User talk:Bobrayner/Archive 6

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, I would like to see your objective participation in clearing of biassed POV editing the article Torture in Turkey. I bolded my only edit there, to show people how the sources are being used in BAD FAITH, not to say merely "falsified" for throwing mad on the country of one's anti-choice. Turkey articles need good-willed and objective editors like you. It is not enough to eat turkey on Thanksgiving; help me stop or at least soften this discrimination, please. I hope others who read this will also join us. Canvassing is encouraged (see WP:E4024 :-) when it is for a "good" reason; making WP a more NPOV encyclopedia. Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I know very little about modern Turkey - my background is in Ottoman history - but I will have a look. Have you asked the good people at WikiProject Turkey?bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I knew I could count on you. Answering your question; the only good people I know in this area either do not have a level of English required for that level of contributions or are intimidated by some negative experience. (Could I express myself diplomatically? If you wish I can ask a redlink friend from above to say this in a more Ottoman way... :-) I am also sure some good people are following this page belonging to a good guy. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a mess. It jumps backwards and forwards in time, it has a section for "reports on torture" but then lists some reports in other places, the methods in the "methods" section differ from the methods described in other sections... I would like to take the history back a little further but none of my books cover this topic. bobrayner (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one? I know that this is a voluntary work, but Wikipedia needs your insight of the Ottoman Empire and objective contributions... --E4024 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, since you and I seem to be among the few people posting in WikiProject Business and I generally find you to be a nice person to talk with, I'd like to invite you to consider applying to join the Wikimedia Individual Engagement Grants advisory committee on Meta. --Pine^✉ 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind invitation; I've signed up. Hopefully it won't end up like some kind of good-cop-bad-cop committee where somebody else says "Yay! WikiLove over AJAX for Blackberry users sounds really cool - let's dispense lots of money!" whilst you or I gripe about proposals being realistic in technology & timeline, expecting to see tangible results, satisfying other criteria &c. bobrayner (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly got some personal beef against the Right Livelihood Award. Can I ask that you take your political opinions elsewhere? Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I feel that the Right Livelihood Award should be described as the "Right Livelihood Award". They may promote themselves as the "alternative nobel", but that is already adequately covered in our article on the Right Livelihood Award. That slogan does not need to be repeated at face value in every article about every recipient of their awards; it does our readers a great disservice. Can I ask that you take your assumptions of bad faith and bias elsewhere? bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've made a series of reverts, reintroducing promotional comments about RLA to various BLPs, with the edit summary "Rv political edit". This is unhelpful. You should stop it now. bobrayner (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the term "alternate Nobel prize" is near universally applied to the RLAs. I don't see it as a disservice to use that term. WB:ABF or not, I see some sort of grievance in someone trying to hunt down and expunge its use. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is nearly universally applied to these BLPs; a testament to efficient editing by whoever might want to promote the RLA (or, of course, editors who want some BLPs to look nicer; an RLA is surely a fine addition to your trophy shelf but "alternative nobel" looks even better). In reality, the award is a "Right Livelihood Award", not an "Alternative Nobel". I am just trying to get neutral content; that you see it as some sort of grievance - and personal beef, and "political" - is a textbook case of WP:ABF. Nothing personal; I spend a lot of time working on controversial topics so I'm used to this kind of thing. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks like a personal beef to me no matter how you dress it up as "neutral wording". But whatever. You win because you have stronger feelings on the subject and I couldn't be bothered with an edit war. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 10:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobrayner. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (this is the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Emotional_Freedom_Techniques)Pottinger's cats (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should be most grateful if you could advise me. Someone keeps deleting what is on the “Fair trade coffee” page and replacing it with their own input. They make three major errors of fact in their first sentence and then continue to produce error after error. There is no attempt at producing verifiable evidence – the only sources cited are advertisements, blogs and journalism (usually unpublished) evidently found in a half hour search of the internet. The errors are contradicted by what was already on the page, which was supported by citations over a hundred person years of research by many independent researchers, published in a range of academic journals, as well as by the formal standards of the Fairtrade Labelling Organization. The editor gets over this contradiction by deleting the sections with verifiable evidence or just garbling them to make them incomprehensible. These problems have been pointed out repeatedly but the vandalism continues. And they do not reply on the talk page.

I emphasize that this is not an argument between people accessing different research, or analysing it differently, nor is an argument between researchers, and that I am anxious not to delete the contributions of people who do have something verifiable to add, or who have a different perspective.

What should I do?AidWorker (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... at User_talk:Abhidevananda#Image_question. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.... One more reply there! If you want you can handle the DR now. I'll tell you the current status and the important points in brief! --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too fast! You could wait for my reply! The file will not be deleted, I think! See permission. I have posted a detailed reply at the Commons thread. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the permission come from the actual owner of the content instead of Abhidevananda telling us that it's OK for Abhidevananda to copy any images from elsewhere? bobrayner (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The permission (link above) is signed by Ac. Nirmohananda (not Abhidevananda), central public relations secretary of the organization). Behalf of the organization he can give such permission. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website is run by Abhidevananda, not Ac. Nirmohananda, not Sarkar, not Ananda Marga. Nobody mentioned this. Abhidevananda got caught uploading somebody else's content, and now "permission" appears on a site run by Abhidevananda (rather than by the content owner), and some of those "own work" claims may change too. This worries me. (A separate issue is that our processes sometimes allow original research by the back door, because enwiki asks for sources for any text that an editor adds, but we rarely ask for sources for any commons image - although Commons doesn't assess verifiability on our behalf) bobrayner (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) At that time I was working hard on these articles. Parabhat Ranjar Sarkar copyedit, Nohumanism copyedit etc. And these images or the permission was a part of that work. I told them about the detailed wording of the permission too (like don't just write "we allow", write "license CC etc", mention uploader owns a Wikipedia account because if a letter says Bob Rayner is authorized to upload images that does not prove that this Wikipedia account holder is Bob Rayner).

