User talk:Bobrayner

WP:CONSENSUS

RE this, please explain how you define "consensus". Looking at the talkpage, all I can see is a giant mess involving half a dozen possible approaches, further disrupted by logged out trolling and general misbehaviour of agenda-driven editors. There are a few pov-pushers on the page who make a habit of saying "we have consensus, see above" every five minutes in an attempt to stifle the discussion. There is not in fact such a consensus, and these accounts just try to disrupt any bona fide considerations of viewpoints they dislike. I find it rather difficult to make up my mind about the best course of action in this situation, and the tags you removed were placed in good faith to reflect the ongoing debate on talk. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi!

By "consensus", I was thinking of a strong majority of people commenting on the subject: 109.84.236.47, LONTECH, ZjarriRrethues, Sulmues, BalkanWalker, bobrayner, Hobartimus, Kedadi, 109.84.199.76, 92.74.20.221, IJA, Enric Naval, Mareklug, and Canadian Bobby. (I have tried to limit this list so it only includes those who made comments opposing the split before I removed your split tag. Also, I did not include Brutal Deluxe, as their comment might have reflected historical activity rather than personal opposition).

Rather than deal with the broad opposition - what Sulmues called overwhelming consensus - you complained repeatedly about "a pile of Albanian patriot IP addresses", socks, trolls, and so on. This is unfortunate. Even if you arbitrarily discount non-logged-in users, most appeared to oppose a split.

I was reluctant to remove the tag, and only did so after several editors explicitly said that the tag was inappropriate. This, too, is visible on the talkpage.

Of course, I won't sideline you as a troll or a sock, tell you to piss off, or accuse you of a personal attack simply because you disagreed with me. I'd like to maintain civility. If you have some good points to make about the article, they would be welcome.

I think it might be best to keep further discussion on the article talkpage instead of on my talkpage, especially since other users there have shown concerns about your behaviour.

Have fun,

bobrayner (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote

You should explain in few sentences your vote. Idea is that we dont need to ask for your previous words in TLDR talk page. And anyone CAN comment, but only in its own space. --Tadija^speaks 13:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tadija!

Thanks for your comment.

Apart from your proposal to remove votes that you don't like, is there any other reason to believe that the result of this vote will be different from previous votes? There was quite a big discussion recently; you commented on it.

If TLDR is a problem, why did you create yet another poll and insist that people add comments above and beyond their votes? The subject has already been discussed, at length, repeatedly. That is why the talkpage is so long.

It is unfortunate that you haven't explained your apparent attempt to manipulate the vote. There was a very recent vote which went against you; you sat back and complained that wikipedia is not a democracy. Now you suddenly propose another vote - and you intend to disqualify other people's votes if they fail criteria that you just invented. If you can "win" the debate with superior arguments, I would welcome it; but instead you're trying to win by changing the rules to suit you.

bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was great. Now your vote is completely useful. Next stage of the agreement will start in few days, after we get all votes from previous users. And Bojan was noticed also, i just talked to someone else in the meantime. TLDR is just one of the numerous problems. This vote is just to have all related users and their opinios regarding only this subject, and no infobox, or anything else. Thanks, this is only way to have proper consensus about this important subject. If you have ANY question, or problem regarding subject, please, talk to me, and i will try to help you as good as i can! All best! --Tadija^speaks 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

contrarian crank

While I agree that the addition should be reverted, I think that the use of heavy language like contrarian crank is an example of bad faith, both to the person who wrote the article (who is simply trying to contribute) as well as to people with an opposing view. Someone who disagrees with the firm logic of pure capitalism is not a contrarian but simply someone who sees a flaw somewhere in the logic or the result or lackthereof, andsomeone who writes a book saying so is not simply a crank. Shabidoo | Talk 14:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your criticism. My words were probably a little harsh; sorry. bobrayner (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Tadija's talk page.
Message added 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LATIN ALPHABET ONLY IN ENGLISH WIKI PLEASE

Anything other than entitled above is as I put it earlier: A shitass insinuation useless to virtually all of the article readers, almost none of whom know a single Cyrillic letter (or a single Arab consonant)

I have nothing against either the Russian or Arabic languages and speakers per se.

But those Russian, Arab and other foreign language speakers who mutilate English language articles are only getting what they deserve.