User talk:Bobrayner

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)

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.