User talk:Bobrayner

Hello! Welcome to my talkpage. Have fun. Please play nicely.

Are you replying to a message which I left on your talkpage, or on an article talkpage? I will usually put that on my watchlist; please reply there instead of here, because it can be hard for people to follow a conversation across multiple pages. If you start a discussion here, I will probably reply here, so keep an eye on this page if you care about my reply.
Occasionally, after any discussion has ended, I delete old comments (I think "archiving" is a little self-important). However, if you really want to see old comments, you can see them in the page history. This page was last cleaned out on 02 January 2011.

Free Trade Article Opening

Good to know we agree on some, if not all, of my recent edits :). The stuff about most states being protectionist is true, and my removing it was just because I didn't feel it was necessarily appropriate for the introduction (and the reference isn't working). However, I really think the stuff about NAFTA and CAFTA needs the 'contrary to their formal titles' stricken, and in the long term a reference. I'm not sure it should be in so prominent a part of the article, but don't really want to argue that when there's so much else with the article to do. I've been told one should never revert a revert, so, I wanted to get your thoughts on it first.--TurquoiseThreads (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK; good points!

Maybe the article could do with some high-level rearrangement of sections - I struggled a bit because I was finding sentences which seemed out-of-place but there didn't seem to be a better place to put them. Do you think that could help? The stuff about free-trade areas actually being regulated is worth mentioning once, but I think the article overemphasises the problem - somebody seems to have been trying to make a point (maybe it would be better if we just threw in a couple of links to examples of unfree trade in free trade areas, perhaps the CAP, and left it at that). Sorry if my edits were a bit hamfisted! bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good, I think a few of my deletions were a bit ham-fisted :). With the stuff about 'free trade area' being a misnomer, maybe the 'Current Status' section could be expanded? I agree with you the biggest problem is rearrangement - if a coherent structure is worked out, it'll be far easier to slot things in to their place and make sure they're written properly without losing details. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do, but I think it's an article worth giving some time to. I'll have a close read of the sections tonight and try to figure out a coherent order for them.--TurquoiseThreads (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian script

Thanks a lot for the very objective and neutral point of view on the Dacian script. Much needed! Best regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse

You're welcome to comment since you just reverted an IP sock at Oscillococcinum‎. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad Maps

Railways in Cameroon

Legend

					Ngaoundéré
					Bélabo
					Nanga Eboko
					Yaoundé
					Mbalmayo
					Edéa
					Douala
					Kumba
					Nkongsamba

Thought I was following links to where railroad maps were being asked for. New at Wiki, if wrong Talk Page, please forgive, and delete. I do have some knowledge at drawing railroad maps, although I've called mine charts for many years. I may be able to help in some small way. Freadman (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm just one random person who occasionally makes simple diagrams (like the one on the right). You might want to try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Maps task force, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. If you want to dive straight in and start contributing maps (or charts or diagrams), there is a long list of articles which need one.

Don't worry; at first it can be hard to find your way around some of wikipedia's darker corridors, but you'll soon get used to it. If there's anything I can do to help, just come back here and ask. It's good to have you onboard.

bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DERM:MA

We are always looking for more help with the dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push in which we are making sure Wikipedia has an article on every cutaneous condition. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would be willing to help with the Bolognia push? I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for new articles and redirects. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very kind offer, but at the moment I'm quite busy with other projects. Sorry. Cool accountname, by the way. bobrayner (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buteyko

Hi Bob. I wish I had read your profile earlier – Wikipedia needs more people with your attitude to help with editing. Bob, I have some good news for you. You can drop the Buteyko case because I'm pulling the pin, this time for good. I've just wasted too much time and nervous energy on it, and frankly, even if we can fix it, there is no knowing what little Hitler (with apologies to Hitler) will destroy our efforts again. The toxic mix of ignorance and arrogance of some of the self appointed police on Wikipedia is the dark face of the project. Thanks anyhow for your involvement so far. You're a brave man! I won't be monitoring my Wikipedia talk page any more, nor the Buteyko page. If you have any questions about Buteyko for your own interest you can get me at pkolb@westnet.com.au . I am consoled by the fact that people don't have to rely on Wikipedia for information on Buteyko – there are plenty of good sites on the web. Kind regards – Peter Kolb Peter Kolb (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame.

It can be quite stressful to get into a dispute. Have you considered working on different articles? Then you might get the warm fuzzy feeling of improving an encyclopædia, without the stress.

However, I strongly disagree with your hitler comparison. That kind of attack is a Bad Thing. If you disagree with somebody, play the ball, not the man! bobrayner (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob. You have been reverting articles that I have made changes to. What now, are you gonna revert my new article? If you do, your really unfriendly. What one shame. Stop reverting my articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by VJ-Yugo (talk • contribs) 02:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wakefield

There appears to be an incipient edit war at Andrew Wakefield, in which you are involved. Please use the article talk page to discuss the content issues. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation; I was hitherto unaware that one edit restoring relevant sourced content (added by a different editor) counted as editwarring. However, if there are concerns I will, of course, head back to the talkpage and let other folk form a consensus on whether the content should be in the article. I added a link on Dobyblue's talkpage, for convenience, since they haven't yet found their way to article talkpages despite a number of reverts. bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did say incipient! Anyway, it has been added twice and removed twice, and that does look rather like an edit war, regardless of how many editors are involved. The sequence is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Yobol boldly added it, Dobyblue removed it, the next step should be discussion, not bold and revert again. DuncanHill (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Allied Force

Apparently, you do not know what I am saying, is that correct? Lessons of Kosovo was not made by Youtube, it was made by WHUC, 2001. It is a documentary about the NATO air strikes that failed to achieve their goal because Serbia was overpowering them by not giving up. If it was a NATO victory, then how come riots still happen in Kosovo and if they did not want Serbian Military Presence there, then how come in 2001, Serbian Armed Forces and Police Units were at war with LAPMB insurgents in Presevo, Medveda, and Bujanovac? That was in Kosovo, where Serbs units were fighting with the KLA and the KFOR had to be deployed. Also, let me tell you this and look at it wisely, HIGH CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, LOW MILITARY CASUALTIES! They didn't even attack the military, they freakin' attacked civilians, how do you call that a NATO victory, and yes, this documentary was NOT FROM YOUTUBE! Your really blind, I'm sorry, but you are and I hope you've read this message. VJ-Yugo (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]