User talk:Keithbob/Archive 3

TALK PAGE ARCHIVE FOR THE YEAR 2011

Help Needed

Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...

Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva

Thank you very much for all of your help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Dickie Goodman

I don't know how it happened, but you added a talk page template to the Dickie Goodman article. I moved the template to the talk page, but I am not a member of the GoCE so you should check it and the article. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

When I look at my diffs for my edits to the article I don't see any indication of having anything to do with that. However, if you fixed something, that's good.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Right here? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the diff you've provided shows that I removed the clean up tag and replaced it with a tag from the Copy Editors Guild. I don't see the problem. Please explain. thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:GOCEreviewed is a talk page tag. "Use this template on an article's talk page...". That's why I moved it. What caught my attention was the background color: article templates are mostly light blue. Templates with a tan background are used, as far as I know, only on talk pages. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for correcting that. However, since your revert I have gone ahead and removed the Clean Up tags. You don't have any objection there do you? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Meditation Cabal Case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-03/National Democratic Party (Egypt)

Good day, This is a message to inform you that you are a named as a party being involved in the following Mediation Cabal case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-03/National Democratic Party (Egypt). Please take notice that your case has been taken by a this editor as a mediator and an initial review has been filed in the case, and is now awaiting discussion from you and other involved parties. For comments regarding this matter, please leave me a message on my talk page. For discussion involving this case, please see the relevant section within the case itself. Thank you, LTC b2412 ^Troops _Talk 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion

Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive Greetings from the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We have reached the end of the month and the end of another successful drive; thanks to all who participated. Statistics 54 people signed up for the year's first Backlog elimination drive. Of these, 40 participated. One of our goals was to reduce the size of the backlog by at least 10%. We managed to reduce the backlog by 633 articles, or about 12%. Another goal was to eliminate as many 2009 months as possible from the queue. We eliminated January, February, March, and April—4 out of 12 months is not bad! In addition, we eliminated 37% of all remaining 2009 articles from the queue. Chaosdruid copy edited Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya for 32,711 words, which is the largest single article completed in one of our drives so far. This article counts as six 5000-K articles, and Chaosdruid wins the "most 5000-K articles" leaderboard category. Way to go! A complete list of individual results is here. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the November 2010 Backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering the barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Thank you for participating in this year's first Backlog elimination drive! We hope to see you in March. Your drive coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (talk), The Utahraptor (talk), and Tea with toast (talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Kaveh Farrokh

Hi, Please read my last comment in this Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean or why you are contacting me. Please be more specific in that regard. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I apologize for having offended you at the Donald Trump BLP Noticeboard. I also left an apology there and struck the offending comment. I explained there what I was trying to do, but obviously I used ill-chosen words. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Your apology is graciously accepted. Thank you for having the strength of character to do so. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

John Butler

Have just had a look at some of your recent edits and am concerned that you have removed some of the notable/unique characteristics about John Butler, particularly in respect to how he first became established as a credible musician. Also need to include details about his playing style, his solo release etc. I agree with your view that the article needs to be more objective - its just that we need to find that happy medium. Dan arndt (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'm happy to collaborate with you. That's why I posted on the talk page, explaining what I was doing and inviting other editors to participate with me in improving the article. I look forward to working with you on the article and the talk page :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Baiting

Re: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2

In the past, I regret failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.

I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this:

WP:AGF is drained of meaning by WP:POKING WP:BAITING -- see context here + here which justifies zero tolerance.

This makes me sad. I didn't understand.--Tenmei (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tenmei and thanks for your post. You are referencing a rather long, multiple page post that I commented on at Wikiquette. I do not see any value in having a side conversation here. If you have some input, then it would be best to leave it on the Wikiquette page and let other members of the community come in and comment. My personal assessment is that you are in the middle of a protracted dispute between several editors and that it is going require a more formal dispute resolution process than the Wikiquette page. You can find out what other dispute resolution options exist on Wikipedia by going to WP:DR. Good luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Waiting for response to undos and edits on Tom van Flandern

Several editors did reverts in Tom van Flandern article and posterior edits without discussing them at talk page.

I commented this on Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern, but received no response.

I commented this in my talk page User_talk:JuanR, in the section about civility where you posted, but received no response.

I commented this in the Wikiquete allerts (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=413173016#Tom_Van_Flandern), where you again posted, but received no response.

