User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 2

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Second arbitrary deletion of Slavic Phaistos Disc Interpretation

Please stop editwarring and discriminating slavonic science, be friendly. 

You are too young to be able to value the method used. You need more decipherment experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fohren (talk • contribs) 16:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Slavic Phaistos Disc interpretation

Someone with the nickname Bobrayner deleted the information on Slavic Phaistos Disc interpretation with the claim "I don't think we need to take a translation seriously if the translator used a "Czech-SerbianCroatian dictionary from 1910" to get the "the oldest words"" See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phaistos_Disc_decipherment_claims&action=history This holy "protector" would have surely deleted Michael Ventris's deciphermt of linear AB, as well. But he only did not understood the method. While English changed since middle ages remarkably, Slavonic languages are using some words since neolithic time unchaged. This is because of the very early development of these languages and they reached their perfection very early. For example, the word "raining" sounds in Protoslavonic "kišě" (with the diacritic added which the neolithic people did not use at all), and you may find it on the HT 87 tablet, third line, the two last sings. The graphem KI-SE equals the nowadays Serbo-Croatian "kišě" and the phonem sounds equaly as in nowadays Serbo-Croatian, namely "kišě". This is only one aspect of the method used. The most important aspect is acrophony. I hope, as an expert you know this. If not, it does not matter, and also, if you do not understand what I am writing about. Acrophony is extensively explained in Peter Kovar's article. Your claim, a Czech-SerbianCroatian dictionary from 1910 being used to get the oldest words is not good enough, shows your limitations in grasping the method. Mr. Kovar has a 20 years experience in getting the meaning of the neolithic sings (compare with step one Determining the meaning of individual sign) and using SerboCroatian language became standard in translating neolithic inscriptions and writings. The 1910 dictionary is unimportant. Important is to have dictionaries wich map local usage of SerboCroatian without being influenced with the last 100 years cultural influences as far as possible. I understand your surprize that the method is so simple. But it is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fohren (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Free Trade Article Opening

Good to know we agree on some, if not all, of my recent edits :). The stuff about most states being protectionist is true, and my removing it was just because I didn't feel it was necessarily appropriate for the introduction (and the reference isn't working). However, I really think the stuff about NAFTA and CAFTA needs the 'contrary to their formal titles' stricken, and in the long term a reference. I'm not sure it should be in so prominent a part of the article, but don't really want to argue that when there's so much else with the article to do. I've been told one should never revert a revert, so, I wanted to get your thoughts on it first.--TurquoiseThreads (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK; good points!

Maybe the article could do with some high-level rearrangement of sections - I struggled a bit because I was finding sentences which seemed out-of-place but there didn't seem to be a better place to put them. Do you think that could help? The stuff about free-trade areas actually being regulated is worth mentioning once, but I think the article overemphasises the problem - somebody seems to have been trying to make a point (maybe it would be better if we just threw in a couple of links to examples of unfree trade in free trade areas, perhaps the CAP, and left it at that). Sorry if my edits were a bit hamfisted! bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All good, I think a few of my deletions were a bit ham-fisted :). With the stuff about 'free trade area' being a misnomer, maybe the 'Current Status' section could be expanded? I agree with you the biggest problem is rearrangement - if a coherent structure is worked out, it'll be far easier to slot things in to their place and make sure they're written properly without losing details. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do, but I think it's an article worth giving some time to. I'll have a close read of the sections tonight and try to figure out a coherent order for them.--TurquoiseThreads (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dacian script

Thanks a lot for the very objective and neutral point of view on the Dacian script. Much needed! Best regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AshKmorse

You're welcome to comment since you just reverted an IP sock at Oscillococcinum‎. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Railroad Maps

Railways in Cameroon
Ngaoundéré Bélabo Nanga Eboko Yaoundé Mbalmayo Edéa Douala Kumba Nkongsamba

Thought I was following links to where railroad maps were being asked for. New at Wiki, if wrong Talk Page, please forgive, and delete. I do have some knowledge at drawing railroad maps, although I've called mine charts for many years. I may be able to help in some small way. Freadman (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm just one random person who occasionally makes simple diagrams (like the one on the right). You might want to try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Maps task force, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. If you want to dive straight in and start contributing maps (or charts or diagrams), there is a long list of articles which need one.

