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.

Talk page archive for 2014

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Keithbob: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

2014 Information

Hello Keithbob. Happy New Year! I'm just letting you know that there is one more citation-related issue for you to address on Talk:Arlen F. Gregorio/GA1. Edge3 ( talk) 13:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The article Arlen F. Gregorio you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arlen F. Gregorio for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 ( talk) 17:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith, What shall I do make this article more neutral? Please advise. Thank you! -tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurseling ( talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions., I'll leave some comments on the article talk page. Thanks for stopping by. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith, please be aware {{subst:Afd top}} goes above the header per AFDCLOSE as putting it below can cause issues in the log. So I fixed theses closers see here and here. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unlike other closes (like RfC and DRN), the top goes over the header instead of under. Thanks for the reminder and the fix.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, good luck with the RFA. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Middle Africa. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to take on the RRSP article Dispute Resolution. Ground Zero | t 12:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I hope we can make some good progress there. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we have. The last version I proposed addresses OwenX's concerns and many of User 24's. I have responded to his/her last round of comments in detail, but have not had any response back. He/she may yet respond beyond just rejecting my last version, but I suspect that we may have reached an impasse with this person. You have taken us a long way as a mediator. How would you feel about taking on more of the arbitrator's role to move this along? Thanks again for your help. Ground Zero | t 16:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Ground Zero:, I just now saw this. Sorry I didn't respond earlier. Now that the DRN has ended I feel we made some good progress and that things should move forward more smoothly on the article and the talk page. I'm hesitant to follow up on the article talk page as an arbitrator of sorts because the IP who filed the case has given an indication that I have taken a "side" in the dispute and I wouldn't want to be perceived as someone coming in to stack the deck against the IP. So I'll decline your offer and hope its not needed anyway. It was a pleasure working with you at DRN and thank you for all your amazing contributions to WP!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry. User 24 seems to have lost interest and gone away. OwenX and I implemented the changes discussed, and now the article is in much better shape. Thanks again. Ground Zero | t 13:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why you added orphan tag to Na D'Souza! Just curious to know. Regards. - Rayabhari ( talk) 14:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Rayabhari: Hello, and thanks for coming by with this question. Na D'Souza has three articles that link to it. I placed the orphan tag with the understanding that WP:NPP says: articles with 3 links or less should be marked 'orphan'. However, in rechecking it just now, I see that it says: If the article has less than three incoming links (from actual articles, excluding pages in other namespaces like User talk, Talk, Wikipedia, etc.) add {Orphan} to the top of the page. Which is probably why the orphan tag was removed by a bot a few hours after I posted it. Thanks for raising this point as it's helped me to further refine my understanding of the relevant guidelines and congratulations on your new article! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I closed the "Santa Claus" discussion at DRN as stale. I advised the involved editors to continue discussion on the article talk page. Thanks for your support and I'll see you around DRN! -- MrScorch6200 ( t  c) 02:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Good close, thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello there Keithbob! It's Keeby!

Just wanted to let you know that I started a Part 2 to the discussion on the Sasanian Empire that you commented on and I took your advice for the most part.

See Here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Sasanian_Empire#Recommendations_to_Map_Workshop_Team.21_Part_2.21

It might not be perfect, but you have to admit that it is a more distinct proposal than the last one.

I gave a clear, short summary of the issue and skipped the story telling. Made a distinct proposal, but didn't ask for a support or Oppose answer and I also Didn't include discussion and talk posts that dated months before the RfC even started, nor did I include comments like: "OK if a month goes by and there is no consensus then we'll do XYZ" and then come back months later and still be asking for more input to support your favored outcome.

So there you have it! Hopefully this one will be more successful with all that being said. Regards! :D Keeby101 ( talk) 22:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well done! I'll stop by and take a look. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The ANI was closed due to the DRN but the DRN was closed because of the ANI. So where to go? What I included in the ANI is a conduct issue not content and I was not finished presenting the evidence in any case but can continue doing so at whichever forum is most appropriate. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now withdrawn all DRNs and wish to proceed with AN or ANI. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you follow through on the mediation. If the participants refuse to participate in mediation then, if you really think that an editor(s) has violated specific WP behavioral guidelines (such as WP:3RR) and you can clearly demonstrate that via diffs, then you can file a new case at WP:AN. It sounds to me like you have a content dispute and you feel there is some systemic bias. That's very hard to prove. Your best bet is to follow through with the mediation. Try that and see what happens.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not do mediation at this point and would rather just deal with the editor conduct upfront. I think I have a lot of evidence and am compiling more regarding egregious editor conduct and probably conspiracy necessitating a topic ban or full-out ban of users. This is not a content issue but rather a conduct issue like the other Administrative reports filed over the past 5-6 years. According to Wikipedia rules is that possible? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 23:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, as you wish. Yes, it's possible for an editor to receive a warning, a block or a topic ban etc. at WP:ANI or WP:AN. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I filed my AN. Another friend of one of the editors in question DougWeller immediately deleted it but I am moving forward with my AN. Thank you for your help. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 00:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for the record, I didn't "delete" the AN thread, I collapsed it. Any editor other than Andajara120000 who disagreed with that action could have uncollapsed it. Also, I would not consider myself a "Wikifriend" of Dougweller -- that is, I'm aware of his name, having seen it around, and I'm sure we've interacted in the past, but I can't recall anything specifically. I'm certainly not prejudiced for or against him, and I wouldn't do something on his behalf unless it was something I thought should be done. In this case, no one - Dougweller or otherwise - asked me to collapse the AN thread, it simply seemed redundant and duplicative, coming on top of the closing of the AN/I thread quite recently before. BMK, Grouchy Realist ( talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think because you have filed in numerous venues within 48 hours you may not be taken seriously. I would suggest you wait a few days and gather yourself. Then present you evidence in a neutral and calm way after the dust has settled. Also please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. At some point, your efforts may be perceived as disruptive. So slow down!  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eileen Murray, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page COO ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob,

Thank you for reviewing the Stella Turk article.

Would you consider re-reviewing the site as I have corrected citation problems and two articles now link to Stella's page. I have also asked for the Cornwall Wildlife Trust to add links back to Stella and her late husband's pages.

Craig.chamberlain11 ( talk) 11:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that two experienced editors have done some work on the article today and all the clean up tags have been removed. I think you are in good hands now :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Main Page. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Your upload of File:Asset Allocation.pdf or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 12:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, RAAM, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going [ here], and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. EMP ( talk) 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done (see talk page discussion at RAAM). Normally the merge discussion is held at the destination article but since we are already discussing at the Raam talk page I added a note and link to the GCWP article asking editors to join the conversation at the RAAM talk page. I also added 'merge' tags to both articles.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox single. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! The article has footnotes. They are perfectly shown at the bottom. What else is needed? The credits are on the official website. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 19:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Teemeah you've done a nice job with the article. It's a bit short so hopefully it can be developed over time with more sources. One thing that is not required is very helpful when using non-English sources, is to place the relevant quotes from the Koren language citations within the references like this:

• ref>[ "‘리틀 손예진’ 김소현, 스쿨로맨스 ‘마보이’ 첫 주연 낙점"] (in Korean). Newsen. 2012-08-06 "the star of the MaBoy series is Michael Chen" </ref
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi I don't think it's useful when people don't understand the original anyways :). But you can check the content of the source with Google Translate anytime :) Cheers. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 09:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A female executive lands a high-level position at a male-dominated and notoriously chovenistic corporation. She becomes the subject of office gossip, speculation about affairs (one affair is suppossively confirmed, but denied by her) and the media is obsessed with her being a bombshell female executive - every profile story talks about her high-heels, skirts, expensive brand-name clothes. + she becomes rivals with her future boss who starts spreading criticisms about the returns of her division (construction in foreign countries, which is a low-margin and volatile business)

The secondary sources are strong enough and prolific, but it comes across as a lot of gossip-mongering. Of course it's hard to assess without spending hours researching (I'm still reading stuff about her), but was wondering if you had any general input RE BLP. I don't want to white-wash it, but neither do I want to repeat a bunch of gossip. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends on the quality and quantity of the sources. Which article is it? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, nm. I'm not going to be doing that one. Sorry for being a bother! CorporateM ( Talk) 01:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

-- MrScorch6200 ( t  c) 01:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith, Greetings, Hope the new year is going well for you! I find that this new wiki article Open University of Switzerland is not notable with no independent sources, similar to the European Council of Leading Business Schools that was deleted. Could I ask for your help to look into this? Proposing deletion. I have written to Lankiveil on this as well. Many thanks! Audit Guy ( talk) 02:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see that there are only primary sources there. I once took a university article to AfD and I was told that accredited universities were notable and the request for deletion was declined. However, I notice that WP:Schools says they must meet the standard guidelines at WP:Notability. Let me ask my mentor in this area see what he thinks and then get back to you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith, Okay, Thank you. In any event, I do not believe that this university is accredited by any recognized accreditation body. Audit Guy ( talk) 04:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The university says its an accredited degree offering institution. [1] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's what a knowledgeable WP friend has to say:

• "There are true problems with this one: it is a relatively small private European business school, and the question can be raised upon whether it is merely a glorified trade school that pretends to issue degrees. It is nationally licensed, and tries to pass that off as accreditation. It is accepted by some trade bodies, and some decidedly non-official groups, and tries to call this true accreditation. Ref 7 does not say what the article claims it says. (it turns out to be "ranked among the best online universities in Switzerland"--I need to check where it gets its numbers from.) And even some of this quasi-accreditation is for the parent group, ABMS Education Group, not this particular university. The article lists a great number of fields in which it claims to offer even Ph.D degrees. And it advertises itself on its web site, tho not in the WP article, as "2 accredited degrees in 1 year: MBA and DPhil" In other words, I have some doubts myself about it....... My suggestion is not to delete the article, but to read the sources with a skeptical eye and use quotations for the claims."
• So its borderline and you can proceed as you see fit. You are welcome to PROD it or take it to WP:AFD for discussion if you wish. I'm going to move on to other projects, but thanks for stopping by. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, appreciate it. I have PROD the article. Audit Guy ( talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Martin Landau. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to keep you waiting! Your RfA page is now ready for you and your co-nominators' statements - see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Keithbob. Let me know if there's anything else you want to ask about the process, and let me know when you're ready. I can start things rolling if you want, or you are free to do that yourself if you would prefer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Strad! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, User:Keilana and User:Mr. Stradivarius, I've transcluded now. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This user is currently being [[Wikipedia:|considered]] for [[Wikipedia:]]. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit .

Your a perfect candidate! I hope it passes and you get those extra tools! I've also made some statistics on RfA's at User:EuroCarGT/RFA & RFB Count 2013 if you wanted to look! Cheers, ///EuroCar GT 00:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks EuroCarGT! I really appreciate your vote. It's very rewarding to have the support of so many in the community. I feel very humbled by it and moved no matter what the final outcome. I'll look at your RfA stats too. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith, May I also wish you good luck and very much hope you succeed in getting the Adminship! Audit Guy ( talk) 02:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Benedetto Varchi. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		For your patience, kindness, and for remaining calm even in trying circumstances. Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob. I have closed your RfA. Looks like everyone missed that you withdrew and I took care of it. I'm sorry about the result, and wish you the best of luck next time. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 02:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Keithbob. I was sorry to see that RfA end the way it did. Knowing you as someone who is wise, insightful, fair-minded, and an astute "student" of Wikipedia who continuously improves his work, I was hoping that you would own up to the existence of the elephant in the living room, and give the rest of us some assurance that you will watch out for the elephant and avoid admin actions in any way related to the elephant. Maybe there will be a next time... -- Orlady ( talk) 03:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know what is true or not, but I felt badly about how you were treated at the RfA, and I want to give you my best wishes. I hope that you'll be back to editing when you feel ready. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Very sad news, indeed. Having been through a couple of Wikibreaks, I can understand how other users feel about you. I hope you can come back soon, when you are fully energized and refreshed. Don't let bad apples get to you. Regards, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 23:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help at the Dispute resolution Noticeboard. I see you are on break now - enjoy! Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, I'm sorry to hear what happened at the RfA. I don't know all specifics, but I'm going to look into it. Until now I didn't know you were a nominee, or else I would have given my opinion. I don't want whatever happened there discourage you from editing WP and as a long time editor you definitely know that. You were a great coordinator at DRN and were a great help to many, many editors. You are a great Wikipedian and we don't want to see you go.

Don't let whatever happened there get to you. Use your time off to clear your head, enjoy your time with family and friends and relax! Don't get Wikistress, when you're back no one is going to question you about the RfA like a paparazzi. Wikipedians tend to have long memories, but they aren't going to bring something up like this - which made you "leave" Wikipedia for an unspecified amount of time.

Don't let my words get to you either - come back when you feel the time is right. I understand you went through an unsuccessful RfA, but forget about it! We all miss you and I hope we work in partnership again soon, your friend, Nick (MrScorch6200).

P.S. Don't worry about DRN, I'll pick up your usual load of cases. TransporterMan will also make a great coordinator so don't worry!

P.P.S Remember what you said, "I feel very humbled by it [the RfA] and moved no matter what the final outcome." Don't forget those words! Two people had the courage to nominate you and felt strongly that you could be an Admin, and that is all that counts!

Best of luck, -- MrScorch6200 ( t  c) 07:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I second all that MrScorch6200 says. Hope you are back soon. Best wishes. Audit Guy ( talk) 07:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith, I was wondering if you could help fix the lion vs tiger topic, it seems the topic has a certain someone with abusuing wikipedias ethics and using it to pump out some type of bias supremacy, cherry picking and being subjective, even contradicting his own guidelines he uses, makes false accusations and is hypocritical to his own suggestions.

