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 04 July 2011.

A330 FAC

Hi Bob, I'm here because a point raised by Nikki a few days ago about the A330. It's regarding this phrase which you added the ref "However, the programme was not formally launched because of insufficient customer interest." Nikki said the content did not back the claim, "FN 115 and 119 are the same source, but it only supports the material cited by FN 119." – the refs have been moved a bit. Anyway, I'm a bit concerned about it because there isn't any press coverage of the cancellation, why we do know that the variant did not precede. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.

• Refs must have got shuffled round. I did a quick search of the FI archives and didn't find anything on cancellation. If it can't be sourced, it's got to go.
• Bear in mind that "HGW" isn't boolean, as there can be less high profile, incremental changes throughout the lifespan - I've seen Aircraft Value News refer to more recent A333s as "HGW" even though they're definitely not the variant being discussed in the article.

Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Calling to arms

Ever heard of the Pugachev's Cobra? Ever heard of a Sukhoi, or a MiG? Ever heard of "Foxbats", "Flankers", "Fulcrums", or Fullback"? Do you know what they are? Do you know what the Soviet aerospace industry is like? Do you know who the Americans really fear? Do you know how much headache it caused to the West? Do you know how much attention the fighters are getting? If the answer is NO, then there are clearly some catching up to do. During the next few days, I'll be working on the MiG-29K, Su-34, Su-35 and Su-37. I want to bring them all up to the same standard as the Su-33. If you want to participate, please come along and help out. Don't be hesitant. Give the Soviet aerospace industry the recognition it really deserves. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. Will watchlist. If you need a hand on any specific sourcing issue (or even tech stuff), just shout. Do you have access to Janes? bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Busy

I'm still quite busy with work and with study; there are several clashing deadlines... So, I will continue to be relatively inactive on wikipedia (just a handful of edits per day) until about 20 July. I can usually respond quickly to queries, and I'm always happy to help with sourcing, and of course my watchlist is still watched, but don't expect me to take on any really big new tasks. Have fun. bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

follow up

Hi Bob.

"Is Breivik notable or not? It's difficult for me to interpret your text. And in what way is it a desirable feat of IAR apply if somebody *claims* to be following a policy but, in fact, that policy does not support their actions?"

Breivik is clearly notable. My text was deliberately a bit vague as I am a bit on the fence about this, although he is notable he also doesn't immediately require or demand his own article - he currently sits well imo in the main article - I though that Errants redirect was good when I saw it, and a correct position in regard to BLP considerations erring on the side of caution in reporting about living people - I am also a bit on the fence about the interpretation of the BLP1E, I see it as open to a bit of interpretation, which I read wiki policy/guidelines should be. I didn't bother voting in the merge discussion because imo policy is regularly violated in these feeding frenzies of high profile news events. Although I don't really support it, I have come to accept this situation, hence my vague comments about it - I hope my comments have helped you understand my position, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK.

Unfortunately, tempers were a bit high at the time. I think there have been some misinterpretations of policy, as well as people standing on mutually-contradictory bits of policy, but it's not the first time - so there's obviously some potential to tidy up the rules, in one way or another, to reduce the risk of dramatic disagreements in future. Didn't we go though something similar with Jared Lee Loughner and Seung-Hui Cho, both of which were redirected but are now standalone articles? Conversely, Ľubomír Harman has always been a standalone article and Tristan van der Vlis has always been a redirect. (I'm just using high-profile spree killing suspects as a handy example, obviously the same concern covers a lot more high-profile people) bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted and Done

yah that page needs deletion the real page is here Wikipedia:Incremental_service_awards

with all the fixed requests. see se also section of page.Iamiyouareyou (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I made a loud snorting sound when I read this. Thanks for the laugh. Yobol (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Indian Rail Incidents

I am the author of the book in question. Yes, it is self published and only 112 pages, but regular publishers are not interested in niche subjects like this. What is more relevant is that it is the result of collection of data mainly from official records of India's Commissioner of Railway Safety as well as major Indian newspapers. Please refer to the "preview" pages of the book: (Link is blocked by Wikipedia as it does not like lulu dot com). You may see this link from another publisher, though the preview does not show the Preface and Introductory Notes: http://pothi.com/pothi/book/ajai-banerji-major-railway-accidents-india-2000-09

