User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 1
Devilly
Hi Bob, You added a citation to Devilly for this statement: "Since then, NLP has been regarded with suspicion or outright hostility by the academic, psychiatric and medical professions"[1]. What I'm looking for is some evidence to support the statement directly. It could be a poll or a statement from a professional organisation. Devilly does not say anything specific about the attitude of health professionals towards NLP in particular. There may well be some evidence for this claim or a similar one in the literature. ----Action potential discuss contribs 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done: the page you are fretting about has made it to Wikipedia Review. Best 86.182.169.210 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
121.102.47.39
- Railroad in Afghanistan
Afghanistan has almost no railroads. So a change of gauge is not really possible.
But you are right, 121.x.x.x always has a tendency to sneak his speculations or his preferences as facts into various articles. Favorites are conversion of electrification to 3kV DC, change of gauge to broader gauge and correllation between race and electrification system.--Bk1 168 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks like a collection of weird obsessions. When I have spare time, I'll review [2]
- Have fun!
- bobrayner (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nordic People want to convert to 3kV DC, while Alpine people and Mediterranean people want to convert to 25kV AC. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Argentina (gauge and voltage)
Argentina will use 1435 standard gauge and 15kV 162⁄3Hz.
- rolling stocks: French TGV Duplex with 15kV 162⁄3Hz engine (from Sweden?)
121.102.47.39 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your speculation does not make sense. TGV Duplex rolling stock already has an "engine" (power car), which typically takes 25kV AC or 1.5kV DC. Reliable sources say that Alstom will supply rolling stock, not "Sweden". Sweden is a country, not a rolling-stock business, and the Swedish government did not bid for this work. I have not seen any evidence that 15kV will be used - do you have any evidence?
- If you are passionate about railways then there are many ways in which you could help improve railway articles on wikipedia. However, speculation & fiction will not help (this has been pointed out to you many times but you do not appear to have responded).
- bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Danish measurement
- Danish foot is 355.6 mm
- English foot is 304.8 mm
- Swedish foot is 297 mm
Danish foot is larger than English foot. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Gibraltar Strait (OK)
There is some likelyhood that a Gibraltar crossing would use standard gauge if it were built and if it became a railroad bridge/tunnel. But you are right, it is still speculative and you can argue that it is right to revert it.--Bk1 168 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments!
- If it is built, I would agree that standard gauge is probable. But not certain; to the north, the nearest rail infrastructure is Iberian gauge. Also, this project is unlikely to be built soon - maybe in 50 years we'll be using maglev or monorails or dogsleds. Therefore, I think it would be WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL to label the system as standard gauge without any caveats - especially since we don't have any good sources. Does that make sense? If you really want to include it, I'd happily compromise on text like "Likely to be standard gauge" or "Expected to be standard gauge" or "Gauge choice is likely to be influenced by..."
- bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really care too much, if it says "standard gauge" or not, but it is better not to say it. But I do have some concerns that our friend 121.x.x.x is putting his statements into discussions and articles over and over again and just repeats them instead of providing any evidence. (nordic-race-stuff, conversion to broad gauge, conversion to 3000 V DC and some stuff like that are his favorites)--Bk1 168 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Food miles
You seem to have got mixed up between food miles and jobless recovery in this edit. I've (effectively) reverted your edit, but your edit summary suggests that you genuinely intended to make improvements to food miles, so you may like to go back and make whatever changes you meant! --Blisco (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- That must have been a copy-and-paste error on my part. Thanks for fixing it!
- bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Template
Does this edit mean that I should stop using the {{Nowrap}} template? If so, please change the WP:NBSP guideline which recommends Nowrap. Art LaPella (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think {{Nowrap}} is safe. There were several changes to that article by different people, and I think there was some problem with a different change, inside the {{Taxobox}} template - it caused errors when the Taxobox was displayed in both my browsers. Sorry if I undid any other good changes - I was in a hurry, it's not good to have errors on a front-page article.
- Don't worry about {{Nowrap}} :-)
- bobrayner (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Recession and Illegal Immigrants??