I'd like to start it off with suggesting to review the revision of its current and compare it to a previous one: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tiger_versus_lion&diff=prev&oldid=591817160

Changes were made simply because some of the data was unreliable as stated in the talk: /info/en/?search=Talk:Tiger_versus_lion

I have learned that I must only make comments on the edits, and not the editors, so I will try and keep it as so to better adress it. My main delima is, this topic has been unchecked for years, and has no true consensus that is confirmed reliable and un-bias, so I would like to request if you could share the info with a few others to develop a basic un-bias assesment, I'd like to start it off with pointing out a guide line:

Under its:

--History--

The Qualifications: Should be of historical significance, so only people with back grounds of Ph.d and Masters degrees should be accepted for reliability and credability via Historians.

--Physical comparison--

The Qualifications: Should be adressed on a species scale, the historical significance is graded on its history, so it must refraim from cherry picking sub-speices via bengal and siberian, as of now it is leaving out the malay, sumatran, bali ect it must include all of them to reach an average and to be historically accurate.

--Accidental fights in captivity--

The Qualifications: All historical/modern accounts should be fully brought to the awareness of the world/public, the details should be mentioned for both sides regardless if its a un-fair fight of gender, age, and quanity/odds, since these animals are not replicas via exactly the same to the T, so of course a parity, sex/gender and age/condition is only being subjective, all documentation should be accepted according to reliablility, as of now there is only pro-tiger data that is in effect as pure insinuation, via cherry picked while other reliable sources that supports the lion is being constantly erased with no viable reasons other than false accusations and making things up.

--Expert opinions--

The Qualifications: Should be upon people with observation upon seeing them fight, an opinion from someone with experince working with these animals is not enough and holds no merits since the topic is specifically on fighting, if they haven't seen them fight (has no cites mentioning a observed fight) it shoulden't be used, only people who have been eye witnesses to conflicts between the two should be used for credability.

I am suggesting a more fair assesment since what is in place now is subjective, bias and pro-data, both sides of the coin should be mentioned, all the substance should be mentioned both ways, and a fair assesment on what is avaliable to add in should be implimented both ways of its reliability and credability.

At the moment I am unable to use my emails, if you have any comments to add/reply with, please leave it here in the Talk so I can read it.

Thank you for your time Golden Prime ( talk) 21:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Keith will not be able to assist you as he is on an extended Wikibreak (indefinite as of now). -- MrScorch6200 ( t  c) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

member:MrScorch6200 Then who do you suggest should be notifyed? If hes only on break, then theres actually no big rush, as long as it gets adressed. Golden Prime ( talk) 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, he might not be back. If this is a content dispute, go to WP:DRN or another form of WP:DR or even noticeboards like the Relibale Sources Noticeboard. Conduct disputes should do to WP:AN. -- MrScorch6200 ( t  c) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand you are taking a well-deserved wikibreak. I hope you enjoy yourself and relax, and have fun. I hope you come back in due course and continue your good work for the encyclopedia. We need people like you! I'm not going to trouble you with an email, but perhaps your talk-page stalker(s) can convey my message via email to you if you are not going to be looking at this page for a while. Softlavender ( talk) 06:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't really wan't to bother him, but few days ago I did leave him a quick e-mail saying a few users left some nice notes on his talk page. --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 01:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize my support seems to have given your opposition some ammunition. I think you would make a great admin. However, I would not concern yourself too much with what other people think. That is far too stressful and distracts from our core mission here. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox legislature. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Soviet Union. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beef Products. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eskimo. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back around the wiki. Was afraid you were gone for good. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I had been logging a lot of hours in advance of my RfA. After that I just needed a bit of a rest. Thanks for the welcome!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back Kbob. Very nice to see you here again.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 18:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Joining the choir with gladness, - disregard " sorrow" on my talk, that's something else, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Great to see you back! Hope you are feeling relaxed and refreshed. Wikipedia needs all the good editors it can get! Have fun and keep smiling, Softlavender ( talk) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Make that a "me too". Welcome back! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Keithbob, Welcome back! Glad to have you back to the fold :) Audit Guy ( talk) 09:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keith,

re: Don Fury article.

Thanks for your comments.

Any particular suggestions about improving the article?

I removed a subjective reference to the Agnostic Front "Victim In Pain" LP in the summary.

Intending to add short 'early recordings' list.

Regards,

Noah hedroum ( talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Noah, thanks for your good work on that article. You have done a particularly good job formatting the citations. Very nice. I think the tone of the article needs some clean up and that is why I put the Fan POV tag on it. It reads too much like a magazine article praising the subject. What we need is a dis-interested, encyclopedic tone. I'll try to find some time to come by and make some edits. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

hi Keith, I cleaned this up and dried it off. Got anything that seemed too subjective out. Edited the intro/summary which seemed like a place holder. Added an Early Recordings section and a variety of citations and smaller edits to improve the flow throughout. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks.

Noah hedroum ( talk) 06:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've done quite a bit of clean up and reformatting today. Take a look at the article and my comments on the talk page. I think Fury has some good sources and the article could be expanded further. Thanks for collaborating on this with me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

hi Keith, thanks again for your guidance and editing. I restored some information about Fury's manager Sandy Roberton of World's End, and the TVT record deal included in the original (hard print) Billboard article. And cleaned up a few spots. I wasn't sure what to do about citing the early recordings - I used the inline reference discog.com, which is pretty thorough. I think that section should be titled 'Early recordings. Discog.com has about 300 titles for Fury.

Noah hedroum ( talk) 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

hi Keith, Thanks for your guidance about staying 'on topic' while authoring, and editing on Wiki in general…

A couple more notes re: Don Fury -

Career: About Max's Kansas City and CBGB - I am sure the proximity of Fury's 17th Street studio to seminal punk club Max's Kansas City ( less than 2 blocks away) and the proximity of Fury's 18 Spring Street studio to seminal punk club CBGB ( 4 blocks away ) had great effect on Fury's career, and that the locations were important choices. These clubs hosted the same punk and hardcore bands that used Fury's studios and were within easy walking distance. Had Fury opened his studio on his native Long Island in the late 1970's, he never would have met these punk and hardcore bands. The significance of the 17th Street location and Max's Kansas City is supported by reference - Brian McElhiney (9 October 2010) - and the significance of the CBGB location is supported in all references, while the distance of 4 blocks can be derived from the actual street addresses.

Fury recordings: citations or references - there are no hard published guides to many indie record producers' discographies. I found discog.com very thorough, and noted the same as a reference ( including retrieval date which has since disappeared? ). Fury's official website also has a discography, but discog.com is arm's length, more thorough, and I thought the better reference of the two possibilities. You will find that most punk and hardcore bands with Wiki entries have discographies without citation - perhaps discog.com is sufficient for this purpose. Noah hedroum ( talk) 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Noah, It would be more appropriate to discuss the article on its talk page. Let's end this thread and move the conversation over there, OK? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Rational. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM ( Talk) 04:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, for the image of Jeremy Stoppelman - do you think it would suffice to do a 3PO and go with whatever they say? Figured it might be more light-weight than doing a half-dozen RfCs everywhere we disagree. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what you mean. Did we have some dispute about his photo?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I normally see photographs of executives on company pages as a sign of COI and promotion. You said you felt the image should be kept. OTOH, I would consider a user interface image to be a de-facto image for a software (or SaaS) page and you felt in turn that a UI image was promotional. I think we'll also need another RfC for the "Controversies" section, which seems like a WP:Criticisms problem to me. It seemed like there was support for "Integrity of reviews" though I think eliminating the section entirely and spreading it throughout the article as user:DGG suggested would be better. But if we have to RfC everything, it would take years, so 3PO seems like a lighter weight method. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, yes a third opinion WP:3O on the photo issue is fine with me. I'll go with whatever the third person says. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, 3PO requires a link to the discussion, but looking through the archives, the discussion has been fragmented and across multiple pages, etc. I was going to suggest we start a new string where each of us summarizes our point-of-view, so that it's nice and tidy for 3PO. Thoughts? CorporateM ( Talk) 22:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Based on the input we got in the RfC, I made it non-personal, so the 3PO can state whether they support using a specific image, without knowing whose side they are taking. Seems like that would make it less personal and less editorialized. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, personalizing disputes is not helpful. With that in mind I'm not sure why you opened a thread saying you were in a dispute with me over the photo. You must be having a very busy day and doing too many things at once!  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are the two that were arguing about it previously. We argue alot. It's not a bad thing, as editors with different viewpoints is a healthy way to create quality articles, as long as all the involved editors follow AGF, OWN, etc. and are reasonable. I prefer not to argue about such small things where I have a COI (or even where I don't), but if there are arguments about everything, what can I do but argue? + I agree with user:Candleabracadabra that in many ways the article is actually getting worse over time.

Anyways, I am timid about harping on the controversy too much. I got the sense that Yelp wasn't even really very comfortable with participating on Wikipedia in general, but again, what else can we do but what I am doing? But I wanted to swing by you how we might structure that discussion. I would like to posture it this way - that there are five POVs that should each be represented fairly per NPOV: Small businesses, Yelp, the court, the public, and academics. We can copy/paste what is currently in the article for each POV and discuss them one at a time and advertise the discussion on the NPOV board. Thoughts? Each POV can be represented as part of the narrative and not as a "he said she said" kind of thing. CorporateM ( Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi CM and thanks for your comments and willingness to discuss. Yes, we often disagree on content but I don't believe we've ever had what I would call an argument. As far as the Yelp content goes, I understand that you are in a position that is like trying to corral a bunch of cats while your hands are tied behind your back (the cats being both content and editors). For this reason you may be trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Sometimes controversial articles are never ready for GA because there is no clear consensus on all the content. Also the editors, consensus and content are constantly changing. Further, and I know this is not your intention, but there is an appearance that you are trying to shape the article by creating a continuous series of RfC's and jamming them with multiple issues some of which have already been discussed. I fully sympathize with your position and you are a prime example of all the ways in which WP is not addressing the needs of companies, organizations, notable people and PR firms who want to create or modify content while respecting WP's policies including WP:V and WP:NPOV. I feel that your current path is stirring up controversy and debate on the talk page rather than stabilizing the article and refining its content for a GA review. You are doing this by creating multiple back to back RfC's on content that has been relatively stable for the past few months and by listing the various editors names and their estimated opinions and giving RfC participants multiple options. I know this is the opposite of what you want and it must be very frustrating as you look for ways to make significant changes to the article while limiting yourself to the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that is a pretty good bulls-eye, except the article being "stable" does not mean it is "good". Even from a clear counter-COI perspective, I'm concerned the viewpoint of small business owners ("I declined advertising and my ratings went down" & "they said they would alter the reviews if I bought ads") are no longer in the article. This is the central premise of the whole thing - why would anyone remove it?

Any improvements I propose - some argument will be found to why it shouldn't be made. Therefore I must find consensus, but trying to reach consensus is controversial and clear, unambiguous consensus rarely exists anywhere. Additionally, any argument that escalates will involve editors that are unhappy about the outcome and will claim the process was contaminated by COI - a common POV pusher tactic even when no COI exists.

So in other words I should just watch the article degrade helplessly, popcorn in hand, even as random IPs add primary sources. The whole thing is very depressing. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right stability has little or no direct correlation with an article being high quality and/or neutral. As for IPs adding primary sources, we should be able to reverse that when it happens. The article shouldn't degrade. Generally what I do after I've spent a lot of time on an article like Yelp, is walk away for a while and let random members of the community tweak it for a while. Then I may come back from time to time and do my own tweaking. But I try to avoid directly undoing other people's edits or micromanaging the article lest it seem like I feel that I 'own' the article. Of course when one invests themselves in an article and feel they've raised the level of it, it's hard not to feel some attachment to it. So it requires some reflection and self discipline.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PS I've removed the trivia that the IP added using Yelp FAQ's as a source. If that kind of thing happens again just put a note on the talk page and I think it will get cleaned up pretty quick :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh, I don't know if you are implying that I am OWNing or if you are reflecting on yourself. You've actually spent more time on it than I and shown more resistance to changes to your version.

It's been about a year since I started on this page and I don't think more time is needed. However, it is unlikely another editor besides myself will bring it up to GA and if there is too much resistance to my participation for me to do it myself, while following the site's COI rules, then there is nothing that can be done. CorporateM ( Talk) 02:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not accusing you of ownership. Just reflecting on the concept in general and explaining my approach to mitigating the natural tendency for editors (including me) to want to preserve their work. As you know I have not been actively editing the article for some time, and yes I have given my views on the talk page as that is part of the collaborative process. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, My article (Vungngaihlun_(Lulun)_Tonsing) was rejected with the remark 'Please cite your sources using footnotes'. Could you please help? Thanks! Aksharapitre ( talk) 05:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksharapitre ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left a message on your talk page. Also, please remember to sign your messages. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your inputs. I am currently in the process of getting some more reliable sources. Apart from that, is there anything else I could do improve the quality of the article on Wiki? Apologies for the third degree but this is my first time... Aksharapitre ( talk) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sources are the foundation of any article so we have to start with that. Let me know when you have posted more sources at the article and I can help you develop it in a way that will allow it to pass inspection. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It involves an RfC closure that you made at Right-wing socialism. I don't believe you have done anything wrong, nevertheless, I think you ought to know. Regards Op47 ( talk) 20:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks OP47. Experienced editors are permitted and encouraged to close RfCs as there is a backlog at WP:ANRFC. There is a process for contesting RfC closures [2] and a reversal by a participant who disagrees with the outcome is not part of that process. However, I'll let ANI sort that out and avoid the drama. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, since my right to make the close and my judgement have been called into question I felt the need to explain my closing process and so I did post at ANI. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serbia women's national beach handball team. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)  Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at this page for possible AfD's-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Skaramuca. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Moral responsibility. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob. You said in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page that you can take the case about solving the dispute around the section added by me in the article Azerbaijan and about the map there. As the discussion there was closed I filled the requests for mediation, as user TransporterMan recommended. -- Interfase ( talk) 05:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK good luck with the mediation. Keep in mind that mediation is also voluntary and if participants say they don't want to participate you may have to think of a new plan. T-man also suggests an WP:RFC as a way to bring new editors to the talk page discussion and get outside input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob, I notice you used some full URLs in your recent comment about AfC backlogs on Jimbo's talk page. Did you know that you can link to a category without causing it to categorize a page, by starting your link with a colon? E.g. Category:Articles to be merged. Best, — Scott • talk 15:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know that, good tip. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider taking Highland Clearances? The last time it came up you were out and it failed because no one (including me) wanted to take it. Feel free to say no. Also feel free to offer to the disputants to take the case but to condition your acceptance on the filing party, the IP editor, creating an account and only editing signed-on in the future. While we as a forum don't have that right, you as an individual volunteer certainly have the right to condition your participation as a mediator on whatever conditions you want and there's even support for that at WP:MEDIATION#Control of mediation. That's what I would do (and may do if you choose not to take the case). Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, meantime User:TransporterMan, what is the perceived advantage in having the IP create a named account?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view, it shows that they're serious enough about their editing to take responsibility for it and take ownership of it. It also seems to me that they ought to be willing to do at least that much if they're going to go beyond just editing and make use of Wikipedia's processes. Of course it only works if the IP editor is, as in this case, the filing editor. If they're a responding editor, making such a request might prevent them from joining in, which would not be a good thing. Having said all of that, I've not actually done that before, but I would this time if I took this case. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Not that it's particularly important, but why did you revert my linking the mention of penis theft to the relevant article? Surely this is ordinary Wiki practice? 70.75.233.253 ( talk) 22:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question. The article text says: "steal penises". You inserted a link for the term "penis panic" which auto-forwards to an article called "Koro" which is self described as "a culture-specific syndrome in which an individual has an overpowering belief that his or her genitals (e.g., penis or female nipples) are retracting and will disappear". Because Koro has nothing to do with "steal penises" (except for the word penis) I reverted the edit as the wiki-link you created took the reader on what many would consider a wild goose chase. I hope this helps and thanks for coming by. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, I see that there is a specific subsection of the Koro article that references Malleus Maleficarum and the phenomenon of witches removing and hiding male genitalia. In light of this finding, I've created a wikilink that takes the reader directly to that subsection of the article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and sorry for the error.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I should have linked to that subsection in the first place. Thanks for fixing it. 70.75.233.253 ( talk) 18:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chris Christie. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 ( talk) 00:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You've got it. Mail, that is. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have more than mail! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I would note from both the page and the talk page discussions is that there seems to be more than enough evidence to switch the location to Jersey, both in number of news references and recency of information. Geneva doesn't seem like it's accurate any longer. Silver seren ^C 00:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Good, that will make the company person happy as I was resisting that change. I'm happy to concede to your 'outside' opinion and have made that adjustment to the lead. Thanks so much for taking a look. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

Hi Keithbob! I would like to thank you for your years of hard work and valuable contributions which you have done for Wikipedia :) I can truly understand how difficult it would have been for you to recover from an unfortunately failed RfA. Although I didn't take part in it, I have full faith in you and wish you best of luck for the times ahead, and I hope that you'll surely succeed next time. Best Regards! - TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you my friend, your support means a lot to me. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Religion in China. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob,

Great to see you’re back on Wikipedia and thank you for looking at the Brevan Howard page again. Also thank you so much for making the headquarter location change from Geneva to Jersey, would it be possible to change this in the information box on the right of the main article as well, to ensure consistency?

I would definitely like to get your input in getting the outstanding inaccuracies changed and the article corrected. The outstanding points which I would welcome your input and opinion on are as below (sources are included currently on the talk page or I can provide them separately for reference).

I look forward to hearing back from you and to discussing any of this further. Again thank you so much for your input so far, it is very much appreciated. Please let me know how we can move this forward and how I can help in anyway.

"Fund manager, Geraldine Sundstrom, joined the company in 2007 and oversees the Brevan Howard Master Fund."

Geraldine Sundstrom joined as a partner at Brevan Howard in 2007 and was the portfolio manager of the Emerging Markets Strategies Master Fund Limited. In February 2014 Brevan Howard announced it was closing this fund after a poor performance in 2013 and Geraldine would be leaving the organisation.

"According to a company press release it also manages two closed-ended feeder funds, BH Global Limited and BH Macro Limited"

Brevan Howard also manages three closed-ended feeder funds; BH Global Limited, BH Credit Catalysts Limited and BH Macro Limited

"As of 2012 its assets under management (AUM) were second among the European hedge fund management firms."

Brevan Howard has retained the title of "Largest Hedge Fund in Europe" for the second year in a row with around $40 billion in assets under management in 2013.

The current article mentions Brevan Howard manage 11 funds but only names six of them. I hope to change this to name all the funds.

As of September 2013 Brevan Howard manages the following 11 funds: Brevan Howard Master Fund Limited (“BHMF”), Brevan Howard Emerging Markets Strategies Master Fund Limited (“BHEMS”), Brevan Howard Asia Master Fund Limited (“BHA”), Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Master Fund Limited (“BHMS”), Brevan Howard Credit Catalysts Master Fund Limited (“BHCC”), Brevan Howard Commodities Strategies Master Fund Limited (“BHCS”), Brevan Howard Systematic Trading Master Fund Limited (“BHST”), Brevan Howard Credit Value Master Fund Limited (“BHCV”), Brevan Howard CMBS Master Fund Limited (“BHCMBS”), Brevan Howard Investment Fund: Emerging Markets Local Fixed Income Fund Limited (“BHEML”), Brevan Howard Investment Fund II - Macro FX Fund Limited (“BHMFX”)

-- Jenny.barrett ( talk) 14:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jenny and thanks for stopping by. I'd be happy to help. I've copied your requests to the Brevan Howard talk page. Let's continue the discussion there so other interested parties may join and the information can be preserved for future reference. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.204.113.130 ( talk) 19:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you abruptly closed the discussion. Divot, Lhakh and I presume Antelope Hunter were in agreement with me that the Azerbaijani figure of 485 should be included since it was confirmed by a third-party (De Waal). This is not the same state that the 613 figure is in, which is merely government propaganda without any evidence and which is not backed by third-party sources.-- Urartu TH ( talk) 04:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I summed up my reasons for the close in my summary which is located at the bottom of the DRN case. In that section I specifically comment on consensus for the inclusion of the 485 figure. Take a look at that and if you still have questions or concerns we can discuss them. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My concern is that the 485 figure and the 613 figure are both from the Azerbaijani government--one from a parliamentary investigation (485) and another cited by various government sources more recently and without any evidence. These are clearly of significantly different value. Due to WP:UNDUE we couldn't possibly include both in the infobox. Per the discussion in the DRN, most if not all editors agreed that wild and unsubstantiated claims should not be in the infobox even if they are in the body.-- Urartu TH ( talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see an consensus at the DRN for the removal of the 613 figure but you could raise it again on the talk page and re-evaluate. I felt we had accomplished a fair amount at the DRN and the discussion was beginning to degrade into personalized arguments. I didn't see any point in keeping it open. DRN is not a substitute for the article talk page but more like a stop over to try and break a log jam and get things moving again. I've been at DRN a while and many cases are rejected due to lack of participation, many others go round and round and stall and are referred to RfC or Mediation. So I feel we did well to get as far as we did and hopefully things can get moving again on the talk page. It's always difficult writing an article with so many people with different educations, values, background etc. It's the dark side of this kind of anonymous, written, collaboration :-) Good luck with your good work on WP and thanks for stopping by. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

We did reach the conclusion that wild and unsubstantiated claims violate WP:UNDUE and should not be in the infobox. This can be seen in the straw poll and its discussion in the DRN. Therefore I will go ahead and remove 613. The editors in the straw poll did not stick around to reiterate their sentiment later on but it's all quite clear.-- Urartu TH ( talk) 01:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You can do what you want but based on the discussions at DRN such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring what I just said though? There was clearly a consensus to not include wild and speculative claims in the infobox during the straw poll and subsequent discussion where all editors were taking part. The later discussion is meaningless because we can't reasonably expect all editors to stay on a DRN for such a long amount of days. The discussion had already gotten stale. Are you disputing any of this? Thanks.-- Urartu TH ( talk) 05:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I did my job as a volunteer discussion moderator at DRN. In the DRN case I left a clear summary of what I felt was the consensus that resulted from the discussions. Now, I've answered your questions as to why I closed the DRN when I did. The DRN process and its content, summaries etc. are non-binding. If you disagree with my summary of the case that is your right and you can go back to the article's talk page and say so. However, badgering me on my talk page by repeating what I consider to be a skewed version of the events there is not going to accomplish anything.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As a Presa Canario owner and breeder, I feel that adding the sourced attacks for this breed, or any, is unfair and discriminatory without adding similar information for ALL breeds of dogs. Simple internet searching will reveal that both the chihuahua and the dachshund are both in the top ten of dog bite situations, but yet neither of these vicious animals have their wiki pages denoting this information. Dog attack information can be sought out freely on the interwebs, but listing these attacks without a basis for comparison with other breeds can make this breed seem more vicious and aggressive than other similar dogs. I just don't think it's fair, and would challenge you to tell my Kharma Jean that she is anything but a sweetheart... -Juan

Hi Jaun, Sorry but without knowing your WP user name or the name of the article you are referencing I'm unable to help you. Please give me more information so I know what you are talking about. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I explained my edit here: /info/en/?search=User_talk:Flyer22#Message — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.44.98 ( talk) 21:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. Sorry you are having problems. I've left you a note on your talk page. peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

See [3] and [4]. Any advice? It seems unlikely it can be talked out, especially if it turns out that there's sockpuppeting, but it seems too trivial for the BLP or Dispute Resolution noticeboards which have hundreds of page watchers. I can't 3D0 because there's ostensibly more than one editor on the other side, and they'd probably ignore 3D0 anyway. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 23:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Rolf h nelson, I'll leave a comment on the talk page but you may need to open a thread at WP:BLPN. If you do, be sure to note that you have done so on the article talk page and provide a link so other editors can join the discussion there. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If that doesn't work you could try a WP:RfC or a WP:DRN case, but I think we can work it out on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any article had been deleted. The suggestion was to merge with 2010 north Malaysian floods. The red link was a suggested title for the merged article (which didn't happen). The discussion had gone stale, and I'm good with marking it closed, but you might want to revise the closing comment for accuracy. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 09:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a very complicated Merge nomination. Thanks for helping to clarify. I've amended my closing comments accordingly. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob,

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Just wanted to say thank you so much for your help with the Brevan Howard page. Really appreciate you making the updates.

Thanks! Jenny -- Jenny.barrett ( talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!! YLA12 ( talk) 22:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why I deserve this but thanks just the same :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your link to talk page discussion in the License to Kill section actually links to Talk:Hybrid airship - you might want to correct that. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The byproduct of doing two things at once. :-( Thanks for the heads up!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pathology. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Taking it to the talk page is a waste of time if nobody if nobody goes over there but SchroCat and I and that's what is exactly happening right this minute. SchroCat has a losing position but is hoping nobody else cares. A remote talk page is a perfect place to get that. Why else would he turn down DRN? ...William 14:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

KB, you've probably already thought of this principle, but the opinion I gave at Talk:Garage_sale#Saling_.2F_Sale-ing may have some application in your case. On the other hand, the filing IP editor there has said that he's not willing to proceed if Scjessey is involved in the discussion, so it may not go forward unless you just want to render an opinion. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 17:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up it seems to have been closed due to lack of participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll pass on this one.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob. I see you were working on merging 2010 north Malaysian floods and 2010 Thailand floods as recently as ten days ago. I went ahead and did it, merging the Malaysia article into the Thailand article and re-designating the latter as 2010 floods in Thailand and north Malaysia. Please let me know what you think. Harej ( talk) 04:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I've commented on the article talk page. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems of the current "higher" forms of DR — DRN and MEDCOM — is that not much can be done at either place if some of the major participants in the dispute do not choose to join in. I've worked up a draft proposal for a fourth form of DR (3O being the third one) which would avoid that problem, but only in those cases which have been rejected at DRN or MEDCOM for lack of partipation. I'm inviting a small group of my DR colleagues — AGK, Hasteur, Keithbob, Macon, Miller, Strad, Writ Keeper, and Zhang — to tell me what they think of the feasibility of this idea. (And if any of you would like to invite someone else to the party, feel free to do so.) The proposal is located in my sandbox in my sandbox here. If you have a minute, I'd really appreciate your comments on the talk page there. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I've left a comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

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

• On the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page, your edit caused a missing references list ( help | help with group references). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Rangana Maddumahewa ( talk) 18:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)I am a student of srilanka university. i need some technology to handle my research project. its basically business perspective side in supermarket. im going to develop intelligent system for the supermarket owner, discovery his database. can i get any help from u wiki?