The Preface and Introductory Notes pages should make things more clear. You can also see the next few pages to get an idea of the amount of detail added. I feel that my book is more comprehensive and more reliable than most of the other entries in this particular Wikipedia article. In fact, it is better as it gives the "follow up" and inquiry findings and not just contemporary news clippings (like most of the other entries). This book does deserve to be listed as a reference on Wikipedia. Perhaps it could be put among the other footnotes instead of being in the main article. But then, as the book refers to the entire period of 2000-09 it may be better to have it at the bottom of the 2000-09 section instead of being in the footnotes.
Regards, Abn397 (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Railway Accidents, 2000-09

The same issue again. Just to reiterate that it has been researched from various sources. See the link http://pothi.com/pothi/book/ajai-banerji-worldwide-railway-accidents-2000-09 and read the first few pages of the review. I feel that it deserves to be a reference. Abn397 (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Warnock.

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Warnock&curid=8923580&diff=443160121&oldid=443158120 is against the manual of style. Please stop enflaming edit wars and revert your incorrect edit. thank you so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IE#Biographical_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The three cites all repeatedly refer to "United Kingdom" rather than "Ireland". this calls him an "Ulsterman" more often than "Irish". He was born before 1922 but, in line with the policy you mention, I did not change his birthplace. He was a child at independence, and as his recorded bouts were all long after independence, it's perfectly reasonable to describe this boxer in post-independence terms. This, too, is in line with the policy you mention. If you have anything else which supports your point (perhaps a different policy), please let me know. bobrayner (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - deleting links without consensus

Hi Bob. This issue seems to have been archived here without any conclusion being reached. Am I missing something?? Regards, --Bermicourt (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like nothing happened. Unfortunately, not every thread on AN/I has a happy ending! Is the link-removal still ongoing? bobrayner (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A330 FAC

Hi Bobrayner, I'm just wondering if you'd like to be a co-nominator for the article Airbus A330 for its fourth(!) Featured article candidacy? I mean, you did have some input into the article (and I'm very thankful for it), but you seem reluctant to support or oppose during its third FAC. I'd really love it if you say yes, since I have someone to refer the article to when it runs into some sticky points. At the same time, I'm sure you'd like to see the article achieve the star. You don't have to, though. Cheers Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a very kind invitation. Has the article settled down a bit? IIRC, there were concerns at the last FAC about a lot of back-and-forth editing (though that was on particular tech details & refs rather than drastically changing the article). I'm also a little concerned about "spamming" the FAC people with a fourth request so soon after the last one. Do you have any other articles lined up for FA? I'd be happy to help with any of them... bobrayner (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty close; Northrop YF-23 had passed MILHIST A-class review and McDonnell XF-85 Goblin at the moment has three supports at its MILHIST ACR. For the former, do you mind criticise it as best you can? Fnlayson just wants it to be polished before he agrees to be a co-nom for YF-23's FAC. Cheers! 10:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, will have a look at it and try to look for any possible flaws/improvements. I'm not familiar with wikipedia's conventions for military aircraft, but maybe an outside view would help... bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Aug 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at LGBTQ_symbols#Genderqueer_symbols, you may be blocked from editing.

Iamiyouareyou (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it appears that you may have a single-person-bias. Befor you take out the content again please start a discussion of the disputed content on the talk page and add this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed-section to the section. Iamiyouareyou (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have misunderstood what "disruptive editing" means. Repeatedly adding non-notable, made up content is more disruptive than removing it. I have no doubt that you are passionate about your flag images, but wikipedia is not the place for them until they are actually widely used in the real world. If you are unfamiliar with our policies on notability and verifiability, I (or somebody else) will happily offer further advice on the talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well one person having a dispute against a singular piece of content always looks/reads like vandalism. Especially when said person never adds a Discussion to the talk page explaining removal of content. So I did that part for you Talk:LGBTQ_symbols#Disputed_content_.28Gender_Queer_flag.29

Iamiyouareyou (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify a couple of points:

• Removing blatantly unencyclopædic content is not vandalism; it is a Good Thing. Please don't accuse good-faith editors of vandalism.
• I did start a talkpage discussion - two weeks ago. You didn't reply. Instead you just hit the "revert" button to add cruft back into the article. The article history is quite clear.

