User talk:Keithbob/Archive 5

TALK PAGE ARCHIVE FOR THE YEAR 2013

Welcome

Let's have a tea and talk about it :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Risk Parity

Risk_parity, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transcendental Meditation technique, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Columbia (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) 11:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hedge fund introduction

Hi Keithbob, I noticed that you've made some changes to the Hedge fund article recently, including some trimming and rewriting of the introduction. While I understand that your intention is to simplify the information, and I agree with the goal in principle, the first paragraph of the introduction now seems more confusing and no longer provides an accurate description of what a hedge fund is.

For instance, a "hedge fund" is not merely a "financial term"—it's an investment fund with certain specific qualifications. Likewise, using a wide range of investments seeking to "to provide higher than average returns" is not a unique trait of hedge funds.

Perhaps we can work on this together. Would you be willing to roll it back to the previous, more precise version, and then we could discuss specific parts of that wording which you think are confusing? If so, probably best to move this discussion over there (and feel free to move this comment if you like.) Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten and sourced. Not interested in rolling back my changes but happy to discuss and collaborate on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, then I'll add my two immediate concerns to the thread you opened on Talk:Hedge fund, and we can go from there. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fail-Safe Investing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bonds (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) 11:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For your excellent work in cleaning up and modifying Harry Browne. JayJasper (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Fail-Safe Investing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Benchmark and Allocation

The Beatles in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

Transcendental Meditation movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paul Horn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

John Hagelin

An article you made considerable contributions to has achieved Good Article status. Thanks for your input on this article. You could display this symbol on your user page which indicates you were a major contributor to the John Hagelin GA status. (olive (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC))

Thanks, I did most of my editing there quite a spell back, but nice to be recognized for my efforts in laying the groundwork for your work in bringing it to GA :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You should add Credit Suisse to that list when it passes too. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

RFAR evidence

Your claim that Doncram "followed" Orlady to two articles based on editor interaction analyzer is mistaken. The two articles in question, List of Other Backward Classes and List of Scheduled Castes, were created by Doncram. By limiting the date parameters to only look from the beginning of December onward you are misrepresenting the data. I did not put in any date parameters when I ran editor interaction analyzer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

noted -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your arbitration evidence

Hello, Keithbob. I'm not sure why my bot hasn't left a notice for you (yet another bug for me to look into), but your evidence section in the Doncram case exceeds the non-party limit of 500 words. Please reduce it to fit within this limit at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reduced and when I copy and paste into a Word doc it totals about 475 words. Should be OK now. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Joaquim Chissano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carlos Cardoso

Permanent Portfolio Family of Funds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bonds

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Arlen F Gregorio Page

Hello, I am intrigued by your page regarding Arlen F Gregorio. There are multiple falicies and omission on your page. It is concerning that so much of the information came from "Reliable sources." I am more than willing to give you some of the facts about the subject. I am related to the person. I am not looking to add bias information. I would like to correct some facts. You have given him jobs he did not hold, and not given him jobs that he has. Thank you, John Gregorio, (His grandson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offtrail19 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Offtrail19, If you like you can post your information on the article's talk page and if there are contradictions I'll take a second look at the sources I've used for those statements and double check them. If you would like new info added then you will need to provide reliable sources as first hand information is not recognized as a valid source on Wikipedia. please see WP:RS. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Tijuana Flats

Hi Keithbob. I'm trying to bring this article on one of my favorite restaurant chains up to GA class. My first take was failed for being short and bias. I think I've corrected the issue (it's still small, but the chain is only maybe $100 million in revenue or so). Because I am a fan, I may not be neutral. If you're interested, I would welcome your feedback if you have any thoughts on what it still needs to hit the GA mark. CorporateM (Talk) 00:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll take a look at it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I might just focus on GAs for larger articles. Tijuana Flats might be a bit too small. There is a lot of coverage out there, but it's mostly just local papers covering that a new location is opening nearby. I'm also going to give PRSA another lookover. Now that I have a few GA reviews under my belt, I think I can do it better. Thanks for your second pair of eyes as always.CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit instructions

Your thoughts are also welcome here if you choose to. I noticed about 100 Wikipedians a month are reading the Request Edit instructions and a lot of editors are now using the templates Noun and I created. But the instructions are still somewhat poorly formulated (I wrote them) and still needs a few more re-writes probably. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

OK I'll put it on my to do list. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Transcendental Meditation movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maruti

Transcendental Meditation technique (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Maruti

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Keithbob. I thought since you respond to Request Edits every now and then, I would be interested in your input on a couple small template-related projects for the Request Edit system:

• Template_talk:Request_edit/COIinstructions#Request_edit - the Request Edit instructions for submitters and reviewers
• Template_talk:COI_editnotice - an RfC about a possible COI editnotice or Talk template for org pages

Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 14:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the sandwich. Num num num. CorporateM (Talk) 19:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Risk Parity 2

Hi Keith. I moved your post at WP:GAR to the talk page.[1] The main page is formatted in a specific way and I think your edit would have confused the bot. I answered the question on the talk page and will look at the article now. AIRcorn (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You are probably correct, good move. And thanks for offering to help resolve the situations. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jeffrey M. Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Taylor (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) 10:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Refs on TM article

For some reason I'm not bringing up the right refs on my last post [2]. Would you mind taking a look to see of you can see what's wrong, when and if you have time. Thanks. (olive (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC))  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible POV violations regarding replacement of Media Matters citations

Keithbob, this concerns the matter that we discussed at Found an editor that seems to be pushing a POV by replacing citations. What do I do? on the questions page at Wikipedia:Teahouse.

Please see the page Possible POV violations regarding replacement of MediaMatters citations, which is in my User talk space. It includes a link to the Special:Contributions for the editor in question.

As of this post, I have documented nine replacements of Media Matters citations for February 16, 2013 alone. The editor in question seems to have a vendetta against Media Matters. Media Matters for America itself states that it "is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."(See About Us - Media Matters for America:)

The citations that the editor in question is using are either from conservative sources in which the gist is opposite of the original citation, or more mainstream sources that the original Media Matters citation was criticizing. In some cases, the replacement was no link or a dead link. In one case the Media Matters citation was simply removed.

Judging by what else I have viewed on the editor's Special:Contributions, today's activity is just a small portion of the citations that the editor has been replacing.

Peaceray (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at Peaceray's talk page.
Message added 01:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion at User talk:Thargor Orlando#Hi there

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Thargor Orlando#Hi there. Peaceray (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I've started an ANI discussion here so that everyone can air their views and the community can give Thargor some guidance on how to proceed. I think this will be more productive than keeping it between a few people. cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Steve Badger

Thank you for your comment at Talk:Steve Badger (poker player). I would welcome it if you could keep providing input there, the two sides appear to be rather entrenched and a third opinion could be very valuable!
Cheers, Amalthea 23:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

OK -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

Hi Keithbob! Thanks for your sound and detailed answer about how to deal with a potentially POV-pushing citation process. You really helped the Teahouse guest to seek out more information and to discuss the issue before stepping into an edit war or contentious dynamic. That was great; thanks for doing it!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Its nice to be recognized for our work here on WP. We are all under appreciated I think, so thanks for taking a step in reversing that. I will certainly pay the kindness forward. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

David Wants to Fly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Final cut

Megan Slankard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ship of Dreams

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hedge Fund History

Hi Keithbob,

I noticed the article entry for Hedge Fund under its History section was changed to remove uncertainty surrounding the origin of hedge funds and makes claim that the Warren Buffett states that Graham-Newman Partnership was the first sourcing a Bloomberg article ("called the first hedge fund by Warren Buffett in 2006").

The Bloomberg article quotes a letter Warren Buffett wrote to the Museum of Financial History stating that "Incidentally, I make no claim that Ben's mid-1920s partnership was the first. It's just the first that I know of."

The most convincing history knowledgeable market participants have opined about the current incentive fee structure of hedge funds is that it derives from the participation (as it was called) structure of merchant banking, which most US investment banks were involved in long before they became investment banks. This merchant banking structure was itself an import from European financial houses, which further speculation says it was copied from merchant marine operators Renaissance Italy to ancient Greece.

This long history is however speculation so the best one could conclude today without further information is that the origin of hedge funds is uncertain and they did not start in 1949, as the article stated much earlier, and possibly before the 1920s per Warren Buffett's assertion.

If referring to the history as "uncertain" is too affirmative than it may be left to state that Buffett traces them back to the 1920s. (I also have Ben Graham's confirmation of his first hedge fund structure with an incentive fee structure for a wealthy client, but not a partnership, before the 1920s in his autobiography.)

I welcome your thoughts.

Pdunbarny (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pdunbarny, thanks for your interest and research. But I'm not sure what you are suggesting we do. The article already says: according to Buffet, Graham Newman is the first hedge fund he is aware of (and its reliably sourced to Bloomberg). I'm not opposed to adding other info but it should be well sourced and stated succinctly. I'm trying to clean up the article as many sections, in their current state, do not serve the average reader because they are unnecessarily long and overly complicated. Any help you'd like to give to lend is welcome :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, I notice the article's history section was revised. Removing the part deemed editorial regarding the uncertain origin of hedge funds is acceptable. This revised paragraph however now asserts that Warren Buffett stated that Graham-Newman was "one of the first hedge funds". That does not reflect the script of Buffett's letter from the article.

Again, the letter as excerpted in the article states, "Incidentally, I make no claim that Ben's mid-1920s partnership was the first. It's just the first that I know of." Buffett does not say Graham-Newman was one of the first hedge funds in history; he say rather that it is the first he knew of as he was not yet born when the Graham-Newman was established.

Editing the paragraph to read "one of the first hedge funds he is aware of" would turn Buffett into an authority on hedge fund history, which he specifically rejects in stating "Incidentally, I make no claim that Ben's mid-1920s partnership was the first."

The edit prior to its deletion was more accurate: "Warren Buffett, in a 2006 letter to the magazine publication of the Museum of American Finance asserted that the Graham-Newman partnership of the 1920s was the first hedge fund he was aware of, but suggested others may have preceded it."

If agreed, let's try to edit it so that Buffett is not placed as an authority but as a reference leaving, as he does, adequate room for the uncertain history of hedge funds origins.

Pdunbarny (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your note and spirit of cooperation. In the best interests of the project I'vemoved the conversation to the talk page. I hope that is alright. best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Project on TM template question

Thank you for notifying me about the new Transcendental Meditation project template. In view of the WP requirement that editors not own articles, please explain why there is a TM project here at all. Wouldn't it be better to allow any WP editor to do independent research and edit the TM articles accordingly? If WP had the goal of being written by experts, that would be very different, and such a dedicated project would make perfect sense. David Spector (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Background note to others: the TM articles have a long and complex history of problems and administrative rulings, due to their being "owned" by dedicated advocates and opponents of TM. I've been an advocate for banning all the dedicated editors and allowing others to take over the editing of these contentious articles. My proposal has not attracted supporters. David Spector (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Any editor can edit any article. However Wikipedia has dozens of projects to help coordinate the development of specific areas. You can see a list of them here. The WikiProject on Transcendental Meditation was created in May 2010 by User: Cirt. Please feel to ignore or delete the notification I made on your user page if you find it disturbing. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain

Hello, I'm Orangemike. I noticed that you recently removed some content from John La Fave without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Orange Mike | Talk 00:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I think you are mistaken as I did leave an edit summary for my edit. [3] However, I'm happy to discuss the edit/article with you on the talk page [[4]]. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Beatles in India

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at GabeMc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copyvio issue

Hi. You merged text in here: [5], but it is not clear where it came from (as required per WP:FORK to give attribution). The reason I am trying to locate where it came from is that much of the text is a WP:COPYVIO. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question. I created a fork with an edit summary that says: create new article as split from TM-Sidhi program per talk page. What further info are you looking for?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, the edit summary didn't link to it so I wasn't sure of the exact name, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at IRWolfie-'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at IRWolfie-'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Comment

Hey Keithbob, nice to meet! I'm glad you liked the comment and hope you take anything you can from it. I steal all of my good ideas, that's how we learn! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You were mentioned

Good day. You were mentioned in this edit [[6]]. Best. Smatprt (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at GabeMc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at GabeMc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hai thar

Hello Keithbob, Eduemoni has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I'll pay it forward :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Keithbob/Archive 5. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Jayron32 15:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Alright, you're have to help and you can't say no...

Robin Sharma is not my first article... This one is:User:The Wikimon/Expeditionary Economics... Ok so please do go ahead and tell me what to do... Can I have a look at what why the page got deleted earlier??? Anways, if not can you plz tel me where to find good sources...The Wikimon (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Nice job on the EE article. I see its under review here. From that article I see that you know how to format, add categories etc. So I don't think you need to use Article Wizard. Regarding Sharma, I listed four sources at Teahouse. I also suggest you create a section called Publications and list all Sharma's books from World Cat. I also suggest you call the article Robin S. Sharma since that is the name he uses for his books. As far as more sources, you can look at the Research section under the TOOLS heading of my user page. I also have a subscription to HighBeam and that is very helpful. It list sources such as these.
• The Mercury (South Africa)

Up close and personal….(Life) The Mercury (South Africa); October 4, 2010; 700+ words ...It's meant to be a funny book, but it's not funny at all. I'm also reading The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari by Robin S Sharma, and The Power of Your Subconscious Mind by Dr Joseph Murphy. Your three favourite cities? New York (I've always... International Herald Tribune

• BOOKSA sample of the week's best sellers

International Herald Tribune; February 16, 2004; 644 words ...t Know How She Does it, by Allison Pearson (Vintage) Nonfiction1. The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari, Robin S. Sharma (Jaico) 2. Jack: Straight from the Gut, by Jack Welch (Warner) 3. Who Moved My Cheese, by... New Straits Times

• Of infidelity and pets

New Straits Times; September 27, 2008; Reviewed by Su Aziz; 700+ words ...Doesn't Know About Nutritional Medicine May Be Killing You by Ray D. Strand 9. The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari by Robin S. Sharma 10. I Can Read You Like a Book: How to Spot the Messages and Emotions People Are Really Sending with Their Body... New Straits Times

• Scarily good debut

New Straits Times; June 27, 2009; Reviewed by Rizal Solomon; 700+ words ...by Robert H. Frank 7. How to Talk to Anyone (3 for 2 pack) by Leil Lowndes 8. The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari by Robin S. Sharma 9. The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch and Jeffrey Zaslow 10. Chaotics: The Business of Managing and Marketing in... The Herald News - Joliet (IL)

• KEEPING YOUR SANITY BETWEEN THE WHITE LINES

The Herald News - Joliet (IL); July 6, 1997; 700+ words ...that kind of sets you off in a bad frame of mind," player Bill Wennington explained to the media after the loss. Robin S. Sharma, a popular lecturer on personal change and time management, devotes a whole chapter of his national bestseller I... The Beacon News - Aurora (IL)

• TRAFFIC STRESS CAN MAKE YOU SICK

The Beacon News - Aurora (IL); July 6, 1997; 700+ words ...that kind of sets you off in a bad frame of mind," player Bill Wennington explained to the media after the loss. Robin S. Sharma, a popular lecturer on personal change and time management, devotes a whole chapter of his national bestseller MEGALIVING...

Contact your local library and see if the have a news search service that they offer free to library cardholders. In this way you can find many things not avaiable thru a general Google search. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a million!!! Am going thru each on of 'em.. I will update all of the info by 2morrow. I will also contact my library which happens to have a good new search service... again, I can't thank you enough... The Wikimon (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Can both of us become authors of the article together, because you're help is more than what I've done for the article... The Wikimon (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you give me permission I can add things to your sandbox version. Or I can add things to the article after you publish it. Either way I'm happy to contribute as I like working on BLP's. And THANK YOU for the barnstar! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Would I??? SURE I would!! You gotta teach me how to grant permission, and I know you're interested in WP BLPs... and no probs, u deserve the barnstar....!! The Wikimon (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I just needed verbal permission as its considered bad behavior to edit someone else's user page or sandbox without consent. So, I'll add some things to your sandbox over the next few days as I have time. thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Thanks, KB, for the note of appreciation for my work on the Hagelin GA! TimidGuy (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

YouSendIt

Hi Keithbob. An editor asked for a second opinion here regarding creating a dedicated Controversy section on an article where I have a COI. I responded with the obvious answer, but I thought it might be helpful to have an impartial editor provide some guidance if you're willing. CorporateM (Talk) 14:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Keithbob/Archive 5. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Keithbob/Archive 5. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Ushau97 ^talk 16:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Thanks

Means a lot!! Thank you soo very much!!! I wish you published it, because you did more than what I could manage! Thanks anyways... :)The Wikimon (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And let me know if you want any article to be created.. I will prepare it for you and allow you to publish it... The least I can do for you...The Wikimon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

We eat your cookie!

