User talk:Bobrayner: Difference between revisions
no problem |
→Policy Notification - Edit Warring: List of rail accidents (2000–2009) |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
[[User:Skyeking|Skyeking]] ([[User talk:Skyeking|talk]]) 15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)<br> |
[[User:Skyeking|Skyeking]] ([[User talk:Skyeking|talk]]) 15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)<br> |
||
:Perhaps there has been some confusion. I reverted twice; you have reverted that change three times and reverted other changes too, all whist proclaiming "''do not revert this edit---no edit warring''" and insisting that ''other people'' should use the talkpage. You are not [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement&diff=cur&oldid=prev exempted] from [[WP:3RR]], even if you believe that you [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVoluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement&action=historysubmit&diff=319656371&oldid=308511981 own] the article. In fact, you didn't even reply to my talkpage comment before you hit "revert" again - with another edit summary insisting that others should use the talkpage whilst you get your way on the article. This bizarre contradiction between [[Do as I say not as I do|what you do and what you say]], and blind insistence on getting your own way, makes cooperation with other editors very difficult. Please try to cooperate and communicate better with other editors. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner#top|talk]]) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
:Perhaps there has been some confusion. I reverted twice; you have reverted that change three times and reverted other changes too, all whist proclaiming "''do not revert this edit---no edit warring''" and insisting that ''other people'' should use the talkpage. You are not [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement&diff=cur&oldid=prev exempted] from [[WP:3RR]], even if you believe that you [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVoluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement&action=historysubmit&diff=319656371&oldid=308511981 own] the article. In fact, you didn't even reply to my talkpage comment before you hit "revert" again - with another edit summary insisting that others should use the talkpage whilst you get your way on the article. This bizarre contradiction between [[Do as I say not as I do|what you do and what you say]], and blind insistence on getting your own way, makes cooperation with other editors very difficult. Please try to cooperate and communicate better with other editors. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner#top|talk]]) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
==List of rail accidents (2000–2009)== |
|||
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. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 10:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:56, 22 May 2011
Hello! Welcome to my talkpage. Have fun. Please play nicely.
- Are you replying to a message which I left on your talkpage, or on an article talkpage? I will usually put that on my watchlist; please reply there instead of here, because it can be hard for people to follow a conversation across multiple pages. If you start a discussion here, I will probably reply here, so keep an eye on this page if you care about my reply.
- Occasionally, after any discussion has ended, I delete old comments (I think "archiving" is a little self-important). However, if you really want to see old comments, you can see them in the page history. This page was last cleaned out on 10 May 2011.
hello can you help me edit Monchy Capricho article type in search bar Monchy Capricho —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose11417 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
AFD
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)
- Following some distressing comments ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] &c), I've run out of goodwill. I tried to encourage civility and compromise, and got venom in return. As a wise doctor once said: "Please shut up and do something useful. Your lengthy essays here also do nothing to rectify this situation or help wikipedia either". You offered to db-author those articles; so do it, and I'll silently step aside as you do it. That task can be automated, and it minimises "overviews of my behaviour in public forums" and "people who tell me what I should do" so it also avoids distressing you further.
- Also, you've misrepresented me above - I thought that other things you said were dubious & contradictory - I didn't comment on the Fritzpoll/geonames issue. However, I won't press that point further as none of us wants more drama. bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
stop abusing me
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 itAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
What the fuck are you doing??!
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)
- This must be some new definition of "well cited" of which I was previously unaware.
- File:Clopen symbol.png is wholly unsourced. You made it up. Wikipedia is not for things that you just made up one day.
- Same again with Joey Koala. Two youtube videos, one briefly shows a koala logo, the other doesn't show anything at all, and there's certainly no evidence of an actual published cartoon character. Selfpublished stuff. No evidence that anybody else in the real world has ever taken this koala, or the associated gibberish, seriously.
- Same again with United Under Economy. It's more word salad with selfpublished sources (which aren't even internally consistent). If scribd, youtube, and crunchbase let you upload whatever nonsense you make up, that's up to them; but it doesn't belong in an encyclopædia.
- Ronald Ellis (American businessman) had two refs. One does not mention him. The other is an employer profile page. Neither establishes notability.