I understand that wikipedia policies can be complex and daunting so it may be understandable that you're not familiar with several of them; and I'll cheerfully forgive the confused wording if English is not your first language. However, I must ask you not to lie. bobrayner (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cadence Industries

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cadence Industries. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maersk Triple E class

Hi Bob. Best of luck with the GA nomination. I pondered reviewing the article myself, but it felt a bit like a COI for me. I do have some notions on the article that you can take or leave as you see fit:

• The specifications list seems a bit out of place. It largely repeats whats in the infobox, while the information isn't discussed in the text. I'd recommend converting it to text and distributing that to the appropriate spots in the design section.
• Recommend moving the CG image to the top of the infobox
• Not sure if the lede currently fully summarizes the text per WP:LEDE.
• I have an inkling that the orders and market sections could better be combined into a "History" section.
• the "two days longer" factiod seems questionable to me. I ran the numbers using distances between ports for Singapore to Gibraltar and got a 5-day-difference. I understand it is WP:V, but it seems odd...
• I wonder if customizing an image like this might add something to the article...

Again, best of luck with the process and let me know if you need anything. Regards. Haus^Talk 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All good points; thanks for your support and suggestions.

Re: your last point, there's a similar comparison image here; I was thinking of modifying that. However, I don't have a good silhouette yet (the ones on Maersk's flickr page are not ideal).

bobrayner (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey Bob. I took a swing at the lede - feel free to use it or not as you see fit. I have suffered through other editors "helping" during the GA process and understand it can give one the vapors. :) I think in re the diagram that the E-class silhouette would be close to indistinguishable from the Triple-E. Two more things occurred to me while I was playing with the lede: the first is that I think there are hyphenation issues (if I recall correctly, it would be "the Maersk Triple E class", but "Triple-E-class ships"). The second is italicization: if it comes up, the reason it isn't italicized can be found here. Cheers. Haus^Talk 00:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is where I start disagreeing with you :-)

• The Triple E has that quirky forward superstructure / aft funnel arrangement, unlike the E class; and that also implies some differences to the facilities for containers upfront (compliance with SOLAS visibility rules); and it's also claimed to have quite boxy lines compared to the E class' notably fine lines. The choice of twin skegs presumably makes a difference to the silhouette at the stern, too. There are surely other differences which haven't been reported on. Therefore I would not feel comfortable just "reusing" an old silhouette even though those comparisons are just eyecandy rather than being a serious analysis of the design.
• Personally, I preferred having the picture in the body next to the photo of her older sister, allowing a bit of comparison; however I appreciate that most people would prefer to have a picture in the infobox. No biggie.
• As far as hyphenation is concerned, I doubt either of us wants get involved in that religious war, but I'd be happy to follow what sources say, where possible. A Manual of Style is a valuable thing but I'm wary of changes to articles to suit some internal wikipedia standard which take them further away from what sources say. (Taken to an extreme, we get cases like British Rail Class 70; a locomotive introduced 12 years after British Rail stopped running, but people felt that "All our other articles on older trains have titles like "British Rail class X...", so it had to be given a name which simply doesn't exist in the real world. Surely an encyclopædia should describe reality faithfully, rather than shaping it to fit internal conventions).

I don't own the article and I'm not terribly worried that you'll undermine my claim to a GA scout-badge. If you want to improve it - and you have surely made good improvements so far - fill your boots! bobrayner (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Advance Centre for The Scotson Technique