The hosts of the Teahouse have eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the cookies, but don't include an extra space in a template or it throws everything off. Happy editing! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GAR

Per WP:GAR I am notifying you of a discussion about a re-assement of the article John Hagelin. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Buddy

You do know that nothing would have been possible without your help... The article has survived so long only because of your addition to the article. I found a few more sources from Google News Archives.. And I'm gonna add em... Should we be ambitious and try to get a DYK or Ga or Fa status...??? If you're ok with it, then we should... The Wikimon (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Its still a long way to go till its ready for GA status, but that's a good goal. Let's see how it develops. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

BLPN

Many thanks, more than happy to help if you have any further queries. GiantSnowman 14:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks my friend!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hi Keithbob, I just wanted to let you know that I have granted the reviewer userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, please contact me and I will remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Amory! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation...

Hi. I was impressed with your feedback on YouSendit so I was wondering if you're interested in any other cloud storage services? I've been trying to help the fledgling Bitcasa article and would love your feedback on ways to improve if you have time. Synergee (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I 'll take a look at it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for obscenity

Dear Keithbob,
It was not my intention to insult you (or anyone) with the section title you considered sexist. It may be that, since my primary language is Spanish, I am not as affected by these "vulgar" terms in English as a native English speaker. For me, it is simply another word. I do, however, offer my apologies for being inadvertently insensitive to other editors. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marshal, WP has a very low level of female editors and when we use crude and sexist language, especially in a formal setting such as ArbCom, it creates an environment that says: Women are not welcome here. However, I appreciate and accept your sincere apology and it is kind of you to post here on my page. Thank you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Point understood, and thank you for teaching me something new. I will not commit the same mistake again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd

Well, Harrison passed FAC so anytime you want me to start working on Boyd, I am at your service. I will have at least two other projects going, but its nothing that should get in the way of my assistance at Boyd. Let me know which particular areas that you would like me to focus on. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This sounds great, I'll post a note on your page. thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk Pages

I edited (and ideally would remove) that section you mentioned because it was an already-resolved topic and came across as unnecessary clutter for your archives. From time to time, I've seen others delete things from talk pages, which gave me the impression that some things are just simply going to get removed sooner or later. It was my error for not looking up how discouraged that can be and am sorry. Thesomeone987 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for posting here. I am in the habit, as are most WP editors, of preserving/archiving their talk pages exactly the way they were written. I'm not sure I understand why this old post of yours which is in my archive that almost no one will ever see is of so much concern. If you could explain further so I can understand your concern then maybe we can find a solution. Also I'd like to point out that even if I was to remove that comment for you, it would still be available to anyone in my talk page History (both its placement and its removal attempts). So for these reasons I'm confused. Maybe you can explain. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Only so your page doesn't take up so much space, and didn't seem necessary to keep. That is all, your choice. Thesomeone987 (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

nikah mutah

I have tried to give the nikah mutah article some balance and also did source it. the allegation that it was not sources is false. i therefor do not understand why a biased article is been reverted to. please do explain as wiki is supposed to be looking for progressive developing an informed database. This way of rejecting new developed version is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasina123 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. In this edit of yours, (which I reversed), you had added a lot of content almost all of which was not sourced and appeared to be personal opinion. The addition of unsourced material has become problematic on this article and that's why all changes are being reviewed before they are published. You can try again, and this time just add info to one paragraph only and provide a reliable source for that info, that I can verify. Then I, or someone else, may approve your addition. And if they/we do, then try another sentence/paragraph. Take it slow and easy and be thorough with your sourcing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance

This was very useful and I will embark on the process you suggested cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasina123 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Old issues with improper copying

Hi, Keithbob. :) The origin of the concerning text in Maharishi Effect has been discovered, and unfortunately it was added by you, back before Willbeback spoke to you about the issue. (See article talk page for more.) Can you please help check and correct any other lingering copying issues that may have been carried over to the article in your split? We need to be sure that any remaining copied content is either turned into a properly annotated quotation or rewritten in original language. It would be good idea also to check the source article, TM-Sidhi program, to make sure that any lingering content there is cleaned up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, Thanks for the message. That edit was clearly a mistake on my part. One I made during my first several months of editing. But even as a newbie I'm sure that I had intended to summarize that content after pasting in the article. I think what happened is that I looked at the time and was late for very work or something and ran out the door and forgot to come back to this WP entry. However, even though it was unintentional, still, I take responsibility for the error and will certainly go back and check my edits on both the Maharishi Effect and TM-Sidhi article, as you have suggested, and make sure there isn't something else that needs correcting. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've checked through all of my edits on the TM-Sidhi program from 2009 to the present and though there were one or two other edits that were of some concern, none of the content from those edits is present in the current versions of TM-Sidhi program or Maharishi Effect articles. However, if you or anyone else becomes aware of anything that I may have missed, please let me know so I can fix them. Thanks again, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This week, I've reviewed my entire list of contributions for the years 2008, 2009 and 2013 and made corrections as needed. I plan to review my 2010, 2011 and 2012 edits in the coming weeks and months as well in case there is any improvements that can be made. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved 3rd party to comment.

Hello. I am requesting your opinions at Talk:Thomas Savage (died 1611)#Move and add to Thomas Savage as a third party to a discussion which I feel is nearing an impasse. I feel confident that if you chose to participate, your comments ideas and suggestions will be neutral and non-biased in favor or against either of the currently involved participants. If you do not wish to participate, I understand and respect your wishes. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :)

I just hope you got the right Ed. :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for maintaining a sense of humor. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Eleutherococcus senticosus

Please do not accept the edits from the IP that has been persistently vandalizing the Eleutherococcus senticosus page for months. It has been trying to add the same sentence with a fake source about fringe alternative medicine. It violates WP:MEDRS. Thank you. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll keep an eye our for it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. We have been working hard to minimize the vandalism for a long time. Only in the past few days did they add the page protection. I've never seen that page protection scheme before so I'm still figuring that out. We appreciate the help! MidnightRequestLine (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

List of serial killers in the United States

The reason the article was semi-protected in the first place was to prevent IP editors from adding Gosnell to the list, since mentioning him by name on that page violates WP: BLP (because he hasn't been convicted yet). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, good to know. But keep in mind that the purpose of the Reviewer is "intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content."..... "Reviewers are not taking responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept" and their work is not a replacement for the activities of editors who are watching and/or editing the page and I review each pending change carefully, looking at the context of the edit, a quick look at the IP's edit history, and the posted reason for the pending change protection which is usually just a few words like: "vandalism" or "BLP violations". "Reviewers are not expected to subject experts" or keep up on all the details of the scores of articles under pending change protection. There will still be some clean up work needed by local editors. At the same time I appreciate you letting me know about Gosnell and I will keep an eye out for that. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Keithbob. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! INeverCry 23:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

MarkMonitor

Hi Keithbob. I was wondering if I could persuade you to review my Request Edit here. I thought it would be up your alley, because I added a substantially UNDUE and defensively-written Controversy section to the article myself one year ago, before you beat WP:Criticism into me. In addition to general improvements and updating, I'm cleaning up after my prior mistake of creating a Controversy section. As I usually do, I've pointed out in the request the areas where my COI is most relevant. CorporateM (Talk) 14:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've commented on the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob. Just wanted to see if this was still on your radar. CorporateM (Talk) 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been on a Wikibreak but will have a look today. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

hi

I am a "he" ... :-) — Ched :  ?  20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ched. I once seriously offended a female editor by assuming that she was male. So I've been trying ever since to not step in that hole again. I appreciate the clarification :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, the name "Ched" is not common - and if you're interested, I'd even explain it in email. (real life identification) — Ched :  ?  20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ched is a good name and thank you for standing up to Fladrif and taking action. It was long overdue. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Next time I won't compile any evidence as I did here. I'll just hand it off to you. Great job.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Having been through two ArbComs with Fladrif I am well acquainted with his edit style and edit history and it has been easier for me than it would be for most others, to assemble diffs for this ANI. But WP is a community and everyone's participation is needed and valuable and I'm grateful for your contributions. Thanks for your help and support. Cheers, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at Zad68's talk page.
Message added 14:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zad68 14:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at Ewj001's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ewj001 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Alleged vandalism

Hi, Keith. You reported Herman0402 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at AVI for "Ongoing, repeated and obvious vandalism of sports stats". I checked his four most recent edits [7], [8], [9], [10] and all of those agree with the official stats pages at mlb.mlb.com linked from those articles. I've undone your reverts on those four articles and I suggest you look back over your other reverts of Herman0402's edits and restore any others that were correct. Dricherby (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, where can I find stats that will assure me that the ones entered by Herman0402 are correct? What are you using as a resource? Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The External Links section of each of the articles has a link to several stats sites. I checked those four edits against the official MLB Stats, which are the first link. I think Herman0402 was just updating the stats for the latest game. Note that the baseball season seems to involve a huge number of games (they seem to play most nights) so updates to these pages may be very frequent. The MLB pages include a list of results of recent games played (to the right of the player photograph) so you can see if the stats have changed since Herman0402 updated. Dricherby (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dricherby, Today I have gone through all of the articles in question and update the stats through May 8th using the MLB web site. I have also apologized to Herman and left thanks and barnstars on Herman's page and yours. Thanks so much for you patience and assistance in getting this sorted out and allowing me to correct my error. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Keithbob. Glad we got it sorted out! Dricherby (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I am awarding you this barnstar as thanks for your efforts for dealing with that dispute with Fladrif at ANI back in April. His abusive comments started to get to me. Other than that, keep up the good work, as usual! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I second that, your huge list of examples of Fladrifs incivility was an important factor in the ANIs success.--Penbat (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks, I extend my thanks to both of you and to everyone who participated in the community wide effort. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from me, too. I rarely see bullies at WP, especially bullies who are so clever in making fast, brief, and effective attacks coupled with an ability to self-justify convincingly. I hate seeing bullies succeed in their attempts to dominate and control. WP editors sincerely work for a better WP with each edit, and that's the way it should be. David Spector (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks David.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

MarkMonitor

The issue presented to us is more of a social one than a content one. If a PR person requests contentious material be removed, this will always create discomfort, even if their requests are valid. If we work out our editorial differences as "fellow editors," this leads to "compromise" and accusations of undue influence, lobbying and canvassing. It's inappropriate for a PR person to have so much influence in the editorial process as if we were a member of the editorial team.

What I think is the better thing to do is to ask another editor for a second opinion and work it out the normal way, between disinterested editors, where the PR person's only task is to raise the issue generally and bring an editor's attention to it. I ask DGG a lot because I find his second opinions are consistently sound, comprehensive and of good quality. CorporateM (Talk) 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and asked DGG again here. I find that I get frustrated any time I feel I am getting into an argument/debate with a PR person, so it's better to sort it out between regular editors. Hope that's ok and I'm not being too much of a pain. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 17:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I welcome collaboration and am glad you are inviting DGG in to discuss and give an opinion. See you on the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob. DGG commented that he supports the article's inclusion as a way to balance the article, which currently doesn't have much in the way of criticisms. I suppose I don't agree (we don't want balanced articles, just those that represent the source material, right?), but I think it's contentious for a PR person to inject themselves into an area where editors may reasonably disagree or to make a big deal out of a small thing on an unimportant article (we all have better things to do right?) I brought it up originally, because I thought it was something more obvious than it is.

Thanks for helping out. While not practical in that it consumes a lot of your time, having a non-COI editor re-write the material is the best way to avoid criticisms of COI behavior. I'm just following up with MarkMonitor to see if they have any corrections or anything. I did some copyediting, spacing fixes, grammar, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 02:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you get a new project and you want some help, give me a shout early on in the process and say-- hey I'd like to add or balance this section of the article, can you take a look at it, and also look at these XYZ sources and consider adding/editing etc. That kind of process is more comfortable for me. I understand the reason why created content up front was to save time and to make it easy for the other editor(s) but for me personally, it makes it more difficult..... I'll also look at the talk page and respond to DGG's input. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I feel the same way in that I would prefer a PR person point out the problem and let me fix it. Too often PR people offer re-writes of neutral, well-sourced content then insist on using their exact wording. I think it's inappropriate. Our attitude should be one of a cautious guest, not a bitter and entitled twerp.

On the other hand, {{request edit|G}} was created for editors like yourself that do not want to "proxy edit" but may still want to approve edits that are "an improvement" without taking ownership of the edits, more like the AfC process.

I think what I would prefer to do is ask you for little favors on specific areas (like controversies) where the chances of the appearance of impropriety are high and the client is unlikely to be able to be neutral. If you re-write the entire article, this defeats the purpose. At that rate I could enslave quite a few volunteers to get to work writing my articles for me. On the other hand, often there are 1-2 sentences or more where the client is unable to be neutral due to original research and strong opinions that are best left to a regular editor. CorporateM (Talk) 14:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good. We'll take it one step at a time. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob. Hopefully I'm not overwhelming you, but MarkMonitor had a quite a few seemingly very valid corrections and clarifications I posted on Talk.

If you're interested in working together where the shoe is on the other foot. Feel free to chime in here. CorporateM (Talk) 13:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Shark Tank based upon version in Japan

Hi Keithbob,

I have found book references to it and just wanted clarification on a few things regarding book references for wiki pages. here is how I have put them I couldn't find the wiki polcy page for book references only reason I would be asking. O'Leary, Kevin (2012). Cold Hard Truth on Business, Money & Life, p. 8. Anchor Canada, Canada. ISBN 9780385671767. Wilson, W. Brett (2012). Redefining Sucess: Still Making Mistakes, p. 122. Portfolio Penguin, Canada. ISBN 9780670066940 since these publishing companies above are divisions of random house and penguin books respectively would I have to include that also? Thanks in Advance, 173.206.72.186 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I'm happy to help. I've responded on your talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Goianá

Hello Keithbob. You accepted a revision to Goianá to change the name of the town to Goiána. To advise you that this is not correct and the reason for the semi-protection in the first place was to prevent this vandalism. Bagunceiro (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Bagunceiro, I'll keep this in mind if I come across another such revision. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop adding unsourced, biased info to Joseph Breen

I don't know what kind of liberal-leftist agenda you have, but if you continue to vandalize the Joseph Breen article by adding anti-Catholic screeds, there will be severe consequences. NYFinanceGal (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Please Note: the above editor was blocked by Writ Keeper, 6 minutes after leaving the above message. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

CIDA City Campus

Dear Keith,

There is no such entity as the Community and Individual Development Association City Campus. CIDA City Campus is no longer associated with the Community and Individual Development Association, and is now just called CIDA City Campus. The "CIDA" doesn't stand for anything any longer, it's just a name to continue brand recognition since the split which occurred back in 2007.

Regards, Stuart Round Marketing Dept, CIDA City Campus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.151.212.239 (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi IP 41, Thanks for your comment and interest in WP and the article. According to WP guidelines its articles are comprised of information contained in reliable sources. Unfortunately personal information is not considered. But if you can direct me to news or magazine reports that contain information that further illuminates the relationship between CIDA and CIDA City Campus I'd be happy to add that info to the article(s). Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

CIDA City Campus

I would very much appreciate it if you could check with me before adding to this page. Some of your changes reflect out of date information. I've added references to the parts I've updated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu Round (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Stu, If you have a specific issue, take it to the talk page and we can discuss it. I am an experienced editor here with 5 years and 27, 000 volunteer edits. I follow WP policies and procedures I create content that neutrally reflects reliable sources. You seem to have a strong personal opinion about how the article should be. That could be problematic. WP is a collaborative project and no one needs to check with anyone before making a change to improve an article. If you have a specific issue I'd be happy to discuss it with you on the article talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have an interest in the article being accurate, it was I who created this entry. I've added a note about the location which is no longer Commissioner Street in Johannesburg. Not all of the recent changes at CIDA City Campus are reflected in press articles, although I've added some references where I can. The Commissioner Street campus was vacated in Nov 2012, so now the only campus is Lyndhurst. I asked you to check with me only because some of the changes you made are already out of date, even though they are referenced.