You removed and said US-specific anti-immigrant rhetoric (*illegal* immigrants take most of the jobs? Really?)) Ok, then where is your facts? I provided 3 cases, where is your rhetoric information? If you can not supply some facts I will undo your removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh explaint anti-immigrant? Are you an anti-immigrant expert? Do you have specific facts on anti-immigrants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
RE this, please explain how you define "consensus". Looking at the talkpage, all I can see is a giant mess involving half a dozen possible approaches, further disrupted by logged out trolling and general misbehaviour of agenda-driven editors. There are a few pov-pushers on the page who make a habit of saying "we have consensus, see above" every five minutes in an attempt to stifle the discussion. There is not in fact such a consensus, and these accounts just try to disrupt any bona fide considerations of viewpoints they dislike. I find it rather difficult to make up my mind about the best course of action in this situation, and the tags you removed were placed in good faith to reflect the ongoing debate on talk. --dab (𒁳) 14:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hi!
- By "consensus", I was thinking of a strong majority of people commenting on the subject: 109.84.236.47, LONTECH, ZjarriRrethues, Sulmues, BalkanWalker, bobrayner, Hobartimus, Kedadi, 109.84.199.76, 92.74.20.221, IJA, Enric Naval, Mareklug, and Canadian Bobby. (I have tried to limit this list so it only includes those who made comments opposing the split before I removed your split tag. Also, I did not include Brutal Deluxe, as their comment might have reflected historical activity rather than personal opposition).
- Rather than deal with the broad opposition - what Sulmues called overwhelming consensus - you complained repeatedly about "a pile of Albanian patriot IP addresses", socks, trolls, and so on. This is unfortunate. Even if you arbitrarily discount non-logged-in users, most appeared to oppose a split.
- I was reluctant to remove the tag, and only did so after several editors explicitly said that the tag was inappropriate. This, too, is visible on the talkpage.
- Of course, I won't sideline you as a troll or a sock, tell you to piss off, or accuse you of a personal attack simply because you disagreed with me. I'd like to maintain civility. If you have some good points to make about the article, they would be welcome.
- I think it might be best to keep further discussion on the article talkpage instead of on my talkpage, especially since other users there have shown concerns about your behaviour.
- Have fun,
- bobrayner (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Vote
You should explain in few sentences your vote. Idea is that we dont need to ask for your previous words in TLDR talk page. And anyone CAN comment, but only in its own space. --Tadijaspeaks 13:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Tadija!
- Thanks for your comment.
- Apart from your proposal to remove votes that you don't like, is there any other reason to believe that the result of this vote will be different from previous votes? There was quite a big discussion recently; you commented on it.
- If TLDR is a problem, why did you create yet another poll and insist that people add comments above and beyond their votes? The subject has already been discussed, at length, repeatedly. That is why the talkpage is so long.
- It is unfortunate that you haven't explained your apparent attempt to manipulate the vote. There was a very recent vote which went against you; you sat back and complained that wikipedia is not a democracy. Now you suddenly propose another vote - and you intend to disqualify other people's votes if they fail criteria that you just invented. If you can "win" the debate with superior arguments, I would welcome it; but instead you're trying to win by changing the rules to suit you.
- bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was great. Now your vote is completely useful. Next stage of the agreement will start in few days, after we get all votes from previous users. And Bojan was noticed also, i just talked to someone else in the meantime. TLDR is just one of the numerous problems. This vote is just to have all related users and their opinios regarding only this subject, and no infobox, or anything else. Thanks, this is only way to have proper consensus about this important subject. If you have ANY question, or problem regarding subject, please, talk to me, and i will try to help you as good as i can! All best! --Tadijaspeaks 14:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
NCDane
|
|---|
ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LATIN ALPHABET ONLY IN ENGLISH WIKI PLEASEAnything other than entitled above is as I put it earlier: A shitass insinuation useless to virtually all of the article readers, almost none of whom know a single Cyrillic letter (or a single Arab consonant) I have nothing against either the Russian or Arabic languages and speakers per se. But those Russian, Arab and other foreign language speakers who mutilate English language articles are only getting what they deserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NCDane (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
Railway gauges
|
|---|
Trans-ContinentalUS and Canada should convert from 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge to 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV AC electrification before they have their high-speed trains. Russia wants the railway networks in Canada and the United States to convert to broad gauge. Spain and Portugal should convert from 1668 Iberian gauge to 1435 standard gauge. Spain, Portugal, Nigeria and Mexico want Bombardier JetTrain. Spain wants 1435 standard gauge rail link to Nigeria via Gibraltar Tunnel. Proposed gauges:
58.138.25.31 (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
North America US and Canada should convert from 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge to 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV AC electrification before they have their high-speed trains.
