User talk:Keithbob/Archive 8

Talk page archive for 2016

Publishing Articles

I am wondering if you would be able to assist in the creation of an article. I am new to wiki and am looking for guidance. I have produced some neutral well sourced copy but there is a COI in publishing. If supplied with the copy would you be able to check it for neutrality and potentially assist with the publishing of the article. Any help or advice would be great, Thanks,Scorb1 (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Scorb1 If you give me a link to the proposed content I'll have a look and see if I can help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...

perseverance and willingness to compromise
... you were recipient no. 731 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to not attack, but be informative

Keithbob, Thanks for your commentary on my talk section. I actually am not trying to make attacks on the Eric Greitens page. His gubernatorial campaign has actually been fascinating to watch as it is so controversial. I am simply attempting to put that into the section because it has been something the candidate has fought and is attempting to refute. Another user, however, upon seeing that deleted the entire section on multiple occations, to which I construed as vandalism. I will work to find more rebuttals to the criticism by his campaign as that is only fair.MOpoliticaljunkie (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we discuss changes and content on the talk page of the article rather than here. This way others can join in too. At present the article is not neutral. We can work together to get it right. See you on the article talk page. Thanks for your help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting dispute resolution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Keithbob,

About a month ago, I began my first Wikipedia edit on a subject with which I am very familiar, Parelli Natural Horsemanship. I have been a serious student of PNH for almost 10 years. (By serious, I mean that I have devoted about 2,000 hours of horseless study [videos, auditing clinics, etc.] and probably another 7,000 hours to with-a-horse(s) practice. Please note, though, that I have no conflict of interest. Horses have always been a passion for me, but never a paycheck.)

About 2 days after I had made my first entry, which had taken a fair bit of time, it was deleted in its entirety. The editor who deleted it, Montanabw, called it "very promotional," among other untrue and unnecessary unpleasantness directed at me. I may be new to WP, but I am no stranger to the written word or to advocacy. My goal in writing was NOT to advocate but instead to add some neutral basics about PNH that were, somewhat mysteriously, not included anywhere on the page.

Wanting to understand where she was coming from and why everything I had written had been deleted, I asked a series of detailed questions. She responded but ignored the majority of the substance of the questions and instead stated forcefully her belief that PNH was nonsense, worthless or whatnot (I am paraphrasing). I tried again. She dodged again. I will give her credit for saying the right things in terms of principles (e.g. repeatedly referring to NPOV and such). However, as she was saying the right things, she was doing the wrong thing -- deleting everything that did not comport with her vehement prejudices against a program that she clearly is not familiar with.

Something similar happened in a subsequent edits: I added. She deleted much of my addition and engaged in a "discussion" that amounted to little more than a conclusory rant about how PNH was a cult, Pat Parelli (the founder) was little more than a good marketer (vs. being a talented horseman) and that natural horsemanship was just renaming common techniques to sell overpriced tools that were little different from their lower-priced counterparts. Her responses are her opinions. She has no business deleting factual content about a program simply because she holds that program in contempt.

I have several concerns, in order of specificity.

1. Montanabw's most recent deletions of any bit of positive material that she can, including almost all of my most recent edit. I have addressed my concerns to her under "Ownership of Article" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship .
2. Montanabw's en masse deletions of my prior additions. I have addressed this at: NPOV dispute - 2016 - Deletion of Only Positive Material on the same talk page.
3. Montanabw's deletion of others' positive materials. (I will note that some positive material that others posted *was* promotional and was properly deleted. That, of course, does not make the deletion of the vast majority of positive material proper.) A corresponding concern is that her additions to the PNH article are also almost-solely negative, false and/or a biased and apparently purposeful misrepresentation with some frequency, and occasionally outright snarky. This pattern dates back to 2007, the year the page started. The fact that about 22% of the content of the article was created by Montanabw, in combination with her clearly expressed and virulent dislike for the program, explains why when I encountered it, the article included 1 sentence of extremely bland "praise" and *6 paragraphs* of colorful, detailed, biased ugliness.
4. Montanabw's interaction style with me and others is confrontational and does not even begin to seek consensus, as can be seen from the PNH talk page. My first edits on WP have consequently felt more like a forced slow dance with an angry porcupine than being part of a mostly friendly, whole-world "community" project.

(As an aside, I have also noticed what appears to be a similar campaign to delete most of my additions to the Natural Horsemanship article [the general NH article, not Parelli NH]. I have not broached that topic with her, so I mention it only in passing here.)

I apologize for the length of my note to you. I had planned to keep it much shorter than this, but I see that I didn't quite succeed. (And I apologize in advance if my attempts at discussion [including the links provided] with Montanabw are overlong. I really did try to get this resolved in a friendly manner with her.) JackieLL007 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jackie. I understand your frustration. When editors from different backgrounds and points of view collaborate there can be disagreements and tension. It's the unfortunate byproduct of collaboration by random people from different walks of life. I suggest that you open a case at WP:DRN and list MontanaBW and the other involved editor who posted on the talk page as well. Keep in mind that DRN participation is voluntary and that its purpose is to moderate discussions about content. Please refrain from making remarks about other editors including MontanaBW. If you personalize your WP:DRN request it will be rejected. So stick to content issues only.

If you want to explore dispute resolution options see WP:DR and WP:DRR. Good luck. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Keithbob. I appreciate the feedback. I had two questions: to which other editor were you referring when indicating whom I should list? There's one other editor who has recently edited several times, but I have no issue with her edits. There is more than one prior editor who had issues in previous years with Montanabw's reverting. Did you mean the former or the latter?

That question leads into my second question: my primary concern is not specific content refersions but rather a pattern of conduct that includes promoting a POV over the course of years, including some behavior by Montanabw that appears to me to be more calculated towards wearing people down so they just quit trying to modify the article away from her viewpoint. Are there any remedies for such ongoing behavior? Again, thank you for your assistance.JackieLL007 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to User:Theroadislong who has also expressed discontent about the editing processes at the article. If you feel that MontanaBW's conduct is in question the place to take a complaint would be WP:ANI which concerns itself with conduct issues only (not content issues). I am not familiar with this dispute and I have no idea who is in the wrong (or if anyone is in the wrong at all) but I would just caution you to proceed carefully in order to avoid the possibility of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. If you take the issue to WP:ANI your conduct as well as MontanaBW's will be examined. So make sure your hands are clean before you proceed.

Although, I don't want to invite further discussion of this issue here at my page, which would not be appropriate, I feel obligated to ping User:MontanaBW so she can read this thread and be aware of its existence. Good luck to both of you. I hope the issue can be resolved without damage to any party involved. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I would rather keep out of this particularly unpleasant nest of vipers! Theroadislong (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Keithbob, I have asked the members of the WP:Equine project to weigh in instead of proceeding with something formal. Honestly, I am not sure that this is worth it. This is my first attempt at WP editing -- I saw a topic in which I have significant expertise and I wanted to improve WP by adding a tiny slice of that expertise. I did my best to keep it encyclopedic and neutral (although it's hard to add a 50/50 balance when the article had almost no positives and a vast expanse of negatives) and to cite my sources. Instead, I was confronted with hours of my work being summarily deleted, being wrongfully accused of potentially criminal behavior (copyright infringement can rise to the level of a criminal offense) and other condescending nastiness by one editor...and now, apparently, being called a "viper" by another editor. I will certainly respect your wishes that this discussion not continue on your talk page but, as I get the impression that you are an experienced Wikipedian, I did want to ask this one last question before I head on out: is this level of disingenuous partisanship and acrimony typical at WP?JackieLL007 (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Medcom mail

KB, I just sent a message to the mailing list. I'm beginning to wonder if it's working. Would you confirm that you received it? Just leave me a note here, I'm watching. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes User:TransporterMan, recvd your email sent 19 hrs ago regarding new cases.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

NamePros

Can you please not remove all that content from NamePros? I worked hard to write it, and I tried to be as accurate as possible. There are a lot of articles and such out there; if you really want to make changes, feel free to fix things, find better references, etc., but it's not constructive to remove content unless there's a very high likelihood it's inaccurate.

—Zenexer [talk] 03:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm aware that the article needs improvement: as far as I can recall, it's my first article that I've written from scratch. However, removing everything I've written doesn't help me improve. I'm open to feedback and would appreciate any advice you can offer to help improve the quality of the article.

NamePros is well-known within a specific industry. That industry isn't well-represented on Wikipedia, it seems. I'm more familiar with NamePros than any of the other companies, so I figured I'd do my part and start an article. It's hard to find sources for relevant information that people would recognize outside of that industry. The blogs I referenced are well-known and well-respected. They're mostly commercial, I believe, not personal--sizable businesses. Comparable to Krebs on Security or something like that. Most of them hire recognized experts to write articles; some of them are run by the experts themselves and only feature one author. It's a bit of an isolated industry, and I had a hard time finding sources. In particular, there isn't a lot of information about its earlier years, around the time it was founded, so I assume it had a slow start. For example, several secondary sources link its founding to 2002, but some primary sources say 2003. I did some asking around to see if I could find an authoritative source, but it's never been a standalone company as far as I can tell, and records from that time period are lacking.

I do have some new sources that I haven't gotten around to checking for relevance yet. There was a lot of publicity around the time NamePros sponsored NamesCon (a domain name investing convention), so I should probably check all of those articles for significant facts.

—Zenexer [talk] 04:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in creating the article. However much of what was there was non-compliant with WP guidelines and standards. In any case why don't we discuss on the article talk page? If we disagree we can ask other editors to join the discussion or take specific issues to the a noticeboard. OK?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop continually removing content. This is clearly not an industry in which you have experience because you aren't familiar with the sources being cited. I am perfectly familiar with the relevant policies. I didn't cite any personal blogs as far as I'm aware; those are all commercial, typically with hired experts as authors. (That's why their writing is usually poor: they're industry experts, not writers.) Please wait and discuss these drastic alterations before making changes. If you would like to add your own citations, that is fine. Don't remove content unless you have sufficient reason to believe that it is invalid. You can read more information about this policy at WP:REMOVAL. —Zenexer [talk] 22:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

These issues are being discussed on the talk page. Please join me there. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 March

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:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (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) 00:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I hereby award you this barnstar for your heroic efforts to ensure our biographies are reliable, properly sourced, and neutral. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This recognition is much appreciated considering the criticism I've recently received on a certain talk page. Thanks for your support. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Eric Greitens 1st marriage updates

I originally sent this message to you: Why do you are you removing updates regarding Eric Greitens? The information regarding his first wife Rebecca J Wright is accurate and can be traced via California court records? I don't want to have an update campaign with you - but will reach out to Wiki to make the data permanent.

As it stated, Greitens first marriage was to Rebecca Jane Wright, PhD in English Literature at the University of Oxford; the couple met while Greitens attended Oxfrd in 1998-2000 as a Rhodes Scholar. The couple married in 2001, in the United Kingdom. In 2004, Wright petitioned Greitens for a dissolution citing "irreconcilable differences". Greitens first marriage lasted 3 yrs and the couple had no children.

My apologies, I have since discovered that the edits were made by 96.35.158.10.

Noting that the above comment is unsigned-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and notability

Hi Keithbob, I'm a journalist writing about neutrality and notability on Wikipedia, and I thought you might be a good resource and provide insight. It would be great to speak with you. Genemode (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I've been asked before to be part of a news article or write up but I always decline. There are many other Wikipedians who can speak on the topic. Good luck with your article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Peebles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DailyRecord and Middle of the Road. 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) 10:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Reminder request

Hi Keithbob, you invited me to give you a reminder to join the discussion: [1] So here it is. Thanks, -Roberthall7 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

On Wiki break

I'm on a Wiki break for the next few weeks........ -- — <>Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm back.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

For info

I have referred to you here: [2] -Roberthall7 (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail (regular, not MedCom). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Keithbob. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Brevan Howard

Hi Keithbob,

The Brevan Howard wikipedia page now contains lots of out of date information with regards to most of the figures cited on the page, and the different investment funds they have. I have the sources that would make the page up to date and accurate. Could you please suggest how you would prefer I present this information to you. Many Thanks! Algo0101 (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algo0101 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Please list them here in this format:

1. Wall Street Journal Net gains since inception.
2. XXXXXX etc

Please don't give me suggested text for the article. I won't use it. I create my own text based on my assessment of the source. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, please see below for a list of updated references and which points they refer to. I hope this helps.

1. Valuewalk Funds also domiciled in Delaware.
2. HFMWeek UCITS funds domiciled in Luxembourg.
3. FINalternatives Headquarters were not moved to Geneva.
4. Financial Times Only 3 offshore funds.
5. Financial Times Performance figures for 2011, 2012, 2013.
6. Bloomberg Geraldine Sundstrom left in 2014.
7. Bloomberg Singapore office.
8. Bloomberg Decrease in staff numbers.
9. Financial Times Assets under management.

Algo0101 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to get to this soon. Feel free to remind me :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I've left a message for you on the Brevan Howard talk page. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)