I suggest you try WP:Village Pump. Good luck with your project.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you take a shot at answering this question? I would just end up repeating what I wrote at the top of the page (improve the form you fill out to file a case, improve the bot). Being someone with Asperger syndrome, sometimes I miss emotional nuances. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 10:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guy, I left a response (you probably saw it) But what I'm thinking is that folks seem to be getting hung up on semantics and are resistant to the idea of a top to bottom overhaul. It sounds unwieldy to them. Maybe we would get a better response if we just asked them if someone could volunteer to be interface with us for a few weeks while we go through our list of needed fixes and improvements. The list could even be compiled upfront. (I've made a starter list and likely there are a few things other regular DRN volunteers would/could add to it.) Then we approach that person with the list and they go through one by one and we give feedback and answer questions as they progress. Any thoughts on this kind of approach?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds really good. Even small improvements like a form that doesn't let you file a case with no participants or a bot that usually works and isn't named after a disgusting bug would be welcome, and we can build from there. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anita Sarkeesian. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:UKForex. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, Sorry for the belated message. Many thanks for the thanks! I greatly appreciate the Barnstar too!! I'm very glad to see you back on wikipedia. Looking forward to working with you. Audit Guy ( talk) 03:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks my friend! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Keith, I got an email from Transporterman about my approach to the DRN about Hava Nagila and has asked me to email you my concerns before publishing them in the discussion. I have no idea how to send you an email, but you are free to delete my post on your talk page if it offends you. Look I am sorry if I hurt your feelings and I too don't want to push an agenda in this discussion either. But, in my experience sometimes and with some people to get them to participate in a discussion we have to provoke them. I know and agree with your point about WP:RS and yes, that alone is enough for any content in Wikipedia, but User:Galassi came across as somebody with a purist approach to Trivia and sports. That comment about Wikilawyering was my way of saying that there is somebody on the side of user:Galassi and I think it worked because he (or she) started to participate more often in the discussion. You could have always closed the discussion without his participation but I had a feeling that would not have stopped Galassi from doing what he was doing and he does not come across as someone who is concerned about criticism. Trust me, I knew what I am doing because handling conflicts every day is my job (literally). Even if you are mad at me, thats ok, I will live happily if you promise you wont get discouraged by mine (or anybody else's) rude behavior. Thanks for reading.-- Wikishagnik ( talk) 00:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikishangnik and thanks for your post and your apology. Just so you know, if you want to email any user there is a link in the tools section (either at the top or left side of your screen depending on which WP skin you are using) just click the selection: Email This User and you are on your way. Most experienced users have email set up on their account.

Now regarding DRN......... If you want to help at DRN then please take a case and moderate it yourself. Don't jump in on other people's cases and undermine and disrespect the moderator. You don't know anything about my real life experience or my strategy for that DRN case. Even if your strategy for dealing with the situation was superior to mine (and I don't think it is) the way you went about it was totally wrong. It would have been more appropriate for you to email me or to start a discussion on my talk page. Or...... if that wasn't sufficient you could have contacted the DRN volunteer coordinator with your concerns. So anyway, now you know and now we understand each other. Thanks for coming by and I sincerely appreciate your apology and hopefully we have both learned something from this. I look forward to working together in the future under better circumstances. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• pdf | title=Network of European Foundations (NEF) | publisher=Network of European Foundations (NEF | date=Oct 25, 2007 | accessdate=April 4, 2014 | pages=5}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk page has an interesting comment: [5]

Here is link to dispute resolution and previous discussion to which John2510 appears to refer in his edit summary. which has clearly been misinterpreted on his part since there not consensus to remove material.

But at DR/N, all I find is a total lack of discussion, which means citing it as evidence that there was "no consensus to remove" material seems a tad weak -- as is his position:

Claims that there was consensus to remove this material are invalid, as is claim that this article is a biography.

Which I fear means the person is not aware of WP:BLP applying across all articles. Might you indicate whether the non-existent DR/N discussion can be used for any purpose of asserting that it did not show a specific "consensus to remove"? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey man, I'm messaging you because I noticed you have experience with working out problems.
Recently, I nominated an article for deletion. I notified the creator, and half an hour later I left him a note explaining that I did so for the best of the site, I could be wrong, and either way I look forward to working with the guy in the future (we have no prior interaction). He doesn't seem to believe me, and accused me of both bad faith and vandalism by the nomination. He's been editing a while and he doesn't seem to have any prior conflicts so maybe the topic is sensitive to him.
As a guy with good mediation skills, could you maybe message him and try to work things out on an editor-to-editor level? Whether the community agrees with the nomination or not is fine, it's all about improving the site, but I don't want to have ill will between myself and another editor. Thanks so much. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 04:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No one likes their work deleted especially an entire article. It's normal for someone to feel offended. Some people handle that frustration and anger better than others. My advice to you is to walk away. It takes two to tango as they say and even though you have handled everything properly you are still enabling his bad behavior by responding to him/her. It seems the only place they are attacking you is in on the AfD. Just walk away from the AfD and let the AfD take its course. If the editor comes to your user talk page after the AfD and starts harassing you then that's a different thing. But I don't think that will happen. Just walk away from the AfD, don't even go back to check on it. It's out of your hands now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My God...sir, you are a prince and a scholar. I logged in today with a measure of tension in the back of my neck because all I want to do is edit in peace without being insulted. I guess the point here is that nobody can prevent me from doing that except myself.

You're right, it's up for the community to decide whether the nomination has merit or not. I'm done. Be warned: I might come to you again in the future if I feel stressed over something on the encyclopedia. The box has been opened! :D MezzoMezzo ( talk) 02:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy I could help! Peace....-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Coat of arms of the Netherlands. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob,

I was just looking at the DRN, checking up on an issue that I am involved in, when I noticed a problem. It appears that a discussion - either "Indian general election" or "God's Not Dead" - has not been closed properly, and as a result, the coding for the open discussion "2014 Formula One season" has become corrupted, and the discussion no longer appears in the table of contents or in the list of active cases. I would try to fix it myself, butI have no idea what the missing code is, and the article is too big for my mobile browser to handle. Could you please take a look at it? Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 20:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, many of us are not the best at Wiki markup (me included) It looks like a volunteer had trouble closing a case, but its been corrected it. [6] Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Any idea on when someone might get to take a look at the Formula 1 DRN? I don't mean to put pressure on you, but I think a lot of people involved would like to see it resolved as soon as possible. This is the third of these long-running disputes that we have had in six months, and they mostly degenerate into editors restating their position over and over again until the other side caves (seriously, I had one editor criticise me for not changing my position, and then with their next breath, criticise someone else for changing their position). What used to be a well-organised WikiProject has turned into a joke, with people thinking that edit-warring is okay if they believe they are right, attacking other editors over behaviour to discredit them and therefore declare their input invalid, and declaring a consensus non-existent because they do not agree with it. We saw that in the DRN, with the person posting it ignoring events in the dispute and twisting others to suit his own ends.

Sorry to vent, but this dispute has been brewing for a while now. I really think that resolving this one with external help will do us all a world of good. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 01:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand your frustration both with the article and with DRN. You've been waiting at DRN awhile and your case has been skipped over (not uncommon -but still frustrating). Your case has many players and so some volunteers are reluctant to take it especially since we are all involved in other case(s) at the moment and 16 cases on the chart right now, that's the most I've seen in 6 months. I put a note on the DRN talk page yesterday asking for someone to take your case. I closed two cases yesterday and I have one case I'm still working. If I can get that one closed I may take your case. Let's see what happens in the next day or two. Keep me informed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering to take the case Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Godhra_train_burning. Noticed your decision to close the issue and suggestions on alternate venue to resolve the issue. Right now in midst of traveling and have limited access to the net. Shall get back in a week's time and we can discuss further on the suggestions. Prodigyhk ( talk) 05:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, have a nice trip and ping me when you get back. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Water fluoridation controversy. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't get involved in poorly worded, non-specific RfC's that appear to be a crude attempt to get new editors embroiled in an ongoing talk page controversy.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi bro. I'm expecting some help from you. There's an edit warring going on by an user User:Shivamsetu on pages of Patna and Bihar. Earlier it was written Bihar is a north indian state but he changed it to east. I've some reliable source (like news clips from india's trusted media group like The hindu, India today, TOI for instance see [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] ) which openely says Bihar is a north indian state and also an Indian goverment site (Cultural zones of India) which puts Bihar in both the categories ie, North Central Indian Cultural Zone ( [15]) and East Indian Cultural Zone ( [16]) (this is the only source on which a wikipedia page North India is created). And that guy also has some proofs to put Bihar in east india (sources like same media group and bihar goverment sites and etc which says bihar an eastern indian state). So bro, i wanna say that isn't it possible to put and show Bihar as an eastern as well as northern Indian state likewise Indian goverment categorized it into these two groups?? I think it is possible because i've reliable source of information as reference for my claim and he also have so we both can put our points on wikipedia with our reference. And also, he always undo my edits when i put my claim, even i had a discussion with him but he seems to me like an arrogant and thinks that he's self sophisticated and self centred and like just he own these pages and only he could make edits and only his sources are reliable. Currently he's got that page blocked from editing with the help of some other users. So please you can do something about that? And also it feels to me and other peoples like denying our right to edit on wikipedia even when we've reliable source of information as to put as reference. And moreover that user looks to me an east freak, everywhere just putting east and east and east. 70.39.185.209 ( talk) 08:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by. I have some pressing real life issues for these days and I'm spending very little time on WP so I wont' be able to look into this situation for you. If there are chronic behavioral issues you may start a case at WP:ANI or if the issue is primarily a dispute over content you could open a case at WP:DRN. Good luck, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:UK Independence Party. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that the three user accounts have become non-responsive on the Talk:Lubos_Motl page, do you still suggest that the next step be to go to BLPN as you suggested earlier? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 03:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, take the issue to BLPN and get some feedback there. Then proceed. It will give your edits some added credibility if they are validated at BLPN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Seahorse. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Right Sector. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't participate in malformed RfC's that do not give participants a simple and clear overview of what they are being asked to support or oppose.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Schiller Institute. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Another malformed RfC that does not provide participants with enough info to make a judgement and offer feedback.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you closed the request for Dispute Resolution on the Angela Merkel article here per "Closed due to lack of participation". In my past experience, when the DR is picked up by a volunteer - which it never was in this particular case - they notify the involved parties and ask them to comment. I was waiting for that to occur, and presumably, the other users may have as well. The lack of participation was due to the fact that the DR request was never picked up (for more than a week).

Should I refile the request (and wait another week before someone notices it) or just re-open it? Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marek, thanks for looking into this. The sequence of events is that someone files a DRN case. The bot notifies the listed parties on their talk page. Each party is then supposed to give a summary of the dispute. Only after that is done does a volunteer open the case. Since the sole listed party Illraute, did not provide a summary despite numerous invitation on their talk page, we have no choice but to conclude that they are not interested in DRN. DRN is voluntary so if people don't participate, we have no choice but to close the case. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok thanks, that makes sense. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your upload of File:Classic American "gangster" car (restored).jpeg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 14:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

		Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Award, Grade 3
		For diligent service, but especially for stepping in when things are falling apart, at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
		This award comes in five grades: Base Grade (no stars, awardable to DRN volunteers or to individuals involved in a dispute) and Grades 1-4 (1-4 stars, respectively, awardable only to DRN volunteers).

Thank you kind sir!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got email. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Received! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pavle Đurišić. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Albert Einstein. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, if you want to close the DRN filing I wouldn't blame you at this point. It seems the involved parties aren't going to see any further eye-to-eye, nobody's stepped in to play coordinator (and I already said pretty much what I'd say if I was faciliating the case), there's been too many comments directed at fellow editors versus focusing on the issues themselves for my taste, and...honestly, unless someone's able and willing to step in and streamline the situation, I think the DRN filing's at an impasse. FWIW, I at least think everyone involved means well...they're just not making any progress now, it seems to me.

OTOH, if you think there's anything I can say/do to push matters forward, I'm willing to give it a go. But based on the most recent activity I'd just as soon see it go to RFC or another more formalized process.

Cheers, and sorry I couldn't do more to bring the parties in line. DonIago ( talk) 12:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks my friend for your comments and participation in this case. It sounds like you've made some good contributions. DRN has been in a bit of a disarray this month as our coordinator bailed out and a few moderators left cases midway as well. That has been complicated by a large number of case filings and a number of regulars like me and TransporterMan having less time than normal to spend on WP and DRN. As you know we are all volunteers and are doing the best we can but WP is a big place and given the years of decline in the number of active editors there are many crucial areas of the project that are in chronic backlog. I'm sorry that DRN is sometimes one of them. So we will continue to do the best we can. Thanks for all you are doing. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. I was hoping simply providing the precedents I did would allow for the situation to work itself out, but obviously not. Anyway, I'm happy to help where I can with DRN, but I have to admit I tend to prefer the role of "casual editor", and the idea of formally moderating a case, especially one that might involve a subject I'm not especially familiar with, is still intimidating to me.

If and when resources might allow for it, I still think some sort of DRN moderator mentorship program would be a great help. Or, failing that, at least a detailed checklist/flowchart that potential moderators could look to for guidance. Put another way, I'd feel more confident about moderating a case (formally) if there was either a clear procedure I could refer to for how to do so or I was essentially co-moderating.

