User talk:Bobrayner

Please stop being an apple. Thank you.

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 30 March 2011.

---

Question about proposed source in Pseudoscience

Hi Bob. On the pseudoscience talk page you said that "the researcher's subsequent discussion cites other works which have discussed various aspects of this in more depth." Perhaps you missed my question there about where those citations of other works are. I can't find any but would very much like to know about them because it sounds like they could be of use in the article. Please reply here or on the article talk page. Thanks, Jojalozzo 00:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I can see you are extremely busy here but I'd appreciate knowing if you were able to find references for these "other works" or you were mistaken about them. I'd like to find some good contemporary references for the impacts of pseudoscience. Jojalozzo 02:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I gave up on that thread. I don't want to get drawn into reams of pointless angry metadebate in what was supposed to be a terse poll. Responses will change nobody's stance. It reminds me too much of the talkpages on Balkan articles infested by nationalist pov-pushers (yes, I realise that I could be seen as being one of the pushers ), and frankly I don't want to double my blood pressure whilst taking the time to think through a response which will be swiftly dismissed with insults or defiantly tangential rhetoric; so I have withdrawn and will let anybody else have the last word.

Millions of people use pseudoscientific medical treatments which occasionally cause direct harm but often detract from evidence-based, effective medical care; there have been outbreaks of easily-presented infectious disease due to pseudoscientific scaremongering against vaccinations; there have been large campaigns to teach people wholly fictional nonsense about health and diet; there are even smokers groups determined to use copy & pasted scientific words and cherrypicked studies to show that smoking is relatively harmless, or a net benefit to an economy &c. Against that background, I am saddened that people seeking to improve an article on pseudoscience can claim that pseudoscience is anything other than a major threat to public health, and that a reliable source which says so should be rejected because the authors didn't really mean to say what they said... bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern; I don't entirely agree with you, but I respect your stance, and you are civil and thoughtful. bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a terse poll but I'm trying to locate good references to support claims about the impacts of pseudoscience and your response suggested that you found something in that paper that I didn't see. From your response here it sounds like you were either misled or bending the facts to support a healthy point of view. Is that right? Jojalozzo 16:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On SPA's and Assuming Good Faith

Re: "Articles on economic subjects often seem to attract rather focussed editors, but I don't remember seeing anybody else bringing up these points this way before. I'd rather assume good faith for now."

My comment was meant to point out the rather suspicious editing activity that occurred on the two edits linked here:

New guy: [1]

The guy who has been pushing the same ideas already: [2]

Such editing is a little too coincidental, in my book. BigK HeX (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not Reissgo but have subsequently messaged with him on talk finance since he published his challenge there. If people have some suggestions how to get changes made on the board to include the central banker comments about credit creation and money multiplier added please let me know.

The reason i mentioned consensus on changes for my edit was people have been attempting to get changes on this theme since last year. For example:

>>>LK The trouble with what you are doing, is that you have a certain set idea about how the system works, that is not based on reliable sources. You are now scrambling to find and interpret sources to support your own point of view. The correct way to go about writing an article is to first read what reliable sources say, without a set idea of how things work, and then summarize the viewpoint of reliable sources for the encyclopedia article. Just to be clear, von Mises Institute and lewrockwell.com are not reliable sources. Even the Austrian school academic economists have repudiated them. If you are editing based on that viewpoint, you waste everyone's time by pushing what is obviously not a viewpoint widely accepted by reliable sources. LK (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

>>Fresheneesz You're misrepresenting my words and/or misunderstanding me. I'm pretty sure we agree more or less about what is being said about the money multiplier. Clearly it exists - I am not saying it doesn't. I'll ignore the strawman you're (hopefully unintentionally) setting up. What I'm saying is that the money multiplier concept as described in this article is simply an inaccurate way to describe the effects of FRB in the real world. Can we agree to that point? More to the point, this is also what the myriad of sources I found also say this. Including the fed paper that says "the relationships implied by the money multiplier do not exist in the stem from the demand side". We both know that this isn't saying the multiplier doesn't exist, but it is saying that the implied relationships don't hold true in reality. To that effect, I'm proposing that we mention a short description of the significance of the money multiplier with respect to FRB, and note why the money multiplier is an inaccurate way to describe how FRB works. Fresheneesz (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think my citations are good ones and deserve to be included so we can move this thing forwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewedwardjudd (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice...

Just to say this really made me laugh. [3] Cheers, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles.
Message added 04:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Anesrif

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for High Plateau line

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi Bobrayner. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo war

I am not edit warring, there are very few if any at all reliable sources that confirm the bombing as a clear-cut NATO victory. The Kosovo war article itself doesn't call the result of the war a KLA/NATO victory. Listen, here is a compromise. We don't put the NATO or Serb claims of victory at all. We put the result of the bombing was the Kumanovo Treaty & UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Because in fact that was the result. All neccesery information is in those two articles so let readers make their own conclusions on who won since, there is no historicly unified oppinion on who won and it is still disputed by both sides even today (and I don't mean just the Serbs and NATO). This way the result is neutral. Ok? EkoGraf (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Poll

Hi, Bobrayner. Thanks for your constructive comments on the first version of the survey questionnaire posted on [Pump]. The concept of [Positive_externality#Positive|Positive externality] you addressed is very interesting. If you do not mind, please let me know more about the concept and the meaning of the concept in explaining why people edit Wikipedia articles. cooldenny (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking mediation cabal

This notifies you of my request for mediation to prevent you deleting:

1. My reliable sources, and

2. My attempts to create a neutral point of view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Thanks for notifying me. I might not have got involved otherwise, as you misspelt my name on the mediation page. However, framing the problem like that is unlikely to ease mediation. For instance, you haven't mentioned your editwarring, or the repeated concerns raised by other editors on the article talkpage and elsewhere. Occasionally, when several people all disagree with you, it's because they want to suppress the truth; however, the explanation is usually a lot more prosaic. bobrayner (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

New users to Wiki are unfamiliar with the protocols that people are expected to pass thru when instead they are told by wiki, 'have fun! Experiment! make all the changes you want!'. In practice i have been careful to construct pages that are backed by reliable sources. Those pages were deleted without any understandable reason. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

That RfA Reform thing

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o) Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

AN

Regarding your comments at the AN/Jacurek discussion, I appreciate what you're saying, both in response to myself and in your comment to Martin. Yes, the fact that these "sides" exist is problematic. But so is pretending that they do not exist. What's more nationalistic? Showing up every time an editor of a particular nationality is discussed on an admin board and pushing for a ban, or merely pointing out that somebody actually does this? I've been around these parts for a long time and I've seen some... I don't know "reconciliation" and compromise happen occasionally but in each instance it has to be that both sides are willing. I've also tried to reach out to editors I disagree with and got nothing but attacks, accusations and slander in response - after I said something nice to them, they turned around and tried to get me sanctioned. So yeah, perhaps I'm a bit cynical about it, but even accounting for that, I don't think that pretending that nobody takes "sides" in these discussions helps things much. And a situation where it's clear what side who is on is a much transparent one, and leads to a more honest discussion. Thanks. Sorry, this was a bit rant-y.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologise; those are good points (and I am guilty of ranting too). I recognise that the national polarisation happens (there's evidence on hundreds of articles and other pages, of course) but part of me wishes that we could all try harder to overcome it. Sadly, we are all only human, and it's very frustrating when you try to offer a concession to somebody on the "other side" but they just take it.

What's worse is that people spend weeks arguing and reverting (and sometimes playing some very clever subtle tricks) just to change one or two words in nationally-controversial articles - if all the effort on Kosovo could be redirected to disease research, we would have cured AIDS and cancer by now. Outright vandals get quick uncontested blocks; somebody who civilly "corrects" articles (or pushes on talkpages) to fit their nationalist POV will - if they push hard - get a long thread somewhere like AN:I once every 5000 edits, but it barely interrupts their work. bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wonderful Person!!^^

A case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking was brought up so that we may all solve any and all existing problems quickly. While it seems like problems have diminished, would you please join the talks and express any concerns you may have? If the requesting party "Andrewedwardjudd" (who also would like solve the problem) is making it difficult, and the problem comes to no resolution, then the case will simply be closed. As the mediator, my only goal is to solve the problem as efficiently, as objectively, and as kindly as possible^^ Thank you for your consideration and understanding. rm2dance (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK record

Just in case you weren't aware of it, I thought you might like to know that your DYK submission on Ottoman taxation is currently one article short of tying for the record (26). See WP:DYK/HoF#DYK hooks with 5 or more articles. cmadler (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I considered going for the record, but getting a good night's sleep was more important! Maybe next time. An insomniac with a good library could easily create 30-40 articles in this area; it's complex and very well-sourced but has previously been neglected by wikipedians.

There are some related articles which could easily be expanded (Kadı, Resm-i sicill, Muqata'ah, Resm-i hinzir, Iltizam, Defter, Haraç, &c) plus some redlinks in {{Taxation in the Ottoman Empire sidebar}}, if you would like to share a record... bobrayner (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well done snark

Funniest thing I've read around here in years. Kudos. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Talk:Serbs_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Taxation in the Ottoman Empire DYK

I've been reviewing your taxation articles and came across a point that needs clarification. Specifically, the Gümrük resmi article. Please see your DYK nomination section for more info. Thanks! PhantomPlugger (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The reconfirmation RfA thing

You mentioned that there have times when you've disagreed with me. Is there anywhere in particualr you think I should improve? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely cannot think of any area you could improve; if you agreed with me on everything then you'd be a very flawed person. If I remember correctly, the last time I "disagreed" with you involved some eastern-European or middle-eastern nationalist thing AN or AN/I, where I felt we fell on opposite sides of some polarised discussion - but this is a completely routine occurrence for an active admin, because (I feel) typical admin work involves more disputes and controversial stuff than content-building. I think you have been civil, thoughtful, hardworking, and undramatic, and it's a pleasure to support your request for reconfirmation / re-endorsement. Plus, en.wikipedia tends to be very good at building an encyclopædia but very bad at process change, and you've just made a very public demonstration that it's possible to break the iron rules of traditional process in order to support an important principle... I should buy you a pint sometime. bobrayner (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons in animal breed infoboxes