That said, I am new to Wikipedia so I do appreciate the improvements you have made to the layout and content. Also, please note that many articles about CIDA are ambiguous because of the confusion over brand identity between the Community and Individual Development Association and CIDA City Campus, which continues to use only the CIDA acronym but not the full name and is a separate entity. This is confusing to many journalists, although a new article should appear soon to clarify the situation which can then be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu Round (talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stu, Thanks for your efforts to improve the article. It would be helpful if you read WP:V and WP:OWNERSHIP. Also, any further points you have please put them on the article talk page here its not productive for us to discuss the article here. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keith,

Thanks, will do. Apologies for my Wiki n00bness! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stu Round (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, see you on the talk page, cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to CIDA City Campus 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Community and Individual Development Association City Campus

Why did you tag a PROD on a redirect page, Community and Individual Development Association City Campus? Uberaccount (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Uber, as I noted on the talk page for the redirect page. The redirect serves no purpose as it is not a notable search term. It is instead useless amalgamation of two distinct articles: Community & Individual Development Association and CIDA City Campus. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2

Hi Keithbob, I was wondering if I might politely ask that you please vet the info being submitted at The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2 before accepting the revisions. That page is a source of regular disruption from IP hoppers, known sockpuppets and random kids. As you know, since the movie hasn't been released yet, any information about it should be backed up by references per WP:CRYSTALBALL. I appreciate the assist, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll do what I can, but Reviewers are not experts on every topic and our job is not to censor edits we don't agree with but rather to reject edits that are, in this case, obvious vandalism. If you want reviewers to reject unsourced contribs as well as vandalism, then that should be added to the list of reasons why the page is protected so Reviewers know that. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

After re-reading Wikipedia:Reviewing#Purpose_of_reviewing I realize that I was wrong to ask you to vet the info. I apologize. I don't see an option for adding unsourced contribs as a reason when I initiate a request through Twinkle. If there's something new I have to learn to make this happen, I'm happy to learn it. Anecdotally, the majority of vandalism in children's TV/film articles is made manifest through unsourced information--fake airdates, tweaked movie release dates, false episode titles and summaries, etc. Regards, and my apologies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cyphoid, for your understanding. As a Reviewer yourself you should know it can be a tough job, in that you are required to make decisions with very limited information. I'm not sure what other Reviewers do but I usually look at how many edits the user has and what they've been editing to get a feel for their profile. Also if they are providing a URL as a cite. I check to make sure its a working URL with info relevant to the article. I am also suspicious of minor changes in data or stats but depending on the other info I've gathered and my "feel" for the user I often accept them as I have on at least one occasion rejected valid data changes. Lastly, I look at the reason the page was protected and use that as my main guidance for what kind of edits I reject ie vandalism, addition of unsourced content or BLP violations--these are the most common ones I see. Even with all of that I still make "mistakes" as I don't have full information nor do I have the latitude to reject edits that I don't agree with and wouldn't accept if I was functioning as an editor on the page. So the Reviewer role, as I see it, is a raw filter, a first line of defense against unproductive edits, but it does not and can not replace the role of editors on the page, removing or changing inappropriate content changes. Anyway, thanks for your input and your civility and dedication to the project. I look forward to working together in the future :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for the sweet barnstar! :D I'd give you one in return, but I feel that might be a derivative gesture. You were certainly gracious in your response to my uneducated request, and I genuinely appreciate that. I'll try to familiarize myself with my responsibilities as reviewer. I'm probably under-using the privilege. If I could offer only one piece of advice, it would be to steer as far clear as you can of the world of children's TV articles; it is a rabbit hole of deception and misery that will quickly destroy an otherwise happy life.  ;) Looking forward to running into ya again! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles J. Hynes

Thanks for the editing of that bio. When I first posted on some noticeboards I was attempting to removed plagiarized passages and the SPA with a POV kept reverting. When he was finally blocked others were able to keep those sections off but more fine-tuning was needed, so thanks! Grsz 11 19:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'll try to do more when I have time. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hey Keithbob. I wanted to see if you were going to review the corrections/clarifications I posted on the MarkMonitor Talk page. I don't mind poking around if I've already used up all my favors ;-)

I don't think there's any important problems on the CIDA City Campus - the article looks ok. What's just as important as the article's content is the habits we form among editors and hopefully my straightforward advice and instructions will help build favorable/productive habits. CorporateM (Talk) 23:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure I'll look at MarkMonitor, didn't know there was anything new there. And thanks for your participation at CIDA City Campus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I gave it a once-through and made some copyedits. One problem that jumps out at me is saying they "offer... research" - makes it sound like they sell it as a product. CorporateM (Talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I edited it further but I actually have issues with the entire "research" aspect of MarkMonitor article. It doesn't haven't any independently recognized scientific value, its not sold to customers, its conclusions underline the need for its products, and its being given a lot of weight in the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is what most of the available source material is focused on and the research is notable enough that it was used by politicians in the SOPA debate. Also, you did trim a lot of the history, which I had pushed MarkMonitor to expand on in order to keep the balance we prefer on most articles - which have a heavy focus on history. However, I would prefer not to debate on nuance topics like WEIGHT in a PR role. As long as it's basically accurate and reasonably compliant with our policies, that's the extent of my involvement.

I did some more copy-editing, but I accidentally hit save before finishing writing my edit summary. Let me know if that works for the Lead. The updated had a few too many "and" and read a little rough to me, so I just took a quick crack at it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OK< I tweaked the lead some more. Let me know if there is anything further to discuss :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I need your help

I have created a draft for parallel improvement of the article that was unilaterally whitewashed by an admin who vehemently threatened me with topic ban. It had a chilling effect. Now, I, alone, cannot dare to do what's right. Since you're an experienced reviewer, would you help me out by critiquing the draft and suggesting changes on the talk page? If I am going to do it I need to be doubly sure. Kindly do it by keeping in mind the first four pertinent criteria of WP:GACR.
P.S. You're in no way obligated to accommodate this earnest request, I know, but given that I need some kind of feedback on this, I would very much prefer that you didn't turn your back on me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, where is the draft? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Here, but I already had it linked above. Don't edit the draft; just review the draft as if it were an GA nominee (but it actually isn't!). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment here, not my talk. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry I missed the embedded link for the word "draft". Will take a look later today and give you some feedback here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, take your time. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to seem like a pusher but I am still awaiting your feedback. Regards, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I was off Wiki for a few days. I did a brief scan of the article just now. I really don't have time to read the entire article and look at the citations. That could take hours. What I do notice, and what I think is the concern from some editors is that the article appears to be almost exclusively focused on the persecution, discrimination and abuse of minorities in Pakistan. Maybe the article name should be changed to something like: Discrimination of minorities in Pakistan. I see there is already and article called Persecution of Amadhis in Pakistan. But if the current article title is kept than the article needs a significant overhaul so that it neutrally presents an overview of each group, their population, geography, demographics, culture etc. and is then followed up by the persecution aspects. Specific constructive criticisms would include:

• The first sentence of an article should define the topic. It shouldn't be about population etc,.
• The lead is a summary of the article. It shouldn't contain specific details like population stats and quotes from articles.
• There are too many quotes in the article and having them in block quotes violates WP:QUOTE and creates undue weight
• As said above, the article is too focused on minority abuse and leaves out all the other info about the various groups

I agree with Future Perfect that the article is pushing a POV. What I didn't agree with was his radical and disruptive solution to the problem. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Damn good job, I sincerely thank you. Many of your comments resonated with me. However, I need some clarification. You say

″the article appears to be almost exclusively focused on the persecution, discrimination and abuse of minorities in Pakistan″ - yes, the general picture there is quite grim to put it mildly. But population stats are there, no? I don't get it how I can use "geography" in an article about minorities. I couldn't find anything about "culture". Everything else is fine. I will work on it in coming weeks, right now I am stuck in the middle of many things. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I would be better off creating a new article specifically dedicated to Discrimination of minorities in Pakistan with some of the other layout tweaks you suggested (reducing block-quotes and revising the lead). That's the only way to salvage the majority of the content I arduously assembled otherwise most, if not everything I added, can and, perhaps, will be excised based on WP:DUE. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Into Darkness

I'm curious to know why my logged out edit to italicize the ship name to match the rest of the article's italics of the name Enterprise was rejected. Was it because I was not logged at the time, because you couldn't be bothered to look at the article body to deduce the italics, because you are unfamiliar with ships, or some combinations of the above? Or is it something else entirely that I missed with regards to italicized ship names in movie articles? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you try it again logged in. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I did, but that's no excuse for not reviewing the article to ensure the change wasn't made in good faith. Just because I edited as an IP address and not as a logged in user is no reason to automtically disqualify the edit or ignore its greater use in the article. I've made this kind of mistake before, and the advice I was given on the matter I'll now give to you: be careful and check first, and if you have questions asks before reverting, otherwise assume it to be in good faith and let it in. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Tom, you are assuming bad faith, I did not automatically revert because you were an IP. As an Admin you should know that administrative tasks require personal judgement. I made a decision based on the limited information I had at the time. Maybe you would have made a different call. That's fine, then start reviewing changes if that's what you want to do. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not accusing of bad faith, you made the call based on the information you had at the time, all I am saying is that adopting a check first and ask if you are unsure position can help alleviate this kind of problem, although admittedly in hindsight I've done most of my editing in Military history and Ship related fields so this kind of information is stuff I know off the top of my head. Perhaps then I should concede that both of us screwed this one up, since re-reading this thread does suggest I've overreacted (again) :/ Please accept my apologizes, and I will try to work on no assuming the worst on here when edits are reverted, or in this case, rejected. Have a good evening. Sorry for any inconvenience that I may have caused. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 01:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I appreciate your sincere response. We are both on the same team, doing our best to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for the constructive suggestions. I look forward to working together in the future. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bits

I'm still pondering the trim at Bridgewater Associates: I can see it but Bridgewater in the resume does feed into subsequent prospective employment. Meanwhile, while I was glad to crack an unfamiliar acronym on your user page, may I suggest a link with it, GA, for the less conversant? Nice to make your acquaintance. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Swliv, and thanks for your comment. Nice to make your acquaintance. I like to keep articles focused on their main topic. Its easy for things to stray and get coatrack-ish. In this case the sentence I removed was exclusively about Comey and had nothing to do with Bridgewater Associates. Its a notable piece of information but it belongs in Comey's bio rather than BA. And thanks for your suggestion about the GA. As veteran editors we sometimes get lazy and use acronyms and phrases with the assumption that everyone is at our level of experience and that simply is not true and excludes the much needed newbies and journeymen/women editors, so thanks for that reminder. I look forward to working together. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

gorski article

thanks for the 'constructive criticism', itt's been a learning experience on wikipedia to say the least. I do have more stuff that I want to do/add there. Just don't be so quick to edit on top of me, because it gets uber confusing. cheers and happy editing!! :) Cap020570 (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... edit conflict & pending changes

Greetings Keithbob. We just had an edit conflict over at Ponyo's talkpage. Please don't think I was criticising your edit - I hadn't even noticed it until Ponyo pointed it out to me - and thought there was some sort of bug. Under the circumstances, your review was perfectly correct, and I'd have done exactly the same as you if I hadn't already been following recent vandalism on that particular article. See you around. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation. I didn't take offense at your post. I was just explaining for Ponyo's sake. Reviewing can be a challenging job. The vandals I report probably don't like me and if I'm too strict and revert I sometimes exclude valid edits (see threads above) and if I'm too lenient in my judgement I get complaints from editors who expect the Reviewer to have read the entire article and know when added content is out of psync with the rest. Anyway, thanks for listening and thanks for your support. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

COI Request

Hi Keithbob. About a week ago I made a second go at covering a major legal controversy for Yelp with some pertinent input from their legal department. For example, I'm trying to reduce some slight defensiveness in the current and the legal team pointed out a huge piece of missing information regarding the lawsuits being consolidated. I also want to remove some stuff sourced from Forbes blogs and such.

The second draft is located here. There's a long-time contributor to the article and subject-matter expert Wikidemon that I've pinged, but I was also thinking that this falls in the category we discussed. If the content was re-written by a volunteer that is immune to speculation of COI influence, that could be beneficial.

No worries if you're busy, but if you enjoy working on articles together, it's there ;-) Yelp itself is subject to a lot of abusive practices by businesses trying to up their rankings, so they are especially conscious of the need to respect other crowd-sourced sites like Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 20:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I generally enjoy these special project and will try to look at it today. If not, I try to remember to look in on it on Monday. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. I will patiently wait for your input/edits. CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Please ping me on Monday so I don't forget :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ping! CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me get this straight, are you asking me to rewrite your proposed draft version and incorporate relevant material into the article? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... now to think about it, if the current is basically ok, it might be a colossal waste of time to re-write content that is already good and in article-space. So maybe just consider the proposed modifications? Up to you. I'll also be looking to bring it up to GA over-time and would be great to work with you on it at least until/if/when Wikidemon is back in action. CorporateM (Talk) 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at Yelp, Inc.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at Talk:David_Gorski.
Message added 11:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MrBill3 (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

David Gorski

User:Keithbob I wanted to let you know I weighed in on David Gorski on the BLP Noticeboard. I wanted to say to you personally that although I stand by my expressed concerns, I respect your experience and appreciate that you are working within the talk page and noticeboard. Although I have issues with your tone on several occasions and disagree with you substantially, I feel people with differences can collaborate and together improve WP. If you feel anything I bring to the discussion falls to the level of ad hominem attack or fails to be respectful and courteous, I invite you to open a personal discussion on my talk page or here. I think that would help keep the discussion on the BLP Noticeboard and the talk page more focused on the article itself. MrBill3 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I do appreciate the sentiment of your post and thank you for it. I'm not sure you have walked your own talk regarding sticking to content at BLPN since most of your post was a personal attack on me. However, I have responded at BLPN and am happy to let the personal issues drop and start over. You were certainly right about my accidental removal of a portion of your talk page comment. I could see how you might think it was intentional and that you might be upset by that. For this reason I have apologized both at BLPN and on your user talk page. I agree with your suggestion that we get back to discussing content and from my end I promise to be vigilant in keeping my talk page comments on point and will refrain from making observation or judgements about other editors or other extraneous points. Have a good weekend and thanks for reaching out. I think we can work together in improving the article. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am posting this here as a matter of explanation. I am more than willing to drop this discussion and start over focusing on the content of the article, of course after you respond if you so choose. I welcome a response if it serves to clarify errors in my assumptions/interpretations. I will repost references at BLPNB with urls. User:Keithbob I realize it is easy to cut when attempting to copy. My computer has a floating cursor that places what I am typing in random places. Thank you for restoring my comment. I apologize if my response seemed to include personal attacks. The three diffs on the same day illustrate what I thought could be considered a “series of consecutive edits that undoes another editors work” [11], [12], [13]

Looking at the talk page I see these two statements in immediate succession:

• No, that's wrong and I've reverted your removal of the education section. I don't mind you adding content but you are destroying the format of the article and I can't stand by while you do that.
• I've spent a lot of time cleaning up the format of this article. I appreciate your addition of sourced content but do not reformat this article without discussion on the talk page. Please READ the article and if something is missing add it to the appropriate section being careful no to damage the work already done.

These comments do not seem to represent a discussion to consensus before repeated editing. I don't think a question of WP:Ownership is out of line. I apologize if my phrasing or tone made it seem personal.

Also on the talk page, “...per WP:ACADEMIC I am removing the notability tag” from another editor and a response of, “Sorry but I still dispute the subject's notability and I've replaced the tag. You are saying he meets criteria #1 and #4 of WP:PROF”. I apologize for my misreading, I thought the notability tag had been removed and then replaced by the same editor. Given that as the other editor cited WP:ACADEMIC I don't understand the statement, “Meanwhile, is there something in WP:PROF that defines notabilty as the number of times a paper is cited? Sorry but I didn't see it” The information is plainly available in WP:ACADEMIC at Wikipedia:ACADEMIC#Specific_criteria_notesMrBill3 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Bill, thanks for you reply.

• I think the forest is different than the trees. You are taking quotes out of the context of my full post. Out of context of the back and forth exchange, on two user pages and an article talk page, that encompass many edits. Out of the context of an interaction with an inexperienced user (over a period of days) who was (innocently and completely in good faith) violating basic WP guidelines for format and content by adding duplicate content, removing properly formatted citations in favor of URL only citations, removing standard BLP title headings like "Education" and more. I have spent hours cleaning up the article format including many tedious citation improvements, I have cited policy for my edits where applicable, I have started several discussions on the talk page, I have thanked people for their participation, I located and inserted half of the few reliable secondary sources in the article, I have invited community input at BLPN so its hard to see that as ownership of an article.
• Also, as I mentioned at BLPN, making accusations against an editor without diffs is considered a personal attack per WP:NPA. So if you could please provide diffs for your assertions in future I would appreciate it. For example, the sentence you have in bold above: I apologize for my misreading, I thought the notability tag had been removed and then replaced by the same editor. Is that supposed to be something I said? I don't think I ever said that.
• Regarding the notability tag. An editor removed the tag before waiting a reasonable amount of time for the poster of the tag (me) to respond. Secondly, I expressed disagreement, so there was no consensus for the removal of the tag. Thirdly, per WP:TC On pages that are being edited by a number of users, cleanup templates are used to inform readers and editors of ongoing discussions and attempts to fix the problems on the page. Such templates can be used to attract uninvolved users to discussions and cleanup efforts, and they can also serve as a warning to casual readers that the article may have problems and be subject to dramatic changes. In general, an editor who places a template message to indicate a problem like this should explain their rationale fully on the talkpage of the article. If the consensus of the other editors is that there is a problem or an editorial dispute that deserves such a clean-up template, then the editors should work to fix the problem as quickly and cleanly as possible so the template message can be removed. So the tag should remain while the discussion continues, that seems to be standard. And again, my actions are/were in full accord with policy and guidelines. I hope now we can go back to the article and the talk page and the job of developing the article in a collaborative and good faith manner as I have described in my prior post. Thanks. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob, Thank you for your reply and explanation. I acknowledge both the work you have done on the article and the engagement you have had on the talk page all along. Thank you for your willingness to offer explanations and walk others through the process both as it happens and after the fact. To clarify on the sentence I put in bold that was me speaking and stating my error. My misreading was I thought you had agreed and removed the notability tag and then replaced it. I realize that was a misreading of the talk page, someone else removed it, and as you pointed out prematurely. Again thanks for working on WP and providing explanations and references to policy. I will exercise greater restraint and keep my focus on the work at hand in the future. It has been a pleasure to see the process working in a polite and constructive manner.MrBill3 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Bill, I look forward to working together :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob, I am not sure how you are reading the newspaper articles I provided. You state that three of them are a “one line mention”. The USA Today article, “"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is," Gorski says.“ and “Personal stories can be extremely misleading, says Gorski, managing editor at the blog Science-Based Medicine.“ and “A handful of success stories may show only a small part of the larger picture, Gorski says. For every few patients who testify that a treatment helped them, there could be dozens or even hundreds who got no benefit, or were even harmed.“ By my count that is four not one. The Star article, “David Gorski, an oncologist and controversial medical blogger who calls himself an “Apple fan-boy,” produced his own graphic-heavy analysis this week on Science-Based Medicine. Org. “His delay in treatment (might have) contributed to his ultimate demise. We don’t know that it did, which is one reason why we have to be very, very careful not to overstate the case.”” This is a citation of Gorski's blog followed by a quotation, not a one line mention. I ask that you use some care and precision in this discussion. Not a big deal by any means.