After preparing the permission, they sent a mail to OTRS. Don't know what happened then, but, they didn't get any reply!

So, I asked to add such a permission notice with each upload see here. At that time I asked them to upload the copy to Commons, Google Docs or any online site so that we can easily link to image description page.

Their personal site.. that will not be an issue for two reasons 1) simple Goggle search with query "Abhidevananda" name shows he is a senior member of that organization, 2) It is understandable that the head-quarter gave him the permission (paper) so that he can use it wherever he needs. Now he can upload it to his own website if he wants. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and please keep an eye on this article too if possible. This is now becoming a headache. I have reported at BLPN. ---Tito Dutta (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The BLP noticeboard is quite effective, so there are probably lots of extra eyes on the article now. bobrayner (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one has replied there! They have again added the material. I have reverted twice today, so, can't revert more now. Though I can say I have reported at BLPN and again requested for help when no one replied. I have submitted a request of sockpuppetry investigation too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Requested move where you made a brief comment. I'm writing to you since I am planning to close this move request, and it seems to me you know something about it but are not one of the main disputants. My thought is that putting it under MOS (as requested) is a relatively harmless step and should not harm the bargaining positions of the people who still disagree. Would I be wrong about this? Would proceeding with the move be against any current standards? Thanks for any opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the question! My comment was simply exasperation that we might need to encode some kind of enwiki standard for units of measurement in a tiny windswept archipelago - which is not known for metrological strife in the real world - and embed it into our manual of style which is usually concerned with consistency across millions of different articles. Although it's not explicit, I think it likely that the intractable dispute over units in the Falklands goes hand in hand with the broader territorial dispute - MOS disputes are no less bitter than territorial disputes, and I worry that entangling them might make disputes worse. But, hey, if you've read through the many comments and weighed up the policy-based arguments &c you surely know better than me, and you're probably right that it would be harmless. Don't let me stand in your way! bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i am very glad you deleted what i put. It was very helpful -_- . Question: Are you in charge of editing an deleteing what people put on wiki, cause if you are it would really help me understand why you would delete what i edited, because you MISS SPELLED somthing. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.209.50.246 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in charge. Do you need help with something? bobrayner (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from unbalanced opinion and undue weight. See the talk page. Name-theories are not to be inserted in "early sources".--Zoupan 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources devote considerable space to Kobilić's origins (and his name), so it is not appropriate for us to brush over that and pretend that Kobilić is some well-attested historic character. He may well be important to later nationalist mythmaking, but we have to be honest. bobrayner (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that there are many sources which are used for the kopil connection.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources have been brushed over. The intro clearly says: "It is not certain whether Obilić actually existed". Kopil does not, in any case, gain primacy over theories regarding this figure's name. Continue at the article's talk page.--Zoupan 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Per your previous involvement in the discussion, I thought you might be interested in commenting in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#Proposal to replace current content. Thanks! Location (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You previously participated in a RM discussion regarding the Reichstag (building) article. I have proposed another move of the article at Talk:Reichstag (building) if you care to participate in the new discussion. —  AjaxSmack  19:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop restoring personal attacks that have been removed. Also, it seems that you are engaged in edit-warring and therefore I'd like to remind you of WP:3RR. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning about edit-warring. Perhaps you should take your finger off the revert button. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you've attempted to discuss the issue out. Clearly you're a very productive member of the wikipedia community. Good work. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three times you have edited somebody else's comments; two times I have reverted that. Then you came here and complain that I haven't tried to discuss - again, I started the talkpage thread, you just keep hitting the revert button. It might be better to concentrate on improving articles instead of creating drama. bobrayner (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamps are fun! ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop to destroy infoboxes and to damage lead sections now. If you feel a problem about the sources, then post it to WT: WikiProject Color, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of discussion at WT:WikiProject Color; I raised the bigger problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Color/Archive 7#Problems with some colour articles and the most recent relevant thread is WT:WikiProject Color#Another sourcing issue. There has been a persistent problem with an editor making up infoboxes and templates with poorly-sourced "colours", often with made-up names and RGB triplets. Then other sites scrape content from our pages, then I remove the poorly-sourced content, then somebody restores it citing the source which copied from en.wikipedia... bobrayner (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legitimate concern, but you should point to a specific problem in edit summaries. Make something like WP:i-freeware-download.com to redirect to an appropriate discussion and link it from wherever will you delete a poorly-sourced infobox. A redirect has a potential advantage that it may be later retargeted to an essay or, if situation changes in some way, to another discussion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point, thanks! I have done some work with several other "sources" which are really just scraping enwiki content, so a few links (possibly to somewhere like the listing on Mirrors and Forks) might be helpful... bobrayner (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned you at AN/I with regards to a request to block User:Danjel. ClaudeReigns (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment [13] and yes, I did find it oddly flattering to get a custom-named stalker. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...for RMT until a few years back...? Basket _Feudalist 14:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not. I have several namesakes, and the others are all more interesting than me. I might be one of the following people:

• A sailor on Henry Hudson's second voyage who saw a mermaid;
• A director of Diageo Australia;
• Wardrobe supervisor on many films in the mid-20th century;
• Some guy who drove across Europe and Africa in a Jeep;
• A former mariner who now runs an IT business;
• The manager of Risborough Rangers FC;
• A journalist with the Richmond Times-Dispatch;
• A British diplomat, now in Hong Kong;
• An RAF officer in world war 2

Or maybe somebody else entirely. bobrayner (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I won't ask you about mortgages either Take care! Basket _Feudalist 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobrayner, yes it is me again. Sometime this morning an unregistered editor added a note about the U.S. credit downgrade to the MIS article, although this was not Moody's but S&P, so it really doesn't belong here. In addition to asking if you will fix it, I also realize I have been coming to you with changes often, and I do not wish to take up your time, so if you would prefer I ask somewhere, please suggest and I will make that my first recourse when necessary. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to fix it, and somebody else had got there first! Still, I should have acted faster (have been quite busy recently).

Feel free to come back here if you need help with anything, but if you're tired of waiting for me, I'm sure there are other people over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Business who would be happy to help. Is there anything else you're working on? bobrayner (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted one source and the number of KDOM monitors here. I hope I was right. Maybe the deleted number of monitors was correct. I just could not verify, since the cited source is referring to OSCE-KVM. Greetings,--Anglo-Araneophilus (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks. I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for the little things, like fixing my typos and updating links. Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very kind; but I don't deserve it - you're hauling bushels of corn, and I just pick up a few grains behind you. bobrayner (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob, I am sorry to tell you that your revert at that particular article is factually wrong, despite using a source from a quite controversial Malcom. The sentence is unsourced, but you can check by yourself that the claim that "Vojvodina and Kosovo were never part of modern-day Serbia" is wrong by itself. We can either remove the entire sentence as unsourced (although there is nothing uncorrect neither controversial in my edit), or, you could at least chack the facts about the history of Vojvodina and Kosovo and see by yourself when both of those territories became part of Serbia. For any clarifications I will gladly help you if I menage to have time, but please check the corresponding articles about the history of those specific teritories. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Listen to me! Instead of bragging things that you don't even know, why don't you just ignore what I write because I worked on it really hard. I did found a lot of researches about the article and since you do not see this in person, you don't have the right to remove or delete any articles that you don't know! I tell you get out of my watch!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lastbridge (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote about the church being a world heritage site, but it's not in UNESCO's list of world heritage sites. I think it's a hoax. If what you wrote can't be trusted, it does not belong in an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobrayner,
Thanks for signing up to join the Individual Engagement Grants Committee! It is my pleasure to confirm your membership. We’ve got a lot to accomplish together, particularly during the next 6 weeks, and it will be awesome to have your help. Here is how to get started:

To make your membership official, please do 2 things by February 11th:

1. Introduce yourself in the IdeaLab.
2. Send your email address to IEGrantswikimedia.org, so that we can subscribe you to the committee mailing list.

Then there are 2 first tasks' for active committee members to start on right away:

1. Review information in the Committee Workroom (your new organizing hub on meta), including responsibilities and the review process. Feedback and questions are very welcome at this stage.
2. Start giving feedback on open ideas, drafts and proposals. Asking questions to gather information you’ll need to make a recommendation helps prospective grantees think their projects all the way through, and will give us more great proposals to choose from.

Our formal review of proposals starts February 22nd. I’ll be posting information about scoring and selection of proposals on the committee mailing list and in the Workroom soon, so please keep an eye there!

Thanks again for joining this new grantmaking program...I hope we’re going to see some amazing impact from these grants! :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sick of the editwarring on this page, and editors' refusal to cooperate or communicate. Does this guy above need a block? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, but if editors persist with a slow edit-war to reintroduce unsourced or poorly-sourced content, then a block is definitely one of the options, yes!

Semiprotection might be appropriate too, since I think there may be more than one person (and more than one problematic version of content) too. What do you think?

I'd taken it off my watchlist because there's nothing else I can do. I only stumbled across it via Qwyrxian's talkpage, I'm hardly the greatest expert on Hungarian military inventory :-) bobrayner (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had blocked one of the two edit-warrers, and blocked the page to anon/new editors until 1 May 2013. Please do inform me if other military pages are in the middle of edit warring over poorly sourced content, and I will hand out more... Buckshot06 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobrayner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Heterophobia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks. I couldn't see the old version; if there are significant differences then I'm happy to stand aside and let other editors decide what to do with the current article. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize if I have bothered you a bit too often, although over the weekend some more drastic changes were made to the three primary Moody's articles. I have already asked for help at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but because of the nature of these changes, it seemed to me this was worth bringing to your attention as well. Many thanks in advance, Mysidae (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've replied on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I have undone some of the changes but not all. bobrayner (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have replied at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard about the remaining neutrality tag and the information removed from the MIS article's history. Would you be able to look again? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your request at Wikipedia:REWARD#Do_you_have_an_Erd.C5.91s_number.3F. If it helps, I think I have a low Bacon number - my fiance produced a short film that was featured at the Cannes Film Festival. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. DVMt (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We each made two reverts; I stopped short of a third. What do you hope to achieve by slapping a template on my talkpage? Perhaps it'll make the uncomfortable evidence and sourced content go away? bobrayner (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your revert for the statment that cupping has no known benefits at the lead of the hijama page belongs in the body of the article. I am not certain why this is even a debate, it is so obvious. I did not delete it, I moved it to the approriate palce in the article. It really should be removed as the citation is very weak and does not name any source or studies. It is just a general statement with no supportive evidence - not a valid source. Why not research the many heew studies out there instead of fighting to include such a weak citation. I will be revamping this entire page and am likely the most renownedexpert on this subject for which few western people have a good understanding of Prophetic medicine. The boas imposed on these "Islamic" pages is clear and pervasive. Why not contact me before reverting evidences. Multiple reverts I believe is a violation of Wiki rules, I will ahve to investigate. UmarRab (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently noticed that you linked my article on "Overunity", to the term "Perpetual Motion". Even though I went to great lengths to draw a distinction between the two terms. Why did you feel that there was no good reason to make the distinction, or to give valuable information regarding the subjects. "Overunity" is not a theory (fringe or otherwise). It is a term that has gained popularity, of late. It deserves a mention and an explanation. Firstmm5 Firstmm5 (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of thoroughness, I am posting a copy of the standard warning for Balkans-related articles here on your talk page. I am not taking sides here as to who is right and who is wrong; everyone needs to be on their best behaviour here, and edit warring is not an acceptable procedure in any case, even if you are convinced that you are right and others are wrong.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Balkans. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