Anyway, thank you for all you've done for DRN, especially with the recent resource shortages. DonIago ( talk) 15:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The article on this topic, and potentially related articles, have been more than a bit of a battleground between supporter(s) and other(s) for some years now. Personally, I think the matter may call for disciplinary input, but I don't have really good access to more recent RS's on the topic, so I dunno. But I think the article would definitely benefit from more eyes on it, and possibly, if they think it called for, perhaps some consideration of outside action of some kind. John Carter ( talk) 16:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John, I'll take a look when I have time. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It seems that the fractional reserve banking dispute is marked as stale/inactive. I'm not sure what is supposed to be happening there now. Am I supposed to respond to what the others have said immediately? Or should I be waiting for a volunteer to make the next move? Cheers. Reissgo ( talk) 09:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We are waiting for a DRN volunteer to begin a moderated discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Ok, I'll do nothing more till I see a volunteer instigate something. Reissgo ( talk) 18:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reissgo, many DRN volunteers will not take a case unless all parties in the dispute have given opening statements. There are at least two, Specifico and Lawrencekhoo, who have not done so here and arguably (at least) a third, Mmeijeri, who should have been listed but who was not. Since DRN is based around mediation to help to try to help to bring editors to consensus, in most cases everyone has to be willing to participate for us to be able to do any good (the same is true, by the way, at MEDCOM). If editors won't participate in moderated DR, about the only other options are to continue discussion at the article talk page or do a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC) (Talk page stalker)

Hmmm... in that case I am scuppered. From bitter experience SPECIFICO won't respond be receptive to simply having a comment from a third party that then goes away. If nobody takes up this dispute resolution case then I will be forced towards arbitration. Reissgo ( talk) 15:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Will there some formal closing of the case? I'd like to try a different route but I know that wikipedia does not like to have more than one dispute resolution mechanism going on at any one time. Reissgo ( talk) 21:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)'

Yes, I've closed the case. Since they are not cooperating I don't think Mediation will work. I suggest and WP:RfC to get outside input from uninvolved editors. You can also post a notice of the RfC on the Economics project page -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Reissgo ( talk) 11:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Bob, No need to leave "WARNING" signs on my talk page. You are three days late. I have already told the anonymous user asking the ridiculous, irrelevant questions, as well as others that have contacted me, that the Timeshare Tour is off my watch list, and I have no intention of ever editing it again. If I am so out of touch with who is a parasite, and who is sincere, I have no business in that article any longer. Relax. P.S. "I called no one any names", unless telling someone they are a timeshare salesman is calling them a name. I made accusations as to the user's agenda.....yes. And I stand by them. You might try reading the section two sections above the user's "Name Calling Section" "Added POV tag" to get a feel for what was really going on there. But like I said: Timeshare articles are not in my watch list any longer. In my opinion, the name calling section there should be deleted. The issue is settled.- Pocketthis ( talk) 15:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. Glad you hear you have moved on. That's a wise decision and I commend you for it. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm happy to comment on an RfC with a clearly formed question that requires an outside opinion but I'm not interested in entering long technical discussions with not beginning and end.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Earwig shut down the bot entirely and removed it from the board and has begun taking other actions without consensus.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 03:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yea, kind of an overreaction and not helpful, but the bot was so problematic that we may be better without it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fereshta Kazemi. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 01:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank. Kingroyos ( talk) 22:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to help in the TeaHouse. I could really use some help and guidance. I look forward to working with you. -- EpiphanyVP ( talk) 18:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, here is my suggestion...... Let me copy the article into my sandbox and take an axe to it. After I've cleaned it up I will publish it. After its published we can discuss additions on the talk page and I can explain why I think something may or may not be appropriate. If we disagree then we can invite a random third party to join the discussion and tip the scales one way or the other. If you continue the way you are going you may never get the article to go live on WP. If you follow my lead then at least you will have an article on WP although it may not be as ostentatious as you'd like it to be. Thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob that sounds great! Let me know if there are any details you might need that I have not included or written clearly at this point. I was also sent a note about taking all the notable partners out of the firm post and posting their articles separate. Thoughts on that? I appreciate you help! -- EpiphanyVP ( talk) 16:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree the bios on partners is given undue weight and, in general should be removed. If any meet the WP:PEOPLE criteria then they can have their own article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on it but now that I've chipped away the veneer I see that there is not much substance to the sources provided. There are almost all WP:PRIMARY sources. So I"m not sure it meets the WP:CORP requirement for significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. I'll work on it some more over the next several days and see if we can make an article out of it or not. — Keithbob • Talk •

Keithbob I am quite happy with what you have been able to do. Do you think the individuals you left in the article are a good place to start in terms of notability? I may try again with at least one. Just because I would like to see if I can actually meet all the requirements necessary to get an article published. Thanks again! EpiphanyVP ( talk) 20:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Which one did you have in mind? I can do a search and give you and WP educated opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Narendra Modi. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Oathkeeper. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the name change, as [17] and [18] both go to a website about the "Hindu University of America". Dougweller ( talk) 08:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

According to this source the university changed its name in 2007. [19].This was corroborated by a 2009 source Dr Mahesh Mehta, president of International Vedic Hindu University, Florida (US). However, the URL for IVHU [20] is now dead so there may have been some more recent change back. Hard to say without doing some research. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, not worth my time really. Dougweller ( talk) 12:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 13:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Keep the faith! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Keith...so I've taken my first DRN case...at least, the first one I've taken that I wasn't able to immediately close on procedural grounds: case here. I think I'm handling it okay at this point, but if you wanted to look it over, I wouldn't say no. Parties seem to be getting along well, though there's only two of them and matters were initially complicated by one of them "closing" the initial discussion at the article's Talk page...but that party has apologized. They're talking about it at article Talk currently, which I've dinged them for. I'll admit I'm hoping they'll agree to close the DRN case and work it out at article Talk; I've also floated the possibility of WP:3O or related Wikiprojects as options that would likely be less intensive than a DRN case, but we'll see what they say! DonIago ( talk) 16:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you are handling it very well. Discussion on the talk page is preferred so if there is progress there than no need for moderation at DRN. However, as a courtesy I would recommend you ask the filing party if its OK to close the case. If they object and the second party agrees then you can proceed at DRN.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And yeah, I won't be closing it unless both parties have consented. DonIago ( talk) 19:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yank Barry. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll pass on this wall of text RfC. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, at the DRN V guide you've been doing some decent wordsmithing. For one thing, you jiggled the prelim process text to say volunteers should make sure there "has been sufficient prior discussion". The V-Guide does not provide any guidance on how volunteers should determine that sufficiency. There is a talk thread now underway on this point, and I'd be interested in your take. One volunteer ignores the parts of talk page threads with irrelevant content; another believes volunteers should not attempt to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant content. (And if either stop by here and object to my summary of their positions, then we should have another round and I'll try to write a new more fair summary.) Anyway.... please stop by the V-guide talk page to weigh in on what it means for prior discussion to be "sufficient". Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

PS, On a different aspect of the same page, since I didn't hit "undo" for one part of your wordsmithing, please take note I restored a sentence related to collapsing of conduct/offtopic type remarks. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Good. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Shahrukh Khan. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see [21]. If you can't recommend an RfC as the next appropriate step I'll just create one and bypass the DRN process. Wholesome is already listing people's !votes before they have even voted! It's clear we need to make a !vote on this and the more time this stays at DRN the more of a mess it will become. -- Green C 15:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A DRN has been requested and is underway. Participation is optional, it's up to you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the off comment about DRN. My frustration stemmed from what appeared to be lack of anyone taking charge of a volatile situation that was getting worse by the day. What I thought DRN would do was look at the article talk page and see the complexity of the debate was beyond DRNs mandate for "simple" conflicts, and that there had been no formal attempt at conflict resolution, and recommend that as a first step. Typically RfC is a first step formal resolution process. So I may have pushed too hard nothing personal, DRN is a thankless job that is well needed. Regards. -- Green C 20:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. We all make mistakes.

Although in a perfect world disputes would progress through a series of steps such as third opinion, noticeboard, RfC, DRN, Mediation etc. That is not required and some forums are better suited to different kinds of disputes. For example I don't feel in this situation that an RfC will accomplish much as the real problem I see is poor behavior and a lack of understanding and application of policy. But that is just my opinion. Good luck with your dispute, I hope your next step is more successful than the DRN attempt. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Wholesomegood is blocked. A long term sock abuser who engages in battleground behavior. His original case here. No wonder he shied away when you mentioned ANI. He apparently is someone who employs DRN and returns on occasion under new cloaks. -- Green C 14:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad there is movement towards resolution. Thanks for following up. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Solar Roadways

I am notifying everyone who participated in the Solar Roadways DRN that there is an open RfC at Talk:Solar_Roadways#RfC:_Should_the_cost_to_cover_the_entire_USA_be_included.3F. Thanks. -- Green C 20:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI, two of the next three scheduled coordinators have not edited Wikipedia in the last month (I'm the third). I'm going to email them and see if I get a response. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the more remote one (December-January, Theodore!) doesn't have email enabled, but I left a fairly general note on his user talk page. I emailed the more immediate one. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on top of this! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The next-up coordinator, ‎MrScorch6200, has indicated to me by email that he's just been away on RW issues for a few days and he'll be on the job. That's good news: Nick's a good volunteer and will do a good job. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 13:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Roger that, thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Germany–Poland border. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I generally shy away from RfC's that ask editors to just 'join the discussion'. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob. I have uploaded the images as you suggested. The logo and headquarters photos have been uploaded to the commons area for your review. Thanks again for your assistance. -- EpiphanyVP ( talk) 20:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OK I've added the logo to the Infobox. The other photo is kind of non-descript so I don't think its helpful to the article at this time. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chip Berlet. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For catching what I believe is my first unsigned comment! Thanks! MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 17:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, it happens to all of us now and then. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Navarre-geo-stub. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well you guys pulled though after all. You could really make a difference around this place. I very much appreciate that you do a job that is often stressful and filled with drama. Thanks.-- Atlantictire ( talk) 15:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, good luck going forward. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM ( Talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep it mind.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Above The Law and Motion ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chris McDaniel. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

Thanks for your efforts regarding my recent dispute resolution request. You are the first person to have actually read and understood my concerns, after my having already posted it twice on the admin page, it being twice closed there, and my being redirected to your venue. While I don't believe there was any true resolution obtained in or out of the venue, I appreciate your consideration. Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 14:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

On WP we keep content and conduct disputes separate. However in reality they usually appear together. The content dispute causes or is accompanied by a conduct issue. Inexperienced editors go to the conduct forum WP:ANI and explain their problem in terms of both content and conduct. The case is often then closed and referred to content only WP:DRN page and it becomes sort of a catch 22 until you learn the system. Anyway I am not an administrator but I appreciate the sentiment of the barnstar and am glad that I was of assistance. Stop by anytime. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. We all have our own perceived realities, and mine is as you described in regard to that situation - content and conduct issues occurring simultaneously. That must occur alot, and one would think that it might be cause for folks to obtain better understanding regarding each other. Again, I appreciate your intervention as you actually took the time to read and understand. Thanks, Daniellagreen ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I saw that the new discretionary sanctions procedure means that notifications should not be logged (I think that was to reduce the tension, with people scoring points off each other by logging editors they don't like). This relates to your recent log. If you look at the history of the talk page of the logged user, an edit tag records that the notification was given. See Template:Ds/alert#Logging. There is probably a page somewhere with advice, but I don't know where! Johnuniq ( talk) 00:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on this. If you find that post about not logging notifications I'd like to read it. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I stumbled across WP:AC/DS but it is unclear about logging, merely pointing to {{ Ds/alert}}. The latter has "Therefore, an automatic system log of all alerts is maintained. You need not do anything except leave the alert." and I think that is the only statement on the matter (outside the very long discussions which led to the new system). A week prior to your log, an admin logged another notification, but that used the old system where no automatic log occurs. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kiethbob,

Thank you for looking into the situation at the Shakespeare authorship articles. I must admit to being thoroughly confused. As I think you know, I filed at the administrators board and was told that the conduct issues were minor, and that the rest were content issues. The recent closing at DR questions whether there are content issues and mentions conduct issues instead. I feel a little like a ping-pong ball. I see that one of the reasons for the closure was that any resolution appeared "fruitless".

As you first surmised, there is definitely a content issue going on, and if the other editors refuse to participate in dispute resolution, is that acceptable? Is there any other option for me to just request a policy and guideline review of the articles in question? I think if an administrator or overseer were too simply apply policies and guidelines, a lot can be clarified for all the editors involved. FatGuySeven ( talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi FG7, Did you read my final comments at the bottom of the DRN thread? If not please take a look at them. They may help.

Regarding the current situation....... If someone feels that another editor is violating WP's behavioral guidelines then they often open a case at WP:ANI. But, the case must be exclusively about behavior and must cite specific behavioral guidelines and cite specific edits using links that clearly demonstrate misbehavior. If this is not done the ANI case will be dismissed (or referred to DRN etc.) as yours was. Even if a case is 'accepted' at ANI there is often bickering and conflicting opinions even amongst Administrators and very often cases are closed without any clear resolution. Your situation appears to be content driven (although there may be some misbehavior mixed in). However, because the content issue is so complex and across multiple articles it goes beyond the scope of DRN and should be considered for WP:Mediation. Please keep in mind that the editors you are in conflict with are under no obligation to participate at either DRN or Mediation. Furthermore, conclusions drawn at DRN are respected to some degree but not officially binding. However, outcomes at Mediation are generally binding to the participants.

Keep in mind that Some of your opponents feel that you are the one with problematic behavior and they could open a case at WP:AE and ask that you receive disciplinary sanctions. I am not familiar enough with the article(s) or your situation to have an opinion about where you should go or what you should do. Nor do I have a judgment as to who is at fault. My intuition, based on years of experience on WP is that there is likely some fault on both sides of the dispute and one should be careful of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. My advice to you is to walk away and find some other area of WP that is less controversial and make some contributions and friends someplace besides the Shakespeare articles. The Shakespeare articles have a long history of controversy and conflict and I don't think you will find any lasting peace there and you may find yourself (rightly or wrongly) sanctioned after a time.