I think it would be useful for the discussion is you would state what you think meets the WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria in terms of a single highly cited journal article and/or the criteria for multiple articles substantially cited.

Thank you for your work on this article. I would hope that with the effort people are putting into it, it will rise from questionable notability to Good Article status.MrBill3 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Bill, Can you please confine your comments to content and add them the appropriate section(s) of the article talk page rather than here on my talk page? Then I and others can respond as needed and the article can move forward. Many thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob, Sorry I thought my comments were a worthwhile discussion of what might be personal differences in perception. I have posted my comments in a refined form on the talk page. Sorry to hear you will be too busy to participate in working on the article at this time. I wish you the best in your other activities and look forward to working with you in the future.-MrBill3 (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about Winton Capital Management

Hello there, Keithbob, hope you've been well. Back in fall 2011, you helped me out with the article Winton Capital Management. This spring I've been working with them again to update the article, and I wanted to revisit one point where we had differed at the time. This was about using "Winton" on subsequent reference (which I had started with) as opposed to "WCM" (which you had changed it to).

Here's the thing: Winton doesn't really seem to be referred to as WCM in very many sources at all; "Winton" is far more common, as seen in The Telegraph and Bloomberg, both of which are pretty typical examples of how the name is usually handled. There's also this interview with Winton founder David Harding, where he clearly refers to the company as just "Winton".

Previously you'd suggested that Winton was just a "nickname", but I think it's quite clear that it's the preferred diminutive version of the full name—and surely the article shouldn't use "Winton Capital Management" at every mention. There is clear consensus among reliable sources about how to abbreviate it; right now Wikipedia is out on its own with "WCM". Note, as well: the company's logo includes the word "WINTON".

What do you think? Would you be willing to consider a change back to "Winton"? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing other editors opinions but my would remain the same ie that it should be either Winton Capital Management or WCM. One or the other. I understand that news stories will use a short hand version but we are an encyclopedia and our standards are more formal. For example, most news articles about Ringo Starr will use his full name in the first mention then after that they will say, Ringo. But on WP we say full name in the lead and then Starr, his surname, thereafter. So WP has higher and different standards then news article. So that's my feeling but I would be open to other opinions from other editors. Thanks for taking the time to ask and for all your good work on the article. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

PS. if you like you can copy my comment above to the WCM talk page and then ask for a third opinion and go with consensus. I won't object if the third opinion disagrees with me. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, maybe we should take the question to 3O? But I'll confess, I don't quite see your point: the majority of available sources shorten the company name to "Winton", so why shouldn't Wikipedia do the same? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:34, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If the majority of the sources say Winton, then maybe the article name should be changed to Winton. We don't always use proper names. For example Ringo Starr's article is not called Richard Starkey. We title the article using the name by which the subject is commonly known. If that is the common name of the company than maybe a title change is in order. I dont' know. What I'm saying is once the subject is ID'd in the main title we should not use "slang" terms in the rest of the article. But check with a 3rd opinion and see what others think. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Ringo Starr / Richard Starkey is an apt analogy; we're not talking about two different but arguably valid names; we're talking about a full name and a shorter name. A better analogy would be John Lennon / Lennon, re: full name on first mention, last name subsequently. The sources generally say "Winton Capital Management" on first mention, then "Winton" on second reference, and it's simply my suggestion that Wikipedia reflect that. Anyhow, I'm happy to seek out input at 3O and we'll see what others think. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct there is a WP policy for Lennon, WP:SURNAME, its there one for organizations? let's take the issue to 3O or even better a noticeboard and see what others think. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is such a guideline for company names, though as you know I see several reasons to prefer "Winton". Anyhow, I've just listed it at 3O, so we'll see what someone else thinks. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I followed your suggestion and updated 3O with a link to the section back on article Talk. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!

Can't remember if I thanked you or not for the beer stein (full to the brim) you posted on my talk page, but right now, at 23:18 hrs where I am, it's 26 degrees centigrade and your note has been of great help! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome! Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Monty Guild 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:

• {subst:proposed deletion}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Winton Capital Management follow-up

Hi Keithbob, I see that on Friday you updated the introduction of Winton Capital Management to replace WCM with Winton, and marked the whole thing {{done}} on the Talk page—however, the remaining WCMs are still in the article, so I'm concerned that others will assume that the issue is resolved. Are you able to change over the remaining WCMs or should I reach out to Silver to see if he can do this? Even with an agreement reached on the name, I'd like to avoid mainspace edits. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, super-fast! Thanks so much, Keithbob. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jennifer Lynch 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:

• 2010}}</ref> and painter [[Peggy Reavey]]. She began practicing [Transcendental Meditation]] at the age of six years.<ref>{{cite news|title=Out on a limb|first=JAMES|last=MOTTRAM|work=The

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Risk parity may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"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:

• , 1741 Asset Management (2009), [[Neuberger Berman]] (2009), [[AllianceBernstein]] (2010),<ref>{{Cite document|publisher=Global Pensions|title=AllianceBernstein plans risk parity strategy|date=Oct
• Feb 7, 2013|newspaper=FIN Alternatives|date=Oct, 5, 2010}}</ref> [[Clifton Group]] (2011),<ref>{{Cite document|publisher=Money Management Letter|title=The Clifton Group Names New Manager of Risk

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yelp Inc.

Hi Keithbob. Just wanted to make sure we haven't lost you! I'm sure Wikidemon will have some comments as well. He is a subject-matter expert, but he has been busy off-wiki since late June. DGG made a comment about spreading out the allegations of reviews being manipulated into different sections based on the topic.

I've been waiting almost a month now since I first asked for the two important clarifications I've requested again. If you're unsure, I can go fetch a second opinion on those as well? Let me know. CorporateM (Talk) 13:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No you haven't lost me, I'd like to work further on the article but I'm not sure what you mean by "the two important clarifications I've requested again." -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I've re-iterated. I can repost the sources if you like. I feel like I am being pushy and impatient, so I will try to back off for a while after that. It would be nice to get input from Wikidemon once he is back. CorporateM (Talk) 06:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob. I emailed the WSJ article that you asked for yesterday. Did you not get it? CorporateM (Talk) 18:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

yes, got both WSJ and LA Times. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. Just let me know if you need anything else! Yes, I think the topics currently covered under Products and the Lead should make it ready for a GAN. And if you're interested in other projects, I always have similar articles where I have vastly improved the article, but there are controversies that would be better written by a regular editor. CorporateM (Talk) 19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keith. Were you looking for comments from me? I was sort of standing back to avoid being overbearing. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I was looking for comments from anyone. There have been 3-4 editors who have commented there in the past month so if any come by I'd like their feedback. You are also welcome to give your thoughts if you like. I'm just trying to edit boldly and at the same be collaborative :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Acceptance reverted

Hello - a quick note to let you know I reverted your acceptance of this edit as it introduced unsourced personal info in to a BLP. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Reviews are always a judgement call and subject to change by editors on the article. Thanks for the polite notification. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Accepting vandalism

I assume it was just a misclick, but you seem to have accepted this edit to go live. Having recently read some books on the subject, I can assure you that Eleanor Roosevelt actually married Franklin D. Roosevelt, not Waka Flocka Flame. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Yes, I have already warned the IP on their talk page despite my mis-click. Thank you for the correction and notification. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for patrolling these. -- 16:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page

If you had bothered to read what actually happened, then you would have realised that this was an accidental rollback. I use a tablet so this is a frequent accident I make. As an "experienced editor" I shouldn't have to be explaining this to you. You obviously assume bad faith in others, so I will spell it out for you: here is the edit before I accidentally hit rollback; here is the edit screen after I realised my mistake and quickly self-reverted. Please read the full story next time before coming over to my talk and riding the moral high ground. Cheers. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, take a chill pill dude. My post on your talk page was polite and in it I said that I assumed your revert was an error.

Hi Cassianto, Per WP:Talk one should not remove the talk page comments of another editor. You are an experienced editor and I'm sure you know this and so I expect this was done in error. In any case I have reverted your deletion of my comments. Cheers! -

That's OK, I make mistakes too. Thanks for the further explanation but next time please follow you own advice regarding civility and assumption of good faith. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but posts like the one on my TP are completeley unnecessary: you say "You are an experienced editor and I'm sure you know this...". Then what's with the reminders? You should click the diffs first or the article history page where you would have seen that it was an accidental rollback. I even mentioned it in an edit summary and that still wasn't enough. Please, do the research first to find out if it was an accident or vandalism et al before creating more work for yourself. Thanks -- Cassianto^Talk 19:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears you can find offense or fault with anyone or anything. I think you are ready for a break. I hope you get one soon. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Appearances can be deceiving, merely offering advice. As you say, a break (from this tedium at least) is long overdue. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Good have a nice break and come back fresh. You deserve it. All the best to you my friend, Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction

I'm writing to let you know that I undid some edits by an IP user that you approved on the article List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction. I just wanted to let you know that the user's edits were improperly formatted and had the effect of removing proper content and replacing it with the content they wanted to add. At first glance the edits may have appeared correct, but I just wanted to let you know that ultimately they were not. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 23:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries. Glad you caught it. Reviewers filter mainly for vandalism, our job is not to screen all contributions or reject them because we don't think they are proper. That's the job for editors like yourself. But thanks for the heads up and the good work you are doing!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cool, this is one of those cases where I originally ran across the article as a reviewer, but decided to stay on and edit. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 23:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The Power of Now, Eckhart Tolle

Just at a glance, what needs to be done is the Summary section (now called "Topics contained in the book") needs to be gutted and trimmed down to the maximum allowable Summary word-count in WikiProject:Books). Then the Reception section should be bumped up with real reviews and quotes from reliable sources and major media. Then, some sort of Impact or Legacy section should be added, or perhaps included in the Reception section ("Reception and impact"), that traces the book's rise to intense prominence and its influence over the years. Plus some negative reviews should be quoted if they haven't been. Plus the citations to the reviews and mentions need to be fixed, filled out, and wikilinked. In terms of Tolle's own article, I didn't look to closely at it. I'd basically look at what the article was like in early July 2010 (when it was a Good Article), and minimize or revert any major problematic changes since then.

Hope that helps. I'm not sure I have time to collaborate. I have the PON book but I haven't looked at it in 11 years, nor have I read any of his other works. Softlavender (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you wanted this feedback on the book's Talk page. I'll re-post it there. Softlavender (talk)

Thanks SoftLavender!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry...

for the misunderstanding in Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev! tetraedycal 03:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, it was an easy thing to miss. I make mistakes too (but don't tell anyone). -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

John Hagelin

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hagelin&oldid=563407790&diff=prev, so what if US Peace Government doesn't link anywhere? There are plenty of red links throughout Wikipedia. Should we remove all of those []'s? Crasshopper (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crasshopper and thanks for your question. I understand your concern. I don't have a problem with red links as long as the topics are notable and have a decent chance of becoming an article. But the main point in this case is that linking US Peace Govt. in the John Hagelin article creates a black link, not a red one, and that black link, when clicked takes the reader right back to the same page (John Hagelin) because the search term US Peace Gov is already set up to auto redirect to the John Hagelin article. So there is no point in trying to make a wiki link out of it specifically in that article. Does that make sense? If you think the topic is notable and that secondary sources have reported on it, then I would not object to it being red-linked in other articles besides John Hagelin. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

A-ha. I did not understand why you reverted my change before. That totally makes sense now. Crasshopper (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to come by and work it out. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fairfield, Iowa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Gray (author) and Jim Carey (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) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

•  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Other stuff

Hi Keithbob. I know the Yelp page is a pretty massive task with 100 cites so far and 20 more on Talk. To be honest, I didn't realize how big of an article it would be myself - rather thought of them as a smaller website like YouSendIt.

Anyways, if you're interested in working on something else together for a little while, I could really use a second pair of eyes on History of public relations. I want to bring it up to GA, but I've gotten burnt out. I've submitted it for Peer Review and asked a couple editors to hopefully get some fresh perspective and copyedits, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 00:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean instead of continuing on Yelp?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose naturally I am in a position to prefer you prioritize Yelp, but of course I'm not your keeper and you should spend your time however you please. I just thought you might enjoy working together on something else for 30 minutes and in the past I've asked for your input before nominating an article for GA. If you're too busy with Yelp and other things, that's cool. CorporateM (Talk) 19:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and nominate it and get feedback by the reviewer, but if you do end up having a chance to look at it before then, your input would be helpful! Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I gave it a lookover for wikilinks and ambiguous "some say" though some of those are hard to fix. The lead also needed re-writing now that more of the article is done. Your proposal to change the structure is interesting and I'd be interested in seeing what another editor thinks. Personally, I found Scott Cutlip's point-of-view the most convincing, but I am partial to keeping it strictly chronological as the most fair way to represent the various points-of-view.

For Yelp there seems to be support for the title "Integrity of reviews." In my opinion there's no need for a separate article for just a few paragraphs - the spinoff is a discussion best revisited later on. I just know the amount of material available on the general topic of review integrity and accuracy and disputes over reviews is vast, but there's no need to create a separate article because the sources exist, until it's been added to the article, which may take some months for us to get to that point. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Review of navigational templates. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yelp, Inc. may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• v. Yelp) in 2011.<ref name = filter1/> In July an article in the International Business Times]] reported that the company continues to be criticized outside the courtroom and that "anti-Yelp

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jay Gordon (doctor) 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:

• html |title=Health Advisory Council |publisher=LLLI |date=2011-05-20 |accessdate=2013-08-18}}</ref>) and a [[UCLA]] Associate Professor of [[Pediatrics]] in 2008.<ref>http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A New Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plume (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) 11:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For your work on Marsha Blackburn. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you that is very kind! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yelp Inc.

Hi, The Yelp founders story does not reflect what is here: http://gigaom.com/2012/03/02/what-do-yelp-and-twitter-have-in-common/ the other sources for the founders story merely quote interviewees, whereas Gigaom is based on first hand knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.19.210.242 (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the above comment to the Yelp talk page. Happy to discuss it there. thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob. You mentioned about a month ago that you would take a shot at adding some of the sources here "next week" and I was just hoping to get a gauge for how busy you are. Naturally it would be better if the article was expanded the regular way, but if you're too busy I can take a shot at writing some drafts on Talk and using Request Edit to expand the article in a few non-controversial areas. McKinsey & Company is also active again and we have some great content coming through the pipe if you have time to work with us, but I don't want to be too needy and overwhelm you. CorporateM (Talk) 20:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi CM, I do want to continue on that article. I'll see if I can get over there today. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I wrote an essay, but it might actually be better for us to talk on the phone if you want or you could let me buy you a drink if you're local. I feel like I am accusing you of something, which is not my intention, but for some reason I am making suggestions that I think are really obvious and I'm getting shot down like they're ridiculous. Well... maybe they are, in which case I'm doing an awful job. I seem to remember (could be wrong) you felt like you got burned in the past in a COI situation, so I certainly want to promote a positive environment here however I can. My other thought is maybe we should wait for the RfC to close in a week or two and we might both get some perspective. Naturally if neither of us had a COI, we could work it out boldly, the normal way, but because I have a COI, there is a propensity for disagreements to be unnecessarily contentious and I want to do my best to make sure editors enjoy contributing and that I'm promoting a positive environment here. CorporateM (Talk) 22:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm just pouncing on everything. I think I am going to try to enforce a 30-day break on these pages, though I said something similar before and did not. I'll come back in about a month and see about drafting up anything that's still missing. Now that I have a first draft done on History of public relations I need a new project to keep me occupied. CorporateM (Talk) 01:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi CM, thanks for your note. I don't quite understand your post on Aug 25th (do you mean you may take a 30 day break from WP?) Re: the Aug 23 message I'd say don't worry about me. Even friends have a difference of a opinion now and then. I am not taking this personally. Let's see where the RfC goes. I'm happy to go with consensus. I understand your situation and that it is awkward and frustrating at times ie taking a hands off approach and relying on random volunteer editors who may or may not be around from one day to the next. I'm still committed to working with you and/or on the Yelp Inc article. It would be helpful if there were more editors involved. Maybe the RfC will help with that. My apologies if my talk page tone has been accusatory or less than constructive. Stay in touch. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, just from these two articles. I'm gonna take a little break and come back and see if we can get more editors involved and a more structured discussion to hammer out the issues. Your tone is as polite as can be, but I do not feel like my suggestions are being considered fairly and it feels like a double standard is being placed against my contributing. Such as TechCrunch being reliable only when someone else is using it. I was really excited to have found that New York Stock Exchange Magazine source while working on the Stoppelman article, because I have seen similar information in a lot of press articles, but they were all vague and extremely editorialized. Here's a niche source supposedly written by reporters from TIME with the most encyclopedic description I've found of user profiles. But I did not go-in with my armor on ready to defend it and I guess that was a mistake.

