User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 5

Flowcasting? Really?

I just had to respond to your comment about Supply Chain Forecasting and the unchallenged mention of flowcasting.

I have worked around supply chain software for 20+ years and never heard of it until today. Unadulterated crap, I agree.

Thanks for all you do. 71.202.175.28 (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No; thank you! You opened the door to all this.

It's a shame. A lot of our articles on business processes &c could be really valuable - and they're exceptionally important in the modern world - but they just don't get as many editors as, say, articles on popular music or sports. Content is improving, but Supply chain optimization now is at about the same level that Pokemon reached in 2004. If you'd like to stick around and make a few improvements, that would be very much appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, just may take you up on that. You have a very nice user page BTW, inspiring since you mention working as an IP#... like me. 71.202.175.28 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you know the subject and if you respect sources, you could make some big improvements. If you need a hand with anything, just shout! bobrayner (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your comments, appreciated, but not sure about "IIO may well have done other bad stuff," - I hope that was hypothetical? Seriously I know you're a sensible chap so if you have a specific example, please tell me. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

• It was hypothetical. Alas, I haven't had time to keep track of all the latest diacritic-related drama; for all I know you're either an angel or a disruptive monster in areas where I'm not looking! I know you've pushed firmly on some points in the past, but so has everyone, because it's a rather polarised topic. Anyway, in that particular case which is being discussed on the AN/I drama-thread, I think contradictory rules are the problem, not individual editors. Criticising individual editors for favouring one rule over another is just going to burn goodwill, it's not going to solve the underlying problem. Also, it would not be fair to "fix" the contradictory rules by picking one editor's favourite and changing the other existing rules to match it.
• So, discussion and consensus-building are the best way forward - and banning an active editor from the discussion would mostly serve to skew the debate and embitter those on the "losing" side. I'm not a fan of partisanship - I'd measure anti-diacritic editors against the same benchmark. Editing restrictions should be left in the toolbox until somebody is actively disruptive/deceptive (for instance, an editor who moves lots of articles, creating redirects from the old names, then edits the redirects to make their fait accompli much harder to undo).
• RMs are a good thing. We've evolved beyond the stage where editors would go ahead and move lots articles themselves despite knowing that other editors would disagree. The community is at the head of our constitutional framework; all our rules on spelling and naming came from community discussion; RMs are a chance for the community to discuss a move.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks - I think - well I herewith in bytes give you my notarised assurance that I'm not a disruptive monster when you're not looking (gnash gnash!!), so I hope folk will realise your comment is hypothetical. As far as RMs, yes I agree, which is why I've sent some like Talk:François Lotte via RM to check the mood and confirm that only tennis/hockey are really controversial. There may be a case for amending WP:MOVE to say "all adding/subtracting accents to titles by anyone must pass via WP:RM". I'd support that, for one thing there are so few missourced/misnamed bio stubs left it's getting very difficult to even find them. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

btw edits the redirects to make their fait accompli much harder to undo - Is that what this is? Or do you mean something else? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know about Chau van - it doesn't look good. No, I had in mind somebody else who edited rather a lot of redirects, systematically, to prevent lots of BLPs being moved to a more accurate name, and they got banned for it - there was a dramathread on AN/I last year, I think. I can't remember the accountname offhand. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't watching, was it EllenoftheRoads blocking Dolovis for hockey redirects? - I don't really understand how editing a redirect creates a block. It isn't just Chau van, if it is what you're talking about then it'd be all 180x in the last 4 days -- to secure own moves which is a bit silly as apart from the music, cuisine and culture ones no one was questioning the moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Response about Global Automakers

WWB Too responded to you here. Silverseren^C 01:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done bobrayner (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Apu The Simpsons

I have created a redirect just for you. Redirects are cheap. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty unlikely that most people would follow that shortcut. I note that your naming argument relied on readers using the right punctuation... but that redirect doesn't. If you're including bracketless variants we would also need shortcuts for Apu (the Simpsons), Apu (The simpsons), Apu (the simpsons), Apu The Simpsons, Apu the Simpsons, Apu The simpsons, Apu the simpsons, Apu (simpsons), Apu Simpsons), Apu simpsons), and multiply that by 8 thanks to whatever other combinations of spacing and punctuation are required by readers' attempts at guessing enwiki's internal naming conventions. (I see you've already created some redirects; I took bluelinked ones off the list). None of them is as natural, or as commonly used, as Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. bobrayner (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Mali Status Quo Ante

Can I ask how you identified the status quo ante map on Mali? I've obviously been in the dispute, so if you could consider this an academic question, with regards to the principle backed up by the example of Mali, that'd be great. Thanks, CMD (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that map was used for a long time pre-dispute? Am open to corrections through. (I previously did one other revert to a different map, IIRC, so you could consider that latest edit a self-revert if you like as it's not the one I'd prefer. We'll get the "right" map once consensus is clear on the talkpage :-) bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, I would be happy to self-revert-self-revert back to the state of Knowledgekid87's latest self-revert, if other people prefer! bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. The orthographic map has been in place for ages. However, it didn't include Azawad for ages, Azawad not existing and all that. An initial addition and dispute on commons ended with talkpage consensus (on commons) that it should be included with explanation. This is the first time (bar a couple of ALL CAPS rants about wikipedia supporting terrorists) that it has actually been discussed on the Mali talkpage. I've just seen annoyed in the past seeing some user come and edit war in a change, then having it settled in (either due to their claiming their first edit wasn't a revert but that you're at 3RR promoting the edit war, or due to an unrelated user completely in gf holding it at their change) because they force a no consensus on the talkpage, which theoretically maintains the status quo, but which they've obviously changed. (Obviously take anything I say with a grain of salt, as I've been quite involved in this.) It's a bit weird that there was a jump straight to RfC without any prior discussion for commentators to refer to, but I'll place my opinion there soon. CMD (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

On orthographic maps, the convention to have them in the infobox came into place before I started editing, but I think it makes sense. Having this allows the reader to place the country under discussion in context. Probably almost all people with access to wikipedia know the basic shape of the world, but may not know what smaller areas look like, making a location on the world map more universally helpful. It also doesn't reduce the information for anyone with better knowledge. Anyway, it's the standard at the moment, although there are a few exceptions. (Some countries don't actually have an orthographic map, and a separate consensus developed to show European countries on Europe maps instead.) CMD (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline

I write to complain about this edit you made. It is very important that biased information based upon whatever somebody dreamed up over coffee is preserved in the GSK article. How are we going to have any fun if we have to stick to sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Sorry for spoiling your fun!

If it's any consolation, there are still about a quarter of a million articles with no sources at all, so there's still plenty of room in the playground. bobrayner (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

gGot a question -can we set up a list of obscure countries in the campaign page to check off once we've checked them? All of S America, Africa, most of aAsia etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought of doing that initially, but there's not a 1:1 map between countries and articles so it could encourage us to finish with a set of false-negatives. Hopefully, with extra eyes on the problem somebody will find more articles hiding in the nooks & crannies... well, as long as people understand that ticking ArbitraryCountry off the list means they've had a look around for other potentially-affected articles too (ie not just the Arbitrary Navy, but also the History of the Northern Arbitrary Special Gendarmerie article), then a checklist would be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Tomb of David IV of Georgia

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	“ By the way, the owner of this account has died and won't be bothering you any more. The party's on Friday, bring a bottle" ” — bobrayner Arcandam (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not humour, it's realism! My thinking is that any actions post death are for not the benefit of the deceased, but for those left behind. I would, therefore, ask to be buried underneath a dancefloor, or possibly a urinal. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It made me laugh though! I visited the Gelati Monastery, and read that David IV of Georgia ordered to be buried under the stone inside the main gatehouse of the Gelati Monastery so that anyone coming to his beloved Gelati Academy stepped on his tomb first. Arcandam (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, those wily Bagrationids! Gelati sounds like an interesting place to visit; layers and layers of history. bobrayner (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was there a while ago, my government disrecommended travelling in certain parts of Georgia at the time because of the war but it was awesome and much safer than traffic in Amsterdam (I have a bike). I recommend it very strongly, but not to everyone, some people prefer Disneyland. Arcandam (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely not a Disneyland person. Thanks for your thoughtful suggestion! bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What's probable?

I'm learning stuff today. What's "improbable" here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming a child "Bridget" (rather than, say, "Birgitta") seems unlikely in 14th-century Norway. Do you have sources for those names? bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No child in Scandinavia has ever been named "Bridget" to my knowledge, including Bridget of Sweden. So what? This isn't a Scandinavian WP it's English WP. Do you oppose using phonetic empathy in editing here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot fathom why you are so keen to change a Scandinavian child's name to Bridget, if "no child in Scandinavia has ever been named "Bridget"". This is supposed to be an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And why would you want to use "Knud" which no one will be able to figure out how to pronounce in English when there is an English name form available? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Do sources call him "Knud Porse" or "Canute Porse"? bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the point, of course. I don't think there are any in English at all. Not uncommon for lesser known Scandinavians of hundreds of years ago. If the English court knew of him then, which they well may have for 10-30 years or so, I'm 100% sure they called him Canutus or Canute because learned people in charge of languages have always created and used exonyms in the interest of smooth speech and smooth reading.