Don't worry; at first it can be hard to find your way around some of wikipedia's darker corridors, but you'll soon get used to it. If there's anything I can do to help, just come back here and ask. It's good to have you onboard. bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DERM:MA

We are always looking for more help with the dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push in which we are making sure Wikipedia has an article on every cutaneous condition. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would be willing to help with the Bolognia push? I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for new articles and redirects. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a very kind offer, but at the moment I'm quite busy with other projects. Sorry. Cool accountname, by the way. bobrayner (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Buteyko

Hi Bob. I wish I had read your profile earlier – Wikipedia needs more people with your attitude to help with editing. Bob, I have some good news for you. You can drop the Buteyko case because I'm pulling the pin, this time for good. I've just wasted too much time and nervous energy on it, and frankly, even if we can fix it, there is no knowing what little Hitler (with apologies to Hitler) will destroy our efforts again. The toxic mix of ignorance and arrogance of some of the self appointed police on Wikipedia is the dark face of the project. Thanks anyhow for your involvement so far. You're a brave man! I won't be monitoring my Wikipedia talk page any more, nor the Buteyko page. If you have any questions about Buteyko for your own interest you can get me at pkolb@westnet.com.au . I am consoled by the fact that people don't have to rely on Wikipedia for information on Buteyko – there are plenty of good sites on the web. Kind regards – Peter Kolb Peter Kolb (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a shame.

It can be quite stressful to get into a dispute. Have you considered working on different articles? Then you might get the warm fuzzy feeling of improving an encyclopædia, without the stress.

However, I strongly disagree with your hitler comparison. That kind of attack is a Bad Thing. If you disagree with somebody, play the ball, not the man! bobrayner (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob. You have been reverting articles that I have made changes to. What now, are you gonna revert my new article? If you do, your really unfriendly. What one shame. Stop reverting my articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by VJ-Yugo (talk • contribs) 02:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

There appears to be an incipient edit war at Andrew Wakefield, in which you are involved. Please use the article talk page to discuss the content issues. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation; I was hitherto unaware that one edit restoring relevant sourced content (added by a different editor) counted as editwarring. However, if there are concerns I will, of course, head back to the talkpage and let other folk form a consensus on whether the content should be in the article. I added a link on Dobyblue's talkpage, for convenience, since they haven't yet found their way to article talkpages despite a number of reverts. bobrayner (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I did say incipient! Anyway, it has been added twice and removed twice, and that does look rather like an edit war, regardless of how many editors are involved. The sequence is Bold, Revert, Discuss. Yobol boldly added it, Dobyblue removed it, the next step should be discussion, not bold and revert again. DuncanHill (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; good points. The reversions seem to have abated now. Hopefully we can thrash something out on the talkpage... bobrayner (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Operation Allied Force

Apparently, you do not know what I am saying, is that correct? Lessons of Kosovo was not made by Youtube, it was made by WHUC, 2001. It is a documentary about the NATO air strikes that failed to achieve their goal because Serbia was overpowering them by not giving up. If it was a NATO victory, then how come riots still happen in Kosovo and if they did not want Serbian Military Presence there, then how come in 2001, Serbian Armed Forces and Police Units were at war with LAPMB insurgents in Presevo, Medveda, and Bujanovac? That was in Kosovo, where Serbs units were fighting with the KLA and the KFOR had to be deployed. Also, let me tell you this and look at it wisely, HIGH CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, LOW MILITARY CASUALTIES! They didn't even attack the military, they freakin' attacked civilians, how do you call that a NATO victory, and yes, this documentary was NOT FROM YOUTUBE! Your really blind, I'm sorry, but you are and I hope you've read this message. VJ-Yugo (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The events in Kosovo were well documented by various reliable sources; if the best source you can find to support your opinion is a Youtube video, perhaps you should accept that your opinion is not compatible with the consensus view and the weight of evidence, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to reflect. Anybody can upload videos to youtube; it is not a reliable source for international politics, and that's even before we consider the copyright problems. Perhaps you should look for a better source.

It is very hard to maintain a neutral point of view on articles about conflict in the Balkans; I understand that you feel very strongly about some of it, but going to a controversial article and making drastic changes against the existing evidence, and against consensus, is unlikely to make good progress. Please consider using the talkpage to discuss contentious changes. You will notice that other people, not just me, have reverted your changes. People who disagree with you on Kosovo are not necessarily your enemies; they're just people who want to build a better encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In the Jobbik page

In the Jobbik talk page he attacked me too,is he going to be blocked?No. Why?Because wikipedia is more sympathetic towards right-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus Marat (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "more sympathetic towards right-wing", and I am disappointed that you adopt the victim posture simply because you got caught out calling somebody a fascist and holocaust denier. Insulting people will not change their mind - it only hurts them, undermines your point, and scares away genuine contributors. I did not, at first glance, see a similar attack made by the previous person on the talkpage; but if you can point one out, I will respond to to that separately. If you want to improve wikipedia articles, I would love to help - a good place to start is with sources.bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OU events

This certainly seems like a neat idea; I'm thinking we could weave it into one of the other events, or set up an event in its own right. Is there any particular way that the OU is coordinated, and you could get in touch with people? Ironholds (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed response. I've dropped queries in a couple of places (including my tutor) asking about the best direction to move this forward, since the OU doesn't have a campus or a face-to-face community in the same way that other universities do. There's definitely potential - OU students are generally online students, after all, but I need to find the first foothold... bobrayner (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Railway electrification in Iran

Hmmm, I thought I'd seen (and deleted that mosque before), then wondered why anyone would remove {{convert}} tags, but remember to add the " "s back in. Quick check on the edit summaries and revision sizes in recent history, and it turns out it was just a reversion of the previous 3 edits (2 mine and 1 yours) back to the last version by Ghorbanalibeik. I cannot find out where 188.158.25.58 is, so who knows (I'll see any replies here). Tim PF (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's probably Ghorbanalibeik, who may not be a native anglophone and who has some slightly unconventional ideas. Usually when reversions are undone it's because of some specific POV war, but on Ghorbanalibeik's preferred articles, reversions by other people get undone even if they were unambiguous improvements to language / formatting &c... When somebody reverts to an older broken version of their own, that suggests a sense of ownership. bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

AN/I notice...Aspartame

A complaint has been filed at AN/I located here. Since only two editors were notified, I'm placing a notice on the pages of all editors who have commented at Talk:Aspartame controversy in recent history. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded, and will follow the thread. Thanks for the pointer. bobrayner (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk page comments

Bob, please don't remove other people's posts except as permitted by WP:TPG. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops. That was a copy & paste error on my part. Sorry. Thanks for restoring those two old comments. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Break of Gauge

"Good-faith changes to better match sources are not vandalism, by the way."

That may be true, but simply removing someone else's contribution is hardly a good faith change. It's considered to be vandalism (See WP:BLANKING). Since 'most' and 'nearly all' mean more or less the same thing, I can't really argue with your change. 86.177.29.4 (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. The initial text that I removed started with a direct contradiction of what sources say; I was trying to improve the article. Removing text which contradicts sources is a good thing; it is not WP:VANDALISM. The later version of the text was better; thanks for that. Incidentally, WP:BLANKING is also incompatible with the purpose that you seem to be using it for, since it's about talkpages. It might be a good idea to read these policies before claiming that other people are breaking them. Nonetheless, thanks for your contribution. bobrayner (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Binary economics

Thank you sincerely for your edits. You're gonna have some fun.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wandering through Category:Heterodox economics, saw a huge can of worms, and wondered "Hey, what happens if I open this?". bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date

That's an interesting addition you just made to History of rail transport in Great Britain 1995 to date on the day that Network Rail were in the news over the Potters Bar rail crash. Safety may have improved under Network Rail, but part of the reason for Failtrack's demise was its abysmal safety record compared to the pre-1995 British Rail.

Once again, I could just revert your edit, but I just await a little while for you to correct it, and, better still, add something about "safety" in the rest of the article. I'd do it myself, but I'm having to stand to use the computer now that the removal men have taken it off to store (just need to finish cleaning up, and I'll be gone). Tim PF (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would merely point out that sources show that safety has improved since privatisation. A lot of people may believe otherwise, and some may point out specific headline-grabbing accidents (cf History of rail transport in Great Britain); but overall, sources show that safety has improved. Fewer injuries, fewer fatalities, and the frequency of SPADs has halved since privatisation despite an increase in movements. Why would you revert a well-sourced addition on a subject that the article hitherto neglected? I would genuinely like to know. If you'd like another source, I can recommend tables 7.4 and 7.5 of the DFT's "Transport Trends" for an overview, although there are more detailed sources if you're interested in a specific safety metric. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. Good luck with your relocation! bobrayner (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've checked all 4 cited articles (2 from each page), and none of them appear to agree with those statements (ie they either cover just Notwork Rail (2002-) or I just cannot easily work out what was actually cited). I have therefore added a {{Clarify|date=February 2011|reason=The cited references do not appear to support that statement}} tag to both. It did take me a while to find your newly added references without a {{Reflist}}, which I added for you, but actually commented out the rogue phrase and citatations (and added a few spaces to improve the line wrap), as I agree that the lede does need a bit more meat. If you remove the comment marks, please don't remove the {{clarify}} tag without resolving it.

