Archives

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

		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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

• HAARP is a weather-control weapon
• Israeli special forces fought for a neo-nazi conspiracy in the Ukraine; evil Americans installed a neo-nazi government.
• Venezuela has the world's best electoral system
• 9/11 Truth; the Amercian government is lying
• H1N1 was some kind of conspiracy, governments secretly dug mass graves and stockpiled thousands of bodybags
• Zero-point energy is real - it's been ignored by the scientific establishment
• Chernobyl killed 25 times more than the official casualty figures - there's been a massive coverup by the WHO, the IAEA, and dozens of governments
• Cuba has thriving farms and the world's most sustainable agriculture
• There's a government conspiracy to hide the benefits of homeopathy
• There's no evidence of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo - evil Americans faked it all, to make Serbs look bad
• Vaccination causes disease
• Gaddafi was a wise, benevolent, democratic leader; Libya's problems are caused by evil Americans
• The Rwandan genocide was caused, not by Hutu extremists, but by evil Americans.
• Bashar al-Assad is a popular democratic leader; Syria's problems are caused by evil Americans.
• Climate change myths
• MH17 was shot down by Ukrainian fighter jets; any evidence pointing to Russian involvement is a forgery.
• Chemtrails are real
• "North Korea: A Land of Human Achievement, Love and Joy"
• Earthquakes around the world are actually an American secret weapon
• Central Europe is being crushed by German imperialists following Nazi policies
• The Rothschilds own most of the world's banks
• Electronic harassment

... 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]

@Wuerzele:, despite having had three months to think about it, I notice that:

1. Your source is still in the article, even though any competent editor could see that the source is unreliable;

2. You still haven't withdrawn the nasty attacks you aimed at me because I tried to fix the problem.

Obviously I can't fix the problem - you would revert me automatically and I have no interest in pointless edit wars. Perhaps you would consider fixing it yourself? I cling to the hope that you are well-intentioned and that you would like to comply with policy in future. bobrayner (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:António de Oliveira Salazar. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you don't appear to have been notified of the following -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Bobrayner

-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's a request for something, but you get the drift of my message. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Bobrayner: As the committee is rapidly doing the right thing by declining the case, my suggestion is to refrain from interrupting them by posting a comment. NE Ent 14:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious long-term problem with Jurriaan's editing, which several other editors have pointed out too; a boomerang is long overdue. However, you are surely wiser than me... bobrayner (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I fully agree with User:Jurriaan's original post. Some of Bobrayner's edits consist of removing content that is entirely unsourced or very poorly sourced, and I generally support these edits, although in many cases reliable source(s) in support of the content can be found by spending no more than a few short minutes doing an online search. However, Bob almost never removes unsourced or poorly sourced content that supports his personal POV (strongly pro-capitalism, strongly pro-US-government, strongly right wing, strongly against left-wing). And if an editor removes unsourced or poorly sourced content that supports Bob's right wing POV, Bob puts the content right back into the article. Bob has done this in many WP articles. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IjonTichyIjonTichy, please stop misrepresenting and harassing me. I suggest that in future you concentrate on the edit, not the editor; and that you quit stalking me and looking for disputes you can involve yourself in. Arbcom has, in the past, taken a very dim view of that; and I have quite a lot of diffs. bobrayner (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Bobreyner Arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, as premature for Arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I imagine that this case will bounce around a couple of drama-boards and may well revisit Arbitration in the future. bobrayner (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, maybe an SPI is needed for a couple of connected editors... bobrayner (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given his latest comments on his talk page, I would suggest not responding directly to Jurriaan in any way and continuing to let me know if there are any more attempts at block evasion. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Boomerang

Hi! I have a sneaking suspicion that the individual who just got indefinitely blocked will somehow turn up again to continue the fight. If that happens, I would appreciate it if you were to drop me a line on my talk page so that I can do the honors of reporting the disruption. For the record, I have zero opinion one way or the other on the actual content dispute; the topic puts me to sleep. All I care about is that everyone follow Wikipedia's behavioral standards. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; you are very kind. bobrayner (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Surplus product, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capitalist mode of production (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) 09:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the title "May 2007 RCTV protests" should be changed simply to "2007 RCTV protests". What do you think?--ZiaLater (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; that looks like a good idea. bobrayner (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrayner Can I have your opinion on this case here.Lindi29 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dear readers, stalkers, and fellow-editors; I've had very limited internet access for the last few weeks, because I was busy moving house. Now I'm back online, and catching up with my watchlist. Did I miss anything interesting? bobrayner (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well, Eddie Irvine appears to be wearing a pair of trousers he borrowed from Suzi wossname, on the bbc gp coverage. Suzy looks super, Eddie, not so much. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 15:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ayurveda still exciting, or has the action moved elsewhere? Where do the cool kids hang out these days, anyway? bobrayner (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask you and the other parties involved in this extremely slow-burning edit war to start a fresh discussion on the template talk page? GiantSnowman 19:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; but what does discussion achieve? Number 57 will always revert automatically, immediately, preventing any attempt at bringing the template in line with guidelines or consensus. Although the little flag picture is really just the tip of the iceberg; the broader problem is that the whole template, by design, frames these as Scottish rather than British elections. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your accusation of cherrypicking of Obamas and Berdimuhamedow of Turkmenistan. Please discuss on the talk page: [5]

NittyG (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though the burden of proof should be on you, I have not reverted your deletion. However, if you do not give a response in the next day, I will revert your deletion. If I do revert your deletion, if you still dispute it, please resolve it via a discussion rather than deleting it first. Of course if your reasons are sufficient, I must accept the deletion. If you delete it without discussing it sufficiently (which would be unethical), I will seek mediation or arbitration. If we cannot come to an agreement, we will both have to seek mediation/arbitration.

NittyG (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United Synagogue. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Bob, you replied to my comment on the OSCE article where I suggest edits and citations. As I wrote at the top of that piece I'm unable to edit the page directly as I'm an employee of that Organization, in line with WP:CONFLICT. I'm happy you think they're useful edits though :) Jonny - OSCE Editor (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. bobrayner (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea who's the sockmaster? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion, but the evidence trail is quite long (this stalking has been going on for years), so checkuser would probably be stale; so what can be proven? Some established editors active on these topics are happy to sit and watch the sock without reverting, because it suits their POV. I've mostly given up trying to get admin assistance; and there's no point taking an agile IP to WP:AE. bobrayner (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has a nice ring to it! and thank you. [6] Much appreciated though you may find most would disagree with such as an assessment of little ole MONGO.--MONGO 03:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At first I typed "fearsome", but then decided that "estimable" sounded a lot more civilised. bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bob, I know you're very experienced with catching sockpuppetry in ARBMAC related areas. Could I get your opinion on this post? Cheers. --Potočnik (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duly commented. I wasn't familiar with the background, but there's definitely something happening there.

Does this mean you're coming out of retirement? bobrayner (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Bobrayner! I am currently looking for any third party help or opinions here. I often write about political corruption and have therefore written about Argentine politicians in the past. User:Sherlock4000 has been very disruptive. I wouldnt normally be that concerned, but this user has made a very aggressive, concerted effort to remove any mention of corruption to Argentine pages. They have also been very accusatory towards me and even made some personal remarks I dont particularly care for. Nonetheless, I have tried to remain civil, but this user wont even compromise or meet me half way.

I know you have dealt with them in the past (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherlock4000/Archive). I have noticed some potential socking on a few of the pages in question. Most recently is here [7]. I am suspicious this user is using multiple accounts to push their POV. (They will claim I have a POV (Again, I write about political corruption. I recognize this can sometimes be difficult but I still do my best to remain as objective as possible), but I believe this user removing any mention of political corruption specifically on Argentine politicians' pages is a POV. Their editing is also disruptive and never seeks a compromise, which I find particularly alarming. I'd love to hear your opinion or suggestions. Thanks for any help. If youre too busy I understand. DaltonCastle (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some more compelling evidence on the page's activity now to justify at least some initial investigating. Thoughts? DaltonCastle (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think there is a long-term problem. Thanks for all your hard work. What do you think is the best way forward? bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Why did you undo my change that deleted "compelling" from the Commanding Heights page? It seems like a very clear instance of not NPOV. For example, I don't find the documentary to be compelling. Thanks. Rorysolomon (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the amazing race pages are wrong. There's no reason for you to delete all those flags and move the links to the names of the airports in place of the name of the city in all the things you did. The amazing race pages have looked like that forever and you can't just decide to change it without asking like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.180.189.54 (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you were banned, it has become possible for other editors to clean up the mess you made, and bring articles in line with standards such as WP:MOSFLAG. I'm not usually interested in being a MOS-warrior, but many of "your" articles are an eyesore. The more socks you use, the more I'm motivated to look for other problems that need fixing. bobrayner (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where the copyright violations are. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I should have been clearer earlier. How about the Youtube video? bobrayner (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saw Guy's comment - here - today, and was going to suggest you commented there, until I saw that you had commented. I've also learned how to do a nice link, after many iterations and previews. best. -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 06:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are most thoughtful, Roxy. Are you enjoying grandparenthood? bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob, the alphabet soup "(D-OH)" and "(R-IA)" you reverted here is a standard abbreviation for "Democrat of Ohio" and "Republican of Iowa", just like "R-TX" or "D-NY" (Texas and New York respectively). This shows the party affiliation of US Congresspersons and the states they represent. This adds to the article by showing that the letter was a bipartisan undertaking. I would be happy to linkify the letters to clarify things for non-US readers, but I still think the letters add to the article.-Ich (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I can understand the appeal on articles about American politics, but the abbreviations don't make much sense to a global audience. If it's important to mention political alignment in the article, would it be possible to use a long form? bobrayner (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the abbreviations back here but linkified them to appropriate articles. This preserves the brevity of the abbreviations but adds adequate clarity for non-US readers.-Ich (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nice work. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bob, I am worried about the QSA article. The individual maintaining the page is a registered member of the organisation in question and I do not believe anyone can be objective in that situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infosecs (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a double-edged sword; they may have a personal connection, but you were adding "information to which I am intimately familiar".

The best way to resolve this problem is with sources. Wikipedia has fewer requirements than the DSS (although the edges are a lot blurrier); WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view are the main ones to worry about here. bobrayner (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a published infosec professional. I can't use my real name as my company is a member of the PCI council. That being said, it is a very common term and one that speaks to the quality of work the PCI council does. Every major retailer that was breached that you heard about in the media was PCI compliant, leading to the creation of this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infosecs (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ghouta chemical attack". 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 14 June 2015.

This is not a continuation of an Arbitration case, which is about conduct. WP:Mediation is about content. Please delete your comment on the Mediation case page, which is for addition content topics for the Mediation. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that the content is disputed, but Erlbaeko is still behaving the same way that spurred the Arbcom case, and that behaviour is at the heart of the dispute. If we find a way to bring the content inline with policy, without considering behavioural problems at all, that's great - but Erlbaeko will probably revert again after 24 hours have passed. bobrayner (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a helpful attitude. Please delete the conduct additional issue you added to the request page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please remove your conduct additional issue to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack. Mediation is not about conduct. FYI, Erlbaeko has been blocked for 48 hours for his conduct. I've asked Darouet to remove his response to you there as well. I've also started a discussion of Volunteer Marek's deletion that you re-reverted. Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Mediation. Please read this section and think about retaining this material until Mediation is rejected or completed. Thank you. Mnnlaxer (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee Chairperson has asked that you re-accept or refuse. See their note, including possible conduct consideration, on the request page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you noticed Midday and his friends behavior on ANI. What must be done to stop Acidsnow and his canvassing partners such as Middayexpress. They all support eachother in removing reliable sources on Walashma dynasty. My reliably sourced additions have been reverted and there was frivolous discussion on Talk:Walashma dynasty. Those users need to be topic banned on all East African related articles. They are causing havoc especially acidsnow. Zekenyan (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Come on Bob, join us! It'll be fun! Mnnlaxer (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SegataSanshiro1 (talk · contribs) filed an SPI against you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobrayner. I have deleted it, however, since it had essentially no evidence. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Reaper Eternal. I have to say that I'm intrigued by the notion of sockpuppetry. @SegataSanshiro1:, who do you think is my sockpuppet and what evidence do you think you have? If you're genuinely concerned about sockpuppetry, perhaps you should consider your allies before accusing your adversaries. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All those IP accounts trolling the Economy of Argentina page in the same way you were, adding ludicrous, unreferenced material with extreme bias as you seem to do with many articles related to Latin America. I asked for CheckUser to see if your IP address was shared with any of these accounts to provide concrete evidence, but this seems to have been ignored. And I don't have allies, just the very few people who haven't been scared off from countering the systemic bias of free market fanboys like yourself. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean somebody was adding content about Argentina's economic problems, in line with what reliable sources say? The horror! The horror! bobrayner (talk) 13:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would have no problem with people doing that and I am probably as much of a fan of the current government as you are, though I can assure you that I have significantly more knowledge on the politics and history of the country than you ever will. What I do have a problem with is edits that read like they were made by "some bloke from the pub" whose entire view of the world is taken from the comments section of The Sun or Daily Mail, then when these edits are criticised, resorting to taking op-eds (some would argue smear pieces) from a magazine which is already extremely hostile towards the country and openly supports these financial institutions denounced in the vast majority of newspapers, politicians, transnational organisations and even businessmen around the world. Reading your edits, which anyone who is seeking knowledge rather than seeking to reinforce their existing worlview would agree are an insult to the sanctity of knowledge, I can only conclude that your purpose for editing is to misrepresent reality to yourself to avoid coming to terms with your own ideological inconsistencies. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I see where the problem is. I cite reliable sources like the Economist and the FT &c, then you seem to genuinely believe that I'm reading the Sun and the Daily Mail and distorting reality to suit my own beliefs. I think you might benefit from some reflection. bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "Daily Mail edit" was the by obvious trolling by the anonymous IP account (which I still have no way of attributing to you), which you then re-added without citing ANY sources until you were pressed to do so. Your reconstruction of reality is based on that even the most anti-government newspapers in the world (La Nacion and Clarin) would not take such an extreme stance as you have, and have in fact repeatedly condemned these Vulture Funds. Again, using opinion pieces from hostile publications as the sole source for an anonymous edit which stinks of xenophobia and a little islander view of the world and persistently repeating to yourself that doing this kind of sloppy and heavily tilted referencing to add snide little paragraphs to almost every article related to Argentina is somehow improving encyclopedic content benefits no one other than yourself through the ego boost gained from having your free market fundamentalist worldview reaffirmed by the columnists of a couple of publications. Ignoring every valid comment I have made against your editorial practices further demonstrates that you have no interest in reason and wish to stick your fingers in your ears when faced anything which might challenge your free market fundamentalism. Your role as an editor should not be self-serving, nor should it be to act as the agitprop arm of international finance. I request that you and your sockpuppets stop editing these articles since with every press of a key you are making the world a slightly stupider, more xenophobic and more hostile place. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Agitprop arm of international finance"? I like that one, enough to add it to the list. Take some deep breaths and wipe off the spittle. bobrayner (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like collaborating, I think you should add narcissist there. Any normal person who appears to repeatedly provoke those kinds of reactions from people would question why that is and question their own views and why it is that so many out there have a lot of negative things to say about their demeanour and views. Only a true narcissist (or psychopath - I suggest you examine both pages for some self diagnosis) would write off so many people as simply being a bunch of crazies and lump together anyone to the left of Margaret Thatcher in with believers in astrology and conspiracy theorists. Again, this just further demonstrates your desperation in maintaining your own ideology despite an overwhelming majority in this case clearly opposing it, and you are starting to come across like a Scientologist or young earth creationist in your tactics. I can assure you that I am extremely calm, which ought to disappoint considering it is now apparent that your intentions are also to wind me up. If you intend to mock me, by all means go ahead, but at least tone down the paranoid UKIPer "over there" rhetoric since I am very much "over here" in the same country as you. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these personal attacks. You're only discrediting yourself further. bobrayner (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you cruel to kittens as well, Bobrayner? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every day, Roxy; every day. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another FYI: You were also reported at WP:AIV but it was dismissed. I was surprised to see your name there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Liz; you are very kind. Vandalism and sockpuppetry! I wish these cases could be kept open longer so I could see what the, um, evidence is. bobrayner (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very unusual for a long-time editor to get reported twice in one day. I wonder what is up with that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Bob! Thanks for your help in the past. Could you take a look at Gustavo Ferraro again? We've got other users removing sourced content again. As a rule I assume good faith but I suspect there may be a pattern to some of these edits. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is under control now, but I'll continue to watch. Thanks for your hard work! Are there any other articles which need to be fixed, apart from the Economy of Argentina? bobrayner (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...on [8]. I tagged new articles, not because of inc'reasing my edit count (since that has noting to do with anything. Already high.) but because it is a new article, and if they are not tagged, they mostly got unnoticed for a period of time. Better tag directly and give users directions on how to improve it. (Also, please do not just remove the template (by undoing an edit or otherwise) without fixing the issue, no matter how old or new the article is, it's tagged. In this case you added links in another edit, but still...) Happy editing! (t) Josve05a (c) 05:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you waited a day or two (or even just an hour) until after article creators had finished working, there would be considerably fewer opportunities for you to add tags. bobrayner (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Articles have problems. Sometimes copyvios, sometimes they are underlinked and sometimes the are vandalism. I'm tagging quickly instead of waiting a day or two, since it would be ridiculous (IMO). However if someone wants time to edit on an article here are ways. {{In use}}, sandboxes, drafts, etc.

Not everyone has Wikipedia:Editcountitis (or the equivalent with barnstars etc.) so I don't care about my edit count with this edit, however it had a legitimate problem. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that some articles have urgent problems, such as copyvio or vandalism. (I try to address many of those articles myself). However, it is unclear to me why you think that's relevant to adding a superfluous maintenance tag to an article which didn't have urgent problems, twelve minutes after it was created. bobrayner (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get articles in batches of 500 (sorted by newest). It's unfortunate that you feel that it was too soon, but then you perhaps pressed 'save' too soon as well, it goes both ways. Do not complain because patrolling goes fast, we sometimes have months backlogs... (t) Josve05a (c) 05:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best practice is to work from the bottom of the backlog. However, I suspect you're not following the standard new page patrol process either, since my account is autopatrolled. bobrayner (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, all new pages. Since even experienced (in this case autopatrolled) users articles can have troubles (sometimes typos, brackets, orphans, underlinked). Well, this discussion is not leading anywhere (except for generating me editcounts) so I wish you a happy day :) (t) Josve05a (c) 05:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Biovision page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you revert page Kosovo without talk page explanation of your edit, you will be reported. This is last warning. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anastan! I see you're still stalking me.

Well, the problem is... your ally was indefinitely blocked for making this edit. Then you repeated that edit - and your edit summary had the chutzpah to complain about how reverting content without discussion is forbidden. It had already been discussed; I am surprised that you were unaware of that discussion, as you took part in it. Interestingly, you yourself have performed much worse reverts without discussion; I'm happy to present lots more diffs if you would like to take this matter to Arbcom. Perhaps you were not aware that the other three people to pursue your line of attack have earned two indefinite blocks and a one-year revert ban, respectively. bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are not allowed to use users nicks in heading,^{[citation needed]} second, things you link happened years ago, and i am not aware what are you even talking about. Also, that Jurriaan guy i dont know too, really dont remember that i saw him before. Anyway, you should forget those pointless thing you are writing here, and just use talk page in the future. You MUST use talk on this page, so that is not an option. Farewell, you should really try to behave on wiki. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 00:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you'd like to open an AE case, let me know, and I'll bring my collection of evidence. bobrayner (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Earl_King_Jr.

Since you have been involved in the past with some of this dispute, perhaps you would like to include your opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]