Here are some articles that mention the Advance Centre for The Scotson Technique

• in the Reader's Digest http://advancecentres.blogspot.com/search?q=readers&x=0&y=0
• in The Times http://advancecentres.blogspot.com/2009/02/linda-scotson-mentioned-in-times.html
• in a Hungarian newspaper "Hope for brain damaged children" http://ujszo.com/napilap/regio/2008/08/01/remeny-az-agykarosodott-gyerekeknek?mini=calendar/2008/09/all&
• on Radio 4 http://advancecentres.blogspot.com/2009/10/linda-scotson-is-guest-on-bbc-radio-4s.html *
• on BBC TV and radio http://advancecentres.blogspot.com/2009/06/marathon-test.html
• on ITV http://advancecentres.blogspot.com/2010/09/itv-have-two-reports-on-advance-centre.html
• in The Autism File magazine, an authority on Autism http://advancecentres.blogspot.com/2011/02/linda-scotson-writes-article-for-autism.html
• on BBC TV and radio http://advancecentres.blogspot.com/2011/08/makeover-day-gets-plenty-of-media.html

Are any of these articles good enough to allow the entry to be reinstated? Johnalexwood (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reji

Hi, Bobrayner. Thank you for your contribution. I'm not expert on the economy. When you have time, could you improve the article Kararname of 1296 ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I added it to my list; thanks for pointing it out.

• Be wary of using "Kararname" (or kanunname) in isolation - there will be thousands of different documents referred to with that name.
• Do you have any good sources?
• Do you want to expand it far enough for Did You Know? If so, we have 5 days to write 1500 characters...
• I still have a long to-do list - I wrote {{Taxation in the Ottoman Empire sidebar}} and most of the bluelinks, but there are still a lot of redlinks left. After that, maybe the Byzantine economy...

bobrayner (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 In progress bobrayner (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Flags

Re your recent removal of flags from various lists of railway accidents, I've raised the issue at WT:TWP as the recent RfC did not come down against the use of flags in this way. Your comments are welcome there. Mjroots (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me.

There was a pretty clear consensus at the RfC; six opposes and zero supports for your proposal to permit thousands of little flag pictures in lists like this. Other people's proposals got much better support where they encouraged the removal of flags from lists. I cannot square this with your description of the RfC.

• I'm not sure why you started a thread at WT:TWP after earlier saying "I've no problem with mass removal after the RFC closes should consensus be that the flags are to be removed". Personally, I think there was a pretty clear consensus; the proposal to allow this kind of flag use, emphasising the nationality of non-national items in lists, was unanimously opposed.
• I've no intention of removing every little flag picture from wikipedia; I'll just remove the ones which satisfy three criteria:

1. They're ugly, distracting readers from relevant article text;
2. They unduly emphasise nationality (a minority are actually false, misleading, or anachronistic);
3. They violate the consensus formed at the RfC.

If a new consensus is formed over at WT:MOSFLAG in future, I would go along with it. Would you? bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review

Hi Bob, I'm reviewing Maersk Triple E class right now, so, could you review one of my GANs in return? RAH-66 has been nominated for a few months already. Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly; it would be a pleasure. (I'm very busy at work but could start in 48 hours, if that's OK with you) bobrayner (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

 In progress bobrayner (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

List of rail accidents (2010–2019)

your WP:MOSFLAG changes to List of rail accidents (2010–2019) have been reverted. Perhaps there is an overuse of flags, however the country name is important to the article since it identifies the country in which each accident occurs. If you wish to remove the flags, please replace them with the country name. Thanks, Truthanado (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassador

I responded on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediation request to be closed

Since there has been no discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking in several months, and the mediator who accepted the case has, per his talk page, apparently chosen to leave Wikipedia. I will close the listing after 22:00 UTC on September 2, 2011, unless someone edits that page to ask that it be left open. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

BS 1363 - Counterfeit Plugs and Fuses

The subject of counterfeit plugs and fuses is a well established issue affecting BS 1363 and BS 1362 products.

The seriousness of the problem can be gauged from the references supplied in the counterfeiting section of the main article, as the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association says "Counterfeit electrical products can cause injury, fire and KILL!"

Please refrain from removing this section without discussion, and with no supporting arguments. Deucharman (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise on BS 1363

I've suggested an amended version of the much-reverted Counterfeiting section on this article; please take a look at the talkpage when you have a moment and pass judgement. Yunshui (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Bobrayner!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Global Education Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted. The steps you need to take now, a few things you need to read, are bolded.