There are a few GAs that have flags in the infoboxes. Do you think they should be removed? Not being sarcastic or anything -- I didn't realize that was against the manual of style, so am open to removing them if they look bad or obtrusive (and others would be as well, presumably). I added the flags to Potcake dog and Labrador Retriever:

• Finnhorse
• French Spaniel
• Jack Russell Terrier
• Labrador Retriever
• Potcake dog
• Tweed Water Spaniel

I'm not sure I'd call it flagcruft, per se, since country of origin is quite important in dog breeds at least (see Federation Cynologique Internationale). Personally, I would prefer they stay in for that very reason, but like I said above, it wouldn't be a huge issue to remove them. Thanks. – anna 11:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's one of the iron rules of style that must never be broken, but flag icons do tend to get misused for decoration (or some strange nationalist ideas) elsewhere on wikipedia. With articles like Šarplaninac the last thing we need is to draw a dog breed into the maelstrom of Balkan nationalist editing.

With the Finnhorse, it's already got the "Finnhorse" infobox plus alternative names "Finnish Horse, Finnish Universal, Suokki", plus the country-of-origin is "Finland", so what does the little Finnish flag add? (That flag was adopted, and the modern nation of Finland formed, in the 20th century; far later than most of the horse breed's claimed history)

Alas, people often want to associate a subject with one specific country even when the truth is a little more complex (hence the silly edit wars over nationality on thousands of articles like Nikola Tesla) so I'd rather avoid putting extra emphasis on nationalist labels which can often be simplistic or anachronistic. Why does the Tweed Water Spaniel have a little St George flag when much of the Tweed valley is in Scotland (though less now than in the past), whilst the labrador gets a union flag instead? bobrayner (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just one person, though. Would it be worth opening a wider discussion, perhaps at WikiProject Dogs? bobrayner (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I see Miyagawa (prolific dog contributor) has also removed the flag icons from potcake dog. Your points are valid and I'm inclined to agree with them -- particularly the anachronism of some of the flags -- and it's true that they may exacerbate the sometimes-preposterous Balkan nationalist edit wars. I'll remove these as I come across them, thanks for explaining forther.

Opening discussions at WikiProject Dogs sometimes feels like an exercise in futility with so few active contributors, and it's a real shame. WikiProject Equine is much more active, so if someone disagrees with the Finnhorse flag removal, I'll point you to any ensuing discussion. – anna 13:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Anti-Flame Barnstar

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For your efforts at suppressing the flames that often threaten to engulf us all. Thanks, --LK (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's very generous of you; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello

For the record LK invited me to 'email him'.

Meanwhile i am at a total loss as to why people are so strongly resisting the well documented practices of banking that is so very different to this mechanically absolutely rigid relending model that lk and bigk want to present as some kind of science fact where people who disagree are fringe or wackos.

Can i ask you please what your interest in this topic is and what you have in mind if we are going to discuss this?

Thanks Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

DYK for Taxation in the Ottoman Empire

The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Emin (Ottoman official)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tekalif-i orfiye

The DYK project (nominate) 00:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Resm-i çift

The DYK project (nominate) 00:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rav akçesi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nüzül

The DYK project (nominate) 00:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for İspençe

The DYK project (nominate) 00:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Avariz

The DYK project (nominate) 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Adet-i ağnam

The DYK project (nominate) 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Resm-i arusane

The DYK project (nominate) 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tuz resmi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Resm-i bennâk

The DYK project (nominate) 00:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bedl-i askeri

The DYK project (nominate) 00:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Gümrük resmi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sursat

The DYK project (nominate) 00:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Müskirat resmi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Temettu

The DYK project (nominate) 00:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Adet-i deştbani

The DYK project (nominate) 00:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Damga resmi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Resm-i mücerred

The DYK project (nominate) 00:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Öşür

The DYK project (nominate) 00:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ihtisab

The DYK project (nominate) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tapu resmi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Resm-i donum

The DYK project (nominate) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Muafiyet

The DYK project (nominate) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

WikiThanks

Thank you very much for informing me about the confusing field of engineering. I've tried to make sense of what I was reading on other websites, but, it wasn't until you spent some time explaining to me that I got the whole picture. --Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. You've done lots of hard work on the A330 article; it's the least I could contribute! bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And regarding my master plan, I'm thinking of broadening its reach after your comment came to light. --Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 21:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you participate in the article's near-future FAC? Some folks who had contributed greatly, besides Fnlayson, seem very hesitant. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm not very familiar with the world of FA, but happy to contribute some unskilled labour if you want a hand! (Particularly sourcing; if there's any article/journal you need that's hidden behind a paywall, I can probably get it). bobrayner (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

25 DYK Medal

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Nice work! While most users achieve this medal through a series of hooks, you are only the second user ever to achieve this medal by virtue of a single hook! Your 25 articles on Ottoman taxation are a great asset to Wikipedia. Thank you! OCNative (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)