Me thinks you did not use the link above re: phonetic empathy. Please do, if you wish to "fathom", and before you enter the fact that you "cannot fathom" into a cordial, constructive discussion like this! Please, Bobrayner! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

facts v theory

Hi. I say your post on the Free Market talk page. I'm wondering what you meant by your statement that facts or theory does not matter. Are you making a serious comment? If so, please explain. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

COI guideline

Thanks for commenting. I've been trying to round up a posse for a sustained effort to improve the clarity of the guideline. If you're interested in chipping in, I'm hoping we can tackle one little problem at a time and make some kind of real progress over time. What do you think? Too ambitious? ;-) User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. An incremental approach sounds good. What's the driving force? Is there uncertainty/vagueness (seems quite likely), or have there been COI problems which didn't get caught by the existing guideline, or is it driven by an angry thread on one of the drama-boards? I hope it's not the latter, because anger never leads to good rulemaking. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's been a lot of activity on the issues related to CREWE, CIPR, and the RfC from ArbCom. I commented on the Arbcom RFC saying the current COI guideline was fine, but now I've seen, heard and read more and I'm starting to see what's so baffling.

I think part of the problem might be that we try to present all majority and minority views on an issue that the community has different perspectives on, rather than compromising in order to create clear instructions - this creates contradiction and complexity. We need to be clear about (a) policy (b) good advice (or at least what's good advice in most cases). But the COI guideline itself is such an intimidating beast, it's a big challenge to take on. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are good points. Will try to help. bobrayner (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Uk events

it needs to be removed but when i remove it it just comes back, i agree it is not radio times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nickelodeon_%28UK_%26_Ireland%29_Events http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_%28UK_%26_Ireland%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkknight101 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambodian Navy

Oh, I was thinking of the one during the 1953-1970 regime. Yeah, the current one doesn't belong there.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Have fun! (Do we have a separate article for the old navy?) bobrayner (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Data Warehouse

Hi Bob Rayner,

I have responded to your response and edit to my changes to the Data Warehouse page. I have read through the guidelines posted at Wikipedia, and do not see how me listing my new Data Warehouse Schema which is fully documented and peer reviewed with supporting white papers is violating any existing rules. I am not selling anything on my Spider Schema Blog and there is no advertising on it. I have nothing to gain financially from sharing the Spider Schema with other Data Warehouse Developers, Data Modelers, and Architects. This schema is currently being used at over 6 different organizations today, and is peer reviewed by Microsoft Database developers and has been posted at the MSDN Microsoft SQL Server forum. MHargraves (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Therefore all I am doing is introducing a new Schema to the world, of which if anything your edits and deletions of my posts are preventing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHargraves (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

MHargraves (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

en.wikipedia is not a place to introduce new stuff. If it's widely accepted/adopted by third parties, do you have independent sources? Where are these white papers and peer reviewed docs &c? bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob Rayner, can you please show me where it is posted on Wikipedia that only older, and widely accepted and adopted by third party articles or information can be listed on Wikipedia? I understand that the information must not violate a copyright (of which I have on my Schema) and is verifiable by my website which is a blog with no advertising and is open to the world for comments. Lastly my site pages are white papers. They have been used over the last two years in the industry (real world data warehousing) to document the Schema. MHargraves (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't link to copyvio

How is a reference[1] a copyvio? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary may have been inaccurate - there are a lot of different places where Global Vision are cited (some with a link, some without) and it's a thorny problem which spans three separate flaws - copyvio, circular sourcing, and WP:RS. The root cause is that the publishing house appears to be a systematic copyright violator. Every book from that publishing house which I have checked has turned out to include unacknowledged content from enwiki (which is copyvio and a circular sourcing problem), and/or from other sources (which is copyvio and suggests that they fail WP:RS). Therefore, the entire publishing house is listed at WP:MIRROR; I cannot envisage any situation where it would be a good idea to cite a Global Vision book. However, it is usually fairly straightforward to find the original source that they copied from. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please.

Hi Bobrayner, you recently edited the article Muhammad Iqbal, thanks for it, but I cannot follow or draw the exact meaning of your edit summary, I see only removing of 2 references, what do you mean here,"copyvio".Though I am the main contributor, but the references have been taken from old version of the article and cited to the content without checking again. There is a lot of work to do, nevertheless, please explain a bit so that I would understand and learn more.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Solipsism

You recently removed this source from the article on Solipsism because of copyvio/circular referencing. Could you elaborate on it? The book does not borrow from wikipedia to best of my knowledge and I don't see where the copyvio is occurring. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

See the section above; the entire publishing house appears to systematically copy from en.wikipedia and other sources, so they are listed at WP:MIRROR. I have checked quite a large number of their books and found unacknowledged copyvio in every case. I do not have a copy of this particular book but it strikes me as very unlikely that this one has been diligently written when all the others seem to have been copy & pasted. Sometimes circular sourcing is nonobvious because their content is a snapshot of an older version of our article, which has since improved. Where their book copies from a non-wikipedia source, it generally only takes a minute of googling to find the original (it's easy to avoid false positives because you can search for whole sentences). bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I'll try to find a better reference for the content. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the hassle! Sometimes I wonder whether solipsists know something that I don't. bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I am still evaluating whether you really deleted the reference or if it was a creation of my own mind. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not Mark Hargraves.

http://BryantAvey.com

this is me..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.182.14 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob, Bryant Avey is probably not a true sock of Hargraves, but apparently someone who's worked with him; see this forum post. Studerby (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest we see if the policy links we provided sink in, but if it goes more than another round or to of revert, it should probably go to WP:COI/N for other editors to look at. Studerby (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK; good point about Mark/Bryant. However, I think there's been more than enough reverting already. Article content shouldn't be decided by which side hits the revert button fastest. Happy to go to WP:COI/N or even a relevant wikiproject &c...? Using an article talkpage is of course a good idea but it's very unlikely to stem the flow of reverts here. bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol - you single edit warring revert in a hot dispute without any discussion at all reveals you for the user you are - Youreallycan 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't help your case to make a dispute personal and wade into other random areas in pursuit of an editor you're ideologically opposed to. It really doesn't help. You should know that by now, Off2riorob/Youreallycan. "you single edit warring revert in a hot dispute without any discussion at all" is simultaneously incoherent and factually incorrect. bobrayner (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears you two are working together (Studerby,Bobrayner) to edit Wikipedia as you see fit. It is obvious to me; you are intentionally blocking content (as you revert to a previous version) without any real reason. I hope you get caught colluding together, and are not able to block information the world needs to see. MHargraves (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to publicise "information the world needs to see" before it's widely accepted elsewhere. Where are the peer-reviewed docs, the discussions by third parties, and so on? Is there any secondary sourcing at all? bobrayner (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

your claim of "lets stick to what the sources say"

diff - just to clarify - you no longer support your edit here as per your comment do you - ~ Youreallycan

What do you mean? I think we should stick to what sources say. Have more sources been uncovered which portray the subject as anything other than a criminal? Or have the rules changed so that BLPs should no longer reflect what sources say? It's not quite clear - what are you asking? bobrayner (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

ex convict - you are that additioner of this content and you have moved from supporting its inclusion in our discussion - do you still support it  ? - Youreallycan 23:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Of course I made that edit so I am, seemingly, the "additioner". What point are you trying to make? bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• - Talk:Stephen_M._Cohen#American_ex-convict - do you still support your addition regarding this discussion - Youreallycan 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Well, yes. If you think I've misinterpreted sources, I'm open to correction on that point. Or if there are new sources which paint the subject in a different light, that might affect content too. And of course if policy changes such that BLPs should no longer reflect what sources say, that too might mean that my edit should be reverted. But until one of those happens, I'm standing by that edit. Do you have any new sources, or a new reading of an old source? Sources are king. What are you getting at? bobrayner (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, yes. If you think I've misinterpreted sources, I'm open to correction on that point - you have failed to provide any sources that refer to the subject as an ex convict - Youreallycan 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have explained quite clearly in that discussion Talk:Stephen_M._Cohen#American_ex-convict linked to for you that started with the question - Is the subject described as an American ex-convict in multiple reliable sources? - please reply to this issue in regards to your disputed addition clearly - Youreallycan 23:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit without any discussion at all to Stephen_M._Cohen

diff Your single edit warring revert in a clear hot dispute without any discussion at all reveals you for the user you are - I would prefer it if you stepped out of the fray, and dropped any objection to your disputed addition being removed - seems reasonable - thanks - Youreallycan 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being hard on you - You came along out of nowhere without any discussion and made a single drive by revert - that single drive by revert without any discussion at all was the straw that broke the camels back - the article was fully protected soon afterwards - Is this a content dispute you are wanting to still be involved in? Youreallycan 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just edited the article once, in passing; I don't feel particularly attached to that article. How can I step out of the fray when the article isn't even on my watchlist? Is all this incoherent crap on my talkpage some obtuse way of saying that you want me to self-revert when the protection ends? Or perhaps you want me to go to the talkpage, put my hands up, and say "mea culpa, I shouldn't have added sourced content to the article, YRC knows best"? If you're trying to build a compromise, badgering other editors is not the best way to go about it; you might have to start afresh on that one. Ranting about editwarring is particularly silly, since I made a single edit and you were on 4 reverts in 24 hours. Does your one revert editing standard only apply in certain cases? bobrayner (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your contributions to Badger culling in the United Kingdom. This note is just to let you know that I've nominated it at DYK and credited you as co-author. All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very kind; but I've only made minor tweaks so far, and scarcely deserve credit. It's all yours. bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo lantam.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo lantam.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like another editor has updated the LATAM article with a newer variant of the logo (also FUR). Feel free to get rid of the old one! bobrayner (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was me! Cloudbound (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case: Well done! Thanks for your hard work :-) bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Need copy of "technical archicture" page (a deleted page)

Since the editor (Fastily) whose comment on the deleted article page has retired, I'm at a loss for which editor to contact to get a copy of this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technical_architecture&action=edit&redlink=1

My plan is to re-create the page without the copyright infringement noted, first in my User page. I'd like to do it without it being dependent on any particular software technology or a US-centric view, but getting something in its place that is non-infringing is important.

Thanks! rhyre (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'd agree that technical architecture is notable - it's something that we would need an article about. It's often possible to get a copy of a deleted article from an admin, but if the original content can't be reused, then working from the original may not be helpful. So, I think there are three options:

• Try asking another admin. Alas, I'm not an admin, but any other admin should be able to see the deleted content. However, restoring it (even into your userspace) is - arguably - a further instance of copyright violation, which would be a Bad Thing. I don't know the history - maybe some bits of the old article are clean.
• You could start a new article, from scratch.
• If you're not comfortable starting a new article from scratch, I could start a basic one, and you could expand & improve it.

Whichever option you choose, I've already watchlisted the page and could help with globalising it (have done architectural work but not in the USA). Also, if the original article was based on [2] then it may have been limited in other ways; describing a particular architectural methodology is only part of the story, missing out on usage, history, interactions with other fields &c even if we pretend there are no competing methodologies. It would be like describing a famous painting by describing what you see in the picture, whilst ignoring the artist, the commission, the history of the work, its current museum and recent exhibitions, auction or attribution controversies, how a certain pigment fades over time, &c. bobrayner (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sinanoğlu

I appreciate your good work. But Uncle G has asked me to step in, and it might be better if you let me handle it. These academic bios are my special field here, and I know how to get it to be what it should, an ordinary article. I've worked before on bios of academics under attack for one reason or other, and so far, my solutions have been always accepted. Please understand that though I disagree with one or two points of what you've said, I think your work there has unequivocally been in the right direction. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want Oktay Sinanoğlu, it's all yours; and I'm sure you'll do a good job. I just dropped in because it was mentioned on the noticeboard, but didn't get time to finish cleaning up the old one. In retrospect I think it would probably be easier to start from scratch, but that's your call... bobrayner (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How's your Turkish? bobrayner (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mine is good. I could translate the article from the Turkish WP but the stub is under protection. Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Postscript

Sometimes, when you disagree with somebody, they resort to ad hominem. It rarely bothers me; it just discredits that editor.
I spend a lot of time working on controversial topics with neutrality problems, and I'm a naturally disagreeable person anyway, so the ad hominems are more frequent for me. A couple of times a year I get called a nazi or a corporate shill. Less often, I'm accused of being in some skeptic cabal. I've been outed as antisemitic, a clown, and been made an honorary Albanian, and even an "apple" - whatever that means.
But wait! There's a new honour! I've just been outed as a member of the "superracist Sinanoglu Youth Movement in Turkey". This is such a proud day for me. It brings a tear to my eye. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish translation

Sorry for the intervention. (Not the one in 1974. :-) If any Turkish translation is needed E4024 is available; for this or other articles... --E4024 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your kind offer! I might take you up on that. I never learned much and am gradually forgetting most of it. If you have a high boredom threshold, I have some obscure Ottoman history articles which would benefit from better use of sources... bobrayner (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Send me a text and let us see what I can do.... --E4024 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

After giving it a second thought I'd better not translate anything about any empire or professor. Is there a sports text or a poem, something less controversial? :-) --E4024 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider working on something like Merdiban or Regie Company or Emin (Ottoman official) or Tersâne-i Âmire? There are lots of uncontroversial historical articles like that, which could be expanded & improved by using more Turkish-language sources... bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wide Awake

Hello Bobrayner, how are you? I was passing by the "Wide Awake" article as I noticed all information on synopsis or history, which I don't understand the reason why. You said the reason was the text was too big for a synopsis, but I think it's important at least to have a small part of the article that introduces the music video's story. Or we could just keep the original text which was perfectly-written and sourced. Expecting an answer. Pedro João [talk] 11:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. It was an 800 word synopsis for a few minutes of pop video. Some of the symbolism seems to be sourced to things like Tumblr. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopædia article, not repeating some random blogger's interpretation of every scene of a music video. bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling. KarlB (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Luis Miguel Nascimento suggestion for deletion

Hello Bobrayner, I'm editing the Luis Miguel Nascimento wikipedia. Luis is my friend and ask me to do it. Luis is a tennis professional coach and have a long career since 1980 until today. I'm still working with him to put all the information together and find references. I saw that you suggest this article for deletion. Can you tell me what kind of thing should I change or add? Thank you in advance Best Regards --Miguel Boavida (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Explain

Explain why you haven't deleted the rest as well with rabbit zodiac and a few others you have forgotten as to your opinionated facts. Just keep the summaries as to the Western Zodiac has kept theres as a useful tool for both, unless delete all summaries from Western Horoscopes and Eastern Zodiacs. If you don't there is no point of using summaries for Western Horoscopes, unless Wikipedia is not to be trusted to use only Western Zodiacs instead of Eastern as a sign of prejudice against of other information, otherwise keep the info.--GoShow (...............) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If you can point out fiction and pointless fluff in other articles, such as in the "western" zodiac I would be happy to remove that too. It's not an excuse to add it to more articles. bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then please, REMOVE the summaries from the Western Horoscopes to make it even, If you haven't forgotten, otherwise if you haven't I will have to or keep the summaries of characteristics for the Eastern Zodiac.--GoShow (...............) 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're going to add crappy content back into articles because there's similar content in other articles? bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Crappy is it, as to assume to delete BOLLOCK bull beep book sources from Western Horoscopes, I would watch the mouth, but if that is your way of settling things, just cool man, I will just add the summaries, back to the articles, nothing else that is all . End of edits.--GoShow (...............) 18:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am going to try at least put a section of Characteristics for the Chinese zodiac signs for any use of purpose to edit. The will summary eventually can build up for more info if needed, as usual.--GoShow (...............) 18:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by a confirmed user

What has to be done in cases like this? --E4024 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

• Strictly speaking, edits like that are not vandalism, although there is a grey area. It's more like a serious neutrality problem. A single edit like that is easily fixed; no harm done. If the problem continues... it's harder for us to deal with long-term POV-pushing, which is endemic in Balkan articles. RfC/U sometimes works for pov-pushers, but it's not a quick fix. More likely is that a user keeps on pov-pushing and keeps on getting reverted, long term, until either they get bored of being reverted, or they simultaneously annoy several more respected editors and an AN/I thread builds up enough momentum to lead to a ban/block. That's not a textbook solution, but it's my experience.
• If you think a particular edit (or series of edits) is a problem and if it's harder to fix - or if you think an edit war is likely - the article's talkpage is usually the first place to start discussing the issue. There is also a noticeboard which specialises in national and ethnic disputes, which is helpful too.
• If you do find real vandalism, any editor who vandalises can be taken to AIV - it doesn't matter whether they're an IP, or autoconfirmed, or whatever. However, very complex/difficult vandalism cases might be better discussed elsewhere, such as AN/I.

Sorry for the delayed reply! bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. No sorries please. I am sorry because I am taking your (and some other experienced users' time/s) because I still do not know well how to fight vandalism in WP. I am also sorry because I gave you a link which was live, thus its appearance changed, so I am now adding a stable link to a previous edit. Maybe you did not see the word "corrupt". I am afraid this is something different than POV pushing. (I know that last one, because in my first days here I may have done similar things for lack of experience :-). All the best. --E4024 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK. I saw the "corrupt". It's still not vandalism. If somebody really believes that the empire is best described as "corrupt", then they have a neutrality problem, not a vandalism problem. Unfortunately, it is quite common for readers and new editors to assume that any "bad" edit is vandalism - we should make documentation clearer :-)

Sorry if this seems like legal logic-chopping. I agree with you that the edit is bad, and that it was right to revert that edit. However, if you found more edits like that and you went to a noticeboard saying "Please help me with this vandalism!" the first reply you would get is "That's not vandalism, go somewhere else". bobrayner (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good-bye. :-) --E4024 (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about this one now? --E4024 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You can think of it as a good thing: It's an obvious warning label, which says that "Edits on this topic from this editor may have serious neutrality problems". Dougweller has already replied to this editor. If in doubt, stick to what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RE:Reflinks/Youtube bug

Hello. Ahh, thank you for that, I'll keep an eye out. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bionovo

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/biotech/2012/03/bionovo-layoffs-isaac-cohen-hot-flashes.html?page=all

they let go approx 90 % of their staff, 45 to be exact of the 53, thus leaving 8 which is what I edited the page with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.150.31 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry for doubting you; but their site gave a much higher number and we do tend to rely on what sources say. Obviously it seems their website is out of date; thanks for bringing the new source. bobrayner (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Badger culling in the United Kingdom

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, User:S Marshall deserves all the credit for that one - I just made a few tweaks. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting a stop to that foolishness

Bobrayner,

Thanks for putting a stop to that foolishness. (i.e. the Thimerosal Controversy Talk Page 'hatting' edit war.)

Very appreciated.

All the best, sincerely, Seipjere (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just an important information

Pardon me sir, I'm a new user at Wikipedia and it's really interesting to me to share a little of my knowledge. Nevertheless, I received a message of you, sir, complainning about my methods and specially my signature in detriment of sources. I don't really know what you are talking about, the sources are all there. And once it is available the option to turn on your signature, I don't see any problem in using it. I read your comment very malicious and arrogant. I don't know what is your job in the website, but it seems like I have lost some 'points' because of it. I don't know for what this 'points' work for, but once it's for my reputation, I would like to get it back.

Graciously, Leo. (Brazil, july 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Porcaro (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Don't worry; you haven't lost any "points". Wikipedia is complex and we were all new users once; I certainly missed a few details when I first started.

• Please don't sign (using 4 tildes, ~~~~) in articles - for instance, on Gilvan Tavares or Walter Montillo. However, you should sign comments on talkpages - for instance Talk:Gilvan Tavares or Talk:Walter Montillo or User talk:bobrayner or User talk:Leonardo Porcaro. A simple explanation is that you "own" comments on talkpages and it's important to know who wrote what; but once you put something in an actual article it's everybody's - you don't own it any more.
• If you're keen to improve articles and if you care about sources, I'm sure you will do great work!

Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you a lot for the informations, Bobrayner! See you. — Leonardo Porcaro (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Another tip: You can line up comments on talkpages by using colons : for indentation and asterisks * for bullet points. Using these carefully makes it easier for people to read complex discussions. If you need any help with anything, just ask! bobrayner (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for motivating me into being a more substantial contributor to Wikipedia, and for having exactly the right attitude to encourage newcomers to contribute. Ritchie333 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ritchie, you're far too generous. (Also: We disagree on almost everything!) bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No we don't ! Ritchie333 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know

I just figured you should know: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's no biggie. I think this is a situation which could be solved with a few more editors/watchers, but that topic area is a little quiet at the moment. (I could revert again but that's not a real solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of India

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flag of India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Again. The ANI closed just as I was about to post the collapsed list of half of Fyunck's tennis ledes. But then MakeSense64 only cheerleads article space edits while concentrating on MOS pages. Interesting division of labour. Anyway, excuse me while I go outside with my spray-can and find some Polish grocer's shopfront to deface... In ictu oculi (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If we can remove dangerous political influences from vocabulary, we can change how people think! bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Jayemd - maybe urgent?

If you;re about, can you do something? This poor kid, having been bitten for unwikilinking redlinks, is now having his AmFootie stubs tagged for speedy as A7 ... so he's in a no-win situation. No matter what he does with them, he gets bitten. Can't unlink; can;t create article either. Can you comment at AN/I or something, and see what you can do to unmuddle this muddle? I'm going "off duty" for a while now, so can't keep running tabs on things. Pesky (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Have reffed and detagged one of the articles. Will look at the others. If content can't be properly sourced, it's got to go, and I will not criticise another editor for CSD-tagging an unsourced BLP (because that's really important work in its own right) but I suspect some of these could easily be rescued... bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This time an IP

(178.128.67.151) See Imia/Kardak please. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed now. If the IP does the same thing again, it's likely that they would get blocked by an administrator. Two admins are already there. If the problem persists with different IP addresses, the article might get semiprotected. bobrayner (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For your good work in WP environment protection

	This pet is for you (voluntary biocontrol agent)
	To say thank you for your efforts on pest control and protection of biodiversity... E4024 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Q re. Turkish names

Hi, even though you were not one of those directly invited to the Vietnamese names RfC I expect you've noticed it. Unfortunate that the starting, scare tactic titling, and canvassing of RfC was something of a gamed reaction to seeing undiscussed moves unsupported on WP:RM rather than a genuine poll of editors. Unfortunate or not that it has also been overtaken by the SPI. But I'd like to get a handle on whether those (canvassed or not) who oppose Vietnamese names do so also opposing European ones, or whether its the Asian aspect. You evidently know more Turkish than myself, so can you check please that my inclusion of Turkish names with East European in Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#Census box is truthful and accurate representation of where en.wp is. If it is I'll check here for an answer. It does seem to be from looking at various categories. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Human Potential Movement

Hey Bob Rayner, on May 7, you removed the entry on the Human Potential Movement about Herb Otto. Your comment was "looks like spam" How was including Dr. Otto's contributions to Human Potential spam?

Currently, the references in psychology text books are not inclusive of George Leonard, Michael Murphy, or Herb Otto. I would like to correct that misconception. You permitted mention of Leonard and Murphy. Why not Otto? How can I include reference to Dr. Otto in a way that doesn't look like spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyotto (talk • contribs) 22:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Blanking of FahrenHYPE

Your blanking of FahrenHYPE 9/11 is a violation of WP:BLANK. The guideline states:

If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion.

The guideline provides the following exemptions:

• Libel
• Privacy of BLP
• Copyright vio
• Incorporation into another article

The reason you provided does not qualify as an allowable exemption under the guideline. The rationale you left was "until somebody can come up with evidence of notability and proper sources..." Note that the article was previously Kept at a deletion discussion and represents a consensus which is still in effect. Obviously you need a new consensus--at AFD--to blank the article. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 11:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Your revert marks the end of the WP:BRD cycle and the start of an edit war. Note that you have failed to offer any discussion on the talk page and you are in violation of WP:EW. Continue and you may be blocked.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 11:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I made a single edit to that article; removing content which isn't properly sourced and which shows no evidence of notability. You have made two reverts. I am, therefore, disappointed to see you accuse me of editwarring. If you don't like editwars, take your finger off the revert button.
• Having actually read WP:BLANK, I realise that guideline hardly applies to my edit, since I redirected rather than blanked the article. Have you read WP:BURDEN? It's a policy, rather than a guideline, and it's very much relevant here. It says "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source". Unfortunately for the edit that you want to make, the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". If there are any other policies or guidelines that you're confused about, I'd be happy to help :-) bobrayner (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What made Richwales despair

Sorry if I am doing something wrong. I do this because I understand there was a tacit something between you and the good user Richwales who worked hard, in vain, trying to bring some objectivity to Turco-Greek related articles, until he left in despair. Therefore I guess I may ask some assistance from you, not in your admin capacity, but as a fellow editor, in this area of WP. There is a certain group of editors (I do not want to name nor put labels on any of them) that are working, mostly, to eliminate any positive reference to Turks in those matters and add as much anti-Turkish POV as possible in the same areas. Possibly they are not violating any apparent rules when they do that, but I feel if everytime I put a sorce it is either not reliable or not notable, while every source the others add is so, there is something wrong. And the worst thing is that I have to tackle this situation almost all by myself, because I understand people who feel like me have been intimidated and forced to escape. This means every time I make a revert, three different people (different in user name but similar in approach) revert me once each and I am exposed to possible sanctions if I insist. Whatever...

I am not a small kid who would ask older brother help to cope with other kids. I am only asking your help to step in as an editor and simply help me to edit, preventing to be the only reverter in many articles, of course only whenever you feel I am doing a correct edition. I will try to find other collaborators who would not let themselves be intimidated by this collective effort. Is it possible to face so many difficulties to be able to add a "proposed article" (red brackets) on hundreds of Turkish Cypriots assassinated (A.R.E.) in a planned campaign while the killing of eleven people of another ethnicity that died (PBUT) in a still not very clear social revolt is presented as a "genocide attemp"?

It is not about Turkish and Greek nationalism; it is about a better WP and I believe better means -among other things- "more just".

I could have reached you and others by mail but I believe that such a private channel should not be used for content issues in the "free encyclopedia".

A bit not very orderly, right? Just as I feel my inner peace is since I entered WP. Sorry again for disturbing you and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

• I'm sorry that you're feeling stressed. However, you are working in one of the stressful areas; lots of people have strong nationalist and religious beliefs, and there are other people with incompatible beliefs, so disputes and reverts are inevitable. The other 95% of the encyclopædia is quite calm and productive!
• I think Richwales is a fine editor but we have not worked closely together. He still seems to be editing; he hasn't left for good, he just got tired of one stressful area. This is normal, too.
• I'm not an admin. I'm just an active editor, with an interest in Ottoman history.
• If you need help with nationalist disputes then this noticeboard is usually the best place to ask. There are other relevant noticeboards too, like this one for neutrality problems. It's OK to ask for help from outside editors; we all need this help sometimes, but it's important to go to a noticeboard or a wikiproject rather than choosing an ally (which could be seen as canvassing).
• If you're going to be a more active editor, and you're going to do more maintenance work (fixing vandalism, adding maintenance tags &c), then twinkle might be a helpful tool. I use it a lot - it doesn't give you any new capabilities, it just makes some tasks easier.