Thanks for the relocation smiley. I'm also hanging around as the surveys have identified some work needs doing, and I'm waiting for the prospective purchasers to revise their offer, and see if we'll accept (or reach a compromise). Next task is to make a "bed" on the floor; probably better in the other bedroom which has a timber floor. Tim PF (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've just realised that you just added those 2 citations to History of rail transport in Great Britain. I don't really want to just revert (or excise as with the other article), as it is now tomorrow, and takes too much thought. I also agree that there is a possible POV issue, but I cannot resolve that without digging out sources myself, which I probably can without too much difficulty. Tomorrow, in this case, is the same day. Tim PF (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Triple-E

Hi, you may wish to follow http://stats.grok.se/en/201102/Maersk_Triple_E_class the next few days, as Mærsk is releasing Earnings Call tomorrow, 23 February 2011. TGCP (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Groovy; thanks. It's nice to see Wikipedia getting a grip on new subjects so quickly. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. This article seems like a natural to be featured at WP:DYK. Have you considered submitting it? The first hook that comes to mind is something like "...that the first ten ships of Maersk Line's new Triple E Class totals US$1.9 billion?" Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! I was hoping to improve the article a little more, today, before submitting. An alternative hook might involve the physical scale of the fleet. I haven't submitted a DYK before, so be gentle with me... bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. I don't think you'll have any problems, but if you need some help, just feel free to drop me a line. I think your idea of suggesting an alt hook is good. Something could definately be done with the sentence "They are expected to be the world's largest ships when they enter service." Cheers. Haus^Talk 15:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

please help torsion field article

The article have no reliable sources as pseudoscientific concept. Shipov`s Torsion field research was not disbanded and will never be (it becomed private) due to the 1991 eastern "revolutions" the Soviet Union itself dissolved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comunism)! The ultimate truth is that torsion technology is the best and used by NASA(US), Cern LHC (top European Scientifical Experiments),Russian Research Institute of Space Systems, in one word everyone uses Akimov and Shipov`s work, the only technology provided with unlimited funds from KGB (Russia)! Torsion field devices are sold all around the world. In 2010 Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia, Mr. Boris Gryzlov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Gryzlov) gave an online interview (http://www.gazeta.ru/interview/nm/s3337459.shtml) «??????.Ru» “Gazeta.ru”,, where he commented the activities of "RANS" - the Russian Commission on Pseudoscience”. Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia Party Boris Gryzlov denounced the activities of Commission on Pseudoscience of Russian Academy of Science (lead by ) as obnoxious (‘mrakobesy” Rus.) that work against development of Russia and her advances. He further named the commission’s scientific eloquence as “pearls” (an ironic substitute for an “obscene language” used by Commission to intimidate their opponents), which fell down below the intellectual level of top class experts in science.

He got over 6,000 complaints about the Commission’s activities

His Statement:

"The commission does not represent any of the legal departments of the Academy. The commission represents just the interests of few academicians, who stuck together as a group. Judging by the “pearls” of their “eloquences”, I may conclude that they do not perform at a level of the highest class professionals."

Gryzlov stated about his intention to detach “the commission from the Academy” the false group of scientists (the imaginary commission who asks for money from any new invention)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Maersk Triple E class

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

12,400 page views for a DYK item buried in the middle is very good, indeed! Congrats. Haus^Talk 11:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Mirrors and forks

Hey, we had already discussed at RSN about not banning all books by the publisher… but still you've added it to WP:Mirrors and forks. What does this addition mean? If it means that no book by the publisher may be used as source in a Wikipedia article, this was done against consensus and I request you to remove it. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This addition means that the publisher is a mirror, effectively. Which has been established quite firmly and I don't think the debate at RSN overturned that. Every book from that publisher which I have checked so far (I think it's up to twelve or thirteen books by now) has copied extensively from wikipedia or, occasionally, from other sources. Did you check any of their books? In no case have I found any acknowledgement of the copying. It would be bizarre not to list the publisher at WP:Mirrors and forks. You have argued that some leeway should be given to existing articles which cite their books; I don't wholly agree, but if there are lots of articles based solely on Global Vision books I will not AfD old articles wholesale. If you are unhappy with an article being based on blatant mirroring/copyvio, it might be a good idea to see where the cited text came from and change the reference to use an original source instead. Older articles citing Global Vision books are more likely to be based on copyvio of a different printed source, rather than a circular reference. bobrayner (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"Did you check any of their books?" Yes, I checked, and I mentioned it in that discussion, which you found it convenient to ignore. The book is Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sanskrit Literature (given a different title by Google's buggy automated systems), which cannot have copied from Wikipedia (nothing of its content exists on Wikipedia), and I cannot find it to have plagiarised from any other book. If you can prove it to me that this book is a copy of some other printed book (and I can access that printed book so I can check for myself), I will accept your conclusion; else, just because you found some books copied from Wikipedia doesn't mean all books are copied from Wikipedia — and if they are copied from other books, it's not our business to care. Shreevatsa (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It just took me a couple of minutes to confirm that a sentence from a random page in that book (I chose the first sentence I found with a major grammatical error, to make it unusual) also appears in a 1996 book, "Encyclopaedia of Indian writers: Akademi laurels: Volume 1; Volume 6" by Sinha / Choudhury. How many instances of plagiarism must we find before a publisher is considered untrustworthy by default?

I don't think it's appropriate for me to keep on investigating more and more of their plagiarism if the investigation has no effect on your stance. If you carefully investigate one of their books and find it is a reliable source, then you have bucked the trend; feel free to use any such book. If you don't investigate a book, it would be silly to assume that it's a good source, given the extensive and wide-ranging pattern of mirroring and copyvio discovered so far. bobrayner (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What sentence was this? I already searched for various sentences in the book and could not find them in other books. Again, as I said both here and in the earlier discussion, we only care about whether something has copied from Wikipedia, not whether it has copied from elsewhere. It's unfortunately pretty much the norm in India for books to lift sentences from other books (and leave only an acknowledgement in the preface, something like "I am thankful to various standard books on the subject whose material has been used in this book"), but this doesn't mean the whole book is unreliable. Shreevatsa (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That copying may or may not be the norm in one sector, but if the publisher routinely copies obvious errors too, and if every book we've checked contains unacknowledged copyvio - mostly but not wholly from wikipedia - then I think the whole publisher falls a long way short of the standard expected at WP:RS. If some other publishers also have low standards, that does not absolve Global Vision's sins. Also, a mere acknowledgement of copying is incompatible with the unusually specific disclaimer against plagiarism that you pointed out on the RSN thread.

It's worth bearing in mind the wording of WP:ELNEVER: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked ... Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.

I fear we're not going to agree on this subject; would you like to reopen the discussion at RSN and get some comments from third parties? bobrayner (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, what I'd like is for you to first get consensus for declaring the whole publisher as specifically a Wikipedia mirror, given that there was no such consensus in the previous discussion, and I've shown you at least one book that does not copy from Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is for Wikipedia mirrors and forks specifically, not for sticking random sources deemed unreliable. It's up to you.

Second: Ok, I searched more myself, and found a sentence in Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sanskrit Literature that's also in another book. This book's entire entry on Adhyatma Ramayana is nearly word-for-word identical with the entry in a book published by the Sahitya Akademi. Which only makes me trust the book more, if it's taking from such reputable sources. :p (But not all entries are taken from the other book.)

Third, WP:ELNEVER is for external links, not sources.

About "absolve Global Vision's sins": I hope you realise that it's not our job to sit in judgment of everyone's sins, and "punish" publishers by putting them on a blacklist (do you think they care?) Our goal is to just improve Wikipedia using the best sources we can find. If the best ones we can access have copied from other books, well, that's sad, but better than nothing (or copying from Wikipedia).

Finally, let me say that I will continue to improve Wikipedia using any source that has not been shown to be either contain something false, or to copy from Wikipedia. All this other stupidity only gets in the way of making Wikipedia better. Of course reputable sources are better than disreputable ones, but disreputable sources you can rely on are still better than nothing. Shreevatsa (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

On further thought, never mind all this. It doesn't matter much either way. Some publisher is listed on some page; many but not all of its books are ones we shouldn't use; nothing really matters. People will continue to write articles based on whatever sources they find; in cases of dispute there is some warning against books by this publisher; and hopefully people will always use judgment specific to the context ("how dangerous would this particular material here be if it's false?" etc.). It's all good. Thank you for your time. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That was pretty much my stance; to raise a red flag, not to immediately wipe every citation off wikipedia (though I think many could/should be replaced). I still disagree with some bits of what you've said above, but let's not restart the argument! bobrayner (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

USA and Canada

USA and Canada should be converted from 1435 to 1676 necessary, because conversions in USA and Canada to broad gauge get more advantage. Several reasons:

1. Russia won't allow 1435mm or narrow gauge invasions.
2. USA and Canada have lower traffic density (both passenger and freight flow), and USA and Canada have almost no concrete sleepers.
3. 1435 standard gauge is too narrow for USA and Canada.
4. Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Canada, USA and the Central Asian countries should protect invasions from Iran/China/Mexico/Burma.