58.138.25.31 (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC) dual gauge / variable gauge
58.138.25.31 (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC) AfghanistanAfghanistan should choose 1676 gauge, as in India and Pakistan, with very large loading gauge and long curve radii and relatively steep gradients. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Proposed rail tunnels:
220.210.143.190 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC) BrazilIn Brazil, 1600 network should convert to 1435 due to sleeper coaches are not available on the 1600 tracks. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC) Bering crossing and AfghanistanFuture (not current) break-of-gauge points:
220.210.143.190 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
220.210.143.190 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC) US and Canada should be converted to 1676 Indian broad gauge before they have their high-speed trains, while Mexico should retain 1435 standard gauge. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC) US and Canada should convert from 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge to 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV AC electrification before they have their high-speed trains. Mexico should retain 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge. FERISTSA will choose 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge. I'll send emails of US, Canada, Spain and Portugal to UIC within this year. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Afghan North-South Corridor See Rail transport in Afghanistan#North-South Corridor Details:
220.210.143.190 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Proposed for north America US and Canada should convert from 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge to 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV AC electrification before they have their high-speed trains.
I'll send emails of US and Canda to UIC within this year. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC) |
.JPG)
copyedits to Veracruz
Thanks for the copy edits... Im good at expanding articles but lousy at editing....Thelmadatter (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. There's lots of good content there; you've done a good job. bobrayner (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I've done some editing/talking there, not sure if I'm needed or wanted at the cabal's mediation--please let me know if I can be of help, I'm kind of surprised to see it come up. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi,
- If you're part of the disagreement, or if you just want to help, then feel free to contribute.
- There might have been other related disagreements. Looking at the article history, I think I can see some serious ownership problems, but that is not the subject of the mediation request at the moment.
- Thanks,
- bobrayner (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Concensus vs. Authoritative source in matters of Encyclopedic and neutral content
Can you please revisit wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United_States_Senate_elections_in_Illinois,_2010 based on recent discussions and further disputes?
It would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Ejmarten (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Mediation Cabal Case - VHEMT Article
As the Mediator (Bobrayner), what are your thoughts about officially closing the Mediation Cabal Case - VHEMT Article? And, am I supposed to post that question anywhere else (i.e. VHEMT Article Talk Page)? "Please" advise.
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Mexican High Speed Train
Yes the Priestmangoode company is only a design company but i believe Siemens was persuing the Mercury design. They (Priestmangoode and Siemens) jointly presented it as Siemens participant in Mexico's high speed train bid and it got the most attention, especially after Siemens said it was interested in having the trainset manufacutured in Mexico (Siemens already has other non-train realated faclilties in Mexico). Their is track currently being built (more like being refurbished really) in Monterrey and it's been on the news a bit because the project was stalled during 2008, but Televisa and Azteca have both said that it's still going through. 69.235.193.67 (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that? Any sources would be helpful.
- Refurbishment of old track in one city is a very different thing to building a new national HSR system. I found a reliable source saying (in 2009) that local passenger rail improvements were planned in Monterrey.
- Did the Mexican transport ministry actually open a tender? If so, this would have been published, but I haven't found anything yet.
- Some of the other comments did not appear to make sense; for instance the idea that the Siemens/Priestmangoode design had not had orders elsewhere. This would be logically consistent (but unencyclopedic) if you accept the design as a one-off by Priestmangoode, but not true if you are claiming that it's a real Siemens design, as Siemens' main high-speed rail product has been a sales success (and even the subject of a recent order in the UK). Anyway, there is no mention on Siemens' Mexico page.