I cannot edit boldly and consensus rarely occurs organically, so if an editor voices opposition against my suggestions, it's pretty much dead in the water, unless I actively facilitate a discussion that leads to consensus, which is the nature of an RfC. My natural assumption where I have a COI is that I am the one that may be bias, especially when dealing with experienced editors I trust. But it first occurred to me that there may be some over-compensation for my COI quite some time ago after a specific edit. Hopefully getting more editors involved will help sort it out. And it's possible I have just lost perspective. CorporateM (Talk) 20:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems I owe you an apology. I think I am a little passive-aggressive, because I am unhappy with the controversy section. I thought adding how the idea for the company was conceived was extremely obvious. And it's frustrating to twiddle my thumbs waiting for another editor to make time to participate. I wasn't very thoughtful about the quality of my Talk page contributions because I know someone else is writing the article anyway and didn't know if anyone would even use them, but many of them were short blurbs and I've culled and improved the citation list. I still want to take a break, but I think it would be better when I come back if I have something to do, so I'm not just waiting on you. There are plenty of areas I can contribute where my COI is not that significant.

BTW - I agree with Cantaloupe on the MarkMonitor page regarding the quotes being promotional and it would be easy to replace them with more neutral text that is not quoted. CorporateM (Talk) 01:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on sourcing

Thanks for the apology, though not really needed. My take on sources is: while we are mandated by WP standards to summarize the best secondary sources to create an article, in practice there are lots of ifs, ands and buts. Firstly, not all sources are acceptable or appropriate, that's we have WP:RSN. Secondly we don't summarize every sentence from every source. We make editorial judgements based on personal or group assessment about what to include or what aspects of a source are superfluous. So it is a valid discussion I think to see whether to include it [the lunch/doctor story] or not and to what extent. For me its enough to say who conceptualized and founded the company. I don't see the need to tell a story about a discussion over lunch about looking for a doctor. But that's just me. Let's see what the RfC says.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I frequently make the statement that Wikipedia does not share the same editorial mission as the media, so while we rely on them as sources, we have a different style of writing. For example, editors gave me compliments for making such a neutral article on Noel Lee (executive) despite all the promotion available in glowing secondary sources that have a "congratulatory tone". I'm working on a draft Dominic Barton article, and there's loads of content about his family, demeanor, Canadian accent, etc. that Wikipedia doesn't want.

IMO, this creates a slippery slope when editors exercise too much personal discretion to ignore source material. It ends up in us deleting articles on subjects we deem unimportant like fashion, while we create hundreds of articles about different versions of Linux; it leads to a site of personal opinion.

However, this is exactly the kind of thing I am normally consulting clients against. They have strong opinions about whether Wikipedia is doing things properly. Many clients feel a specific editor is a brand detractor, has it out for them or is acting in bad-faith and part of my job is to not let that show to the community and improve the experience editors have working with them. Not to be the one myself performing the sins I am suppose to prevent.

Anyways, as always, I appreciate your patience and good-faith, as well as your determination in preventing me from making accidental COI edits. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CM, I agree its a slippery slope that's prone to error. In fact the whole project is prone to error because it is created and maintained by random volunteers who all have built in cultural, social, gender, age, racial, professional or academic bias'. WP is a utopian project that falls far short of its idealistic goals in terms of NPOV. There is and will always be bias on WP depending on which age, gender, social, intellectual, racial or academic group, profession etc. dominates the project or some part of it, at any given time. It's an unfortunate nature of the beast. That said we take each individual situation in its context and deal with it the best we can.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As a volunteer, I can partake in the casual discussion, but as a PR rep I think it's rude for me to lobby for my personal preferences. Regarding the other discussion, my preference would be to work with an editor that will copy/paste the content, unless it's on a subject I'm unlikely to be reasonably neutral on, such as certain controversies (depending on the client).

BTW, I am working on the Barton article and there is a lot of information about how his wife told him to get another job after his initial failures at McKinsey and his family objected to his move to Asia. It sort of teeters on the line between whether it is about his personal or professional life and may be a BLP issue as well (awfully personal). Do you think it should be included? My thinking is no, but I don't anyone to think I've omitted it as a matter of spin/COI. CorporateM (Talk) 04:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, but would have to see the source(s) and the context to give a clear opinion. One of his bios says that his mentors advised against taking the job in Asia. I think things like that may be more relevant.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. CorporateM (Talk) 17:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

International Vedic Hindu University

Hello, Keithbob, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on International Vedic Hindu University, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Hindu University of America. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on International Vedic Hindu University at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Graphic Novel vs. Limited series

on the Kick Ass 2(film) page, it refers to a 4th Graphic novel coming out, however there has never been a graphic novel of any of the Kick Ass comics. It is a series of limited comic book series, these are all collected later in what is mistakenly referred to as a graphic novel, but is in actually a trade paperback or "trade" for short. It also says that the 4th graphic novel "was released" at this point only 2 issues of the series has been released and knowing Mark Miller, this could not be finished into well into 2014, which would mean that a "trade" would not be released until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel2112 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mel and thanks for the explanation. Could you mention these points on the talk page? And do you have any news articles etc that confirm this info? If so please list those too on the Kick Ass 2 talk page. Then interested parties can discuss and make changes based on consensus. I know this is slow and time consuming but its the way WP works. Thanks for your patience and willingness to help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PayPal Mafia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Continuity (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) 10:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Jason Orange article-complementary details

Hello good day dear Keithbob, thank you for your message. I look forward to working together too to improve the Jason Orange article. I have seen your big work to the Jason Orange article! Some details are still missing. It is so Jason Orange have now a personal page. The URL link is http://jasonorangetakethat.co.uk/ What do you mean under References the page link? this corresponds to all his correctness/accuracy. They may like to ask Mr. Orange. He will also confirm I'm Mr Orange partner. With best regards Jeanne. Orangejeanne (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi OJ, I've responded on your talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw you making some edits to PayPal Mafia

		The Original Barnstar
		It is good that you make edits. Some one has to. Where would Wikipedia be without them? Xrt6L (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You are very kind. Thank you for this! We are all under appreciated on WP. Thank you for taking them time to congratulate a fellow editor. Bravo! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, Keithbob, Senior Editor II of Wikipedia! Xrt6L (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a barnstar for you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for your work at Jordan Maron! Keep it up!. ///EuroCarGT 22:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you my friend!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

Hey Keithbob. If I'm not wearing you out and soaking up all your Wiki time already, I'd love your input on this article. I was pinged to help at COIN, where the PR rep was asking to add additional material from primary sources. Most of the article was sourced to primary sources, so I started hacking away, but it seems I have quickly run into some disputes and edit-conflicts in trimming the controversies. I've proposed a version of the article here. I guess I'm not that great at resolving disputes, because I mostly edit articles that are pretty abandoned. CorporateM (Talk) 17:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've left a comment there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment from IP

It was not disrupting it was stating a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.249.5 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your addition to the Diane Abbott BLP:

Abott is a bigot [14]

Is an opinion you hold, but WP doesn't care about our opinions, it cares about summarizing reliably sourced content. Furthermore, if you didn't know before, you know now that the insertion of derogatory comments into a BLP is a disruptive editing behavior and if you continue, your editing privileges will likely be removed. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit also appears to be disruptive in nature. Please edit more carefully.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Mediator Barnstar
		For your work on Vacuum bell (medicine). For cooling down a discussion and working towards consensus. In particular your effort in providing suggested prose. A great case study in collaboration! MrBill3 (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well deserved barnstar. Star6763 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Star6763 and happy editing to all!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Brevan Howard article - COI editor update

Hello Keithbob, I'm getting in touch because I see you've recently been active in the editing of a hedge fund's Wikipedia article. Brevan Howard is another hedge fund whose Wikipedia page has been left as a stub for a number of years. Brevan Howard thought it would be a good idea to populate it with some information on the company, rather than leaving it empty. Because I have a conflict of interest in this matter, I'm hoping to get your feedback and maybe your agreement to update it with my new version, which can be found here. I would be grateful if you could take a look and let me know what you think. DanJay000 (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dan, Sure I'd be happy to help but it may take me a few days to get over there. I just want to tell you upfront I'm not the kind of editor who approves new drafts made by someone else and then superimposes them over an existing article. What I would be willing to do is use your draft as a resource for developing the article organically on my own. So if you are looking for a quick fix, I'm not the person you want.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I want it to be right, not a quick fix. There's not much of an existing article to superimpose a new one onto, so no issues there (there's about 5 lines, some of which isn't applicable to the firm - you'll see when you get there), but we could potentially incorporate what is useful into the new draft. Thanks for your help - and just so you know, I have reached out to some other editors who were active on the page. Thanks for your help! DanJay000 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks Dan, I'll come along in a day or two and see if I can lend a hand.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just a gentle "I'm here!" reminder. Really appreciate your commitment to helping on this. DanJay000 (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

OK I did some work on it today. Ping me again in a few days if I haven't gotten back there yet. I would like to caution you though that some of the text you have in your draft is not supported by the citations given. The text is sometimes a half truth of what the source says. For example:

• you wrote: $40 billion AUM as of July but the source was dated March
• You also wrote: "and manages the largest global macro hedge fund in the world as at 1 July 2013" but the cited sources says: " He [Alan Howard] now runs the biggest and best-performing firm in Europe" and the source is dated April 2013.

So there is quite a bit of misrepresentation there and it's creating a feeling of distrust in our relationship. If you have time, please go through your draft and check all your sources and make sure they support the text the cite, to the letter. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey - I saw the edits you were making (thank you) and also saw the HQ go from London to Jersey to the Caymans! No fault of your own, this industry has a lot of moving parts. I think the confusion arising here is between the firm's hedge fund strategies and the firm itself (i.e. the corporate entity, which is a corporation that manages a hedge fund, not itself a hedge fund). Put another way, Brevan Howard’s relationship to the hedge funds it operates is the same relationship between Unilever (a global manufacturer HQ’d in Europe) and the brands they manufacture. I’ve addressed the issues here:

• HQ -> There's a misunderstanding between where their funds/strategies are domiciled (the Caymans), and where the corporate HQ is based (Jersey). E.g. Unilever is HQ’d in Unilever House in London, but Ben and Jerry’s, one of the brands it owns, is HQ’d in Vermont: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Jerry's.

• Global vs. European firm -> The corporate entity has offices all over the world, (St Helier, London, Geneva, New York, Hong Kong, Tel Aviv and Washington), not just Europe. The corporate HQ is based in Jersey (not the Caymans!) hence they are often described as a European-based firm (in my original descriptor, it's referred to as the second largest hedge fund firm in Europe). Example: Unilever is based in Europe, but still a global firm.

• Manages the largest global macro fund in the world vs global hedge fund business based in Europe -> Brevan does have the largest macro hedge fund in the world, is still a global hedge fund business (they have operations globally) and is HQ’d in Europe (Jersey). Going back to the Unilever analogy, this is the same as saying Unilever is a global manufacturer HQ’d in Europe, and Ben and Jerry’s (which they own) is, say, the biggest ice cream in the world and HQ'd in Vermont.

For an alternative source for the ‘largest macro fund in the world’ descriptor, see another alternative source here.

• Dates -> Apologies, I should have caught the date issue. Let’s just use the dates given in the originally sourced material, and we can update it at a later stage once more sources come out.

I'm going to check over the sources again and will let you know once I have done. Some of the articles are going to be pay-walled. Can I e-mail you a copy of pay-walled articles? DanJay000 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can email sources to me. Just ping me here when you send as I don't check my WP email every day. Also, I'm copying some of your comments to the talk page and will respond there. If you object to them being copied, feel free to delete them. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, following your comments I've made some changes to the opener and to the section I've entitled "Founding" in my draft. I'm also just about to send you the text to some paywalled articles. I'll reference what fact they're supposed to back in the email. I can also get screenshots of these to you if you need them too. Best 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanJay000 (talk • contribs)

Hi Keithbob, just to let you know I fixed the technical sourcing issues I was having, and made some changes to my draft based on all your feedback. I think this draft is better sourcing wise, hopefully you'll agree. I've also responded to the comments you made on the talk page for the company. Would be grateful if you could have another look. —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Keithbob. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Fail-Safe Investing

Hi Keithbob, I was just wondering why you thought this revision was an improvement to that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fail-Safe_Investing&diff=531837461&oldid=531836429 regards DaveApter (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Dave thanks for stopping by. In January I did some clean up on that article. I left some messages on the talk page indicating that. If you'd like to have a chat on the talk page to discuss the article I'd be happy to participate. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added a comment there. btw I think most of your edits on that article are improvements; perhaps it would be better still to summarise all of his 17 strategies? DaveApter (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dave, I've commented there. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A few more nuggets

Hey Keithbob, after I left a few comments on the talk page of your essay, I remembered that User:Ret.Prof had archived some bullet points similar to your essay for future reference. I was able to locate them here. I'm not sure if any of this material is useful, but it might give you some ideas. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've cited it in the talk page discussion for the essay.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

If you have time to chime in on the latest two discussion strings, it seems we still need more help to settle our differences and BLPN is just crickets. CorporateM (Talk) 16:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Crickets? I'll hop over there........ :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Archiving on Talk:David Gorski

Keithbob, when you set up archiving for the talk page for David Gorski you set the counter on the MiszaBot template at 41. I think this was inadvertent so I have tried to fix it by moving the archive created, Talk:David Gorski/Archive 41 to Talk:David Gorski/Archive 1 and resetting the counter on MiszaBot to 1. I also added the archive box since the talk header didn't seem to be functioning correctly. If there was a purpose or there are errors in my attempts to fix things, feel free to straighten it out. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Those were unintended errors as I'm still learning how to set up page archiving. Thanks for making corrections and improvements. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Keithbob, no problem. I hope I explained what happened and how I tried to fix it in a useful way. I also hope my attempt worked. A couple heads up on archiving talk pages (I am in favor BTW), you may want to post a proposal on the page first stating parameters you want to use (I usually opt for a longer old date 90-180 days and sometimes vary the threads to keep). For discussions that are fundamental or of lasting importance they can be tagged {{subst:DNAU}}. Thanks for you work on WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For the creation of Mahasundari Devi article - Ekabhishektalk 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brevan Howard may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• of Brevan Howard to Leave Firm," The New York Times Dealbook]</ref> In 2011, the Financial Times]] reported that co-founder and chief operating officer (CEO) James Vernon would be leaving the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates ‎

Your warning just showed up on my watchlist and I'm confused. The IP address hasn't made any edits since the first warning you placed there on September 15. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stopping by.

My warning was posted on the IP's user page at 17:50 UTC on Sept 15th. [15]

The IP then re-added the disruptive content at 1:11 UTC [16] Sept 16th

and again at 1:48 UTC on Sept 16th [17]

It's possible the IP did not see the warning and is now finished. But if they repeat their behavior than a block may be in order but you can decide, if and when it happens.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

On my end all the edits are dated the 15th, but I have WP set to my local time. That must be the source of the confusion. Sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for stopping by to clear it up. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You think adding truthful comments is "vandalizing." You're going to have to do a little better than that. Prove what I wrote is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.65.50 (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained the situation nicely on your user talk page. WP has its own culture and way of doing things per its policies and guidelines. We are extra careful with content added to Bios of Living People WP:BLP. You would do well to read it. Furthermore, as I've said on your talk page, continued reinsertion of material that violates WP:BLPN is a form of disruptive vandalism and if you continue to do that your editing privileges may be curtailed. The choice is yours. Either learn and follow WP procedures or continue to "battle" with people here who are trying to protect the rights of living subjects on WP. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hightail

Hi Keithbob. If I'm not completely wearing you out, I've proposed some updates to the article on Hightail (formerly YouSendIt) here, regarding their recent rebrand and acquisition. In particular, a lot of the sources talk about the company's recent activities as part of a "shakeup" by the new CEO and increased competition from Dropbox, and I'm not sure if and to what extent that should be included. Is it editorializing or important context? If you have time/interest, would be interested in your input and whatever edits you deem appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 22:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna have to pass. Still working on Yelp, Matthew Bryden and another article, Brevan Howard, that needs a lot of work. Sorry I just don't have room for anything more right now.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. CorporateM (Talk) 01:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob. I started on the Yelp page back in April and am still eager to help bring it up to the GA standard. It's been almost a week (I guess not that long in Wikipedia's terms) and wanted to see if I could rope you back to it. There are still a few things I think need to be hammered out before it's ready for a nominations. There are a couple areas that are promotional, the early history has way too many sub-sections (IMO) and the controversy takes up 30% of the entire article, in part through the use of mediocre sources and by documenting each individual allegation. I also noticed it says the concerns have existed for ten years, which is odd because the company is not actually ten years old. CorporateM (Talk) 19:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a look at the talk page today or tomorrow and we can discuss changes there.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I was just taking one small thing at-a-time as I read it top-down. The latest being a small thing about an overly detailed sentence about the release of their API. CorporateM (Talk) 12:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I know I'm pestering you, but I do want to bring it up to GA ;-) the Yelp page that is. Feel free to blow me off if you don't have the time/interest. CorporateM (Talk) 22:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Civil Wars

Since you appear to be editing The Civil Wars, I'm sure you'll see that you damaged a reference and I won't try to fix it. Let me know if you can't and I'll what I can do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yup. You got it. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help protecting Daniel Squadron entry from vandalism

Keithbob,

I saw your efforts several days ago to clean up some misleading information in the entry for Senator Daniel Squadron. It appears a political opponent is attempting to spread misinformation about the Senator, who is currently running for office. This person continually replaces inaccurate information that has been updated or edited, including some changes you made several days ago. I've tried reporting this to Wikipedia, but it continues to happen on a daily basis. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.--unsigned comment

OK, I'll take a look and see what the situation is. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Really very characteristic of a campaign that claims transparency when it in fact has done the opposite to not even SIGN a comment. Keithbob, you're not falling for this are you?--96.246.181.198 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. [18] as follows:

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – This article has been the subject of several complaints at WP:BLPN [19] [20] and user talk pages. [21] Despite intervention from editors at BLPN there has been constant POV edit warring between IP's. [22] One SPA with at least two IP addresses [23][24] has been attacking myself and User:FreeRangeFrog on our user talk pages [25] after we responded at BLPN and every time we edit they revert our BLP compliant changes back to their POV attack style content. I have started several talk page threads but the IP's refuse to discuss or collaborate.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Your second warning

Your recent editing history at Daniel Squadron shows that you've deleted edits that have valid references. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert, which when done repeatedly, can lead to your being blocked.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution--96.246.181.198 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your objections to the corrections made to the article by myself and USER:FreeRangeFrog who came to the BLP via a BLPN thread are frivolous attempts at intimidation and personal attacks for the purpose of exerting ownership on the article which you are making into an attack page. All of my editing is within the guidelines of WP:BLP. I suggest you read them and visit WP:BLPN as this article has been referred there 2-3 times in the past week by myself and others asking for neutral, and uninvolved editors to correct your POV edits. A few days ago I opened threads on the Squadron talk page but you have yet to participate. So it appears to me that your reckless accusations of non-collaboration and policy violation [26] [27] [28] towards anyone who changes the article, are a smoke screen for your disruptive behavior. I suggest you read the WP:NPA and WP:OWN and reconsider your angry, battleground approach to editing at WP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Jason Orange personal life

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop having Jeanne Orange as Jason's wife she never has been married to him & the website she has a link to her is her alone. Jason doesn't even know she exists. HE HAS NEVER BEEN MARRIED if U knew Jeanne like us fans know her from twitter & FB U will know that she is a deluded fan who is actually quite scary to her.

I'm sure Jason wouldn't like to know that lies are being printed about him. If my legal knowledge is correct it's actually against the law to claim to be married to someone who you aren't & post it all over the internet.

JEANNE ORANGE IS DELUDED & DANGEROUS. SHE IS NOT JASON'S WIFE & NEVER HAS BEEN. PLEASE BLOCK HER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenefer (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that in the edits I look at. Can you show a diff of the edit you find problematic? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The information from the editor mentioned was removed a while ago and hasn't appeared since.Annabelle000 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Folks, welcome to my talk page! Glad this got sorted out without me having to do anything :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Duck Dynasty review

I was wondering why you accepted an edit to a semi-protected page that had no citation or even edit summary explaining why it was added. This user's addition was of a wrestler to the article subject's list of family members. This should not have been accepted without citation or reason given for the edit unless separate confirmation was done. I'm going to accept an edit the same user made that removes the change you approved. Please let me know if I'm mistaken. cliffsteinman -- Discuss 04:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this inquiry till just now. I'll take a look at the edit and comment. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I assume this is the edit you are asking about. First, thanks for coming by to discuss the issue, communication is always good on WP. Second, since you seem to have a working knowledge of the content of said article and are an experienced editor I trust that your change after my acceptance was a productive one and I take no offense by your action. As for why I accepted the edit, I'll give my reasons:

1. According to the protection log the article is being protected because of "persistent vandalism"
2. The edit was made by User:Johncenarandyorton who has 18 edits and has no vandal warnings on his/her user page
3. There were no obvious signs of vandalism or policy violations and Duck Dynasty is a TV show not a BLP, nor was it flagged for BLP issues in the protection log
4. There is nothing in WP:REVIEWER that says additions to a PC article must be cited.

Also, WP:REVIEWER says

• "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate content." and
• "Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader. The reviewer checks the pending change(s) for an article and can then decide to either accept it, revert it or modify it then later accept it. Reviewers are not expected to be subject experts and their review is not a guarantee in any way of an error-free article. " [italics added by me].

So in summary I made my acceptance based on standard procedure and you made the proper correction. The system is working!! Thanks for stopping by. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Anu Hasan

Can you advise me why my wife's page is under "pending changes protection"? She and I have spent a lot of time bringing it up to date and as she is an actress it is useful for her to be able to showcase herself on here in addition to Spotlight etc and by making such wholesale changes to her page you case us potential problems and even loss of earnings. Any information you can give me will be greatly appreciated Gjay66 (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I am also curious to know how you can describe the changes made as "constructive edits" - it seems that the removal of accurate information is anything but Gjay66 (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjay66 (talk • contribs)

The article was placed under pending changes status so that changes to the articles, such as the edits, which are not in accord with WP's policies could be filtered out. That term has expired but if editors continue to make changes that are out of policy it could be re-instated permanently. WP text is based on reliable sources, not on personal information or knowledge. Also it is an encyclopedia written in a disinterested tone. Please read: WP:BLP and WP:COI and WP:NPOV for more information. It is also a collaborative project so please discuss your proposed changes, issues or concerns on the Anu Hasan talk page. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Krishna Athal

Hi Keithbob, I know you were not questioning my actions about the Krishna Athal article, I was just explaining the situation that was going on there. It was only after I commented that I clued in that the discussion was only about the statement and not the actions of the editors who kept removing content. Cmr08 (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like we are both on the same page :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, just letting you know that it appears another IP is trying to put this info back in the article. They don't give up. Cmr08 (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have posted a note on his talk page. [29] -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Jovan Deretić

Thank you for your help on this article. I have been trying to inform the editor about BLP but have not seen any improvement. I'm thankful that at least one other editor now has eyes on this, as it was starting to feel like I was verging towards an edit war over this subject. Eggishorn (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, let's take it slow and easy. My sense is that these editors are misguided but well intended. Let's see if they are interested in being educated to the WP guidelines. If so we should work with them and try to make help them to become productive editors. So far their actions are unproductive but at the same time they don't appear to be intentionally disruptive. Let's talk it a step at a time. And thanks for your continued attention to this. Proper handling of BLP's on WP is important. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

After further problems with one of the SPA's there, I've requested protection and it has been accepted.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have updated Jovan Deretić with what I feel to be verifiable information, so I would appreciate your comments. Thanks again --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work, I've made some edits and left a post on the talk page. Thanks for following up on this! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Um, you might want to review both the guidelines for arbitration, as your last comment was 9 minutes after closing (no biggie, but a relevant detail), and, maybe, a bit more of the history of Liz's talk page. If you did, you might see I have been in contact with her for some time, and that your assumption that someone is now on my "attack list" (I don't actually have one, BTW) is maybe a little prejudicial. Granted, I acknowledge that this arbitration has been, in some ways, was Ignocrates indicated he hoped it would be when he he made the case request, a "let's gang up on John" case, and I am actually rather surprised that it hasn't become that, but, on a strictly personal note, I really hope that the animosity that Ignocrates and, to a lesser extent, My very best wishes have pretty much led the campaign for dies away after the arbitration. Like I indicated multiple times on the evidence page, I really think that there is a need for some sort of guidelines, even rough guidelines, for religion, and maybe, whether arbcom specifically requests them or not, maybe in some way we can get some set up to at least resolve some of the long-standing disputes and, hopefully, make it easier to develop some of the more problematic content. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John, I've been involved in several ArbCom cases as both an involved and uninvolved party and in my experience deadlines are not managed to the minute. However, if you feel my comment should be removed due to its timing, feel free to alert an ArbCom clerk and ask that it be deleted. It's up to you. My comments at ArbCom are based on my examination of the evidence and the behavior of all parties during the Arbcom process. I hope that at some point in the future you are able to reflect on the role you have played in creating the problems in this topic area and are able to adjust and correct your behavior to prevent them from occurring in other areas. Best wishes,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually have myself been before ArbCom repeatedly. If I may say something, which I hope you will not take exception to, there is a difference unforetunately between the evidence which can be presented here, and the full evidence of the case, including all the pre-history (over a year old) which Carcharoth has said he would review personally and present a review to the committee for. I also believe it worthwhile to note that unfortunately Mvbw, at least in my opinion, became involved because he holds the fact that Homunculus was subject to editor review from the second Falun Gong ArbCom against me, based on my statements that (1) pretty much every source I've seen (a lot of them) mention with all weight they can, not knowing the evidence, that the Chinese Communists say that some western government was involved in the creation of the Falun Gong (maybe, we can't know), and (2) that there is some, indirect, evidence that at least one western government may be (possibly/probably is) in some way helping fund FG activities, maybe specifically including media, like we, honestly, do to a lot of resistance/opposition groups in the world. And, unfortunately, there is the matter of Mvbw and his, well, character, under all the names he has used. Personally, I have no doubt that I will be at least reprimanded, because, honestly, I should be. Maybe even de-sysoped, which, considering I only became one to edit banners, isn't really a big loss for me. But I think that, perhaps, when Carcharoth presents his conclusions based on a more thorough review of the matter, including the prehistory, that you and a few others might be rather surprised at some of the decisions they make. John Carter (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John, for your honest and candid reflections. Let's see how the Arbs assess this. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

MVBW's reactions to John Carter's comment above

I read your conversation and would like to object only one thing: "My very best wishes have pretty much led the campaign". There was no campaign against JC. This is pure imagination. And also this: JC: "the full evidence of the case, including all the pre-history (over a year old) which Carcharoth has said he would review personally and present a review to the committee for". Hmm.. I'd like to be informed if they find something interesting... My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC) OK, I actually forget what it was. It was this statement by JC in connection with my proposal on workshop here. Well, this is nothing unusual: JC is seeking sanctions (1st diff) against a completely uninvolved editor who happened to disagree with him (he tells: "it certainly be of interest to the ArbCom if his actions might be in some way seen as a violation of previous sanctions."). Same is during this case. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Now, speaking about my comments during this arbitration, it's only natural that people who commented have a prior knowledge of the sides, however I do not think that most recent comments by JC on my talk page [30][31] and my response [32] indicate any problems.My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I guess, this is all about psychology. JC believes that everyone who criticizes him (or someone else) holds some kind of an acrimony against him (or someone else). Not so. I do have an unfavorable view of him as an administrator (as should be clear from my comments), but there is no personal acrimony. I guess, when Arbs or other good administrators make unfavorable decisions about users, they feel the same way. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Given my basic retirement from this site, probably more or less permanent today, I just wanted to drop by to say goodbye. Some of the comments above are, of course, laughable, considering I actually did very little in an administrative capacity while I was an admin, other than maybe edit protected templates, about which few people would have any opinion one way or another. The rest of it, honestly, the few times I ever had contact with mvbw were in the Falun Gong 2arbitration, when he decided to back another academic, and, actually, a review of his own comments in the arb indicated that was about the only thing he discussed. And mvbw himself in that history was just coming in as a completely uninvolved editor passing judgment upon things he had little if any knowledge or experience, something that seems to be a bit of a habit of his? Anyway, you seem to be, unlike him and some others, someone who has some interest in mediation. Good luck in working with religious arguments, particularly if one of the participants is passionately devoted to a single topic, like most of the FG editors, particularly the members, and others like the above who seem to believe that governments can't be trusted for anything. I have to think that is one of the reasons he has sought to change his name so often, and why, according to his user page and user talk page history, he tends to retire or become inactive just about any time he ever gets criticized. Anyway, good luck - you're going to need it. John Carter (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks John, I appreciate the way you stood up and voluntarily relinquished your Admin status. Not many would have done that. I understand that you feel frustrated with these editors and this topic area and that you disagree with the outcome of the ArbCom and that you retiring from WP. I wish you all good luck and happiness in your real life and if you decide to return I'm sure that you will find areas of the project where you can continue to make good contributions. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

for the baklava. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Lakireddy Bali Reddy

Thanks for your edits bringing the article up to BLP standards. The trafficking case itself is quite notable — the subject of books, as well as substantial press coverage (e.g. this series of 27 articles in an Indian newspaper). If there were a standalone article on the entire affair, independent of the biography page, what factors would I need to consider to avoid violating WP:BIO? I checked Wikipedia policy on criminal acts, and it seems to pass, at least in terms of notability.

Also, where did you get the fact that Reddy is/was an attorney (in the intro para)? I couldn't find a cite for that, and deleted it from the first line of the article. Thanks!

--Anirvan (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming by. I'm going to respond on the article talk page. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the very helpful essay on 'POV railroad'.

Dear Keithbob; Congratulations on producing this excellent essay, which describes a subtle set of bullying tactics that we can all now recognize, should we ever be unfortunate enough to fall prey to it. I particularly liked the balance between (1) the detailed analysis and description of the issue and (2) the equally complete advice on preventative and remedial actions available to us all. You (and the other editors who helped you) have put in a lot of thought into this essay and have made a most valuable contribution to our community. Thank you for a job well done. (As I was reading it and learning from it, I came across three small typos that I corrected in passing.) With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your praise and I am glad you are finding it useful. And many thanks for fixing the typos, I'm not a very good proofreader. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Bryden

I don't think it's beneficial to continue the back and forth sniping, which has already gone on long enough. Most Wikipedians are pretty smart and when an obvious POV pusher quacks like a duck - they'll know to take a look with an open mind. A wall of text of bickering will just make it more difficult for an editor to read everything.

I wouldn't worry too much about the COI accusations. This has already happened to me a good half-dozen times. Any POV pusher looking to win an argument latches onto it - even other PR reps. CorporateM (Talk) 18:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If I were you, I would move User:Obiwankenobi and Midday to "supports mutual voluntary topic ban". That would be more accurate. There are no actual opposes, just different opinions on whether we should both be topic banned and whether it should be voluntary or forced. CorporateM (Talk) 23:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but Midday doesn't have a vote on his own outcome and I don't see the point of a voluntary ban on either side, it just kicks the can further down the road. What I want to clarify is what the status is of a topic ban for that article. Is there one or not? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Keithbob, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, its a fantastic tool! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

RPEQ

Hi Keithbob, With all due respect, what do you know about the setting and standards of professional engineering (or any professional body's methods)in thee western world? (The BoPEQ has recently been criticised, with some reason, and is reacting to that by tightening its 'control') Regards, Hroger B.Sc., M.Eng., CPEng., RPEQ Hroger (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, Unless you have direct knowledge of the problems that the BoPEQ has had recently, you would think that! Good luck, Hroger B.Sc.,M.Eng.,C.P.Eng.,R.P.E.Q.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hroger (talk • contribs) 08:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hroger and thanks for stopping by my page. I think you must be referring to my reversal of this edit while I was doing vandal patrol. You may not be aware but WP is the victim of hundreds of unproductive and/or vandal edits every hour. As vandal patrollers we have to make decisions based on limited information and that means sometimes good edits get rejected. That's why the message I left on your talk page said to come to me if you had a question or concern. In your case you inserted the letters 'bpeq' in lower case which looked to me like vandalism rather than an acronym. Also you did not give an edit summary to explain your edit, nor did you provide a source for the information you added. These are red flags for vandal patrollers. In future if you supply a citation and explain your edit in the edit summary, it will be helpful for both of us. As for the edit in question, I have reinstated your contribution. Please consider capitalizing bpeq (or is it BoPEQ?) and adding a citation to the article and including an edit summary for all your contributions to WP. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

BPEQ

Hi Keithbob, Thanks. I won't be in so much of a rush next time. Regards, Hroger 121.217.138.112 (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hroger, Glad we could come to some kind of understanding on this. Thanks for your all your efforts to improve WP. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi Keithbob. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks AC, kind of you to notify me. I'll take a look at the appeal when I have time. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for your essay on 'POV Railroading'.