58.138.55.55 (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for your efforts in tracking the hoax vandalism by Wikindia24x7 (talk · contribs). – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I had seen those uploads flashing up on the new files list for days and never suspected anything. Dang. And I found a few more howlers now that I looked. By the way, I've blocked Rizwan123 (talk · contribs) as a sock, and deleted a few of his articles for block evasion and as possible hoaxes. Since you seem to be the only person who's been keeping track of them, please do let me know if you feel any of them were worth keeping; I'd of course gladly undelete them then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very generous of you; thanks. I've been trying to untangle a large, related problem in article-space (it's a can of worms - avoid it if you want to keep your sanity), and the images were just a secondary discovery. I'm sure you can take most of the credit for work on the files!

By the way, what's the best response to File:Train accident mpt.jpg? Your sage suggestions would be very welcome. I also put a few items like File:Damoh PSN.jpg on FfD rather than PUF, where the files seem to be deceptive but probably not copyvio per se. Some article-space edits also misappropriated legitimate images, ie. using an image of a real train in the UK and claiming it was Indian... bobrayner (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good job listing those files the way you did. I think it's quite useful to have a few of those cases documented in this way. They are of course all headed for deletion now. I assume most of the railway pics are in fact his own (consistent exif data from the same camera), so they can probably stay as long as they are not photoshopped. The most outrageous thing I found of him so far was File:Khurai Mahakali Temple.jpg, where he stole this image of a temple in Delhi, photoshopped it to change the colours of the towers (from red to blue!) and then claimed it was a temple in Khurai. What a sad place that town must be, if it's in need of virtual Potemkin villages like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. One of the airport articles created by AdarshJain2 (Sagar Airport) is a definite hoax so I've CSD'd it, and Ujjain Airport looks hoaxy too (the IATA/ICAO codes are fictional). I've now started looking at the websites used by some of these articles - I'd previously assumed www.indore.com was ok but it's actually a nonexistent site. We can't just nuke everything because many contributions appear legitimate, although mostly low on notability/sourcing. There's now a long checklist - it will take 1-2 weeks to investigate everything. (I'd hoped to do some work of my own instead of spending 2 weeks cleaning up somebody else's mess!) bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good job on this garden. I've had to delete numerous articles and images before, and had asked for help quite a few times on WT:INB but no one seemed interested. As for the train articles, many of them are likely to be hoaxes, you can verify if they exist at [1] or [2] and maybe just create a list of these hoax articles that either I (and I'm quite inactive now) or another admin such as FPaS can delete them under G3. I don't think we need to go through AfD for these hoaxes. —SpacemanSpiff 07:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to sign

You forgot to sign your last post at Talk:Astrology. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Serves me right for trying to edit wikipedia whilst in a conference call at work! bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sagar Airport

I've declined speedy on that for the moment - I'm interested to know why you think it's a hoax. The thing seems to be either known as that or as Dhana Airport (although aerodrome might be more accurate...). So far as I can see, it exists. I might be missing something you can see. Thanks in advance. Peridon (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable link to it? At least the ICAO code doesn't seem to exist ([3]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was created by a known hoaxer, and the IATA and ICAO codes are deliberate fakes. And it's not even an airport, per se. bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ujjain one appears to be not an airport but a mere airfield used only by a private flying school [4], and the ICAO code is a hoax again, so I've now speedied that one. My question about the Sagar one above was directed more at Peridon than at you, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries; thanks for your hard work, both bobrayner (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I think it might be worth turning the current indef-block into a full formalized community ban. I might post something on WP:AN to that effect soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The description of airfield fits what I've found for Dhana.Sagar. Is http://www.ourairports.com/countries/IN/MP/airports.html?sort=municipality&show=all reliable? Or http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Aircraft+Supplier+%26+MRO+News+-+Asia+%2F+Pacific.-a0197683204? People do go to some lengths at times setting up hoaxes - even setting up fake newspapers - and I thought better not to delete straight off before checking. Even with a nomination from bobrayner... Peridon (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.: A discussion at AN sounds reasonable. However, every day I find a new problem - would you mind pausing that for a few days to avoid a dripfeed of information to the thread? I was planning to do something similar anyway, once there's a full "portfolio" that could be presented all together, wrapped up with a ribbon. I don't think it's urgent, it seems unlikely an unblock request would be accepted in the near future, and any new socks would still be dealt with the same way... over at WikiProject Trains there's a community discussion on how to handle the large volumes of less-hoaxy, low-notability articles - maybe it would be sensible to wait and see if anything new emerges from that thread. bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Peridon: There is definitely an airstrip in that area (with a different code, VA1J) although it's not called Sagar (that's the name of the nearest city) and it's not really an airport. Satellite images show that VA1J has a 17/35 runway. The stuff about Chimes' "current fleet" looks like it's been copypasted then details exaggerated (for comparison, the same editor created an article on a train crash which copy-pasted a news article about the crash and then just changed the number of casualties upwards). If there's no agreement to delete, I won't be heartbroken - it's not the most outrageous hoax article, but even with the sources I've found in the last few hours the text will have to start from scratch, it'll be 3 sentences, and it'll still fall short of the GNG. Which pretty much summarises the problem presented by a lot of this editor's creations. bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put up a note at AN, with hopefully enough examples and links to give the community an idea of the kind of problem we're facing. If we want to bundle more links into a fuller piece of documentation later on, for future reference, that might still be useful, but I think we have enough right now to get the decision formalized. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. As for Dhana, it may be that the flying school is more notable than the airstrip. There was a previously-deleted article on Chimes which was userified a year ago and is now gathering dust. bobrayner (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you two to sort out, then. [returns with relief to clearing backlogs] Peridon (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force

Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw I loved "less GF would be A'd", and agree completely. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a very generous invitation (and you excel at flattery); but I'm currently very busy with other work in article-space, which seems to absorb all my free time. I'd be happy to make occasional contributions (and support votes), but cannot commit to much more organisational effort right now. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a particular timeline? I will probably have more time on my hands in 2 weeks. bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's safe to say we'll still be at this in two weeks :) Jump in any time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

More flattery ... I love the points you're making and hope you have time to keep it up. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to "I'm not so sure that we completely lack checks and balances": right, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that that was WFC's point ... and I'm not sure that he's saying that himself, he might be saying that others believe that and that affects their votes at RFA, and I think that's totally right. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; but occasionally we see stronger rhetoric from other quarters, about out-of-control admins and so on. If I remember correctly, there have been a couple of people who went through a phase of repeatedly voting !oppose at RfAs because they felt admins generally were unaccountable. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and for our planned RFC to succeed, we need to give these folks, and everyone else, something. I try to address that in the post I just made at User talk:Dank/RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. However, my personal feeling is that some who gripe about admin unaccountability might oppose if a proposed measure is not strong enough.

Unfortunately, you can't please all of the people all of the time, which helps explain why there's been so much talk at RfA over the years but little reform until now. I think that getting over that hurdle is essential: Either find some way of pleasing everyone (including the contrarians who take pride in being difficult to please); or find a way to strike a consensus/compromise that makes most people happy, without letting a small number of dissenters (who are not a homogenous group; they might disagree with each other) tug too strongly on the reins.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That brings it into focus nicely, and I'll respond at User talk:Dank/RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wainhouse Tower & St. Pauls

Hi, I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit to place the tower and church in the correct article. As I was born in Halifax, with relatives in King Cross and still have connections there I do know the difference between what is in Halifax and what is in King Cross. NB: The url you placed as a reference for St.Pauls, on the Halifax article indicates a King Cross address (incidentally the reference is incomplete and showing a red warning on the article, so perhaps you could sort that out! Richard Harvey (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal background is not the best arbiter; this is the 21st century, and we have easy access to maps, websites, and other documents. (I'm from even closer, and I spent 7 years at a school in the shadow of Wainhouse Tower - curiously you didn't remove that school from the Halifax article).

What matters is:

1. Geographical areas can overlap, and there is absolutely no rule that a landmark can only be mentioned in an article on one such area. That would be crazy. Wainhouse Tower can be in KX and Halifax (and even Calderdale) just as the Eiffel Tower is simultaneously in the Champ de Mars, 7th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, and France articles.
2. Sources say that Wainhouse Tower is in Halifax. If some sources also say it's in KX, that's fine, because it can be mentioned in the KX article too. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia; it should reflect what reliable sources say.
3. Thanks for pointing out the ref error. It's now fixed. That was a typo on my part, sorry.

It's probably best to continue this thread on Talk:Halifax, West Yorkshire since somebody else expressed the same concerns there. bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

PC

Hi there. I appreciate your viewpoint in the PC RfC discussion, and I do not want to badger opposers. However, I noted your "oppose on principle" - and I do understand that. But the comments you then make indicate that you are willing to accept the necessity. Unfortunately, yours is viewed as an oppose vote, and therefore doesn't help us form a consensus to do anything. With this in mind, I just added comments, explaining why I do think it necessary - so please, if you have time, consider what I wrote here. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I put my vote under "oppose" because I oppose the suggestion. After months of complex debate in multiple venues, I am very wary of an argument framed along the lines of "Let's just turn it off temporarily so we can find the best way to use it in the longer term". I think it's quite unlikely to turn out like that. I understand your position, but I think it's counterproductive to put down a useful tool like that. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for considering it. FWIW, I am personally convinced that if this discussion fails, PC is doomed to limbo forever - can't be used, can't be removed, can't get consensus for policy. But, I respect your opinion, and thank you for considering it.  Chzz  ►  10:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion will go the same way as all the previous PC discussions. Whether you want to call that "fail" is a matter of personal preference bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's all talk, no action. We can't agree on anything. It is tremendously frustrating, for all concerned - as you could see on the talk page, and the archives. Lots of talk, no progress whatsoever, and more and more frustration. I truly fear for the future of the project, if we cannot come to agreement over this issue; it does not bode well for consensus. As for 'fail' - well, do you really think - honestly - that there is the remotest chance of getting an agreement to e.g. expand the scope of PC, if this fails?  Chzz  ►  11:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Is there any scope for compromise, and consensus, in this?  Chzz  ►  11:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I share your frustration. I'm going to step back from that debate today, and try to come back with some fresh thinking at the weekend.

A wise man once said that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard". Maybe dictatorship is worth another try. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oligarchy won't work; indeed, some would say that that is exactly why we are in this mess.

I want consensus. I don't want voting; I want discussion. I'm quite happy to compromise, if such a thing is possible. Remove it on half the articles? Don't add it to any more, until we get agreement? Only allow PC on Tuesdays, Thurdays and Saturdays? I don't care. Frankly, anything is better than this utter, utter madness we have now. I look forward to hearing from you.  Chzz  ►  11:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi Bob, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it to you yet, but you may be interested in this budding project The task force is growinghere. When there are a few more names on the list I'll move the page to project space. Link title. --Kudpung (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been sitting on the edge of the pool, reluctant to dive in. Thanks for the nudge. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Please stop being an apple. Thank you. 124.197.39.155 (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Question about proposed source in Pseudoscience

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

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

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

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

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

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

On SPA's and Assuming Good Faith

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

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

New guy: [5]

The guy who has been pushing the same ideas already: [6]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice...

Just to say this really made me laugh. [7] Cheers, --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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

DYK for Anesrif

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

DYK for High Plateau line

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

RfA reform

Hi Bobrayner/Archive 2. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Kosovo war

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

Poll

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

Fractional reserve banking mediation cabal

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

1. My reliable sources, and

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

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

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

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

That RfA Reform thing

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

AN

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

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

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

Hi Wonderful Person!!^^

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

DYK record

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

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

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

Well done snark

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

Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Taxation in the Ottoman Empire DYK

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

The reconfirmation RfA thing

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

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

Flag icons in animal breed infoboxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Anti-Flame Barnstar

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

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

Hello

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

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

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

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

DYK for Taxation in the Ottoman Empire

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

DYK for Emin (Ottoman official)

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

DYK for Tekalif-i orfiye

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

DYK for Resm-i çift

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

DYK for Rav akçesi

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

DYK for Nüzül

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

DYK for İspençe

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

DYK for Avariz

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

DYK for Adet-i ağnam

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

DYK for Resm-i arusane

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

DYK for Tuz resmi

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

DYK for Resm-i bennâk

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

DYK for Bedl-i askeri

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

DYK for Gümrük resmi

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

DYK for Sursat

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

DYK for Müskirat resmi

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

DYK for Temettu

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

DYK for Adet-i deştbani

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

DYK for Damga resmi

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

DYK for Resm-i mücerred

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

DYK for Öşür

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

DYK for Ihtisab

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

DYK for Tapu resmi

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

DYK for Resm-i donum

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

DYK for Muafiyet

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

Thanks for the clarification

WikiThanks

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Looking forward to it. I don't need any source that's stuck behind the paywall though. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

25 DYK Medal

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

Thanks! bobrayner (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)