- Priestmangoode's design was set in the UK, not in Mexico (it was also claimed to be the first double-deck train in the UK, which is false). Who said that it would be used in Mexico?
- bobrayner (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources, please? My understanding was that the Suburban commuter railway (which is genuinely being expanded) was a suburban commuter railway, not a national high-speed network. It uses CAF suburban rolling stock, not fanciful Siemens double-deck HSTs. If there is evidence to the contrary, I would happily change my mind :-) bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry im not that knowledgable about that. What has been on the news this last month has been that sectors of the commuter network (the suburban train network) are being closed to convert them to the high speed network which will connect to guadalajara, im actually a bit confused and frustrated about this myself. And about the Priesmangoode design, what happened is Siemens original tender in the competition was the Velero, however it was given little interest due to lobbying by the Japanese with the E5 which at that point seemed like it would for sure become the winner. And Priestmangoode is only a designer so the need an actual manufacturing firm if they want their concept to come to life. They tried to interest other firms in Britain with the design but that didnt go anywhere. The Mexican transportaion secretary had already stated in the very beginging that a double decker system was preferable and since Siemens Velaro was pretty much already out of the compettition Siemens took back it's tender. Siemens then jointly (with priesmangoode) presented the concept to the Mexican transportation secretary that it could jointly manufacture the double decked Mercury design. But what really is the main aspect of why Siemens bid will probably win is because they are wiling to have the rolling stock fully manufactured in Mexico. This was in the July 2008 issue of Ferrocarril. In the end no real progress was really made in the final selection because then the Japanese and the French gave the same offer of manufacuring the trains in Mexico after Siemens came up with the concept so we still have to wait till 2011 to find out who wins :/ 69.235.193.67 (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Stabilisation Unit
I'm sure this is a notable topic, the problem was that all three versions, as you suggested, infringed copyright by pasting from the site. The content was also surprisingly spammy for a government site. You have nothing to beat, so go for it (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Stabilisation Unit created. Hopefully I can rescue it from the death-spiral of three speedy deletions.
- There's lots of good sources but all have similar focus, so it might be hard to get it to GA; having chatted to the SU themselves, licensing restrictions may make it difficult to get extra text or images to give the article a bit more "depth".
- bobrayner (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Orgone
In the Orgone article, go to the reflist at the bottom, and click on the link for item 13 (the ref you just restored). The site is rigged so that if a link comes from Wikipedia, the site opens an anti-wikipedia page instead of the actual target page. If you copy/paste the link into your browser, it does not do this ... but because the site has rigged itself to redirect all links that show they originate from Wikipedia, the link becomes unusable as a ref note, and a new source is needed. --- Barek (talk) - 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- See also WP:ANI#Vandalism on Free space? where the site has been discussed. --- Barek (talk) - 15:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's odd; it might be browser-specific. I got identical pages following the ref either way using Chrome on my work PC; lest there was some cookie weirdness afoot I tried on a fresh machine at home, also with chrome, and still haven't seen the anti-wikipedia site. So I haven't experienced the redirect, but you plus all those folk at AN/I can't be delusional! :-)
- If the owner of aetherometry.com is pulling that sneaky trick with http referrer then they may have shot themselves in the foot; I can only assume they'd want their own beliefs (on the cited page and others) to be more widely read, but they've just hit on a sure-fire way of getting themselves uncited from wikipedia pages. bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have chrome on another system, but will be several hours before I can test it. I'm wondering; does chrome not list the referral page? Or, possibly, do you have any add-ins which might be masking the referral page? I can view the intended target fine if I copy/paste the link, it only seems to be an issue if I click the link within a Wikipedia page - although, I haven't yet tested clicking the link from other referral sites ... I can post a link on some dummy sites and verify if the referral issue is specific to links from Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk) - 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I responded on WP:ANI#Vandalism on Free space?, might be worth continuing there rather than fragment any discussion across multiple pages. Redirection seems to "work" for me in IE and Firefox, not in chrome. Might be specific to the browser or just some quirk of my personal config, doesn't really matter which. Sorry if I wasted your time! :-) bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have chrome on another system, but will be several hours before I can test it. I'm wondering; does chrome not list the referral page? Or, possibly, do you have any add-ins which might be masking the referral page? I can view the intended target fine if I copy/paste the link, it only seems to be an issue if I click the link within a Wikipedia page - although, I haven't yet tested clicking the link from other referral sites ... I can post a link on some dummy sites and verify if the referral issue is specific to links from Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk) - 18:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
ACS-64/Cities Sprinter
I got no problem with that; I'd just based the title of the article I wrote off ones like China Railways HXD1 or Korail Class 8200. There's also titles like EMD AEM-7, or just HHP-8, so since there's no consistency with the titles, I just went with how the other EuroSprinter varients were named. C628 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. I'm no authority and I certainly didn't imply any criticism! :-)
- I should probably have queried it on the talkpage first. However, I shamelessly coped over a lot the content you wrote; it was really good and had a couple of sources that I hadn't stumbled across - nice work. Hope you don't mind. If there's a good case to move it back (ie. turn Cities Sprinter into a redirect) I wouldn't mind.
- bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Help in Interaction box
Hi. Re: your sentence at VPR: "I think it would be better in the top box, which is currently called "Navigate"". Two points:
- The top box doesn't have a name/header in the (default) Vector skin. In the Monobook skin, the section is called/titled "Navigation". ([3])
- The idea behind the split of content in those two sections is: links that lead to encyclopedic-content are in the top ("Navigation") section, whereas links that lead to meta-content are in the second ("Interaction") section. Hence I would suggest that moving the "Help" link into the top section is not a good idea.
You might want to amend your initial comment at that thread. (It's fine to change your comments, if noone has replied to them yet (and I don't count ;) ) HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oh! That was a silly mistake (I rewrote the RfC text with a couple of different windows open, and not enough caffeine). Thanks for pointing it out. bobrayner (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo again
WhiteWriter is trying again to gain a consensus on Kosovo to split the article. Unfortunately the discussion has become a case, where the vast majority of supports are from Serb editors without a single argument[4]. When I pointed out that users without a conlict of interest have rejected this proposal about a month ago I got this reply [5]. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Thanks for letting me know. I haven't looked at the Kosovo article recently; it just got so tiring having the same disagreements over and over again, with very dubious tactics.
- Be careful not to WP:CANVAS people who would support "your side" in a vote - that would be a bad thing.
- Thinking of wikipedians in terms of their national origins may be unhelpful here - it's part of the problem, not part of the solution! :-)
- I'm very concerned about some of WhiteWriter's diffs.
- bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't canvassed and I wouldn't object any consensus-based decision but this isn't even a discussion. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Elimination
Is it time to get rid of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Weymouth, destination from London Waterloo
I was a little surprised that you could give me the courtesy of explaining why you asked "since when is Weymouth important".
Well Weymouth is the terminus of the SW Main Line for a start. Weymouth and Portland are hosting the 2012 Olympic Sailing events. The Borough of Weymouth and Portland and the surrounding villages has quite significient traffic to London.
As a compromise, I am happy to delete Dorchester, but really feel Weymouth should remain.
Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- My main reason for reverting was to fix the infobox. I used an edit summary, as did other editors, that pointed out the broken infobox, but you don't seem to have noticed that (which explains the tone of this comment). Instead you reverted my edit and broke the infobox for a fourth time, but another person has since fixed the infobox for you.[6] Hopefully the current version is something that we can both live with, since it doesn't have arbitrary text removed which buggers an important part of the article (which matters to me), and the text mentions Weymouth (which matters to you). The strange red text at the start of the article, and the missing infobox, and the edit summaries used by other people cleaning up your mess should have been a clue. If you can avoid breaking the article for a fifth time, or at least acknowledge that you've broken something before hammering the "revert" button, I'm sure people will be much better disposed to your future contributions. bobrayner (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I have rarely seen such arrogance. How dare you comment on what other people think (Ie: "better disposed)
Suggest you stay in your Castle in the Air.
David J Johnson (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't follow me round posting personal attacks.