		The Original Barnstar
		Dear Keithbob; Your essay on POV Railroading is of significant importance to us all, and I encourage you to persevere with it. [I am awarding you the original Barnstar since there doesn't seem to be an 'Excellent Essay' Barnstar or Award.] With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a very kind gesture. Much appreciated! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Keithbob; Thank you for the chocolate chip cookie; it was delicious! With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee. (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Who been first - Obninsk or Sellafield? I'm gonna put it to you this way. Two different people invented a car, let's say within two years from each other. Second man arguing that he really first, because first car can't be counted as first really - engine only 5hp, stearing weel on other side and paint job a crap. Unlike his, there 60hp engine and shiny paint work. Don't work like this. Full stop. By this logic, we can discard nuclear test in Los Alamos as been first, because again - it isn't powerful enough. Should we start from 5 megaton maybe? Or from 100? And by the way, Stephenson locomotive not first really by same standart.

Did Obninsk reactor supply electricity to the grid? Yes It did. And did for 48 years. It don't matter how much it supplied, because it been first in the world to do so. So clearly, only reason why it been not accepted here - because it happend in USSR, and we in West don't like to be second to russian. No, no, no. By any chance - can we find some guy in Brittan with really long ladder, and put him in front of Y.Gagarin as first in space? Regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.159.170 (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure what this is in regard to. Maybe an edit I deleted on vandal patrol or an edit I rejected as a reviewer. If you could provide a link to the edit in question I'd be happy to discuss this or try to help any way I can. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I see from your talk page that I reverted an edit you made at Sellafield. Are you inquiring about that?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Now that I've had time to research I see that you inserted the phrase "but because it was in USSR and we don't like it, we will not count it" into the Sellafield article 7 times on Oct 21st. That phrase sounds like an editorial comment which are not appropriate on WP. However if you can find a reliable source that supports that phrase and you cite it in the article then that would be very helpful. Let me know if I can assist you in anyway. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Petronilla of Aragon

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Petronilla of Aragon. 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, 27 October 2013 (UTC)  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Bullying#RfC:_Template_links. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't think you might be aware of this, but four months ago, Fladrif returned as 75.7.198.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and was blocked a few hours later. I just wanted to make you aware of what happened after Fladrif was blocked back in April since you did have a long history with that user. I had issues with him a while back (he posted a couple of abusive comments on my talk page during an AN discussion back in March), but I have moved on from that and I am not afraid of anyone after all. After all, contributors (users, blocked users or administrators) and arbitrators are volunteers and people too and personal abuse is supposed to be against Wikipedia policy, having dealt with a couple of disruptive users myself (i.e. Yourname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I also took a two-month semi-retirement for partially that type of abuse, as well as feeling tired and exhausted in general and my classes as a graduate student. :-) I look forward to work harmoniously with you in the future. Take care, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sjones, thanks for the update I seem to recall that Fladrif came back and tried to make changes to his user page using an IP acct and was then blocked. I'm sorry you have been the victim of bullying on WP. It happens much too often, I'm afraid to say. If WP is to continue to progress and attract volunteers then incivility and bullying need to be prevented. Thanks for all your valuable contributions on WP and good luck with all your real life endeavors. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm still active around WP. I had to deal with a couple of bullies around here myself before that happened. Back in 2011, I encountered Yomiel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over on the discussion page of the Silent Hill article and tried to get her blocked successfully, but despite that, the harassment and guilt-tripping towards me and Hula Hup (talk · contribs) continued. Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and the banned user BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tried to help the user and I tried to help her, only to find that it was a sockpuppet of the banned user Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BW's defense of FOJ gave me a bit more trouble. Months later, I encountered Yourname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who posted abusive comments on my talk page under his sockpuppets, and it was pretty irritating to say the least, and we did manage to get him banned. That made me discover that I cannot trust users or sockpuppeteers like them anymore. I also encountered an IP that belonged to FOJ this April and managed to get her blocked. During my time here, I also dealt with Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see also his LTA page). I completely remember that Fladrif block discussion at ANI back in April, where I was convinced that he was being disruptive (even after looking at his contributions and the WT:BASC discussion on Will Beback in which he caused some disruption, I still find Fladrif's attitude quite disturbing from the very beginning) and denounced his conduct as being "profoundly detrimental" to the project (that discussion, and Ched's apology towards myself for making past observations in a negative light about me, have truly made me regain some of my faith in the project somewhat, and I remember giving you an award for your efforts), and it's a good thing he's gone from the project. And also, I have and will always stand up to any type of abuse that goes on around here, since I have been an experienced editor for nearly 7 years, and I will let you know that I seriously do not tolerate editing in an environment that permits abuse and incivility, since WP is a collaborative environment. However, dealing with disruptive users are not something I signed on to do and I really can't stand dealing with those turkeys. I have not and will not continue to hold grudges against anyone, because it is basically not my character. Cheers and hope everything is going well for you too! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks LSJ, happy editing!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'm still glad the issue with Fladrif was resolved. Happy editing as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Percy Flowers may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• the local community and was not pursued by local authorities for his illegal business activities.{[fact}} Flowers was indicted ten times by [[United States federal courts|federal]] [[grand juries]], and

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

film conglomerates over at DRN

Hello Keithbob, I was looking on DRN from some older cases where I'm a budding mediation-cabal-volunteer, and noticed the shspu and 99 dispute that you are handling. Since you are trying to get them to focus on the present, I figured I would send you a message on your personal talkpage, rather than post this into the middle of your DRN thread. Unfortunately, this seems to be a long-running dispute. See the talkpage of Tribune Entertainment for the slugfest a few weeks back, about whether the trademarked-in-2006 but just recently once again officially incorporated-anew-in-2013 production arm of the Tribune-conglomerate should or should not be characterized as "new" like some sources claim or as "re-launched" like others claim. There is a personality clash here, but also methinks a language barrier, or maybe just some WP:IDHT, a bit from both sides as far as I can tell. You can post this message into your DRN thread if you think it should have been there originally, or delete it from here if you don't think I should have mentioned it in the first place (though I'd appreciate a note on my talkpage instructing me on the best practices in a grey area like this if you do decide I goofed somehow). Anyways, thanks for improving wikipedia. Good luck with your editors. If you need something additional from me, please ping my talkpage. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, its helpful info and you did the right thing posting it here. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

No prob. I'm not sure the Tribune article is correct yet, and SpSu had moved on from that page, so I'm trying to work it out over there. Methinks this is one of those areas where SpSu is prolly an 'inside expert' of some sort... either employed in the movie industry, or tangentially employed (e.g. as a recruiter or somesuch), and that they may have WP:The_Truth, but fortunately or unfortunately, reliable sources that prove TheTruth is both true and *notable* may not exist. Anyhoo, thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Walk (band)

Hi Keithbob. That's great that you are starting to do some non-contentious AfD closures. For this particular one, you have not completed your duties, which would include removing the tag from the article, and adding an OldAfd tag to the article's talk page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. Thanks! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)  Done Thanks!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Random" compliment

I just wanted to compliment you on the way you worded one of your recent edits. You had basically worded your thoughts in a way I had been trying for a while on multiple occasions, but couldn't. Hope you know what edit I am talking about. Anyways, thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do and thank you for the compliment. I look forward to working together more in the future! best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Acharya S

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Acharya S. 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, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jews/infobox

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jews/infobox. 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, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, Keithbob! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and  Tentinator  06:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Fox squirrel.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Fox squirrel.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You reverted my good faith edits to Omar are unfounded190.207.187.233 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC) ?

Your deleting content is unfounded. This violates NPOV to claim as article was making, this is only some shia writers that claim it. Entire shia community says so. 190.207.187.233 (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi IP 190, Thanks for coming by with your question. Yes I recognize that your edit was made in good faith and that is why I made a good faith and polite note on your talk page to alert you to the situation. The problem with your edit was that you changed cited text. What that does is mislead the reader into thinking that your new text is contained in the cited source. I understand you are here at WP with good intentions and that you feel frustrated but please be aware that it is a collaborative endeavor and sometimes our edits (even mine) are reversed and things need to be discussed and sorted out on talk pages. Thanks for your patience. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy Stoppelman

Hi Keithbob. I wanted to let you know that an article in which you contributed substantially to has been brought up to the Good Article standard. Mostly we just made some tweaks, corrected citations, trimmed a lot of extra citations, etc. etc. CorporateM (Talk) 14:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hey, Keithbob,
I was just looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group and was wondering if this group was still active. Cheers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not much activity there but it's still breathing with a post or two per month on the talk page.[33] Why do you ask, pray tell? :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan. 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, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) characters. 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) 00:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

mountains above 20000 ft in Nepal

Dear Keithbob,

I am sorry to see that you changed my change from 240 peaks above 20000 ft (6069 m), I am by now living 30 years in Nepal, have climbed peaks, guided tours and worked with Nepal Government.

There are officially:

Above 8000 meters 17 Between 7500 to 8000 meters 40 Between 6000 to 7500 meters 1253 Between 5500 to 6000 meters 603 Total Number of Peaks above 5500 meters 1913

I am somewhat dissapointed about your change of my information, which is accurate and right. It's a joke that in Nepal there should be only 240 peaks above 6000 meter...

Warm regrads,

Navyo Eller Kathmandu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navyo.eller (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Navyo and thanks for stopping by my talk page to discuss our edits. The reason I reverted you edit is because you change the number 240 peaks to 1200 peaks. This is misleading to the readers as the sources says 240 peaks. So what we need to do is find a reliable source that says 1200 peaks and then we can change the number and update the citation. Let's see what we can find. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

These sources say 240 peaks [34][35]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Bryden

I just gave the article a once-over. No reverts yet. It's still very negative, but the sources we have are and I can't say if that is due to cherry-picking, etc. Do you think you could give the revised a once-over? Or do you think it's a waste of time until there is (hopefully) a topic ban. CorporateM (Talk) 13:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

From my end, I don't feel its productive to participate there until the community (ANI etc) decides how to address the ongoing behavioral issues. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That was weird

I was just finished typing up some coatrack concerns on the talk page of John Dalli and about to tag on the article when I saw you had beaten me to it. I guess I spent a few too many minutes typing. Thanks. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, small world eh?? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

AARRGH! Now you've gotten that song stuck in my head! --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Ne discere cessa! (German User) 23:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, using the preview feature is my usual habit, however due to an eye condition I sometimes have to go back and make additional corrections. Thanks for your patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Clint Eastwood. 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, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Alice + Olivia wikipedia edits

Hi. My name is Buffy Sash and I'm the Vice President, Global Digital Commerce at Alice + Olivia.

I noticed that our wikipedia page was incorrect so I updated it on October 30th and saw that you reverted / edited it to an older version which contains incorrect information. I updated it again on November 5th and you reverted it again to the older version.

This is the information that we use in our press releases:

<company press release> ABOUT ALICE + OLIVIA BY STACEY BENDET: Launched in 2002, alice + olivia by Stacey Bendet is a brand that allows customers to express their personal style. With clothing that juxtaposes the whimsical and flirty with the sexy and sophisticated, a+o epitomizes the personality and perspective of its founder, Stacey Bendet. The brand was born from Stacey’s personal quest to create the perfect pair of pants, and has since grown into a full lifestyle collection including ready-to-wear, gowns, shoes, tech accessories and a newly launched collection of handbags. The brand is a Hollywood favorite with celebrity fans including Gwyneth Paltrow, Katy Perry and Drew Barrymore. alice + olivia by Stacey Bendet is available at the brand’s 13 free-standing boutiques in New York, California, Connecticut and Hong Kong, at aliceandolivia.com, and at over 800 select department and specialty stores worldwide, including Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Lane Crawford, Isetan, Hankyu, Harvey Nichols and Harrods, as well as prominent web retailers including Net-a-Porter and Shopbop. <company press release>

The company would like to have the most up to date information on this page, so I'm reaching out to see how I can do this.

Please let me know the best way to handle.

Thank you,

Buffy Sash

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffysash (talk • contribs) 19:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Buffy and thanks for reaching out. WP can be a confusing and discouraging experience for newcomers who are not aware of the policies and procedures that govern the creation and management of its content. The reason the content you had inserted was removed is because it was not cited to reliable secondary sources such as news and magazine articles (see WP:V) AND because it was promotional in nature (see WP:SOAP). WP:SOAP says:

• Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

For this reason content from company press releases is generally not suitable for WP. Let me know if I can be of further service.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metal Gear (weapon)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Metal Gear (weapon). 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) 00:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Derek Corrigan

Please see Talk:Derek_Corrigan#City_by_laws_for_dog_breeds. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 20:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page, thanks for the notice. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure and fixing invisible post in Template:Archive top

Hi Keithbob. Thank you for your closes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

I noticed here, in your close of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sidebar update, that you manually typed in your signature and the timestamp. To insert just the timestamp, you can use five tildes: ~~~~~~. See Wikipedia:Signatures#Using five tildes.

I think you are manually typing in your signature because your signature contains code (probably the <span> tags) that affects the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} templates, making your close invisible. To fix this issue, I recommend using the result= parameter.

Compare:

{{archivetop|All participants seemed to agree that the sidebar's content, design and appearance could be improved to increase its utility and ease of navigation. However, there was no clear consensus to change to the version proposed in this RfC. Instead there was a wide variety of suggested changes none of which appeared to have universal support. I would suggest further discussion (maybe via a committee) to analyze each section of the sidebar and propose individual changes or groups of related changes in another RfC so that a consensus may be reached and changes may be implemented. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style= "color:#090;"><i>Keithbob</i></b>]] • [[User_ talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#075;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 17:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)}}

with:

{{archivetop|result=All participants seemed to agree that the sidebar's content, design and appearance could be improved to increase its utility and ease of navigation. However, there was no clear consensus to change to the version proposed in this RfC. Instead there was a wide variety of suggested changes none of which appeared to have universal support. I would suggest further discussion (maybe via a committee) to analyze each section of the sidebar and propose individual changes or groups of related changes in another RfC so that a consensus may be reached and changes may be implemented. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style= "color:#090;"><i>Keithbob</i></b>]] • [[User_ talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#075;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 17:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)}}

Both your closing statement and your signature will be visible in the second block.

Based on their personal preferences, some closers sometimes use the status= parameter at Template:Archive top to summarize their closes.

If the same visibility issue happens when you use {{discussion top}}, I recommend using |1=, which has the same effect as the result= parameter for the {{archive top}} template.

I hope this works, and thank you again for your work at WP:ANRFC! Best, Cunard (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cunard, You are absolutely right. I was forced to type my name and date stamp because four tildes resulted in a blanking of my summary. I'll try your suggestions. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It worked!!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the link to 'Don't be a dick' from our Civility guidelines

Hi, Keithbob, thanks for your April 2013 comment (at the end of the discussion to be found here) that the 'Don't be a Dick' article was "A completely non-productive, obscene and sexist essay IMO". I thought you might be interested to know that I've finally decided to remove the link to 'Don't be a dick' from our Civility guidelines, giving my justification here. It'd be interesting to know if there are any links to it elsewhere, though I guess I'll have to wait and see whether anybody reverts me first, and who then wins any ensuing argument. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudos on your good work, but its been reverted, and I've left a comment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. 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) 00:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good collection of info! Karen Middlefield (talk) 03:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Karen, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and willingness to be patient and learn more about WP's unique culture and processes. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Mail

Email back atcha. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Yelp

Hey, do you want to just go ahead and nominate it? It would probably be faster and easier for you to just work on the article with a GA reviewer, then going through slow and clunky COI processes. I could just produce a few notes that you and the GA reviewer can look at whenever it's up for review. CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm fairly busy the next few days, but on Monday I will start working on it with that it mind ie tweaking and checking sources for accuracy etc. When an article is worked on by multiple people and rearranged etc like this one has a lot of things can fall through the cracks. I want to check everything before submitting for GA review.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I think it still needs quite a bit of work from my perspective. It doesn't cover the "major aspects", there's a citation needed tag in there and it has a "Controversies" section that should be renamed per WP:CRITICISM. The first sentence of "user reviews" is awkward. The History section has too many sub-sections now that it has been reduced, but could probably be expanded now that much of the material has been moved. And so on, etc.

