Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:23, 1 August 2012

Archives

Comments in 2010 Comments in early 2011 - Comments in late 2011 Comments in early 2012 - Comments in late 2012

Flowcasting? Really?

I just had to respond to your comment about Supply Chain Forecasting and the unchallenged mention of flowcasting.

I have worked around supply chain software for 20+ years and never heard of it until today. Unadulterated crap, I agree.

Thanks for all you do. 71.202.175.28 (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No; thank you! You opened the door to all this.

It's a shame. A lot of our articles on business processes &c could be really valuable - and they're exceptionally important in the modern world - but they just don't get as many editors as, say, articles on popular music or sports. Content is improving, but Supply chain optimization now is at about the same level that Pokemon reached in 2004. If you'd like to stick around and make a few improvements, that would be very much appreciated. bobrayner (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, just may take you up on that. You have a very nice user page BTW, inspiring since you mention working as an IP#... like me. 71.202.175.28 (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If you know the subject and if you respect sources, you could make some big improvements. If you need a hand with anything, just shout! bobrayner (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for your comments, appreciated, but not sure about "IIO may well have done other bad stuff," - I hope that was hypothetical? Seriously I know you're a sensible chap so if you have a specific example, please tell me. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

• It was hypothetical. Alas, I haven't had time to keep track of all the latest diacritic-related drama; for all I know you're either an angel or a disruptive monster in areas where I'm not looking! I know you've pushed firmly on some points in the past, but so has everyone, because it's a rather polarised topic. Anyway, in that particular case which is being discussed on the AN/I drama-thread, I think contradictory rules are the problem, not individual editors. Criticising individual editors for favouring one rule over another is just going to burn goodwill, it's not going to solve the underlying problem. Also, it would not be fair to "fix" the contradictory rules by picking one editor's favourite and changing the other existing rules to match it.
• So, discussion and consensus-building are the best way forward - and banning an active editor from the discussion would mostly serve to skew the debate and embitter those on the "losing" side. I'm not a fan of partisanship - I'd measure anti-diacritic editors against the same benchmark. Editing restrictions should be left in the toolbox until somebody is actively disruptive/deceptive (for instance, an editor who moves lots of articles, creating redirects from the old names, then edits the redirects to make their fait accompli much harder to undo).
• RMs are a good thing. We've evolved beyond the stage where editors would go ahead and move lots articles themselves despite knowing that other editors would disagree. The community is at the head of our constitutional framework; all our rules on spelling and naming came from community discussion; RMs are a chance for the community to discuss a move.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks - I think - well I herewith in bytes give you my notarised assurance that I'm not a disruptive monster when you're not looking (gnash gnash!!), so I hope folk will realise your comment is hypothetical. As far as RMs, yes I agree, which is why I've sent some like Talk:François Lotte via RM to check the mood and confirm that only tennis/hockey are really controversial. There may be a case for amending WP:MOVE to say "all adding/subtracting accents to titles by anyone must pass via WP:RM". I'd support that, for one thing there are so few missourced/misnamed bio stubs left it's getting very difficult to even find them. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

btw edits the redirects to make their fait accompli much harder to undo - Is that what this is? Or do you mean something else? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know about Chau van - it doesn't look good. No, I had in mind somebody else who edited rather a lot of redirects, systematically, to prevent lots of BLPs being moved to a more accurate name, and they got banned for it - there was a dramathread on AN/I last year, I think. I can't remember the accountname offhand. bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't watching, was it EllenoftheRoads blocking Dolovis for hockey redirects? - I don't really understand how editing a redirect creates a block. It isn't just Chau van, if it is what you're talking about then it'd be all 180x in the last 4 days -- to secure own moves which is a bit silly as apart from the music, cuisine and culture ones no one was questioning the moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Response about Global Automakers

WWB Too responded to you here. Silverseren 01:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done bobrayner (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Apu The Simpsons

I have created a redirect just for you. Redirects are cheap. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty unlikely that most people would follow that shortcut. I note that your naming argument relied on readers using the right punctuation... but that redirect doesn't. If you're including bracketless variants we would also need shortcuts for Apu (the Simpsons), Apu (The simpsons), Apu (the simpsons), Apu The Simpsons, Apu the Simpsons, Apu The simpsons, Apu the simpsons, Apu (simpsons), Apu Simpsons), Apu simpsons), and multiply that by 8 thanks to whatever other combinations of spacing and punctuation are required by readers' attempts at guessing enwiki's internal naming conventions. (I see you've already created some redirects; I took bluelinked ones off the list). None of them is as natural, or as commonly used, as Apu Nahasapeemapetilon. bobrayner (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Mali Status Quo Ante

Can I ask how you identified the status quo ante map on Mali? I've obviously been in the dispute, so if you could consider this an academic question, with regards to the principle backed up by the example of Mali, that'd be great. Thanks, CMD (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that map was used for a long time pre-dispute? Am open to corrections through. (I previously did one other revert to a different map, IIRC, so you could consider that latest edit a self-revert if you like as it's not the one I'd prefer. We'll get the "right" map once consensus is clear on the talkpage :-) bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, I would be happy to self-revert-self-revert back to the state of Knowledgekid87's latest self-revert, if other people prefer! bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. The orthographic map has been in place for ages. However, it didn't include Azawad for ages, Azawad not existing and all that. An initial addition and dispute on commons ended with talkpage consensus (on commons) that it should be included with explanation. This is the first time (bar a couple of ALL CAPS rants about wikipedia supporting terrorists) that it has actually been discussed on the Mali talkpage. I've just seen annoyed in the past seeing some user come and edit war in a change, then having it settled in (either due to their claiming their first edit wasn't a revert but that you're at 3RR promoting the edit war, or due to an unrelated user completely in gf holding it at their change) because they force a no consensus on the talkpage, which theoretically maintains the status quo, but which they've obviously changed. (Obviously take anything I say with a grain of salt, as I've been quite involved in this.) It's a bit weird that there was a jump straight to RfC without any prior discussion for commentators to refer to, but I'll place my opinion there soon. CMD (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

On orthographic maps, the convention to have them in the infobox came into place before I started editing, but I think it makes sense. Having this allows the reader to place the country under discussion in context. Probably almost all people with access to wikipedia know the basic shape of the world, but may not know what smaller areas look like, making a location on the world map more universally helpful. It also doesn't reduce the information for anyone with better knowledge. Anyway, it's the standard at the moment, although there are a few exceptions. (Some countries don't actually have an orthographic map, and a separate consensus developed to show European countries on Europe maps instead.) CMD (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline

I write to complain about this edit you made. It is very important that biased information based upon whatever somebody dreamed up over coffee is preserved in the GSK article. How are we going to have any fun if we have to stick to sources? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Sorry for spoiling your fun!

If it's any consolation, there are still about a quarter of a million articles with no sources at all, so there's still plenty of room in the playground. bobrayner (talk) 02:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

gGot a question -can we set up a list of obscure countries in the campaign page to check off once we've checked them? All of S America, Africa, most of aAsia etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought of doing that initially, but there's not a 1:1 map between countries and articles so it could encourage us to finish with a set of false-negatives. Hopefully, with extra eyes on the problem somebody will find more articles hiding in the nooks & crannies... well, as long as people understand that ticking ArbitraryCountry off the list means they've had a look around for other potentially-affected articles too (ie not just the Arbitrary Navy, but also the History of the Northern Arbitrary Special Gendarmerie article), then a checklist would be a net positive. bobrayner (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	“ By the way, the owner of this account has died and won't be bothering you any more. The party's on Friday, bring a bottle" ” — bobrayner Arcandam (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not humour, it's realism! My thinking is that any actions post death are for not the benefit of the deceased, but for those left behind. I would, therefore, ask to be buried underneath a dancefloor, or possibly a urinal. bobrayner (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It made me laugh though! I visited the Gelati Monastery, and read that David IV of Georgia ordered to be buried under the stone inside the main gatehouse of the Gelati Monastery so that anyone coming to his beloved Gelati Academy stepped on his tomb first. Arcandam (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, those wily Bagrationids! Gelati sounds like an interesting place to visit; layers and layers of history. bobrayner (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was there a while ago, my government disrecommended travelling in certain parts of Georgia at the time because of the war but it was awesome and much safer than traffic in Amsterdam (I have a bike). I recommend it very strongly, but not to everyone, some people prefer Disneyland. Arcandam (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm definitely not a Disneyland person. Thanks for your thoughtful suggestion! bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What's probable?

I'm learning stuff today. What's "improbable" here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming a child "Bridget" (rather than, say, "Birgitta") seems unlikely in 14th-century Norway. Do you have sources for those names? bobrayner (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No child in Scandinavia has ever been named "Bridget" to my knowledge, including Bridget of Sweden. So what? This isn't a Scandinavian WP it's English WP. Do you oppose using phonetic empathy in editing here? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot fathom why you are so keen to change a Scandinavian child's name to Bridget, if "no child in Scandinavia has ever been named "Bridget"". This is supposed to be an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And why would you want to use "Knud" which no one will be able to figure out how to pronounce in English when there is an English name form available? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Do sources call him "Knud Porse" or "Canute Porse"? bobrayner (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

That's the point, of course. I don't think there are any in English at all. Not uncommon for lesser known Scandinavians of hundreds of years ago. If the English court knew of him then, which they well may have for 10-30 years or so, I'm 100% sure they called him Canutus or Canute because learned people in charge of languages have always created and used exonyms in the interest of smooth speech and smooth reading.

Me thinks you did not use the link above re: phonetic empathy. Please do, if you wish to "fathom", and before you enter the fact that you "cannot fathom" into a cordial, constructive discussion like this! Please, Bobrayner! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

facts v theory

Hi. I say your post on the Free Market talk page. I'm wondering what you meant by your statement that facts or theory does not matter. Are you making a serious comment? If so, please explain. Thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 13:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

COI guideline

Thanks for commenting. I've been trying to round up a posse for a sustained effort to improve the clarity of the guideline. If you're interested in chipping in, I'm hoping we can tackle one little problem at a time and make some kind of real progress over time. What do you think? Too ambitious? ;-) User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 22:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. An incremental approach sounds good. What's the driving force? Is there uncertainty/vagueness (seems quite likely), or have there been COI problems which didn't get caught by the existing guideline, or is it driven by an angry thread on one of the drama-boards? I hope it's not the latter, because anger never leads to good rulemaking. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's been a lot of activity on the issues related to CREWE, CIPR, and the RfC from ArbCom. I commented on the Arbcom RFC saying the current COI guideline was fine, but now I've seen, heard and read more and I'm starting to see what's so baffling.

I think part of the problem might be that we try to present all majority and minority views on an issue that the community has different perspectives on, rather than compromising in order to create clear instructions - this creates contradiction and complexity. We need to be clear about (a) policy (b) good advice (or at least what's good advice in most cases). But the COI guideline itself is such an intimidating beast, it's a big challenge to take on. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Those are good points. Will try to help. bobrayner (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nickelodeon Uk events

it needs to be removed but when i remove it it just comes back, i agree it is not radio times http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Nickelodeon_%28UK_%26_Ireland%29_Events http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_%28UK_%26_Ireland%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkknight101 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambodian Navy

Oh, I was thinking of the one during the 1953-1970 regime. Yeah, the current one doesn't belong there.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Have fun! (Do we have a separate article for the old navy?) bobrayner (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Data Warehouse

Hi Bob Rayner,

I have responded to your response and edit to my changes to the Data Warehouse page. I have read through the guidelines posted at Misplaced Pages, and do not see how me listing my new Data Warehouse Schema which is fully documented and peer reviewed with supporting white papers is violating any existing rules. I am not selling anything on my Spider Schema Blog and there is no advertising on it. I have nothing to gain financially from sharing the Spider Schema with other Data Warehouse Developers, Data Modelers, and Architects. This schema is currently being used at over 6 different organizations today, and is peer reviewed by Microsoft Database developers and has been posted at the MSDN Microsoft SQL Server forum. MHargraves (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Therefore all I am doing is introducing a new Schema to the world, of which if anything your edits and deletions of my posts are preventing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHargraves (talk • contribs) 13:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

MHargraves (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

en.wikipedia is not a place to introduce new stuff. If it's widely accepted/adopted by third parties, do you have independent sources? Where are these white papers and peer reviewed docs &c? bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob Rayner, can you please show me where it is posted on Misplaced Pages that only older, and widely accepted and adopted by third party articles or information can be listed on Misplaced Pages? I understand that the information must not violate a copyright (of which I have on my Schema) and is verifiable by my website which is a blog with no advertising and is open to the world for comments. Lastly my site pages are white papers. They have been used over the last two years in the industry (real world data warehousing) to document the Schema. MHargraves (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't link to copyvio

How is a reference a copyvio? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my edit summary may have been inaccurate - there are a lot of different places where Global Vision are cited (some with a link, some without) and it's a thorny problem which spans three separate flaws - copyvio, circular sourcing, and WP:RS. The root cause is that the publishing house appears to be a systematic copyright violator. Every book from that publishing house which I have checked has turned out to include unacknowledged content from enwiki (which is copyvio and a circular sourcing problem), and/or from other sources (which is copyvio and suggests that they fail WP:RS). Therefore, the entire publishing house is listed at WP:MIRROR; I cannot envisage any situation where it would be a good idea to cite a Global Vision book. However, it is usually fairly straightforward to find the original source that they copied from. bobrayner (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please.

Hi Bobrayner, you recently edited the article Muhammad Iqbal, thanks for it, but I cannot follow or draw the exact meaning of your edit summary, I see only removing of 2 references, what do you mean here,"copyvio".Though I am the main contributor, but the references have been taken from old version of the article and cited to the content without checking again. There is a lot of work to do, nevertheless, please explain a bit so that I would understand and learn more.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Solipsism

You recently removed this source from the article on Solipsism because of copyvio/circular referencing. Could you elaborate on it? The book does not borrow from wikipedia to best of my knowledge and I don't see where the copyvio is occurring. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

See the section above; the entire publishing house appears to systematically copy from en.wikipedia and other sources, so they are listed at WP:MIRROR. I have checked quite a large number of their books and found unacknowledged copyvio in every case. I do not have a copy of this particular book but it strikes me as very unlikely that this one has been diligently written when all the others seem to have been copy & pasted. Sometimes circular sourcing is nonobvious because their content is a snapshot of an older version of our article, which has since improved. Where their book copies from a non-wikipedia source, it generally only takes a minute of googling to find the original (it's easy to avoid false positives because you can search for whole sentences). bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. I'll try to find a better reference for the content. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the hassle! Sometimes I wonder whether solipsists know something that I don't. bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I am still evaluating whether you really deleted the reference or if it was a creation of my own mind. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 09:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not Mark Hargraves.

http://BryantAvey.com

this is me..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.182.14 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bob, Bryant Avey is probably not a true sock of Hargraves, but apparently someone who's worked with him; see this forum post. Studerby (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest we see if the policy links we provided sink in, but if it goes more than another round or to of revert, it should probably go to WP:COI/N for other editors to look at. Studerby (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

OK; good point about Mark/Bryant. However, I think there's been more than enough reverting already. Article content shouldn't be decided by which side hits the revert button fastest. Happy to go to WP:COI/N or even a relevant wikiproject &c...? Using an article talkpage is of course a good idea but it's very unlikely to stem the flow of reverts here. bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol - you single edit warring revert in a hot dispute without any discussion at all reveals you for the user you are - Youreallycan 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't help your case to make a dispute personal and wade into other random areas in pursuit of an editor you're ideologically opposed to. It really doesn't help. You should know that by now, Off2riorob/Youreallycan. "you single edit warring revert in a hot dispute without any discussion at all" is simultaneously incoherent and factually incorrect. bobrayner (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears you two are working together (Studerby,Bobrayner) to edit Misplaced Pages as you see fit. It is obvious to me; you are intentionally blocking content (as you revert to a previous version) without any real reason. I hope you get caught colluding together, and are not able to block information the world needs to see. MHargraves (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place to publicise "information the world needs to see" before it's widely accepted elsewhere. Where are the peer-reviewed docs, the discussions by third parties, and so on? Is there any secondary sourcing at all? bobrayner (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

your claim of "lets stick to what the sources say"

diff - just to clarify - you no longer support your edit here as per your comment do you - ~ Youreallycan

