to understand Balkan history without recognising that. However, that we should not mislead readers. bobrayner (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Czixhc

As you have been involved with this editor and his/her map, I thought you might want to see yet another discussion at WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I put tags on articles that i know. There are serious problems with those articles in question, and whole discussion would consume much more time than what i can afford. That is only a warning to users who read it, because of all things mentioned in tags. Because wikipedia can be written by anyone, those pages will always be edited, however, those tags will always be true for majority of content on those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obozedalteima (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What are the problems? bobrayner (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even have to look to know the area of interest. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 08:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a difficult job, but it's not so different from your own preferred topic. The three most important things to consider are sources, sources, and sources. bobrayner (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: A random thought

Frankly I don't think so, I can envisage someone stumbling upon all that. That does nothing to excuse the behavior, obviously. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. No permanent harm done, though. bobrayner (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to ask the question, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obozedalteima -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit

Please provide a page number for this edit . Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply about Independent International Commission on Kosovo

The commission was convened to investigate and report if western (NATO) intervention in Kosovo were legitimate and adequate. Michael Bothe; Boris Kondoch (2002). International Peacekeeping: The Yearbook of International Peace Operations. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 325. ISBN 978-90-411-1920-9. ..a Commission convened by Prime Minister Pers- son of Sweden to investigate and report on the legitimacy and adequacy of western actions in Kosovo. The text I wrote was focused on the findings of commission about western (NATO) actions. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a guideline which says "Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them." You made new section at my talk page and titled it "Systematic pov-pushing". Taking in consideration our previous interactions I am concerned that this is violation of this guideline and would appreciate if you could refrain from such actions in future. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

RE: Jacques Fresco hagiography?

I thought the paragraph was more critical than praising. I don't know why you're calling it hagiography. My personal view is the guy is a big joke. NaturaNaturans (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Directed Energy Weapons

It seems the conspiracy theory related link you (rightfully)removed from that article was reentered by another editor who seems intent on establishing similar conspiracy theories in that article. The references he has provided do not support his claims which appear to imply that Directed Energy Weapons are being used today as "Info Ops" against US citizens from space satellites. Can you look at this when you have time before it turns into an edit war? Thanks. Batvette (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. There are so many obvious problems with it that it won't stick around for long. bobrayner (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

References for the main section

Why do we not have references for the main section of Indian Numbering System? Please do the needful. -Polytope4d (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You can fix it too. If you want to add some content, do you have some good sources? bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply about Repeated insertion of hoaxes

You left a message (diff) at my talkpage under newly created section "Repeated insertion of hoaxes". In the meantime I see that this issue is clarified at the talkpage of the article (diff). Your attempt to use NUTS issue as an excuse to remove Kosovo from the list of statistical regions of Serbia has again failed (link to current text of the article). Together with your attempt to attribute "POV-pushing" to me. I already politely asked you to "refrain from such actions in future" (diff). Please do not continue to repeat such actions in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The content you added was not true. If you don't like people criticising you for adding made-up stuff then don't add made-up stuff. Similarly, if you don't like being criticised for creating appallingly unbalanced POV-trainwreck articles, then don't write appallingly unbalanced POV-trainwreck articles. It's really quite simple. You're not a victim of persecution; you just put some crap into articles. No big deal - it happens every day in the Balkans. bobrayner (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Even the updated version of the article still failed to point out the yawning gulf between what Belgrade thinks and what is actually true; So, I have had to add some clarification, lest any readers actually take the fantasy at face value. Did you believe what you put in the article? bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(In Russia, WIKIPEDIA EDIT YOU) --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 18:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

An ongoing problem

hi Bob, some moves might be controversial and some not. However there is always a thought process and logic behind my moves when I do move, and they are in line with the policy of WP:BB, which I have already stated a year ago to your filed complaint. If you personally disagree with some of the moves, then that is a different issue and we can discuss them on a case by case basis. Generally moving articles however is not a violation in itself. I do use RM whenever I think something is fairly controversial or might split in the middle. Thank you for your understanding. Gryffindor (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification. WP:BB is an editing guideline, not a "policy" of English Wikipedia. Poeticbent talk 18:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Shiatsu Page

Hi Bob, please stop fiddling around with the Shiatsu page. Let those with more knowledge of the method add to the article. If you wish to make shiatsu therapy look bad, please make your own website, that's not what Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.87.30 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edits have also been undone by Alexbrn. We should stick to what reliable sources say. I recognise that many people take shiatsu seriously, but it's the evidence that makes shiatsu look bad. Not me. bobrayner (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Who decides what is an improvement? Those who dislike statements of facts?

I would like to know why a statement of fact about this book: "Although the book's website - created in 2008 and updated in April 2013 - promises to give references ("over the coming weeks") for the book's claims, so far, in 2013, it has completely failed to provide any references, except for two of the six chapters, and none for the appendix." which sheds light onto one particular aspect of the book - namely that the authors have not provided evidence - has been deleted by Bobrayner. Has he the power to decide what is important? A statement of fact about something that not many people know is not an improvement? Why not? Because he says so? Is this typical of wikipedia? That those with a strong agenda have the power to delete statements of fact because it doesn't support their opinions? It'd be good to know - and to let the whole world know. Johntosco (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing Out Pseudoscience

Saw your comment on Talk at Michel Chossudovsky and his conspiracist website Global Research, which is neither global nor research. Would like to correspond with you directly DUStory dash owner at yahoogroups dot com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.32.139 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Golden rice

Hi, I've reverted your addition of a quote. Please take a few minutes to give WP:BRD a read, if you are reverted you go to the talk page, not add the same content back. Also as per WP:UNDUE I'm not sure we should give a quote by one man so much relevance, perhaps reporting the idea of what he said would be better. Not sure also why would you add that quote to that section in particular and lastly, a source is needed for the quote. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course the Mark Lynas quote was sourced and relevant to the protest. Immediately above where I added the quote, you may notice that there's a citation. Of an article written by a prominent commentator on the topic; a certain Mark Lynas. In that article you will find the words that Mark Lynas said about Golden rice in general and the protest in particular; I quoted his words on the effect of the protest. Did you read the source? bobrayner (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob, thanks for answering. Yes, I have read the source now that another editor pointed to me that the source for the quote was the one above it. I thought you had simply forgotten to add the source. The quote is still a bit tendentious so I'll refactor that section a bit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Test yellow bar

This is a test of the yellow bar per your post at WP:VPT. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Amazing Race pages and flags

Please do not remove the flags from the articles, again. This formatting has been in place for years and as far as I am aware, they fall within the standards of WP:MOSFLAG and in the past their usage has been identified as beneficial.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Who identified it as beneficial? They look awful, and "This is the formatting used on these pages" is, of course, circular reasoning. Hardly a good reason to put such warts back on the page. And what are you trying to achieve with nested nationalities like "Edinburgh, Scotland , United Kingdom (Edinburgh Airport)"? The goal is not clear, here, unless it's to fit as much as possible into a disjointed bulleted list regardless of whether it actually benefits readers. bobrayner (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not even consistent with your own rules on these articles; here you said "SUBNATIONAL REGIONS UNIMPORTANT FROM NOW ON". Yet we still have stilted lists of regions. Some decorated with their own little flag pictures. Other articles in the encyclopædia don't look like this, for good reason. bobrayner (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Listing subnational regions in the locations lists is what I meant in that statement, so these pages no longer list the Departements of France or the Regions of Chile or the Counties of Ireland anymore. Meanwhile, several times in the program the flags do come up and they will treat partially autonomous regions such as the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China, or commonwealths and territories of the United States as separate from the governing nations, particularly because the program will travel to other locations and it will be noted as different. The one situation you reference, the program went from Edinburgh to Belfast to Liverpool within the course of a single 2 hour episode, and many of said locations were noted as being different. As it stands, consensus on these pages favors the flags, and we have guidelines somewhere set up that outside of these aforementioned situations (and a handful of others), only the national flag is used and there's certainly nothing on WP:MOSFLAG that says we can't use it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Who identified it as beneficial? Can you link to some of these consensuses and guidelines? I would be quite surprised if there was a guideline that really supported this. bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

At some point when seeking ideas for what to do on one of the pages, it was noted that the use of flags was beneficial but I can't remember where or when it happened. And there isn't an official guideline, but the editors of the pages, myself included, came together as a group to decide when flags should and should not be used for subnational entities with unique cases of autonomy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Who identified it as beneficial? Earlier you said that guidelines supported this flagcruft, now you say there's no guideline. Can you link to any of these consensuses / guidelines / agreements or whatever they are? I would be quite surprised if there was a guideline that really supported this, flying in the face of WP:MOSFLAG. bobrayner (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember it was over a year and a half ago. And I never siad that there were guidelines that supported it. I said that the editors of the pages developed a set of rules to follow for when not to include the flags. And, again, I see nothing on WP:MOSFLAG that says they cannot be used as they are used on the articles. Nationality is not being emphasized, they are not being used to indicate place of birth/residence/death, they are not being used as replacements for non-free images, super/subnational flags are being used when relevant, history is not being rewritten, they are not biographies or sports persons, and it does not obstruct clarity. They are being used in bulleted lists minimally and editors have previously come together as a group to say "We shouldn't include the flags of subnational regions unless it falls under one of these situations" and when the flags are prevalent in the source material.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Still no links to the consensuses and guidelines that you're relying on? Oh well. Here's a real guideline:

Icons should not be used in the article body, as in, "... and after her third novel was published, Jackson moved to Bristol, England, in April 2004, then ...". This breaks up the continuity of the text, distracting the reader
...

Do not use too many icons
...

In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state (e.g. the United States of America or Canada) not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a "nation" or "country" in its own right.

bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That refers to prose rather than the bulleted lists that the items are currently set up in. Using the format

1. London, England , United Kingdom
2. Liverpool
3. Edinburgh, Scotland
4. Paris, France

is no where near as obtrusive as you are making it out to be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Still no links to the consensuses and guidelines that you're relying on? bobrayner (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work

You've done a very thorough job of detection at the COI noticeboard. It's careful work like yours which will help deal with the paid editor problem. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

You are very kind; but I can't take any credit. Some of us are here to build an encyclopædia (I'm sure that includes you); others are here to get paid; a third group comprises people who are procrastinating in the internet's largest time-sink, rather than face up to real-world chores. Trawling a few hundred webpages for coincidences enabled me to postpone filling in some tax forms until next weekend. bobrayner (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Your wild accusations have been addressed on the COI noticeboard

Your completely off the wall comment about me has been addressed on the COI noticeboard. I take offense at your wild accusation. On the other hand I really don't care. Who are you to make such an accusation? You are trying to get a rise out me on your little blog and really who cares? You lump me in with some guy who is a paid writer. Good detective work. For 6 years I have been waiting for someone to pay me to comment on Wikipedia. Really? Gibco65 (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Boerboel

Hi, I notice you just trimmed some of the ELs from Boerboel and, as you know far more about Wikipedia policies etc than I do, I thought I'd ask your advice, I hope you don't mind! A while ago I removed an image from the article which was put straight back in. I removed it as I felt it was advertising as it links to a breeder website (it also has a facebook link on it). I didn't feel it was something to get involved in an edit war over so just left it but seeing it come up on my watchlist reminded me about it! What are your thoughts on it? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you know the rules as well as me!

