User talk:Bob K31416/Archive 2015

Progress

From December 11 to Jan 4. Think its 10% or 20% of the way to Good Article yet? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

For now, I'm not considering evaluation for Good Article status. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I was seeking it, but I'll leave the article since there is too much opposition to the edits required to maintain professionalism. Cwobeel and a few other editors seem to have confused "it is written" as the mere basis for inclusion when the demands of GA and FA are neutrality, accuracy and stability. This will be impossible under the current circumstances without eliminating a few editors from the area - and that is a reprehensible act at this point. Anyways, I got to dig in the archives a bit and do some relaxing research - ping me if anything important comes up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you've made an extraordinary effort to try to improve that troubled article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

!vote

Im confused by your !vote. You said "remove" the headphone pic. Remove from where? Its not in the article right now. Do you mean just that you prefer the other photo? Or no photo? Also how does a picture of headphones misrepresent behavior? Wouldn't the graduation photo do so even more? All in all your !vote is very hard to parse. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The picture is currently in the article. [1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks, I had somehow not noticed that. So is the summary of your !vote "no photo (and especially not headphone)" then? It might be worth clarifying that. I still don't see how the photo misrepresents behavior though (any more than any photo of Brown would that isn't actively showing him robbing a store) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Aside from being sure that the headphones picture shouldn't be in the article, I'm not sure what to do about another picture. Having a picture of Brown in a graduation gown may appear to some to be a biased portrayal, although that is somewhat offset by the scowl on his face and being only a couple of months or less before the incident. There is a picture of Brown with the graduation gown cropped out. [2] Complicating things is that there is no picture of Wilson. What's the situation regarding Wilson's picture? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

CS1 / harvnb at Michael Brown

WP:CITEVAR advises against mixing citation styles in an article. Is there a reason we shouldn't use (for example) <ref name=DOJ.ShootingReport/>{{rp|p.6}} instead of {{harvnb |USDOJ |2015 | p=6}}? I would be happy to make the changes. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Since the harv citation style was in the article first, I think we should stay with it unless a consensus thinks otherwise. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no harvnb in the article until this 29 March edit. Prior to that, it was CS1 except for a few bare URLs (which is not a citation style by my understanding of the term) that eventually got converted to CS1. I found a revision from August 11, 2014, which contained some CS1 and no harvnb; I can hunt that down again if you need it. In fact, I'm sure I could show that the first addition of either style was CS1. So I'm not understanding your assertion that harvnb was the first style used. Perhaps you could clarify that? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a question of when {{rpl }} style was first used in this article. Going by memory, I thought it was after the harv style, but check me on this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, there were no rp's on 29 March. And it appears I was mistaken, the use of harvnb is not a "citation style" in the sense meant by WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE (which means neither guideline bears on this discussion). Nevertheless, as there are advantages to the rp style, I would like to at least seek a consensus in article talk. Any objection to my copying this? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I started a thread without copying this. This would only confuse because we were both incorrect as to applicability of the guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank article talk page

There are some discussions on leo frank article talk page that you might be interested in commenting upon. I see in the past you contributed greatly to discussions about the article. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede inclusion on Leo Frank article about Governor Slaton being part of lawfirm representing Leo Frank at his murder trial

Why are you removing the fact that Governor Slaton was member of the lawfirm that represented Leo Frank during his trial from lede? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave my reason in my edit summary. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior on Nikola Tesla talk page

Hello. Would you consider making a joint report for FkpCascais. His behavior is very disruptive. Up to now he had used this personal attacks against me : lunatic, cynical person, Croat, claiming I'm making fools of others..etc...

Furthermore he had been POV pushing in the following manner.

I posted 3 sources and 17 minutes later he called them "obcure revisionist Croatian or Serbian sources", later he admitted he had not even see them (even went so far to claim that is good faith): "I even assumed good faith and initially believed he really had a source and I didn't reacted for some days, until I didn't actually digged into it". He provided a source with a quote that does not exist in there, and he refused to point to the quote although I plead several times. He had not admitted a mistake, but he kept using that source. He had been using a source he himself called "I was obviously not using it as source, it is just a ridiculous nationalistic conspiracist website with zero enciclopedic value." with the later claims like "I just brought it here as exemple of how even in Croatia there are people that are aware that the telegram was fake", "I just brought that conspiracist Croatian source as exemple of how even those know the telegram is fake.". He's contradicting even himself. His whole attitude is hostile. And lastly he had been saying a source says something which is totally false. I asked him to provide a quote but he keeps repeating the claim see here. Also he had been doing that for quite some time on Tesla page. Also he had accused numerous people of sock puppeting, and I counted 3-4 cases of false accusations. I think that is the only reason he had not called me a sock puppet (well an anonymous ip had called me Asdisis, but I wont attribute that to him). Also he had been removing every trace of "Croatia" from the article. Also he started a section called "What we are experiencing on this talk-page is the result of a wide-scale nationalistic phenomenom in Croatia regarding Tesla worth mention in the article". The title speaks for itself. I really do not know what to do. I had never seen such behavior. He himself had reported Asdisis for such behavior. In fact Asdisis was much less disruptive than him, and his behavior was not reviewed. I come to wikipedia from time to time to edit, but I'm pretty sure this is disruptive behavior. At least it is to me. I had not posted so much in the last few years. He keeps answering every comment with misinterpretations and direct lies, and I really do not know how to "battle" that. I just wanted to post some sources regarding Military Frontier so people stop making all kind of claims that are not sustained by any source but I'm being disrupted. Your advice would be much helpful. If this continues I'm leaving Nikola Tesla page for good. I simply do not have all days to deal with that. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that it's difficult to side with one editor over another regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND when both editors seem to be exhibiting battleground behavior. Here's an excerpt from that policy,

"If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I made an account. Firstly,I don't think others had any problem by siding with FkpCascais against Asdisis, nor did they have any problem by siding by FkpCascais in this discussion, accusing me of POV pushing. I will take your opinion as objective, and I won't be participating Tesla discussion. I don't have time to "battle" all the editors that had gathered around that article. Well I wasn't participating anyways, but I was interested only in the section I started. That's now being moved to Military Frontier talk page. I now see Michael Cambridge had also withdrawn himself from the discussion, so you might as well. Thank you for your advice. Detoner (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I will support you in a joint report against FkpCascais, his accusations and personal attacks are atrocious.Michael Cambridge 10:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

Thank you Michael Cambridge, but he seems to have a support of senior editors in his behavior, and since even Bob K31416 is against it, I don't think there's anything we can do. However, I will be making a case out of this if he continued with the present behavior. Detoner (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank and GBH

Curiouser and curiouser. GBH has opened a complaint about me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. The best I can come up with is that he confused my edits with your efforts to rein in his BLP violations. I provided diffs from you in my response and pointed out that the BLP violations have continued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the situation got taken care of.[3] BTW, I would suggest restoring the 00:56, 25 June 2015 version of the first two paragraphs of the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken your advise -- we'll see if it gets reverted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking sides in battleground

It seems other editors summoned by the reported editor have no problem in taking sides although they haven't been included in the discussions and are not familiarized with the topic. Detoner (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Next time...

...you make a mistake like editing without logging in, don't advertise it by posting on one of the highest-volume pages of Wikipedia, go to WP:OVERSIGHT and use the e-mail link at the top of the page to send them an email and explain what happened. They'll take care of it, usually quite quickly, in my experience. BMK (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transthoracic echocardiogram, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ventricle and Atrium. 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) 09:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Joint quality review?

Would you be up to doing a 100 random article article test on quality improvement? It wouldn't be a accurate as I'd hoped with n=400, but if the % improvement is over 10%, then it would be statistically significant. I have some ideas on defining quality in a way that most editors could come up with consistent measures - essentially an extended 0-4 scale. i don't see a problem with only using articles at least 2 years old, and then comparing the 2 y.o. version with the current. Splitting the sample in half according to page views would be ok, at least for a test trial like this. Let me know what you think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the following table from Jimbo's Talk page answers the question regarding improvement over the last 5 years, unless you see something wrong with it.

Quality
	2010	2015
FA	3,237	5,513
FL	1,626	1,988
A	670	1,509
GA	9,772	24,620
B	66,490	103,337
C	71,602	207,091
Start	631,690	1,316,024
Stub	1,621,445	2,728,973
List	54,967	178,726
Assessed	2,461,499	4,567,781
Unassessed	394,094	504,314
Total	2,855,593	5,072,095

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The table is fine as far as it goes, but my concern is that the quality classes are pretty vaguely defined. Different WikiProjects assign them using different standards and very likely the standards change slowly over time, probably getting stricter as we go. But probably the most important is that very few of them get updated as the article gets updated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see anything in your response that would sufficiently question the use of the table for determining whether Wikipedia has improved. Good luck with what you want to do. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources

A modicum of WP:AGF, please? This edit [4] was designed to prune a large number of sources for a single sentence in the articlr. I don't care much for which sources to keep, but I'd argue for the more reputable ones. I leave it to you to pick and choose two or three. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. I self reverted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed

In light of your extensive editing history, I assume you have been notified and are aware that Ahmed Mohamed’s clock incident is subject to Arbitration Enforcement sanctions. I also believe it is subject to 1RR, which you appear to have violated; if 1RR does apply, you might want to consider a self-revert. This is a volatile area subject to BLP violations, and the speed of these reverts and their seeming pointiness might be adding more heat to an flammable situation. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I just now looked on the article page and the talk page and I couldn't find any 1RR restriction stated. Could you give me a link to where that restriction for the article was imposed? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I may be confused on whether 1RR applies. It does to AE/GG, I *think* it applies as well to AE/AmericanPolitics2 but I'm not sure. As you see, I also don't know how to use the notification template, which presumably is American Politics or American Politics 2, but of course also AE/BLP applies as well. I expect you know this better than me! But better safe than sorry; whichever applies, you've been notified. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Your message is too confused for me. Since you are unable to present any evidence of a 1RR restriction on the article Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, I don't see any serious or credible notification in your remarks regarding any actual or potential violation. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Forget the 1RR question for now. You've been notified that the page is subject to Arbitration Enforcement provisions under one or more of BLP, American Politics 2, or GG. One of these days, I've got to learn to use the templates. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You are continuing to try to notify me about Arbitration Enforcement provisions without giving a reason for your attempt at notifying me specifically. Please see the policy Wikipedia:Harassment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I was trying to be friendly and informal. As that’s apparently unwelcome, I'll just use the template.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

MarkBernstein (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And, because it also applies,

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

MarkBernstein (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

For reference [5]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank

Leo Frank has been listed as a Good Article. Well done for playing your part by developing the article from 2012 to 2015.

This user helped promote Leo Frank to good article status.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)