Meanwhile, I understand your frustration. The dispute resolution processes on WP can be confusing and frustrating. For an overview of options see WP:DRR. If you have any questions or need guidance let me know but my advice to you is to walk away and find something else to do either on or off WP. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United States Senate election in Virginia, 2014. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you still working with this person, and if so, can you PM me contact info for him, thanks. talk→  WPPilot  14:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry the name doesn't ring a bell, can you remind me who he is? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, he's the subject of a BPL I've edited. Sorry, I've never had any contact with DH and have no info for you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nizari. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is a wall of text consisting of an ongoing argument between two editors. No thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clarine Nardi Riddle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Joseph College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sabancı family. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the hard work on Saybrook University entry. Editors like you really help to make Wikipedia a much more valuable resource that I admire.- Pengortm ( talk) 04:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome. I think I have a few more sources we can use to expand it a bit and get that Primary source tag off. Thanks for you help and support! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I second Pengortm's thanks. You've done a great job there, and the article is looking very respectable now. -- Stfg ( talk) 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been a collaborative effort so thanks to both of you as well. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jadea Kelly may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Platform]], which she recorded with producer [[David Baxter (producer)|David Baxter]].<ref>http://exclaim.ca/musicreviews/generalreview.aspx?csid1=144&csid2=852&fid1=46089 Jadea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 20:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cash Cash may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

cash-take-me-home-feat-bebe-rexha-preview/ |title=Cash Cash - "Take Me Home" (feat. Bebe Rexha) Preview |publisher=Earmilk |date=2013-06-27 |accessdate=2014-07-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http:/ hi60aV2W.dpbs |title=Cash Cash & Adrian Lux - Bullet : Melodic Electro / Progressive House Free Download |publisher=this song is sick |date=2014-01-21 |accessdate=2014-07-19}}</ref><ref>{{ <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.allmusic.com/song/booyah-cash-cash-remix-mt0048247041 |title=Booyah Cash Cash Remix&#93; - Showtek,We Are Loud,Sonny Wilson &#124; Listen, Appearances, Song url=http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/cash%20cash%20featuring%20bebe%20rexha/|title=Cash Cash > UK Charts|publisher=[[Official Charts Company]]|work=Officialcharts.com/}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to EZCorp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|key_people = [[Lachlan Given]], ([[Chairman of the Board|Chairman]] and Mark Kuchenrither, President, CEO, and CFO |operating_income = {{increase}}US$ 101 [[1,000,000 (number)|million]] (2009 '''EZCORP''' is an American [[pawn shop]] operator and publicly traded company listed on the [[NASDAQ[[.<ref>[http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:EZPW EZCORP Inc: NASDAQ:EZPW quotes &

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have enough knowledge of this area to have an opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent work at eSys Technologies! § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, FreeRangeFrog!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nathaniel M. Hubbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bootleg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Wiki-saint Barnstar You've been given a halo, because you're a saint for your work with the Bob's Burgers DRN case. Perhaps I'm just becoming a curmudgeon, and may need a Wikibreak, but I would have been sorely tempted to tell all those people to go eat $#@$&! and die after about the second day of negotiations while you actually continued to work with them to a consensus. Thou art hereby Wiki-canonized to henceforth be Saint Keithbob. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks my friend! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Much deserved. And TransporterMan, I think some of us did want to "eat $#@$&! and die" just to end the DRN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I have a self-request block for 48 hours? I feel like I have been assuming bad faith lately. Thanks! 68.119.73.36 ( talk) 16:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your humility but I'm not sure you need a block. And besides, I am not an administrator. If you want an Admin just put the words: Admin help on your talk page surrounded by these double brackets {{}}-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

THe other person who is arguing with me is not giving a response. Can i now keep my edit? Airplane54 ( talk) 16:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airplane54 ( talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've just responded to you on the AIX talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A user has provided proof on the talk page. 68.119.73.36 ( talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob, if you still want to give back your Credo access, could you please fill out this short form? Thanks, Nikkimaria ( talk) 23:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm unable to log in to Credo, so maybe my subscription has expired.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I requested for feedback yesterday on my new article which you kindly did. It was very useful and I have now edited it by selecting my best sources. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind giving me feedback on the edited version please? Here is a link to the page: /info/en/?search=User:Granola_t/Roadstarr_Motorsport#Services , Thank you Granola t ( talk) 00:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's much better. It still might be rejected or deleted later but I think you've done all you can do so go ahead and submit it and see what happens. Good luck! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Billy McFarland. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Passing on this malformed RfC.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted that ranking of Russia is wrong also on article presentation.In the article Russia is described in 2014 as 8th by nominal gdp while it's 9th according to IMF.Russia was 8th in 2013 (the reference aside was aboout 2013).Honestly the dispute has been only partially closed.I always wrote about 2 mistakes:one close the value 2092 and one in the presentation of Russia.I already thanked Iryna for the first correction but the second one in the article never was done.Thanks for your kind help. Gladio4772 ( talk) 18:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob the information Gladio4772 referring to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard "Talk:Russia#MISTAKE IN RANKING NOMINAL GDP.It's 9th! [22] has been acting on ip hoping pushing the same discussion on anti Russian statements by creating new user names and pushing the same agenda (Russia GDP, denouncing Russia as a superpower, Russia kicked out of G8 and more). So I am reporting this problem with the administrator's on Gladio4772.

This is Gladio4772's history here [23] and ip as 151.40.13.125 for disruptive ip hoping on these same discussions, speaking against Russia in all ip’s I found below have been using. All the same editor, all ip addresses are from Florence Italy. I am reporting his comments as all the same wording slamming disruptive edits against Russia since 2013 that this is not effective when users like this are disruptive and are doing the opposite. See the links of the contributes starting July 8, 2014‎ - 151.40.13.161 [24] , July 7, 2014 151.40.45.125 [25], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.95.82 [26], April 2013 - Bocca Trabaria [27], March 2014 - 151.40.24.9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.40.24.9], March 2014 -151.40.7.192 [28], Sept 23, 2013 - 151.40.18.30 [29], Sept 15, 2013 - 151.40.55.125 [30], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.35.236 [31], March 18, 2014 - 151.40.9.149 [32], March 17, 2014 - 151.40.72.141 [33], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.14.179 [34], March 16, 2014 - 151.40.83.17 [35], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.69.199 [36], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.34.218 [37], March 15, 2014 - 151.40.120.19 [38], Feb 4, 2014 - 151.40.63.30 [39], Feb 4, 2014- 151.40.16.167 [40], Dec 28, 2013 - 151.40.107.93 [41], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.27.25 [42], Dec 27, 2013 - 151.40.64.77 [43], Dec 25, 2013 - 151.40.54.32 [44], Dec 23, 2013 - 151.40.41.170 [45], Dec 22, 2013 - 151.40.9.139 [46], Sept 8, 2013 - 151.40.102.200 [47], August 14, 2013 - 151.40.125.50 [48], May 10, 2013 – Mediolanum [49], Oct 22, 2013 - Glc72 [50], May 21, 2013 - 151.40.11.180 [51], May 14, 2013 -151.40.59.151 [52], May 14, 2013 - 151.40.60.108 [53], May 11, 2013 - Bocca_Trabaria [54]

Gladio4772 you’re not fooling anybody with your ip hoping pushing on your anti Russian statements on the same subjects.

The facts are Russia is the 5th largest economy now and will be number 4 in 2016 and is the biggest in Europe [55].

Here's the facts http://rt.com/business/russia-gdp-5th-largest-158/

http://thebricspost.com/russia-ranked-5th-largest-economy-world-bank/#.U7x7oE1OXnM::::http://en.ria.ru/business/20130715/182248723/Medvedev-Lauds-Russias-5th-Place-in-World-Banks-GDP-Rating.html

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-takes-5th-place-in-world-gdp-rankings/483190.html

http://www.bne.eu/content/moscow-blog-russia-overtakes-germany-become-5th-largest-economy

http://www.fundweb.co.uk/emerging/russia-now-worlds-fifth-largest-economy-in-gdp-terms/1075160.article

http://rbth.com/business/2013/07/17/russian_economy_becomes_biggest_in_europe_28149.html

-- 198.23.81.141 ( talk) 19:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did you close the discussion on ‎Talk:Russia#MISTAKE IN RANKING NOMINAL GDP.It's 9th on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard?

I was wondering why you closed this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=618028084&oldid=618028009 The discussion only lasted from July 19 19:45 to July 22 18:01

-- 198.23.81.141 ( talk) 22:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan was the one that closed the case and I see you have posted on his talk page. I'll let him respond.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I asked Iryna to explain all in few words as you asked .She is better than me in it. Gladio4772 ( talk) 18:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.94.183.93 ( talk) 23:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I would like to duet. Would you like to?? It's an A Capella contest to see who is not muted. The loser is muted for 7 minutes.- 1gr8penguin ( talk) 21:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll pass, thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Free! (anime). 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob! My name is Eric, I am new here, and edited the article about Jack Canfield, after reading several of his books. I'd like to get your opinion (I think I have much to learn!) I saw that you were interested in the inspirational writing topic... /info/en/?search=Jack_Canfield Thank you! Psychology Forever ( talk) 08:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sure you've done a lot of good work there improving the article but it still needs a lot of clean up. I've made some edits and put some information on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You worked SOOO fast I am amazed. I will see what I can do. I do think that already it is better than the older version, more concise. What you did seems like working with a chisel! :) Psychology Forever ( talk) 22:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to working together. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll pass on this one. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack Canfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Secret. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

		Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Award, Grade 1
		For serving as coordinator when another user took an unexpected leave. Well done, and thanks for your service at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard! — MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
		This award comes in five grades: Base Grade (no stars, awardable to DRN volunteers or to individuals involved in a dispute) and Grades 1-4 (1-4 stars, respectively, awardable only to DRN volunteers).

Thanks my friend, very generous of you. I will pass the gratitude and appreciation forward. Thanks again! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Roux. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is basically a request for discussion and since its a topic I have no knowledge of, or inclination to research, I'm going to pass. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I should explain why I reverted your undo of 'who instigated the local services project based on user reviews' on the early history of Yelp regarding David Galbraith. Regarding your comment: "redundant and creates undo weight, his role as co founder is clear". I don't think his role is clear if it merely mentions that he came up with the name, as he clearly outlines his role instigating a project based on user reviews on his website: http://davidgalbraith.org/portfolio/companies-yelp/ with pictures which show the original office where Yelp was incubated and original designs for Yelp. This story is further validated by Om Malik in the article linked to, which adds weight not only because he is one of Silicon Valley's most well known journalists, with more than a million followers on Twitter, but that he states he had first hand knowledge of the early days of Yelp and that its history was not completely known, something which Wikipedia is specifically good at getting to accurately, and so this seems important. I originally though the undo might have been someone vandalizing (hence the tone of the note on the undo I did, which I apologize for, but having looked at your impressive history of edits realize that you care deeply about accuracy. I hope you agree with keeping the original I propose since it reflects a balanced view of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.229.132 ( talk) 22:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was not clear. The sentence clearly states that Galbraith is the co-founder and he came up with the name. Its not necessary or desirable to specify every nuance of his minor involvement. WP summarizes sources and does not include any detail. Furthermore Galbraith's personal website is not a valid source for such claims per WP:RS. Galbraith's involvement in Yelp is rarely mentioned in the hundreds of articles on Yelp therefore a minor mention that he was co-founder and came up with the name is enough. Per WP:BRD I urge you to allow my deletion to stand and join other editors on the talk page for further discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The sentence doesn't state that Galbraith was a co-founder of Yelp, as is said in the Om Malik article, but that could be added. In fact the main thrust of the Om Malik article is that the company history omits this and that his involvement was not minor and that Om Malik was a first hand witness.. The Galbraith source was not linked to for this reason but provides photographs and examples of works that demonstrate clearly that the Om Malik article is correct. The edit that you have made is not removing 'every nuance' but removes every sense of the history of Galbraith's involvement other than the coming up with the name, giving the false idea that he was not involved. The Om Malik article suggest that the involvement of Galbraith was much more that I suggested, I could have added this, however merely added information that is uncontroversial, pertinent to the history and clearly corroborated by Galbraith's personal account, so I have undone your deletion and we can take this to the general talk page as you discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.229.132 ( talk) 05:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to the comments made by Mr. KeithBob, I thought I will weigh in. It is surprising that the company has gone to great lengths to whitewash the history for no apparent reason and erase a key contributor. But this is common behavior lately. There were many of us who are first hand witnesses to the formation of the company and can reaffirm of the role played by David Galbraith -- Om! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.155.193 ( talk) 14:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that single purpose IP accounts are intent on repeatedly returning to give undue weight to the marginal coverage Galbraith has received in the press in regard to his involvement with Yelp!.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza War. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the COI Noticeboard, here [56], for an ongoing discussion of the POV issues with the George M. Church article you recently edited. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 00:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC

I've left a comment there. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist). 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitch McConnell. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Keithbob, How can you close the dispute without addressing my concerns? The information I added to the article is sourced and not defamatory. If you can prove how it violates Wikipedia's BLP policy, I'll rest my case. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the closing of your case was strictly procedural and has nothing to do with the validity of your case. DRN is for moderation, if the other party refuses to participate the case is automatically closed. You will need to try some other dispute resolution venue such as WP:RfC or WP:3O etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States). 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You received a Wikipedia email about access to Newspapers.com about 2.5 weeks ago about access to WP:Newspapers.com access through the The Wikipedia Library. We currently don't have record of your response on the Google doc. Please make sure to follow the instructions in that email for obtaining access, Sadads ( talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I had created an account but did not follow through on the other items in the email. However, I have today, completed all the items. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Keithbob, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Anastasia [Missionedit] ( talk) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Another year on the pedia!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot ( talk) 00:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Recently, I attempted to begin moderating the dispute over Bob Avakian. However, you stated that the dispute would be closed in 24 hours unless a DRN volunteer begins moderation? Did I miss some policy to notify some list that moderation had begun? Did something not recognize me as a volunteer because I only signed up as a volunteer a few days ago? Is there anything more I should do? Icarosaurvus ( talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Icarosaurvus, thanks for stopping by. I had the impression from your comment: "I hope I"ve been of some help" at DRN that you had just stopped by to give your opinion and left the scene. You did not make it clear that you were opening the case for moderation or indicate how the discussion should proceed. In hindsight I should have contacted you to clarify, so I apologize for not doing so. I'll strike the 24 hr close notice and allow you to continue to moderate the case. Please keep in mind that DRN is not a 'third opinon' situation. We have WP:30 for that. Though its not prohibited, giving your opinion in a case is something I personally try to refrain from doing as I feel it inhibits my ability to stand apart from the discussion and be an impartial moderator who maintains order and leads the discussion and reminds participants of WP policy and guidelines as needed (which you have done). So please go ahead and continue with the discussion and let me know if you need advice, guidance or assistance with anything. And thanks for helping at DRN. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help you could render, as this is certainly the first time I have done this. I simply read half a dozen randomly selected logs of such situations, and attempted to phrase my comment in a similar way to the ones phrased by the volunteers in those logs. If you've any advice at all on how to proceed, I'd love to hear it. Additionally, if there is anything I should do differently in the future, please let me know. Thank you for responding in such a timely manner. Icarosaurvus ( talk) 19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is EnRealidad, the user who has been involved in the dispute over the Bob Avakian page. I'm really new to the "Notice Board" process and am trying to figure out how to proceed, both practically (e.g. who do I write to, where do I post, etc.) and also how to move forward with the content of the dispute itself. I have had a chance to digest the comments from Keithbob about the page, and also saw the note from Icarosaurvus that he/she has volunteered to moderate the dispute.

I have some thoughts about Keithbob's comments, especially the question of references to primary sources, and while I think there is merit to the Wiki standards on this question, I don't think it can be simply or mechanically applied in this case where there's a question of presenting the actual views of the living person featured in this biography. My objections to many of the edits made in the past were that they distorted the positions of Avakian in a way that substituted the views of the other editors for Avakian's views, making it seem like he was advocating positions or presenting opinions that were actually quite different (and in some cases directly in opposition) to what he has actually had to say. That's part of the reason for citations to his own writings.

In any case, I don't have time now for a long response but definitely would like to be actively involved in additional discussion on the page and any edits or proposed edits occur. Can you let me know the best way to do this? Thanks in advance. EnRealidad ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article talk page is the best place for discussion on this article. If there are disagreements than outside input can be invited at various noticeboards or an WP:RfC etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Keithbob

Could you please come and mediate between me and the Middayexpress as we reached a dead on reaching a resolution in our dispute regarding the SSC regions of Somalia here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khatumo_State#SSC_clans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.181.138 ( talk) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have had prior content disagreements with Middayexpress on another article related to Somalia, so I would not be a neutral third party. Maybe try WP:30 or a WP:RfC. Good luck, sorry I cannot help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob and Icarosaurvus,

I wrote to both of you a few days ago about moderating the dispute on the Bob Avakian page that was requested by Xcure1fendx. I haven't heard back from you, but wanted to see if you'll get involved more actively. (If I posted it incorrectly, my apologies. I'm somewhat new at this.)

My particular concern is that after Keithbob posted his thoughts on what was needed in terms of edits to the page, an editor named Cwobeel removed two major sections without any comments about why. I reverted the page to what it had been, then Xcure1fendx removed the same sections, removed all links to writings of Avakian that are listed, and also did some small edits to the "Claims of 'Cult of Personality' page. Xcuref1endx's only explanation for the changes (and for reverting my reversions of Cwobeel's edits) were that Keithbob had recommended changes.

It seems to me this is violating the whole notion of "dispute resolution". I take Keithbob's comments seriously. But I also understood this to be a process, not a fait accompli.

For example, I disagree with Keithbob's comments about removing some of the citations to Avakian's own writings and talks. I think that in a case like this were we are dealing with a living person with very controversial views, there is a need to reference his own writings and talks in order to accurately capture what he has to say.

That was the source of my disagreements with a whole series of edits by Xcuref1endx in late 2011 and early 2012 where he had rewritten extensive sections of the page in ways that might have captured his/her own views, but were decidedly different than Avakian's. I thoroughly explained each change and why I felt the Xcuref1endx edits distorted Avakian's views.

(I find it a bit ironic that Xcuref1endx keeps complaining that there is little controversy about Avakian's ideas outside those affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party that Avakian leads, yet he/she seems determined to keep editing the page in a way that favors his/her views over Avakian's.)

Anyway, I would like to engage in some actual, constructive discussion on Keithbob's suggestions, as well as those of others. I am not that familiar with Wiki protocol and don't know how this is done, so I'd appreciate any advice and instructions on how to go about this. But in the meantime, I don't think it is appropriate for Xcuref1endx to simply act on suggestions in a way that implies they are orders from on high and the case is closed on any differences.

EnRealidad ( talk) 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors on that article should follow WP:BRD. IE if they change something (regardless of the reason) and it is reverted they should begin a thread on the talk page and discuss the issue. Then once there is WP:consensus either through normal discussion or dispute resolution like WP:3O, WP:RfC etc. final changes should be made. My comments on the talk page are the observations of an experienced, seasoned editor and should be respected but they are at the same time the words of just one person and WP is a collaborative project. ISo please open a talk page thread and discuss one issue at a time. I'll participate as time allows.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please check the Avakian page again. All changes done recently have been reverted by Enrealidad.-- xcuref1endx ( talk) 12:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems this has been remedied now. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the procedure is, but is there an admin that can insure the page isn't constantly reverted to Enrealidad's original article? No matter how many times changes will be made to that page, Enrealidad is going to show up and revert it and insist that that his version is the true NPOV. This has been the main issue with any changes made to that page for the past few years. -- xcuref1endx ( talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question has already been warned [57] by User:Drmies who is an administrator (which I am not). If you see further unresolved issues I suggest you notify Drmies and he/she will attend to it as needed. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Drmies is an admin, unfortunately. But in this article, I'm just another editor: I've made serious, extensive content edits, and I've reverted Enrealidad's unwise changes once or twice. The only thing to do, xcuref1endx, is to place a request at WP:RFPP and ask for full protection. The problem with that, of course, is that no one else an edit either.... So we are left with a problem, but if that editor reverts again we can file with WP:ANEW, or maybe start a thread on ANI, to get those edits reverted and the editor blocked or maybe topic-banned. Enrealidad, I am puzzled as to how you can edit an article and be so utterly oblivious about Wikipedia's guidelines, about the difference between primary and secondary material, about how fewer words are better than more. I do not think that you are competent enough to edit this article. Drmies ( talk) 00:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith,

Great that you accept the challenge. English isn't my first language, if any problem simply ask me again. Only for the record, I had already notified DS [58]. I hope we are going to have a lot of fun. Regards, --Keysanger ( Talk) 07:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK good to know about the language issue. I have not accepted the case, I'm just helping to get into a condition that will allow another volunteer to accept and moderate it. I am currently moderating a different DRN case. If it finishes soon I may take your case. Let's see how it goes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Greeting, I am interesting in taking over the case, but I am very new to volunteering, could you point me in a few directions? Thanks. Rimsky.cheng ( talk) 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My advice to you is to spend more time editing WP and getting involved in spirited talk page discussions before you do any work at DRN. Also I suggest starting with a simple DRN case with only two participants and a minor dispute then work your way to more complicated cases. A DRN mentor is also a good idea. Also, a DRN moderator needs to be fully versed in the major policies and guidelines ( WP:5) as well as the DRN guidelines and procedures and the FAQ. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I had read some of the materials already before contact you. I was thinking neutrality and objectivity are the keys. One more thing I would like to point out is that I am involved in one of the ongoing dispute Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Traxon_Technologies. And the page mistakenly added me as one of the volunteer. Should I refrain from joining? Thanks. 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimsky.cheng ( talk • contribs)

Because you have edited the Traxon Technologies page you have been named as a potential participant in that DRN case. This has nothing to do with you being a DRN volunteer. I would suggest you participate in that TT case at DRN as an editor and learn from the experience. See how DRN functions. Then later, you can try being the moderator for your own DRN case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the head up. Rimsky.cheng ( talk) 01:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith,

What about this case?. Can we move ahead or should we wait for a volunteer?. The other claimer is already there. -- Keysanger ( talk) 12:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I"ve opened the case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith,

please don't close this case after all formal steps have been done. I will post at least 2 {{ Talkback}} in all talk pages of involved editors. We need only one editor for each side (at least). I will begin on Tuesday, if no one respond on Monday. BTW, on 18 September an editor gave 3 sources, but at Wars of the Americas (page 584) and Reference Guide (page 155) I can't find any support for "war started on 14". -- Keysanger ( talk) 08:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. The contrast between actually editing interesting articles on fascinating topics, -i.e. contributing usefully to wikipedia,- and having to debate endlessly what I regard as nonsense by editors I am constrained by WP:AGF to accept as interlocutors, is just a little too aggravating personally for me not to sound dismissive. You were not the object of my displeasure. I did not wish to waste time there, added a comment out of respect for one editor's efforts, and found it was talked past by the primary disputant. I know you are a very competent and decent mediator, and feel duty-bound to apologize for any displeasure this may have, unintentionally, caused. I get insulted every other week around here, and therefore tend to have a tough hide, and a manner that may seem overbearing, though unless one is tough-minded in the I/P editing cesspit, you die a quick death, and perhaps my 8 years there shows. Best wishes Nishidani ( talk) 19:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no worries, I didn't feel insulted by you. I did think your tone was a little hot however I fully understand how that can happen and I've done it a few times myself. It happens when you are working in a contentious area rubbing shoulders with people day after day. However, it can't be tolerated in a mediation setting or the process doesn't work. I appreciate your apology very much and I'm still off the case but I hope you folks get your issues worked out in one forum or another. All the best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob; Regarding the re-open you just placed on the 2014 Israel dispute. The message I just posted this morning there was actually to suggest an immanent close out of the dispute based on the recent discovery of WP:Lede issues. If you concur with the reasoning there you are welcome to close it out along with my support since you are the one who really did the leg work here. Also the open RfC on the disputed Talk page can also be closed out at the same time and for much the same reason since WP:MoS allows only settled material in the main body of the article to be summarized in the Infobox. By definition of differing and on-going news reports on casualty statistics in that region, this information can not go into the Infobox since it has not yet been settled in the press. If you can look at this you are free to close these with my support. FelixRosch ( talk) 18:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Felix, The discussion should not be labeled as 'stale' if there is ongoing discussion, which there is. So we were a bit behind on the case status label (which is fine). On the subject of closing the case I am in support of that. It already falls outside the scope of DRN and should be closed. However, if you feel you are on the verge of a break through that could lead to some kind of resolution I want to support you and the participants. Unfortunately I don't really see that as so far the participants are unable to fully support your proposal to adhere to MOS and LEDE. Even if they agree to that, there is still a long way to go before resolution is reached on the wording for the lead. That is why I was letting the participants know its now or never. I think a close is imminent, but let's see how they respond. Thanks for your support and assistance. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted this on the Talk page for the "Bob Avakian" article and am also posting it on the Talk pages of individual editors who have commented on this recently.

Nobody has bothered responding to any of the criticisms I put up on the “Bob Avakian” talk page about edit by Keithbob and others, other than Keithbob saying that I should start a separate thread if I "have concerns about a specific sentence or source". No, it isn't a problem with one or two phrases or sources – I have concerns about the overall totality of the article as rewritten. It is inaccurate, possibly libelous around certain allegations of legal issues, and biased.

My criticisms are very specific, based on carefully locating and studying each one of the sources added to the article, researching the authors of those pieces, and looking at what I know of the actual facts. I have offered specific criticism and comments about different elements of the article. And I've raised concerns that this is very connected with the basic methodology that led to this – just find something that someone said, don't bother looking at whether they have any basis to say it, and then simply cite it as truth. This is precisely what leads to rumors and inaccurate summations being turned into "facts" when there is no basis for this.

Nobody has addressed any of this. Instead, the argument seems to be simply an empty call for "consensus" without dealing with the content of that concensus. Just because the majority of people say something doesn't make it true. Think about the fact that most people in this country question basic scientific understanding like evolution, or global warming.

Again, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible to simply remove an article that was the result of literally months and months of careful study of everything I could find on Avakian, whether supportive or critical, and carefully source every statement in it, and instead substitute a poorly researched, biased "substitute". It goes along with removing all of the content of Avakian's views and writings without any effort to even engage them. Again, readers of Wikipedia come here to find something accurate, reliable and informative. EnRealidad ( talk) 18:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I just received a threat from User:MILH for editing my own user page: " Don't even think of deleting this warning—as you did before—as I'll not only revert your deletion, but I'll also inform admins of what you're pulling and see to it that you are banned for good." I was uncertain if my deletion was bad form so I checked; "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." [59]

I don't think User:MILH understands content issues can be addressed, and reconciled, on a point by point basis in the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Lfrankbalm ( talk) 23:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalm Lfrankbalm ( talk) 23:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, with exception of certain disciplinary notices, users may remove posts from their talk page at their discretion. As for threats I'd suggest that you focus on the DRN case and after that has concluded if there is continued threats or misbehavior then you can request help from an Administrator using this template.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I see you're quite active at WP:DRN. I'm having a problem with reversion without edit summaries at the above article. I've posted at the talk page (and a users talk page) without response, and thus it can't be said to have been extensively discussed at talk. I'd be grateful for any initial thoughts. Thanks. Eldumpo ( talk) 08:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the edit summaries that concern me its the edit warring. I suggest you post a note on the user page of User:GiantSnowman who already issued a warning to that editor. Also, start a new discussion thread on the talk page and put a polite note on the other editor's talk page and ask them to join you in a discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are removing information from from the subject Gonzalo Lira. You wrote me a note saying that the info was "primary research"—yet previous editors objected because the information on the subject was not adequately sourced. I'm reverting your edits because you are removing the items that made the subject notable, mainly his blogging and punditry. -- MILH ( talk) 22:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking your other edits, such as Noah Gundersen, you have a habit of calling anyone you don't happen to know "not noteworthy". Then you remove information that provides context and noteworthiness to the person. Example, on the aforementioned Gundersen entry, you removed two entries in Sons of Anarchy soundtrack compilations that he contributed to, and that would make him a noteworthy performer/songwriter—then said, "He's not noteworthy".

The analogue would be to remove Barack Obama's position as US President and former US Senator—then claim he's therefore "not noteworthy".

You also remove citations/references that prove and/or give evidence of the noteworthiness of the individual—then put a "citation needed" note. Again, that's counterproductive.

I understand you are eager to improve entries. But please do so in a way that is responsible. Don't change entries for the sake of changing entries, hurting the entries in the process. Thank you. -- MILH ( talk) 00:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi MILH, Its obvious from your comments that you are not yet familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have made the Gonzalo Lira article into a fluff pieces using things like a link to You Tube search results and a link to search results on a personal website as citations. These are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:BIO. Wikipedia requires significant in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. At the present there are no sources in the article that do so. I have listed all of the so called sources on the talk page and illustrated why almost none of them meet Wikipedia's standard for reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:BLP and WP:SECONDARY and then we can discuss further on the article talk page. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

By attacking and disparaging me, you're dodging the issue, which is that you base relevance and notability on what you personally know. If you determine on your own that a person is non-notable, you remove precisely the things that make him notable, in a just-so approach. This is not the way to edit an entry.

As to being "new to WP", I've been editing since 2006. "New" in a geological sense? Yeah, I guess so. -- MILH ( talk) 01:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If I may butt in, might I suggest discussing this at the article's Talk page, where other interested editors will be more likely to see the discussion and have the opportunity to weigh in? DonIago ( talk) 12:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, in the talk page of the article, I'm pointing out that you removed the fact that he's a film director and producer. Which under WP guidelines is a relevant issue, but hey, you don't know about it, so it can't be relevant, right? -- MILH ( talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi MILH, I'll address your points one by one:

1. I have not 'attacked or disparaged' you and making such allegations is considered a personal attack in itself unless 'diffs' (URLs to specific edits) are provided (see WP:NPA) so please be careful. All of my posts to you have been polite and civil. What I have done is outlined (with diffs) on your user talk page the many instances where you have attacked and bullied an editor who you were in a content dispute with and I noted that you had received a warning from User:Robert McClenon on Sept 29th. [60]
2. You are correct the word 'new' was an inept adjective. I apologize. However you are, in fact, an inexperienced editor with only 313 edits. This is underscored by your comment above about the film director-producer text which has no basis in any reliable source.
3. As User:Doniago has suggested, please post any future comments you may have about the article on the article's talk page. That will be more productive. I look forward to working together on the article talk page via discussion and group consensus. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lira directed at least one feature film. Here is an external link to the trailer: http://cinechile.cl/pelicula-84. Yet you removed the information that he's a film director/producer/writer—which gives credence to your claim that he's non-notable.

Your strategy seems to be to remove everything the man has ever done, then use that as the excuse to wipe him from Wikipedia altogether.

That, at least, is how I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The man co-wrote, co-produced and directed at least one feature film with reputable actors—yet you deleted that information.

The man appeared as an econ pundit on a whole bunch of TV shows, all of them on YouTube—yet you deleted that information.

The man had a huge blog following, with verifiable claims of big numbers—yet you deleted that information.

All you have allowed him to have is his novels and say that he's "a blog writer for economic web sites".

Your edits to the Lira entry suggest you want to eliminate him as non-notable. You appear to be doing that by removing the things he is notable for.

What's that all about? -- MILH ( talk) 00:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

MILH, This is your last warning. Stop the personal attacks and harassment. If you have comments about the article content, put them on the article talk page-- not here on my talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As you are a member of the New religious movements work group, I thought I should bring to your attention the fact that someone recently gutted the New religious movements Manual of Style. I have found this article to be quite helpful in editing articles related to NRM's. I reverted the edit but that was re-reverted (if there is such a word) quite soon aver my reversion.

Perhaps, all that is needed is that the name of the article should be changed from "Manual of Style" to something more appropriate (e.g. General guidance for articles on NRM's or something similar). However, I really would prefer not losing the guidance and thought that I should bring this to the attention of those in the work group. Taxee ( talk) 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I've commented there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doug Ducey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Lane. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You should stand back from the editor you believe to be the aggressor. There is no purpose served by any interaction. Leave them to others is my advice Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attempt to get Drmargi to discuss. It did not seem to help, nor did Drmargi even respond to the dispute. I suppose I will keep trying. I may have to get some others involved in the discussion/dispute resolution since it was closed. AbramTerger ( talk) 12:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is not working out. It would be good to take a careful look at your own way of doing things and see if there is something you are doing that is putting people off and making them not want to discuss with you. I don't know what that might be but I do notice that you have been warned several times (three I think) on your talk page for edit warring. So think it over. It takes two to tango as they say. See what you can do to clean up and sweeten your behavior and editing patterns and you may find that others start to soften also. Good luck. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. I have taken the warnings to heart and I have tried to discuss things more, but it also takes at least 2 to discuss. And even when there has been a local consensus, that consensus has still been reverted by Drmargi. Followup question: What triggers the WP:3RR warnings we receive? I have gotten them in the past (as you noted), but Drmargi has done 3 today on me and even more a couple of days ago in a dispute with someone else (both at Person of Interest (TV series)) with no comments on their page and no warnings on their conduct. AbramTerger ( talk) 18:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the notability to be borderline, but worthy of being given a chance, for which I thank you. This conversation may interest you and you may want to add some help for our new editor there. It was a borderline acceptance decision. Fiddle Faddle 19:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha, Thanks. The notability is very questionable at present. Let's see if we can find some decent sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am struggling to get more than the Ohio song. Three refs for that is enough, lest we get WP:CITEKILL. There's a lot of material about him, but not WP:42 material. Fiddle Faddle 19:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Zach Paxson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• an Ohio State University football game in 2006. <ref name="NBC"> Yost, Denise (July 31, 2014)[http://www.nbc4i.com/story/25468817/make-ohio-official-country-song Make 'Ohio' Official Country

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the Clemson-South Carolina rivalry page. Where do we go from here? GarnetAndBlack refuses to engage in discussion and will overturn any edit I make, even if backed by third opinions. This is an ongoing problem. Thanks.-- LesPhilky ( talk) 18:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest a WP:RfC with a neutral opening statement. Something like this: "Recently some editors have expressed the opinion that the history/background section of the article should be significantly reduced or eliminated while other editors feel that the length, detail and weight of history/background section [link here] of the article is appropriate and proper. Please indicate whether you feel that the section should be a) kept as is or b) cut back and summarized or c) completely removed." It might be that the general community does not share our view or......... they might support it. We should get a community consensus one way or the other. After 30 days you should ask for a formal closing and summary conclusion of the RfC and then make changes according to consensus. I suggest that you ping all of the editors who have been active on the article or talk page over the past several months when you open the RfC and ask them to participate. Widespread participation and consensus will preclude any individual editor's bias, ownership or passive aggressive approach if it does in fact exist.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do this.-- LesPhilky ( talk) 13:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess you see what I'm dealing with. I'm really not trying to make this inflammatory and did not expect it to blow up the way it did. I don't want to get admin action involved, but I'm starting to think there's no other route. GarnetAndBlack and I were temp banned once from there before for incivility towards each other. I've done my best to avoid that same behavior, but he's continued to lash out. Neither of these editors can discuss this page with anyone without lashing out or discouraging editing.-- LesPhilky ( talk) 20:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to slow down and let the RfC do its job. I would recommend that you just walk away from that article and the RfC for a few weeks. Having extended heated debates with other editors while the RfC is going on is unwelcoming and will drive off participants. My advice to you is to let editors comment on the RfC and to not respond to those !votes even if they take a position that is contrary to yours.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough and good advice.-- LesPhilky ( talk) 22:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

WP is based on sources and from what I see there is no basis for the apparent WP:OR. What we need though is for uninvolved neutral editors to come in and also reach the same conclusion. Once we have a community consensus then we can begin the process of change, which could even then be slow and laborious. You need to be slow and steady to "win the race", so to speak, on WP.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A case ( Transcendental Meditation movement) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Noted, thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Revolution (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

KB. I am still feeling my way around Wikipedia and I randomly-found "Jewish Messiah Claimants" which appears to me to be "original research" based on a subjective definition with inclusion within that entry also being subjective. I flagged the entry NORN and created a noticeboard entry and also a notation on the talk page. Talk:Jewish Messiah claimants This is the type of debate you would find in a Yeshiva (who is who isn't based on interpretation and reasoning) but would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Would you mind taking a look? Regards --Lfrankbalm ( talk) 03:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

-Thanks KB.. I saw your note on the relevant talk page; I will wait for more input from others; perhaps it can be merge.. (or posted for deletion - I will figure out the process if needed) thanks--Lfrankbalm ( talk) 01:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm ( talk • contribs)

OK. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in applying for membership on the Mediation Committee? I'm Chairperson there and would nominate you if you are interested. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 22:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking of it for some time and was just looking the Committee pages in the past few days so it seems you've read my mind. I'd be honored to be nominated by you. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

All candidates are encouraged to select an unassigned mediation from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tasks and to then volunteer to mediate it by contacting the Chair of the Committee (either on his talk page or by e-mail). This aspect of the Mediation Committee's appointments process provides the candidate with an opportunity to experience formal mediation firsthand. I see there is a case awaiting mediation. Would you like me to mediate that case? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If you've not done so already, you need to go to MEDCOM and read the Policy, the Procedures, and the Guide linked from that page in the top bar. Once you've done that, you need to take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Nominations/Form to see what you'll be answering. If you're still interested after doing that, leave a note here and I'll submit the nomination form and let you know that it's up so that you can go in, make your opening statement, and answer the questions. (It'll probably be Monday or Tuesday before I can work back around to that, unless you respond very quickly today.) On the trial mediation, perhaps. Thank you for considering this. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:TransporterMan, Yes, I have read the pages you've referenced. Please let me know when the nomination page has been opened and I will post an opening statement and answer the questions. Thanks for your support and assistance! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The nomination page is active at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Keithbob, please accept the nomination, make an opening statement, and answer the questions as soon as possible. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 15:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll do it this evening. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read the email and responded to the necessary requests per the email. Thanks for all your are doing! Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You've got email. — TransporterMan ( TALK) 20:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It is my pleasure to inform you that your nomination to the Mediation Committee has been closed as successful. The open tasks template, which you might like to add to your watchlist, is used to co-ordinate our open cases; please feel free to take on an unassigned dispute at any time. I have also subscribed your e-mail address to the committee mailing list, which is occasionally used for internal discussion about the committee's business; feel free to post to this at any point if you need feedback from the other mediators. If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to working with you! For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan ( TALK) 14:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob, I've seen that in the article Lolani you have modified the caption of the photo of actor Lou Ferrigno adding the edit summary "captions are to ID the content of the photo not give information per WP:IMAGE". I'm trying to learn how to write a good image caption and this page of the Manual of style states that a caption should establish what's the relationship between the image and the article, because not all users actually read the article before focusing on the images. I find this guideline not compatible with the goal of just identifying the image contents without providing more information, an approach that would lead to the same identical caption in all the articles where an image is used. Can I ask you more information about the identification-only approach that you cited in the edit summary? I can't find this recommendation in any of the guidelines that I've read. Thanks in advance! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 09:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for stopping by. Edit summaries are brief so I would amend my statement by saying: The purpose an image is to illustrate content already in the article. They should be placed in the section where the content they illustrate already resides. They should be concise and convey the general content of the image and how it relates to the relevatn content already in the article. So a good caption might say:

• "Lou Ferrigno, who played the role of Captain Starship"

While an improper caption might say:

• Lou Ferrigno wearing a red shirt and black suit jacket just before walking into the Academy Awards ceremony after being nominated for best supporting actor for his role of Captain Starship and before losing the Oscar award to John Travolta who starred in the movie Dance Fever.

I think you get the idea. :-) You are an intelligent and astute editor. Just follow the guidelines.

• clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
• is succinct.
• establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
• provides context for the picture.
• draws the reader into the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Keithbob, all your suggestions and details are really appreciated. Happy editing! ► LowLevel ^(talk) 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome my friend. Happy Thanksgiving! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob; After your Talk page visit, I did clarify/strengthen my comment to the IP on DRN who does not appear able to do links to text changes, and the IP is now editing with dynamic IP accounts (now adding IP 92.251... and without signing). If this is an IP who does not know how to link text and is now going to use dynamic IP accounts, it seemed like something you as the page co-ordinator should know about. Cheers. FelixRosch ( TALK) 15:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

greetings, i would like to know the wikipedia does allow new equations in mathematics/or physics on its pages and 'corrections' with regard to its mathematics/or physics pages. thank you. ("Cyrusrobati" 10:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusrobati ( talk • contribs)

Hi, I'm not sure what you mean or what this is in reference too. Please help me out. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed a closure to the dispute as most parties seem to have understand the opposing views and simply disagree with them and there appears to be a consensus, as an uninvolved editor I would appreciate you weighing in here. SPACKlick ( talk) 02:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That case seems to have been closed as resolved. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome, Keithbob! Could you please leave your opinion whether the page I have just created (Kiddle) qualifies for speedy deletion? AlexBern73 ( talk) 22:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Executive Director of the library left requested changes. I think it's completely OK to use the quote from STL Post-Dispatch about their annual budget, per his feedback. (But we should continue that conversation there) Missvain ( talk) 17:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ha! Looks like you commented. :) NEvermind this. Missvain ( talk) 17:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but I'm really not interested in hearing the details of your side of the dispute. I made a procedural close of the case based strictly on lack of participation. If you feel that the DRN case was closed prematurely then please explain why and request that it be reopened. I'll then consult with other DRN volunteers and consider your request from a procedural standpoint. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Keithbob, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{ subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) on behalf of {{U| Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Thanks my friend!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interpassivity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Passivity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!-- Mark Miller ( talk) 16:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mark!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Happy New Year! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:06, 31 December 2014 (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.