- If you were to try writing about real, notable, encyclopædic things, that would be very welcome. However, a fictional crunchbase profile does not make a real business, and random words vomited into Google Docs do not make a significant new organisational concept. bobrayner (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Had this page on my watchlist from a previous thread I had started and wanted to comment to Rajpaj (the title caught my attention, I admit): AfD notices shouldn't be removed from an article, though you can do so with PRODs. It's probably also worth noting that even if the articles had [arbitrary number]+ references, number of sources doesn't necessarily equate to notability (or even verifiability if they're unreliable sources); that can be an indicator but it's not absolute. – anna 00:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite certain about this article, even after looking at the history, but I think I see the problem. This IP is on a publicly shared network, so certain accounts (i.e., Wikidowd) and articles (Ronald Ellis) are essentially sockpuppeteered. Even still, you shouldn't presume that any related account activity comes from a single source, as you have been doing on various Wikipedia pages. At this geolocale, I think it's a safe bet to assume that our online representation has reasonable validity to create and edit these entities.--Rajpaj (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're still not making any sense. Made up stuff does not belong on wikipedia, regardless of whether it was added by one person or by several. bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- My last post on this issue. It appears as if you're trying really hard to sabbotage something. I say this because your only activity on 19 May 2011 was targeted specifically at my disposal. You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but that doesn't take away from the fact that these articles were supplied with references; whether or not you agree with them. The WP:MADEUP page you keep referring to itself even states this. Your best bet is to 'edit' the articles either with direction or persuasion, and not simply put them up for deletion. This should make perfect sense.--Rajpaj (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm removing your fiction from wikipedia. You are surely aware that it's not possible for anyone to add better sources to these articles, because all that exists is your Scribd pages, your amateur videos on Youtube, and so on. If you have time on your hands you might create more content on other websites which have no quality threshold - I see Urban Dictionary, Crunchbase, and Knol have been tainted too - but citing those still won't make these subjects real or encyclopædic. (As an aside, saying that I onlyworked on your content on 19 May is yet another fiction. As soon as you stop adding this nonsense to wikipedia, other people will have more time on their hands to improve real articles.) bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- My last post on this issue. It appears as if you're trying really hard to sabbotage something. I say this because your only activity on 19 May 2011 was targeted specifically at my disposal. You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but that doesn't take away from the fact that these articles were supplied with references; whether or not you agree with them. The WP:MADEUP page you keep referring to itself even states this. Your best bet is to 'edit' the articles either with direction or persuasion, and not simply put them up for deletion. This should make perfect sense.--Rajpaj (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're still not making any sense. Made up stuff does not belong on wikipedia, regardless of whether it was added by one person or by several. bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite certain about this article, even after looking at the history, but I think I see the problem. This IP is on a publicly shared network, so certain accounts (i.e., Wikidowd) and articles (Ronald Ellis) are essentially sockpuppeteered. Even still, you shouldn't presume that any related account activity comes from a single source, as you have been doing on various Wikipedia pages. At this geolocale, I think it's a safe bet to assume that our online representation has reasonable validity to create and edit these entities.--Rajpaj (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Had this page on my watchlist from a previous thread I had started and wanted to comment to Rajpaj (the title caught my attention, I admit): AfD notices shouldn't be removed from an article, though you can do so with PRODs. It's probably also worth noting that even if the articles had [arbitrary number]+ references, number of sources doesn't necessarily equate to notability (or even verifiability if they're unreliable sources); that can be an indicator but it's not absolute. – anna 00:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, Bobrayner. Did you construe this to be a personal attack? What the heck is a sockpuppet contra? --Diannaa (Talk) 22:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
- Yes; there were also other other images which I planned to do but didn't get round to it. Thanks for your help, and thanks for the reminder. I FfD'd them. John has since deleted everything and blocked rajpaj. bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Policy Notification - Edit Warring
Location: VHEMT Article
Wiki Regards,
Skyeking (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps there has been some confusion. I reverted twice; you have reverted that change three times and reverted other changes too, all whist proclaiming "do not revert this edit---no edit warring" and insisting that other people should use the talkpage. You are not exempted from WP:3RR, even if you believe that you own the article. In fact, you didn't even reply to my talkpage comment before you hit "revert" again - with another edit summary insisting that others should use the talkpage whilst you get your way on the article. This bizarre contradiction between what you do and what you say, and blind insistence on getting your own way, makes cooperation with other editors very difficult. Please try to cooperate and communicate better with other editors. bobrayner (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
List of rail accidents (2000–2009)
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)