What do you mean? I think we should stick to what sources say. Have more sources been uncovered which portray the subject as anything other than a criminal? Or have the rules changed so that BLPs should no longer reflect what sources say? It's not quite clear - what are you asking? bobrayner (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

ex convict - you are that additioner of this content and you have moved from supporting its inclusion in our discussion - do you still support it  ? - Youreallycan 23:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Of course I made that edit so I am, seemingly, the "additioner". What point are you trying to make? bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• - Talk:Stephen_M._Cohen#American_ex-convict - do you still support your addition regarding this discussion - Youreallycan 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  Well, yes. If you think I've misinterpreted sources, I'm open to correction on that point. Or if there are new sources which paint the subject in a different light, that might affect content too. And of course if policy changes such that BLPs should no longer reflect what sources say, that too might mean that my edit should be reverted. But until one of those happens, I'm standing by that edit. Do you have any new sources, or a new reading of an old source? Sources are king. What are you getting at? bobrayner (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, yes. If you think I've misinterpreted sources, I'm open to correction on that point - you have failed to provide any sources that refer to the subject as an ex convict - Youreallycan 23:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have explained quite clearly in that discussion Talk:Stephen_M._Cohen#American_ex-convict linked to for you that started with the question - Is the subject described as an American ex-convict in multiple reliable sources? - please reply to this issue in regards to your disputed addition clearly - Youreallycan 23:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit without any discussion at all to Stephen_M._Cohen

diff Your single edit warring revert in a clear hot dispute without any discussion at all reveals you for the user you are - I would prefer it if you stepped out of the fray, and dropped any objection to your disputed addition being removed - seems reasonable - thanks - Youreallycan 23:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being hard on you - You came along out of nowhere without any discussion and made a single drive by revert - that single drive by revert without any discussion at all was the straw that broke the camels back - the article was fully protected soon afterwards - Is this a content dispute you are wanting to still be involved in? Youreallycan 00:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just edited the article once, in passing; I don't feel particularly attached to that article. How can I step out of the fray when the article isn't even on my watchlist? Is all this incoherent crap on my talkpage some obtuse way of saying that you want me to self-revert when the protection ends? Or perhaps you want me to go to the talkpage, put my hands up, and say "mea culpa, I shouldn't have added sourced content to the article, YRC knows best"? If you're trying to build a compromise, badgering other editors is not the best way to go about it; you might have to start afresh on that one. Ranting about editwarring is particularly silly, since I made a single edit and you were on 4 reverts in 24 hours. Does your one revert editing standard only apply in certain cases? bobrayner (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for your contributions to Badger culling in the United Kingdom. This note is just to let you know that I've nominated it at DYK and credited you as co-author. All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You are very kind; but I've only made minor tweaks so far, and scarcely deserve credit. It's all yours. bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo lantam.gif

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks like another editor has updated the LATAM article with a newer variant of the logo (also FUR). Feel free to get rid of the old one! bobrayner (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was me! Cloudbound (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case: Well done! Thanks for your hard work :-) bobrayner (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Need copy of "technical archicture" page (a deleted page)

Since the editor (Fastily) whose comment on the deleted article page has retired, I'm at a loss for which editor to contact to get a copy of this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Technical_architecture&action=edit&redlink=1

My plan is to re-create the page without the copyright infringement noted, first in my User page. I'd like to do it without it being dependent on any particular software technology or a US-centric view, but getting something in its place that is non-infringing is important.

Thanks! rhyre (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'd agree that technical architecture is notable - it's something that we would need an article about. It's often possible to get a copy of a deleted article from an admin, but if the original content can't be reused, then working from the original may not be helpful. So, I think there are three options:

• Try asking another admin. Alas, I'm not an admin, but any other admin should be able to see the deleted content. However, restoring it (even into your userspace) is - arguably - a further instance of copyright violation, which would be a Bad Thing. I don't know the history - maybe some bits of the old article are clean.
• You could start a new article, from scratch.
• If you're not comfortable starting a new article from scratch, I could start a basic one, and you could expand & improve it.

Whichever option you choose, I've already watchlisted the page and could help with globalising it (have done architectural work but not in the USA). Also, if the original article was based on then it may have been limited in other ways; describing a particular architectural methodology is only part of the story, missing out on usage, history, interactions with other fields &c even if we pretend there are no competing methodologies. It would be like describing a famous painting by describing what you see in the picture, whilst ignoring the artist, the commission, the history of the work, its current museum and recent exhibitions, auction or attribution controversies, how a certain pigment fades over time, &c. bobrayner (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sinanoğlu

I appreciate your good work. But Uncle G has asked me to step in, and it might be better if you let me handle it. These academic bios are my special field here, and I know how to get it to be what it should, an ordinary article. I've worked before on bios of academics under attack for one reason or other, and so far, my solutions have been always accepted. Please understand that though I disagree with one or two points of what you've said, I think your work there has unequivocally been in the right direction. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want Oktay Sinanoğlu, it's all yours; and I'm sure you'll do a good job. I just dropped in because it was mentioned on the noticeboard, but didn't get time to finish cleaning up the old one. In retrospect I think it would probably be easier to start from scratch, but that's your call... bobrayner (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How's your Turkish? bobrayner (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Mine is good. I could translate the article from the Turkish WP but the stub is under protection. Best. --E4024 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Postscript

Sometimes, when you disagree with somebody, they resort to ad hominem. It rarely bothers me; it just discredits that editor.
I spend a lot of time working on controversial topics with neutrality problems, and I'm a naturally disagreeable person anyway, so the ad hominems are more frequent for me. A couple of times a year I get called a nazi or a corporate shill. Less often, I'm accused of being in some skeptic cabal. I've been outed as antisemitic, a clown, and been made an honorary Albanian, and even an "apple" - whatever that means.
But wait! There's a new honour! I've just been outed as a member of the "superracist Sinanoglu Youth Movement in Turkey". This is such a proud day for me. It brings a tear to my eye. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Turkish translation

Sorry for the intervention. (Not the one in 1974. :-) If any Turkish translation is needed E4024 is available; for this or other articles... --E4024 (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for your kind offer! I might take you up on that. I never learned much and am gradually forgetting most of it. If you have a high boredom threshold, I have some obscure Ottoman history articles which would benefit from better use of sources... bobrayner (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Send me a text and let us see what I can do.... --E4024 (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

After giving it a second thought I'd better not translate anything about any empire or professor. Is there a sports text or a poem, something less controversial? :-) --E4024 (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you consider working on something like Merdiban or Regie Company or Emin (Ottoman official) or Tersâne-i Âmire? There are lots of uncontroversial historical articles like that, which could be expanded & improved by using more Turkish-language sources... bobrayner (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wide Awake

Hello Bobrayner, how are you? I was passing by the "Wide Awake" article as I noticed all information on synopsis or history, which I don't understand the reason why. You said the reason was the text was too big for a synopsis, but I think it's important at least to have a small part of the article that introduces the music video's story. Or we could just keep the original text which was perfectly-written and sourced. Expecting an answer. Pedro João 11:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. It was an 800 word synopsis for a few minutes of pop video. Some of the symbolism seems to be sourced to things like Tumblr. We're supposed to be writing an encyclopædia article, not repeating some random blogger's interpretation of every scene of a music video. bobrayner (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling. KarlB (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Luis Miguel Nascimento suggestion for deletion

Hello Bobrayner, I'm editing the Luis Miguel Nascimento wikipedia. Luis is my friend and ask me to do it. Luis is a tennis professional coach and have a long career since 1980 until today. I'm still working with him to put all the information together and find references. I saw that you suggest this article for deletion. Can you tell me what kind of thing should I change or add? Thank you in advance Best Regards --Miguel Boavida (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Explain

Explain why you haven't deleted the rest as well with rabbit zodiac and a few others you have forgotten as to your opinionated facts. Just keep the summaries as to the Western Zodiac has kept theres as a useful tool for both, unless delete all summaries from Western Horoscopes and Eastern Zodiacs. If you don't there is no point of using summaries for Western Horoscopes, unless Misplaced Pages is not to be trusted to use only Western Zodiacs instead of Eastern as a sign of prejudice against of other information, otherwise keep the info.--GoShow (...............) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. If you can point out fiction and pointless fluff in other articles, such as in the "western" zodiac I would be happy to remove that too. It's not an excuse to add it to more articles. bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Then please, REMOVE the summaries from the Western Horoscopes to make it even, If you haven't forgotten, otherwise if you haven't I will have to or keep the summaries of characteristics for the Eastern Zodiac.--GoShow (...............) 17:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? You're going to add crappy content back into articles because there's similar content in other articles? bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Crappy is it, as to assume to delete BOLLOCK bull beep book sources from Western Horoscopes, I would watch the mouth, but if that is your way of settling things, just cool man, I will just add the summaries, back to the articles, nothing else that is all . End of edits.--GoShow (...............) 18:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am going to try at least put a section of Characteristics for the Chinese zodiac signs for any use of purpose to edit. The will summary eventually can build up for more info if needed, as usual.--GoShow (...............) 18:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by a confirmed user

What has to be done in cases like this? --E4024 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

• Strictly speaking, edits like that are not vandalism, although there is a grey area. It's more like a serious neutrality problem. A single edit like that is easily fixed; no harm done. If the problem continues... it's harder for us to deal with long-term POV-pushing, which is endemic in Balkan articles. RfC/U sometimes works for pov-pushers, but it's not a quick fix. More likely is that a user keeps on pov-pushing and keeps on getting reverted, long term, until either they get bored of being reverted, or they simultaneously annoy several more respected editors and an AN/I thread builds up enough momentum to lead to a ban/block. That's not a textbook solution, but it's my experience.
• If you think a particular edit (or series of edits) is a problem and if it's harder to fix - or if you think an edit war is likely - the article's talkpage is usually the first place to start discussing the issue. There is also a noticeboard which specialises in national and ethnic disputes, which is helpful too.
• If you do find real vandalism, any editor who vandalises can be taken to AIV - it doesn't matter whether they're an IP, or autoconfirmed, or whatever. However, very complex/difficult vandalism cases might be better discussed elsewhere, such as AN/I.

Sorry for the delayed reply! bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no. No sorries please. I am sorry because I am taking your (and some other experienced users' time/s) because I still do not know well how to fight vandalism in WP. I am also sorry because I gave you a link which was live, thus its appearance changed, so I am now adding a stable link to a previous edit. Maybe you did not see the word "corrupt". I am afraid this is something different than POV pushing. (I know that last one, because in my first days here I may have done similar things for lack of experience :-). All the best. --E4024 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK. I saw the "corrupt". It's still not vandalism. If somebody really believes that the empire is best described as "corrupt", then they have a neutrality problem, not a vandalism problem. Unfortunately, it is quite common for readers and new editors to assume that any "bad" edit is vandalism - we should make documentation clearer :-)

Sorry if this seems like legal logic-chopping. I agree with you that the edit is bad, and that it was right to revert that edit. However, if you found more edits like that and you went to a noticeboard saying "Please help me with this vandalism!" the first reply you would get is "That's not vandalism, go somewhere else". bobrayner (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good-bye. :-) --E4024 (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And what about this one now? --E4024 (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You can think of it as a good thing: It's an obvious warning label, which says that "Edits on this topic from this editor may have serious neutrality problems". Dougweller has already replied to this editor. If in doubt, stick to what sources say. bobrayner (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RE:Reflinks/Youtube bug

Hello. Ahh, thank you for that, I'll keep an eye out. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bionovo

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/biotech/2012/03/bionovo-layoffs-isaac-cohen-hot-flashes.html?page=all

they let go approx 90 % of their staff, 45 to be exact of the 53, thus leaving 8 which is what I edited the page with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.150.31 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sorry for doubting you; but their site gave a much higher number and we do tend to rely on what sources say. Obviously it seems their website is out of date; thanks for bringing the new source. bobrayner (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Badger culling in the United Kingdom

On 25 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Badger culling in the United Kingdom, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that bovine tuberculosis costing £100 million per annum is leading to badger culling in the United Kingdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Badger culling in the United Kingdom. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, User:S Marshall deserves all the credit for that one - I just made a few tweaks. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for putting a stop to that foolishness

Bobrayner,

Thanks for putting a stop to that foolishness. (i.e. the Thimerosal Controversy Talk Page 'hatting' edit war.)

Very appreciated.

All the best, sincerely, Seipjere (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just an important information

Pardon me sir, I'm a new user at Misplaced Pages and it's really interesting to me to share a little of my knowledge. Nevertheless, I received a message of you, sir, complainning about my methods and specially my signature in detriment of sources. I don't really know what you are talking about, the sources are all there. And once it is available the option to turn on your signature, I don't see any problem in using it. I read your comment very malicious and arrogant. I don't know what is your job in the website, but it seems like I have lost some 'points' because of it. I don't know for what this 'points' work for, but once it's for my reputation, I would like to get it back.

Graciously, Leo. (Brazil, july 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Porcaro (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Don't worry; you haven't lost any "points". Misplaced Pages is complex and we were all new users once; I certainly missed a few details when I first started.

• Please don't sign (using 4 tildes, ~~~~) in articles - for instance, on Gilvan Tavares or Walter Montillo. However, you should sign comments on talkpages - for instance Talk:Gilvan Tavares or Talk:Walter Montillo or User talk:bobrayner or User talk:Leonardo Porcaro. A simple explanation is that you "own" comments on talkpages and it's important to know who wrote what; but once you put something in an actual article it's everybody's - you don't own it any more.
• If you're keen to improve articles and if you care about sources, I'm sure you will do great work!

Have fun; bobrayner (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you a lot for the informations, Bobrayner! See you. — Leonardo Porcaro (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Another tip: You can line up comments on talkpages by using colons : for indentation and asterisks * for bullet points. Using these carefully makes it easier for people to read complex discussions. If you need any help with anything, just ask! bobrayner (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for motivating me into being a more substantial contributor to Misplaced Pages, and for having exactly the right attitude to encourage newcomers to contribute. Ritchie333 (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ritchie, you're far too generous. (Also: We disagree on almost everything!) bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No we don't ! Ritchie333 (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you know

I just figured you should know: . --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's no biggie. I think this is a situation which could be solved with a few more editors/watchers, but that topic area is a little quiet at the moment. (I could revert again but that's not a real solution). bobrayner (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of India

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flag of India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Again. The ANI closed just as I was about to post the collapsed list of half of Fyunck's tennis ledes. But then MakeSense64 only cheerleads article space edits while concentrating on MOS pages. Interesting division of labour. Anyway, excuse me while I go outside with my spray-can and find some Polish grocer's shopfront to deface... In ictu oculi (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If we can remove dangerous political influences from vocabulary, we can change how people think! bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The other side of the world

Drink enough South African wine to turn the picture upside down! Enjoy it... --E4024 (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jayemd - maybe urgent?

If you;re about, can you do something? This poor kid, having been bitten for unwikilinking redlinks, is now having his AmFootie stubs tagged for speedy as A7 ... so he's in a no-win situation. No matter what he does with them, he gets bitten. Can't unlink; can;t create article either. Can you comment at AN/I or something, and see what you can do to unmuddle this muddle? I'm going "off duty" for a while now, so can't keep running tabs on things. Pesky (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Have reffed and detagged one of the articles. Will look at the others. If content can't be properly sourced, it's got to go, and I will not criticise another editor for CSD-tagging an unsourced BLP (because that's really important work in its own right) but I suspect some of these could easily be rescued... bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This time an IP

(178.128.67.151) See Imia/Kardak please. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed now. If the IP does the same thing again, it's likely that they would get blocked by an administrator. Two admins are already there. If the problem persists with different IP addresses, the article might get semiprotected. bobrayner (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

For your good work in WP environment protection

	This pet is for you (voluntary biocontrol agent)
	To say thank you for your efforts on pest control and protection of biodiversity... E4024 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)