Have fun! bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

HMAC

Apologies- I really do not at all understnd how to do this properly. I think earlier i saw some suggestions you made ((now i cannot find them...) Anyway: here is another edit - I tried to incorporate the suggestions. PLEASE ADVISE:

In response to the perceived inaction of the Horace Mann School administration and Board of Trustees and as an offshoot of the Processing Horace Mann group on Facebook, in June 2012 several alumni formed the Horace Mann Action Coalition (HMAC). The HMAC was created by alumni from many walks of life specifically to support the survivors of sexual abuse at Horace Mann and to pursue the goals and needs of those survivors. The group is in the process of becoming a formal nonprofit. HMAC is actively seeking an apology from the school to the survivors, an independent investigation similar to the one so adeptly conducted by Louis Freeh at Penn State, compensation for the survivors to address the need for appropriate therapy, counseling and healing and increased awareness and prevention of the scourage of child sexual abuse. The Action Coalition is sponsoring protests and activities in an effort the encourage the school to address the needs of the surivivors of abuse. The HMAC is a dedicated and committed group of concerned alumni who hope to restore trust, compassion and honor to their alma mater, Horace Mann School in Riverdale, New York.

--Nina626 (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)--Nina626 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from International Forum on Globalization, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! - I've teed up some works on Talk which cite the org and its big dang book, and a honkin' Google Scholar search. Just one or two added will be fine, but I'm sorta jammed for time right now. --Lexein (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries; thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sigma Omega Phi

You participated in a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sigma Omega Phi that was halted, pending an AFD result. The AFD is now closed, if you'd like to make further comment.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If the article has been deleted then there's little else that could be achieved on the CoI noticeboard. It's been deleted five times (two AfDs and three speedies), so if the problem comes back it would probably go directly to G4 or G11. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Talk:2007–2012_global_financial_crisis#RM_on_hold Smallbones (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Advanced Persistent Threats

Hi Bob. I noticed you removed references I made when adding content to this stub. The content now has no citations. Do you have any suggestions on a better way to reference the information? Most of the information came from PDF whitepapers published by Dell SecureWorks. I appreciate your help. Thanks! G J Lee (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Jayemd's talk page.
Message added 07:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The other side of the world

Update: I'm back. It'll take a while to catch up with various work, though...

Chinese Zodiac articles

Regarding stuff you removed from these articles, User:GoShow is restoring the information, minus what he or she feels is unreliable, and has opened a thread on WP:RSN here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for adding the flagicons to the dog breed articles; I saw them on Akbash Dog (you won't see it now; I removed it) and thought that they were meant to be there. So I just want to apologize for giving you trouble and know that I didn't know the details of WP:MOSFLAG. I removed as many as I could now, but I need to go offline until tomorrow. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 23:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. It's not a crisis! Have fun... (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 07:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I just like to apologize so an issue doesn't fester. ^{Brambleberry of RiverClan}_meow 23:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock

Reported again[4] your appointed sock stalker but you might want to ask for a permanent semi-protection of those articles.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 13:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I wandered over here as a result of a recent 3R on an article we have both been engaged with a bit Anti-Serb sentiment. Is there any chance this IP you are discussing is also operating ‎as User:212.178.241.161 (who has been doing all the reverting on that article)? I don't seem to be able to get them to engage on the talkpage and given they are from the same place thought I'd add 2+2 and get 5. Does it seem likely? Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe this editor has also used other IPs in that range; there also seems to be a behavioural correlation with another longer-term editor who has an account (not the Bormalagurski sockfarm, although there has been communication between the two people, if the editor is who I think it is). Unfortunately I'm away from home at the moment and all my internets are squeezed through very long thin pipes (hello from Swaziland!), so it's not really practical to do detailed analysis right now. Could we chat later about this? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 20:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Online Ambassador

Hi bobrayner! Are you interested in being the Online Ambassador for any classes this term? We've got a few classes that are looking for ambassador right now (Canada, US), so if you're up for helping any, please do! Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like me to pick a course for you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's one that might be up your ally: Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Controversies in Science Fall 2012 (Andrew Reil).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That course sounds great - you know me too well!

Sorry for the late reply - I'm on holiday/vacation. I return home on Sunday, and will start work then. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Flags and Same-sex marriage legislation around the world

Could you give your opinion here? 70.253.91.210 (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Alas, at the moment I have very limited internet access and a quick kneejerk reply to this question wouldn't do it justice. In a few days I will have more free time and will look more closely at it. Sorry for the delay! (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝuʎɐɹqoq 16:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (characters)

Can you improve this essay about naming a character? You said that it is redundant, so can you make it less redundant? I did add examples just to help readers realize that there is no definite or best way to name a character. Such guidelines do not exist because there is no best way. That is all. --George Ho (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

• Personally, I feel that en.wikipedia has a tendency to develop topic-specific interpretations of rules, which then get used as rules in their own right, but which may then come into conflict with our centralised rules; so I favour centralisation - we should stick to the main WP:MOS, WP:GNG, WP:AT &c wherever practical. (I could point out examples where a wikiproject, or at least an active editor in one subject, has developed their own guidelines on naming, notability, style &c which were incompatible with our centralised rules and which led to unnecessary wrangling). We do have naming rules such as WP:AT etc.
• Listing previous cases can be inherently problematic. If the previous cases were in line with our existing rules then nothing is to be gained by citing a list like that; if any of the previous cases were not in line with our existing rules then it's a net negative. And if people linking to that page in future discussions is a net negative, why does that page exist?
• Perhaps it would be possible to reframe the page in terms of what our existing rules do & don't cover? Also, it might be good to link to any relevant RfCs, village pump discussions &c since these are more likely to reflect a broader community agreement than, say, a naming decision made by an article's creator.

bobrayner (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've tried proposals in WP:VPP and WP:VPIL; proposals I've done fail to work. Even I've tried to rename/disambiguate Apu Nahasapeemapetilon to "Apu (The Simpson)" without avail. To you this page is redundant because any policy or guideline covers character naming. Nevertheless, sometimes, there is no best way. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing more to disambiguate, because Apu Nahasapeemapetilon is his actual name, and nobody else uses that name. "Apu (The Simpson)" is not a name used in the real world; it's just part of the actual name plus a misspelt string glued onto the end of it - and that string is an unlikely search term. All this is covered by our existing rules on naming and I'm unsure why Apu, or any other fictional character, ought to be exempt from that. Including the surname is a natural way to distinguish Apu from Apu Roy, Auxiliary power unit, and so on - if those didn't exist then maybe the article could sit more comfortably at Apu. bobrayner (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you want Fry (Futurama) to be renamed back to Philip J. Fry or Philip Fry, am I right? --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a more difficult one; I think his full name is used even more rarely (although I haven't watched every episode, maybe it's an unrepresentative sample). "Philip Fry" might have some advantages in terms of accuracy (and avoiding gluing our own bracketed suffixes onto the names of subjects); but if he's very rarely called that in the real world, it has disadvantages too. Other people might disagree on this point, though. bobrayner (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples are my best methods. I do not summarize policies or guidelines because... I already briefly mentioned rules of WP:AT, didn't I? Moreover, why would summarizing policy overcome examples that makes rules not easy to follow? Anyway, any other difficult case besides Coach Ernie Pantusso? --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wessely

I think the link to the ME website is completely fine and reliable. Really think worth including - Have a look YellowFratello (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

A note

Just wanted you to be aware, I mentioned you on the talk page at Talk:MMR vaccine controversy with concerns about an edit you made there. --Nouniquenames 15:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Idk

Idk if I'm doing this right or if I'm gonna get in trouble for this too, but any vandalizing of the Apollo page I did must have been accidental. I'm on my iPad, idk if that makes it easier to accidentally edit or something? Anyways sorry fr any inconvenience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.12.15 (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I have replied on your talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Hi Bobrayner, thanks for the welcome and the useful info. I'm already enjoying editing, and I like having a new way to contribute to this terrific resource I've been using for years now. I have a couple of potential new pages in mind, too - the difficulty is time; if mine was unlimited, I could do so much more... but I guess every contribution helps. So far I've been able to find answers to all my questions among Wikipedia's copious resources, but if anything defeats me in the future, you can be sure I'll be back to visit! Doctor Girl (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks!

Nowadays, creating a new article is harder for new editors than it used to be. Some new editors start an article without wholly understanding some of the requirements, get emotionally attached to it, then it gets deleted the next day... so they feel insulted or demotivated. This could scare off a lot of potentially very good editors. So, it might be a good idea to work on existing pages for a little while, until you build a little more experience... or alternatively, the people over at Articles for Creation are keen to help. bobrayner (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

comment on GM controversies page

Hi! You left a nice comment there. Not sure it was directed to my work but if it was, thanks! If it was not, sorry for bugging you. But while I am here.. I saw on your user page that you like to look for "long-term subtle vandalism, copyvio, hoaxes, or pov-pushing." So.. a request. But first my story. A few months ago I saw a guy carrying a sign that said "Monsanto Kills" and it really stuck in my head. What a claim! I didn't know much about the anti-GMO movement or why they would think that "Monsanto kills" so I started reading. I started reading with the Monsanto wikipedia page, and was struck by how sloppy and unbalanced it was. This kicked off a project that has lasted a few months now, in which I have been learning about the issues and editing pages as I have gone. This has taken me through the Monsanto page and several GM-related pages. I've done a lot of work to try to bring a balanced approach that honors the 5 pillars. I try to make sure everything I add is sourced reliably and have annotated my comments as I worked. Along the way, some people have dropped comments in complaining that I am doing PR for Monsanto or GM in general. While my sense has been that the anti-GM crowd seems to be generally intolerant of anything that is not sheer indictment, I have been worried that maybe they have a point. Therefore, if it interests you, I invite you to exercise your interest in long-term subtle vandalism, copyvio, hoaxes, or pov-pushing, on the articles I have worked on. I would be very interested in the feedback. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the comment was intended for you.

Articles around Monsanto and GMO (and other parts of the food industry) have had problems in the past; it seems that some folk are keen to collect and report negative stuff at face value. At worst, and article can turn into a hatchet job. (On the flipside, over at Organoponicos we had the opposite problem; people painting it as Cuba's saviour and rather ignoring the cold hard facts about Cuba's ongoing food problem). Some of your work has helped mitigate the neutrality problem; that's great.

However, I must warn of a potential problem - it's very easy to get into a "crusader" mindset; to feel that you have to push articles further in a certain direction and to revert anybody who disagrees, even if they have a source; to feel that you're standing on the ramparts of TRUTH fighting off the barbarian horde. If that happens, you've become part of the problem, not part of the solution - always be ready to take a step back and look at the overall balance of evidence. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for looking and thank you very much for the warning -- I will try to be vigilant against getting into a battle mindset. Thanks again!Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Equipment of the Serbian Army

From what I personally know about the army, the list is correct, and I believe the readers won't take it at face value because of the warning tags. I don't think the burden is on me to prove it, since I haven't created the content, and I don't think you should remove it when you don't have any specific objections and you haven't even tried to verify it as true or false. I will however source it from [5] today-tomorrow. Nikola (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

When you did this and this and this, you introduced large amounts of unsourced content. Adding sources would be good. Many other military-inventory articles have been through this process recently - overall, I think we're making good progress. bobrayner (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Bob, why did you delete my article on Kodin Internacional i Ndertimit 2006? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enejamushi (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article ??

Bob why did you delete my article Kodi Internacional i Ndertimit 2006?? --Enejamushi (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enejamushi (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my class page, Bob

I was trying to find someone who would help me fix up the breaks, add titles, etc. and you fixed them before I found some help. Progress to date: slow. My students are busy setting up accounts (I hope) and my campus ambassadors are awaiting training. Students are working in pairs to create sections of this article (in a class of the same name). I've never done this before and I'm learning as much as they are. I have help on my campus in the person of one Brian Lamb, who has been very helpful by coming to class to address the students on what a great class project this will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppowers29 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK.

• Well, it's hard to get used to the editing interface at first - by the way, when you comment on a talkpage, like this one, you should sign your comment by putting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
• However, after that, it does get easier, I promise you! The skills which make a good article writer are very similar to the same skills that go into handing in a good essay - read sources, put together something coherent based on those sources, cite diligently; and if somebody else descends on your text with a red pen, cooperate rather than complain.
• What article(s) will you be working with? If you haven't decided yet, I would warn that creating a new article can be very difficult for somebody who doesn't already know the ropes - it might be better to improve existing articles, more likely to be a win-win for all concerned.
• Would you like some help setting up accounts? (With larger classes, creating accounts "centrally" instead of leaving it to students can make the enrolment a bit less chaotic and allow you to start actual work sooner).

Welcome aboard... bobrayner (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Question For You, Bob

I think my students all have accounts now. How do I get them to put themselves on my course page?

Penny Powers (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a list of students' accounts? If so, give it to me, and I can send them welcome messages with basic instructions. If you don't, the easiest thing to do is tell them to log in and then edit Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Environmental Change: Challenges for Health (Penny Powers)/Students.

Do you use any kind of webex software? I'd happily join in an initial presentation/walkthrough if we could make the timing work out (there's a few timezones between us). bobrayner (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have a list of their accounts, but I'll point them to the link you put up here and tell them to edit it. I don't have any kind of webex software, and I'll pass for right now. I have our campus ambassadors taking training at the moment and I've scheduled a time for them to address the students. They're doing this instead of writing part of the article, so I don't want to do their work for them. Thanks for your help and I'll try the next thing.

Penny Powers (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Once students have edited that page (sorry about the long link - most are much shorter), then we have a neat list and I can say hello. I'll add all their pages to my watchlist - you might want to do the same.

Have you got any more detail on what kind of work you have planned? If you need a hand setting it out on-wiki, that would be really helpful. bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What the students are going to do for this class is to work in pairs and create a page on "Climate Change and Human Health" There is already one on "Effects of Climate Change on Humans" but it's not very good and I want them to write, not edit. They're doing this for a mark in the class, so I want them to do a good job on it. They have signed up in pairs for topics and they have accounts. We now have campus ambassadors and Brian Lamb on our campus who is working with them. The campus ambassadors and Brian are doing the training with Jonathan Obar of Wikipedia and will be educating the other students (and me) on how to write and edit for the class page. We're a bit behind schedule at this point, but that was beyond my control. We can catch up a bit now. I can see that the next step is to get them to put their accounts on our course page. I'll see if I can manage that. I have to take this one small step at a time! Penny Powers (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Groovy. Have fun!

Once they've figured out the very first steps (which aren't very user-friendly), those small steps should turn into bigger ones. There are a couple of things you need to bear in mind when starting an article, to defend against deletion (many new articles by inexperienced editors get deleted, which is very frustrating for the writer) - can cover that whenever you want. bobrayner (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reminded the students to get themselves accounts and get on the course page, but not all of them are there, yet. When they get there, then they need to know how to upload their first draft of their part of this article. How do they do that and where do they put it? I'm at a loss here. Penny Powers (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If the students were working on an existing article, it would be fine to dive straight in. If writing a new article, it's better to use their sandbox to build it up before taking it "live"; like doing a few rehearsals of a play before opening night. I have already watchlisted everybody's sandboxes and a couple of students have already started experimenting there. Alternatively, if you wanted to centralise work a bit more, it's OK to use your sandbox or even one of the project pages. I see you've already started work in your sandbox - that's great. It's a good idea to use multiple sandboxes &c if drafting multiple articles. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

What are project pages?

Penny Powers (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was thinking of a course page like this one. It's not the best place to build a big article but if everybody knows where it is, then it's a convenient place to collaborate on things. What do you think would be best? bobrayner (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what would be best. I do think I should talk to you on my talk page instead of yours, because it's difficult to wade through all of the comments by other people here. I found the discussion tab on our course page and answered one question there. I better go and put the students talk pages on my watch list. Penny Powers (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's talk on your page. Mine does get a bit busy... bobrayner (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

YPF

Please leave comments at Talk:YPF#Edit war Cambalachero (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome / Commercial Motor article

Hi Bobrayner,

Just wanted to say thanks for the personal welcome. Learning how to editing Wikipedia is quite a steep learning curve (steeper than I would have thought), so any help is much appreciated. For example, I'm not even entirely sure that this is the best way to respond to your comment!

I totally understand your point about independent sources. I've gone back to the Commercial Motor article and added a number of independent sources, for example the magazine's ABC certificate, the National Motor Museum Trust etc. I hope this helps to show the subject's notability?

The page is awaiting review again - my first attempt was reviewed within a day of submission, but this second draft has been awaiting review for a week now. Is this normal, or have I missed something?

Jamesdanielclark (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You're doing well so far. The learning curve is steep at first (ie. formatting text, replying to comments, signatures &c) but it gets easier, I promise! I'll have a look at Commercial Motor and comment there. bobrayner (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Pay more attention

Hello, I'm Dialecticalmonism. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

I agree that your views need to be given a platform in the technological unemployment article. But your zeal to remove legitimate and well documented academic scholarship from leading institutions (and calling them "fringe") is highly questionable. This is a place where people come to learn. That means people should know about current and relevant scholarship as well as the current debates. The only views that I see as "fringe" are those given by the Venus Project, Zeitgeist, etc. Also, the linked material you use as a source for your claim is not worded as strongly as your assertion. Please read your source material more closely or consider finding a stronger source. (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I added two references to the statement in Technological unemployment that you reverted. Do not revert again.Phmoreno (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The text in that article implies that the efficiency improvements led to "technological unemployment" rather than increased production; I don't believe the sources actually support that implication, as it's just another variant of the lump of labour fallacy.

Citing another wikipedia article is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that Luddite fallacy redirects to Technological unemployment rather than vice versa. And the Lump of labour fallacy is only linked right at the bottom of a long article... bobrayner (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Request edits

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Synthetic vision system's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey, thanks for bringing up keeping the current image - I was rash to suggest replacing it.

I also have one more that might be up your alley as well. Corporate 02:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 08:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Cotton, Lady Hope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sethwardell

(User creation log); 19:29 . . Newworldscience (talk | contribs | block) created a user account Sethwardell Thanks though. In any case, still promoting the same COI stuff. Dougweller (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious bobrayner (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Weight of Chains

Please stop adding "Serbia's conquest of Kosovo" instead of "Kosovo's re-accession into Serbia's sovereignty", as the film talks about Kosovo's re-accession into Serbia's sovereignty, and not what you're adding. The film never presents what we're discussing here as a "conquest", so your personal opinion can't affect matters in the way they're presented in the film. This is not a historical article, but a film article. Thank you. --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC) UrbanVillager, check your dictionary, conquest simply means 'gaining control by military means', I cannot find a single dictionary that excludes previously owned lands from this definition. We are getting into 'Alice in Wonderland' territory here, where words mean 'what I say they mean'.Pincrete (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes; you are quite right that this is a film article rather than a historical article. However, where the film's presentation diverges from what historians agree actually happened, presenting the film's claims at face value is a WP:INUNIVERSE problem. For instance, 1421 says that Chinese sailors discovered North America, but in that article we have to make it clear that the evidence says otherwise. We should strive for neutral content, which requires independent sources. I can recommend pages 251-263 of "Kosovo: A short history" by Noel Malcolm, but there are other good sources out there too. bobrayner (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Noel Malcom is one highly biased historian, while historical facts show that Kosovo was, in fact, a part of Serbia in Medieval times, so Kosovo becoming a part of Serbia again is considered to be a re-accession, rather than conquest. Conquest suggests that a country takes over something that was never theirs. Such was the conquest of the Ottoman empire in the Balkans. After all, the Albanian leaders of Prizren signed a statement of gratitude to the Serbian king Peter I Karadjordjević for the liberation of Kosovo from the Turks in 1912. So, please, stop vandalizing the above mentioned article. Thank you, --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten about the rather longer period when Kosovo was not part of Serbia. "Historical facts" show that Calais was a part of England for a similar period of premodern history, yet no sane person would argue that this battle was on English soil. The awkward phrasing about re-accession is just a euphemism for invasion and is even incompatible with contemporary constitutional law in Serbia. If you consider mainstream reliable sources biased, perhaps you have some other source in mind which argues that the population of Kosovo spontaneously rediscovered their Serbian identity (whilst also, err, celebrating Serb military success); but our articles should not be based on a source like that. bobrayner (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I like your example and conclusion. UrbanVillager's logic would enable Greece to 're-accede' everywhere to the borders of India, Rome to do the same with most of Europe, ditto Britain with half the globe, ditto someone else with anything that was left ... what a neat solution to global conflict, we'll all stop conquering/invading/occupying and adopt 'assisted re-accession'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Modification to May PC be applied to pages to protect against violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)?

Hello. Because the "Yes" section was split between one group in favor of applying protection to all articles and one group in favor of applying protection to articles only when there has been a problem, I have split the section to reflect this difference. Please go back to that page and make sure that your vote is still in the section that most closely reflects your views. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Survey pilot?

Hi Bob, I hope all is well... Might you be interested and willing to help pilot a survey by a colleague at Syracuse University on the motivation of contributors to Wikipedia? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds interesting; I'd love to help. What's driving the survey and what kind of information are you looking for? Presumably the surveyed population mostly consists of students?

Would you be running the survey "on the ground"? (Alas, I can only help online; it would be a very long flight...) bobrayner (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob, thanks for your reply. I took the survey myself last night. The main focus is "about the motivation of Wikipedia contributors as it plays out across different experience levels". They are not targeting any particular population of Wikipedia contributors, but are interested, in the pilot, in including folks who have been active in WikiProjects. It's available online. Here's the link: https://survey.ischool.syr.edu/TakeSurvey.aspx?SurveyID=88M39mm. There's a place at the end of the survey for open comments/ feedback to the survey team. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake - I misread "at Syracuse University" as meaning "a survey at the university" rather than an online survey of folk on the internet! Will have a look at the survey page.

I suspect that people active in wikiprojects may not be a very representative sample of editors generally (let alone readers), but you probably thought of that already. bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried the survey and sent you an email full of tedious and meandering feedback. bobrayner (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks Bob! I'm sure the investigators will appreciate your comments. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything else I could do to help? bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Talk:Kosovo: Can You Imagine?.
Message added 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WhiteWriter^speaks 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Illness

Hope you feel better soon! Cheers a13ean (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You are very kind! bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this on your talk page. Sorry to hear you were unwell. Hope that your recent editing is an indication that things are looking up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Desk listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia Reference Desk. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia Reference Desk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 19:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antonov An-70, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KAPO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an educational assignment

Dear Bob, I have a problem. The Fair Trade Coffee page has a message that it was the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University .This college is unknown in this subject. The students have not yet learned about evidence, rigour and what can be cited. Is it a coincidence that the page has now had a lot of changes: there are a string of false statements, and of misunderstandings? The changes quote and misquote blogs, commercial websites and newspaper articles. The research for the changes appears to have been a 20 minute Google search. Some changes would provoke charges of misconduct in an academic paper. Previous statements based on years of work by scholars have been removed or ignored, apparently on the grounds that they do not agree with the blogs or the fantasies of the editor. There is bias. Then a POV label has been put on the only section that was based on research, years of research by dozens of people. I have no problem with serious contributors disagreeing with me, making the odd mistake etc. – that is what Wikipedia is about. But I am worried about this sort of thing. 16:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Algae Fuel Request Edit

Hi Bobrayner. I asked for help in the IRC channel RE some of my old, outstanding request edits and they said if I have waited a long time already I should just go ahead and make the edits.

You have commented on this one and I wanted to make sure you feel ok about me putting it in first. Corporate 19:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with it. If nobody else has complained, nihil obstat! bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

1RR breach on Kosovo page

You have breached 1RR on Kosovo page with this edit. Please, revert your self, or i will have to report you. This is article about territory, and not about the Republic of Kosovo, where coat of arms and flag are already presented. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody deleted information about Kosovo from our article on Kosovo. I restored it. That's not a 1RR violation unless you have rewritten 1RR so it permits any single edit that you like, but prohibits any single edit which you dislike. Articles on en.wikipedia are supposed to be neutral and they are supposed to reflect reality. bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No. i an afraid that you have missed 1RR meaning. That means that no one is allowed to edit war more then once per day. last edit before this dispute, this was added yesterday, this is 1 REVERT in this day, this is 2 REVERT in this day. You have obviously breached 1RR par day restriction. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

How did bobrayner, who hadn't edited Kosovo since mid September, breach the 1RR per week with his revert today? I won't weigh in as regards the content dispute, but no user can accuse someone of a violation that never happened.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i am sorry, restriction on this page is per week, and not per day, i just saw it in the original log. Sorry, Bob, this time was not 1RR, but you didn't discus your edit on talk, which is also a requirement... I have stricken the wrong data...--WhiteWriter^speaks 16:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Even if it was 1RR per day, he still wouldn't have breached it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Zjarri, I am talking nonsense here... It doesn't matter how long it is, but the fact that it is related to editors behavior, and not article it self. Different editors can edit it numerous times a day, but all of them only once a week. I was thinking about different restriction, where article it self cannot be reverted more then once per day. That restriction is actually more useful then this one... --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• WhiteWriter threatened me for a fictional 1RR violation, but didn't threaten Sowakralj for making this edit. Sadly, it's obvious why the response was asymmetric. bobrayner (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Averof

Hi, I just reverted a minor edit of yours on the First Balkan War page. The Averof was the most modern vessel taking part in the war, I take your point that she's only an Armoured Cruiser (But with a launch date of 1910 that's post dreadnought - so all big gun and belts etc) and therefore vastly inferior to more or less any proper battleships and many of the modern cruisers in the larger navies, but of the Combatants she was the most up to date - as the caption originally read. No Offence - and I hope I've not misunderstood your intent. - Grible (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I think we'd all agree that it was the most modern involved in that conflict, but I felt the wording was just a tiny bit misleading - readers weren't being told about vastly more modern ones which were on the doorstep. Would it be possible to tweak the wording some other way? bobrayner (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: Do you have an Erdős number?

So, I am sure I happen to have an Erdős number (I'm currently digging through old papers to find out how small of one) and I'd be happy to help to collaborate with you. The easiest thing would be to have you hop on to one of my two active projects (2012 Maine earthquake and Portal:Nazi Germany). I'll let you know as soon as I find out my number definitely. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be very cool; thanks! I'm not an SME in either of those topics, but will try to keep up... bobrayner (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Portalling is actually a pretty simple process to pick up, it's all about just breaking down content and presenting it in an attractive manner. 2012 Maine earthquake doesn't meet WP:EARTHQUAKE's presumed notability standards, so unless we get some more sources to allow it to pass WP:GNG, that's going to be AFD'd in a week or so. Achowat (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Challenges for Health

Hi, I noticed that you have offered to help our class with our Wikipedia article surrounding Climate Change and Health. Just wanted to thank you in advance and I hope that you are able to help us as we attempt to manoeuvre our way through this maze that is Wikipedia.Mitkrow (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Groovy. The maze does get a little easier after the first few steps, I promise! If you need anything, just shout. If you're going to be building a new article, I would recommend building a draft somewhere else first, maybe in your sandbox, until it looks good enough for prime-time. What's the title - Climate Change and Health, or something else? Let me know where your work is and I'll keep an eye on it... bobrayner (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There may also be some overlap with Effects of climate change on humans (which already has a "Health" section). What do you think is the best way to work with this? bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing the overlap Effects of climate change on humans. As I'm sure you have realised our instructor for this course is very adamant about us creating a new Wikipedia page. Essentially we have paired up with another student and selected a topic which highlights global warming's impact on health. My partner and I have selected deforestation, so we will be researching how this has influenced Climate Change and human health. I will definitely be working in my sandbox first to get the formatting and everything else sorted out. Can I link my sandbox to you or something along those lines? It is difficult because I am not creating the entire article but rather a single section within the article. I am extremely green in the ways of wikipedia but have been picking up some basics simply by looking at your own coding and editing. Any suggestions or help with any of the multiple aspects of this project will be greatly appreciated. Mitkrow (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm already watching everybody's sandboxes, so I'll see whenever one of you does any work there. The way to write good wikipedia content is not so different from how you'd write a good assignment in another class - look through sources, and write something new (don't just copy) which reflects what the sources say. The main difference is that here, people can edit and improve each others' work, and you're not given a fixed reading list! bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey my class and I are just wondering how to watch each others sandboxes. If you could give us some advice that would be great.Mitkrow (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Enjoy a stroopwafel for making me LOL with your comment on the main page redesign straw poll :) — Pretzels Hii! 19:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the stroopwafels! You're very kind. bobrayner (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo

Between 1999 and 2008, Kosovo was officially under the administration of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. Regulations issued by the authority at the time stated that only the UN flag and flags authorised by UNMIK were allowed to be flown. Under UN Administration, the UN flag was the de jure national flag of Kosovo, and remained the case until the declaration of independence. See also Flag of Kosovo Hammersfan (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Erdos number

I have an Erdos number of 6. Contact me on my talk page, or leave a message here and a talkback template on my talk page, if interested in a collaboration. Edit: I'm not interested in the money, just the collaboration, so I can get a Erdos-Bacon-Chomsky number :-) Edit2: I just read there's an Einstein number, and I'm sure I have one of those, so, an Erdos-Bacon-Chomsky-Einstein number! St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 20:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Further edit: I received a link to a tool on MathSciNet that calculated my Erdos number, at it says I have an Erdos number of 3 through a different lineage. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 17:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggest any articles you want, but middle eastern history from the rise of Islam (including most of the alternative models such as Wansbrough's and Crone & Cook's) 'til the Fall of Constantinople (under Mehmed II) is pretty well-known to me, esp. the religious and military, but also economic, and political aspects (that is, what you would expect from a history book teaching it supplemented extensively with revisionist models of its religious and military history). I figure I can get a Bacon number in return by distance-collaborating on a Youtube video, something simple like unto, "I'm saying this with him so that I may obtain a Bacon number", and "I'm saying this with him so that my Bacon number can be transferred" (hopefully that's enough "collaboration"). I don't have a Shusaku number, as I've never played a game of Go in my life. I've played Reversi and Othello though. Thoughts? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 19:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit: it's my belief you also get my Chomsky number and Einstein number. Surprisingly, the Erdos number was for a publication on electrical (i.e. electronic) engineering, the Einstein number for a publication on pure maths (not physics), and also, and the Chomsky number for a paper on Biblical hermeneutics (the only one of the three on which I was sole, or even primary, author - the Einstein number is as an "et alii"). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at JohnChrysostom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Christian Settipani

Re Christian Settipani:

The sources I cited were far superior to Hallfond. I am going to add two more sources from established historians (though nobody, and certainly not Halfond are as preeminent in this particular area of Early Medieval History in Gaul/France as Werner, Heinzelman, Taylor, Bouchard and Mathisen. All of them relied on Settipani's "genealogical idenfications" and other advice, often asking him for the advice in the first place. And if you had been paying attention, even Hallfond recognized that Werner was preeminent in just this field. He just did not bother to read far enough to understand Werner's regard for Settipani's work. Actually check the citations please. And when it comes down to it, I (not you or some other editor) cited Hallfond in the first place as a way of providing some "neutrality" to the article which someone or other had complained was inadequate. Your mistaken reliance upon Hallfond as being the best in this area suggests to me that you may be making value judgments in this area without actually knowing much about it. I have complied with every request by you, legitimate and otherwise, to provide supporting information. You even gave the impression by not complaining after I supplied the references in question that you no longer were in doubt about this point. Then you come back out of the blue and dismiss half of the living experts in Early Medieval Gallic History as purveyors of promotional fluff. These serial erasures are seriously becoming abusive. If you do not think the endorsements of Settipani's work by Werner, Heinzelman, Taylor, Bouchard and Mathisen are other than entirely appropriate appropriate, please be prepared to indicate why that is the case and additionally why you believe these authorities are somehow less pertinent than Hallfond when, frankly, few people including I am rather certain, yourself, would ever have heard of him and his review had I rather not regrettably cited it in the first place. Please do not delete or materially this material again unless you are able to do that. You are unfairly depriving readers of pertinent and correctly researched information that falls clearly within Wikipedia standards. Editors are obliged to make articles better if they get involved at all, not make them worse. I think I have been more than accommodating of your concerns. This last time you did not even list any concerns. You simply swept in and deleted a lot of material you seemed content to leave in peace before.

Respectfully

Grady Loy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GradyELoy (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:Civil

WP:Civil. We're all volunteers, and you needn't go out of your way to be insulting. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to be insulting; but if you insist on starting an AN/I thread for a redirect, and repeatedly link to a page which fails WP:EL, and if you insist that a ranter on Blogspot overrules usage by other sources (including ones who could stop them frothing at the mouth for long enough to be taken seriously by a publisher), and if you dress yourself up in Martin Luther King quotes just like the Blogspot ranter dresses themselves up in quotes from other great americans, even after getting the redirect deleted, then "unable to assess the relative strength of sources" is a relatively mild and restrained description of the problem. I have refrained from removing the offending link up until now, because I didn't want to catalyse even more drama. But, if you want to stick to the letter of the law, so be it; I will strike out the comment that you feel offended by, and all the different places you spam a blog which fails WP:EL, I will remove it. Does that sound like a fair deal? bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out that some of your comments seem needlessly insulting, but I'm happy to let them stand; being insulted by somebody who's angry about a controversial topic is, alas, a routine part of editing on enwiki. I wouldn't be so petty as to insist that you live by your own rules. Now, do you have any comments on the WP:EL problem? bobrayner (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner,

No. There was no "spamming a blog". Read the article and its sourcing. It is reasoned and sourced. It pertains to the putative claim that "Pit bulls are nanny dogs." The history of the phrase "nanny dogs" could be an article in Wikipedia. OTOH, I don't want to revisit the contents of the "Pit bull" article, which evidently has been long and contentious. There are many ways to approach this controversy, if it continues. If the redirect were gone forever, than I would not bother with putting in items on the talk page. I do not think this matter has been put to rest that easily. But we shall see. I accept at face value your statement that no insult was intended. I am willing to let it all go at that. I am not looking for a war, and trust that we can work together. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a good idea to move on from our disagreement over civility. :-) If you say there was no "spamming a blog", I'll play along with that. Nonetheless, we now have lots of links to a blog which fails WP:EL. I think the best solution to this problem is to stop linking to it and remove some of the existing links. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What I think is that I will put it in as an in line citation, if you insist that it's not a proper external link. I was actually trying to not reopen all those issues in Pit bull that are covered in 5 archives of disagreement over content. This seemed like a reasonable compromise, particularly if the redirect is resurrected. So I would say 'let sleeping dogs lie' (no pun intended) for now. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

HELP TRU Students

Hi Bob, I am trying to write in Cyndi's sandbox and it shows that I have written in her sandbox, but when she goes to look at her sandbox she cannot see what I have written...?Bruin1234 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

• Well, it looks like you made some edits here: User_talk:Teich49/sandbox. Is she definitely looking at the same page? Cyndi: Try clicking on this link and seeing what happens.
• You can usually add pages to your watchlist by clicking on a little star icon at the top right of the page. There are more details here. Then, your watchlist will show whenever somebody has changed that page. This could be useful for your course - just go to other students' pages and watchlist those; it's probably a good idea to watch User talk:Ppowers29 and Effects of climate change on humans too. (Apart from your course, I use my watchlist to keep an eye on lots of controversial articles). bobrayner (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)