When you get a chance, please add your username to the official list of Online Ambassadors and add a profile for yourself here (which helps match Online Ambassadors with classes in their areas of interest).

Here are some things you should know to help you get started:

The role of the Online Ambassador

The main role of for an Online Ambassador is to join the "pod" for one or more participating classes. The pod is the team of people helping a class of students contribute effectively to Wikipedia, consisting of the course instructor, the local Campus Ambassadors who will work with the class in person, the Online Ambassadors who work with the class online, and the Regional Ambassador for the pod who will check in periodically with the pod to make sure everything is going well.

A prototypical pod might look something like this:

• An instructor who is fairly new to Wikipedia, leading a class of 20 students assigned to make significant contributions to new or existing articles related to the course subject.
• Two Campus Ambassadors, one of whom is an experienced Wikipedian and one of whom is new to Wikipedia. The Campus Ambassadors will have gone through a training program on the basics of Wikipedia and how to help students contribute effectively.
• Two Online Ambassadors, one moderately experienced on Wikipedia and one very experienced, who can answer basic questions and give good editing advice and find others to help when they get in over their heads, one of whom has a particular interest in the subject area of the course.
• One Regional Ambassador, a moderately experienced Wikipedian who is working with 15 different pods spread across a big geographical region.

(That's an idealization, but it gives you an idea of the spectrum of people in each of the roles in the program.)

The expections for an Online Ambassador in a pod (and what you can expect from other pod members) are laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between pod members. In short the role of the Online Ambassador is to:

• Help students in your class(es) when they ask for it, answer their questions, and generally watch out for them
• Help students to get feedback on their work (whether from you or other editors an interest in / knowledge of the subject area)
• Be a good example for students, modeling good wiki communication and editing practices
• Communicate regularly with the other members of your pod about how things are going and problems are coming up

To join a pod, go to the MOU signup page, which lists the courses for the current term, and leave your signature in one of the Online Ambassador slots for the pod you want to join.

You can also help as an Online Ambassador outside of your role as a pod member, anywhere you see students who could use help. Feedback on the substance (rather than style and formatting) of student articles, in particular, is always a need.

If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup. The latter is the main help channel for the program, where students and instructors come from time to time in search of live help.

Wikipedia Ambassadors are expected to follow the Wikipedia Ambassadors Principles. Please review them.

Communication channels

There are three main places for news, updates and discussion about Wikipedia Ambassadors and the Global Education Program:

1. Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors
2. The Ambassador Program announcements list, which all ambassadors should join. It is a low-traffic email list that is only used for significant announcement that are relevant to the whole program. Please sign up as soon as you get a chance.
3. The Wikipedia Ambassadors Google Group, a discussion list shared by Online Ambassadors and Campus Ambassadors. It's not required, but it's strong recommended and most of the ambassadors are on it. Request to join the Wikipedia Ambassadors Google Group if you would like access.

Newsletters about the program, or messages for Online Ambassadors particularly, may be delivered to your talk page on occasion.

Thanks for volunteering as a Wikipedia Ambassador! If you have any questions, please let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Communication, Leadership, and Entrepreneurship

Hey there,
Thank you so much for offering to help me with this semester's course!! I sent a message to the students with your name.
I truly appreciate it! Starvinsky (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries.

I've watchlisted everything (including students' talkpages &c).

Are more students likely to sign up? bobrayner (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity.

My76Strat (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind of you.

At the moment, I think I could do a fairly good job, but I'm not sure I could pass the interview ;-)

That's not necessarily a dig at the interview panel; the community knows best, and I'm not sure my CV is as good as some expect. Several projects are keeping me busy (on-wiki and off-wiki), and the on-wiki ones are hopefully improving the encyclopædia so it would be selfish for me to drop them just to chase a mop. After those projects are done, I'd happily ask for the extra buttons. Does that sound reasonable? bobrayner (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

• Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
• Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
• Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

African highway PROD

Yes, fair enough. But I don't see a deletion proposal; guess you'll create one. Tony (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Narrow Gauge Down Under

If you still want to get rid of this I suggest AfD. It does not look to fall into any of the speedy delete criteria. Personally I would like to see Wikipedia have more articles and good coverage of periodicals, rather than getting rid of stubs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yellow Muddah, Yellow Faddah

I see that you've nominated Flavescent for deletion. What do you think about Fulvous, which seems to me another likely candidate, being essentially a dab page (with dicdef) consisting entirely of partial title matches, since none of the things named in the entries would normally be called "a fulvous". Deor (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In principle, I would agree. However, Fulvous has a lot more content, and even if that list of yellow birds doesn't change the fact that it's a dicdef in my mind, it's likely to influence a few !voters at AfD. We'd probably get a result like "Turn it into a dab instead of deleting". Nobody would actually put in the effort, though, so the article would continue to be a mess. So, I don't want to AfD it - but if you want to try, feel free! bobrayner (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity.

My76Strat (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your second invitation is flattery indeed. I will probably consider RfA later in the year (see my earlier reply).

In the meantime, I take a marxist stance; I wouldn't want to join any clique that would accept me as a member.

Thanks; bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I knew I wanted to send this message to you, I somehow missed that I already had. I do hope you've seen the essay, because in my assessment, you are without doubt, an ADMAN. My76Strat (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Color template revisions

I'm somewhat confused by your revisions to remove "improperly sourced colour blocks" from the template. As far as I can see, none of the colors on any of the templates have any sourcing at the template or the template talk page, and the template lists absolutely no requirements for sourcing. I then thought you were removing the colors that are up for AFD, but the first two examples I checked -- Isabelline (colour) and British racing green -- aren't up for deletion, and the sourcing on the articles appears to be fine. It also seems weird that these articles are included in the categories for Shades of Color but not on the templates for Shades of Color. At a minimum, I would suggest that if you have a standard in mind that articles must meet to be included on the templates, you should amend the templates' documentation to state this standard, because right now it's very unclear to this editor why these colors should be excluded. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

• I was unaware that anything shown to readers was exempt from sourcing. If we don't have a source for the RGB values in the target articles, why do we show a template full of RGB values to the encyclopædia's readership?
• For colours whose RGB values are not known, I'd be happy with other forms of navigation which don't involve made-up values; and those forms of navigation are still being preserved (we still have categories, "Shades of Brown" parent articles, &c). If any other navbox exists which does not present made-up values, I haven't touched it yet, and I would happily coexist with it.
• I'm using a fairly low threshold for sourcing at the moment; even where the RGB values in the target article were made up by somebody looking at a box of crayola, or they differ from an external source, or they differ from List of Crayola crayon colors, I've taken them at face value for now.
• On a different point, the template design is a bit clunky (after adding or removing any entry, it seems necessary to renumber all subsequent entries three times over) and I plan to fix that when I have spare time. This would be a change to the machinery, not to the appearance. Do you have any suggestions on template architecture?

bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If I understand what you're saying, you removed the colors from the templates because the specific RGB values shown for those colors in the infobox are not sourced in the respective articles. Is that correct? If so, that makes sense, but I don't think that was adequately communicated by the edit summary "removing colour blocks which are not properly sourced", nor do I see that the templates' documentation indicates that for a color to be included in the template, the RGB value must be properly sourced in the respective article. I have no objection to that standard, but if you intend for that to be the standard, it should simply be stated in the template documentation so that it's possible for others, like myself, to understand why those colors are being removed.

I agree that the template design is pretty awful, for the reason you describe (as I encountered when I removed some colors awhile ago because the linked articles weren't actually about the colors). Unfortunately, I don't know much about the complexities of template construction so I don't have any ideas for how to improve it. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotta go with Sparkle on this one. The point of the template (or any template) isn't to represent color values, the point is to link articles. For example, you removed Burnt sienna, a common shade of brown, from Template:Shades of brown. I have reverted your edit on brown Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK; I'll stop these template changes for now. (There are plenty of other colo[u]r problems to fix anyway) bobrayner (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

NNU class project

Hi Bob -- thank you for your help with the class project! It's probably the biggest one I've ever seen. By the way, don't forget to add these to your sandbox page.  :) All the best, Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey bob, I should have mentioned earlier that many accounts are also in this form Thanks for your helping attitude.--My76Strat (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Any new good-faith editor who wants to improve content in wikipedia's weakest areas is worth their weight in gold; so we have several tonnes of gold here. bobrayner (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project

The content from your subpage has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project. We are preparing a notice to direct student and teachers there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please add your name if you like to the list there. We could also use some advice on connecting articles with students there, as you have done at your subpage. And thank you again for starting the list. It has been very useful. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding you name to the list. One of the course instructors is chatting on irc right now in a channel we have set up for this project. If you would like to join, that would be fine. You can use the link on the template we intend to add to each user page. Right now it is only on the one teachers page until we work out any bugs. User:Njnu-ban-xueshenghao Maybe we'll see you there soon.--My76Strat (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. I'm busy at work and can't IRC at the moment; maybe later in the day. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Help on ruling

I believe the admin "Kuru" is made a very serious mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LardoBalsamico_reported_by_User:Sillystuff84_.28Result:_page_protected.29 I've been trying to engage on his talk page. Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He has all but admitted his mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuru#3RR_or_4RR.3F Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Guanqian Street-help request from NNU student

--NNU-11-22100515 (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)I'm a student from Nanjing Normal University.I've written an article on wikipedia.Cause this is the first time that I have written an article on wikipedia.Would you like to look at it and give some advice? Thank you!

OK. Nice work! I will look at Guanqian Street and make some suggestions on the article talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

anthropomancy

You'll find plenty of good sources in G Books. I shall add them if you don't, but you could have easily done it in the first place instead of prodding. In general, first look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. "no sources" is not a reason for deletion. "no sources after 4 years" just means nobody has yet done it, so you have the opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add sources; that would be helpful.

The first few results in Google Books seem to refer to Julian the Apostate - who had been removed from the article some time ago (by others), over reliability concerns. More generally speaking, the first search results I got were based on Julian the Apostate, or the current version of our article drawn from that unreliable source, or passing mentions in indiscriminate lists (including Gaule's Magastromancer). And, of course, Herodotus, who is not exactly reliable on the quirky cultural practices of foreigners. Is there credible evidence that antropomancy was ever practiced at all?

Still, you removed the prod. It's only for uncontroversial deletions; if you disagree and can find reliable sources for anthropomancy as a method of divination (or perhaps rewrite the article so it's about an obscure myth about a method of divination), that's fine by me. bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

North Korean famine

As the article notes, agriculture in the DPRK was heavily dependent on imports from its communist trading partners, especially the USSR. While it had those imports, there was no famine. When the trade network collapsed and it lost the imports, then there was a famine. The specific trigger was its sudden trade isolation (and yes, whatever decisions led to that isolation), and not some vague "mismanagement" that hadn't been a problem for the previous 30 years. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Famine in North Korea has a long history - going hand in hand with government mismanagement. Have you read this?

• "land belonging to Korean landlords and Japanese colonialists was seized and redistributed to the peasantry during 1945–46. This land reform was accompanied by a dramatic fall in agricultural output"
• "Following the Korean War, North Korea’s agriculture was collectivized ... The country experienced food shortages"
• "In response to food shortages in 1970–73, the degree of centralization of North Korea’s agricultural planning was intensifed"
• "The same year, 1987, the government initiated several somewhat contradictory policies in the agricultural sector ... led to ... a reduction in crop yields"

Statistics of food imports actually suggest a massive increase in the proportion of food imports as aid during and after the famine - and reliable sources also show that the government has gamed the system to affect the "aid" that it gets.

To conclude: North Korea has been hungry since the dictatorship took over; the level of hunger depends on issues directly caused by the dictatorship, such as abysmal productivity, input-intensive agriculture, the irregular availability of those inputs, inefficient logistics, ecological damage, and even isolation from some donors (although other donors continue to be very generous). bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Also: When government policies cause erosion which exacerbates (or even, according to one reliable source, causes) flooding, and when government policies make industries and infrastructure more vulnerable to that flooding... is the flooding truly a natural disaster? bobrayner (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I award you the Civility (Tutorial Friendly) Barnstar for helping me over Wikipedia FRYugoslavHero (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)