- If you have some source which explains why Weymouth is important, feel free to add it to the Waterloo article or mention it on the talkpage.
- If you are so shocked by any challenge to your hobbyhorse that you respond with ungrammatical personal attacks in random locations (ie. on the talkpages of totally unrelated projects), or if your editwarring repeatedly introduces a serious fault to an article which you don't even notice because you only care about adding the name of a small town, then wikipedia might not be the best place for you. Alternatively, there are plenty of other articles that need improvement, and if you'd like a hand writing on any other subject, I'd be happy to help.
- If you'd like to discuss the Weymouth thing civilly, try the relevant talkpage. If you want to learn more about the basics of how wikipedia works, click on "Help".
- bobrayner (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
As I've previously said: you are totally arrogant. Just drop it. David J Johnson (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010
Hi Bob, You worked on trying to assist in settling the dispute over whether or not to include certain candidates in the infobox here. Well, a similar dispute with several of the same users has come up on the Illinois gubernatorial election, 2010. It is becoming increasingly frustrating to deal with certain editors who will not adjust their rationale despite repeated points to the contrary. I have reverted edits twice today which are disruptive and do not plan to exceed this reversions today. I would really appreciate your help with this.--TM 19:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thanks
for the reply. I Didnt even realize that it was a template map... that should be easy as pie.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kosovo again
[7] I don't even know how many discussions in a row will be started over and over again. Btw he's claiming a 8-to-1 consensus about the split, which is apparently an attempt to create a false consensus effect.---— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- May I make a suggestion?
- I am sure that you are approaching the suggestion in good faith, and we both agree on one specific subject that WhiteWriter disagrees with, but... at the end of that epic comment, WhiteWriter acknowledges the "nationality" problem and the conflicts of interest. So it might not be a good idea to push WhiteWriter too hard.
- Forging a consensus is like forging a banknote; if you just draw a banknote at home for fun, there's not much harm, but if you try spending a forged banknote in a shop to get something that you're not entitled to, you won't get it - instead you go to prison. If a "forged" consensus was used to support a controversial change in article-space, it would probably get reverted quickly.
- Right now, it's just on the talkpage. People who oppose the change have said that they oppose it; what else can be gained by addding further comments? They won't change anybody's mind, and instead feed more debate. I don't think that there is much to be gained by adding to yet another TL:DR thread. People get very involved in that talkpage; just relax a little...
- However, I'm just one person. My opinion is worth no more than yours or whitewriter's - you can take it or leave it. :-) bobrayner (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Are you thanking a hundred different !voters, one by one? Then you are truly ready for the sisyphean task of an administrator.
- I'm sure you'll do a good job; have fun. bobrayner (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Good Garage Scheme
Hi Bob. Thanks for chipping in at the Afd, it's not a cut-and-dry case and appreciate the extra eyes. What do you make of the recent additions? I have suspicions, but in the name of AGF, I'm looking for a second opinion. The new refs seem to be implying that this is a government-backed program, but from what I've seen so far, it appears to be a customer loyalty scheme. Maybe I'm way off base here, would appreciate your take. The Interior(Talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll have another look.
- Re: the "Ministry of Transport" thing: In the UK there is a system of annual checks for road vehicles which is colloquially known as "MOT"; which took its name from the former Ministry of Transport (ceased to exist around 1981) which originally mandated the checks (ensuring that brakes and lights still work, &c). These checks must be done by an accredited tester, so some (accredited) garages might call themselves an "MOT centre" - but not "Ministry of Transport Centre" - that would imply far closer government involvement than is actually the case, even if that ministry had not been replaced three decades ago. The "MOT" system is now overseen by the Vehicle Operator Services Agency. You're in Canada? I couldn't find a counterpart on the Transport Canada website but many developed countries have a similar system of periodic vehicle checks for safety, compliance, emissions &c which generally need to be performed by some official or licensed expert. Anyway, back on point, I really want to assume good faith so I'll assume it's just eccentric wording rather than a deliberate attempt to feign government connections.