I realize you are an established editor, and I hesitated to "template" you on that basis, but I decided it was necessary to post the same notice both on your talk page and also on the talk page of the other user (23 editor), so that no one can accuse me of playing favourites or of not adequately notifying everyone currently involved in the dispute that special "article probation" measures were in force here. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK; thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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) 13:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started an SPI for the socking behavior we're seeing at the Sarkarverse AfDs. I had wanted to keep this discreet, both because I don't like flinging accusations around and also because I didn't want the extra battle. However, with the SPI backlog I don't have any great hope this will be resolved before the last batch of AfDs are closed. Should I go ahead and mention the SPI on the AfD pages? Or is discretion the better part of valor here? (I know that if any of those articles make it through we can renominate them after the SPI closes, but that seems like a lot of unnecessary bother). Your thoughts? Garamond Lethet
c 16:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be a good idea to mention the SPI on the AfDs.

Don't worry too much about future socks. An unused sock is a useless sock; it's easy to spot them when they start to defend an article.

Some AfDs have been closed as "delete" despite multiple socks saying "strong keep"; so the tactic isn't 100% effective (closing admins are likely to see the warning signs most of the time), and the worst outcome is that some obscure article on a non-notable book is kept. That's not a disaster. I would be more worried if socks were used to defend problematic (ie. non-neutral) content in a higher-profile article, like Progressive Utilization Theory. If problems persist, and it's a mixture of sockpuppets, meatpuppets, misuse of sources, tag-teaming, NPOV &c, and if intervention by an uninvolved admin would help solve the problem, then it might be a good idea to start a new thread on AN/I. What do you think? bobrayner (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reality check. You're absolutely right—the worst thing that's going to happen here really isn't that bad. I've mentioned the SPI on both remaining AfDs and will leave it at that. I appreciate the detailed response; it helped. Garamond Lethet
c 20:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work! bobrayner (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some analysis and put a table in the SPI. There are other techniques (non-checkuser) that could be used to pin down sock editing more precisely, but it can be quite time-consuming - is it worth putting much more effort into this? bobrayner (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know. I'm still new enough here that this is the first meatpuppet SPI I've seen so I don't know if the extra work would be required to get them blocked. Given your message below I'd say don't worry about it. Garamond Lethet
c 15:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having a good day, as you can see to the left. Luckily, nobody was hurt, but I drove home covered in glass shards. Dear readers, please be patient with me; I might be a little stressed. Things will return to normal in a day or two... bobrayner (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad to hear you're ok. Garamond Lethet
  c 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: My only injury is a tiny shard of glass stuck in my foot; the insurers have given me a new Volvo to play with, but haven't yet done anything about my (broken) car; crisis over. bobrayner (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss on the talk page of the article Ananda Marga your opinions. You can't revert without discussing.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously referring to one of the two examples you deleted. Why then you keep deleting both?

Plus examples are not articles. It is a usual tactic in book writing when you give examples to use phrases taken as they are written originally as long as you are giving your source. Clicklander (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clicklander (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for the barnstar. Rather belated - mainly because I've been mulling something over. We have FTN, but my problem is that my main interest is in fringe archaeology, and we already have too few editors interested in archaeology, let alone fringe archaeology. I was thinking of proposing a fringe archaeology work group at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology. Of course, this would have to be open I believe to everyone, but hopefully the upside would be bigger than the downside. No particular reason to mention it to you and I don't even expect you'd be interested, just wanted a comment from someone who knows me but hasn't interacted with me a huge amount. Thanks for listening. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That sounds like an good idea. I'm no archæological expert, but concentrating effort on "fringe" topics in a workgroup close to the "parent" subject (like setting up an alt-med workgroup in WikiProject Medicine) could be quite helpful.

FTN is the starting point for a lot of good work on enwiki's most difficult problems, but part of me thinks that it encourages editors into a defensive mentality - there is a risk that FTN stalwarts (including us) start to see themselves as defenders, standing on the city walls with sword in hand, fighting off barbarian hordes of fringe editors coming from a dozen different directions... it could be helpful for wikiprojects to take a more nuanced approach, bringing in more expert editors (and a broader knowledge of the sources and their limitations).

Before setting this up, can you think of any potential downsides? My only concern would be that the scope could be too narrow - people don't do Bad Archæology for archæology's sake, it often goes hand-in-hand with other flavours of Bad History (though this could be my personal bias), so maybe a workgroup at WikiProject History could work better? bobrayner (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, hadn't thought of what you say about people not doing Bad Archaeology for archaeology's sake. That's a good point. This sort of stuff is always about history in some way. Any suggestions as to who else we might ask? Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged the awesome PatHadley but he's not been active recently. Any other suggestions...? bobrayner (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned a comment of yours here--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bobrayner. You have new messages at Kashmiri's talk page.
Message added 20:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

kashmiri 20:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Don't apologise; you didn't involve me, I was already neck-deep. Thanks for all your hard work... bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

please take the time to read my edits about Mauritania and note that all my claims are backed by easily verifiable sources. It is frustrating that my changes keep being undone by admins who don't know anything about my country and insist on perpetuating a page full of lies and distortions. I am more than happy to elaborate and justify all my edits.

Respectfully,

Rimman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.26.91.235 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob! I wanted to let you know that I moved you to the inactive list for the IEG Committee, because we haven't heard from you during the committee's formal review period. But we still love you! So, if and when you've got time to participate again, please feel free to jump back in and add yourself back to the active list. Thanks! Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please verity and watch theses articles: Great Seljuq Empire, Khwarazmian dynasty, and Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century. Thanks. Zheek (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed reply; I've had some problems offline.

I will have a look, but most of my interest is in the Ottoman empire rather than the people who came before them. I recognise that a lot of articles like this can suffer from neutrality problems, caused by modern attempts to rewrite history and reclaim ancient empires & ethnic groups for modern states... bobrayner (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobrayner. I see you are a project participant at WikiProject Cooperation and I'm hoping you'll be able to help with a recent request I made on the Palm oil talk page. The first part of this request has been resolved, but I would like my proposed draft for the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil section to be reviewed. So far one other editor has reviewed it and seems to indicate that it looks alright. However I have prepared this draft on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council and would like another editor to review before it is added to the page. I have also prepared a draft for the Malaysian Palm Oil Board article, but not received any responses to date. Would you have time to look at either of my suggestions? Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I'll have a look. bobrayner (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you're well. I saw the MfD. More important than how I'm honoured, and unrelated to that User, would you mind giving input at my proposal on WT:NPA, see if it would add any value. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:80.112.146.109 that I just reverted? Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is User:Janicar[14]. Judging from the slow edit warring done by Janicar and his IPs, I would speculate that "Janicar" is actually a permanently blocked editor that violated AA2. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears IP:145.94.17.223 is another sock of Janicar.[15] --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; looks like Janicar. Thanks for the swift response, Kansas Bear! bobrayner (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fort Hood shooting. 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) 14:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobrayner, your contribs are wrong. You should read the source or add others who prove this sentence. But I don't have the patience to quarral with you about that. If you are interested in what the source sayes about that issue. Please let me know. --WSC ^® 18:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about Philosophy of Chiropractic. I have supprted your move, and I reverted the revert of that move. So we have a game going on here. I left a note on the talk page, because this issue doesn't seem to be going away. I'm not sure why they insist on capitalizing Chiropractic either. Perhaps it's insecurity. Greg Bard (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I've been offline for a while, so I have a lot of catching up to do... bobrayner (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is unacceptable. I worked hard to improve the article and you are once again introducing synthesis in order to push your slanted viewpoints and are continuing to use the now unctuous summary of "sources". You are a denier of the facts, you choose to obey your own viewpoints and are deliberately taking every single opportunity to sling mud at the Serbian nation on every page you come across - it seems to be your only ambition here. It makes precious little difference to you that "Serb forces" is highly controversial and vague in light of ther fact that it formed part of a sovereign nation and it was indeed that sovereign nation against whom its agressor was waging war in 1999. I am inviting you to revert your apologetic contributions and stop this disruptvie behaviour which has been going on for weeks. I am not here for the same reasons as you, I am here to write an encyclopaedia, not add irrelevant information to "see also" sections on matters not concerning the subject. There is an agreement on how we present the delicate situation of Serbia/Yugoslavia in the late 1990s and if you do not start to respect these guidelines, I shall involve the admins. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comment is an obvious lie; I need not reply to that part. However, feel free to involve an admin if you want. Do you think you can find an admin who will give you carte blanche to ignore sources when they do not fit your beliefs? If a wide range of reliable independent sources say "Serb", then so should we. WP:V is not optional. If you are unable or unwilling to read the sources, or if you are unable to assume good faith about editors who are driven by sources rather than by nationalist passion, then step back and leave editing to other people who can. bobrayner (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary for uninvolved editors who happen across this discussion: Like on many other articles about atrocities committed by Serbs during the breakup of Yugoslavia, Evlekis has worked very hard to change several instances of the word "Serb" to say "Yugoslav". I'm sure that long-term campaign takes a lot of effort. My edit audaciously changed a few instances to say "Serb" again, because that's what sources say. If that makes me a "denier of the facts" then I will revel in this rather odd new title, and add it to the list. bobrayner (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Other people who can" - I presume you speak of Antidiskriminator, WhiteWriter and 23 editor. You can't have meant yourself reading your own comment back to yourself, prating about WP:V and introducing deliberate factual errors. Of course, your edits would be perfectly fine had you not have known Serbia was part of Yugoslavia and it was a national war but there are stacks of evidence from your own edits which show you were aware of of this, so it is indeed your gross "nationalist passion" when pushing Albanian principles which governs your contributing. You have never produced a "factual source" to support your delusion that Serbia was independent or that it has a separate military from Montenegro yet you have had months to find one. The fact is that sources are not supposed to be copied verbatim for one and for another, encylcopaedic editing has the monopoly over reporter style, especially in tendentious areas. When an editor does the right thing by stalling on the issue, using terms which do not detract from the facts - terms which mediate where there is ambiguity "national in place of Serb or Yugoslav", you deliberately go back to the POV-version. Well BR, "independent" sources refer to the Milošević regime and call him Butcher of the Balkans, so will you add these onto the encyclopaedia when using those sources? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW

• I am not responsible for this need for reverting per the summary. And I cannot restore it because I am limited to 1RR. Original edit:[16] Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not the author of this reverted entry either. Apart from that, no source says anything at all on which institution within the FRY carried out the investigation. They only talk about Yugoslav authorities and their qualms with the Finnish forensic team. Original edit:[17]. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

plus - taken from the source YOU are using

The Chain of Command

The government forces involved in the conflict were a complex combination of the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs police and special police, Yugoslav Army soldiers and special units, paramilitary forces, local militias, and an assortment of gunmen from abroad, all operating under orders from the government in Belgrade.