All that photo added to the article was contact details for one particular dog breeder. I've removed it. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I learn new ones [rules] all the time! Thanks ... I wonder how long until it goes back in? I wish we had a bot to remove all the breed clubs etc included as ELs and put them in DMOZ instead; I usually leave them alone until additional ones get added, then do a clear out - like recently at Rhodesian Ridgeback. One of these days I might decide on a concerted effort with the "Popular culture/celebrity owners" in some of the breed articles as some of those are truly cringe inducing! SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. However, most breeds will never have really high quality sources (I think that breed clubs, kennel-club standards &c have their own problems) and there will always be somebody who wants a cute pic of their dog in that breed's article. And so on.

Have you ever noticed how 90% of dog breed articles emphasise that they are intelligent, good family members &c but 0% say the breed is yappy or destructive or dimwitted? We live in a world where everybody is above average. bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A few more things Bob

Actually after reading your talk page I pretty much see I am correct. You seem to think that your opinion and yours alone is the only one that counts. Most of these "editors" are like would you leave my edits alone when you clearly have no idea on what the subject is about. Do you pick fights with people on purpose? I look at this talk page and see that most people would like to see you stop your nonsense. I will tell you this, stick with what you know. After reading some of the above comments it proves the old adage "Jack of all trades, Master of none." Basically you are one man menace and have been called on it many times right above on this talk page. Then you make a nonsensical point as to why you are an "expert" and refute other peoples claims based on nothing but what YOU feel is appropriate. Free advice to you: Stick to what you know and don't ever just make things up. This seems to be your M.O. You attack me for allegedly making up an account for the sole purpose of voting "keep". You attack others in subjects that you obviously have no knowledge of. You did stumble upon a "editor" that listed his services for money. That is the one thing that I will give you credit for. As for anything else on this talk page I am going to answer your obvious insult with one my own. Are you off your meds? Your inflated sense of self importance is laughable. Is that a British solicitor thing? Yes I noticed by reading your comments that you use British English as opposed to American English. You seem to be on Wikipedia for one reason and one only. To just state your opinions and attack others. You may have all kinds of Wikipedia "merit badges" but really Bob think about it. Does that put you in a position to just aggravate others like a typical lawyer? Look at me, you missed the mark by so far that it's not even funny. Perhaps in the future you would choose your words wiser and use proper spelling and grammar. You are exactly why Wikipedia is generally considered a joke by professionals. The free "encyclopedia". No, the free biased blog of a handful. Interesting but far from any truth. The problem is it shows up in too many Google searches and then you have to pick and choose what is fact and what is biased nonsense. Wikipedia's rules regarding verification are a joke. Say I have published many papers. I use my own published papers to verify my article. They are lies or are outright wrong. Yet it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. In my field we call this "The Fleischmann and Pons smell test". Basically is it just junk or is it worth looking at. Wikipedia does not pass this smell test by a long shot. I will let you in on a little fact. You know a lot less then you think you do. One last thing: if you are going to accuse me of making up an account that appeared for the sole purpose of voting "keep", you really should check your facts, after all you are a solicitor. Gibco65 (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, how did you end up making your first edit on a highly obscure-but-controversial deletion discussion, defending an article with serious neutrality problems?

Interesting that you think that I'm an British solicitor. I fear you may have misread a couple of textual clues there. bobrayner (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Yea, everybody knows Bob's a binman. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

What difference does it make? I have already stated I live where this all went down. I know far more about it then you because it was all over the news. FrontPage Chicago Tribune. Yet I have to defend my right to comment? Really Bob, where are you coming from? This is Wikipedia not Bobpedia. The point is you can check and see that my account has been in force for 6 years. You stated that I made up an account that appeared for the sole purpose of voting "keep" and that's what this is really about. I really don't care if you a garbage man or lawyer, I do know you are definitely British, nobody in the US uses whilst or spells recognize with the British spelling recognise.

My point is there were other people who said Keep and yet you single me out. Why didn't you go after Pass a Method? Did you even read the AfD? "So basically my summary is to have the article in this discussion for AfD rewritten to the standards of Wikipedia. It is worthy but not well written and no insult to the author is implied. If I wrote it , it would be worse. That is my new opinion after studying Wikipedia guidelines" that was my conclusion after talking to other authors. Then after going back and forth with two people that I originally disagreed with and was told that TRUTH was not a consideration, I really want nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. I now agree with other scientists that I work with that it for amusement purposes only. Now a month later you have the nerve to question my right to comment and even ask me why I made my first edit. Like its any of your business in the first place. Really who do you think you are? There was serious discussion on both sides and the almighty Bob has the nerve to say I made up an account to vote keep. Well guess what? You are wrong and you are also exactly the problem with Wikipedia. Basically you attacked me for commenting and you question my account. You have to love the British, still mad because we threw you out twice and then saved your ass and now we protect you. You're Welcome. Gibco65 (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Gibco, Bob detected a user who was inappropriately using multiple accounts. In doing so, he was appropriately checking for other accounts that might be used by the same person. The pattern of your actions matched with those often used by folks who are abusing multiple accounts (editing begun with a Keep vote on a controversial article; it's not easily visible to non-administrators that one has had an account for six years, only one's edits to non-deleted articles), so he raised the possibility of yours being an inappropriate so that the investigation could be followed through on. (In contrast, Pass A Method has a huge editing history involving thousands of edits, making it unlikely that it was a second account kept solely for backing up promotional edits.) That investigation has now been concluded; it has cleared the suspicion of your account being a sockpuppet of the problem user. To suggest that it is inappropriate to suspect an account of being inappropriately used is to ignore much of what actually goes on on Wikipedia (and indeed, the investigation confirmed multiple sock puppets.) Your directing of tantrums at those who raise an eyebrow at your account is not likely to advance whatever cause you have; I suggest that in the future, you find a different way of dealing with your reaction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidently I have to notify you that you are the subject of a discussion on COIN. You are hereby notified. Gibco65 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for any distress. Sadly, this was in an environment where people offsite were scheming to put text on wikipedia which broke wikipedia rules; a (stealthy) paid editor used multiple accounts; and tried to game the system so the problematic text would be kept; and so on - that is a corrosive environment which erodes everybody's goodwill. At the best of times it's very unusual for an editor to make their first edit defending an article at AfD; in that environment, I'm sure you appreciate how suspicious that looks. If somebody told you to comment there, I think they set you up for a fall.

Would you like to help improve some articles? That could be a good way forward. bobrayner (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For great detective work! SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; you are very generous. bobrayner (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

A Truce Offering

First of all Thank You, all I wanted was an apology. All I did was comment on something and I got heat from Nat and Lesion immediately. That all gets sorted out and I decide that perhaps editing is not for me. 4 weeks later I get a message from you saying basically look here, I have accused you of something. I stated my side of it and was very offended. The thing that really set me off was the fact you had the guy dead to rights and he gets a one week censure and I got smeared. Later vindicated but still tarnished. Anyway apology accepted, really no hard feelings but I think for all of this the punishment should have been a little more. You were just doing your thing on Wikipedia and I do actually admire the fact that you take it very seriously. You stumbled upon something and went after it. I just happened to be in the line of fire. I owe you an apology for my comment on the British among other things I wrote about you. I do have a habit of biting back and I was out of line. I'm sorry for that. It was inappropriate. Gibco65 (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't worry about it; let's see if we can turn it around and do something positive. bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Bobrayner! your contribution to my work PKRConvert made my day! The Template you added Template:Inflation/PK/startyear was the key for me and without this template, my whole work was a mess. Thanks for figuring it out!

I'm still facing a problem in Pakistani Rupee in which I want to replace the .svg image of rupee sign with "₨". I can't figure out why I'm unable to change this. I would appreciate if you look into the matter. I've seen what you've done here but it's not a permanent solution, you have to change the base page (Pakistani Rupee), if you want to replace the .svg image with "₨". I hope you got my point. Deejawwad Talk 06:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, sorry - life is quite busy and this isn't top of the priority list (because the template isn't in use yet). I just dropped into a coffeeshop to catch up on my to-do list. I'll have another look when I get home...

Is there anything else you would like to work on? bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please see here Regards IJA (talk) 00:29, 31 October 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 Wikipedia: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 "Republic of Kosovo". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sedgefield change

Bob,

We obviously have a difference of opinion in what people are interested in, with regard to the recent changes on the Sedgefield page. Fair enough! I happen to think that people may be interested in what has happened to the Winterton church, you obviously don't. However, I did find insulting your assertion that I should buy advertising and that was the purpose of the edit. For your information, my only connection to the gym is that I patronise it, and enjoy the facilities that they offer. Therefore, your assumption that my edit was for personal gain is not only wrong but a little offensive. May I ask that you take the comment, suggesting I buy advertising space, out of the reversion edit.

As for the information, perhaps you would like to add a line discussing what has happened to the Winterton church yourself. In the end knowledge is knowledge and I think people would be interested and perhaps if you wrote it then it would be in a format we could agree upon.

Best regards,

Gary

GaryG1612 (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Haha. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Gary, I have never edited Sedgefield. Perhaps you could discuss the problem on Talk:Sedgefield with Roxy? bobrayner (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Bob, a million, million apologies. I am truly sorry for the mix-up. GaryG1612 (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Have fun. bobrayner (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Republic of Kosovo

You are aware that Republic of Kosovo is under a 1RR/week restriction? If you'd like to change the wording of the lead, it's your responsibility to establish a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page for the change, not for others to establish a consensus against the changes. The second sentence, in particular, has been around for years without your adjectives. Please self revert so we don't have to go through all the drama that is arbcom. TDL (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As you have breached 1RR, I've had to report it here[1]. Zavtek (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to say, it currently stands per your revision at the moment, so you still have the opportunity to self-revert before administrators respond. You know what's best. Zavtek (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh! I thought the restriction was 1RR per day, considering that DIREKTOR has been making daily reverts. Thanks for pointing it out. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll cancel investigation with note in summary. Zavtek (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

With complements. [2]. Zavtek (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious; why didn't you report DIREKTOR? bobrayner (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Initially, as Direktor and I favoured the same revision I just didn't bother to look at who did what. In hindsight perhaps it was not fair to report you either when you acted in error, so I take back my action and probably won't do it again where the editor make some kind of effort to be neutral. As you rightly say, one should report everyone or nobody. Direktor has self-reverted and I have no intention of playing with those points either now or in a week's time when I become "eligible". I'm prepared to keep it behind us if you're happy with it. Zavtek (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Elance

An obvious paid editing sock decided to write a mini CV in their sandbox here. Searching for "I am very serious with my work and I always try put my all efforts to fulfill my task" brings up some hits at elance but I'm not very familiar with the site and can't find much that is helpful. I wondered whether you might be able to use your superior skills to find anything. (I've already launched an SPI on them here). Cheers SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

OK; I'll have a look. (Although I have a long watchlist to catch up on) bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm confident that I've found that editor's elance profile. There is no evidence that they have taken any paid editing work through elance. The eVestment edits look like paid promotion, but if it is, the deal was probably agreed through some other site - did you have any in mind? In cases like this I think it's better to focus on what happened on-wiki. bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Other than the possibility of Wiki-PR I wouldn't know who else it could be. I sent the company a quick email on Saturday to see if they might like to tell me, but unsurprisingly they haven't replied. Oh well. All is sorted here, but I thought it was worth seeing if you could find anything else. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Hi! Are you planning on participating at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Republic of Kosovo, or would you prefer to be removed from the case? You are not required to participate, but your participation would be welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi; sorry for the delayed response. I spent a day out in the country.

I'm in two minds about this DR. Obviously I want the best wording (doesn't everybody?) but on the other had I'm frustrated that we all spend so long arguing over one or two words in the lede of an article whilst the topic has so many other problems that could be fixed... bobrayner (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My philosophy is this; whenever there is an unresolved dispute, even a minor one, somebody needs to learn about consensus, sourcing, or some other policy. If everyone did what the policies say to do there would be no dispute. Because of this, I try to educate the disputant(s) in such a way that there will be no further unresolved disputes, and if I fail to do that, I send them off to another step in WP:DR where policy enforcement has some teeth. In other words, this may prevent a lot of future problems.

If you look at the DRN case you wil see that right now I am focusing on the claim "the RoK objectively fulfills the 4 criteria of the 1933 Montevideo Convention" because "objectively fulfills" is just plain wrong ("arguably fulfills" would be correct) and because Sovereign state says that there are other theories besides declarative theory.

Of course I have yet to analyze the arguments on the other side(s), so I don't yet know whether they hold water, so I would encourage you to at least post an initial statement and then answer my question about your best source and your best argument, even if you withdraw after that. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Global City article

Hello. You said, "Reverting may not be the answer" and then you revert the page. In my update, my note said, "Let's work together to find the needed citations" and you completely disregarded that and butchered the page. You continually neglect the SOURCES that were within all of the content you deleted. I had put it all back because I figured we can work with what was there and use a scalpel instead of a hatchet. In fact, I was actually working to find SOURCES to support the other stuff that was there. I researched GaWC and had some success. I do know what I am doing. I took the Dallas Zoo article from a depressing low rated article and turned it into a B-Class article. But you know what? Never mind. I should've checked the page's edit history before getting involved. Your constant impatience and hatchet-deleting is childish. So, have at it, it's all yours. Kevin1086 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Kevin1086

It's not "all mine"; even if you don't revert any more, somebody else will. Sooner or later, I will get Global city to comply with WP:V, but there will be a lot of reverts along the way. You say "There are many cited sources you deleted" but none of those sources discuss the global city.

• "Serve as the corporate headquarter sites for multinational corporations, international financial institutions, law firms, conglomerates, and stock exchanges that influence the world economy" still has no source.
• "Contribute significant financial capacity/output to the city's, region's, or even nation's,[6] Gross domestic product (GDP)" has a "source" which actually just lists economic data and doesn't mention this "global city" notion. Even though the source is ostensibly used to support economic output as a criterion for "Global city" status.
• "House the major stock market indices[7]/market capitalisation" links to indices. The source say nothing about global cities.
• Similarly, "Appear near the top of cost of living[9]" links to a list of living costs which has no discussion whatsoever about the "global city" concept.
• "Active influence on, and participation in, international events and world affairs; for example, Beijing, Berlin, London, Moscow, New Delhi, Paris, Tokyo, and Washington, D.C. are capitals of influential nations" still has no source.
• "Hosting headquarters for international organizations such as the United Nations (New York City), the World Bank (Washington, D.C.), or NATO (Brussels)." still has no source.

...and there's lots more. Need I go on?

Repeatedly inserting unsourced content is a Bad Thing. Sources aren't decorative; adding a "source" which doesn't actually support the text is a Bad Thing too. bobrayner (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Using html style 'Justify'

Hi Bobrayner, Thank you for your time and attention to this page. It's been a month since I created my account so obviously in need of guidance. I noticed that the text on almost all the articles on Wikipedia is not 'justified' while most of the media if we read the text is almost always 'justified'. So I chose this style on this page. Does it violate some norm if I just smoothen the text on the right edges? Just wondering.. Anyway thanks :) --Jai Ho 12:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 elections

Cheers mate. I've not really planned on it going on the main page, I don't know if it'd be considered important enough. What I really want to do is expand the background and lead up to the election as well as focus more on the violence yesterday, perhaps get some international reactions on the election as a whole. I've still not found a source with the election results in full yet. Any help would be much appreciated. You're North American aren't you? Any way it is night time here in the UK and I need some sleep, so I won't be adding to the article until after I finish work tomorrow. Regards IJA (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Sleep well!

Feel free to borrow some content from (or integrate with) the Brussels Agreement, since I underplayed the elections in that article but there are obviously strong connections.

If an old train is important enough to get on the main page today, then an article on nationwide elections certainly qualifies. Don't worry about that... bobrayner (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Socialist economics

I added some further infomation to this article Socialist economics on 4 November but the additions do not show up on the public view. I noticed that there had been some prior vandalism last month to additions I had made. As a novice I am not sure how to fix this. Kasergc (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I can see your changes just fine. Maybe some temporary caching problem?

If you're thinking of this vandalism, it's been fixed now. bobrayner (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board#As_we_are_going_to_keep_this.2C_do_we_need_to_tighten_the_criteria_a_bit.3F

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. bobrayner (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sunday

Hope you had a good time on Sunday and got some cake! 86.174.108.218 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you had fun. Do you have an account? bobrayner (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of List of artifacts significant to the Bible

Hi, just to let you know that we're in the third and final stage of the RM discussion at Talk:List_of_artifacts_significant_to_the_Bible#Requested_move_09_November_2013. I'm sending you this message because you participated in an earlier stage of this discussion. We'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I don't have anything useful to add. I felt there was a serious problem with the proposed target of the previous requested move, but the options currently being discussed don't have that problem; I'm happy to step back and let editors pick the best title. bobrayner (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hi, I am Muhammad Ali, the paid editor who has caused a lot of trouble on Wikipedia in the past few days. First off, I am sorry for my horrible editing and all the work that you had to do to clean it up. Truth be told, I got really angry when I saw that you have linked each of my articles to my Elance profile here. However, now when I think of it, I was wrong and you did a great job in checking each of my articles. It would have taken quite a few hours of your time to do that. I am sorry for all the trouble I caused. I won't do paid editing any more. I just came here to offer help. Since I have been in the freelancing community for a long time, I know it inside out. I have worked on different websites and if there is any suspected paid editing case on Wikipedia, I can help you in that. I have used Elance, Odesk, Freelancer and many other websites, so I can be an asset when you have a COI problem to solve here. Let me know if you ever need my help. Sorry again. Take care Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That is very honest and generous of you.

However, I'm not going to make you do penance. Just improve some articles! I'm sure you'll do a great job. Would you like to work together on any particular area? bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all the great work that you do. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	The price of free info is vigilance :) GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You are very kind; thanks. However I really don't deserve to be showered with barnstars. I just like cleaning up a few problems. bobrayner (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI Račak

From fresh, here goes:

The Yugoslav authorities ordered the head of the international verification mission in Kosovo, William Walker, to leave the country after he accused Serb forces of massacring ethnic Albanians.

BBC Correspondent Jacky Rowland says that Mr Walker's expulsion is typical of the tactics adopted in recent months by the Yugoslav authorities, who seek to divert attention from one crisis by creating a new crisis.

The expulsion came at the end of a day in which Yugoslav border officials barred the chief prosecutor from the International War Crimes Tribunal from entering Kosovo.

All here [3].

--Janjušević (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Awarded for saying the right thing at the right time, on Talk:IBM and the Holocaust. Thank you thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't deserve this barnstar. There's never a wrong time to say that Drmies is wise. bobrayner (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. He doesn't deserve it. Burn it with fire. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 09:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Roxy. That's your answer to everything.

How is the world of alt-med? Has the Sheldrake fuss abated yet? bobrayner (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is somehow very familiar, but I'm slowly branching out into BLPs Pseudoscience, listed buildings, towns and villages, convicts, American prisons. Haven't done rare steak or bicycle helmets yet. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 21:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Like a duck to water. If you need help with anything, you're always welcome on this talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq War

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq War. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (characters) resurrects

You might not remember me, but I have restricted the essay into omitting examples of character names. Instead, I used policies and guidelines as advices. --George Ho (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course I remember you :-)

I'm sorry; it's frustrating finding that people disagree on something that you feel would be an improvement. And if you ask ten editors about policy, you'll get eleven answers. bobrayner (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

LGBT rights in Africa

Hello Bobrayner. It seems the current WP:ANI thread on AfricaTanz will end up, like the previous one, getting archived without any action taken against the user. But regardless of the outcome, I just wanted to thank you for having done the work of removing the problematic information from all those articles. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries. The tide turned; AfricaTanz has been blocked. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: wikilawyering

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I somehow missed that part of it. But yeah I really can't realistically see him making a constructive edit to anything in that topic, so I don;t think at this point that modifying the warning would do any good. My main goal is really just to get him to stop disrupting that article and wasting people's time. I honestly have no desire whatsoever to wade into that messy subject, but since I did, I feel I need to see it through. Thanks again for your note. Thingg^⊕⊗ 18:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

They're currently blocked on three other wikipedias and, I think, page protection on Commons prevented a block for revert-warring there. And now there are sockpuppets. It looks like a downward spiral... bobrayner (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo War

The arguments may be frustrating but please do not strike through other user's comments on the talk page. As you can see, it only added fuel to the fire. Rmhermen (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Striking through comments made by sockpuppets is standard practice. There has been no reply since, so the fire seems to have burnt out. bobrayner (talk) 07:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't edit other people's comments on talk pages. Please. It is now you that are continuing the problem here. (I am fairly certain IP's cannot even be sockpuppets. See the definition at WP:Sock) Rmhermen (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the third bullet-point in WP:SOCK?

The longer we humour trolls, the more disruption they cause. Please don't be an enabler. We have enough problems with pov-pushing as it is. bobrayner (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Final warning. From here we start discussing blocks, topic bans, formal dispute resolution. It is best for you to walk away from this subject. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea whether this IP is a sock puppet or not, but if they are, striking through is standard practice. IPs can definitely be sock puppets of blocked users, or of users who, although unblocked, are attempting to appear to be more than one person. Logging out to make controversial edits is forbidden and defined as sockpuppetry. Bob, do you have a strong suspicion of who they might be, or is this an SPA muddying the waters? What I do see is multiple IPs who are likely the same person, and that creates confusion by appearing to be different people and "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors," another defining characteristic of sock puppets. Rmhermen, at first you seem to side with Bob's strike through, and then you change sides. That's confusing, so I suggest you tread lightly and AGF with Bob, who is a very experienced editor. I find it disturbing that you leave a much stronger warning here than you do on the IP's talk page. Keep in mind you're not dealing with an IP who is a newbie. This is an experienced editor who is using multiple IPs. They should not be handled with kid gloves. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

But wait a sec. An IP started the thread on the talk page. OK. I noteced the discussion because its on my watchlist. I come to agree on IP´s concerns. I personally don´t care who the IP is. For me its the same. I care about content. From my experience, I know that sometimes veteran editors avoid editing polemical matters such as this one because they don´t want to be labeled as siding by some side on this disputes and then being called nationalist or POV by the other side, and may be affraid that can affect their credibility on other issues they edit. I don´t know if this is the case for this IP, I don´t care. However Bob is accusing everyone not supporting his view as feeding the troll just because the thread was started by an IP. Personally, I find this disturbing, because as I said, what matters for me it´s the content and quality of the article. And I often see legit discussions derail because one side accuses the other of socking and blabla ad we loose ourselfs from content there. FkpCascais (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

FkpCascais, it's not the first time you've made proxy edits on behalf of a sock, and it won't be the last.

Rmhermen, what is the "final warning" for? I asked whether you had read the third bullet-point in WP:SOCK, but you didn't reply - can I safely assume that your understanding of sockpuppetry still does not align with what the policy says? Let's try to pin down where the disagreement is - how do you feel about these three points?

• The two IP addresses are sockpuppets;
• It's standard practice to strike out comments by socks;
• Topics like the Kosovo War suffer from many socks, and we should try to reduce this disruption.

If you agree with all three, then obviously you gave the "final warning" to the wrong editor, and perhaps a change of approach would be helpful. If you disagree with any of those three points, you should say which one, but it is best for you to walk away from this subject and leave it to others who are familiar with the problem. bobrayner (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rmhermen: What is the "final warning" for? I asked whether you had read the third bullet-point in WP:SOCK, but you didn't reply - can I safely assume that your understanding of sockpuppetry still does not align with what the policy says? Let's try to pin down where the disagreement is - how do you feel about these three points?

• The two IP addresses are sockpuppets;
• It's standard practice to strike out comments by socks;
• Topics like the Kosovo War suffer from many socks, and we should try to reduce this disruption.

If you agree with all three, then obviously you gave the "final warning" to the wrong editor, and perhaps a change of approach would be helpful. If you disagree with any of those three points, you should say which one, but it is best for you to walk away from this subject and leave it to others who are familiar with the problem. bobrayner (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Brangifer: My edits have only been an attempt to return all comments to the page in their original condition.

Bobrayner, your edits appear to be edit warring - declaring anyone who disagrees with you to be not only wrong but illegitimate and unworthy of commenting. A far better course is to deal with their objections without making judgments on other editor's worth. Also unless you have Checkuser privileges and have used them as part of a sockpuppet investigation, you cannot know that they are socks. If you want to request an investigation, feel free but they may want you to prove the user/s are actually disruptive. Rmhermen (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I see (after checking your contributions) that you did start a Sock investigation on some of the editors on the talk page. I think, though, that your strike-through edits were out-of-place. People that disagree with you are not automatically socks. Your talk edits seem to be showing a battle fatigue pattern. I really suggest you let this subject lie for a while, then come back to it fresh. Rmhermen (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But you still didn't answer Bob's question, which he has repeated twice. Why not Rmhermen? --Roxy the dog (resonate) 20:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have answered. Rmhermen (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Bijon Setu massacre

You were correct in calling the paragraph in Bijon Setu massacre a copyright violation. Thanks for providing the link; the one in the references is broken. I've contributed a fair amount to that article and will be rewriting that paragraph when real-life responsibilities allow. Removing the paragraph in question is the best interim solution.

I really got burned out with the mass-deletions in the sarkarverse. I'm looking forward to working with you again.

Best, and with much respect,

Garamond Lethet
c 09:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You did good work; it's great to have you back! bobrayner (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Equipment

Do you honestly think this[4] is fair?? Shouldn't an editor be given an opportunity to provide a source? Zavtek (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The burden of providing sources is on the editors who add content. That section had been tagged since August 2012 but the sourcing problems go back to February 2008. Would you like another five years before providing a source? bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The information you remove, is it something you know to be incorrect (eg. if someone adds on the Paris article that the city is situated 3km from the Italian border) or do you simply remove the details because there is "no source"? Zavtek (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Its strange that many pictures actually show that equipment in use of the Serbian Army and the official website doesn´t mention them at their equipment, but it really needs all to be sourced. FkpCascais (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

True. Photos make a primary source and are valid, except when the picture isn't what it says it is in which case it too needs to be removed. Zavtek (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I remove the list because it's untrustworthy; lots of editors falsify data in lists of equipment around the world. Usually increasing/improving their home country's equipment. Constant adult supervision is required; it's a chronic problem.

As for photos; at best they might provide evidence that one vehicle was in use at a certain point in time; but the photos on this article fail to do even that. I don't understand how any competent editor could look at this photo of an unnamed, unmarked vehicle in plain paint and conclude that the photo is hard evidence that Serb forces, today, use a particular model of backhoe loader. Ditto for this photo of a 1950s Saurer; most people's first conclusion would be that it's a museum piece. bobrayner (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Adult supervision", as you so crudely put it, is required for editors unable to distinguish between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. I don't see you collating information on what equipment the army actually consists of, only removing what you are personally unaware of. Zavtek (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Struck out sock. bobrayner (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:V. bobrayner (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

India Against Corruption

Have you seen Talk:India Against Corruption#Neutrality? I see that you have been tidying the article but there may be an elephant in the room, I ended up reverting my efforts to sort it out a couple of days ago but not because I believe them to have been wrong. - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for the heads-up. I agree with much of your approach, but... reverting what you genuinely feel to be a major improvement to the article is a drastic move. I would be tempted to undo your self-revert, but that might seem too pointy.

Articles like this often have serious problems with NPOV (and hence with sourcing, style &c) as one or two editors who feel strongly about the issue can spend a lot of time pushing in their preferred direction. There's no quick fix for that...

bobrayner (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It was point-y for me to self-revert, actually! I thought some people from WT:INB would step in but that did not happen despite my neutral appeal there. The problem was that AcorruptionfreeIndia was beginning to amend what I'd done and was taking it in all sorts of weird directions. There is a NGO called India Against Corruption but even that contributor calls it "low profile", whereas Googling the term in relation to Hazare et al gets tens of thousands of hits. The contributor is claiming that there was a 6-month long spate of media confusion but has yet to provide a single source that verifies this confusion existed. I might revert back to my version if no-one takes an interest soon - it was, at least, a notable topic, well referenced etc. The present version is basically a political manifesto. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I explained my revert in the subsequent section of the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I support Qwyrxian's [5] revert (to your earlier version). Qwyrxian is wise. bobrayner (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Adnan Januzaj

Hi, I see you reverted the contributions of User:Janjušević on the Adnan Januzaj article. While I see that User:Janjušević has been blocked indefinitely for acts of sockpuppetry, I don't see anything wrong with the contribution they made to the aforementioned article and I have therefore restored their work. – PeeJay 22:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have changed it back, because the pre-sockpuppet version was closer to what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Stefan Evlekis

Stefan Evlekis is obviously a rather mentally ill man. You just have to take a look at his former user page to see that there was something odd and a bit strange about him. He has an unhealthy obsession with Wikipedia and anything to do with the former Yugoslavia. It has been his life for several years. This probably explains the breakdown in relationship and separation with his wife. Obviously the indefinite ban he received in May this year don't go down too well mentally with him, hence why he can't keep away due to his obsessions (with Wikipedia and former Yugoslavia) and why he has returned in the forms of Socks and IPs. The situation has become so bad that he is creating new sock accounts on a daily basis to feed his obsession and he is becoming very vexatious and increasingly aggressive. He now thinks that you're his nemesis and has a desire to confront you in person. None of this can be good for his personal wellbeing and his mental state. Us here at Wikipedia should have a duty to help him. What do we know about him? Well we know he is called Stefan Evlekis and we know he lives in Wiltshire in southern England, probably round the Trowbridge area. He will definitely be registered with a General practitioner (GP) in that area and there can't be too many people called 'Stefan Evlekis' in Wiltshire. His GP will have the means to help him and needs to know of his Wikipedia and former Yugoslavia obsessions. His GP could even take his Internet away from him as it isn't doing any good. It just is a means to access his obsession and it leads him to confrontation and arguments. None of this can be good for his personal wellbeing and his mental state. I will be able to contact several GP care commissioning groups in the Wiltshire area and warn them of Stefan Evlekis and notify them that he needs help .They'll be able to track him down through their data base. What do you think mate? IJA (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page Stalker. I think that's one of the worst plans I've ever seen. Seriously, you have no business interfering that way. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talk page stalking. I've been in contact with Evlekis's sock-puppets a lot recently and I was reviewing the user contributions of one of his latest sock puppets (User:L1P2R5A8M38) after some edit warring on Hiking in Kosovo when I saw this personal attack/ threat. Online bullying and online threats of violence is a serious crime in the UK therefore I have every right as well as a moral obligation to step in. IJA (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

I understand your position, and you have done a lot of good work cleaning up the mess, but I must disagree here.

• Firstly, we can't diagnose mental illness over the internet. Lots of internet ranters lead normal lives (and vice versa).
• Secondly, I have no interest in outing. Evlekis offered to meet, then changed his mind (or was unable to use the "Email this user" link on this page). That's that. I want to prevent further disruption on wikipedia, but I don't want to contact authorities in England and say "this person is doing bad things on wikipedia and I think he's crazy". So what? Healthcare professionals aren't going to pay much attention, and I think that, like most of Europe, strict data protection rules apply to other people and their mental health, so no professional would tell us what was going on, even if it was. I think it's very unlikely that a doctor in England could order him to be taken off the internet (and enforce that order).
• Like most people on the internet, he said some things that intersect with his real-world identity (for instance, it's pretty obvious what his job was, but I don't know if he still does it right now) but I don't think we have anything to gain from that.

Of course, wikipedians may be angry about the disruption that Evlekis has caused. However, we have to deal with that constructively. Less visibly, sockpuppetry also corrodes trust in other editors - which undermines the foundation of wikipedia. How can we improve articles and rebuild trust? bobrayner (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, IJA, Roxy wasn't accusing you of stalking - not that it would be a bad thing. Roxy was claiming to be a talkpage stalker, and is quite welcome here - you are too. Don't worry about that. bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, Bob is correct, I was declaring myself a Talk Page Stalker, not accusing IJA, I'm sorry for any confusion there. Also, note that I wasn't at all criticising IJA, just being a little critical of that particular idea. I think Bob is correct in saying that healthcare professionals wont pay too much attention to accusations from teh internetz. When I think of the things I've said on the web, I sometimes shudder, and I consider myself almost sane. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There can be big differences between internet persona and real-world persona. In real life, the eloquent, intelligent Roxy isn't even a dog. bobrayner (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• Come on guys... IJA, what you wrote here on top is shamefull, and speaks more about you than about anyone else... FkpCascais (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Shameful me for wanting to help someone... such a shameful act. I hope it does speak more about me than anyone else. IJA (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Cornish language

Activists may claim it's the same language but then so does the UN and the UK government and an Independent report commissioned by that government considers those people to be native speakers. Nowhere in the article is it stated or referenced that Cornish died out as a native language in by the start of the 19th century so your constant reversion to the info box claiming that it did is just unfounded. Indeed there is a whole article devoted to the language being used in the 19th and early 20th century. Bodrugan (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Evlekis's fatal flaw

The more he acts like he does, the more enemies he will make. Besides, we have an encyclopedia to edit. :) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Read some books ignorant

A hierarchy of disagreement

..."Turanid race" that included the Uralic and Altaic speaking peoples more generally

...or at least read the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.135.252 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Turanian National Alliance or Alliance of Turanian People ("Turan Minzoku Domei"), founded in Japan in 1921
• Japanese Turanian Society founded in early 1930s

These are Japanese Turanist organisations. In addition, they are Uralo-Altaic. And you STILL ask the "connection". I don't have to "satisfy" you! Ignorance is your problem.

Note from talk page watcher: I've left a note about civility on the IP's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You're always welcome on this page; I respect your work.

I don't mind if people blow off a little steam here. Better than doing it in an article. Sometimes it can even be helpful; if editors make a beeline for the bottom of the pyramid, when unrestrained by "civility", then we have seen their true colours. bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please consider reverting instead of CSD

Hi Bobrayner - I note some recent CSDs you've requested; specifically, the ones for nonsense or useless edits on the talk pages of files. Unless there's something that would otherwise qualify for deletion (e.g., a BLP violation or personal information), please just revert these edits. That's all that is really needed. I'll also note that many of your other requests are perfectly in line with CSD. Thanks for working in this area. Risker (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in community notice

Dear Bobrayner/Archive 8

As a Wikipedian interested in African subjects and specifically Cote d’Ivoire, we thought you might be interested in the following opportunity.

WikiAfrica is looking for a Wikipedian in Community from Cote d’Ivoire to play a pivotal role in its Kumusha Takes Wiki project. This might be a position that you would consider. Or it could be the perfect opportunity for someone you know from this country, please spread the word! For more details, please look at this page: http://www.wikiafrica.net/call_for_wir_en/

If you have any questions about the above, please contact isla on isla [at] wikiafrica [dot] net : Isla Haddow (talk)

I would be very interested; but alas, I'm quite busy working on my existing project, and I really don't want to drop it before completion.

Good luck. bobrayner (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

Can you tell me please what sock wre you reverting here? FkpCascais (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so you were not reverting any sock, just using the "sock excuse" to promote your edits. I noteced you opened a thread at the talk page, however next time I see you wrongly using the "sock excuse" I´ll report you. FkpCascais (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake

I note you keep removing the disputed tag from the Sheldrake page. Perhaps you could explain why you feel there is no dispute on the talk page here. [6] Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not the lack of dispute; it's the lack of an actual NPOV problem. bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Please note: this notice does not necessarily imply wrongdoing, but please see my message on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A different sock

I did know that he was based in the UK most of the time. I checked the geo-locate of that IP which showed somewhere in the centre of Serbia and I assumed that Evlekis spends his time between the two. I didn't realise there were two IP socks working together. Perhaps the other IP is one of his contacts in Serbia? Assumably they're in contact with one another by some other means such as email or social media? IJA (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Evlekis' most durable IP sock corresponds to a UK landline, with a very long lease. That one was recently hardblocked for a year. The others correspond to a UK mobile telco which hands out lots of different IPs with very short leases. Occasionally the two tag-teamed. There may well have been some coffeeshop wifi in the mix too, earlier in 2013, I don't remember offhand.

Evlekis seems to have been interested in offwiki coordination but was hampered by technical incompetence - nobody competent would do this in the open. There has been on-wiki collusion between the Evlekis socks and the Belgrade socks (example). There are similarities in behaviour (ie. editing similar articles, pushing similar POV, revert-stalking) so it's not surprising that people conflate Evlekis socks and Belgrade socks - it's happened before. I will ask Peacemaker67 to comment here. bobrayner (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The Belgrade IPs tend to focus on pages like this and this. Just look at the history, the pattern is pretty obvious. The former has just been semiprotected by Mark Arsten but the reverts always resume when semiprotection ends. The Belgrade IPs tend not to focus on other things that Evlekis was interested in. Some previous ones have been blocked. bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So; what shall we do about these socks? All suggestions welcome... bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the garment, I normally use a 60 degree wash, to ensure maximum odor removal. If the sun is shining, I'll dry them on the line, but if it is raining, I'll use the tumble dryer rather than popping them on the radiators. I find that leaving them on the radiators makes them all stiff and sharp feeling on the tootsies, whereas the dryer gives them a soft, almost fluffy feeling when you put them on your feet. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Roxy. Not quite what I was hoping for, but your laundryology is flawless. bobrayner (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

English at Astrology

Hi, I added the Brit note to the article as the first editor seems to have used British English. We now have the article with 2 spellings Medieval/Mediaeval, which isn't good. Can you put back the Brit. note please, unless there's awfully good reason not to? Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops. That was my mistake. Restored. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. No, it was me, I wasn't clear in my action. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your edits on Đakovica‎

Hello. I noticed your reverts on Đakovica, and your edit summaries. If you have evidence that would prove that "The Next Timelord" is a sock of someone then file a case at WP:SPI, otherwise stop accusing the user user of being a sock. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 11:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There's an SPI here.

More generally speaking, the sheer quantity of socks in the Balkans makes it impractical to create a fresh case every time; AGF is not a suicide pact. Sometimes a throwaway account or IP is just used for a small number of reverts &c. The people who work on SPI have enough work already, even before we start cases for blatantly obvious socks as a formality.

For similar reasons, reverts of socks do not count towards WP:3rr. With that in mind, I do not understand why you warned me about editwarring when there was already an active SPI. I believe you too have reverted quite a few Evlekis socks; thanks for that. bobrayner (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just revisiting something I mentioned during an earlier Evlekis-outbreak: I was briefly annoyed when you gave me a templated warning even after I'd created a new SPI report for an obvious sock; but it's a symptom of a broader problem which is certainly not your fault. Sockpuppetry corrodes trust in other editors - which undermines the foundation of wikipedia. How can we improve articles and rebuild trust? bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverts of socks don't count towards WP:3RR provided that it's a confirmed, or at least reported, sock (with a note in the edit summary, like this). Just calling someone "sock" doesn't grant you an exemption. In this case "The Next Timelord" was blocked as a sock of Evlekis less than an hour and a half after you filed the SPI-report. So reporting him earlier, instead of just reverting the edits, would have saved you a lot of adrenaline, and an edit-warring template... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Edit warring policy says no such thing; and rightly so, because SPI - and legitimate editors - would be bogged down in bureaucracy, filling in paperwork and unearthing the right links, just to revert an obvious sock who can only needs a couple of seconds to do their thing. And, in some cases, it's obvious that the account is a sock but it's not actually 100% clear who the sockmaster is - because there are multiple overlapping sockmasters - and without the right sockmaster, how do you suggest SPI should be done? bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As an aside... You warned me after I submitted the SPI, then you chide me for not submitting an SPI earlier. That doesn't look too good, does it? I have no interest in conflict with you; we've worked together on other articles and I respect your work. I just want to underline that the collegiate atmosphere is undermined by sockpuppetry. bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

How would I know that you had filed an SPI? There are plenty of editors here on WP who fight vandalism and intervene in edit-warring, and the only way for your "colleagues" here to know that you've filed an SPI is if you include that information in the edit summary when you make the reverts. Adding that information might also make some of your "colleagues", me included, help you revert the suspected sock, so that you don't risk crossing the 3RR-threshold (which should be avoided even when reverting socks since not all admins know what they're doing...). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it helpful to follow the "What links here" link from the editor's userpage. It's especially helpful because it's not just limited to SPI - it finds threads on talkpages and all kinds of noticeboards. Obviously useless for more experienced editors, but when somebody new appears and you have a concern about their editing, it's a quick way to see if anybody else has already expressed concerns. bobrayner (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a thing at the edit warring noticeboard about you that you haven't been notified about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Bob_rayner_at_.C4.90akovica

Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That's standard procedure for Evlekis. bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert at Genetically modified food controversies

Hi there, I see you just reverted a second time with the same summary after I explained the reasons for not removing the statement so fast. Perhaps it was a mistake? In any case, the sentence was already there and as far as I know has been there for quite a while. Since I just added the cn tag today (a couple of hours ago actually) we should wait at least a few days before removing it for having no source to back it up. If we started immediately removing everything that is added a cn tag there would be no WP left :) I'd appreciate if you could self-rv so I'm not seen as being edit warring. Thanks. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 15:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I used the same edit summary twice because neither the content nor the policy changed in the meantime

I started a thread on the talkpage; could we discuss there? bobrayner (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussing there already. Thanks. Gaba ^(talk) 16:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Impersonation

Just in case you missed it, the user ممنون حسین has posted here twice [7] [8], attempting to impersonate another user, Favonian. --Drm310 (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Just another Evlekis-sock; it's quite routine. Thanks for helping with the reverts. bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Tryptofish! We haven't bumped into each other for a while. How's it going? bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I could just say "wow" again, about that. I suppose it's par for the course. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, weren't you supposed to be in England this week? You must have been up all night. Tell me Bob, where are you precisely, what's your location and how can you be found? 94.196.243.207 (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I only have a seasons greetings card to give you and a present....where are you? 94.196.243.207 (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's Thursday isn't it? He'll be in the Grand Bazaar, Istanbul, selling ivory products and strange vibrating toys. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Roxy. Sadly I'm not going back to İstanbul this year.

IJA, it's probably not a good idea to tease people with personal details (even if they had been openly disclosed on-wiki).

Evlekis, if you really want to get in touch... Well, obviously I'm not just going to hand over my address just like that, but if you genuinely want to talk then click on the "Email this user". Alternatively, try my London office (during the day, obviously). 0207 4496228, ask for Mr Lyon. You don't need the international dialling code if you're calling from England, I think. bobrayner (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

Is it on purpose that whenever you make a comment on the noticeboards (RSN and FTN; or maybe you comment just on RSN; for me they are almost the same as I really very rarely go and look at what the poster is saying...) your comments, in the user watchlist (at least mine) never show what thread you are commenting on? I mean, I don't really follow these noticeboards, I just glance at who is commenting/writing and about what subject/thread. From glancing at it, when I have the time or the diposition, I will sometimes click and read what some regulars such as Itsmedjudith or Andrew Lancaster are saying about some specific subject/matter. But with your comments, it always invariably appears in my watchlist without the thread/discussion/subject they are referring to. So I wouldn't read them ever, because I don't even know ever, without taking the time to opening, what you are commenting on. Sorry for the long explanation of the question, which I hope you understand, after all that, and that you don't mind answering. So, is it on purpose or you're just not aware of it? If it is on purpose, I would request that you stop removing the subject about which you are commenting/writing, so that your comments can be viewed in the same manner as all other regular comments are viewed or appear in the user' watchlist. Thanks for your attention to this little detail, and sorry to bother you with such a long post about such a small matter... Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing that out.

Normally, the Edit Summary box is prepopulated with something like "/* Section-name */". When I finish typing a rant, I tab into the "edit summary" box, and often the browser seems to select the "/* Section-name */" so that it is overwritten when I type my edit summary. (Maybe the default behaviour varies between browsers or skins or something like that). Retaining the section name would only take one or two extra keypresses, but sometimes the smallest habits are hardest to break. I'll try to stop doing it, just for you :-) bobrayner (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot for a thoughtful answer. I appreciate you not getting annoyed by my little quibble. Depending on what you comment on, then, from now on, the payoff is that I may start reading your comments here and there. Nice meeting you. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 00:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to meet you. Have fun. bobrayner (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem when I hit tab... you can avoid reaching for the mouse, if you know what the keyboard-shortcut is for your browser and operating system, to move to the end-of-line. Here's old data,[9] which I can confirm is at least partially incorrect.  :-) Usually nowadays I hit tab, and then hit rightArrow, since my pinkie has muscle-memorized where that is. HTH. p.s. You can ask over on the computer-section of the refdesk, or even WP:VPT I s'pose, if you cannot figure out a good key-combo... prolly some folks there have custom local-javascript and/or external-editors configured, to boost speed and touch-type-ability. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion please

As you nominated it for deletion last time, I'd like your opinion please. See here Regards IJA (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! IJA (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Do you care to describe how the edits I made to the Fresco article are not neutral? How can I learn unless people describe why the correction is necessary? Please reference the specific edits and the aspect of neutrality that it violates according to policy. Thanks.--Biophily (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

thank you for your warm welcome :) and your 'getting started' instructions, some sweet baklava for you :D! Arddi (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.

Please be cautious in controversial areas. If somebody disagrees with you, remember to keep calm and to discuss problems on the article's talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

gun control rfc

As you were involved in a previous discussion on this topic, I am notifying you of a new RFC on this topic. Talk:Gun_control#Authoritarianism_and_gun_control_RFCGaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Typo

to Gjakova I think thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My mistake - a copy and paste slipup. A couple of days ago I spilled a drink on my keyboard, and even after drying it out, some of the right-hand keys are still erratic - until my new keyboard arrives. It caused some bizarre typos like this edit summary. bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page reply

Hi, I don't know if you saw it but I left you a reply at my talk page here. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 17:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

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

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! I don't celebrate christmas, but I hope you have fun. Remember, St Nicholas has written a list of all the children; he knows who's been good and who's been naughty, and your gifts are adjusted accordingly. :-) bobrayner (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

COI help

Hi Bobrayner. I'm trying to facilitate a few improvements to Hightail (see here and Viralheat (see here) where I have a COI. Both of them have 3-4 things I was hoping to hammer out with an impartial editor using Request Edits. Though the Hightail Request Edit is a couple weeks old and I already forgot what other updates I wanted to suggest ;-)

I just pinged user:North8000 on the Viralheat one, but was realizing I have bothered him/her quite a bit and the same goes for a handfull of other editors that collaborate with me routinely in my COI role, so I thought I would spread myself around a little and see if you have the time/interest to hammer a few things out on a couple articles. I feel like I've seen your username around quite a bit, but I'm not actually sure what types of topics are of interest to you. CorporateM (Talk) 21:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I like business articles. Will have a look. bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I have three updates that I think will make the Viralheat page GAN-ready: the new CEO, an expanded Reception section, and some updates regarding pricing. Let me know the most convenient way to proceed. I can post everything one at-a-time or we can do it all at the same time. I'm afraid it is a pretty boring task, since the article is already well-developed, but I'll be sure to keep you in mind when I have a more interesting project I also need help with ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay - I got caught up in some Balkan issues (which are, alas, a massive timesink). bobrayner (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I appreciate your help and input in keeping me on the straight and narrow. Since I haven't collaborated with you in my COI role, I do not know how you prefer to go about things, so just let me know if you'd prefer I handle things a certain way. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's a pleasure to work with you. I have some fixed ideas about how everybody else does business articles wrong; you can agree or disagree with those ideas. :-)

Often I think that we have a retail bias. Wikipedia is written by individuals, who focus on the things that individual consumers are interested in, especially a young anglophone technophile demographic. B2B, not so much. If a playstation game or a sportscar sold a few thousand copies and was then forgotten about, we probably have an article on it; but my former employer with a 13-digit balance sheet is still a redlink, because they only served other big organisations. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Because Wikipedia's editors are made up of the public, we have all the same biases you can expect + the nerd-factor. I don't think it's appropriate to micro-manage where I have a COI. It sort of defeats the purpose when editors follow the Bright Line, but insist and demand their exact version is pasted into article-space. I posted a few more things on each article - I think that's all I've got for the Hightail page after those, but I have one more item for the Viralheat page for discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Will have a look. Have fun. bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Haha, well, you know, it's my job for me, so it's not suppose to be fun :-P But then I do a lot of volunteer editing too. CorporateM (Talk) 08:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

RFM for India Against Corruption

Hi

As you have added your name to the RFM, would you also please "Agree" (or alternatively Decline) to mediation. Thanks. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Georgism RFC

Noticed in the RFC on Georgism you mentioned land taxes as having less economic harm. Just happen to run into a source recently that stated that based on OECD empirical research. Just in case it's helpful for you: Arnold, Jens (14 Oct 2008). "Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence From A Panel of OECD Countries". OECD. Retrieved 02 Jan 2014. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Morphh ^(talk) 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for that - it's interesting. However, I didn't discuss Georgism itself on the talkpage, just whether we should have a laundry-list of land-tax supporters. Are you sure you got the right person? 2601:1:2400:138:651B:68DF:D559:51B did mention it though. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Microcredit

I'm not sure what you meant by it's not true. As the references suggest, there were several methods prevalent throughout the world prior to the formation of Grameen Bank which were "related" to microcredit but not exactly microcredit. The concept of "microcredit" was first invented by Dr Yunus in the 1970s and the official definition was set in the microcredit summit in Washington, 1997. page 319. What's the ambiguity here? --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that microcredit was invented in Bangladesh, but you're citing a page which does not say that microcredit was invented in Bangladesh. Do you see how that is a problem? In the meantime, it might be helpful to read a little more broadly; perhaps start with De Soto. bobrayner (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you a bit of wiggle-room here.

1. You choose whatever definition of "microcredit" you think best suits your argument;
2. You bring that definition here;
3. I will name institutions or systems which (a) fit that definition, but (b) were not in Bangladesh, and (c) predate Grameen by decades.

Do you accept the challenge? bobrayner (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Quoting from the page "Dr Yunus started an experimental microcredit enterprise in 1977..... , and the concept of microcredit were planted." or if you are thinking this may not fall under the radar of "invention", than take a look at this, "The Nobel Peace Prize winner who invented microcredit presented his latest idea for combating poverty...". About the challenge, sure, but the reference has to say that the institution "is a microcredit institution" not "related to microcredit" or anything else. And for your info, we have an article Microfinance which would help you to understand the difference.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Yunus has played a very prominent role, but reliable sources shy away from mentioning invention; and rightly so, because there was plenty of other earlier microcredit.

Please don't pretend that the Huffington Post is a reliable source on economic history. You're a competent editor and I wouldn't want you to fall into traps like that. bobrayner (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, there are other reliable sources which support the claim, [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to List of megaprojects

Thank you! Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert that? Do you understand that you just reinserted very large volumes of content that fail WP:V? Since you're averaging about four edits per minute with an automated tool, I think the most WP:AGF conclusion is that you clicked a button without realising what you were doing. So, I have reverted. If you later read through the content and the sources and still think your edit was good, I'd love to hear the explanation. bobrayner (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Leoesb1032. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of megaprojects because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. I understand the appeal, to many editors, of tools that let you make lots of edits without the tiresome burden of having to understand what you're doing; but I must insist that you stop and look at what you're doing, and understand core wikipedia policy. I eagerly await your reply. Type it yourself instead of using an irrelevant template. Why did you repeatedly add large amounts of text which fails WP:V? bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the unsourced content. I didn't mean any harm. I was just looking at the STiki page. I didn't even remember that first edit I had made to List of megaprojects. It just looked like vandalism. I just got a hold of STiki and I need to get used to it. Leoesb1032 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Please take more care. It looks like there were problems with some of your other automated edits too. bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning India Against Corruption, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:AGK (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mediator assigned

Hi, I will be mediating this case. Would you be able to sign in on the project talk page? Sunray (talk)

WP:OVERLINK

HELP! List of populated places in Kosovo by Municipality. The article is a mess! IJA (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do yo insist on putting false information on the Rolfing page?

I made a bunch of corrections, once again, to the first paragraphs, and you reverted them back to the incorrect information. Is Wikipedia allowed to lie? Rolfing is not, not ever has been, a form of massage therapy. It did not even originate from massage. Structural integration is a completely different modality, like chiropratic or acupuncture - would you also call them massage? I fixed all of that again, but you took out my edits - why? It should be called what it is. Please explain why you are so confused, and maybe I help you understand what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Monbiot

Hi. You ask here "When did Monbiot become a reliable source?" It might equally be asked "How are you authorised to summarily dismiss the citation of an established reputable journalist without discussion?" In this instance, I see no need to directly challenge your action, since the subject TTIP is barely relevant to the global MAI. However, in different circumstances, I would be asking you for talk-page substantiation of your POV before agreeing to dissolve an eminent writer's credibility. Surely, in a case like this, it would be more correct to present a cited questionable view alongside a balancing cited contrary POV, as can readily be found here. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Eminent"? No doubt there are people who like what Monbiot writes, but he's a polemicist rather than some neutral analyst of geopolitics. Try adding this to the Tableware article:

Faced with a choice between the survival of the planet and a new set of matching tableware, most people would choose the tableware.

bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I would readily endorse that tongue-in-cheek assessment of the insensitivity of maybe 80% of our fellow humans. In fact, climate-change-denial became pretty well the official position of the Australian Government, which claimed a 'mandate' for such after a 2013 election victory. With due respect, I find your vindictiveness very depressing—and would continue to insist that you respect WP's principles of neutrality and rational verification.

If neutrality and verifiability are so important, why the non sequiteur about Australian politics?

No doubt there are people who like what Monbiot writes, but he's a polemicist rather than some neutral analyst of geopolitics. bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Shipbuilding

Category:Shipbuilding, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Quest for Truth (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for Arbcom. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Mongol Armenia?

Please look at Talk:Mongol Armenia and consider the proposed change of name.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry; I'm not familiar with this area. bobrayner (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Bob Rayner,

I just wanted to write to you to say, thank you. Across this wild website I've always found your contributions to be thoughtful, measured and valuable... often in the face of incredibly vitriol and personal attacks. Even where I don't agree with you I know that I will find a considered rational comment which reaffirms my faith in this site and in online humanity in general. I know it takes effort. But people like you make this place better. so thank you. Epeos (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind. I haven't agreed with all your edits, but I know you've done a good job. Unfortunately, you edit some very controversial topics, so disagreement is inevitable... bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

recall

I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. That page is on my watchlist, and I was already concerned. However, I have a near-crisis to deal with in the real world, so I might not be able to edit much over the next day or two, and this is an issue that needs thought rather than a hasty comment. bobrayner (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes from a talk page stalker about whatever is happening in the real world. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was worried about flooding. Last night the river gauge was rising and the rain kept on falling, but the situation improved today and my feet are still dry. I hope that you are drier, wherever you are! bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Good! The snow is all shoveled (and not by me) here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Massacre at Krusha e Madhe

Please revert yourself and restore the previous name. As far as consensus goes, look at Talk:Srbica for my proposal concerning Kosovo place names. The massacre took place in 1999 and should be referred to as the Massacre at Velika Kruša for historical accuracy. If you strongly disagree, you are welcome to take a stab at a move proposal. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I undid a unilateral, undiscussed move. It's the R of WP:BRD. You know that.

WhiteWriter knew that controversial moves should go through WP:RM, but instead deliberately made lots of unilateral moves. I'm reverting that mess. Future attempts at moves should use our Requested Moves process; it's the best way to develop a consensus. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia merits historical accuracy. You know that. Calling the Battle of Stalingrad the Battle of Volgograd is pseudohistorical babble, as is calling the Massacre at Velika Kruša the Massacre at Krusha e Madhe. 23 editor (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

On a broader point I do have a lot of sympathy for your proposal to consider contemporary names. (IE. We shouldn't replace every "Byzantium" and "Constantinople" with "İstanbul"). However, contemporary Human Rights Watch reports called it "Massacre at Krusha e Madhe"; it's unfortunate that you write off contemporary reliable sources as "pseudohistorical babble". bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bob, you do realize that the link you've provided refers to the place as Velika Kruša as well? 23 editor (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes; we'll rarely get completely black-and-white unambiguous naming for events and places in that era. I was merely pointing out that there are reliable sources which directly contradict the position you took earlier. However, this is something that could be thrashed out in a WP:RM discussion. bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How about we solve this at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I hope you don't mind too much, but I strongly believe that historical accuracy is important in Wikipedia articles. 23 editor (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaders of countries

Why have you repeatedly removed a good photo of a Malian president from the Mali article? bobrayner (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the photo also contains a not very good former US president, and would be much more appropriate on the United States-Mali Relations page.

Believe it or not I really do like the photo. It should be on the relevant relations page though. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

#

Please add a page number for Judah on this edit . Thanks. 23 editor (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski

Please stop adding blogs as sources to the Boris Malagurski article. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting sources. You have also been told, repeatedly, for years, that edits aren't vandalism simply because you disagree with them; do you intend to take heed of that any time soon? bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Shiatsu

Bob, a quick message re Shiatsu. In the future please avoid edit warring unless it meets the exceptions (which this didn't). I'm mentioning this to you and Roxy the dog because you continued the edit war well beyond 3RR (even though you didn't break 3RR yourself). In the future, report to [{WP:ANEW]] or WP:ANI and wait rather than edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

category

I've moved your post to the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Economist_editorial_stance#Categories

84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

edit war

Why did you place it on my talk page but not on the talk page of Zfigueroa?--Communist-USSR (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Because your edits seem to be more problematic, and you have already given Zfigueroa a warning template yourself, which is also a concern in itself. bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't give him a warning template? And you are doing a edit war yourself now.. Please wait for the discussion.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You say "Please wait for the discussion" and complain about other people edit-warring, but you have made a huge number of reverts. Rules aren't just there to hinder people you disagree with; they apply to you too. bobrayner (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes because he add highly questionable information. For example he added this 3 times and I have asked him 3 times to discuss it on the talk page but he won't respond.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Djordjevic

I note that you keep removing the disputed tag from the Vladimir Djordjevic page. I can tell that you are hitting serbian community pages and serbians as well. I can see that you are representing kosovo. Kosovo declared itself as independent state but it is NOT a member of UN, so I will transfer all your post about Serbian territory (kosovo) to be edited on wikipedia by all wiki members who understand this issues. I am warning you to stop your disruptive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbtiger (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. I am removing spam from a hagiographic article about a minimally-notable martial artist. Coincidentally, almost all your edits are about this person, you magnify his achievements, and you share some of his political beliefs in areas completely unrelated to martial arts. That's a big coincidence. Following me round and reverting other edits is just going to make things worse. bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Who are you in martial arts industry or in martial arts at all?? You stated "minimally-notable martial artist" common man, are you serious about editing wiki or just spamming all over??? I am warning you to stop your disruptive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbtiger (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter who I am in the martial arts industry? I am removing adverts, and you are adding them. bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no adverts in it. There is over 100K people who practice self defense under them every day, but you are hitting him for no reason. Ok than, we will start removing your adverts and please do not add them back. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbtiger (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, don't make things any worse. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan Protests help

Thank you for the notice about the reverting. I was wondering if you could contact any other editors to work on the 2014 Venezuelan Protests article so another stalemate like this will not happen. People would like to know what is happening and the unprofessional behavior we used should be continued. So more help would be appreciated.

Sorry about the troubles, --Zfigueroa (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. First things first: Can you get more or better sources?

There are various noticeboards which can help with disputes like this, but first, let's try sources. bobrayner (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Is La Patilla a better source? It is headed by the former president of Globovison.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have another look.

People always feel strongly about protests. However, we must not let those emotions drive our editing; it's important to present cold, hard facts. More emotional approaches tend to get reverted. bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediation

Sorry, but I've pulled out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption. I've never seen anything so ridiculous and I'm not keen on tiptoeing around the blindingly obvious. Good luck with it. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethecon

This organization seems to me to not meet the notability guidelines. I have been reading the refs. They are bad. One states that they have only eleven donors. What do you think? Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. The awards seem to be perfectly designed to attract media attention, of course, but a lot of those sources aren't actually about Ethecon, or only mention it in passing, or they're just press releases. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I particulary abhor press release refs. It's the laziest form of journalism and almost entirely useless for encyclopedia purposes. They absoloutely don't establish notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

FeralOink's comments lead me to believe that, even when "sourced", we can't actually trust much of the content. In which case there's another reason to delete it. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For any number of things from neutrality and worldview through to benevolent talk page stalking ... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh! You are very kind, but I don't deserve much credit. You, and other fine editors like you, do most of the hard work; I just stand to one side and occasionally heckle. bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Medieval Serbian writers etc

I have created three articles from the text at top of three categories; though I don't know if our Serbian friends at User IP address ever read their messages! Hugo999 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice work!

I'm perplexed - how can somebody write neatly-structured content, with some markup, and then put it in category-space? Could it be copied from somewhere? bobrayner (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

History Channel

History on history channel? Was that back when there was music on MTV also?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Those were the days bobrayner (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Northern Trust

Thanks for fixing the numbers, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help. Do you need a hand with any other similar work? bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Venezuelan Protests infobox

I was wondering if you could look at the changes I made to the info box on the article and see if it's better. I showed sources for the causes of the protests and updated a few things. Thanks for you help with the article! --Zfigueroa (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss with this user WP:FORUMSHOP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I was the first person to welcome Zfigueroa to wikipedia and offer help, I'm not going to criticise a request for help. However, I'm not going to encourage canvassing. bobrayner (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know about canvassing so I'm sorry if I put you in a situation. I just wanted an opinion on the modified info box. It can be helpful to some users that want to quickly find information. That is why I find adding visuals to articles helps some users. --Zfigueroa (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Checking in

Please ping me through the email this user function. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification

The article you created, Batajnica mass graves, has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batajnica mass graves. 23 editor (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why any competent good-faith editor would AfD an article for being too short when it already has 2kb and six sources, an hour after the article was started. There are plenty more sources out there; if you genuinely believe that shortness is the problem - and I doubt that - why not add more content? bobrayner (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Silent Generation Article

You removed an entire article about the Silent Generation. Please restore it or we'll need to go to the admin board. Thanks.172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? Is there a particular reason we need dozens of lengthy articles repeating Strauss & Howe's ideas as fact? Do you some reason to believe that "the admin board" will automatically restore reams of crappy content? Alas, sometimes the best quality-control tool is an axe. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

More pragmatically, the neutral point of view noticeboard might be a better place to discuss this problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe did not create the term "Silent Generation". Time magazine in 1951 ran an important story about it -- and you removed it completely. You can't just remove an article (and all the references) by merging the term into another article (why didn't you add the references too?).

If you want to move the reference to Strauss and Howe in the first sentence then go ahead. That answers you're NPOV claim. But the term has been in use for many decades. In fact, Google shows about 94,000,000 results for the term Silent Generation. By merging it you're claiming it's just part of the S&H theory -- which it is not. Please restore it immediately. Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello?172.250.31.151 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've unredirected it on the basis of the Time article, without any Strauss/Howe. Is that better? However, it would benefit from coverage from other angles. bobrayner (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice work, which I never would have noticed if somebody didn't nominate your work for deletion, ironically. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't accept much praise, but you are very kind nonetheless! That article is very basic - not much point in me putting a lot of time into it, now that it's attracted attention from a certain direction, because my efforts are more likely to be reverted or deleted. That's a strange side-effect of our Balkan problems. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For even-handedness on Balkan issues. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see I gave you a common and garden editor barnstar above also, anyway this was for the mass revert of Albanian names - despite understanding the Albanian editor's frustration. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jones Act

I see that you've been dealing with POV-pushing (and likely sockpuppetry) related to this topic. I reverted what looked like a cut-and-paste by the now-banned edit warrior. That said, I wonder if the article does merit a "Support" section to balance the "Criticism" section. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Alas, that's quite difficult; as with a lot of populist protectionist legislation, there are "sources" on both sides, but reliable economic sources very much fall on one side of the fence. So, it becomes like some "popular misconceptions" and alt-med topics, where it's very difficult to write content that keeps everybody happy but is also correct. In the longer term it would probably be better to integrate pluses and minuses into the body of the article instead of having separate "pro" and "anti" sections. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / removal of material from the Cost of living section at Talk:Hawaii

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hawaii#Disruptive editing .2F removal of material from the Cost of living section. Peaceray (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have a look. I don't normally get involved in Hawaii topics (other editors do a much better job), but the Jones Act is more my kind of thing... bobrayner (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by writing "we don't need ®" in osccillo?

Can you explain? --George1935 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopædia, not an advert. bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you be specific ? Which part of my editing was an advert? --George1935 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the ® is the inappropriate part. bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You must be more specific so one can take you seriously please answer in good faith. --George1935 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) We don't normally use them - see MOS:TM -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes besides calling someone names again- I m asking bobrayner and you to stop the abusive behavior and answer in good faith to what I m asking you. ?Which part of my editing was an advert?--George1935 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs to let you know

...that 94.250.109.57 opened a thread about you at WP:ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Deep joy. Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. That's what I'm here for: spreading the "joy". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I tire of the constant sockpuppetry, hounding, deception, and revert-stalking by a couple of pov-pushers. I've been working hard on this general topic area for a while, because it needed it; but right now they are particularly active and there seems to be little help from the rest of the community. Wake me up if/when that changes. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic. I've spend most of my Wiki-time the past few days dealing with stuff that I find unpleasant, and just in the past few minutes have found some time to do some more pleasant editing. And my mental to-do list of content I'd really like to work on is a mile long. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit – but not that anyone can edit well. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to concur that switching it up a bit can help a lot. I use that tactic myself on occasion. There are a few topic areas (both administrative and non-administrative) where I like to contribute and when one area feels "stale" or otherwise unappealing I move on. I will say that your work in the Balkan areas is appreciated; I rarely venture into any of those controversial nationalist debates (Palestine/Israel, Eastern Europe, Ireland/Britain, etc.) because of the massive headaches I've gotten when I've done so. I'd give you a barnstar but you recently received one for that very thing, so I'll just say that I second the sentiment from that barnstar. -- Atama頭 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You are very kind. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo Problem

Greetings Bob. How are you doing? I am working on this article. He is sort of a popular actor here in my country. I have come across this photo. The photo has a link of a Facebook page on it. Does this warrant the deletion of this photo? Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello!

WP:WATERMARK says "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use". However, this image is not free. WP:NFCC doesn't say no. Obviously, we would prefer a photo without the watermark, but we can't always get what we want.

However, a watermark like that can often be a warning sign of other problems - have you checked licensing & copyright? bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

With a quick search, I can see that this image is used profusely over the information. But I cannot find licensing or copyright infringement. This may or may not be copyright infringement.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't find any higher-resolution versions of this image and I don't see any definite sign of copyright infringement. Tineye doesn't find anything suspicious. bobrayner (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

you may have issues

not every IP is a sock. stop WP:STALKing people, stop insulting people, and stop removing other user's comments, it is not allowed!

WP:TPO The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

109.93.20.242 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppets get reverted. I'm sure other readers can see that you're stalking me, rather than vice versa. If you logged back into your account, you might make more progress. bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ANI

join the discussion about you at ANI: [15]. cheers 93.86.166.167 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Leopoldo López

Hello Bobrayner,

I recently noticed an egregious BLP violation on the Czech page of Leopoldo López found here. The content violates Wikipedia's BLP policy and the source they are using is far from reliable. I tried fixing it but I was quickly reverted. Do you think you could help me out in trying to remove this information? I noticed you have edited Leopoldo Lopez's English page so I decided to come to you for help. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.226.94 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Bohužel, nemám nemluvil česky! bobrayner (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Colectivo (Venezuela)

I was wondering if you could help me with the Colectivo (Venezuela) article I created. I'm not quite sure about the name of the article and I'm not sure how NPOV the article is. This article is needed since it is a common term used in Venezuelan culture. It is also valuable to both current and future articles involving Venezuela.--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Neutrality can be difficult on articles like this. bobrayner (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I made some improvements but its hard finding sources that provide a more NPOV. I still believe this article is necessary though.--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Bangladesh–Malaysia relations

Mr Rayner, you may have not seen the best temperament from me, but I would request you to kindly take a look at the rage boiling over there for a very minor rewording of sentences. Thank you.--Bazaan (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has lots of edits back-and-forth, but the talkpage is a red link - no discussion! Fix that problem first, and then it will be easier to fix the other problems. :-) bobrayner (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: ‎List of active separatist movements in Europe

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe.
Message added 12:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Role username RfC live

Because you participated in the previous mini-RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#RfC:_Allow_group.2Frole_accounts.2C_with_OTRS_verification Gigs (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you over my recent edit which you removed. The report in question was written by one of the vested interests, and people ought to know that. I'm happy with a different wording — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

editing other's comments

please familiarize yourself with WP:TALKO. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Why the deletion on the RCP page?

The previous contributor introduced a quote from the Judge in the ITN libel case, and a quote from the editor of the organization's journal. Hardly evidence of bias - rather the opposite!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revolutionary_Communist_Party_(UK,_1978)#What_was_the_point_of_Bobrayner.27s_re-edit.3F

Jane Bowen (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Bored with socks" surely?

Just wanted to take you to task regarding your most recent edit summary. You are welcome. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, your pedantry is always welcome. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

And now, you have come down with a sic-ness: [16]. I wish you a speedy recovery! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tryptofish. bobrayner (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re:Welcome back

Dear User:Bobrayner, thank you for your welcome message. To clarify, I was not "caught" for some of the violations you listed on my talk page. The reason I made that statement you listed on my talk page was due to the fact that I saw the same group of users appear on unrelated RfC's that I was a participant in. Since you insist that this is "completely false", I would say that it is a coincidence. In good faith, I believe you, withdraw my statement, and ask that you forgive me for it. It has been two years but I hope you are doing well and that we are able to work to build a great encyclopedia here. As a side note, I did take a long break from editing and still will not be as active as I once was. I hope you have a great day and all the best to you and yours! With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Ethecon

What's the current status? It is languishing. I spent a big chunk of time checking into the article, after the bot summoned me to have a look. Ethecon might or might not be encyclopedic worthy content. They're more worthy than crud on TV that has articles here!

The problematic part is this: Code Pink, or truly, a single individual with Code Pink. It isn't for me judge her, nor even her relationship with Ethecon, whatever it may be (and I do feel quite strongly about the perfidious nature of Blackwater-Xe, just as she does). Rather, the problem is that the Ethecon article is sourced almost entirely with not-NPOV links to her websites, self-published books and annual social justice missions that always involve world travel to attractive tourist destinations. The article is like a soapbox and showcase for her self-appointed accomplishments, which mostly involve public shaming of companies AND private individuals i.e. they don't hold public office, aren't celebrities. We shouldn't be facilitating that, which is what you said > 7 months ago.

I've seen you around here a lot. You seem sensible and nice! I am Ellie Kesselman. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.--FeralOink (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You are very kind. It's a pleasure to work with you.

I think you've made a good point about Ethecon. Earlier I focussed on one problematic bit of content about living people, but really, the whole point of Ethecon is to make problematic claims and broadcast them much more widely than a lone activist would usually manage, and our article enables that. Once we strip out the primary sources, and the ones which just copy "alternative" press releases (which may as well be primary sources), there is very little independent coverage, and even those sources make it hard to build a neutral article. I think deletion could be the best option. bobrayner (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

List of whistleblowers article

I think the editor started down the right path and I've done some cleanup afterwards. They created a new article United States Investigations Services that's the same company as found at USIS (company). I think (and have suggested as such) that they can merge any details from the new article to the existing and change it to a redirect. I'll make sure that happens. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. this is a big improvement on their part so I'm not interested in a templating and warning spree. bobrayner (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Interruption

My laptop broke. It had been increasingly unhealthy for the last two weeks, which interfered with my work. I ordered a replacement; it was delivered today. The new laptop is very pretty. So, I would like to apologise to you all, kind readers, for my intermittent responses; I have a lot of catching-up to do, and you deserve better responses. Please forgive any typos over the next week as I get used to the new keyboard. bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)