Jump to content

User talk:Bobrayner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bladesmulti (talk | contribs) at 16:38, 21 March 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merging articles

Hello Bob! I was wondering if you could help me merge the articles Ministry of Popular Power for Interior, Justice and Peace and List of Ministers of Interior and Justice of Venezuela. Take a look and tell me what you think. --ZiaLater (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgefest 2009

Bob, having spent a lot of time on Wayback and 'foreign' WP, I got the impression that BF2009 was probably genuine, it was organised from Canada and then appears to have disappeared for 4-5 years. I found one functioning ref on a foreign WP, but failed to copy it. So prob is that it WAS real, but whether notable is another matter. Pincrete (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User concerns

Hello again Bob... As I dive deeper into my Wikipedia edits I have encountered another interesting user, Kriswarner. Kris Warner is a former staff member of CEPR and has been making edits on articles involving CEPR (where he nearly blanked the entire article), and also removed content from (probably a former work acquaintance) Deborah James. Since we have had our recent situation with a user who has deleted work without any sign of making valuable contributions, I just wanted to bring this to your attention and see if we have a similar case occurring.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there is a question about whether or not that the user is the CEPR Kris Warner, on the CEPR articles talk page the user states that he was a former employee.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Bob, you may find this thread interesting, particularly in the context of a current RfA. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll have a look.
There are lots of different conflicting views - lots of people want change of various kinds, some want the status quo - but the worst possible outcome we can have is that we get into the habit of responding to any new proposal with "People suggested change before and nothing happened, so why bother with this one?". That doesn't further anybody's cause. bobrayner (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagging

Hello! I declined one of your recent tags because, to my knowledge, Enock4seth is not blocked or banned. Also, you don't seem to have notified the editor of the SD request on their talk page. Was this an accidental tagging? m.o.p 02:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: I must have made a mistake. I'm going to try to retrace my steps to see what went wrong... bobrayner (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. m.o.p 15:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just came across this mention. Thanks Master of Puppets. →Enock4seth (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sorry for the hassle. I was trying to clean up the mess left by a sockpuppet, but I went astray. bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Happy editing! →Enock4seth (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for collaborators

Hi Bobrayner, I’m currently working on the page for David M. Cote and noticed that you're a member of WikiProject Business. I'm fairly new to Wikipeida (at least on the editing side) and I’m reaching out to experienced editors to collaborate with on future projects, so that I might more quickly learn the ins and outs of what makes a good article (in practice, rather than theory), as well as more about the Wikipedia community in general. I’d appreciate any feedback or suggestions you might have for me on my Wikipedian adventure. Thanks! --FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Usually I'm keen to help improve business articles - they're often neglected or have serious quality problems - but David M. Cote already looks relatively good. Is there any particular goal you have in mind for the article? And do you have any connection to Presto808 (talk · contribs) ...? bobrayner (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for the response, somehow it slipped under my radar. As for David M. Cote, I've been working on a draft to add some more content here on my sandbox and I've disclosed my COI on the talk page. To answer your second question, I'm on the same team as Presto808 (talk · contribs), but they've since been unable to continue work on this article, so I picked up where they left off. I'd appreciate any help publishing the content if there's consensus that it's all Wikipedia-compliant. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

You must take care with mass-messaging, because any little mistake gets magnified by the size of the mailing list... bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy on peter khoury incident

i think peter khoury incident article should not be deleted because it is break through in paranormal research it has biological evidence .so i say the article is worth which encyclopedic content it will be reliable to others!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnachaitan (talk • contribs) 12:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anencephaly

Hi Bob. You appear to be a serious user and not a vandal, but I was expecting the latter after I saw this inappropriate edit summary. For those whose lives are affected by it, anencephaly is far from a laughing matter. Please think twice before writing such things in the future. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that you had declared the topic exempt from humour. Which is a shame; many people find dark humour helpful. If you insist, I will retract my call for further research into a serious problem. bobrayner (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on a page under discretionary sanctions

Hi Bob, the page 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine is under discretionary sanctions, as noted at the top of its talk page, per WP:ARBEE. Please avoid any more than a single revert in a 24 hour period: this edit calling Russian actions a "stealth invasion" in the first sentence of the lead is the second revert in a short period. -Darouet (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem behind ARBEE and ARBMAC was, of course, the tribal editing: Tag-teaming, and overlooking bad things done by fellow-travellers whilst sniping at anybody who disagrees with you, and so on. I am therefore surprised that you warned me for making two reverts, but didn't warn your ally who has repeatedly editwarred on that page. If you'd like to start a thread at Arbcom or on some other dramaboard, I will happily provide several diffs that make this highly asymmetric response - and other tendentious behaviour - quite clear. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to start a threat on Arbcom against someone, like yourself, who edits on a wide range of subjects and isn't at Wikipedia to engage in tribal editing. And you're right, I didn't warn the other person, and should have, warning you too. But I was letting you know because you violated ARBEE, and if you'd continue to do that, you'd need to be appraised of the rules at least. As to "other tendentious behavior," if you're referring to me, I reject that accusation and would be interested to know what you mean. -Darouet (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting contribution

Do not remove updates and lie about some vandalism then threat about blocking user from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Андартес (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Barnstar of peace

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Your actions stepping in were greatly appreciated Thank you. GregKaye ✍♪ 10:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are very kind, but I scarcely deserve this. You were pouring oil on troubled waters, whilst I played with a Zippo lighter. bobrayner (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow responses

Please comment on Talk:Kosovo War

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kosovo War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

You never edited none of the pages you did today. You are obviously stalking me, as that is only explanation why you reverted all of my edits. You didnt comment any of article coctent but only talking about my edits. This is your last warning to stop stalking me, or i will be forced to ask for help. I will also mention all of the other problems with you that are massive. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 14:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead; file a report at WP:AE. If an editor makes a string of bad edits - for instance, systematically depopulating a category in order to justify redirecting it - reverting that string of edits is good, not bad. I have plenty of evidence to submit to WP:AE.
Some folk would be interested to see the connection to another Balkan pov-pusher who "disappeared" a little while ago. bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peja

Bobrayner This article has more results and it's a offical map,can you request antoher move for this article.here.Regard Lindi29 (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Just wanted to say Happy Holidays and thank you for your contributions Wikipedia, especially during this time of giving.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Have fun. Here's to another year of hard work! bobrayner (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised at you removing a POV tag

Hi there

I consider myself an editor who has gained in experience and don't go around adding POV tags for nothing. I did add one however to the Annexation of Crimea by Russia article as whether the facts of what happened amounted to annexation or accession of a state that declared independence following a referendum. I feel that the title clearly takes sides in this dispute and as such goes against wikipedia policy of seeking to find a NPOV way forward. Other terms could be used that make clear that the territory was tsken over without implying whether that take over was 'annexation' or 'accession'. I have been trying to have a discussion with a number of editors about this point on the talk page. I'm surprised that you would remove a tag when there is clearly a dispute over whether the title is NPOV or not and when the matter is being actively discussed. Perhaps you may wish to reconsider your decision to remove the tag (meantime at least) and add a contribution to the talk page instead? Spiritofstgeorge (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Weight of Chains / Boris Malagurski / Balkans

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 --slakr\ talk / 09:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have few qualms about reverting a single-purpose account which only promotes Malagurski and which started editing when a previous sockpuppet was caught. But if you'd like to raise this issue at AE, feel free; I'm happy to provide a lot of diffs. bobrayner (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Bobrayner!

Happy New Year!

Bobrayner,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

The Balme Library

Hi,

Happy New Year 2015! Just want to let you know I've reverted your recent edit on The Balme Library. Looking at your edit summary (sockpuppet) I will like to ask how and what happened? Regards. →Enock4seth (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I was wrong. bobrayner (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, to err is human.Best. →Enock4seth (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beggar thy neighbour

Hey Bobrayner, per this edit I am indifferent to either spelling, but the GA reviewer called it out specifically as departing from the rest of the article's American English. It's immaterial in my opinion, so I'm fine with your revert. Happy New Year by the way, John Shandy` • talk 06:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Sorry for the hassle. I probably shouldn't have reverted - don't want to become a variants-of-English fundamentalist, or any other kind of MoS fundamentalist for that matter, so you must feel free to slap me if it happens again. bobrayner (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion

Just wanted to invite you to a discussion on the following talk page about a possible rename in the future: Talk:2014_Venezuelan_protests.--ZiaLater (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

I'm back, after a refreshing journey, where I tried (and sometimes succeeded) to tear myself away from the internet in order to enjoy the real world for a couple of weeks. It's good to be back here, though. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your progress with interest. I need a fresh pair of eyes, and suggestions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case no obligation though. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow, that's an interesting problem. At first glance, I'd suggest evidence is key - diffs of problematic editing (whether or not the editor considers themselves involved), diffs of people saying one thing and doing the other, &c. At this moment, the arbitrators seem likely to decline this specific request, but I imagine it'll pop up again shortly, either at WP:AE or some other dramaboard which probably already has a surplus of angry rhetoric and a shortage of hard evidence. Will need to read more. bobrayner (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't spend any time for me, really. And Thanks very much. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 22:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time spent working with you is no chore at all. bobrayner (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome! . →Enock4seth (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

Hello. I have proposed to move North Kosovska Mitrovica to North Mitrovica. I would appreciate if you'd give your opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Kosovska_Mitrovica#Requested_move_11_January_2015 --PjeterPeter (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK
However, to avoid any concerns about canvassing - these questions are always controversial - it's better to ask on some WikiProject page rather than on individual people's talkpages. bobrayner (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure where you're from and I don't really care but I see no reason for you to insist on continuing to point out that I was involved in canvassing, POV pushing, etc. Everybody has a different opinion and I appreciate your's just as much as anyone else's, I just don't see that you do the same. If I say what my opinion is, which I think that everybody has the right to be informed as well as to be able to speak their mind, then it's not my fault if someone informed me. I happen to think that it's a great misfortune for so many people not to be informed and you automatically say that's "POV pushing and canvassing"???

Nobody asked you to contact me today and that borderlines on stalking and it's not the first time you did that. If you persist in doing so, I will be forced to report you to the admins. I can also attest to the fact that there is a relatively large group of people here who don't appreciate your behavior either. Have a great day. Alex discussion ★ 00:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removing sourced content

Information icon Hello, I'm Wuerzele. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from United States Central Command. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It appears that:
  • You have accidentally confused globalresearch.ca with a reliable source. It's not.
  • You think that an experienced editor removing badly-sourced content is actually a noob who deserves a templated warning about content blanking and censorship.
I have fixed the first problem. Don't worry about the second one. Feel free to restore the content if there is some other reliable source for it. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you restored it again, without explaining why, either here or on the article's talkpage. That is not good. I do not understand why any competent editor would act as though globalresearch.ca is a reliable source. Please stop. bobrayner (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now you have started another thread on another page, copied my comments across, completely ignored our core policy, and instead called me insensitive for failing to comment in the new thread you started elsewhere which did not even exist when I replied to your thread here.
Please stop making up new ways to impugn an editor you disagree with. We don't need this drama. If you want to put the content in the article, cite a reliable source. It's really quite simple:

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.

bobrayner (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And canvassing too. Are you really that desperate to avoid providing a reliable source for the content you're revert-warring into the article? Really? We don't need all this drama; you can just follow WP:V. Will you try to follow WP:V in future? It's much easier, and much less likely to vex other editors, than your current approach. bobrayner (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wuerzele, I see that your chutzpah has reached new lows: Your third revert accused me of editwarring, and you even blamed me for failing to sign somebody else's edits on a different page. Are you really that desperate to avoid providing a reliable source for the content you're revert-warring into the article? Really? We don't need all this drama; you can just follow WP:V. Will you try to follow WP:V in future? It's much easier, and much less likely to vex other editors, than your current approach. bobrayner (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that you're refusing to explain your actions, Wuerzele. But why should you? You started an edit-war, you won the edit-war, and now that crap is in the article to stay. Who cares how many rules you had to break, as long as you reached that objective? Well, let's look at the source.

... And so on. Any neutral editor could see that globalresearch is a terrible source - that it fails WP:RS and should raise a red flag wherever anyone tries to cite it; . Wuerzele, why are you so desperate to use this source? Since you are clearly willing to hammer the revert button, and contrive attacks against me, as often as it takes to stop me bringing the article in line with policy - I've stepped back and will not revert again. That crap is still in the article, and your spiteful attacks are still out there too; you won. Do you think other editors will respect and trust you now? bobrayner (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war and personal attacks at Organ theft in Kosovo

Hello, Bobrayner. I'm concerned about some of your recent edits to Organ theft in Kosovo. You have made the same revert six times in the last three days, and your edit summaries comment on other editors rather than the content. You appear to be involved in an edit war on this article and I see no attempt to discuss the content dispute on the talk page. If you believe an editor is socking (e.g. by evading a block), you should log the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations; making accusations of socking in edit summaries is a personal attack. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPI - although far from the only place where sockpuppetry is handled - is not ideal for this, because the standard template for SPIs requires a single sockmaster, and I'm not sure who the sockmaster is here. (I have a couple of ideas, but that's not sufficient in our current system). If you are familiar with this topic area you would surely know it's awash with sockpuppets, to the extent that we can't be sure who's controlling them; and of course checkusers don't want to associate an IP address with a named user, which unfortunately limits our ability to deal with abuse.
So, as the rules stand, we're stuck in a vicious circle: I can't identify who's behind this particular sockpuppet without checkuser; you're not going to block the usual Serb stalker-sockpuppet; the fact that I even assert that this problem still exists is now regarded as a personal attack. (On the other hand, when they make obvious and venomous personal attacks, people stand by and do nothing). The rules are stacked in the abuser's favour. bobrayner (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you should request the page be wp:semi-protected. That way, the IP users would not be able to edit it. That is the right way, not engaging in a n edit war. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already requested semiprotection; Ged UK kindly assisted. However, semi-protection is not an ideal tool against stalker-socks, as you know. bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vitina#Wikiproject Serbia

