User talk:Bobrayner

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 09 March 2011.

Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for your efforts in tracking the hoax vandalism by Wikindia24x7 (talk · contribs). – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I had seen those uploads flashing up on the new files list for days and never suspected anything. Dang. And I found a few more howlers now that I looked. By the way, I've blocked Rizwan123 (talk · contribs) as a sock, and deleted a few of his articles for block evasion and as possible hoaxes. Since you seem to be the only person who's been keeping track of them, please do let me know if you feel any of them were worth keeping; I'd of course gladly undelete them then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very generous of you; thanks. I've been trying to untangle a large, related problem in article-space (it's a can of worms - avoid it if you want to keep your sanity), and the images were just a secondary discovery. I'm sure you can take most of the credit for work on the files!

By the way, what's the best response to File:Train accident mpt.jpg? Your sage suggestions would be very welcome. I also put a few items like File:Damoh PSN.jpg on FfD rather than PUF, where the files seem to be deceptive but probably not copyvio per se. Some article-space edits also misappropriated legitimate images, ie. using an image of a real train in the UK and claiming it was Indian... bobrayner (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Very good job listing those files the way you did. I think it's quite useful to have a few of those cases documented in this way. They are of course all headed for deletion now. I assume most of the railway pics are in fact his own (consistent exif data from the same camera), so they can probably stay as long as they are not photoshopped. The most outrageous thing I found of him so far was File:Khurai Mahakali Temple.jpg, where he stole this image of a temple in Delhi, photoshopped it to change the colours of the towers (from red to blue!) and then claimed it was a temple in Khurai. What a sad place that town must be, if it's in need of virtual Potemkin villages like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. One of the airport articles created by AdarshJain2 (Sagar Airport) is a definite hoax so I've CSD'd it, and Ujjain Airport looks hoaxy too (the IATA/ICAO codes are fictional). I've now started looking at the websites used by some of these articles - I'd previously assumed www.indore.com was ok but it's actually a nonexistent site. We can't just nuke everything because many contributions appear legitimate, although mostly low on notability/sourcing. There's now a long checklist - it will take 1-2 weeks to investigate everything. (I'd hoped to do some work of my own instead of spending 2 weeks cleaning up somebody else's mess!) bobrayner (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good job on this garden. I've had to delete numerous articles and images before, and had asked for help quite a few times on WT:INB but no one seemed interested. As for the train articles, many of them are likely to be hoaxes, you can verify if they exist at [1] or [2] and maybe just create a list of these hoax articles that either I (and I'm quite inactive now) or another admin such as FPaS can delete them under G3. I don't think we need to go through AfD for these hoaxes. —SpacemanSpiff 07:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to sign

You forgot to sign your last post at Talk:Astrology. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Serves me right for trying to edit wikipedia whilst in a conference call at work! bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sagar Airport

I've declined speedy on that for the moment - I'm interested to know why you think it's a hoax. The thing seems to be either known as that or as Dhana Airport (although aerodrome might be more accurate...). So far as I can see, it exists. I might be missing something you can see. Thanks in advance. Peridon (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Got a reliable link to it? At least the ICAO code doesn't seem to exist ([3]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was created by a known hoaxer, and the IATA and ICAO codes are deliberate fakes. And it's not even an airport, per se. bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Ujjain one appears to be not an airport but a mere airfield used only by a private flying school [4], and the ICAO code is a hoax again, so I've now speedied that one. My question about the Sagar one above was directed more at Peridon than at you, obviously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries; thanks for your hard work, both bobrayner (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I think it might be worth turning the current indef-block into a full formalized community ban. I might post something on WP:AN to that effect soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The description of airfield fits what I've found for Dhana.Sagar. Is http://www.ourairports.com/countries/IN/MP/airports.html?sort=municipality&show=all reliable? Or http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Aircraft+Supplier+%26+MRO+News+-+Asia+%2F+Pacific.-a0197683204? People do go to some lengths at times setting up hoaxes - even setting up fake newspapers - and I thought better not to delete straight off before checking. Even with a nomination from bobrayner... Peridon (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.: A discussion at AN sounds reasonable. However, every day I find a new problem - would you mind pausing that for a few days to avoid a dripfeed of information to the thread? I was planning to do something similar anyway, once there's a full "portfolio" that could be presented all together, wrapped up with a ribbon. I don't think it's urgent, it seems unlikely an unblock request would be accepted in the near future, and any new socks would still be dealt with the same way... over at WikiProject Trains there's a community discussion on how to handle the large volumes of less-hoaxy, low-notability articles - maybe it would be sensible to wait and see if anything new emerges from that thread. bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Peridon: There is definitely an airstrip in that area (with a different code, VA1J) although it's not called Sagar (that's the name of the nearest city) and it's not really an airport. Satellite images show that VA1J has a 17/35 runway. The stuff about Chimes' "current fleet" looks like it's been copypasted then details exaggerated (for comparison, the same editor created an article on a train crash which copy-pasted a news article about the crash and then just changed the number of casualties upwards). If there's no agreement to delete, I won't be heartbroken - it's not the most outrageous hoax article, but even with the sources I've found in the last few hours the text will have to start from scratch, it'll be 3 sentences, and it'll still fall short of the GNG. Which pretty much summarises the problem presented by a lot of this editor's creations. bobrayner (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put up a note at AN, with hopefully enough examples and links to give the community an idea of the kind of problem we're facing. If we want to bundle more links into a fuller piece of documentation later on, for future reference, that might still be useful, but I think we have enough right now to get the decision formalized. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. As for Dhana, it may be that the flying school is more notable than the airstrip. There was a previously-deleted article on Chimes which was userified a year ago and is now gathering dust. bobrayner (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you two to sort out, then. [returns with relief to clearing backlogs] Peridon (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force

Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw I loved "less GF would be A'd", and agree completely. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a very generous invitation (and you excel at flattery); but I'm currently very busy with other work in article-space, which seems to absorb all my free time. I'd be happy to make occasional contributions (and support votes), but cannot commit to much more organisational effort right now. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a particular timeline? I will probably have more time on my hands in 2 weeks. bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's safe to say we'll still be at this in two weeks :) Jump in any time. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

More flattery ... I love the points you're making and hope you have time to keep it up. - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to "I'm not so sure that we completely lack checks and balances": right, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that that was WFC's point ... and I'm not sure that he's saying that himself, he might be saying that others believe that and that affects their votes at RFA, and I think that's totally right. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed; but occasionally we see stronger rhetoric from other quarters, about out-of-control admins and so on. If I remember correctly, there have been a couple of people who went through a phase of repeatedly voting !oppose at RfAs because they felt admins generally were unaccountable. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and for our planned RFC to succeed, we need to give these folks, and everyone else, something. I try to address that in the post I just made at User talk:Dank/RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. However, my personal feeling is that some who gripe about admin unaccountability might oppose if a proposed measure is not strong enough.

Unfortunately, you can't please all of the people all of the time, which helps explain why there's been so much talk at RfA over the years but little reform until now. I think that getting over that hurdle is essential: Either find some way of pleasing everyone (including the contrarians who take pride in being difficult to please); or find a way to strike a consensus/compromise that makes most people happy, without letting a small number of dissenters (who are not a homogenous group; they might disagree with each other) tug too strongly on the reins.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. bobrayner (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That brings it into focus nicely, and I'll respond at User talk:Dank/RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wainhouse Tower & St. Pauls

Hi, I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit to place the tower and church in the correct article. As I was born in Halifax, with relatives in King Cross and still have connections there I do know the difference between what is in Halifax and what is in King Cross. NB: The url you placed as a reference for St.Pauls, on the Halifax article indicates a King Cross address (incidentally the reference is incomplete and showing a red warning on the article, so perhaps you could sort that out! Richard Harvey (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal background is not the best arbiter; this is the 21st century, and we have easy access to maps, websites, and other documents. (I'm from even closer, and I spent 7 years at a school in the shadow of Wainhouse Tower - curiously you didn't remove that school from the Halifax article).

What matters is:

1. Geographical areas can overlap, and there is absolutely no rule that a landmark can only be mentioned in an article on one such area. That would be crazy. Wainhouse Tower can be in KX and Halifax (and even Calderdale) just as the Eiffel Tower is simultaneously in the Champ de Mars, 7th arrondissement of Paris, Paris, and France articles.
2. Sources say that Wainhouse Tower is in Halifax. If some sources also say it's in KX, that's fine, because it can be mentioned in the KX article too. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia; it should reflect what reliable sources say.
3. Thanks for pointing out the ref error. It's now fixed. That was a typo on my part, sorry.

It's probably best to continue this thread on Talk:Halifax, West Yorkshire since somebody else expressed the same concerns there. bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

PC

Hi there. I appreciate your viewpoint in the PC RfC discussion, and I do not want to badger opposers. However, I noted your "oppose on principle" - and I do understand that. But the comments you then make indicate that you are willing to accept the necessity. Unfortunately, yours is viewed as an oppose vote, and therefore doesn't help us form a consensus to do anything. With this in mind, I just added comments, explaining why I do think it necessary - so please, if you have time, consider what I wrote here. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I put my vote under "oppose" because I oppose the suggestion. After months of complex debate in multiple venues, I am very wary of an argument framed along the lines of "Let's just turn it off temporarily so we can find the best way to use it in the longer term". I think it's quite unlikely to turn out like that. I understand your position, but I think it's counterproductive to put down a useful tool like that. bobrayner (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for considering it. FWIW, I am personally convinced that if this discussion fails, PC is doomed to limbo forever - can't be used, can't be removed, can't get consensus for policy. But, I respect your opinion, and thank you for considering it.  Chzz  ►  10:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion will go the same way as all the previous PC discussions. Whether you want to call that "fail" is a matter of personal preference bobrayner (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's all talk, no action. We can't agree on anything. It is tremendously frustrating, for all concerned - as you could see on the talk page, and the archives. Lots of talk, no progress whatsoever, and more and more frustration. I truly fear for the future of the project, if we cannot come to agreement over this issue; it does not bode well for consensus. As for 'fail' - well, do you really think - honestly - that there is the remotest chance of getting an agreement to e.g. expand the scope of PC, if this fails?  Chzz  ►  11:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Is there any scope for compromise, and consensus, in this?  Chzz  ►  11:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I share your frustration. I'm going to step back from that debate today, and try to come back with some fresh thinking at the weekend.

A wise man once said that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard". Maybe dictatorship is worth another try. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oligarchy won't work; indeed, some would say that that is exactly why we are in this mess.

I want consensus. I don't want voting; I want discussion. I'm quite happy to compromise, if such a thing is possible. Remove it on half the articles? Don't add it to any more, until we get agreement? Only allow PC on Tuesdays, Thurdays and Saturdays? I don't care. Frankly, anything is better than this utter, utter madness we have now. I look forward to hearing from you.  Chzz  ►  11:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi Bob, I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned it to you yet, but you may be interested in this budding project The task force is growinghere. When there are a few more names on the list I'll move the page to project space. Link title. --Kudpung (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been sitting on the edge of the pool, reluctant to dive in. Thanks for the nudge. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Please stop being an apple. Thank you. 124.197.39.155 (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)