Archives

May 2010 – December 2010 January 2011 – May 2011 May 2011 – December 2011 January 2012 – June 2012 July 2012 – October 2012 November 2012 – April 2013 May 2013 – August 2013 September 2013 – March 2014 April 2014 – November 2014 November 2014 – March 2023 bobrayner's current talkpage

Hi Bobrayner. I'm trying to facilitate a few improvements to Hightail (see here and Viralheat (see here) where I have a COI. Both of them have 3-4 things I was hoping to hammer out with an impartial editor using Request Edits. Though the Hightail Request Edit is a couple weeks old and I already forgot what other updates I wanted to suggest ;-)

I just pinged user:North8000 on the Viralheat one, but was realizing I have bothered him/her quite a bit and the same goes for a handfull of other editors that collaborate with me routinely in my COI role, so I thought I would spread myself around a little and see if you have the time/interest to hammer a few things out on a couple articles. I feel like I've seen your username around quite a bit, but I'm not actually sure what types of topics are of interest to you. CorporateM (Talk) 21:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I like business articles. Will have a look. bobrayner (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I have three updates that I think will make the Viralheat page GAN-ready: the new CEO, an expanded Reception section, and some updates regarding pricing. Let me know the most convenient way to proceed. I can post everything one at-a-time or we can do it all at the same time. I'm afraid it is a pretty boring task, since the article is already well-developed, but I'll be sure to keep you in mind when I have a more interesting project I also need help with ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay - I got caught up in some Balkan issues (which are, alas, a massive timesink). bobrayner (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I appreciate your help and input in keeping me on the straight and narrow. Since I haven't collaborated with you in my COI role, I do not know how you prefer to go about things, so just let me know if you'd prefer I handle things a certain way. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a pleasure to work with you. I have some fixed ideas about how everybody else does business articles wrong; you can agree or disagree with those ideas. :-)

Often I think that we have a retail bias. Wikipedia is written by individuals, who focus on the things that individual consumers are interested in, especially a young anglophone technophile demographic. B2B, not so much. If a playstation game or a sportscar sold a few thousand copies and was then forgotten about, we probably have an article on it; but my former employer with a 13-digit balance sheet is still a redlink, because they only served other big organisations. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. Because Wikipedia's editors are made up of the public, we have all the same biases you can expect + the nerd-factor. I don't think it's appropriate to micro-manage where I have a COI. It sort of defeats the purpose when editors follow the Bright Line, but insist and demand their exact version is pasted into article-space. I posted a few more things on each article - I think that's all I've got for the Hightail page after those, but I have one more item for the Viralheat page for discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will have a look. Have fun. bobrayner (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well, you know, it's my job for me, so it's not suppose to be fun :-P But then I do a lot of volunteer editing too. CorporateM (Talk) 08:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As you have added your name to the RFM, would you also please "Agree" (or alternatively Decline) to mediation. Thanks. 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed in the RFC on Georgism you mentioned land taxes as having less economic harm. Just happen to run into a source recently that stated that based on OECD empirical research. Just in case it's helpful for you: Arnold, Jens (14 Oct 2008). "Do Tax Structures Affect Aggregate Economic Growth? Empirical Evidence From A Panel of OECD Countries". OECD. Retrieved 02 Jan 2014. ((cite web)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Morphh ^(talk) 04:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for that - it's interesting. However, I didn't discuss Georgism itself on the talkpage, just whether we should have a laundry-list of land-tax supporters. Are you sure you got the right person? 2601:1:2400:138:651B:68DF:D559:51B did mention it though. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Deçan page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you meant by it's not true. As the references suggest, there were several methods prevalent throughout the world prior to the formation of Grameen Bank which were "related" to microcredit but not exactly microcredit. The concept of "microcredit" was first invented by Dr Yunus in the 1970s and the official definition was set in the microcredit summit in Washington, 1997. page 319. What's the ambiguity here? --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that microcredit was invented in Bangladesh, but you're citing a page which does not say that microcredit was invented in Bangladesh. Do you see how that is a problem? In the meantime, it might be helpful to read a little more broadly; perhaps start with De Soto. bobrayner (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give you a bit of wiggle-room here.

1. You choose whatever definition of "microcredit" you think best suits your argument;
2. You bring that definition here;
3. I will name institutions or systems which (a) fit that definition, but (b) were not in Bangladesh, and (c) predate Grameen by decades.

Do you accept the challenge? bobrayner (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the page "Dr Yunus started an experimental microcredit enterprise in 1977..... , and the concept of microcredit were planted." or if you are thinking this may not fall under the radar of "invention", than take a look at this, "The Nobel Peace Prize winner who invented microcredit presented his latest idea for combating poverty...". About the challenge, sure, but the reference has to say that the institution "is a microcredit institution" not "related to microcredit" or anything else. And for your info, we have an article Microfinance which would help you to understand the difference.--Zayeem ^(talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Yunus has played a very prominent role, but reliable sources shy away from mentioning invention; and rightly so, because there was plenty of other earlier microcredit.