However, this process of me pointing out one thing at a time.... it just doesn't work. By time one thing is fixed, another problem comes up. It leads to excessive discussions about unimportant details. And it's basically just me nagging about small things endlessly. If you're committed to bring it up to GA anyway, it would probably be better if I just stay out of your way so you can take over and spend more time in article-space, rather than on the Talk page with me ;-)

BTW - the editor has backed off and I believe the stable Matthew Bryden article is reasonably neutral, but I'm still a little concerned about if the article is missing a more supportive perspective, being that it still uses largely sources introduced by the POV pusher. CorporateM (Talk) 17:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I just trimmed the Bryden piece a bit more. It's "good enough" I think. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I just read the whole thing and made some copy and format edits. I think its a balanced BLP in its current state. Let's see if it lasts.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq War

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iran–Iraq 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) 00:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: Trahelliven and Ykantor

I note that you have referred that part of the dispute involving the Rut Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch edit to WP:RSN.

What is the next step? (This is the first formal dispute in which I have been involved.) Many thanks Trahelliven (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Trahelliven and thanks for stopping by. I suggest that you take the source issues (one source at a time) to RSN. Just open a thread there and briefly describe the source objectively, indicating its strengths and weaknesses, AND specify the text that it was supporting. That's important as the view of a source depends a great deal on the context in which it is used. You'll then get feedback from editors who visit that noticeboard regularly. Keep in mind that noticeboards are not binding but they do provide objective input and help to create a consensus about a source and its potential use (or non-use) on an article. Let me know if you need more help. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ron Parker

Hi, thanks for your work on this article. Just a courtesy note that I've nominated it for deletion. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've commented there, thanks for the notice. Also, I've started a merger discussion at Natural Law Party of Canada talk. Your input would be appreciated. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a sensible suggestion and I've made a comment. Spicemix (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You're invited to join WikiProject Women artists!

Hello Keithbob/Archive 5! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women artists. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women artists, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women artists page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

SarahStierch (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon. 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, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter David

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Peter David. 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, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

DRN coordinator

Tag! You're it! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Help!

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure about the wiki policies, etc. I don't get why User:Livelikemusic (talk) wants to redirect that page (Sorry I'm Late (Cher Lloyd album)). I did not give the track listing, and it's releasing next year so how are we gonna find an official cover for it? I think Cher Lloyd herself is thinking of a cover! Why is he redirecting that page as in the future, we still need that page? Isn't that an extra step? User:I dream of horses (talk) first gave a track listing, but she did not use the {{track listing}} format, so I helped her make it to the format so it would be better. However, I did not know where she found the source from. Then, another user, I don't know who, changed the track listing. What am I to blame? And, I created that page so that unregistered users can know that Lloyd's coming up with new album. Livelikemusic says there are no source, but I don't know why those users are not giving sources. He/she blamed me for a fake track listing when I did not tracklist it! I hope you can help. Thanks. --Nahnah4 (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, WP is a collaborative process and everyone has their own idea of how to manage an article or topic. This sometimes creates conflict. This can only be resolved through discussion and communication on the talk pages. I suggest that you begin a calm civil conversation with the other people involved and try to come to some sort of compromise. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (WP:DRN) only handles issues that have already undergone significant discussion on the talk pages. So far that hasn't happened in this case. So I suggest you do that. WP has hundreds of guidelines and rules and I know it is overwhelming for a new user like yourself. So take your time and if you need help, let me know and I'll do what I can. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Keith. I've tried explaining this to Nahanh but they do not understand. The album fails per WP:ALBUMS. It does not reach notability guidelines and has no official release date, album cover, chart history, tracklist and/or sufficient sourcing. And per ALBUMS, you need majority of that to warrant an article. She has none of that for the disc. And this user is bordering on fancruft edits in attempts of owning the page. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for unconfirmed releases, and Cher Lloyd is not notable enough to qualify for the disc based on popularity. And once more, I dream of horses told this user they themselves did not post the track list. The album is not even completed recording. So there cannot be an official list. No creditable source has posted it. This user is just creating a disruption for the sake of being a hassle at this point. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I said I did not tracklist it. Thanks.--218.186.153.21 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC) (User:Nahnah4)

Yes, LiveLikeMusic, I understand your concerns about the notability of the article. However, since an editor is objecting to your blank/redirect, the correct thing now would be to self revert and take the article to AfD for a community discussion and allow the issue to be settled there. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But how do we participate in the AfD?--218.186.153.21 (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (User:Nahnah4) (talk • contribs)

Please join the discussion on the talk page [36]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Keithbob:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2400 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

McKinsey

Hey I have some much better draft material I've been working on for a rev 2 (still very drafty, work-in-progress type stuff) if you want to see before you get too deep in the current article. CorporateM (Talk) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I wasn't planning on doing anything further. I happened by there today and noticed the article needed some copy edits and reorganizing so I spent 20 min or so making some improvements. There was no recent discussions at the talk page, so I edited boldly :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yah, I don't want to discourage anyone from editing, but then version control becomes an issue (and yah, things are moving really slow on my end). I have five books stacked on my desk right now that I need to run-through and add to my draft. I have started offline working on a Notable works section, which is where bullets 3-7 of the Criticisms section should probably go (8 too, but it is only sourced to an op-ed) as part of a more balanced section. Since McKinsey has a philosophy of not talking about client situations, it would really be ideal if someone else took an interest in that area (*wink, nod). I'm also working on improving the History section in a more counter-COI way, to make it more neutral in part by adding more critical material. CorporateM (Talk) 21:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh - taking a fresh look at the current page, probably about one-third of the entire article could be trimmed. CorporateM (Talk) 22:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. 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, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Keithbob/Archive 5. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Templates for The Secret Handshake and Morningwood

Good afternoon Keithbob, thank you for dispositioning this discussion at WP:ANRFC. In that note, a separate discussion at User_talk:Plastikspork#Templates for The Secret Handshake and Morningwood was also mentioned. Can you please follow up on this, or let me know if I should repost it on ANRFC? Thanks! I would rather send this through a proper channel such as WP:DRV, but wanted admin feedback first. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jax, I'm a bit confused, not sure what you are asking as your link goes to a talk page thread that inquires about a Template that was AfD'd and was closed by Plastiko as keep. PS I'm not an Admin. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply - I sent them through WP:DRV today, so hopefully we shall see some results soon. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good luck with that. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fabrizio Sceberras Testaferrata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titular (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) 09:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Robert L. Kaufman

Is there a way to simply delete the "Dr." from the title and make the page Robert L. Kaufman? I can't figure out how to delete the "Dr." part. Also then I would have to edit the MKKS page and delete "Dr." there as well.RabbiKaufman (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the answer is no, the 'Dr.' can't be deleted from the title but the article can easily be transferred to a new page with the correct title. However, there is no point in doing that as there are not sufficient reliable secondary sources such as magazine and news articles about Robert L. Kaufman to justify him having a WP article per the WP guideline WP:BIO. That is the real issue here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC Arena Corinthians

Hi Keithbob. I did go back to this RfC, please see my comment there. Unfortunately the other editor filed a Incident, so I think consensus would be impossible.Legionarius (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've closed the case at DRN per your suggestion and due to the lack of participation over several days.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Keith.Legionarius (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jyotir Math

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jyotir Math you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssriram mt -- Ssriram mt (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jyotir Math

The article Jyotir Math you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jyotir Math for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssriram mt -- Ssriram mt (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Usually I am given some time to meet the requests from the reviewer. It would have only taken me a day or two to get things up to speed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 2014 in home video

Hello Keithbob. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 2014 in home video, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks User:SmartSE for the notification, but I'm very surprised. All 15 or so refs were links to the same web site that sold videos which they were announcing would be released soon. As a learning experience for me could you please explain your thinking behind the decline? Many thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't think that makes it unambiguously promotional. The site isn't actually selling the titles themselves either, just listing their price. I'd say that's preferable to linking to Amazon directly like in 2013 in home video. If the article had been created by a username that matched the site then it would probably swing the other way, but that's not the case. Speedy deletion should be uncontroversial and I try not to delete something that I realistically think might be useful for someone. Does that make some sense? (Personally I don't see the point in these articles, but presumably some have been sent to AFD before and survived). Cheers SmartSE (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Winchester-East Meon Anticline

Hi, I'm not clear why you have flagged this as an orphan - it has 12 links from other articles, not counting pages such as Keithbob/Sandbox2. Pterre (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, User:Pterre you are correct. I must have gotten my tags confused on Twinkle. Thanks for making the correction for me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Australia national association football team

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Australia national association football 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) 00:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Millet (Ottoman Empire)

Hi Keithbob. If I have seen your conclusion on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: According to the DRN guidelines at top of this page: "The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN." Since there has been no discussion of this issue on the talk page I have no choice but to close this case. However there is a discussion on the talk page in a separate section called: Macedonians in Ottoman empire. What can I do now? Would you like to reopen this case? Regards! Jingiby (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the discussion is sandwiched within and between threads dated 2009 and 2010 and so I did not see it. Let me look at it in more detail and then I'll see what can be done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Jingiby, I see that the thread you have linked to consists of two posts from IP's. The first IP posted in 2009 and the other IP posted in 2011. Then in Dec 2013 you made two long posts with excerpts from various sources. This would not qualify as a legitimate talk page discussion no less the "extensive discussion" required for a DRN case since the posts are years apart and there has been no direct interaction or discussion between any parties including the third IP who was the named party in your DRN filing. So there is clearly no grounds for an DRN case. At the same time I understand your situation and I laud your desire for gaining consensus through discussion. So what I suggest is that you start a new thread on the article talk page (at the bottom of the page) and put a note on the talk page of IP 46.193.1.177 and invite them to that discussion. The IP may be more agreeable to discussion now that they have been blocked for edit warring. If that discussion goes on for a long time with no resolution then consider asking for a WP:3O (third opinion) and if that doesn't work then come back to DRN or start a WP:RfC to resolve the issue. Thanks again for all you do on WP and let me know if I can help you further. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thank you, Keithbob. Jingiby (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

School of Economic Science

FYI I've entered a discussion you started, about the use of the NY Observer. I concur it is a reliable source. -Roberthall7 (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I've comment there thank you. Let me know if I can be of further help in the discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

You came up with the right way forward. I propose you go ahead with additions / improvements, incorporating both the NY Observer and The Daily Mail as sources. As to discussion about WP policy and guidelines on the talk page there, am on the verge of getting a 3O or RFC if difference of understanding remains much longer. Thanks, -Roberthall7 (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there are three of us on the page a 3O would actually be a fourth opinion. An RfC will likely muddy the waters at this time, IMO. I think it may be better to just summarize the Observer article- there is large amount of info there- and propose a summary on the talk page. Then see what Pete says and take it from there. No sense going round and round on generalities or what's been done in the past. Just propose some content and ask for consensus on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, the Observer has so much information that applies to so many aspects of the article. I'm just going to insert content and cite it. If there are any controversial issues we can discuss, gain consensus and change as needed. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

TFD closure

If you close a TFD, than you should follow the steps on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions. You missed to implement the close. Could you do it? Regards, Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the link. Will do it now. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stephen H. Webb

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Stephen H. Webb. 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 December 2013 (UTC)

Your closure of TfD for Template:WLeague NUJ

Hi there.

I noticed your closure of the TfD where I nominated Template:WLeague NUJ and similar templates for deletion. While I agree on that "no consensus" might be an appropriate result of that discussion, I don't feel it's right to close the discussion as non-admin when WP:NACD states that "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator". It should also be noted that another non-admin closed the same discussion as "delete", but reverted with the rationale "WP:NACD prohibits me from closing this discussion as the result is deletion, which I cannot act upon". NACD also states that "may be reopened by any administrator", though I didn't want to be the one reopening the discussion as I'm obviously biased. After consulting with another admin, he advised me to ask you whether you would be willing to revert the closure, so that the discussion might be closed by an administrator. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, my closure was an effort to reduce the backlog of closure requests at WP:ANRFC and since WP:NAC says 'no consensus' closures are permissible, I went ahead. However if you would like to wait longer and get an Admin close I'm happy to comply. Thanks for the notification. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

PMU

Hardly a normal external link though is it. Plus it's a disambig page. Rather jobsworth use of rules if you ask me. 31.51.194.74 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's perfectly OK to have URLs in the External Links section but not embedded in text in the body of the article. Sorry, I don't make em up, I just follow them. Peace!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Liberty University

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Liberty University. 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, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My DR/N

It's been a few days since my DR/N opened, and no one bothered to respond to it, except you. So that means if that no one responds at least until the day the request ends, can I proceed with the edit that I wanted to make? Blurred Lines 13:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Blurred Lines, Filing a case at DRN simply means you are looking for a forum where a discussion can take place in a structured setting moderated by an uninvolved party. It has not other significance other than that. So far none of the other involved parties have responded to your DRN filing. If they don't respond then there can't be a discussion and you will need to continue discussion on the talk page or try filing for a WP:RFC and asking the community for input on a specific issue. I hope that's helpful. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi Keithbob, and thanks for the email. Actually, I think you are a little overqualified for adminship. :) Now is not the best time to run, though, as Christmas and the New Year are almost upon us, and many editors won't be visiting Wikipedia during the holidays. I recommend putting it off until January to avoid accusations of trying to go in "under the radar". That should give me a generous amount of time to write you a nomination statement, too. Do you have anyone in mind to ask for a co-nomination? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Strad, Thank you for your support. I agree January is the best and that's what I had in mind anyway. I was just thinking to get things lined up before the holidays because, as you say, many will be away from WP during that time. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Documentation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Documentation. 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 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the cookies!

I am Zombo! ZomboWhat (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome!! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays to everyone!!

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sasanian Empire

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sasanian Empire. 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, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona

Talk:Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona might interest you.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you Sue!! It is very kind of you. I will pass the good will forward. Happy new year! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about inline citations

I have only been editing on Wikipedia a few days, so I apologize if this question sounds very basic. Today I tried to add a hyperlink citation to the Candy Matson page. In the preview the full hyperlink appeared in addition to the numbered superscript, Even though I added a References heading, however, no footnote appeared in the preview. I finally canceled and left the page as it was.

I noticed that the page has "

" at the top, and I assume that code prevented the References from appearing. Should I delete that line and replace it with something else? If so, what? I would like to be able to add other citations in the future, so I will appreciate your help.Teblick (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for stopping by. Happy to help if I can. I'm not sure what you are doing but in either case the footnotes banner/tag at the top of the page has no effect on your editing of the page. I assume you are trying to do one of three things:

1. adding a wikilink to another WP article like this: Tennis NOTE: this will show up in the edit preview
2. adding a URL to create a reference citation like this: NOTE: this will not show up in the Reference section until you click SAVE
3. adding a URL to article text like this: Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple Computers NOTE: this is not permitted on WP. URL's can only be used as references or be listed in the External Links section. They are not permitted in article text.

I hope that is helpful. Let me know if you have further questions. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh there is a fourth possibility...... there is no References section like this one in the article (see below) that has to be added or the Refs will only appear inline like this[5].

References

PS what's the name of the article? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BP

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:BP. 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, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Doge AFD

I see that you closed this per WP:SNOW. I am the nominator and after seeing the discussion, I see that I was wrong about its notability and am glad that a consensus was so easily reached (even though it was opposite my original opinion). Thanks for your work!

Thanks for stopping by and for being such a good sport! (note: the preceding unsigned comment was, I assume, left by User:Pilotbob.)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

DRN

Hi. After this result, I decided to not participate in the future DRN's issue(s), because when my comments and points, and similar comments/same opinions by the other users are ignored by the involved DRN member, there is no need to spend my time on DRN issues. So please don't send me DRN-related messages even if I involved on the related articles. Thanks. Regards. Zyma (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. It is not uncommon for some of the parties in any dispute to feel dissatisfied. I will be the DRN coordinator through Jan 2014 and I will try to honor your request. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arlen F. Gregorio

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arlen F. Gregorio you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Edge3 -- Edge3 (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see you on the talk page. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arlen F. Gregorio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (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) 09:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN rollback

Sorry, the only reason was a wrong click. I've reverted my erroneous edit and ope the the won't be any problems. --Jaellee (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually did make some format changes, which I see in hindsight I need to self-revert. I hope we don't end up in each other's way!  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yelp, Inc.

Hey, I just thought I would check-in on bringing it up to GA. CorporateM (Talk) 22:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna back away from that project. There seems to be some 'unrest' there. Editors come and go and from time to time they express their discontent with the article and its structure, format and content. It's not an environment that inspires me to try and bring it up to GA level. I'll still participate, but I'm going to let someone else try for GA review if they feel to do so.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well... I would like to bring it up to GA, but most of the edits I think are needed to make it GAN-ready, you disagree with. Maybe I'll just wait a month or two and come back with fresh eyes - see if I can find someone else with an interest in it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bangladesh Liberation 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) 00:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)