- The other mentions of government schemes look plausible but I think they're about a scheme, not this scheme. I'll check the citations. It may be appropriate to change or remove that wording if they are not entirely relevant to the GGS. bobrayner (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Panama Canal closure
This still smacks of recentism to me, but perhaps it should be mentioned. I'd like to see better sources on both the history of Canal closures and the damage to the bridge, though. Please don't take my reversion as a rebuke; rather, I'd just like to see the details better cited. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, multiple sources say it's the only Panama Canal closure of any kind since the American invasion; so I'm sure it would not be recentism to set aside one line of a 64k article to mention the closure, given that it's sourced and neutrally phrased. Would you prefer different wording?
- Your reversion also reintroduced old text on a different subject which had gone unsourced for over 2 years; was that intentional? Do you intend to add sources for the old text, or re-delete it?
- Your edit summary seems to been accidentally mangled - I'm unsure what "dispositive" might mean or why it requires a Press Association reference to be removed, and your comment on the Centenario bridge seems to have been accidentally truncated.
- If you'd like an alternative source for the Centenario bridge closure, try this or this or this.
- Is there anything else I can do to help? bobrayner (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- As an aside, that previous text about hydroelectric power seems to have been unsourced for over five years! A different earlier version had a source but that link is dead now. There's not much to be gained from such archaeology, though. It can't be hard to find a current reference to confirm/deny the comments about hydroelectric power... bobrayner (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Trou du cul++
- Following people around to post sneaky abuse won't help your point. Quite the opposite; it may lead to you being unable to edit wikipedia.
- I'm guessing this is about orgone. What do you want to say? What source are you using? If you have difficulty expressing it in English, I'll try to help. bobrayner (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Tom Therramus
Regarding source - correct that Therramus not economist - my bad. However the sources are publications at the energy bulletin.com and the oil drum.com - two respected sources. Also the hypothesis not an unsubstantiated opinion - but based on a data - Figure 8 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6025. This chart actually looks substantive compared to the speculations on causes of Black Monday offered elsewhere in the wiki - which for the most part are opinions i.e., no data given in support.
Hello Bobrayner
I must congratulate you for keeping track of this Vandal,User:Medicineman84 on the Ghana article,i have been having problem for a while with him blanking Ghana's GDP PPP section in the infobox and acting as the owner of the page,do you know he even warned me on my talk page to STOP EDITING the Ghana page...,welldone Bobrayner,you are the best,i like your stand on the page,thanks Earlymen (talk) 04:29,24 December 2010 (UTC)
Accept this
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Welldone for your work on the Ghana page. Earlymen (talk) 05:03,24 December 2010 (UTC) |
You can transfer this barnstar to your userpage if you want.Earlymen (talk) 05:03,24 December 2010 (UTC)
hi bobrayner, just to let you know I reverted the Wings Hauser page back to your edit. There is much vandalism on that page and seems to go unnoticed for lengths of time. Anyhow thanks for your vigilance there. Happy New Year. Koplimek (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Do restaurant reviews count as "significant coverage" of the reviewed restaurants?
FYI, I started a thread on this question at the Notability guidelines. --Lambiam 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Before calling something OR
Before calling something OR you should check if it is or isn't. Javalizard (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please stop calling M*R where R is sometimes 20 and sometimes 100 original research. changing numbers in the same equation to show how the equation works IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. stop calling it that. Javalizard (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Showing how an equation changes as you change the variables is the best way to show how an equation works. I am not happy that banks can relend like this but it is intellectually deceiving to not discuss reality. You can call it OR, or unsourced, or what have you but just because you delete the section doesn't make it not true, original research, or unsourced. I have addressed each of your concerns as you have deleted the section, despite my calls for you to take your uncalled for edits to the talk page. What's next? Javalizard (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
DYK nom: Hainan Eastern Ring Railway
If you have a better hook, please feel free... Anna Frodesiak (talk)
Kosovo
After failing multiple times to gain a consensus now Alinor decided to make changes that he considers as a status quo[8], which incidentally is similar to the pre-ICJ decision of the article and against the current consensus [9]. Btw now Alinor started another discussion about the same subject[10].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome to comment. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |