I understand you are trying to mediate and keep a calm head over the situation. But in the context of the AFD, especially when it appears you agree with Fram and have voted to delete, making comments on other editors even if rational and with an element of truth in them does little to help the situation and usually ends up blowing into something worse. Your words might hit home with some people but people who know me know that the worst thing you can possibly do if you want me to shut up is to lecture me or attack my edits or my behaviour. I only respond negatively to comments which I deem false or unnecessary, I am not going to let Fram imply I am false even if you think my cover story is "dubious". I have sworn that the Afghan list was generated by geonames in 2008. You should have both accepted this given that I have provided evidence to show Fritzpoll used it as a source. If you stop making further comments on AFDs which ridicule me for my editing or actions then I simply also will not comment. It adds fuel to fire, even if you genuinely are acting in good faith and want the situation to be discussed rationally. Understand I am not the sort of person who tolerates overviews of my behaviour in public forums, even if perfectly rational and level headed. Even worse is people who tell me what I should do. Maybe Fram genuinely believes deleting the articles will help wikipedia, but I see certain aspects of what he has done as quite the opposite. As far as I can see he has made little attempt to actually fix any of the articles except some much appreciated error fixes in my trail this morning. Yes he made a lot of edits assessing them yes, but the time he spent tagging them he could have easily replaced with a geonames source which he agrees is reliable. If the job was too much for him as it clearly was then he should have asked me to replace with the source he deems reliable which I've done to some 500 articles and counting ans which he accepts. So because of this and given his strong views on auto-generated short articles I think it has more to do with "sub stubs" rather than actual major problems, 99% of the entries are instantly verifiable in geonames so false entries they are not. He believes it would be best to nuke them and then create them one by one with much more content and sources which I agree is how they should have been created and is a much better way to build something useful for wikipedia. I just think now that that they've been created we should fix and build on what we have. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
the comment you just left at freeloaders is unnecessary and abusive.
Of course i carefully thought about how i was to frame the answers to the questions i was asked by the wiki text in the mediation section. I thought i was working with a system that would send a mediator to help me rather than one of you to come along and accuse me of being difficult while you all fell about laugthing with the childish wonderful persons stupidity.
I genuinely feel you are all doing everything you can to keep wiki biased and i said as much and you have no right to come along an accuse me of dishonesty or anything shameful for acting as i did with total integrity. So back off and find somebody else to mess with please. Not one single time have you ever engaged with me in a conversation as a normal human being would do who had some interest in providing a better wiki experience for the reader. I have bent over backwards to communicate to the other editors and provided many hiqh quality citations and been knocked back again and again and again. Total humiliation and the page is just as it was when i arrived apart from the fringe area and minor changes. and then you talk about fighting systematic bias and great things about wiki. Wiki supposedly encourages people to be bold, have fun and enjoy the experience. And look what happens. Utter misery. And all assisted by you while you did nothing but encourage it Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 20:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Bobrayner, the articles you have proposed for deletion ALL have been well-cited with heavy references. Conjuring up support for a bogus removal cause just shows bias against the source and/or contributor. You propose a sweeping removal of four articles. This is non-sensical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpaj ( talk • contribs)
Bobrayner, I don't know if you noticed the image File:Egglepple crayon.png, but if so was there a reason you didn't XFD it? I've just nominated it, but if you know of a reason it should be kept let me know. (PS Sorry for the multiple edits to your talk page, but I am the queen of derp this evening.) -- NellieBly ( talk) 01:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Location:
VHEMT Article
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (
talk)
15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your removal of flags. Explanation given at Talk:List of rail accidents (2000–2009). Please do not remove flags from any other lists while this issue is discussed. It may be that a RFC is needed on the issue, as it affects many lists. MOSFLAG appears to be aimed more at biographical articles than lists. Mjroots ( talk) 10:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi bobrayner, I spot-checked a few of the altitudes, and they seem to be right. My source (a map) is unfortunately not really sufficient because it does not give the exact values.
From looking at similar articles it seems the altitudes are normally not referenced individually--would it make sense to reinstate the values for Namibia? -- Pgallert ( talk) 08:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Railways in Cameroon | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi bob, I've got a question about aerodynamics for you. The article North American XB-70 Valkyrie has an unrefed claims that says, "NAA's solution had an additional advantage, as it decreased the surface area of the rear of the wing when they were moved into their high speed position. This helped offset the rearward shift of the center of pressure, or "average lift point" with increasing speeds under normal conditions, causing an increasing nose-down trim. When the wingtips were drooped the surface area at the rear of the wings was lowered, moving the lift forward and counteracting this effect." I think you're more knowledgeable in this field than myself, so what do you think? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 23:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – OhioStandard ( talk) 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, I've got great news regarding Airbus A330. The article had bypassed the A-class review and headed straight to FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3. Could you voice your stance on the article on whether it should be FA or not! I'm beginning to wind down on editing the article after 5 months of toil, and move on with other things, not least the master plan! Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It appears you have just gone on a wide-ranging hunt to remove external links to Railpage Australia using WP:ELNEVER as your justification -- could you please explain why? The site is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, and if you object to people posting news articles etc in its forums, then the non-asshole thing to do would be to fix the references to point directly at the original sources, not remove them entirely! Jpatokal ( talk) 10:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As you delete hundreds if not thousands of elevations from files such Railway stations in Brazil, you have not bothered to replace these so-called faulty data with data that is satisfactory. The so-called bad data is IOM reasonable, yet you have replaced/destroyed/purged them with nil/zilch/NOTHING. So when will we see good elevation data which you have been keeping hidden from everyone. Tabletop ( talk) 05:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If you ask me, disagreement is in the past already! :)
Well, its not only Decius, i noticed that several Roman emperors articles don't have regular sources for some basic data, like birth place, death place, years of rule, etc... And i wanted to fix those! So i started with Decius. Do you know some good sources on that one? I wanted to add one by one... :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
WhiteWriter has given you a plate of sausages! Plates of sausage promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a plate of sausages, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Friendly!! :) All best!
†
|
I saw a question to posed to MRG.
Are you familiar with this tool?
I fear it is not automated enough for you, as it works with a single identified articles. For example, if you know you had edited Inflatable boat, of course you could go to the page history and see your contributions, but entering the info in the tool tells you that you have exactly one edit. It is faster than perusing the history.
I still suspect you need something more automated. But perhaps someone with tool skills could pass the list are articles, and spit out both the number of edits by the person of interest, and the total number of edits, this crudely estimating the proportion, and decently estimating high target articles.-- SPhilbrick T 01:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University doing some research into editing and reverts on Wikipedia. I am asking Wikipedians that I have found have made contributions to genetics articles on Wikipedia to complete a short survey that will help me develop interfaces and tools for newcomers and administrators. The survey will take about 10-15 minutes, and will involve you pretending that you are editing the page on genetic engineering and making some quick judgments on how controversial or likely to be reverted a word sampled from an edit might be. This will help me to validate a model that predicts which words will be reverted based on the history of an article, which if successful will be turned into an interface. If you would like to participate, please complete the survey on SurveyMonkey here. You can find out more about me on my user page and personal home page. I'm more than happy to talk more about this research on my talk page or by email, and thank you for your time. JeffRz ( talk) 02:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, just wanted to say that you did a fantastic job with the Ottoman tax articles. It's not often that we see 25 article hooks, so great job! Yes, I know this is a month late. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
— mc10 ( t/ c) 22:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's try and add sources shall we? Vexorg ( talk) 20:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on on the talk page; you are invited to participate. Lagrange613 ( talk) 06:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've decided to put Template:Flag up for TFD. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 11. Either we accept flags or we don't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
BR: Corrected date to match source. (This is preferable to leaving the wrong date but giving it fancy formatting).
Block message:
Accept reason: Collateral damage -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 13:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
No Bob, you need to read the reference, and not just look for words. That is in fact what it says if you understand the premise of the original statement in the section. However, even if that was not true, how can the entire set of included subjects (three monotheistic religions) be a model to itself? Its a logical fallacy since there can be only one model to a given set. What the term "Abrahamic religions" does is displace Judaism as that model by assigning the three religions (the set) the same common denominator of Abraham, though we have no extant texts that confirm this. Even the Oral Law laments that Abraham had 400 chapters in the tractate on Idolatry to the extant five. Neither Christianity nor Islam can claim this equivalence of the social context, nor the particularity of Israelites required for a social construct model. However, both Christianity and Islam promote their own Replacement theology that seeks to a) abrogate the Jewish social context, and b) deny particularity.
Hence I quote from the very reference I added to the article:
3.2.1 Social functions and motivations in religion Sociology quite obviously directs its particular attention to the function of social integration religion can fulfill. Sociology of knowledge often depicts religion as a "social construction of reality"; it unifies people on the basis of an orientation system which interprets reality and defines the human being, and so contributes to the smooth functioning of society. Sociologists concerned with value-ethics emphasize the harmonization religion can bring about between individual aspirations and societal demands.
I note that Judaism, unlike Christianity and Islam, had unified its adherents (at least until the modern era c.1820), and provided a system, halakha, that interprets reality and defines the human being in ways that were never adopted or achieved in Christianity or Islam. Moreover it contributed to the smooth functioning of the Israelite society even while its leaders were in conflict! Even today, when there are significant disagreements between sections of the adherents to Judaism, there is no observable conflict in the degree observable in Christian and Islamic denominations.
As the social constructionism article says, "The underlying assumptions on which social constructivism is typically seen to be based are reality, knowledge, and learning." and this is present in Judaism which through its judicial principles defines reality, and through over three millenia of learning has accumulated substantial social knowledge with which it is constructed. It does however contradict the social constructionism as a theory in that it allows for countless human choices, AND laws resulting from divine will. Islam has dispensed with the former, while secularism has dismissed the later in Christianity.
As for belief, note I edited at the start of the section, and happy to repeat here, that there is no statement anywhere in the Jewish Scriptures, i.e. Tanakh, or in the Oral Tradition, i.e. the Talmud, that asks for belief in God. The entire point of Judaism is to know God, and do so intimately, seeking to emulate Him. If this was not true, how else would He ask that those who received the Torah Walk in His ways(Devarim [Deuteronomy] 28:9)? How does one walk in someone's ways while only believing to be doing so? There is another similar logical premise in Be holy, for God is holy (Vayikra [Leviticus] 19:2) which again presupposes knowledge of God, and not a belief, since "God is holy" is a statement of fact in Judaism. This may be challenged in Western philosophy, but knowledge of God rather than belief in Him is a distinct part of Judaism Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 15:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is a follow-up to your comments and suggestions on the username discussion page related to USEPA creating a Wikipedia account. As is usual for the government, it took a while to get approval to proceed toward a new frontier. But I finally got the OK to set up the account and begin suggesting edits to content that falls within USEPA's purview. You volunteered to help out or point me in the direction of folks who might be interested. I have a bullet list of proposed edits w/citations for a particular chemical page on Wikipedia, but to avoid the appearance of lording over Wikipedia content we would prefer not to edit pages directly. If you're still interested in helping out, please contact me. USEPA James ( talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
Hi Bob. I've not only reinstated the recipe link, but found the English version of it. However, User talk:MatthiasHuehr has reverted it again citing linkspam. But it isn't linkspam by the definition given in WP. How do we deal with someone who is intent on causing irritation/disruption like this? Is it trolling? I'm less bothered by the article in question (who cares if there's one or two links to typical recipes?) than Matthias approach which seems non-consensual and aggressive. What's your advice? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings!
As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.
Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!
Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
This was a singularly perceptive and clever remark. Very positive, very true. Someone should write an essay on that. Pedro : Chat 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
Hi Bob, I'm here because a point raised by Nikki a few days ago about the A330. It's regarding this phrase which you added the ref "However, the programme was not formally launched because of insufficient customer interest." Nikki said the content did not back the claim, "FN 115 and 119 are the same source, but it only supports the material cited by FN 119." – the refs have been moved a bit. Anyway, I'm a bit concerned about it because there isn't any press coverage of the cancellation, why we do know that the variant did not precede. Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ever heard of the Pugachev's Cobra? Ever heard of a Sukhoi, or a MiG? Ever heard of "Foxbats", "Flankers", "Fulcrums", or Fullback"? Do you know what they are? Do you know what the Soviet aerospace industry is like? Do you know who the Americans really fear? Do you know how much headache it caused to the West? Do you know how much attention the fighters are getting? If the answer is NO, then there are clearly some catching up to do. During the next few days, I'll be working on the MiG-29K, Su-34, Su-35 and Su-37. I want to bring them all up to the same standard as the Su-33. If you want to participate, please come along and help out. Don't be hesitant. Give the Soviet aerospace industry the recognition it really deserves. Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 11:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob.
"Is Breivik notable or not? It's difficult for me to interpret your text. And in what way is it a desirable feat of IAR apply if somebody *claims* to be following a policy but, in fact, that policy does not support their actions?"
Breivik is clearly notable. My text was deliberately a bit vague as I am a bit on the fence about this, although he is notable he also doesn't immediately require or demand his own article - he currently sits well imo in the main article - I though that Errants redirect was good when I saw it, and a correct position in regard to BLP considerations erring on the side of caution in reporting about living people - I am also a bit on the fence about the interpretation of the BLP1E, I see it as open to a bit of interpretation, which I read wiki policy/guidelines should be. I didn't bother voting in the merge discussion because imo policy is regularly violated in these feeding frenzies of high profile news events. Although I don't really support it, I have come to accept this situation, hence my vague comments about it - I hope my comments have helped you understand my position, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your support |
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
yah that page needs deletion the real page is here Wikipedia:Incremental_service_awards
with all the fixed requests. see se also section of page. Iamiyouareyou ( talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I made a loud snorting sound when I read this. Thanks for the laugh. Yobol ( talk) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I am the author of the book in question. Yes, it is self published and only 112 pages, but regular publishers are not interested in niche subjects like this. What is more relevant is that it is the result of collection of data mainly from official records of India's Commissioner of Railway Safety as well as major Indian newspapers. Please refer to the "preview" pages of the book: (Link is blocked by Wikipedia as it does not like lulu dot com). You may see this link from another publisher, though the preview does not show the Preface and Introductory Notes: http://pothi.com/pothi/book/ajai-banerji-major-railway-accidents-india-2000-09
The Preface and Introductory Notes pages should make things more clear. You can also see the next few pages to get an idea of the amount of detail added.
I feel that my book is more comprehensive and more reliable than most of the other entries in this particular Wikipedia article. In fact, it is better as it gives the "follow up" and inquiry findings and not just contemporary news clippings (like most of the other entries). This book does deserve to be listed as a reference on Wikipedia. Perhaps it could be put among the other footnotes instead of being in the main article. But then, as the book refers to the entire period of 2000-09 it may be better to have it at the bottom of the 2000-09 section instead of being in the footnotes.
Regards,
Abn397 (
talk)
07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The same issue again. Just to reiterate that it has been researched from various sources. See the link http://pothi.com/pothi/book/ajai-banerji-worldwide-railway-accidents-2000-09 and read the first few pages of the review. I feel that it deserves to be a reference. Abn397 ( talk) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jimmy_Warnock&curid=8923580&diff=443160121&oldid=443158120 is against the manual of style. Please stop enflaming edit wars and revert your incorrect edit. thank you so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IE#Biographical_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob. This issue seems to have been archived here without any conclusion being reached. Am I missing something?? Regards, -- Bermicourt ( talk) 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bobrayner, I'm just wondering if you'd like to be a co-nominator for the article Airbus A330 for its fourth(!) Featured article candidacy? I mean, you did have some input into the article (and I'm very thankful for it), but you seem reluctant to support or oppose during its third FAC. I'd really love it if you say yes, since I have someone to refer the article to when it runs into some sticky points. At the same time, I'm sure you'd like to see the article achieve the star. You don't have to, though. Cheers Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at
LGBTQ_symbols#Genderqueer_symbols, you may be
blocked from editing.
Iamiyouareyou ( talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Because it appears that you may have a single-person-bias. Befor you take out the content again please start a discussion of the disputed content on the talk page and add this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed-section to the section. Iamiyouareyou ( talk) 15:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cadence Industries. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob. Best of luck with the GA nomination. I pondered reviewing the article myself, but it felt a bit like a COI for me. I do have some notions on the article that you can take or leave as you see fit:
Again, best of luck with the process and let me know if you need anything. Regards. Haus Talk 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are some articles that mention the Advance Centre for The Scotson Technique
Are any of these articles good enough to allow the entry to be reinstated? Johnalexwood ( talk) 09:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Bobrayner. Thank you for your contribution. I'm not expert on the economy. When you have time, could you improve the article Kararname of 1296 ? Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Re your recent removal of flags from various lists of railway accidents, I've raised the issue at WT:TWP as the recent RfC did not come down against the use of flags in this way. Your comments are welcome there. Mjroots ( talk) 04:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, I'm reviewing Maersk Triple E class right now, so, could you review one of my GANs in return? RAH-66 has been nominated for a few months already. Thanks Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 08:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
your WP:MOSFLAG changes to List of rail accidents (2010–2019) have been reverted. Perhaps there is an overuse of flags, however the country name is important to the article since it identifies the country in which each accident occurs. If you wish to remove the flags, please replace them with the country name. Thanks, Truthanado ( talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Since there has been no discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking in several months, and the mediator who accepted the case has, per his talk page, apparently chosen to leave Wikipedia. I will close the listing after 22:00 UTC on September 2, 2011, unless someone edits that page to ask that it be left open. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The subject of counterfeit plugs and fuses is a well established issue affecting BS 1363 and BS 1362 products.
The seriousness of the problem can be gauged from the references supplied in the counterfeiting section of the main article, as the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association says "Counterfeit electrical products can cause injury, fire and KILL!"
Please refrain from removing this section without discussion, and with no supporting arguments. Deucharman ( talk) 00:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested an amended version of the much-reverted Counterfeiting section on this article; please take a look at the talkpage when you have a moment and pass judgement. Yunshui ( talk) 09:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bobrayner!
Congratulations! Your application to join the Global Education Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted. The steps you need to take now, a few things you need to read, are bolded.
When you get a chance, please add your username to the official list of Online Ambassadors and add a profile for yourself here (which helps match Online Ambassadors with classes in their areas of interest).
Here are some things you should know to help you get started:
The main role of for an Online Ambassador is to join the "pod" for one or more participating classes. The pod is the team of people helping a class of students contribute effectively to Wikipedia, consisting of the course instructor, the local Campus Ambassadors who will work with the class in person, the Online Ambassadors who work with the class online, and the Regional Ambassador for the pod who will check in periodically with the pod to make sure everything is going well.
A prototypical pod might look something like this:
(That's an idealization, but it gives you an idea of the spectrum of people in each of the roles in the program.)
The expections for an Online Ambassador in a pod (and what you can expect from other pod members) are laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between pod members. In short the role of the Online Ambassador is to:
To join a pod, go to the MOU signup page, which lists the courses for the current term, and leave your signature in one of the Online Ambassador slots for the pod you want to join.
You can also help as an Online Ambassador outside of your role as a pod member, anywhere you see students who could use help. Feedback on the substance (rather than style and formatting) of student articles, in particular, is always a need.
If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup. The latter is the main help channel for the program, where students and instructors come from time to time in search of live help.
Wikipedia Ambassadors are expected to follow the Wikipedia Ambassadors Principles. Please review them.
There are three main places for news, updates and discussion about Wikipedia Ambassadors and the Global Education Program:
Newsletters about the program, or messages for Online Ambassadors particularly, may be delivered to your talk page on occasion.
Thanks for volunteering as a Wikipedia Ambassador! If you have any questions, please let me know.
-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey there,
Thank you so much for offering to help me with this semester's
course!! I sent a message to the students with your name.
I truly appreciate it!
Starvinsky (
talk)
17:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity. |
My76Strat ( talk) 02:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Yes, fair enough. But I don't see a deletion proposal; guess you'll create one. Tony (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
If you still want to get rid of this I suggest AfD. It does not look to fall into any of the speedy delete criteria. Personally I would like to see Wikipedia have more articles and good coverage of periodicals, rather than getting rid of stubs. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that you've nominated Flavescent for deletion. What do you think about Fulvous, which seems to me another likely candidate, being essentially a dab page (with dicdef) consisting entirely of partial title matches, since none of the things named in the entries would normally be called "a fulvous". Deor ( talk) 21:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity. |
My76Strat ( talk) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused by your revisions to remove "improperly sourced colour blocks" from the template. As far as I can see, none of the colors on any of the templates have any sourcing at the template or the template talk page, and the template lists absolutely no requirements for sourcing. I then thought you were removing the colors that are up for AFD, but the first two examples I checked -- Isabelline (colour) and British racing green -- aren't up for deletion, and the sourcing on the articles appears to be fine. It also seems weird that these articles are included in the categories for Shades of Color but not on the templates for Shades of Color. At a minimum, I would suggest that if you have a standard in mind that articles must meet to be included on the templates, you should amend the templates' documentation to state this standard, because right now it's very unclear to this editor why these colors should be excluded. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob -- thank you for your help with the class project! It's probably the biggest one I've ever seen. By the way, don't forget to add these to your sandbox page. :) All the best, Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The content from your subpage has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project. We are preparing a notice to direct student and teachers there. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 04:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Please add your name if you like to the list there. We could also use some advice on connecting articles with students there, as you have done at your subpage. And thank you again for starting the list. It has been very useful. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 04:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding you name to the list. One of the course instructors is chatting on irc right now in a channel we have set up for this project. If you would like to join, that would be fine. You can use the link on the template we intend to add to each user page. Right now it is only on the one teachers page until we work out any bugs. User:Njnu-ban-xueshenghao Maybe we'll see you there soon.-- My76Strat ( talk) 10:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the admin "Kuru" is made a very serious mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LardoBalsamico_reported_by_User:Sillystuff84_.28Result:_page_protected.29 I've been trying to engage on his talk page. Sillystuff84 ( talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
-- NNU-11-22100515 ( talk) 02:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)I'm a student from Nanjing Normal University.I've written an article on wikipedia.Cause this is the first time that I have written an article on wikipedia.Would you like to look at it and give some advice? Thank you!
You'll find plenty of good sources in G Books. I shall add them if you don't, but you could have easily done it in the first place instead of prodding. In general, first look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. "no sources" is not a reason for deletion. "no sources after 4 years" just means nobody has yet done it, so you have the opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As the article notes, agriculture in the DPRK was heavily dependent on imports from its communist trading partners, especially the USSR. While it had those imports, there was no famine. When the trade network collapsed and it lost the imports, then there was a famine. The specific trigger was its sudden trade isolation (and yes, whatever decisions led to that isolation), and not some vague "mismanagement" that hadn't been a problem for the previous 30 years. 24.22.217.162 ( talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
I award you the Civility (Tutorial Friendly) Barnstar for helping me over Wikipedia
FRYugoslavHero ( talk) 23:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
I've removed the entire "An aside" section on Talk:Militant atheism that you added in here.
I'm sure you're wondering why. The reason is: this is an article's talk page. This is a place to discuss article improvement and shape the encyclopedia without interfering with regular readers. This is not a place to open up shop attacking other editors and trying to prove them as sockpuppets.
I appreciate your dedication, and I'd encourage you to create an inquiry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you feel so strongly that there is sockpuppetry going on, then raise this concern in the proper venue. However, please keep defamation off of the article's talk page.
I'd expect that it goes without saying not to restore your section to the talk page. You're welcome to open an SPI case, but keep it off the talk.
Any questions are welcome, and your cooperation is appreciated. Cheers, m.o.p 15:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
---|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Hello, Ambassadors!
I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.
On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.
Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!
Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:
Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:
-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi what's happening with the Talk:Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche/GA1 review it seems to have stalled. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 13:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I queried your edit here Talk:Defter#Tahrir defterleri, and it would be great if you could address it. I probably should have come here first but, well, I was recently nudged toward a talk page. Hope it's OK. It sounds intriguing. Thanks. Swliv ( talk) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:AlgoSec. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.
The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.
According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.
So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, really; seems this case might not be as closed as was thought; [15].
Sounds like just Onlymath ( talk · contribs) pushing for it, and several others (inc me) removing the changes - see recent hist on Lynette Nusbacher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
But if there is more to it than that, please keep me in the loop. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I just used your mentoring equation at ANI. Thanks for writing it down. -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foxconn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Bobrayner/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I will answer that question later on tonight, when I get home. Right now I'm editing from my office computer, and then I have other plans tonight, so don't make it seem like I'm ignoring the question. Thanks Secret account 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering...did you ever get a consensus for your mass removal of color boxes, templates, etc? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The core of the problem is that somebody will always decide to add some new variation on a colour. If they bother checking a source, and if the source gives the same name as a different hue, then they'll create a totally new name for it which is unencumbered by sources. Then they hit up google images and find some image which is approximately the same hue and pretend that's a valid source for the colour:name pairing, when in reality it's anything but. There are thousands of different printed colour charts; just take a random selection and guesstimate the RGB values and pretend they're notable. Some sources give multiple hues for a single name; but that's not a problem because the mission is to put in huge volumes of text and templates, rather than to provide encyclopædic definitions. Hatnotes were nonexistent and dab pages ignored, and the colour articles were populated through the most simplistic of searches, so (for example) the Bronze (color) article attracted large volumes of trivia about the metal rather than the colour. And so on. It's a stain on the encyclopædia; and it's worse that people blindly restore this stuff without solving the actual problem. Let's try a more recent example:
Refer to Template:Expand Japanese and Japanese Wikipedia. Thanks. 220.156.1.46 ( talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Bobrayner, Thank you for everything! And don't worry, I'll definetly stay active on wikipedia!!! ;)You seem like a good person and i admire you for helping newbies (like me :) ) learn how to use wikipedia and have a good time! Sorceress150 ( talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding Melbourne as a future destination of UL. To add a future destination, an exact date is required (late 2011 is not an exact date). A similar case was when the airline announced plans to resume flights to Kochi in Jan 2011, but it was not until March this year, that a conformation was received. So as per the project guidelines, we list future destinations only when an exact date is announced, ( Snoozlepet was right in removing your addition) and until then it is just a speculation. — Abhishek Talk 13:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw content that had been removed without any justification so I restored it. I will be more careful in the future. Blaziken ( T- C) 11:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, would you consider revisiting this RfC discussion? I replied to your concern, and I hope that if there is anything that can be done to clarify/improve the language of the guideline, you would consider changing your oppose vote to support. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 14:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob
Just so you understand, I thought your edit on the astrology page was fair enough, but still think the footnote is directly relevant on the Musica universalis page and ought to be left there. The theory was not concerned with audible sounds but energy tones. I don't think the footnote proves anything but it is of interest that those Nasa sounds now exist, and show very different types of sounds which seem to match with the qualities suggested by Pytahgoras. Not a big thing but I wanted you to understand why I undid your first edit. At first I thought you put "metaphysical stuff" and thought how refreshing it was to see an editor make an edit summary without seizing the opportunity to take a swipe at metaphysical ideas - but then I noticed it was "fluff" not "stuff". Ah, one little letter ... such dissapointment. -- Zac Δ talk! 17:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain this edit deleting other editors' discussion which you made without an edit summary. TFD ( talk) 05:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you blanked out whole sections of referenced information on some of the astrology pages. You may not be aware that there is discussion regarding the content you removed in the Wikipedia Astrology Project. There is strong consensus that the content is appropriate and should remain. If you would like to make any arguments please do, and specify exactly what your concern is, so that the issues can be addressed. Or use the talk page of the articles involved to do that. As your edits have gone against the concensus of editorial opinion that it shoukld remain, I'll restore the previous content. Thanks. -- Zac Δ talk! 18:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that you substantially changed the text affecting the zodiac pages content again. You are aware that there is full, extensive discussion concerning this text, (and the structure and design of the astrology sign pages), and clear consensus in favour of utilising the text you have removed. If you have reasons why you dissaprove of the text please contribute to the discussion and explain those reasons so that those who are currently working on guidelines for structure and content on these pages can understand your objections. This would be useful. Continuing to remove reliably referenced information without consensus is not, and leads to edit-warring. Also, please be aware that the thread on the Fringe noticeboard is a highly misleading one, full of misinformation and quite a few patent lies that break a number of WP polices. I have asked for it to be closed. It is the complaining editors, who asked for the astrology project to discuss this and create guidelines - since this is being fdone please don't disrupt the process but add your views for consideration. The relevant discussion is here. -- Zac Δ talk! 06:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I mentioned your involvement in the astrology debacle best I could, and suggested that a greater community discussion (i.e. one that isn't dominated by astrology peeps) should be started. Feel free to correct any misstatements I may have made Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, thanks for the welcome. I'm really excited to have a wikipedia article up! Cdlangan ( talk) 18:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, thank your for the warm welcome. I am excited to join the Wikipedia community, am learning along the way and hope to make my tiny contributions to the ocean of knowledge and information (some information are not knowledge). Ginger Maine Coon ( talk) 16:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Bob, we've noticed on a couple of pages tied to foreclosure pages and Nye Lavalle that you have made comments about his papers and reports and denounced Scrib as a source. Could you kindly accept our input on this matter since our advocate group of lawyers, professors, and consumer advocates are more knowledgable on the subject matter on a day-to-day basis. On many occasions, I would agree with your edits. However, since both government and media ignored these frauds for so many years, it is vitally important to create a real history of events.
Lavalle is widely considered among advocates and lawyers as the first to research and document foreclosure fraud and especially robo-signing. See his reports on 4closurefraud such as this one http://4closurefraud.org/2011/08/19/nye-lavalle-after-the-storm-foreclosure-fraud-robo-%C2%ADsigning-continues-must-read-report/ We have done searches for term and practice in media and mortgage articles. His reports are the first we can identify on the subject. Too many newcomers and media think this is a recent practice, its not. It's important for media and for regulators to know that Lavalle warned others and identified the practice over a dozen years ago and was ignored. Too many think robo-signing is a by product of the increased foreclosures of the recent financial crisis, its not. It was a patented process identified by Lavalle over a decade ago. We need to let people know its not a recent event, but a fraudulent practice documented to go back over a dozen years so that government and the banks white-washed. If you have time, read the reports and you'll be shocked at what he found and reported on. Please leave the references in. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortgageProf ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob! I hope you are well! Just to let you know that per UNESCO official page and attitude, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo are designated to Serbia, as Serbian Medieval Monuments. If UNESCO and UN recognize RoK's sovereignty over those monuments, and edit that in designations page, we should reflect that then. And link is not toward countries, but toward other UNESCO designations anyway... All best! -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Before you keep removing this information, we have come to a consensus to list unique subnational entities such as the Special Administrative Regions of China, the collectivité territoriale of Corsica, the autonomous regions of Italy, the countries of the United Kingdom, and the island of Zanzibar as separate from the larger nation due to their unique political, geographic, and cultural statuses.
Also, it is custom to include the various subnational regions in the lists of areas visited on the articles, because racers often travel to different parts of the countries.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 00:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'm writing on behalf of a user who is very new to Wikipedia. He and another user have been trying to add Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SourceLink, LLC to the mainspace. I have declined it because it wasn't neutral in tone and had several parts to it that had a promotional tone. There is a concern of a conflict of interest since both editors that have worked on the article are employed by the company and the user is frustrated because of this. He's also concerned that employees of the company would be the only people who would know about the article. I'm sending him in your direction, so I wanted to drop you a note so you're aware of him. It's user User:ChazMcGreedly and User:Matthewhaskell, although the most recent edits have been from McGreedly. If you could help them write this article then that'd be great. I've steered them in the direction of Wikipedia:WikiProject Business, but I wanted him to have an experienced user help him out. I've also asked another user to help this guy out since the two seem to be trying in good faith but don't really know how to progress past what they've done so far. I just don't want them to feel like I'm being unfair. I don't think the article in its current state is ready for mainspace and I'm really against the idea of anyone with a COI editing/creating an article, but I do think that this company might pass WP:CORP. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 07:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Hi there, Bobrayner. I noticed yesterday that you made an edit to the Moody's article, related to a POV section there. I am the editor who added those warning tags back in August, and I expect you may agree the article still suffers from serious problems.
Further background on my involvement: For a few months now, I have been defending Moody's and related articles from vandalism. It happens to be the case that I do so on behalf of Moody's, so I've tried to be very careful to watch my COI.
Anyhow, if you interested in further improving the Moody's article, your edit comes at a good time, because I've just finished work on a major new draft of the article, which covers all of the current information, but more fully and accurately. That draft is here, and I have also posted a longer discussion on the Moody's discussion page.
I am seeking input from others as well, but I would be grateful if you would be willing to help, too. I hope to see you on the Moody's discussion page. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I replied to your comment here [23] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but there is significant evidence to suggest his neo-nazi beliefs and if I cant here I am just going to start a smear campaign somewhere else!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you're mediating this one with me, are you?
If you've done this job before, I'm following your lead...-- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 15:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Bob, you asked if I would be interested in doing a major edit of this page. In fact I had just put up a POV warning and Primary Sources warning for this page when I saw your message. I felt that it was being used as a blog page or bulletin board to advertise certain people's publications. It was highly biased in many ways. But this is because they are trying to do what an encyclopedia cannot, to give a couple of lines on the (favourable) results of each of the primary studies carried out on a subject - and so far they have put in only a handful out of more than 1000. I really feel that this is not an appropriate page to have on Wikipedia. Do you think you could tell me if I am overreacting? Here is my discussion page comment:
The Fairtrade Impact Studies page does not meet any of the Wikipedia criteria. It provides short statements of some of the data in some publications.
quite a lot of text which is also on the article talkpage |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia as a bulletin board or blogThere is no attempt to provide representative research. Instead people seem to be using the page as a bulletin board or blog to publicize their publications. This is not a legitimate function of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia as an abstracting serviceWikipedia is not an abstracting service: it is an encyclopaedia – CAB international, Agricola, etc would be appropriate places to put abstracts. They do attempt full coverage, while this page has been recipient of a targeted selection of publications The selection of cooperatives to study is biasedThere are two related biases. First there is a bias in which Fairtrade cooperatives to study. Second there is a bias in which of the studies to present on this page. It would be misleading and biased to publish full details of the very few people who smoke 100 cigarettes a day and reach the age of 100, and to claim or suggest that this heavy smoking leads to longlivety. Honesty requires that the large number of people who do not smoke and reach this age are also mentioned, and the high death rate of those who do smoke is mentioned. Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi applies: to suppress the truth is to imply a falsehood. These studies are biased because the people doing the research choose to research what seem to be successful Fairtrade cooperatives. There is no attempt to look at the unsuccessful cooperatives. There is no mention of or impact study of, say, the 50% least successful cooperatives. Some of the studies cited on this page, probably nearly all, were written by people already committed to Fairtrade when they started their investigation. Indeed some of the publications cited in Murray, Raynolds and Taylor 2003 were written by members or employees of Fairtrade cooperatives, implying bias in both the selection of the sample cooperatives and in the carrying out of the study. Selection of studies to reportThe selection of studies to report here is biased. For example, there is a failure to include papers which give the opposite picture. For example, Bacon 2005 is cited, but not papers which produce the opposite conclusion[ Bacon, C. 2005. Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World Development Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 497–511is cited, but not Mendoza, R., & J. Bastiaensen, J. (2003). “Fair Trade and the Coffee Crisis in the Nicaraguan Segovias.” Small Enterprise Development , 14(2), Valkila, J., Haaparanta, P., & Niemi, N. (2010). Empowering Coffee Traders? The Coffee Value Chain from Nicaraguan Fair Trade Farmers to Finnish Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics , 97:257-270, Valkila, J. (2009). Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua - Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics , 68 3018-3025. Selection of data to reportThe page gives a line or two of ‘results’. Few of the studies reported were intended to be ‘impact studies’ and fewer still meet the normal requirements for ‘impact studies’. They are instead case studies, which may give a lot of valuable information, on how the cooperative worked, how the Fairtrade fitted in, and what problems arose, and what unintended harmful effects were observed, for example. Some are little more than unevidenced journalism. It is misleading in the extreme to select one or two favourable outcomes, a couple of sentences from a 40,000 word report, perhaps, and present it as a definitive ‘favourable impact’. No meaningful impact study identifies just a single impact. No meaningful impact study fails to recognize that there are negative effects as well as positive effects to any intervention. Selected raw data from primary publicationsWikipedia has firm guidelines on this. Wikipedia forbids the citation of primary studies like these. The guideline does not consider the possibility that people might go a step further and select a particular datum or selection of data from a primary publication and present it as being in some way representative of all. I do not believe that the editors considered that anyone would do it. CommercialIt is relevant that Fairtrade is a commercial brand which big businesses in the rich countries are making a lot of money out of. |
Quick question. I was a little confused by your support for proposal 2 as that would appear to be "favouring one side or the other". Perhaps I've misinterpreted? NickCT ( talk) 17:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edit comment on the above and I agree that it doesn't do any harm in this case however if we were to agree to every edit request such as this then where would we be? The village is properly referenced and thus in the public domain? Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just as an idea, regarding the above mediation, I think it might be useful if anyone could produce any recent widely accepted comparatively recent reference works which have content of some length relating to the subject, and how much, if any, weight those works give the material in question in their articles. If, of course, the matter of contention has its own, separate article in those works, that might be useful to know as well. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter ( talk) 22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Hey, I hear you're pretty good at getting multiple articles nominated for DYKs. I was wondering if several articles nominated for a single hook would be allowed to overlap in content. Abyssal ( talk) 18:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to comment. If you may. -- Insert coins ( talk) 14:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bobrayner, if you have some time would you be able to take a look at my proposal for Moody's once more? If you check the Moody's Talk page, you'll see that I've replied to the questions that you asked on the draft's Talk page. Not only that, but I've now split the draft up into three separate articles, following suggestions from you and another editor. Before I go forward with making any edits or open a new discussion, I'd like to invite you to review the separated articles since you are already familiar with the topic and have been so far helpful. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 23:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the Guaraní language edits and for adding the references thereto. Sorry about the punctuation remark; I could have sworn you were starting a new sentence.
Thanks, Dave ( djkernen)| Talk to me| Please help! 00:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I understand you are trying to mediate and keep a calm head over the situation. But in the context of the AFD, especially when it appears you agree with Fram and have voted to delete, making comments on other editors even if rational and with an element of truth in them does little to help the situation and usually ends up blowing into something worse. Your words might hit home with some people but people who know me know that the worst thing you can possibly do if you want me to shut up is to lecture me or attack my edits or my behaviour. I only respond negatively to comments which I deem false or unnecessary, I am not going to let Fram imply I am false even if you think my cover story is "dubious". I have sworn that the Afghan list was generated by geonames in 2008. You should have both accepted this given that I have provided evidence to show Fritzpoll used it as a source. If you stop making further comments on AFDs which ridicule me for my editing or actions then I simply also will not comment. It adds fuel to fire, even if you genuinely are acting in good faith and want the situation to be discussed rationally. Understand I am not the sort of person who tolerates overviews of my behaviour in public forums, even if perfectly rational and level headed. Even worse is people who tell me what I should do. Maybe Fram genuinely believes deleting the articles will help wikipedia, but I see certain aspects of what he has done as quite the opposite. As far as I can see he has made little attempt to actually fix any of the articles except some much appreciated error fixes in my trail this morning. Yes he made a lot of edits assessing them yes, but the time he spent tagging them he could have easily replaced with a geonames source which he agrees is reliable. If the job was too much for him as it clearly was then he should have asked me to replace with the source he deems reliable which I've done to some 500 articles and counting ans which he accepts. So because of this and given his strong views on auto-generated short articles I think it has more to do with "sub stubs" rather than actual major problems, 99% of the entries are instantly verifiable in geonames so false entries they are not. He believes it would be best to nuke them and then create them one by one with much more content and sources which I agree is how they should have been created and is a much better way to build something useful for wikipedia. I just think now that that they've been created we should fix and build on what we have. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
the comment you just left at freeloaders is unnecessary and abusive.
Of course i carefully thought about how i was to frame the answers to the questions i was asked by the wiki text in the mediation section. I thought i was working with a system that would send a mediator to help me rather than one of you to come along and accuse me of being difficult while you all fell about laugthing with the childish wonderful persons stupidity.
I genuinely feel you are all doing everything you can to keep wiki biased and i said as much and you have no right to come along an accuse me of dishonesty or anything shameful for acting as i did with total integrity. So back off and find somebody else to mess with please. Not one single time have you ever engaged with me in a conversation as a normal human being would do who had some interest in providing a better wiki experience for the reader. I have bent over backwards to communicate to the other editors and provided many hiqh quality citations and been knocked back again and again and again. Total humiliation and the page is just as it was when i arrived apart from the fringe area and minor changes. and then you talk about fighting systematic bias and great things about wiki. Wiki supposedly encourages people to be bold, have fun and enjoy the experience. And look what happens. Utter misery. And all assisted by you while you did nothing but encourage it Andrewedwardjudd ( talk) 20:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
Bobrayner, the articles you have proposed for deletion ALL have been well-cited with heavy references. Conjuring up support for a bogus removal cause just shows bias against the source and/or contributor. You propose a sweeping removal of four articles. This is non-sensical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpaj ( talk • contribs)
Bobrayner, I don't know if you noticed the image File:Egglepple crayon.png, but if so was there a reason you didn't XFD it? I've just nominated it, but if you know of a reason it should be kept let me know. (PS Sorry for the multiple edits to your talk page, but I am the queen of derp this evening.) -- NellieBly ( talk) 01:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Location:
VHEMT Article
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (
talk)
15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your removal of flags. Explanation given at Talk:List of rail accidents (2000–2009). Please do not remove flags from any other lists while this issue is discussed. It may be that a RFC is needed on the issue, as it affects many lists. MOSFLAG appears to be aimed more at biographical articles than lists. Mjroots ( talk) 10:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi bobrayner, I spot-checked a few of the altitudes, and they seem to be right. My source (a map) is unfortunately not really sufficient because it does not give the exact values.
From looking at similar articles it seems the altitudes are normally not referenced individually--would it make sense to reinstate the values for Namibia? -- Pgallert ( talk) 08:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Railways in Cameroon | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi bob, I've got a question about aerodynamics for you. The article North American XB-70 Valkyrie has an unrefed claims that says, "NAA's solution had an additional advantage, as it decreased the surface area of the rear of the wing when they were moved into their high speed position. This helped offset the rearward shift of the center of pressure, or "average lift point" with increasing speeds under normal conditions, causing an increasing nose-down trim. When the wingtips were drooped the surface area at the rear of the wings was lowered, moving the lift forward and counteracting this effect." I think you're more knowledgeable in this field than myself, so what do you think? Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 23:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks, – OhioStandard ( talk) 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, I've got great news regarding Airbus A330. The article had bypassed the A-class review and headed straight to FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3. Could you voice your stance on the article on whether it should be FA or not! I'm beginning to wind down on editing the article after 5 months of toil, and move on with other things, not least the master plan! Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It appears you have just gone on a wide-ranging hunt to remove external links to Railpage Australia using WP:ELNEVER as your justification -- could you please explain why? The site is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, and if you object to people posting news articles etc in its forums, then the non-asshole thing to do would be to fix the references to point directly at the original sources, not remove them entirely! Jpatokal ( talk) 10:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
As you delete hundreds if not thousands of elevations from files such Railway stations in Brazil, you have not bothered to replace these so-called faulty data with data that is satisfactory. The so-called bad data is IOM reasonable, yet you have replaced/destroyed/purged them with nil/zilch/NOTHING. So when will we see good elevation data which you have been keeping hidden from everyone. Tabletop ( talk) 05:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If you ask me, disagreement is in the past already! :)
Well, its not only Decius, i noticed that several Roman emperors articles don't have regular sources for some basic data, like birth place, death place, years of rule, etc... And i wanted to fix those! So i started with Decius. Do you know some good sources on that one? I wanted to add one by one... :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 17:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
WhiteWriter has given you a plate of sausages! Plates of sausage promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a plate of sausages, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Friendly!! :) All best!
†
|
I saw a question to posed to MRG.
Are you familiar with this tool?
I fear it is not automated enough for you, as it works with a single identified articles. For example, if you know you had edited Inflatable boat, of course you could go to the page history and see your contributions, but entering the info in the tool tells you that you have exactly one edit. It is faster than perusing the history.
I still suspect you need something more automated. But perhaps someone with tool skills could pass the list are articles, and spit out both the number of edits by the person of interest, and the total number of edits, this crudely estimating the proportion, and decently estimating high target articles.-- SPhilbrick T 01:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am a PhD student at Carnegie Mellon University doing some research into editing and reverts on Wikipedia. I am asking Wikipedians that I have found have made contributions to genetics articles on Wikipedia to complete a short survey that will help me develop interfaces and tools for newcomers and administrators. The survey will take about 10-15 minutes, and will involve you pretending that you are editing the page on genetic engineering and making some quick judgments on how controversial or likely to be reverted a word sampled from an edit might be. This will help me to validate a model that predicts which words will be reverted based on the history of an article, which if successful will be turned into an interface. If you would like to participate, please complete the survey on SurveyMonkey here. You can find out more about me on my user page and personal home page. I'm more than happy to talk more about this research on my talk page or by email, and thank you for your time. JeffRz ( talk) 02:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, just wanted to say that you did a fantastic job with the Ottoman tax articles. It's not often that we see 25 article hooks, so great job! Yes, I know this is a month late. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
— mc10 ( t/ c) 22:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's try and add sources shall we? Vexorg ( talk) 20:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on on the talk page; you are invited to participate. Lagrange613 ( talk) 06:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I've decided to put Template:Flag up for TFD. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 11. Either we accept flags or we don't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
BR: Corrected date to match source. (This is preferable to leaving the wrong date but giving it fancy formatting).
Block message:
Accept reason: Collateral damage -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 13:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
No Bob, you need to read the reference, and not just look for words. That is in fact what it says if you understand the premise of the original statement in the section. However, even if that was not true, how can the entire set of included subjects (three monotheistic religions) be a model to itself? Its a logical fallacy since there can be only one model to a given set. What the term "Abrahamic religions" does is displace Judaism as that model by assigning the three religions (the set) the same common denominator of Abraham, though we have no extant texts that confirm this. Even the Oral Law laments that Abraham had 400 chapters in the tractate on Idolatry to the extant five. Neither Christianity nor Islam can claim this equivalence of the social context, nor the particularity of Israelites required for a social construct model. However, both Christianity and Islam promote their own Replacement theology that seeks to a) abrogate the Jewish social context, and b) deny particularity.
Hence I quote from the very reference I added to the article:
3.2.1 Social functions and motivations in religion Sociology quite obviously directs its particular attention to the function of social integration religion can fulfill. Sociology of knowledge often depicts religion as a "social construction of reality"; it unifies people on the basis of an orientation system which interprets reality and defines the human being, and so contributes to the smooth functioning of society. Sociologists concerned with value-ethics emphasize the harmonization religion can bring about between individual aspirations and societal demands.
I note that Judaism, unlike Christianity and Islam, had unified its adherents (at least until the modern era c.1820), and provided a system, halakha, that interprets reality and defines the human being in ways that were never adopted or achieved in Christianity or Islam. Moreover it contributed to the smooth functioning of the Israelite society even while its leaders were in conflict! Even today, when there are significant disagreements between sections of the adherents to Judaism, there is no observable conflict in the degree observable in Christian and Islamic denominations.
As the social constructionism article says, "The underlying assumptions on which social constructivism is typically seen to be based are reality, knowledge, and learning." and this is present in Judaism which through its judicial principles defines reality, and through over three millenia of learning has accumulated substantial social knowledge with which it is constructed. It does however contradict the social constructionism as a theory in that it allows for countless human choices, AND laws resulting from divine will. Islam has dispensed with the former, while secularism has dismissed the later in Christianity.
As for belief, note I edited at the start of the section, and happy to repeat here, that there is no statement anywhere in the Jewish Scriptures, i.e. Tanakh, or in the Oral Tradition, i.e. the Talmud, that asks for belief in God. The entire point of Judaism is to know God, and do so intimately, seeking to emulate Him. If this was not true, how else would He ask that those who received the Torah Walk in His ways(Devarim [Deuteronomy] 28:9)? How does one walk in someone's ways while only believing to be doing so? There is another similar logical premise in Be holy, for God is holy (Vayikra [Leviticus] 19:2) which again presupposes knowledge of God, and not a belief, since "God is holy" is a statement of fact in Judaism. This may be challenged in Western philosophy, but knowledge of God rather than belief in Him is a distinct part of Judaism Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 15:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is a follow-up to your comments and suggestions on the username discussion page related to USEPA creating a Wikipedia account. As is usual for the government, it took a while to get approval to proceed toward a new frontier. But I finally got the OK to set up the account and begin suggesting edits to content that falls within USEPA's purview. You volunteered to help out or point me in the direction of folks who might be interested. I have a bullet list of proposed edits w/citations for a particular chemical page on Wikipedia, but to avoid the appearance of lording over Wikipedia content we would prefer not to edit pages directly. If you're still interested in helping out, please contact me. USEPA James ( talk) 19:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC).
Hi Bob. I've not only reinstated the recipe link, but found the English version of it. However, User talk:MatthiasHuehr has reverted it again citing linkspam. But it isn't linkspam by the definition given in WP. How do we deal with someone who is intent on causing irritation/disruption like this? Is it trolling? I'm less bothered by the article in question (who cares if there's one or two links to typical recipes?) than Matthias approach which seems non-consensual and aggressive. What's your advice? -- Bermicourt ( talk) 20:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Greetings!
As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.
Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!
Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC).
This was a singularly perceptive and clever remark. Very positive, very true. Someone should write an essay on that. Pedro : Chat 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC).
Hi Bob, I'm here because a point raised by Nikki a few days ago about the A330. It's regarding this phrase which you added the ref "However, the programme was not formally launched because of insufficient customer interest." Nikki said the content did not back the claim, "FN 115 and 119 are the same source, but it only supports the material cited by FN 119." – the refs have been moved a bit. Anyway, I'm a bit concerned about it because there isn't any press coverage of the cancellation, why we do know that the variant did not precede. Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ever heard of the Pugachev's Cobra? Ever heard of a Sukhoi, or a MiG? Ever heard of "Foxbats", "Flankers", "Fulcrums", or Fullback"? Do you know what they are? Do you know what the Soviet aerospace industry is like? Do you know who the Americans really fear? Do you know how much headache it caused to the West? Do you know how much attention the fighters are getting? If the answer is NO, then there are clearly some catching up to do. During the next few days, I'll be working on the MiG-29K, Su-34, Su-35 and Su-37. I want to bring them all up to the same standard as the Su-33. If you want to participate, please come along and help out. Don't be hesitant. Give the Soviet aerospace industry the recognition it really deserves. Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 11:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob.
"Is Breivik notable or not? It's difficult for me to interpret your text. And in what way is it a desirable feat of IAR apply if somebody *claims* to be following a policy but, in fact, that policy does not support their actions?"
Breivik is clearly notable. My text was deliberately a bit vague as I am a bit on the fence about this, although he is notable he also doesn't immediately require or demand his own article - he currently sits well imo in the main article - I though that Errants redirect was good when I saw it, and a correct position in regard to BLP considerations erring on the side of caution in reporting about living people - I am also a bit on the fence about the interpretation of the BLP1E, I see it as open to a bit of interpretation, which I read wiki policy/guidelines should be. I didn't bother voting in the merge discussion because imo policy is regularly violated in these feeding frenzies of high profile news events. Although I don't really support it, I have come to accept this situation, hence my vague comments about it - I hope my comments have helped you understand my position, regards. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
|
Thank you for your support |
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I shall endeavor to meet your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian ( talk) 07:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
yah that page needs deletion the real page is here Wikipedia:Incremental_service_awards
with all the fixed requests. see se also section of page. Iamiyouareyou ( talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I made a loud snorting sound when I read this. Thanks for the laugh. Yobol ( talk) 16:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I am the author of the book in question. Yes, it is self published and only 112 pages, but regular publishers are not interested in niche subjects like this. What is more relevant is that it is the result of collection of data mainly from official records of India's Commissioner of Railway Safety as well as major Indian newspapers. Please refer to the "preview" pages of the book: (Link is blocked by Wikipedia as it does not like lulu dot com). You may see this link from another publisher, though the preview does not show the Preface and Introductory Notes: http://pothi.com/pothi/book/ajai-banerji-major-railway-accidents-india-2000-09
The Preface and Introductory Notes pages should make things more clear. You can also see the next few pages to get an idea of the amount of detail added.
I feel that my book is more comprehensive and more reliable than most of the other entries in this particular Wikipedia article. In fact, it is better as it gives the "follow up" and inquiry findings and not just contemporary news clippings (like most of the other entries). This book does deserve to be listed as a reference on Wikipedia. Perhaps it could be put among the other footnotes instead of being in the main article. But then, as the book refers to the entire period of 2000-09 it may be better to have it at the bottom of the 2000-09 section instead of being in the footnotes.
Regards,
Abn397 (
talk)
07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The same issue again. Just to reiterate that it has been researched from various sources. See the link http://pothi.com/pothi/book/ajai-banerji-worldwide-railway-accidents-2000-09 and read the first few pages of the review. I feel that it deserves to be a reference. Abn397 ( talk) 11:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Planned Parenthood. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jimmy_Warnock&curid=8923580&diff=443160121&oldid=443158120 is against the manual of style. Please stop enflaming edit wars and revert your incorrect edit. thank you so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IE#Biographical_articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruairí Óg's ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob. This issue seems to have been archived here without any conclusion being reached. Am I missing something?? Regards, -- Bermicourt ( talk) 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bobrayner, I'm just wondering if you'd like to be a co-nominator for the article Airbus A330 for its fourth(!) Featured article candidacy? I mean, you did have some input into the article (and I'm very thankful for it), but you seem reluctant to support or oppose during its third FAC. I'd really love it if you say yes, since I have someone to refer the article to when it runs into some sticky points. At the same time, I'm sure you'd like to see the article achieve the star. You don't have to, though. Cheers Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 11:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at
LGBTQ_symbols#Genderqueer_symbols, you may be
blocked from editing.
Iamiyouareyou ( talk) 15:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Because it appears that you may have a single-person-bias. Befor you take out the content again please start a discussion of the disputed content on the talk page and add this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Disputed-section to the section. Iamiyouareyou ( talk) 15:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cadence Industries. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob. Best of luck with the GA nomination. I pondered reviewing the article myself, but it felt a bit like a COI for me. I do have some notions on the article that you can take or leave as you see fit:
Again, best of luck with the process and let me know if you need anything. Regards. Haus Talk 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are some articles that mention the Advance Centre for The Scotson Technique
Are any of these articles good enough to allow the entry to be reinstated? Johnalexwood ( talk) 09:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Bobrayner. Thank you for your contribution. I'm not expert on the economy. When you have time, could you improve the article Kararname of 1296 ? Thank you. Takabeg ( talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Re your recent removal of flags from various lists of railway accidents, I've raised the issue at WT:TWP as the recent RfC did not come down against the use of flags in this way. Your comments are welcome there. Mjroots ( talk) 04:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, I'm reviewing Maersk Triple E class right now, so, could you review one of my GANs in return? RAH-66 has been nominated for a few months already. Thanks Sp33dyphil " Ad astra" 08:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
your WP:MOSFLAG changes to List of rail accidents (2010–2019) have been reverted. Perhaps there is an overuse of flags, however the country name is important to the article since it identifies the country in which each accident occurs. If you wish to remove the flags, please replace them with the country name. Thanks, Truthanado ( talk) 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I responded on my talk page.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 18:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Since there has been no discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking in several months, and the mediator who accepted the case has, per his talk page, apparently chosen to leave Wikipedia. I will close the listing after 22:00 UTC on September 2, 2011, unless someone edits that page to ask that it be left open. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The subject of counterfeit plugs and fuses is a well established issue affecting BS 1363 and BS 1362 products.
The seriousness of the problem can be gauged from the references supplied in the counterfeiting section of the main article, as the British Electrotechnical and Allied Manufacturers Association says "Counterfeit electrical products can cause injury, fire and KILL!"
Please refrain from removing this section without discussion, and with no supporting arguments. Deucharman ( talk) 00:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I've suggested an amended version of the much-reverted Counterfeiting section on this article; please take a look at the talkpage when you have a moment and pass judgement. Yunshui ( talk) 09:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bobrayner!
Congratulations! Your application to join the Global Education Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted. The steps you need to take now, a few things you need to read, are bolded.
When you get a chance, please add your username to the official list of Online Ambassadors and add a profile for yourself here (which helps match Online Ambassadors with classes in their areas of interest).
Here are some things you should know to help you get started:
The main role of for an Online Ambassador is to join the "pod" for one or more participating classes. The pod is the team of people helping a class of students contribute effectively to Wikipedia, consisting of the course instructor, the local Campus Ambassadors who will work with the class in person, the Online Ambassadors who work with the class online, and the Regional Ambassador for the pod who will check in periodically with the pod to make sure everything is going well.
A prototypical pod might look something like this:
(That's an idealization, but it gives you an idea of the spectrum of people in each of the roles in the program.)
The expections for an Online Ambassador in a pod (and what you can expect from other pod members) are laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between pod members. In short the role of the Online Ambassador is to:
To join a pod, go to the MOU signup page, which lists the courses for the current term, and leave your signature in one of the Online Ambassador slots for the pod you want to join.
You can also help as an Online Ambassador outside of your role as a pod member, anywhere you see students who could use help. Feedback on the substance (rather than style and formatting) of student articles, in particular, is always a need.
If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup. The latter is the main help channel for the program, where students and instructors come from time to time in search of live help.
Wikipedia Ambassadors are expected to follow the Wikipedia Ambassadors Principles. Please review them.
There are three main places for news, updates and discussion about Wikipedia Ambassadors and the Global Education Program:
Newsletters about the program, or messages for Online Ambassadors particularly, may be delivered to your talk page on occasion.
Thanks for volunteering as a Wikipedia Ambassador! If you have any questions, please let me know.
-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey there,
Thank you so much for offering to help me with this semester's
course!! I sent a message to the students with your name.
I truly appreciate it!
Starvinsky (
talk)
17:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity. |
My76Strat ( talk) 02:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.
I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:
Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Yes, fair enough. But I don't see a deletion proposal; guess you'll create one. Tony (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
If you still want to get rid of this I suggest AfD. It does not look to fall into any of the speedy delete criteria. Personally I would like to see Wikipedia have more articles and good coverage of periodicals, rather than getting rid of stubs. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I see that you've nominated Flavescent for deletion. What do you think about Fulvous, which seems to me another likely candidate, being essentially a dab page (with dicdef) consisting entirely of partial title matches, since none of the things named in the entries would normally be called "a fulvous". Deor ( talk) 21:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
I have observed some remarkable contributions from this account. I am curious, why are you not an administrator. Pardon that you have struck me as the kind of editor who could be a good one, and that you seem qualified by a cursory review. You exemplify the essence of an Administrator without tools! I hope you will consider serving in the fuller capacity. |
My76Strat ( talk) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused by your revisions to remove "improperly sourced colour blocks" from the template. As far as I can see, none of the colors on any of the templates have any sourcing at the template or the template talk page, and the template lists absolutely no requirements for sourcing. I then thought you were removing the colors that are up for AFD, but the first two examples I checked -- Isabelline (colour) and British racing green -- aren't up for deletion, and the sourcing on the articles appears to be fine. It also seems weird that these articles are included in the categories for Shades of Color but not on the templates for Shades of Color. At a minimum, I would suggest that if you have a standard in mind that articles must meet to be included on the templates, you should amend the templates' documentation to state this standard, because right now it's very unclear to this editor why these colors should be excluded. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 15:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob -- thank you for your help with the class project! It's probably the biggest one I've ever seen. By the way, don't forget to add these to your sandbox page. :) All the best, Antandrus (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
The content from your subpage has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project. We are preparing a notice to direct student and teachers there. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 04:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Please add your name if you like to the list there. We could also use some advice on connecting articles with students there, as you have done at your subpage. And thank you again for starting the list. It has been very useful. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 04:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding you name to the list. One of the course instructors is chatting on irc right now in a channel we have set up for this project. If you would like to join, that would be fine. You can use the link on the template we intend to add to each user page. Right now it is only on the one teachers page until we work out any bugs. User:Njnu-ban-xueshenghao Maybe we'll see you there soon.-- My76Strat ( talk) 10:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe the admin "Kuru" is made a very serious mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LardoBalsamico_reported_by_User:Sillystuff84_.28Result:_page_protected.29 I've been trying to engage on his talk page. Sillystuff84 ( talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
-- NNU-11-22100515 ( talk) 02:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)I'm a student from Nanjing Normal University.I've written an article on wikipedia.Cause this is the first time that I have written an article on wikipedia.Would you like to look at it and give some advice? Thank you!
You'll find plenty of good sources in G Books. I shall add them if you don't, but you could have easily done it in the first place instead of prodding. In general, first look for sources, & if not found, only then nominate for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. "no sources" is not a reason for deletion. "no sources after 4 years" just means nobody has yet done it, so you have the opportunity. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As the article notes, agriculture in the DPRK was heavily dependent on imports from its communist trading partners, especially the USSR. While it had those imports, there was no famine. When the trade network collapsed and it lost the imports, then there was a famine. The specific trigger was its sudden trade isolation (and yes, whatever decisions led to that isolation), and not some vague "mismanagement" that hadn't been a problem for the previous 30 years. 24.22.217.162 ( talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Civility Barnstar |
I award you the Civility (Tutorial Friendly) Barnstar for helping me over Wikipedia
FRYugoslavHero ( talk) 23:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
I've removed the entire "An aside" section on Talk:Militant atheism that you added in here.
I'm sure you're wondering why. The reason is: this is an article's talk page. This is a place to discuss article improvement and shape the encyclopedia without interfering with regular readers. This is not a place to open up shop attacking other editors and trying to prove them as sockpuppets.
I appreciate your dedication, and I'd encourage you to create an inquiry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If you feel so strongly that there is sockpuppetry going on, then raise this concern in the proper venue. However, please keep defamation off of the article's talk page.
I'd expect that it goes without saying not to restore your section to the talk page. You're welcome to open an SPI case, but keep it off the talk.
Any questions are welcome, and your cooperation is appreciated. Cheers, m.o.p 15:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.
|
---|
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals:
The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page. |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC).
Hello, Ambassadors!
I wanted to give you one last update on where we are this term, before my role as Online Facilitator wraps up at the end of this week. Already, there are over 800 students in U.S. classes who have signed up on course pages this term. About 40 classes are active, and we're expecting that many more again once all the classes are up and running.
On a personal note, it's been a huge honor to work with so many great Wikipedians over the last 15 months. Thanks so much to everyone who jumped in and decided to give the ambassador concept a try, and double thanks those of you who were involved early on. Your ideas and insights and enthusiasm have been the foundation of the program, and they will be the keys the future of the program.
Still waiting to get involved with a class this term, or ready to take on more? We have seven classes that are already active and need OA support, and eleven more that have course pages started but don't have active students yet. Please consider joining one or more of these pods!
Active courses that really need Online Ambassadors:
Courses that may be active soon that need Online Ambassadors:
-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi what's happening with the Talk:Boeing/Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche/GA1 review it seems to have stalled. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 07:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Lists. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 13:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I queried your edit here Talk:Defter#Tahrir defterleri, and it would be great if you could address it. I probably should have come here first but, well, I was recently nudged toward a talk page. Hope it's OK. It sounds intriguing. Thanks. Swliv ( talk) 22:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:AlgoSec. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 13:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.
The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.
According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.
So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, really; seems this case might not be as closed as was thought; [15].
Sounds like just Onlymath ( talk · contribs) pushing for it, and several others (inc me) removing the changes - see recent hist on Lynette Nusbacher ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
But if there is more to it than that, please keep me in the loop. Cheers, Chzz ► 20:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey. I just used your mentoring equation at ANI. Thanks for writing it down. -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Foxconn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 13:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Bobrayner/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 22:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I will answer that question later on tonight, when I get home. Right now I'm editing from my office computer, and then I have other plans tonight, so don't make it seem like I'm ignoring the question. Thanks Secret account 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mellanox Technologies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering...did you ever get a consensus for your mass removal of color boxes, templates, etc? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The core of the problem is that somebody will always decide to add some new variation on a colour. If they bother checking a source, and if the source gives the same name as a different hue, then they'll create a totally new name for it which is unencumbered by sources. Then they hit up google images and find some image which is approximately the same hue and pretend that's a valid source for the colour:name pairing, when in reality it's anything but. There are thousands of different printed colour charts; just take a random selection and guesstimate the RGB values and pretend they're notable. Some sources give multiple hues for a single name; but that's not a problem because the mission is to put in huge volumes of text and templates, rather than to provide encyclopædic definitions. Hatnotes were nonexistent and dab pages ignored, and the colour articles were populated through the most simplistic of searches, so (for example) the Bronze (color) article attracted large volumes of trivia about the metal rather than the colour. And so on. It's a stain on the encyclopædia; and it's worse that people blindly restore this stuff without solving the actual problem. Let's try a more recent example:
Refer to Template:Expand Japanese and Japanese Wikipedia. Thanks. 220.156.1.46 ( talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Bobrayner, Thank you for everything! And don't worry, I'll definetly stay active on wikipedia!!! ;)You seem like a good person and i admire you for helping newbies (like me :) ) learn how to use wikipedia and have a good time! Sorceress150 ( talk) 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding Melbourne as a future destination of UL. To add a future destination, an exact date is required (late 2011 is not an exact date). A similar case was when the airline announced plans to resume flights to Kochi in Jan 2011, but it was not until March this year, that a conformation was received. So as per the project guidelines, we list future destinations only when an exact date is announced, ( Snoozlepet was right in removing your addition) and until then it is just a speculation. — Abhishek Talk 13:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw content that had been removed without any justification so I restored it. I will be more careful in the future. Blaziken ( T- C) 11:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, would you consider revisiting this RfC discussion? I replied to your concern, and I hope that if there is anything that can be done to clarify/improve the language of the guideline, you would consider changing your oppose vote to support. Cheers, AstroCog ( talk) 14:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob
Just so you understand, I thought your edit on the astrology page was fair enough, but still think the footnote is directly relevant on the Musica universalis page and ought to be left there. The theory was not concerned with audible sounds but energy tones. I don't think the footnote proves anything but it is of interest that those Nasa sounds now exist, and show very different types of sounds which seem to match with the qualities suggested by Pytahgoras. Not a big thing but I wanted you to understand why I undid your first edit. At first I thought you put "metaphysical stuff" and thought how refreshing it was to see an editor make an edit summary without seizing the opportunity to take a swipe at metaphysical ideas - but then I noticed it was "fluff" not "stuff". Ah, one little letter ... such dissapointment. -- Zac Δ talk! 17:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the future and the growth of the US education program along with the future of the Wikipedia Ambassador Project here. Voceditenore ( talk) 18:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain this edit deleting other editors' discussion which you made without an edit summary. TFD ( talk) 05:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you blanked out whole sections of referenced information on some of the astrology pages. You may not be aware that there is discussion regarding the content you removed in the Wikipedia Astrology Project. There is strong consensus that the content is appropriate and should remain. If you would like to make any arguments please do, and specify exactly what your concern is, so that the issues can be addressed. Or use the talk page of the articles involved to do that. As your edits have gone against the concensus of editorial opinion that it shoukld remain, I'll restore the previous content. Thanks. -- Zac Δ talk! 18:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that you substantially changed the text affecting the zodiac pages content again. You are aware that there is full, extensive discussion concerning this text, (and the structure and design of the astrology sign pages), and clear consensus in favour of utilising the text you have removed. If you have reasons why you dissaprove of the text please contribute to the discussion and explain those reasons so that those who are currently working on guidelines for structure and content on these pages can understand your objections. This would be useful. Continuing to remove reliably referenced information without consensus is not, and leads to edit-warring. Also, please be aware that the thread on the Fringe noticeboard is a highly misleading one, full of misinformation and quite a few patent lies that break a number of WP polices. I have asked for it to be closed. It is the complaining editors, who asked for the astrology project to discuss this and create guidelines - since this is being fdone please don't disrupt the process but add your views for consideration. The relevant discussion is here. -- Zac Δ talk! 06:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I mentioned your involvement in the astrology debacle best I could, and suggested that a greater community discussion (i.e. one that isn't dominated by astrology peeps) should be started. Feel free to correct any misstatements I may have made Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, thanks for the welcome. I'm really excited to have a wikipedia article up! Cdlangan ( talk) 18:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob, thank your for the warm welcome. I am excited to join the Wikipedia community, am learning along the way and hope to make my tiny contributions to the ocean of knowledge and information (some information are not knowledge). Ginger Maine Coon ( talk) 16:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:North Strathfield Bank.JPG. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Bob, we've noticed on a couple of pages tied to foreclosure pages and Nye Lavalle that you have made comments about his papers and reports and denounced Scrib as a source. Could you kindly accept our input on this matter since our advocate group of lawyers, professors, and consumer advocates are more knowledgable on the subject matter on a day-to-day basis. On many occasions, I would agree with your edits. However, since both government and media ignored these frauds for so many years, it is vitally important to create a real history of events.
Lavalle is widely considered among advocates and lawyers as the first to research and document foreclosure fraud and especially robo-signing. See his reports on 4closurefraud such as this one http://4closurefraud.org/2011/08/19/nye-lavalle-after-the-storm-foreclosure-fraud-robo-%C2%ADsigning-continues-must-read-report/ We have done searches for term and practice in media and mortgage articles. His reports are the first we can identify on the subject. Too many newcomers and media think this is a recent practice, its not. It's important for media and for regulators to know that Lavalle warned others and identified the practice over a dozen years ago and was ignored. Too many think robo-signing is a by product of the increased foreclosures of the recent financial crisis, its not. It was a patented process identified by Lavalle over a decade ago. We need to let people know its not a recent event, but a fraudulent practice documented to go back over a dozen years so that government and the banks white-washed. If you have time, read the reports and you'll be shocked at what he found and reported on. Please leave the references in. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortgageProf ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bob! I hope you are well! Just to let you know that per UNESCO official page and attitude, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo are designated to Serbia, as Serbian Medieval Monuments. If UNESCO and UN recognize RoK's sovereignty over those monuments, and edit that in designations page, we should reflect that then. And link is not toward countries, but toward other UNESCO designations anyway... All best! -- WhiteWriter speaks 12:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Before you keep removing this information, we have come to a consensus to list unique subnational entities such as the Special Administrative Regions of China, the collectivité territoriale of Corsica, the autonomous regions of Italy, the countries of the United Kingdom, and the island of Zanzibar as separate from the larger nation due to their unique political, geographic, and cultural statuses.
Also, it is custom to include the various subnational regions in the lists of areas visited on the articles, because racers often travel to different parts of the countries.— Ryulong ( 竜龙) 00:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'm writing on behalf of a user who is very new to Wikipedia. He and another user have been trying to add Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/SourceLink, LLC to the mainspace. I have declined it because it wasn't neutral in tone and had several parts to it that had a promotional tone. There is a concern of a conflict of interest since both editors that have worked on the article are employed by the company and the user is frustrated because of this. He's also concerned that employees of the company would be the only people who would know about the article. I'm sending him in your direction, so I wanted to drop you a note so you're aware of him. It's user User:ChazMcGreedly and User:Matthewhaskell, although the most recent edits have been from McGreedly. If you could help them write this article then that'd be great. I've steered them in the direction of Wikipedia:WikiProject Business, but I wanted him to have an experienced user help him out. I've also asked another user to help this guy out since the two seem to be trying in good faith but don't really know how to progress past what they've done so far. I just don't want them to feel like I'm being unfair. I don't think the article in its current state is ready for mainspace and I'm really against the idea of anyone with a COI editing/creating an article, but I do think that this company might pass WP:CORP. Tokyogirl79 ( talk) 07:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
Hi there, Bobrayner. I noticed yesterday that you made an edit to the Moody's article, related to a POV section there. I am the editor who added those warning tags back in August, and I expect you may agree the article still suffers from serious problems.
Further background on my involvement: For a few months now, I have been defending Moody's and related articles from vandalism. It happens to be the case that I do so on behalf of Moody's, so I've tried to be very careful to watch my COI.
Anyhow, if you interested in further improving the Moody's article, your edit comes at a good time, because I've just finished work on a major new draft of the article, which covers all of the current information, but more fully and accurately. That draft is here, and I have also posted a longer discussion on the Moody's discussion page.
I am seeking input from others as well, but I would be grateful if you would be willing to help, too. I hope to see you on the Moody's discussion page. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
FYI, I replied to your comment here [23] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry but there is significant evidence to suggest his neo-nazi beliefs and if I cant here I am just going to start a smear campaign somewhere else!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justgravy ( talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you're mediating this one with me, are you?
If you've done this job before, I'm following your lead...-- Thehistorian10 ( talk) 15:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Bob, you asked if I would be interested in doing a major edit of this page. In fact I had just put up a POV warning and Primary Sources warning for this page when I saw your message. I felt that it was being used as a blog page or bulletin board to advertise certain people's publications. It was highly biased in many ways. But this is because they are trying to do what an encyclopedia cannot, to give a couple of lines on the (favourable) results of each of the primary studies carried out on a subject - and so far they have put in only a handful out of more than 1000. I really feel that this is not an appropriate page to have on Wikipedia. Do you think you could tell me if I am overreacting? Here is my discussion page comment:
The Fairtrade Impact Studies page does not meet any of the Wikipedia criteria. It provides short statements of some of the data in some publications.
quite a lot of text which is also on the article talkpage |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Wikipedia as a bulletin board or blogThere is no attempt to provide representative research. Instead people seem to be using the page as a bulletin board or blog to publicize their publications. This is not a legitimate function of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia as an abstracting serviceWikipedia is not an abstracting service: it is an encyclopaedia – CAB international, Agricola, etc would be appropriate places to put abstracts. They do attempt full coverage, while this page has been recipient of a targeted selection of publications The selection of cooperatives to study is biasedThere are two related biases. First there is a bias in which Fairtrade cooperatives to study. Second there is a bias in which of the studies to present on this page. It would be misleading and biased to publish full details of the very few people who smoke 100 cigarettes a day and reach the age of 100, and to claim or suggest that this heavy smoking leads to longlivety. Honesty requires that the large number of people who do not smoke and reach this age are also mentioned, and the high death rate of those who do smoke is mentioned. Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi applies: to suppress the truth is to imply a falsehood. These studies are biased because the people doing the research choose to research what seem to be successful Fairtrade cooperatives. There is no attempt to look at the unsuccessful cooperatives. There is no mention of or impact study of, say, the 50% least successful cooperatives. Some of the studies cited on this page, probably nearly all, were written by people already committed to Fairtrade when they started their investigation. Indeed some of the publications cited in Murray, Raynolds and Taylor 2003 were written by members or employees of Fairtrade cooperatives, implying bias in both the selection of the sample cooperatives and in the carrying out of the study. Selection of studies to reportThe selection of studies to report here is biased. For example, there is a failure to include papers which give the opposite picture. For example, Bacon 2005 is cited, but not papers which produce the opposite conclusion[ Bacon, C. 2005. Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Specialty Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World Development Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 497–511is cited, but not Mendoza, R., & J. Bastiaensen, J. (2003). “Fair Trade and the Coffee Crisis in the Nicaraguan Segovias.” Small Enterprise Development , 14(2), Valkila, J., Haaparanta, P., & Niemi, N. (2010). Empowering Coffee Traders? The Coffee Value Chain from Nicaraguan Fair Trade Farmers to Finnish Consumers. Journal of Business Ethics , 97:257-270, Valkila, J. (2009). Fair Trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua - Sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics , 68 3018-3025. Selection of data to reportThe page gives a line or two of ‘results’. Few of the studies reported were intended to be ‘impact studies’ and fewer still meet the normal requirements for ‘impact studies’. They are instead case studies, which may give a lot of valuable information, on how the cooperative worked, how the Fairtrade fitted in, and what problems arose, and what unintended harmful effects were observed, for example. Some are little more than unevidenced journalism. It is misleading in the extreme to select one or two favourable outcomes, a couple of sentences from a 40,000 word report, perhaps, and present it as a definitive ‘favourable impact’. No meaningful impact study identifies just a single impact. No meaningful impact study fails to recognize that there are negative effects as well as positive effects to any intervention. Selected raw data from primary publicationsWikipedia has firm guidelines on this. Wikipedia forbids the citation of primary studies like these. The guideline does not consider the possibility that people might go a step further and select a particular datum or selection of data from a primary publication and present it as being in some way representative of all. I do not believe that the editors considered that anyone would do it. CommercialIt is relevant that Fairtrade is a commercial brand which big businesses in the rich countries are making a lot of money out of. |
Quick question. I was a little confused by your support for proposal 2 as that would appear to be "favouring one side or the other". Perhaps I've misinterpreted? NickCT ( talk) 17:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw your edit comment on the above and I agree that it doesn't do any harm in this case however if we were to agree to every edit request such as this then where would we be? The village is properly referenced and thus in the public domain? Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Just as an idea, regarding the above mediation, I think it might be useful if anyone could produce any recent widely accepted comparatively recent reference works which have content of some length relating to the subject, and how much, if any, weight those works give the material in question in their articles. If, of course, the matter of contention has its own, separate article in those works, that might be useful to know as well. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter ( talk) 22:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 03:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Hey, I hear you're pretty good at getting multiple articles nominated for DYKs. I was wondering if several articles nominated for a single hook would be allowed to overlap in content. Abyssal ( talk) 18:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to comment. If you may. -- Insert coins ( talk) 14:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Bobrayner, if you have some time would you be able to take a look at my proposal for Moody's once more? If you check the Moody's Talk page, you'll see that I've replied to the questions that you asked on the draft's Talk page. Not only that, but I've now split the draft up into three separate articles, following suggestions from you and another editor. Before I go forward with making any edits or open a new discussion, I'd like to invite you to review the separated articles since you are already familiar with the topic and have been so far helpful. Many thanks, Mysidae ( talk) 23:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the Guaraní language edits and for adding the references thereto. Sorry about the punctuation remark; I could have sworn you were starting a new sentence.
Thanks, Dave ( djkernen)| Talk to me| Please help! 00:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |