User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 6
Cook Inlet "natives"
[edit]I don't intend to undo your edit as it is a better wording, but just FYI "native" is Alaskan shorthand for any of the Alaska Native peoples, the way "Indians" was one used prominently in the lower 48. After living here for a while I discovered that Alaska has numerous variations of the meanings of words that differ from American English, for example a garage is referred to as a "shop". (This led to some confusion for me when looking for a place to live, I couldn't understand why so many houses came with a shop). There are also numerous genericized trademark terms up here. Whoever sold something first in Alaska got their name permanently attached to that product, regardless of manufacturer. One of these days am going to compile all of these into an article or at least part of an existing article. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks; that's a good point. It can be difficult to deal with words which are common and have ambiguous/contradictory uses... bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
citations linking to 'third world traveler'
[edit]Dear Bobrayner, I understand the case you are making about linking to thirdworldtraveler as a copyright violation. Can I ask that in cases where you remove these links, you simply remove the link and leave the citation, which is of course still valid? I see that you consider the articles hosted on thirdworldtraveler to be 'fringey' but if you disagree with their use on Wikipedia, please discuss that on a case by case basis instead of removing important citations from 100+ articles. Thank you. groupuscule (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK; I'll have a look.
- I'd be happy to retain the original citation in some cases, but my first priority is removing the WP:ELNEVER problem, and second priority is fixing content problems which seem to be common wherever thirdworldtraveler has been cited. Much of their content is fringey. I first stumbled across the site when I found a demonstrably false claim in an article, which nonetheless cited thirdworldtraveler (and when I removed it, somebody reverted, because the claim suited their POV). As I work, I've tried to look at the surrounding content and have tried to fix some related problems - quite often thirdworldtraveler cites appear in content which has problems with UNDUE, SYNTH, &c or even on-wiki copyvio, so there's more to remove than just a URL. If you disagree with any of those in particular, feel free to point out specific examples and I'm sure we can work something out.
- Also, in a significant proportion of articles, thirdworldtraveler cites abut citations of other sources, so in those cases removing one cite entirely shouldn't be a problem, hopefully...? There are also cases where it's simply an EL rather than used as an inline citation - typically in an article which already has lots of better ELs - and in those cases I think that removing a link which points to copyvio is pretty uncontroversial, like this. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- As an example of the duplicate citations, Criticism of the Israeli government currently has three different cites for the sentence "A notable campaign was initiated in 2002 and endorsed by South Africa's Desmond Tutu". Each of those sources appears to have basically the same text. The thirdworldtraveler one is apparently copyvio. Is there any reason I should spend extra time rearranging the copyvio one so that it points to a fourth source, instead of just deleting it? I am no less passionate than you about WP:V, so removing a "source" is no easy step, but sometimes it is the best step. bobrayner (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your response. And thank you for your efforts in protecting the encyclopedia by keeping it in the clear, legally—I realize that this is very important work. I suppose removing TWT links is not a big deal for claims that are well sourced. I got alerted to the change at American Institute for Free Labor Development, where the only citation for the whole article came from an American Prospect article and linked to TWT. So the change brought the number of citations for the article from one to zero. In my experience this is a precursor to someone coming through and deleting the article. Now: the article on the AIFLD should be much better, since it's an important historical entity, and I've been meaning to do an expansion for a while. But seeing that deletion worried me—and then I looked at your contribs and saw the same type of edits being made to many other articles. So I worried that the same thing was happening there. I didn't look at every single change. I would certainly say that many types of systematic changes, particularly deletions, set off alarm bells for me.
- I think the most important issue here is: why not simply delete the URL in the citation? For example, at the AIFLD article, it would have been just as easy to delete the URL and leave the American Prospect citation intact. There is no conflict between removing the link to possible copyright violation and retaining the reference for a fact. I think it would be strongly preferable to do changes this way, instead of deleting the whole reference, unless the reference really is redundant. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Taking your comments on board, I tried this. Is that an improvement, do you think? (Alas, sometimes we still need an axe instead of a scalpel) bobrayner (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying about deleting the whole thing, if it's just a link or just a link and a title. I'm sure you can appreciate my reaction at the AIFLD page. Your recent edit @ First Indochina War is exactly what I mean, so thank you. Salaam, groupuscule (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Bobrayner, I was a little irked to see your change at Crusade for Freedom today, but I do recognize you're going through a lot of material. And I accept what you're saying about sharing the chore, so before I do any more criticism I will see if I can be constructive on some of these pages that contained Third World Traveler links. groupuscule (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I guess the thing to do is create a page in userspace listing the articles in question so we can solicit help from a larger group. groupuscule (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- How are you with the history of the Puerto Rico independence movement? :-)
- A surprisingly large number of thirdworldtraveler cites were in this area - often on the phrase "incident between Puerto Ricans" - I presume the same phrases and sources have been copy & pasted around several articles, which is often a warning sign. Maybe there's a NPOV problem there, maybe not - I don't know! bobrayner (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting! I'm not knowledgeable on that topic, but I'd like to learn more. groupuscule (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a little mini-project: Third World Traveler cleanup project! Tell all your friends! groupuscule (talk) 04:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting! I'm not knowledgeable on that topic, but I'd like to learn more. groupuscule (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Taking your comments on board, I tried this. Is that an improvement, do you think? (Alas, sometimes we still need an axe instead of a scalpel) bobrayner (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- As an example of the duplicate citations, Criticism of the Israeli government currently has three different cites for the sentence "A notable campaign was initiated in 2002 and endorsed by South Africa's Desmond Tutu". Each of those sources appears to have basically the same text. The thirdworldtraveler one is apparently copyvio. Is there any reason I should spend extra time rearranging the copyvio one so that it points to a fourth source, instead of just deleting it? I am no less passionate than you about WP:V, so removing a "source" is no easy step, but sometimes it is the best step. bobrayner (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bob, I saw that you were working on links from this site via another article. I just ran into one at El Mozote massacre while doing some clean-up there. Should all thirdworldtraveler links be removed? Here's the link in question: [1]. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- That page looks like copyvio, so we shouldn't link to it. One option is to change the cite so it points to "Covert Action Quarterly", which is what thirdworldtraveler copied from; but that opens another can of worms - I'm skeptical about the reliability of "Covert Action Quarterly" as a source, so it's a good idea to investigate the content where the cite appears. However, I'm no expert on El Salvador (or "Covert Action Quarterly") - what do you think? bobrayner (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm no expert here either. But alleging Reagan's semi-complicity in this is a big claim. (not impossible, but a big claim). I'll remove for now and post to the talk page. I'm hoping to work on this on and off through the morning, so if I find a better source, I'll restore it. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- We have an article on Covert Action Quarterly. Seems like an interesting story, but I can't tell you that much offhand. I know Phillip Agee is involved. groupuscule (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm no expert here either. But alleging Reagan's semi-complicity in this is a big claim. (not impossible, but a big claim). I'll remove for now and post to the talk page. I'm hoping to work on this on and off through the morning, so if I find a better source, I'll restore it. Thanks, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Income inequality
[edit]If you are going to remove my edit, you shoudl at least read it. AS it meanitons income inequality directly in the reference:
Rent-seeking
[edit]Economists have a name for activities that lobby for government policies to increase the entrenched wealth of the powerful and economic inequality: they call them rent-seeking: getting income not as a reward for creating wealth but by grabbing a larger share of the wealth that would otherwise have been produced without their effort.<ref>Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2012-06-04). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future (p. 32). Norton. Kindle Edition.</ref>
Imersion (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Boris Malagurski, Talk:The Weight of Chains". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
[edit]Hello, I have filed a Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Boris_Malagurski.2C_Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains Dispute resolution case for Talk:Boris Malagurski and Talk:The Weight of Chains. Feel free to comment. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:AE notification
[edit]There is a thread at WP:AE which relates to matters you have been involved in. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look... bobrayner (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Job done. Thanks for the heads-up. bobrayner (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Offer of help for Wikimania London 2014 bid
[edit]Hi, sorry it took a (long) while for us to get back to you - as is usual with wiki-related projects, we've been a bit busy organising ourselves to begin organising other people. It'd be good to chat about how you'd like to get involved though - I'm edsaperia on skype if that works for you, or email me? edsaperia@gmail.com EdSaperia (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Duly skype'd. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your impressive sock-puppet catching skills at AE. Congratulations. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC) |
- That's very kind of you; thanks!
- Sadly, there are still plenty of socks out there, so we need more sock-hunters... bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hoax????
[edit]Sorry But there is no such thing is a "Hoax" about the "Malaueg Church" and nothing is wrong about it. This church is really lot older than the other churches it belong since the location of the church is so hard to explore and it requires hiking just to get there. --Lastbridge (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Lots of the details seem improbable. In particular, you edited several articles to say that Malaueg Church is part of the UNESCO world heritage site; but it's not mentioned here, searching the UNESCO site returns zero results, and so on. Since virtually none of the article was sourced and we cannot trust any word in it, I have redirected it. Do you have any sources? I would also point out that this change to Emma Maersk is very different to what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Palestinian Authority issue
[edit]Dear user, since you participated on a geopolitical context discussion on Palestine [2], you might be interested in expressing your opinion on a reformulated discussion Talk:Palestinian National Authority#Palestinian Authority - an organization (government) or a geopolitical entity?. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Neuro Linguistic Programming
[edit]Hey Bobrayner, I just wanted to apologize for the break in Wiki Etiquette earlier today. I am new to editing in Wiki. And while I still very much disagree with the way the article is written I now know enough to use talk and discuss our differences rather then getting into an edit war.
My "gripe" with the article is that it is biased. please allow me to illustrate. The Article makes reference to the term 'largely discredited'. I'm curious as to 'who has the authority to make that decision?' It may be largely discredited in some social/ professional circles but not the majority of them. The statement is extremely biased which is a violation stated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. While reading the term 'largely discredited' may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, for someone who is 'pro' NLP, it is grating. And that is the meaning of biased. Neutral means that you and I should both be able to read it and see both pros and cons and then make up our own minds.
Paragraph three of the introduction is completely angled towards criticism and does not belong in the introduction as it is an attempt to completely have the reader 'take a side' which again is not neutral and IS Biased. I truly believe that everyone has a right to express and inform people of what they think however that should be done under the proper heading and in the case of paragraph three that would be under criticism.
The article is called 'Neuro-Linguistic Programming' NOT 'Warning Against NLP' which is exactly how it comes across. As you have no doubt figured out I am 'Pro' NLP and I also hold a degree in psychology and the way the article is written right now is NOT neutral. Let's work together to make the article perfectly neutral..so the readers can decide themselves. Mike00764 (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Have you got some good sources? bobrayner (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
ARBMAC
[edit]That issue you raised at CCN last month with little response has popped up at ANI today. You might want to take a look and comment since you have been dealing with it for awhile. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Response posted. Thanks very much for letting me know - it's appreciated. I'm wary of investing even more time digging up hundreds of diffs, but if it's necessary and if it might help resolve the problem this time... bobrayner (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Moody's
[edit]Hello, Bobrayner, I would like to bring to your attention an unhelpful edit which occurred on the Moody's Investors Service article last week, wherein an anonymous IP editor deleted all footer content in the MIS article from external links to interwiki links and categories. (Click here to see.) A short time later, an editor using AWB added a warning tag but did not fix it. I had inquired with another editor who has assisted recently, but this person has now been offline most of the week. Are you available to put this back how it was before? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- This should fix it. Anything else needed?
- Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 05:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, that does solve the issue with the footer content and I am grateful for your effort. There is another issue in the Moody's Investors that arose earlier in the week, wherein a separate unregistered editor added a long paragraph regarding critical public comments from a former Moody's employee. (You can see this here.) This is a less straightforward situation than the deletion of footer content. While I do not wish to challenge the report, the level of detail presented, particularly with regard to the article's overall length and existing treatment of this particular subject seems undue. My concern is to ensure properly weighted context, not to whitewash the article. As with the other issue, I had inquired with the other editor who has assisted recently, but without reply to date, since they have been offline. I am interested to hear your opinion, as I do not have a revision to suggest at this time. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, Bobrayner, I do not wish to appear pushy but having not heard back from you here, I have asked about the remaining issue on the MIS article talk. Your opinion would still be welcomed if you are available. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry about the delay - have been pretty busy (in real life, and in some Balkan problems on enwiki). Will have a closer look... bobrayner (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have replied on the MIS discussion page and also wish to say thank you here, I appreciate the boldness of your action. Mysidae (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Sorry about the delay - have been pretty busy (in real life, and in some Balkan problems on enwiki). Will have a closer look... bobrayner (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, Bobrayner, I do not wish to appear pushy but having not heard back from you here, I have asked about the remaining issue on the MIS article talk. Your opinion would still be welcomed if you are available. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, that does solve the issue with the footer content and I am grateful for your effort. There is another issue in the Moody's Investors that arose earlier in the week, wherein a separate unregistered editor added a long paragraph regarding critical public comments from a former Moody's employee. (You can see this here.) This is a less straightforward situation than the deletion of footer content. While I do not wish to challenge the report, the level of detail presented, particularly with regard to the article's overall length and existing treatment of this particular subject seems undue. My concern is to ensure properly weighted context, not to whitewash the article. As with the other issue, I had inquired with the other editor who has assisted recently, but without reply to date, since they have been offline. I am interested to hear your opinion, as I do not have a revision to suggest at this time. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
COIN
[edit]Thanks for your post on my talk page.[3] Even if a COIN discussion is closed, you can open a new one to present new diffs. I moved your recent COIN posts to a new thread.[4] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
SPI
[edit]I included a collapsed version of your analysis of UrbanVillager's edits as it is pertinent to the SPI. If you wish to change, add something, or remove it please don't hesitate. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 10:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. For the SPI it would be better to emphasise some interesting timestamps &c and how they fit with other editors. Whenever I have free time... bobrayner (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Kosovo
[edit]Hi thx. for your answer on the talk page of Kosovo. You mentioned other pages about Kosovos declaration of independence. I looked around and found an article about it. There I saw your last edit. You changed there the information "The Court determined that the declaration of independence was not in violation of international law" into "The Court determined that the declaration of independence was legal.". Even if you call it "weasel wording" that is actually a big difference and is not what the court said or the source says. The court avoided to review the international legal status of Kosovo. This is also something what was discussed in the german Wikipedia and almost everyone came to the conclusion that such an interpretation of the opinion of the court would not fit with the neutral point of view. Thats why we wrote it also like it was here before "not in violation of international law". Regards Seader (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- The distinction between "legal" and "not illegal" is hairsplitting which could only be expected on Balkan articles Secondary sources simply said the ICJ declared it "legal", or made no distinction in the wording - for instance [5] [6] [7] etc.
- Of course, that article and many others are still dominated by the Serb government POV in other respects - note how the article you link to, and several others, retell Kosovo's history as though it begins in 1912. At the moment I'm looking at a separate problem, which is that most of our articles related to the Kosovo War use labels like "FR Yugoslav" for subjects which are called "Serb" by reliable anglophone sources. bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --UrbanVillager (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I am removing your spam. Please don't template the regulars. It also seems you still haven't understood WP:NOTVAND despite repeated explanations. The best way forward for you now is to stop your promotional crusade. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop removing sourced material and engaging in an edit war. Thanks, --UrbanVillager (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
................Both to the talk page pls...no more tagging each-other - time to talk about the problem at the talk page.Moxy (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have never tagged UrbanVillager (talk); meanwhile UrbanVillager continues to label legitimate edits as vandalism. I'll happily use the talkpage, of course, but past experience has not been good; a variety of noticeboards have been unable to solve the problem. bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this time you are over it. This can be easily labeled as nationalistic vandalism. Dont remove kosovo note, and only serbia related material from kosovo articles. This is really the warning. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- And not to mention this. Article name is Đakovica. Use that name. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since WhiteWriter previously insisted that Kosovo-the-physical-region and Kosovo-the-disputed-state are completely separate topics which need separate articles, I am amazed that Whitewriter now wants to reinsert disclaimers related to the latter into physical-geography articles. Whilst also reinserting obvious grammar failures. It's a shame that blatant hypocritical pov-pushing has been tolerated for so long. bobrayner (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Look, i can use your own edit summaries! after the usage, i must notice that most of them are very unfriendly, something like this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- And i am afraid that you didnt understood me well. We use kosovo note on neutral article after all, as we can also list relevant article in the political articles. Then we have direct link with explanation, while territory remains neutral of linking... --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations on removing unsourced content. That's good. However, there is a lot more unsourced content on Serbia/Kosovo articles, some of it much more dubious. I will remove a lot more; will you help, or will you hit the revert button? It's never too late to change a bad habit :-) bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I dislike removing of content without sources, i am more for adding sources, then just blind removal. deletion of unsourced content it tragic loss for any article. Try better, and add sources, or remove both materials, serbia AND RoK related, and not just one. That is ARBMAC vio under GAMING. Also, this is good! That is the idea of this note, to be used in all directions, and not just one. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- This is also very much ok. Please, just dont push it in the other side, but leave it neutral. Lets agree to disagree on RoK sovereignty, and keep our edits in the middle. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I dislike removing of content without sources, i am more for adding sources, then just blind removal. deletion of unsourced content it tragic loss for any article. Try better, and add sources, or remove both materials, serbia AND RoK related, and not just one. That is ARBMAC vio under GAMING. Also, this is good! That is the idea of this note, to be used in all directions, and not just one. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations on removing unsourced content. That's good. However, there is a lot more unsourced content on Serbia/Kosovo articles, some of it much more dubious. I will remove a lot more; will you help, or will you hit the revert button? It's never too late to change a bad habit :-) bobrayner (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- And i am afraid that you didnt understood me well. We use kosovo note on neutral article after all, as we can also list relevant article in the political articles. Then we have direct link with explanation, while territory remains neutral of linking... --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Look, i can use your own edit summaries! after the usage, i must notice that most of them are very unfriendly, something like this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, this time you are over it. This can be easily labeled as nationalistic vandalism. Dont remove kosovo note, and only serbia related material from kosovo articles. This is really the warning. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- I have never tagged UrbanVillager (talk); meanwhile UrbanVillager continues to label legitimate edits as vandalism. I'll happily use the talkpage, of course, but past experience has not been good; a variety of noticeboards have been unable to solve the problem. bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Need caffeine?
[edit]You won't find better caffein than inside this:
Enjoy it.--E4024 (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I am afraid the cup is a little too big; dunno how to make it smaller... E.
- Teşekkür ederim!
- I visited İstanbul a few weeks ago. Turkish coffee is perfect when you've spent 24 hours in planes and rental cars... bobrayner (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- What little problem in the Balkans? We have the biggest of everything in the Balkans. Happy New Year, dear Wikifriend... :-) --E4024 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]Message added 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WhiteWriterspeaks 21:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thanks for all the link-to-copyvio cleanup you did with Third World Traveler links a few weeks back--I just ran into another article you fixed tonight. Your efforts are hugely appreciated. Khazar2 (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC) |
- You are very kind; but you deserve much of the credit, not me! (Sadly haven't had time to revisit Puerto Rican history yet) bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Lets talk about the food sov article
[edit]Hi Bobrayner,
Maybe my revision could have been written slightly more neutrally but there is still a lot of valuable information. I don't think a professional edit just deletes everything that has been written, especially because I have made an effort, where possible, to include eferences to articles and research. I am new to wikipedia, but I'm still keen to update what is quite an outdated article. Please can you come up with some suggestions on how I can make this more acceptable as wikipedia information (and style).
I look forward to coming to an appropriate compromise,
Dan
Mental health
[edit]HI Bob, We need some help with our references. Penny Powers class under topic mental health. Thanks:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keosha-perris (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed - it should be OK now. Need a hand with anything else? (Sorry this page is so long, I've been pretty busy) bobrayner (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
NLP
[edit]Thanks for the catch and revert -- I mistook a deletion for an addition there. siafu (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. It's easy for problematic content to slip through the net when there's a series of back-and-forth edits like that...! Don't thank me - you were doing most of the work. bobrayner (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Civilian casualties during Operation Allied Force
[edit]Hi Bob, regarding this edit[8], I wanted to point out that the website was already included in the main text before I made the edit. I knew it was out of place on the article which is why I moved it to external links, that is the part where it is fine to have relevant links for things whch might fall outside of WP:RS - as long as they are not being used to influence the article. It might just have been the tagline "targets" that needed changing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Signatures.... also the GPI header is still incorrect and I could not edit it
[edit]Ok. Not a problem. At first I was wondering as to why my work was edited and thought some random long time user decided to pick on the NooB Wiki guy. I did my research, before acting out of frustration, to see who you were and if you happened to be a mod or editor. Turns out I was correct in assuming this and I also rechecked the rules to see if I had missed something about the rules since initially I saw nothing on the page originally about not using signatures after work which I wrote and cited properly. After further review of the WiKi rules it was no wonder I had thought you could sign by work... it was on an entirely different page from the rules page hyperlink. I hope the work is to standard, I try to go above the normal.
A bit about myself… I do quite well in my University Papers utilizing APA 6th Edition Citations and impress most of my course instructors/professors. I am currently at Ashford University for the completion of my major in my Bachelors of Arts/Masters in Homeland Security & Emergency Management after 7 years of being Honorably Discharged as a Disabled Combat Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I also have a 3.6 GPA cumulative. I was also inducted as a member by invitation only for my merit of the National Veterans Honor Society S.A.L.U.T.E. I am aspiring to Minor in Entrepreneurship, Owner of an Armed Security Agency and Consultant of my Major. I am fluent in History, American Constitution, Sciences (Earth, Space, Chemistry, and Biology), Computers, Mobile Technology, Welding and Mechanics. Any corrections I would make or have had make will be the most factual and non-biased.
My work reflects upon myself, if I stick my neck out I am going to make sure I am right first before any action before jumping to conclusion or clicking the actual "save page" when posting guidelines and properly corrected meaning of the General Progress Indicator by chance while researching some background information to post for my course (even though Wiki is considered Unofficially a factual source since anyone can edit it) it does provide information on the fly or Definitions to cross reference when I need it. One other thing... Please change the Title to its correct and actual meaning "General Progress Indicator" as I am unable to correct the title myself. I can verify any source to you upon request and it is my pleasure to make your acquaintance.MASPAG1685 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you!
Cost of moving house in the United Kingdom
[edit]Please cease ripping the central part of this article out without understanding it. Start a discussion on the talk page if you want changes. Without the table the article has no point. The price points are indeed 'cherry-picked' to illustrate the consequences of a slab tax.Tomintoul (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I have added more data points which will hopefully make things more clear.Tomintoul (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cherrypicking is cherrypicking; choosing your own data points to support your personal message is a Bad Thing. It's not the heart of the article; although it may be the heart of the point that you want to make. bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The data points match the SDLT bands. As stated, I have now added additional points, which will hopefully address your concerns.Tomintoul (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help!
[edit]Just wanted to sy thanks for your help on our wiki project this past semester. I actually really enjoyed learning some of the basics surrounding wiki articles. I was hoping you could give me an idea on how to get started on editing and creating some more wiki articles. Also I was thinking of trying to add some of the work I did for the project into another wikipedia article. Would you mind taking a look at my Sandbox Page and offering some feedback and suggestions on how I might go about integrating it into another article? Thanks again for your time.Mitkrow (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's great news. You've got off to a pretty good start; I'm sure you could make some big improvements if you want.
- Creating new articles is quite difficult, nowadays, until you've learned a bit more about some of the rules (if you don't want your new article to be deleted, you need to make it obvious upfront how it passes the notability guideline and that takes a little practice). When you write your first article, you get emotionally attached to it - it's your baby - and seeing your baby deleted (or threatened) is very discouraging. So, it might be best to avoid writing new articles at first.
- That's not a problem, though. There are lots of existing articles which need improvement, in several different ways. It depends on your personality - what kind of work would you prefer to do? You obviously know how to add more sourced content, which is great, but there are other articles out there which need different work - typo and grammar fixes; linking related concepts; improving the tone and making the article look better; resolving neutrality problems and disputes; translations; and so on. You could even look out for vandalism. Which work do you think you'd enjoy most? If there's a particular topic area that you like working on, you might want to join a WikiProject and see if they have any other work which needs to be done. bobrayner (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
List of indigenous people - Israelites
[edit]Bob, there isn't a definition of indigenousness that is accepted by all in the field. However, cultural histories are widely used as supporting evidence, particularly where these are evidenced in archaeological finds. It so happens that one of the unique aspects of Israelite culture, that's what the vast majority of today's people of Israel call themselves, not "Jews" or "Hebrews", is that it is one of the few cultures to have surviving textual records of their genesis as a people in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean, describing other indigenous peoples, and how they came to dominate the region as well as the later struggle to remain independent and the eventual multiple conquests of colonising empires. There is no contemporary record disputing this process, so any voices of dispute coming from the academia are called, and always will remain, theories. Unless you subscribe to cultural disenfranchisement? I lost my password, and neglected to add an email address originally as I didn't intend to edit all that much, so I'm trying to work out how to reset it at the moment, and therefore signing in with my IP address <crock8> 220.238.42.127 (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Kosovo 2008 independence
[edit]When you make blanket reverts with the claim of neutrality, you make it impossible to rectify those that may be a case in point. I never intended to introduce POV onto the article and I cannot do this anyway since we deal solely with facts and not opinion. Here is a basis for my amendments so you know the reasoning.
- In 1989, Milošević was Serbian president within SFR Yugoslavia, I felt this worth mentioning so we establish his position which you removed.
- Kosovo's de facto status of exercising power akin to republics came in 1974, not 1971.
- 1971 was when the previous constitution came into effect and cancelation of the 1974 status reverted there, not 1963.
- In 1992, Serbia became part of FR Yugoslavia and remained so for the pronominal period. Whilst such, it was in partnership with Montenegro. Therefore any mention of "Serbian" authorities per se is inaccurate.
- "International community" is blatant POV when condemnation comes from a handful of high profile leaders; charity organisations were already listed separately so could not have been included in original author's plan.
- Anything affecting national security was conducted at state level and Kumanovo agreement concerned NATO and federal government, not federal + Serbian: that is nonsensical and implies that these were separate entities.
I will work on his with you if you explain your reasoning. If something has been wrong, I shall change it myself. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Brands
[edit] Hello, Bobrayner.
You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. |
---|
Happy Holidays!
[edit]
Snoozlepet (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hope you have a very merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year! Snoozlepet (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
[edit]To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Four words
[edit]you added to American Flyers Flight 280 caused me to lose an hour's worth of work on the article. Your edit coming after I started working on the article but before finishing the edit. Much more interesting details than Georgia and California, like details about the pilot having arteriosclerosis and the addition of three more references to the article were all lost....William 13:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Didn't you get a warning about an edit conflict? Did the back button in your browser help? bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Friendly suggestion: The method that keeps me safe is adding {{underconstruction}} then working in an off-wiki text editor. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks; that's a helpful suggestion! Personally, I try to put a bit more detail into the first revision - nobody's going to edit-conflict with you on an article that doesn't exist until you hit "Save page" - but I realise that everybody edits differently... bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I tend to start articles with even less content than WilliamJE's American Flyers Flight 280. I don't know why. But certainly you didn't cause this loss. You edited the article after it was untouched for many hours. The cause was working in edit mode for an hour. That's just really risky. All sort of things can happen: power outage, browser crash, edit conflict, or even the dreaded blue screen of death. Sooner or later a loss is bound to happen. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of new articles: Anna, could you possibly help with sources for this? I am sure there will be good Chinese sources but I lack your formidable language skills. bobrayner (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look, but am not sure what I will be able to come up with. And my Chinese skills really aren't so hot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of new articles: Anna, could you possibly help with sources for this? I am sure there will be good Chinese sources but I lack your formidable language skills. bobrayner (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I tend to start articles with even less content than WilliamJE's American Flyers Flight 280. I don't know why. But certainly you didn't cause this loss. You edited the article after it was untouched for many hours. The cause was working in edit mode for an hour. That's just really risky. All sort of things can happen: power outage, browser crash, edit conflict, or even the dreaded blue screen of death. Sooner or later a loss is bound to happen. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Tiger Cub economies...
[edit]Re this edit - thanks! I cleaned up the article some time ago, but didn't have the courage to do the rest. --Merbabu (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. It was a drastic edit, but... hopefully it's a net positive. There seem to be several similar articles which suffer from the same problem sometimes (CIVETS, MIKT, Next Eleven &c). bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Military equipment
[edit]Hello Bobrayner, you asked what source I had in mind for the aircraft Inventory section of the Hungarian air force page. One website I found was www.airvectors.net/avhind_2html#ml. This website indicates that of the 40 or so Mi 24 Hinds acquired in the late 70's most are still in service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.231.98 (talk) 22:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Technical Analysis
[edit]Hi,
Maybe you like to know that the discussion in the Technical Analysis Talk Page is currently active.
If you are interested to contribute in the present debate, your help will be appreciated.
177.33.146.101 (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Kukri
[edit]Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kukri. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Venus Project
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 16:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Border between Serbia and Kosovo
[edit]Hello,
I noticed that you changed big number of articles and replaced term Central Serbia with Serbia. By doing that you added assertions about border between Serbia and Kosovo and violated NPOV. Please don't continue with it.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- What definition of "NPOV" did you have in mind? I was following this one. Most English-language sources simply discuss a "border", and do not hedge it with caveats like "administrative border", "disputed territory", "kosovo entity", "central serbia" &c which editors have added into several of our articles. Sticking strictly to Belgrade's line would be an NPOV violation; I am removing problematic assertions.bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- For instance, here I removed text which referred to a territory which doesn't even exist any more, in order to have more neutral wording about a Kosovo-Serbia border without pretending that Kosovo is actually part of Serbia. You simply hit the revert button even though no source uses that wording, and it introduces an anachronism - in some desperate plea to avoid the suggestion that Kosovo might be anything other than Serb territory. There were kneejerk reverts of various other changes, regardless of what sources actually say. Why do you do this? bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, i came here with the same reason... Well, i also agree that you should not do that without agreement. You are pushing you national agenda, and that is a bit disruptive behavior on wiki. And i am not talking about Central serbia, but about implying that Kosovo share normal classical international border with Serbia, which is, by far, distorted fact. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I simply said "border". We have plenty of links and footnotes which point out the disputed nature of Kosovo, as you are surely aware (you added lots of them). And yet, amazingly, our article on Statistical regions of Serbia pretended that Kosovo is simply part of Serbia without any mention of controversy or the declaration of independence at all; and you have tried to keep it that way even when I add a crucial piece of information. This is blatant POV-pushing. You know it; I know it. Would you like to bring in some uninvolved editors and see what they say? bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, its not about that. i know that some of your edits are useful. Without that, you would be probably banned long time ago. I just cannot run over articles on my watch, and fix your (i would say purposely missed) pov errors. Please, lets agree now on several things. First. We also have sources for administrative line, and several other different names for that. Why dont we use name used in Belgrade-Pristina negotiations? --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sooner or later we will get neutral content on these topics; it is unfortunate that at every step of the journey, you hit the revert button. For instance, here I introduced more neutral wording which reflected what sources say; you simply hit the revert button, reintroducing an anachronism, removing any hint that Kosovo is anything other than just another Serb territory, and of course taking the article even further from what sources say. This happens over and over again. Why do you keep on doing this? The tag-teaming is particularly frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is my goodwill. Now, lets talk. How we can find some neutral wording about this, and not to use only word kosovo-serbia border? Any proposition? P.S. I NEVER tag-team, nor i ever did that. We have only 3,4 editors in this subject, so it is logical that we all edit in the same time. Please, dont assume that anymore. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Sooner or later we will get neutral content on these topics; it is unfortunate that at every step of the journey, you hit the revert button. For instance, here I introduced more neutral wording which reflected what sources say; you simply hit the revert button, reintroducing an anachronism, removing any hint that Kosovo is anything other than just another Serb territory, and of course taking the article even further from what sources say. This happens over and over again. Why do you keep on doing this? The tag-teaming is particularly frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, its not about that. i know that some of your edits are useful. Without that, you would be probably banned long time ago. I just cannot run over articles on my watch, and fix your (i would say purposely missed) pov errors. Please, lets agree now on several things. First. We also have sources for administrative line, and several other different names for that. Why dont we use name used in Belgrade-Pristina negotiations? --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I simply said "border". We have plenty of links and footnotes which point out the disputed nature of Kosovo, as you are surely aware (you added lots of them). And yet, amazingly, our article on Statistical regions of Serbia pretended that Kosovo is simply part of Serbia without any mention of controversy or the declaration of independence at all; and you have tried to keep it that way even when I add a crucial piece of information. This is blatant POV-pushing. You know it; I know it. Would you like to bring in some uninvolved editors and see what they say? bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, i came here with the same reason... Well, i also agree that you should not do that without agreement. You are pushing you national agenda, and that is a bit disruptive behavior on wiki. And i am not talking about Central serbia, but about implying that Kosovo share normal classical international border with Serbia, which is, by far, distorted fact. --WhiteWriterspeaks 17:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- For instance, here I removed text which referred to a territory which doesn't even exist any more, in order to have more neutral wording about a Kosovo-Serbia border without pretending that Kosovo is actually part of Serbia. You simply hit the revert button even though no source uses that wording, and it introduces an anachronism - in some desperate plea to avoid the suggestion that Kosovo might be anything other than Serb territory. There were kneejerk reverts of various other changes, regardless of what sources actually say. Why do you do this? bobrayner (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
(unindent)WW, we use the terms that the sources use i.e. if they use Kosovo-Serbia border then we'll go for that term. There's no "neutral wording", but merely wording that reflects the sources, which all in all coincide with reality.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Will you please be so kind to provide a quote which mentions "occupying"?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Kind reminder.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reminder - there are so many different articles to work on. I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "The Venus Project".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! I didn't see a notification here, so I wanted to let you know before the discussion starts. —Darkwind (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Tunisian Armed Forces[edit]never modify or edit Tunisian Armed Forces wiki ok we Tunisian that our job only tunisians ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mootaz92 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
i'm not adding an new information i just making the info easy to read and add an info that all Tunisians know and my source is reliable because he is the army it self and other sources is Arabic sources forum and i will add pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mootaz92 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC) so don't edit tunisi army — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mootaz92 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC) 2013[edit]
Kosovo border[edit]I only hope you read this before you return to Republic of Kosovo where I have restored my edit. It is not simply because I am trying to save you from potentially violating a 1RR but because you need to take into consideration the content on my contribution. How it is now is close to how it once was if we delve into the history. Someone clearly removed the connection with Serbia which is why yes it had to be put back. Now what you did is not bad, and you are right that the frontier is widely referred to at the Kosovo-Serbia border even in Serbian press. If you read my edit however, you'll see that I did not revert you (with my first), I added extra information for the purpose of clarifying the point from two sides. By using one and not the other, we authorise a certain usage that points towards our own "final status" arrangement and as you know with sensitive issues such as Kosovo, care and precaution is exercised everywhere on Wikipedia even if we have to write out longer passages and that is what I have done. Once again, my edit does not deny your statement and your source is still there - not that this type of source was required for the point you were making - a plain old map would have been fine. Concerning my additional statement, you could if you wish place a citation tag compelling me to provide evidence that Serbia doesn't recognise Kosovo's independence but do you really need me to do that?! Please reply if you have any issues, thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Message[edit]
Can you do some more please?[edit]Thank you for fixing the move of Exmoor pony back to the consensus title, though it appeared not to have stuck, only [{Talk:Exmoor pony]]. Now, could you help us at WikiProject Equine by moving several more articles back to their stable (pardon the pun) names? This editor moved these articles as "uncontroversial technical" moves and "salted" the original page so we could not move them back. There is a debate at WPEQ over the naming conventions of horse breed articles, (one user previously uninvolved in WPEQ), and there is a legitmate discussion to be had (I believe the editor is raising the issue in good faith, even though there is a longstanding consensus on the issue at WPEQ) but as we have about 400 of them, and only about 10 were changed, can we fix those few to the status quo until the debate is concluded? This is particularly important for the pony articles, as they are distinguished from horses by the word "pony" (they are only called an Exmoor, Dartmoor, etc. when comparing one pony breed to another) There is also a capitalization debate which is not really a huge emotional issue, but at the moment, we are complying with the overall MOS capitalization gods who prefer sentence case titles, though this user changed some capitalization on this as well. Montanabw(talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I think that's all that were moved. Like I say, we have about 400 breed articles, of which a good half probably have "horse" or "pony" in the name. Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Socks[edit]As you may know the new account is a sock/meat of Funationalists, so revert freely: it's not a 3RR violation.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: A question of socks[edit]Search for Vancouver in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bormalagurski/Archive#Comments_by_other_users_2. You have one guess :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sock[edit]Whose sock is it Bob? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Admin[edit]Hello there - we don't know each-other at all - that said was at a Wikimeetup this weekend and your name came up for possible adminship. Not sure if you have ever though of this - but over the next few months we are looking for people to nominate that are willing to go thru the long painful process of adminship request, Think about it let me know.Moxy (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
World according to Monsanto[edit]Please watch the film before you undo my edits and also take the time to read the document which has been cited. After that then we can talk. 174.7.189.221 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)nucleo Godfrey Bloom[edit]Godfrey Bloom - why did you edit the page? My additions were to clarify postings to explain the background of the articles and comments. Atkinson1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atkinson1962 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Problematic edits to Moody's Investors Service[edit]Hello, Bobrayner. In late December, an unregistered user made a number of changes to the Moody's Investors Service article that I think are problematic. Given your previous help on this article, I'm hoping you might be able to take a look at these edits and see you what you think. I've summarized the edits below.
If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at these and see what you think. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hungarian air force[edit]European defence suppliers claims Hungary operates 15 Mi 8s and Mi 17s, with 22 in reserve. It also claims Hungary has 15 modernized Mi 24 Hinds. Please check this out and talk about it on the Hungarian air force's articles's talk page. When you look up European defence suppliers this will be the first result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.231.98 (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC) New message[edit]Hello Bobrayner, you have a new message here. Please have a look when you have some time. Best, Tito Dutta (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thanks for the wikilove![edit]made me happy. thanks!Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Training the trainers - Newcastle[edit]Hi Bob. I have started a discussion about the location of the February train the trainer course that you've signed up to. You might be interested in commenting - see [12]. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi[edit]Dear Bob, However you've written "removed sarkarspam". And I've just seen that you've written the same sentence in many other places all over again and again. Are you aware of what you're doing? Are you aware that by doing this, you're actually insulting a spiritual leader who has at least tens of thousands of followers all over the world? Could you dare to write anywhere "removed mohammadspam" or "removed jesusspam"? It is very and very very rude to do so. You're insulting and defaming someone reverred most highly to many people. So please stop offending! It doesn't matter what you believe and what I believe. Because respect comes first. I hope, you'll take my friendly advice, step back for a moment, take a deep breath and then return to WP refreshed, with a more neutral state of mind and continue in a non-belligerent fashion to your work. And aggression never solves anything in life. Everything in life can be solved by discussing gently and with a sweet and smiling behaviour. Brotherly, --Universal Life (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the complaints of Universal Life. You are using a language and a way of doing not at all suitable and collaborative. I understand that you haven't any sympathy for Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. But here we are on a group and we have to maintain a collaborative and pro-active way of doing. It's not using this language and askin the deletion of all the articles related with Shri Sarkar like Caryacarya, Namah Shivaya Shantaya (and other articles too) or trying continuously to delete the sources that you solve the problems. You have to respect the work of the other editors and the persons. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hungarian air force[edit]Hello Bobrayner, the official table of equipment for the hungarian air force says that there are 22 Mi 8/17s and 12 Mi 24s. However only a few Mi 24s are ready offhand. This source can be seen on the AgustaWestland article at htka.hu/. I guess thic clears up the issues we had about reliable sources on the Hungarian air force page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.231.98 (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Grumpy Old Man (not the film)[edit]Please help to finish the simple Sinanoğlu article. It is as simple as tellling our readers the basic facts of his life and work. However, we need editors who do not have a "personal" affiliation with the subject matter. (Like me. I am his son... :-) --E4024 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: Photo[edit]You are editing another editor's comment, discuss here first! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ananda Sutram Redirect[edit]Is the second time that you are doing a redirect from the Ananda Sutram article to the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar article. Please refrain from doing it again otherwise I will consider this as a pure vandalism. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassadors update[edit]
The World According to Monsanto (again - 2nd)[edit]Will you please stop your permanent onesides interferences in this aricle already! This is an article about a documentary, so the content has to be WHAT THE FILM SAYS, not about what anyone outside of the film thinks. You can use your Monsanto-friendly inserts or external links to magazines subordinate to multinational big business corporations in a lot of other articles (if you have to) like Agent Orange, Genetic engineering, Glyphosate or Polychlorinated biphenyl. And you're repeatet deletion ot the content and statements of the movie is crossing the border to vandalism. Everybody knows that your are personally against this kind of critical movies (therefore your preposterous attempt for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_World_According_to_Monsanto&diff=507235316&oldid=507231329 ) and as a business-related guy you are clearly in favour of everything that is PRO big business therefore also PRO Monsanto. So maybe you better do your work in the business section and keep your hands off this topic, when you are unable to kepp your personal biases and dislike against a documentary to yourself? Anyway, in general you are not the best person to deal with an article about a film, if you have not seen the film in the first place. Think about it! --77.4.87.76 (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Hi, Bobrayner has been doing the exact same thing to me without watching the film. The article is supposed to be about the film and what is presented in it. You haven't even read the cited document either. Bobrayner, please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.189.221 (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
yes i have Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Emotional Freedom Techniques".
|