The Yugoslav Army had overall command during the period of NATO_bombing, with the police and paramilitary forces subservient to its orders according to law, although top officials in the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs clearly exercised significant influence over the campaign. The army controlled the main roads and the borders, coordinating and facilitating the "ethnic cleansing." The police and paramilitary forces were more involved directly in the expulsion of civilians and destruction of villages, with artillery support from the army. It is during these operations that men sometimes were separated from women and children, interrogated about the KLA, and summarily executed.

According to Yugoslav law, the Yugoslav Army (Vojska Jugoslavije, or VJ) is under the command of the Yugoslav president in both wartime and peace. Until October 2000, this was Slobodan Milosevic. The controlling body of the VJ is the Supreme Defense Council, comprised of the presidents of Serbia, Montenegro, and Yugoslavia and chaired by the Yugoslav president. The chief of the army's General Staff during the war was Gen. Dragoljub Ojdanic, who was appointed after the war to serve as Yugoslav minister of defense-the position he held until October 2000.

The VJ is divided into three armies. The Third Army, commanded during the war by Col. Gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, was responsible for Kosovo and southern Serbia. As of August 2001, Pavkovic was Chief of the Yugoslav Army's General Staff. Under Pavkovic, during the war, was Maj. Gen. Vladimir Lazarevic, who commanded the Pristina Corps of the Third Army that was based in Kosovo. Under Lazarevic were five brigades, one military police unit, and one aviation regiment. All of their commanders are named in the chapter Forces of the Conflict.

The structure of the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ministarstvo Unutrasnjih Poslova, or MUP), run during the war by Minister Vlajko Stojiljkovic, is more complicated than that of the VJ, which has a transparent chain of command. Within the MUP were the regular police in Kosovo commanded by Sreten Lukic, the special police (Posebne Jedinice Policije, or PJP) commanded by Lt. Gen. Obrad Stevanovic, and the Anti-Terrorist Forces (Specijalna Antiteroristicka Jedinica, or SAJ) commanded by Col. Zivko Trajkovic. Col. Gen. Vlastimir Djordjevic was head of the public security sector of MUP, as well as assistant to the minister of internal affairs. The new Serbian government replaced Djordjevic and Stevanovic in January 2001, but promoted Lukic to chief of public security as well as deputy minister of internal affairs.

The Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs also contains the state security service, or secret police, which played a major role in Kosovo. In addition to covert activities monitoring and harassing ethnic Albanian political activists and the KLA, state security also deployed its special operations unit, the JSO (Jedinica za Specijalne Operacije), and assisted various paramilitary organizations. Also known as the "Red Berets" or "Frenki's Boys" (after Frenki Simatovic, a key personality in the Ministry of Internal Affairs who allegedly founded the group), the JSO was commanded during the war by Milorad Lukovic, a man better known as "Legija." Until January 2001, the head of the Serbian state security was Col. Gen. Radomir Markovic. He was dismissed in late January and arrested one month later by Serbian police for his alleged involvement in a 1999 attack against a Serbian politician, Vuk Draskovic. David Gajic was the head of state security in Kosovo during the war.

Lastly, various paramilitary forces as well as foreign gunmen were active in Kosovo, largely under the control of the central government. Aside from being among the most violent forces in Kosovo, one of the paramilitaries' primary activities was looting and theft.

Although the precise lines of command and control of these paramilitary forces remain unclear, they clearly cooperated closely with the Yugoslav Army and Serbian police. Paramilitary members who spoke with the international press after the war said that local officials had sometimes given them lists of ethnic Albanians to target for murder. Some men were released from Serbian prisons if they agreed to fight in Kosovo. At times, individual members of the police or army tried to warn or protect ethnic Albanian civilians from paramilitary forces, although this was rare; more commonly, regular militias and police personnel worked closely with paramilitary units, often maintaining a cordon around targeted communities while paramilitary troops moved in.

The various units and groups within the MUP make the chain of command less discernible than with the VJ, although it is clear that ultimate authority for the MUP rested with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. According to Yugoslav law, in a declared state of war, the Yugoslav Army has jurisdiction over the Serbian police, thereby making Slobodan Milosevic the de facto and de jure commander of the police during the period of NATO bombing. Then-Yugoslav Deputy Prime Minister Nikola Sainovic also played an important role.

Now is everything clear to you?? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that you use edit summaries to communicate a specific view and to address other users, like you did here and here. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt other users and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period. I kindly propose to you to consider not doing this in future.

Thanks and best regards,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel D. Wallach until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've only edited it a couple of times though. Notifying recent editors that a heavily-edited article is going to AfD can be a minefield, though - where do you draw the line? Sooner or later somebody might see it as canvassing unless you notify every editor. bobrayner (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just picked the last few relatively active editors from the edit history. I'm sure someone, somewhere will be able to spin that into a canvassing charge. But, of course, if I didn't notify anyone then I'd be accused of trying to sneak the article through AfD without notifying people. It's the standard Wikipedia catch-22. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. Anyway, thanks for all your hard work with this stuff bobrayner (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take note regarding this edit[18] that the city of Đakovica was part of the Vilayet of Kosovo which in turn was Ottoman Empire territory for the time in question and subsequently, the name of the settlement in English was in line with its Turkish counterpart, Yakova. The Ottomans did not lay claim to the Kosovo vilayet but administered it legally as had done for centuries; even sympathisers of their opponents viewed the various anti-Ottoman forces as rebels all be it in the name of liberation. The area remained Ottoman until the aftermath of the First Balkan War after which most of the region went to Serbia with the remainder to Montenegro. To this end, Gjakova was never commonly used in English secondary sources. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The meaning of "vilayet" shifted over time but even at first it was emphatically a taxation district paying tribute to the Porte; parts of Kosovo were intermittently included in the eyalet of Buda, rather than Rumeli but that's another story. Sancaks add an extra layer of complexity. Returning to the main point, though. it's easy enough to find Anglophone secondary sources which call the town "Gjakova"; for instance the first one I pulled off my shelf says "Smaller slices of Kosovo were included in other neigbouring units; in particular the sancak of Dukagjin, which covered part of north-central Albania and in some periods included the Kosovo town of Gjakova (Srb.: Djakovica) with its nearby district of Altun-ili". It seems especially dishonest that you argue "Gjakova was never commonly used in English secondary sources" when you have removed a citation of a reliable source which calls it Gjakova, and replaced that with... the website of a Korean boarding school which is not a reliable source. Presumably you googled for "Yakova -Gjakova". Would you like to take this problem to the reliable sources noticeboard and get laughed at, or could we just skip that step and revert from your version to mine? Sooner or later articles on Kosovo will reflect what the more reliable sources say; by undoing my edits you are postponing that date, but the articles will get there eventually. bobrayner (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1868 it was not Kingdom of Albania or Principality of Montenegro, it was Ottoman Empire, full stop. The town may be referred to by a number of names but its name was Yakova, full stop. We observe historical accuracy, regardless of whether Noel Malcolm does - a man who famously plagiarises Rexhep Qosja who in turn wouldn't call it any other way. In Britannica 1911 it is referred to as Yakova, never mind the revisionist theories published later. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked your sources and they fail to substantiate your claim. They were published in 1969, 1979 and 1999 respectively and the first two are in Albanian. You need a source to show that this was the English name at the time in question, otherwise we use the name per WP:AT, I'm all right either way. Choice is yours. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making stuff up. I recognise that the two of us are unlikely to agree on anything any time soon, but there is a risk that a passerby might read what you write here and believe it, and that's not a net positive. The source I used was written in English, by an anglophone expert on the region. Why would I use an Albanian source in a dispute about how to write a name in English? That's just another bizarre fiction. I would also point out that WP:AT is our policy on article titles; either you haven't read the policy page you're citing, or you believe that a word in the middle of an article is actually the title. Just for clarity, I'll repeat the first sentence of that policy: "An article title is the large heading displayed above the content of any article". The title of the article is "Timeline of Kosovo history"; not "Gjakova", not "Yakova". Neither you nor I are changing that title. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, but if you consistently average more than one blatant fuckup per comment it's probably best for your blood pressure - and mine - if you stop commenting on my talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! If you believe that we should report Gjakova when referring to the city in Kosovo, collate your sources and may I wish you the best of luck in obtaining consensus to move Đakovica to the target. However where you are concerned this is irrelevant as we were discussing the name of a city for 1881 and in this context we observe historical accuracy. If we didn't, you would not see Dardania presented early on in the same article. You may be interested to know that the Albanian script and written standard did not come into being until 1908, something I myself had forgotten until recently. To this end, giving Kosovan towns names in modern Albanian for events during the Ottoman period is deliberately introducing factual error. Furthermore, just you watch your language when talking to me and if you believe you have ownership of this page and that I should not leave comments here, you are welcome to report the incident. In the meantime, you are free to delete Evlekis contributions here by reverting. On that you will not be challeneged. Just remember, the sources you use merely support the statement but have no relevance to Wikipedia:Naming Conventions which is the issue at hand. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are sources which use Tetova for Tetovo published in English[19]. Doesn't change a thing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source calls it Gjakova. Not an Albanian source, not a source about the current day, but a source discussing Ottoman history of the region. Yes, that name is the same name as current-day Albanian - but avoiding the name for that reason is just unfathomable. If modern-day Albanian speakers used a different name, would you then be happy to accept what the source says? bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I don't know if it is just me not able to get my point across. All right, forget Gjakova, let's try from a different angle. Sources may use any of the available names for a settlement not just for Kosovo but anywhere in which variation exists. Now if we as editors feel the source is good enough to report Ferizaj and not Uroševac, the key issue is not simply reporting Ferizaj in that instance but actually having Uroševac moved to it. What we cannot have is "selective naming", referring to Gjilan here and on the next paragraph Gnjilane simply because that is what the source for that statement is doing. What happens when you have two sources, one using Gjilan, the other Gnjilane? There needs to be some form of permanent order, and this is another reason why historical accuracy is widely favoured. I am about to go to the page again after posting this because I just noticed something, the edit to follow will surely confirm my honesty. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to tread carefully. This page has used flag icons for a very long time, and there has been little or no opposition to them. Also, I have read the manual of style and see little in there to support your claim. I will continue to revert your edits to remove them, and if it comes to a wheel war, then I see you as standing on very thin ice. Please do not say that you have not been warned. When a page has used flag icons for a long time, you need to be careful in making your argument to have them removed. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and? Just because a problem has been around for a long time doesn't mean we have to live with the problem indefinitely. You seem to be suggesting that you'd revert anybody who attempts to bring your page in line with the manual of style; that would be a Bad Thing. MOSFLAG says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams" but, to the best of my knowledge, catenaries and third rails aren't flag-waving nationalist totems. bobrayner (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What problem? The page has used flag icons without any objections for several years. The only problem would appear to be you and your slavish devotion to the MOS. Wikipedia is meant to be about working to produce a factual encylopedia. All I see from you is format and style, but no substance. It really is a shame that Wikipedia has created people like you that are more concerned with appearance rather than facts. Please, if you have no interest in creating something worthwhile and valuable, try to spend your time doing something else. Leave Wikipdeia to those that wish to add factual information. Style and presentation is for people who lack the ability to do research and add useful information to this project. Bhtpbank (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to spout irrelevances and personal attacks, at least try to make them plausible. On the charge that I'm all style and no substance, I have written 250 new articles and you have written zero. Apart from the fact that this article's problem has not been noticed for several years, is there any real reason you feel the manual of style shouldn't apply? bobrayner (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Climate of Kosovo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Peja and Kamenica (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) 14:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Bobrayner, I hope you have been well. I have recently begun efforts to improve the quality of information on the "Credit rating agency" article, which is now very long and difficult to follow. I've recently listed (on the article's discussion page) a proposed update for a section of the article about agency business models (proposed new draft in my account's user space). I have had no response in more than a week, despite including a request-edit template, also having asked the last active editor if they would look. As before I am making suggestions on behalf of Moody's, and while the company is only discussed as one agency among many, here too I would prefer to not edit directly. Might you have availability to review the change and consider replacing it in the current article? Mysidae (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bobrayner. What does "Don't link to copyvio" mean ? The publications of the Global Vision Publishing violate the copyright of anyone ? Takabeg (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; links to Global Vision are generally links to copyvio. You can get more information at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. bobrayner (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on Individual Engagement Grants! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the IEG program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you served on the IEG Committee.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the IdeaLab soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Jonathan, Grantmaking & Programs, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to your post. Perhaps you could close the GAR? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a big bunch for the baklava and the kind words. It really means a lot to me. Working with you has been a plasure, and I only wish I had a lot more time to spend on WP working with edirots like you. Thanks again, and tons of luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_Economic_Map

I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?

United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States

China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox

Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would this project overlap with something like wikidata? bobrayner (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Bobrayner. Earlier in this m\month I posted a note asking if you might consider reviewing what I believe is a much-improved section for the "Credit rating agency" article. I have asked for help with others and at more than one discussion board, however I have not been successful finding anyone to respond. I will continue asking elsewhere, however if you might have a small amount of time to review the suggestion, the full explanation is on the article's discussion page. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I've been offline for a couple of weeks. bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobrayner, thank you for the reply, I do understand and it is no problem, I am grateful for any time you can spare. I would very much like to work on improving the CRA article, however first my request on the page has gone unanswered, and further efforts to raise the issue have received little to no conversation. Last week, I brought the issue to the Help desk, where two editors suggested that my COI regarding this article was weaker than regards Moody's articles, and suggested that I edit "with care". However, I am not so certain this will be accepted community-wide, and it is my sincere interest to make no edits that may cause concern about Moody's involvement. I still would prefer to find consensus and another editor to implement edits. What is your feeling about this? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there again, this note will be very brief only to say: another editor has answered the request! I hope all is well. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added an image to a page you started; what do you think of this? Are such reports not public by definition? --Elvey (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a statement like that shouldn't have an especially restrictive protective marking (though some underlying docs certainly would), but the copyright status is a difficult question which I've never really considered. ITHCs tend to be for internal consumption (or, more precisely: For the use of several different stakeholders who are huddled closely together). I don't know... bobrayner (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all! I've been offline for a couple of weeks. Editing en.wiki had been stressful and frustrating; so I took some time off to concentrate on a training course, buy a new toy to replace the one damaged in a recent accident, and play some games. Now I'm back, hopefully refreshed, but facing a very long to-do list. If you think there's anything else that ought to be on my to-do list, your suggestions are welcomed. bobrayner (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, please take notice of this grievance. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to drop by and let you know that I appreciate your contributions, you know where to find me if you ever need anyone to discuss with. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In my preliminary assessment of the request, I conclude that you are editing tendentiously, in violation of WP:NPOV, by consistently making edits that are in opposition to the position of Serbia in the dispute about Kosovo. If you would like to rebut that conclusion, I invite you to submit evidence in your statement at WP:AE that shows recent edits by you that change Kosovo- or Serbia-related content to give more prominence to another point of view. I ask you to do so as concisely as possible, in a bulleted list of dated diffs, and no later than within 24 hours of your next edit. I'm making the same request to Evlekis. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering what happened to my contribution to the cross-cultural competence. It said that an addbot had removed it and I had everything the way it was supposed to be. I don't know what to do. Can you please help me? Thank you so much for your time! Saifalz (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for contacting me. I guess you're talking about this article?

It looks like Drmies undid your changes, concerned that it might overstate the importance of CCC. It might be a good idea to start a discussion on the article's talkpage, and invite Drmies (Drmies is far more helpful and more intelligent than me, and won't bite). Personally, I think the article really deserves expansion but the tone of the text you added could be improved (so it looks more like an encyclopædia article - we should be neutral, rather than positive or promotional). If you want to give it another try - either try writing more neutral text in Cross-cultural competence, or discuss it first on the article's talkpage - I'll try to help (I've just added the article to my watchlist).

It looks like addbot made the most recent change to Cross-cultural competence, after Drmies, but addbot just does minor housekeeping tasks - don't worry about that. bobrayner (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jerusalem. 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) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrayner, in spite of supposed differences, I would like to express my gratitude to you. I love you.

Thank you for having been a part of my evolution.Pottinger's cats (talk) 17:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say, but... thanks.

Obviously we have disagreed on some content, but we're both human beings. bobrayner (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Balkans. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

The above warning is given as a result of this request at WP:AE; specifically, for repeated misstatement of a source at Koriša bombing and for edit warring on a variety of pages. Please avoid such behaviour in future in order to avoid further possible sanctions. Thank you, Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. All I got in the link was one of my revisions, not a place where I am mentioned. Either way, I cannot at this time discuss anything on what we've edited or argued over. I am banned from the topic so I would have to give it a miss. Sorry about that. If there be a change to my circumstance, I'll get straight back to things but we're both going to have to go easy after that - more talk, less editing, even if it goes on over days and days. Agreement is better than what we were doing until now. Cheers. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]