Please don't pretend that the Huffington Post is a reliable source on economic history. You're a competent editor and I wouldn't want you to fall into traps like that. bobrayner (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there are other reliable sources which support the claim, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]--Zayeem ^(talk) 18:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert that? Do you understand that you just reinserted very large volumes of content that fail WP:V? Since you're averaging about four edits per minute with an automated tool, I think the most WP:AGF conclusion is that you clicked a button without realising what you were doing. So, I have reverted. If you later read through the content and the sources and still think your edit was good, I'd love to hear the explanation. bobrayner (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Leoesb1032. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of megaprojects because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there has been some misunderstanding. I understand the appeal, to many editors, of tools that let you make lots of edits without the tiresome burden of having to understand what you're doing; but I must insist that you stop and look at what you're doing, and understand core wikipedia policy. I eagerly await your reply. Type it yourself instead of using an irrelevant template. Why did you repeatedly add large amounts of text which fails WP:V? bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the unsourced content. I didn't mean any harm. I was just looking at the STiki page. I didn't even remember that first edit I had made to List of megaprojects. It just looked like vandalism. I just got a hold of STiki and I need to get used to it. Leoesb1032 (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take more care. It looks like there were problems with some of your other automated edits too. bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning India Against Corruption, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

Mediator assigned

Hi, I will be mediating this case. Would you be able to sign in on the project talk page? Sunray (talk)

HELP! List of populated places in Kosovo by Municipality. The article is a mess! IJA (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bunch of corrections, once again, to the first paragraphs, and you reverted them back to the incorrect information. Is Wikipedia allowed to lie? Rolfing is not, not ever has been, a form of massage therapy. It did not even originate from massage. Structural integration is a completely different modality, like chiropratic or acupuncture - would you also call them massage? I fixed all of that again, but you took out my edits - why? It should be called what it is. Please explain why you are so confused, and maybe I help you understand what is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You ask here "When did Monbiot become a reliable source?" It might equally be asked "How are you authorised to summarily dismiss the citation of an established reputable journalist without discussion?" In this instance, I see no need to directly challenge your action, since the subject TTIP is barely relevant to the global MAI. However, in different circumstances, I would be asking you for talk-page substantiation of your POV before agreeing to dissolve an eminent writer's credibility. Surely, in a case like this, it would be more correct to present a cited questionable view alongside a balancing cited contrary POV, as can readily be found here. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Eminent"? No doubt there are people who like what Monbiot writes, but he's a polemicist rather than some neutral analyst of geopolitics. Try adding this to the Tableware article:

Faced with a choice between the survival of the planet and a new set of matching tableware, most people would choose the tableware.

bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would readily endorse that tongue-in-cheek assessment of the insensitivity of maybe 80% of our fellow humans. In fact, climate-change-denial became pretty well the official position of the Australian Government, which claimed a 'mandate' for such after a 2013 election victory. With due respect, I find your vindictiveness very depressing—and would continue to insist that you respect WP's principles of neutrality and rational verification.

If neutrality and verifiability are so important, why the non sequiteur about Australian politics?

No doubt there are people who like what Monbiot writes, but he's a polemicist rather than some neutral analyst of geopolitics. bobrayner (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shipbuilding, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Quest for Truth (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for Arbcom. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Talk:Mongol Armenia and consider the proposed change of name.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I'm not familiar with this area. bobrayner (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bob Rayner,

I just wanted to write to you to say, thank you. Across this wild website I've always found your contributions to be thoughtful, measured and valuable... often in the face of incredibly vitriol and personal attacks. Even where I don't agree with you I know that I will find a considered rational comment which reaffirms my faith in this site and in online humanity in general. I know it takes effort. But people like you make this place better. so thank you. Epeos (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind. I haven't agreed with all your edits, but I know you've done a good job. Unfortunately, you edit some very controversial topics, so disagreement is inevitable... bobrayner (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you today as one of the users listed at User:Secret/recall. In case you were not aware, Secret has once again resigned his admin status and is once again about to ask for it back. I am concerned that this behavior constitutes the sort of erratic behavior that this recall mechanism was designed to deal with and am asking all other users listed there to add their opinion at the talk page of the recall subpage. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. That page is on my watchlist, and I was already concerned. However, I have a near-crisis to deal with in the real world, so I might not be able to edit much over the next day or two, and this is an issue that needs thought rather than a hasty comment. bobrayner (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes from a talk page stalker about whatever is happening in the real world. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was worried about flooding. Last night the river gauge was rising and the rain kept on falling, but the situation improved today and my feet are still dry. I hope that you are drier, wherever you are! bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good! The snow is all shoveled (and not by me) here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert yourself and restore the previous name. As far as consensus goes, look at Talk:Srbica for my proposal concerning Kosovo place names. The massacre took place in 1999 and should be referred to as the Massacre at Velika Kruša for historical accuracy. If you strongly disagree, you are welcome to take a stab at a move proposal. Thanks, 23 editor (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I undid a unilateral, undiscussed move. It's the R of WP:BRD. You know that.

WhiteWriter knew that controversial moves should go through WP:RM, but instead deliberately made lots of unilateral moves. I'm reverting that mess. Future attempts at moves should use our Requested Moves process; it's the best way to develop a consensus. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia merits historical accuracy. You know that. Calling the Battle of Stalingrad the Battle of Volgograd is pseudohistorical babble, as is calling the Massacre at Velika Kruša the Massacre at Krusha e Madhe. 23 editor (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a broader point I do have a lot of sympathy for your proposal to consider contemporary names. (IE. We shouldn't replace every "Byzantium" and "Constantinople" with "İstanbul"). However, contemporary Human Rights Watch reports called it "Massacre at Krusha e Madhe"; it's unfortunate that you write off contemporary reliable sources as "pseudohistorical babble". bobrayner (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, you do realize that the link you've provided refers to the place as Velika Kruša as well? 23 editor (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes; we'll rarely get completely black-and-white unambiguous naming for events and places in that era. I was merely pointing out that there are reliable sources which directly contradict the position you took earlier. However, this is something that could be thrashed out in a WP:RM discussion. bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about we solve this at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I hope you don't mind too much, but I strongly believe that historical accuracy is important in Wikipedia articles. 23 editor (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you repeatedly removed a good photo of a Malian president from the Mali article? bobrayner (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the photo also contains a not very good former US president, and would be much more appropriate on the United States-Mali Relations page.

Believe it or not I really do like the photo. It should be on the relevant relations page though. B. Fairbairn (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a page number for Judah on this edit . Thanks. 23 editor (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding blogs as sources to the Boris Malagurski article. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop misrepresenting sources. You have also been told, repeatedly, for years, that edits aren't vandalism simply because you disagree with them; do you intend to take heed of that any time soon? bobrayner (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, a quick message re Shiatsu. In the future please avoid edit warring unless it meets the exceptions (which this didn't). I'm mentioning this to you and Roxy the dog because you continued the edit war well beyond 3RR (even though you didn't break 3RR yourself). In the future, report to [{WP:ANEW]] or WP:ANI and wait rather than edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your post to the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Economist_editorial_stance#Categories

84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you place it on my talk page but not on the talk page of Zfigueroa?--Communist-USSR (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because your edits seem to be more problematic, and you have already given Zfigueroa a warning template yourself, which is also a concern in itself. bobrayner (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't give him a warning template? And you are doing a edit war yourself now.. Please wait for the discussion.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say "Please wait for the discussion" and complain about other people edit-warring, but you have made a huge number of reverts. Rules aren't just there to hinder people you disagree with; they apply to you too. bobrayner (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because he add highly questionable information. For example he added this 3 times and I have asked him 3 times to discuss it on the talk page but he won't respond.--Communist-USSR (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you keep removing the disputed tag from the Vladimir Djordjevic page. I can tell that you are hitting serbian community pages and serbians as well. I can see that you are representing kosovo. Kosovo declared itself as independent state but it is NOT a member of UN, so I will transfer all your post about Serbian territory (kosovo) to be edited on wikipedia by all wiki members who understand this issues. I am warning you to stop your disruptive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbtiger (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make sense. I am removing spam from a hagiographic article about a minimally-notable martial artist. Coincidentally, almost all your edits are about this person, you magnify his achievements, and you share some of his political beliefs in areas completely unrelated to martial arts. That's a big coincidence. Following me round and reverting other edits is just going to make things worse. bobrayner (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you in martial arts industry or in martial arts at all?? You stated "minimally-notable martial artist" common man, are you serious about editing wiki or just spamming all over??? I am warning you to stop your disruptive behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbtiger (talk • contribs) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter who I am in the martial arts industry? I am removing adverts, and you are adding them. bobrayner (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no adverts in it. There is over 100K people who practice self defense under them every day, but you are hitting him for no reason. Ok than, we will start removing your adverts and please do not add them back. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbtiger (talk • contribs) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't make things any worse. bobrayner (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice about the reverting. I was wondering if you could contact any other editors to work on the 2014 Venezuelan Protests article so another stalemate like this will not happen. People would like to know what is happening and the unprofessional behavior we used should be continued. So more help would be appreciated.

Sorry about the troubles, --Zfigueroa (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. First things first: Can you get more or better sources?

There are various noticeboards which can help with disputes like this, but first, let's try sources. bobrayner (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is La Patilla a better source? It is headed by the former president of Globovison.

--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look.

People always feel strongly about protests. However, we must not let those emotions drive our editing; it's important to present cold, hard facts. More emotional approaches tend to get reverted. bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've pulled out at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/India Against Corruption. I've never seen anything so ridiculous and I'm not keen on tiptoeing around the blindingly obvious. Good luck with it. - Sitush (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. bobrayner (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This organization seems to me to not meet the notability guidelines. I have been reading the refs. They are bad. One states that they have only eleven donors. What do you think? Capitalismojo (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point. The awards seem to be perfectly designed to attract media attention, of course, but a lot of those sources aren't actually about Ethecon, or only mention it in passing, or they're just press releases. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I particulary abhor press release refs. It's the laziest form of journalism and almost entirely useless for encyclopedia purposes. They absoloutely don't establish notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FeralOink's comments lead me to believe that, even when "sourced", we can't actually trust much of the content. In which case there's another reason to delete it. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For any number of things from neutrality and worldview through to benevolent talk page stalking ... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You are very kind, but I don't deserve much credit. You, and other fine editors like you, do most of the hard work; I just stand to one side and occasionally heckle. bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created three articles from the text at top of three categories; though I don't know if our Serbian friends at User IP address ever read their messages! Hugo999 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!

I'm perplexed - how can somebody write neatly-structured content, with some markup, and then put it in category-space? Could it be copied from somewhere? bobrayner (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History on history channel? Was that back when there was music on MTV also?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the days bobrayner (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the numbers, I appreciate it. BMK (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Do you need a hand with any other similar work? bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could look at the changes I made to the info box on the article and see if it's better. I showed sources for the causes of the protests and updated a few things. Thanks for you help with the article! --Zfigueroa (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss with this user WP:FORUMSHOP. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the first person to welcome Zfigueroa to wikipedia and offer help, I'm not going to criticise a request for help. However, I'm not going to encourage canvassing. bobrayner (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about canvassing so I'm sorry if I put you in a situation. I just wanted an opinion on the modified info box. It can be helpful to some users that want to quickly find information. That is why I find adding visuals to articles helps some users. --Zfigueroa (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, Hope you're well? Just wondered whether you might like to join us at our edit-a-thon in York on March 16th? It's part of my residency at York Museums Trust and we'll be working around the biographies of several York luminaries who lived/worked between 1800-1950. It would be great to see you there! Cheers, PatHadley (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me through the email this user function. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created, Batajnica mass graves, has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batajnica mass graves. 23 editor (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me why any competent good-faith editor would AfD an article for being too short when it already has 2kb and six sources, an hour after the article was started. There are plenty more sources out there; if you genuinely believe that shortness is the problem - and I doubt that - why not add more content? bobrayner (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed an entire article about the Silent Generation. Please restore it or we'll need to go to the admin board. Thanks.172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is there a particular reason we need dozens of lengthy articles repeating Strauss & Howe's ideas as fact? Do you some reason to believe that "the admin board" will automatically restore reams of crappy content? Alas, sometimes the best quality-control tool is an axe. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More pragmatically, the neutral point of view noticeboard might be a better place to discuss this problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss and Howe did not create the term "Silent Generation". Time magazine in 1951 ran an important story about it -- and you removed it completely. You can't just remove an article (and all the references) by merging the term into another article (why didn't you add the references too?).

If you want to move the reference to Strauss and Howe in the first sentence then go ahead. That answers you're NPOV claim. But the term has been in use for many decades. In fact, Google shows about 94,000,000 results for the term Silent Generation. By merging it you're claiming it's just part of the S&H theory -- which it is not. Please restore it immediately. Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?172.250.31.151 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've unredirected it on the basis of the Time article, without any Strauss/Howe. Is that better? However, it would benefit from coverage from other angles. bobrayner (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Nice work, which I never would have noticed if somebody didn't nominate your work for deletion, ironically. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't accept much praise, but you are very kind nonetheless! That article is very basic - not much point in me putting a lot of time into it, now that it's attracted attention from a certain direction, because my efforts are more likely to be reverted or deleted. That's a strange side-effect of our Balkan problems. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For even-handedness on Balkan issues. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see I gave you a common and garden editor barnstar above also, anyway this was for the mass revert of Albanian names - despite understanding the Albanian editor's frustration. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've been dealing with POV-pushing (and likely sockpuppetry) related to this topic. I reverted what looked like a cut-and-paste by the now-banned edit warrior. That said, I wonder if the article does merit a "Support" section to balance the "Criticism" section. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that's quite difficult; as with a lot of populist protectionist legislation, there are "sources" on both sides, but reliable economic sources very much fall on one side of the fence. So, it becomes like some "popular misconceptions" and alt-med topics, where it's very difficult to write content that keeps everybody happy but is also correct. In the longer term it would probably be better to integrate pluses and minuses into the body of the article instead of having separate "pro" and "anti" sections. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Hawaii#Disruptive editing .2F removal of material from the Cost of living section. Peaceray (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have a look. I don't normally get involved in Hawaii topics (other editors do a much better job), but the Jones Act is more my kind of thing... bobrayner (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain? --George1935 (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopædia, not an advert. bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific ? Which part of my editing was an advert? --George1935 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ® is the inappropriate part. bobrayner (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must be more specific so one can take you seriously please answer in good faith. --George1935 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) We don't normally use them - see MOS:TM -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes besides calling someone names again- I m asking bobrayner and you to stop the abusive behavior and answer in good faith to what I m asking you. ?Which part of my editing was an advert?--George1935 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...that 94.250.109.57 opened a thread about you at WP:ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deep joy. Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. That's what I'm here for: spreading the "joy". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tire of the constant sockpuppetry, hounding, deception, and revert-stalking by a couple of pov-pushers. I've been working hard on this general topic area for a while, because it needed it; but right now they are particularly active and there seems to be little help from the rest of the community. Wake me up if/when that changes. bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sympathetic. I've spend most of my Wiki-time the past few days dealing with stuff that I find unpleasant, and just in the past few minutes have found some time to do some more pleasant editing. And my mental to-do list of content I'd really like to work on is a mile long. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit – but not that anyone can edit well. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur that switching it up a bit can help a lot. I use that tactic myself on occasion. There are a few topic areas (both administrative and non-administrative) where I like to contribute and when one area feels "stale" or otherwise unappealing I move on. I will say that your work in the Balkan areas is appreciated; I rarely venture into any of those controversial nationalist debates (Palestine/Israel, Eastern Europe, Ireland/Britain, etc.) because of the massive headaches I've gotten when I've done so. I'd give you a barnstar but you recently received one for that very thing, so I'll just say that I second the sentiment from that barnstar. -- Atama頭 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are very kind. bobrayner (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Bob. How are you doing? I am working on this article. He is sort of a popular actor here in my country. I have come across this photo. The photo has a link of a Facebook page on it. Does this warrant the deletion of this photo? Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

WP:WATERMARK says "Free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits or titles in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use". However, this image is not free. WP:NFCC doesn't say no. Obviously, we would prefer a photo without the watermark, but we can't always get what we want.

However, a watermark like that can often be a warning sign of other problems - have you checked licensing & copyright? bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With a quick search, I can see that this image is used profusely over the information. But I cannot find licensing or copyright infringement. This may or may not be copyright infringement.Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any higher-resolution versions of this image and I don't see any definite sign of copyright infringement. Tineye doesn't find anything suspicious. bobrayner (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not every IP is a sock. stop WP:STALKing people, stop insulting people, and stop removing other user's comments, it is not allowed!

WP:TPO The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

109.93.20.242 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets get reverted. I'm sure other readers can see that you're stalking me, rather than vice versa. If you logged back into your account, you might make more progress. bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

join the discussion about you at ANI: [6]. cheers 93.86.166.167 (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobrayner,

I recently noticed an egregious BLP violation on the Czech page of Leopoldo López found here. The content violates Wikipedia's BLP policy and the source they are using is far from reliable. I tried fixing it but I was quickly reverted. Do you think you could help me out in trying to remove this information? I noticed you have edited Leopoldo Lopez's English page so I decided to come to you for help. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.226.94 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bohužel, nemám nemluvil česky! bobrayner (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could help me with the Colectivo (Venezuela) article I created. I'm not quite sure about the name of the article and I'm not sure how NPOV the article is. This article is needed since it is a common term used in Venezuelan culture. It is also valuable to both current and future articles involving Venezuela.--Zfigueroa (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. Neutrality can be difficult on articles like this. bobrayner (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made some improvements but its hard finding sources that provide a more NPOV. I still believe this article is necessary though.--Zfigueroa (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rayner, you may have not seen the best temperament from me, but I would request you to kindly take a look at the rage boiling over there for a very minor rewording of sentences. Thank you.--Bazaan (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has lots of edits back-and-forth, but the talkpage is a red link - no discussion! Fix that problem first, and then it will be easier to fix the other problems. :-) bobrayner (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe.
Message added 12:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Because you participated in the previous mini-RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#RfC:_Allow_group.2Frole_accounts.2C_with_OTRS_verification Gigs (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you over my recent edit which you removed. The report in question was written by one of the vested interests, and people ought to know that. I'm happy with a different wording — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemem56 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please familiarize yourself with WP:TALKO. 77.46.172.143 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The previous contributor introduced a quote from the Judge in the ITN libel case, and a quote from the editor of the organization's journal. Hardly evidence of bias - rather the opposite!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Revolutionary_Communist_Party_(UK,_1978)#What_was_the_point_of_Bobrayner.27s_re-edit.3F

Jane Bowen (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to take you to task regarding your most recent edit summary. You are welcome. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy, your pedantry is always welcome. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now, you have come down with a sic-ness: [7]. I wish you a speedy recovery! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tryptofish. bobrayner (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Bobrayner, thank you for your welcome message. To clarify, I was not "caught" for some of the violations you listed on my talk page. The reason I made that statement you listed on my talk page was due to the fact that I saw the same group of users appear on unrelated RfC's that I was a participant in. Since you insist that this is "completely false", I would say that it is a coincidence. In good faith, I believe you, withdraw my statement, and ask that you forgive me for it. It has been two years but I hope you are doing well and that we are able to work to build a great encyclopedia here. As a side note, I did take a long break from editing and still will not be as active as I once was. I hope you have a great day and all the best to you and yours! With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the current status? It is languishing. I spent a big chunk of time checking into the article, after the bot summoned me to have a look. Ethecon might or might not be encyclopedic worthy content. They're more worthy than crud on TV that has articles here!

The problematic part is this: Code Pink, or truly, a single individual with Code Pink. It isn't for me judge her, nor even her relationship with Ethecon, whatever it may be (and I do feel quite strongly about the perfidious nature of Blackwater-Xe, just as she does). Rather, the problem is that the Ethecon article is sourced almost entirely with not-NPOV links to her websites, self-published books and annual social justice missions that always involve world travel to attractive tourist destinations. The article is like a soapbox and showcase for her self-appointed accomplishments, which mostly involve public shaming of companies AND private individuals i.e. they don't hold public office, aren't celebrities. We shouldn't be facilitating that, which is what you said > 7 months ago.

I've seen you around here a lot. You seem sensible and nice! I am Ellie Kesselman. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.--FeralOink (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind. It's a pleasure to work with you.

I think you've made a good point about Ethecon. Earlier I focussed on one problematic bit of content about living people, but really, the whole point of Ethecon is to make problematic claims and broadcast them much more widely than a lone activist would usually manage, and our article enables that. Once we strip out the primary sources, and the ones which just copy "alternative" press releases (which may as well be primary sources), there is very little independent coverage, and even those sources make it hard to build a neutral article. I think deletion could be the best option. bobrayner (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editor started down the right path and I've done some cleanup afterwards. They created a new article United States Investigations Services that's the same company as found at USIS (company). I think (and have suggested as such) that they can merge any details from the new article to the existing and change it to a redirect. I'll make sure that happens. Thanks! Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. this is a big improvement on their part so I'm not interested in a templating and warning spree. bobrayner (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My laptop broke. It had been increasingly unhealthy for the last two weeks, which interfered with my work. I ordered a replacement; it was delivered today. The new laptop is very pretty. So, I would like to apologise to you all, kind readers, for my intermittent responses; I have a lot of catching-up to do, and you deserve better responses. Please forgive any typos over the next week as I get used to the new keyboard. bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just kinda revamped the entire article of Corruption in Venezuela a week or so ago and wanted to know what you think since I haven't seen anyone editing since. I mades section about previous leaders to show a little bit of the history of corruption.--Zfigueroa (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good. Nice work! It might be a good idea to use some recent Economist articles on the topic, as they tend to give a slightly broader view of recent events and a clearer explanation of underlying problems, without getting too hung up on individual political events. bobrayner (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't been around as much and I'm guessing it because of your pretty new laptop :) However, I think we have a canvassing situation on the 2014 Venezuelan protests article that I need help with. Since I really don't know who to ask about these things, I just asked you since you're pretty intelligible with these things.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BobRayner! Hope you're doing well. You posted on the Talk page of Malawian food crisis a few weeks ago, and on my Userpage saying that you were interested in my article. I wanted to let you know that I completed the article and I took your advice and restructured it so it did not conflate correlation and causation. If you get a chance, I would love any feedback. Thanks! Avw1 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I have nominated Trans Global Highway (and thus reverted your redirect) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans Global Highway (2nd nomination). Per some of the other users I also agree that the Pan-American Highway is a poor redirect target due to its continental approach and the fact that the Eurasian Land Bridge is essentially the same thing (connection between two continents) and thus arguably as equal as the Pan-Am Highway for redirect. However, I also agree that the page (at the very least in its current form) is not notable and thus have taken it to deletion for a wider discussion and, hopefully, wider consensus. Ravendrop 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a problem with Doctor SK, who might or might not be related to another pro-UFO editor calling himself Dr Fil (who seems to have gone dormant). FWIW, the Jerry Cohen site he keeps trying to push is not factual research but simply opinion, and much of it based on his own misunderstandings. But of course we can't say this in WP. Anyway, thanks for slugging it out with him. (PS: And, yes, I am Ian Ridpath) Skeptic2 (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have created an account just to attack skeptical explanations of Rendlesham and the Exeter Incident, so his POV is fairly obvious. Skeptic2 (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure to meet you :-)

Thanks for all your hard work. bobrayner (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bobrayner, thanks for your support for the Global Economic Map IEG (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Global_Economic_Map). Do you know anybody else who might want to support the project or other Wikipedia projects that might want to get involved? Thank you Mcnabber091 (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wary of canvassing; let's not ask for support in a vote! bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

okay that is fair, i won't send out anymore messages like this. thanks anyways Mcnabber091 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob, When you tagged this article with "needs expert attention" you did not explain in your edit summary or on the talk page what problems you felt were present in the article. It would sure make it easier to fix if you could give some indication of what exactly you think the trouble is. Do you think you could do that? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate it if you could give me some sort of indication, no matter how general or "fuzzy". I don't really want to remove the tag without hearing from you, but I might have to do so If I can't work out what the problem is supposed to be. I am a mollusk expert and I don't know very much about sea anemones. Invertzoo (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the article needs the attention of a topic expert who can read and understand the sources. I noticed that although there's quite a bit of prose with long words, which is likely to make lay readers think it looks very sciencey and authoritative, some basic facts were skewed or omitted. bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob! I hope you're enjoying your new computer. Wanna put it to some good use? :)

There are many things happening among controversial Venezuelan articles. Bolivarian propaganda is possibly up for deletion soon, Venezuelanalysis.com is being disputed as a reliable source again, just a lot is going on. Would you help by providing an input? I know about canvassing now and such (thank you for teaching me) and I am not trying it. The work is just becoming overwhelming to me. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks for the help you already provided!--Zfigueroa (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Sorry for the delayed response. I have a lot to catch up on. Don't worry; I haven't forgotten you! bobrayner (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but I wondered, have you seen this [8] ? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind suggestion, Roxy. You needn't teach me how to suck eggs; I'm hard-boiled.

PS. Did you know that in France they only have one egg for breakfast? bobrayner (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JFI, the serbian gang strikes back with another attempt to revert Kosovo-related map to their view. As usual they called me and other editors (who revert their edits) vandals or cry Admin-abuse. --Denniss (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on my watchlist. I will reply when I have time. This is a long-term problem. bobrayner (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Bobrayner You sent me a message on the 22nd of April in regards of my slight upgrades of numerous world air forces. I have since stopped. I was hoping that my slight upgrades would in inspire others to add pictures, more information and a general upgrade on numerous third world air forces that are never looked at. Take it easy Bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Much of your work is great, and I don't doubt that you're well intentioned; but the flag pictures have caused trouble in the past - they can look tempting but there are problems with nationalities and emphasis.

Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobrayner. I was wondering if you had the time to review some of my suggested edits on the McKinsey & Company page here. Most of it is cleaning up some unsourced/poorly sourced content and moving a large list section to a pre-existing List article. CorporateM (Talk) 07:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am keen to help, but how urgent is it? I have a lot of work to do in real life over the next week. (I just got a new consulting gig in a different part of the country, and the first week onsite is always the toughest). If you can wait a few days for the toughest tasks, count me in. bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been in pretty bad shape for years - it can certainly wait a few days ;-)

I feel I should encourage you to focus on your new gig though; wouldn't want solving my/Wikipedia's problems to end up being a distraction for an important job opportunity and you'll probably be settling in for more than a few days.

As far as the tough parts, there are some pretty complex topics that I'll need to get to on that page eventually, including McKinsey's involvement in international environmental laws for example, but the current article-text does not set a high bar of making it difficult to make "an improvement" and a GA reviewer will also give it a second pair of eyes. CorporateM (Talk) 13:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. bobrayner (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobrayner. I've been poking around for someone to review this Request Edit if you have time and it won't interrupt with your new job. Hope it's going well! CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at JPG-GR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

You must immediately stop removing large amounts of edits from pages based on editor-specific targeting rather than content-specific, meanwhile giving no explanations. Such editing is highly disruptive and likely to be influenced by personal struggles or views rather than objectivity. Multiple times you have removed reliably sourced information and reverted back to biased versions of content. You stalk several users and destroy these users' large amounts of perfectly fine edits in several articles without any explanation, discussion or consensus. The degree to which you are doing this could be considered vandalism. Zozs (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you systematically distort and cherrypick sources, you'll probably get reverted. Don't blame me; other editors revert you too. You can see some relevant policies here: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, WP:COATRACK, and so on

If you are unable to comply with those policies, there are other websites where you might contribute more effectively. bobrayner (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about here. You systematically stalk editors and remove the whole of their edits not for objective reasons but because it was THEM who made the edit. You revert _ALL_ of _SEVERAL_ edits in certain articles of me several times - articles which, apparently, you only found by stalking my edit history. In at least TWO instance you merely gave the edit summary: "post-Zozs cleanup", ADMITTING that you were doing this merely because it was me. Other users have accused you of the same thing in the past. Don't throw stuff like at me because you know exactly what's going on. I don't want to see you removing an obviously objectively positive edit of me (I had even been "thanked" by other users for it through the Wikipedia edit thanking feature) spanning several paragraphs again without giving a thorough explanation in the talk page. Zozs (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you just tried to remove 25,000 bytes from that economic policy article again, merely using the the edit summary: "Post-Zozs cleanup", indicating that it specifically targeted my edits, even though every other editor in the article has opposed your edit, and immediately reverted it every time you've tried to do it. So this is at least THREE instances you're removing stuff merely using the edit summary: "Post-Zozs cleanup". If this is not vandalism then I don't know what is. Zozs (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobrayner. I have taken article Vanajan Autotehdas to peer review, I try to make it featured article. The review page is here. Your views for further development of the article are welcome and appreciated. The end part of the article has not been checked for grammatical correctness I think. Cheers, Gwafton (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I helped work on the article (though you did almost all the work!), so I wouldn't feel comfortable as a reviewer - there is a slight conflict of interest. However, I'll watch that peer review page - if you need a hand with anything, just shout. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in peer review for improvement, not for evaluation – that will follow in Featured Article review. So far the only feedback comes from a bot and I have made the suggested changes as far as I found them applicable. Either the subject is uninteresting or the article is as good as it can be. --Gwafton (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has been decided not to delete Trans Global Highway I am going to have a go at renaming and reorganising this. Just letting you know as you seem to have edited it. filceolaire (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Have fun. I'm sure you'll do a good job, although it's not easy to build high-quality content in this area. bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. If you plan on removing any more flagcruft like that, this script I wrote for myself might come in handy. Cheers, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a wise man once said: "We are opposed to national enmity and discord, to national exclusiveness. We are internationalists." bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Ambassador,

I am seeking input on your experience as a mentor to new Wikipedians. This survey is designed to provide insight for the development of a new mentorship support tool on Wikipedia. If you have a moment, please take this survey, it should not take more than 10 minutes of your time to complete.

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V2SSrhU2NFOVAV

Also, if you are able to, I would greatly appreciate it if you would send the following survey to the mentee you worked with:

https://syracuseuniversity.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_4V1quUdMZ1By3Ah

Thank you in advance for your participation, Gabriel Mugar 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started the survey and then gave up halfway through, because poor survey design undermines data quality; my effort would be wasted. Let's start with the first question: "Please indicate what mentorship program you participated/participate in". It is not possible for me to give an accurate answer, because I have used more than one (including "Other") but the survey form uses radiobuttons. Hence my first attempt at the first page failed with the profoundly unhelpful error message "#ValidationErrorCodes, VE_TEXT_ENTRY_HAS_VALUE_BUT_NOT_CHECKED#". And so on.

Well, I said "halfway through", but there are no cues as to survey length.

I would be happy to contribute a few minutes' time if it gives you useful data. I'm not happy spending my time contributing data which cannot be interpreted accurately. As an aside, if you need any advice on survey design, I'd happily help there too. bobrayner (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bobrayner, Your edit summary here was not helpful, indeed. Could you please elaborate your view here. Thanks (AnonimEditor (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Georgism concerning scope of the article. This is a neutral notification. Collect (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your conduct is discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, at WP:AE#Buttons. Please read that thread carefully and leave a statement. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've opened up an SPI for the accounts that edited in relation to Bioregulatory medicine. You can find the page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Manastir65, if you want to comment on the editing behaviors. I think that some of the accounts are probably just a case of someone trying to WP:MEAT, but I was concerned enough to want to have them checked just in case. I wasn't one of the editors at the AfD, so I'd like to have someone who participated come in and comment. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have replied there. bobrayner (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you have willfully cut text from the value-form article because it is not to your taste. A sentence such as "Thus, Marx aims to provide a brief morphology of the category of economic value as such, from the simplest forms to the money-form." is removed with the comment "synthetsis and bluster". This is not acceptable, and if you do not desist from your objectionable editing work, action will be taken.Jurriaan (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of websites where one might praise marxist ideas and present them as though they were fact. If you'd like to put the content on one of those websites, that could work - it's all CC BY-SA 3.0. However, such content doesn't belong on en.wikipedia.org, because content here is supposed to be accurate and neutral. bobrayner (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are an atrocious liar, Bob Rayner, and you operate with bad faith. I have never written any wiki "to praise marxist ideas and present them as though they were fact". That is just total crap. If I wrote in the value-form article I created that "Thus, Marx aims to provide a brief morphology of the category of economic value as such, from the simplest forms to the money-form." that is perfectly accurate and neutral. Because that is what it is. It is not controversial at all either. By contrast, your arbitrary vandalism of other's texts has nothing to do with accuracy and neutrality, but with your own perceptions, biases and prejudices what is acceptable or preferable. You are constantly fighting your own political propaganda war in wikipedia, as shown exactly by what you deleted and added across time. That's bad, but what makes it worse is two things: the evidence is that you frequently have no real experience or competency at all with regard to the subjectmatter you edit, and you provide no satisfactory explanations or discussions for cutting out very large parts of texts from articles written by others. I am therefore going to launch an arbitration procedure against you as soon as I get some time. Your highly objectionable political vendetta in wikipedia, disguised as "editing" ought to stop forthwith.Jurriaan (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Bob, I may have inadvertently complicated a 'revert war' on WoC ... There is also on that page a link to "Weight of Chains 2" ... a page written, modified and deleted within about 3 hours in October last year (deleted on grounds of being a direct copy of BM's webpage) ... that page link now redirects back to WoC1 .... earlier today UrVil reverted my removal of the pointless 'cyclic link' on the grounds of 'vandalism'. More on the talk page if you can bear to read it. Just notifying you.Pincrete (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On delete review editors were very clear about what they think so that is fair conclusion as I needed wider views. I have not done page myself but tried to step in to to what I believe was right but realised in retrospect that I entered in a wrong way and reverting editors decisions. My sincere appology as I was inadvertently causing steer and on occasion un-Wikipedian ethos as I did not truly realise that is not the way to do editing; you probably realise that I am a total newcomer and just starting to understand how it works, but sincere apology to you and other editors for undoing or reverting some of their editing. But I love the Wiki concept and whole process ! I have opened page myself last year but did not resubmit as I was gathering more citations and was doing other things, but since it was a new approach of integrative medicine naturally need good citations. Do you think once I gather notations to reasonable level I should resubmit page from last year on same topic? best wishes Bogorodica (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on or edit the Draft Template for WikiProject Globalization's 2014 Wikimania leaflet. See the template and details here. Thanks! Meclee (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob Rayner, thanks for your support for the Global Economic Map project a few months ago. Just so you know the project homepage has changed to here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Economic_Map

Have a good day, Mcnabber091 (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you accuse me of stalking we'll take it up at AN/I.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure you want to do that? I have a few interesting diffs, ready to go, but is it really necessary to keep on escalating the debate? There is clearly no consensus to treat RT as a reliable source; sniping at the folk who disagree with you, and following them round to revert-war on controversial topics, isn't going to help.
• It was quite funny when you derided me as a "new editor" on RSN, even though I have more experience there than you. And when you accused me of pushing an agenda on a topic that I have, in reality, carefully avoided. And when you asked irrational questions whilst also banning me from replying. The answer to that one is "You said it yourself, on your own talkpage"; if you're angry with me about things that you typed on your own talkpage a few minutes earlier, it might be time to step away from the keyboard for a bit.

bobrayner (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never said that you were a "new" editor in the RS/N thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]