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Vitina#Wikiproject Serbia. Thanks. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do love to get my teeth into a geopolitical controversy. bobrayner (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia

Amendment which states that the KLA terrorist An organization has changed .This amendment is supported Americanсајтом,http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups-political-legitimacy/p10159.Objectiviti is an essential pillar vikipedije.Text who glorifying Albanians are not objective and is not allowed to hear the Serbian side.--Dima73 (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to tell "the Serbian side". We must be neutral. This is an encyclopædia, not an editorial. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ponteficate

Thank you for going ahead with the redirect for Ponteficate. Does the information in the former article get into the Holy See article at all?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi: I got a message about my references. I have added refs for various cars based on magszine articles and sources that refer to them. Please see my additions to the Citroen XM, Peugeot 604 and Lancia Trevi plus Lancia Kappa which add review summaries from various UK journals. The Lancia Trevi and 604 items are substantial additions to these pages. I hope this is satisfactory. Driventowrite is a blog that contains articles on these and other cars and is well researched. Please contact me if you have any questions about this. Thanks for taking the time to look into this.

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus ça change

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ? :-[1] … [2] … nb sh.wikipedia [3] (equally unsourced). … …ps DuckDuckGo shows no hits for Dubravka Lakić EXCEPT sh & enWP and a film blog! .... Sorry I may have maligned this lady, a cyrillic search shows an occasional critic for Politika ....Also I wasn't trying to burden you ... personally I had to laugh out loud at the brazenness!Pincrete (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivarian Circles

I remember that you were involved in edits of Bolivarian Circles and wanted you to see this. Does this correlate Bolivarian Circles with colectivos?--ZiaLater (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Bob, yes it is :) Nice to see you here! Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Republika Srpska/Invite

--Anulmanul (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Neo-feudalism

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Neo-feudalism. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Covert United States foreign regime change actions". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 February 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nato bombing of Yugoslavia

I have reverted you at this article. This restored revision you saved here [4] on suspicion of sockpuppetry actually blanked out the contributions of three accounts, mine, 23 editor, and the IP address. --Vrhunski (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the first time bobrayner uses the excuse of socks in order to push his POV and remove valid edits. I already warned him about this but he keeps on doing it. FkpCascais (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Covert United States foreign regime change actions, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Equipment of the Iranian Army

More your interest than mine, you may consider that this needs some cleanup. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I don't have any particular personal interest in Iran's armaments; I'm just tired of nationalist fanboys falsifying content in order to make their country look more glorious and/or cover up its failings. This problem affects several countries. bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colectivos and Bolivarian Circles

I have found an interesting analysis by Stratfor about Colectivos and Bolivarian Circles. The article here has an interesting relationship between the two but I do not know how to explain it. What do you think?--ZiaLater (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cold feet?

User:BigBadBob19 made questionable edits on Mitsubishi F-2, similar to those of the now-blocked User:Keijhae sock farm. Note the account was created just over an hour after Keijhae's block. Probably worth keeping an eye on their edits. - BilCat (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion

I would like to invite you to a talk page discussion. (Disclaimer: This is not an attempt at canvassing)--ZiaLater (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with that. When somebody says "I'm not canvassing", that's usually a red flag... bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Bobrayner Can I have your opinion on this case.here. Lindi29 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed shades from yellow

Hi. On the Shades of Yellow page I noticed that about a year ago you removed a number of shades because of a circular sourcing issue. I found them because links from the page on the List of Colors were broken. The shades were added by a user AlanM1. The information is useful and I was wondering what the best way to get it back in. At least so that the links work again. Would replacing the information but having a "citation needed" for the source be satisfactory? Thanks for your help. CanadianMacFan (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
If somebody makes up padding on en.wikipedia, then other websites copy it, then people add "citations" of those websites for the padding on en.wikipedia, then I remove it, is there really a good reason to reinsert it? bobrayner (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article RT (Russia Today)

I don't understand. Please read the talk page for the article. Mentioning the funding source of an entity before even describing what it is? a whole paragraph on criticism in the introduction??

If you are undoing, "not an improvement" needs to have some sort of explanation. This is quite disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although having a separate criticism section is better than a completely uncritical article, better still is to distribute criticism throughout the article (with due weight, &c) to avoid dividing content into pro- and anti- sections.

Orphaned non-free image File:Regiojet logo.png

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody put a different logo in the Regiojet article. Feel free to delete this one, if it's orphaned. bobrayner (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cut paste move

You are actually right that cut-paste moves are a bad choice, problem was with the term. Other term is 200 times less common compared to the term where I had moved the content. And at that time I wasn't even aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. We can still find an alternative, it is moving content to Saptapadi. Which is 10 times more common than even Saat Phere. And merge all content there. I have also posted on the talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobrayner&oldid=652896312"