You did some comments about my civility in my talk page and in Wikiquette alerts, but you did not comment about the central issue: the quality of edits. I will comment this here waiting some response:

Why must the consensus edition achieved by several editors who actively discussed in the talk page be substituted by DH editor version, who did his changes without first achieving consensus in the talk page?

Why is the DH version, which deletes some references, better than the previous?

Why is the original wording about the Meta Research Bulletin substituted by the new? What is the gain in writing something like "TvF published a publication"?

The original version contains the fact that Carlip article only analyzed aberration (which correspond to one section in TvF PLA article), why was this fact deleted in the new version?

Why are papers in PRE and other top journals labeled as papers by "non-mainstream authors". Whereas other authors (with zero publications in the topic in PRE) are labeled as "undisputed authority"? Who gives the labels and in basis to what? Editor preferences? In the talk page I gave two links to a famous physicist who disputes the authority of that "undisputed authority".

Why is Feynman cited after of "those claims were not accepted by the majority of scientific community", as if he was rejecting the works cited, when Feynman passed away before those works were published.

Why has the heading "Non-mainstream beliefs" been substituted by "Non-mainstream science and believes"?

Why was the section "Awards and honors" moved to the end?

Thanks by your collaboration. JuanR (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Juan, Thank you for your post. I am not an administrator and I also do not have any interest in becoming embroiled in the dispute(s) currently going on at the Tom van Flandern article. I simply responded to a post on the Wikiquette page [1]. Wikiquette, as you know, is a public forum where any editor(s) may post concerns and receive feed back or advice from the general community. In response to the Wikiquette post I looked at the TVF talk page and felt that you had made some incivil remarks on the talk page and I brought this to your attention on your User Page and made a note of this on the Wikiquette page. If you feel that my assessment of your behavior is incorrect, then you may ignore my advice and continue as you have been. I have no intention of taking the matter further. I understand that you are frustrated with the situation on that article and that English may not be your first language. However, I would remind you that disputes over content are not an excuse for incivil behavior, so please keep that in mind going forward. If you have issues concerning the behavior of other editors then you should investigate the various dispute resolution options which are outlined here. I'm sorry you are having problems with this article. Keep in mind that one option is to just walk away from the article for awhile and let things cool down. Good luck to you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks by your advices, although I already knew your position about my civility as you posted it both in my talk page and in Wikiquette alerts, and I waited to know your opinion about the central issue: the quality of the edits done in the Tom van Flandern article. You are right that English is not my first language, but still the edits done by good-faith editors as DH continue wrong. Fortunately, editor Cyclopia has just read my queries [2] and "Fixed the "published a publication" redundancy". It now remains to correct the rest. JuanR (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

After about two months, some anonymous editor has changed the wrong word "believes" in the heading to the correct word "beliefs". Although English is not my first language as you suggest, I am glad that with each little step, the version of the TvF article by good-faith editors as DH and Cyclopia looks more like the original consensus version which was available before their invalid edits. I am still waiting for the rest of questions raised above about the quality of the recent version of the TvF article. What is your advice? Would I wait another two months before the changes and glaring corrections are done or could I just make the changes by myself? Regards. JuanR (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach

Theres been repeated vandalism through the years by single users - Can you assist in putting a lock on the page ? Please review ? Shmuley Boteach Jonathangluck (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not an administrator.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Hello! Would you please clarify your comment on this noticeboard thread? Thanks! Nightw 12:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Levdr10

Your statements on my talk page are most likely a result of being uninvolved in the conversation. I have never in my entire life dealt with someone as unintelligent as Levdr10. Eightball (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. But we can't use our frustration as an excuse for personal attacks. My comments on your talk page were just a friendly heads up that if you continue calling him names, you may end up being sanctioned by an Admin. I hope you can resolve the situation without that happening. Good luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Beer

Thanks for your virtual beer.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad Rodach

Thanks for helping with the copy editing. I am right now updating the history part of the German version and will then translate. So more on that page will be coming. Cheers :-) --SabineCretella (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Glad you will be adding to the article! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra talk page deletion

Thanks for your note. I would have left it all. OTOH, the discussion that was deleted was not particularly important. If you think it's worth keeping then you could restore it.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynne McTaggart

Thanks for the kind message, but your revert and subsequent edit do not fix the neutrality problem. You'll agree that neutrality is a core policy of Wikipedia. The impression is still given in the text that the experiments in question support the theory. I don't see the problem with wikilinking "homeopathic": maybe it would be a good idea to put it back in? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Martin, the wikilink is no problem, sorry that got deleted. Either one of us can put that back in. It was an oversight, my apologies. As for neutrality, it means presenting what the source says in a neutral fashion. WP:CLAIM and WP:ALLEGED inform us that these are words that create POV. That said, I am happy to agree to disagree and take it to a noticeboard to get outside input. Would you like to do that? Thanks for working with me on this. Wiki is all about collaboration :-)Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Raam currency.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Raam currency.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Andriy Slyusarchuk

Dear Keithbob, why is noone doing anything against this article? It has been reported by several different users and suggested for deletion. Everytime Wikipedia administrators just say, this article needs a massive cleanup. This repeated a few times since 2009! But noone does a cleanup. It just gets weirder and weirder with more false claims of this person. Journalists do not read the Talk page. They just google the name and see: Hey, Wikipedia also says so, it must be true. If they are very good, they look at the reference section and see just Ukrainian stuff. Of course they wont check it. And then they write it in articles and people doing research on memory performances have to explain again and again and again that this is not true.

Not a single of his performanes or results is even possible. In the article the most absurd claims have been deleted, like that he proofed mind-reading, but on the topics where most authors are unfamilliar, like memory records, they still remain there. What am I supposed to do to get this fixed?

And I agree that the word "claim" should be avoided. But every single fact in this article including his "biography" is only referenced with his own interviews. Everysingle demonstration is just a claim and not exepted by international institutions.145.253.118.83 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your note. I appreciate that you have a sincere desire to improve WP and that one of the ways that you have chosen to do that is to try and create neutral text for this article. I think you are also correct in saying that it is hard to attract neutral editors to the topic because most or all of the Refs are in a language that is foreign to English. So I will make a deal with you. If you are willing to take a balanced and systematic approach to reviewing the sources then I will participate in getting the article cleaned up. That means you take one sentence at a time and examine the citations for that sentence. If the sources are unreliable or if the sentence misrepresents the source etc. Then state your case on the talk page with a URL link to an English translation of the source using Google Translate. If you do that then I will come to the talk page and participate in examining that sentence and its corresponding sources and help you to make changes to the article that create more accurate text and neutral point of view. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. But I do not have the time to do that. Now more people added information to the Talk page of this article proving even his biography is fake and more support of Ukrainian Chess experts. I still hope this article just gets deleted. Thanks. 145.253.118.83 (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am very busy also. There are many articles that need attention. We have to set our priorities. Good Luck.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Technical analysis changes

Just a question, and don't want to make the tech. analysis discussion page look like a forum... I have a hard time believing the Lo book states that the market is unpredictable, since Lo is a proponent of the idea that EMH is wrong and that technical analysis works. If it is in the book, he may be stating what many academics believe. However, that is the opposite of his conclusion, and using the book to reference that, unless it is made clear that Lo states that many believe this, although he sees otherwise, is a bit misleading. So my question is, did the Lo book actually state that the markets are not predictable? Sposer (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I made some copy edits based on my general knowledge of the topic and what I thought the text was trying to state. If I have accidentely misrepresented the source, than please make a correction as that was not my intention. In general I think this article needs a lot of work. In particular, the section on EMH doesn't belong there as its off topic. But I will bring this up on the talk page. Thanks for your interest and help with the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Kip Kay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kip Kay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kip Kay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your COI Narrative

Thanks for your note. As I posted at the top of my talk page, I always respond on the other editor's talk page. It's a habit.

Regarding the COI problems the TM topic, your list does show how hard it has been to resolve these problems. I really don't understand how folks are interpreting the COI guideline, but the impression I get is that no one involved in that topic believes it applies to them. May I ask you a purely hypothetical question? Do you think that the COI guideline applies to people writing about their employers, friends, colleagues, or spiritual leaders?   Will Beback  talk  10:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Keith, would you rather I bring up COI concerns on the talk pages of individual editors? Since there are a number of editors that'd lead to some repetition, but if you think that's what's necessary at this point then I'll willing to do that instead of leaving general questions. The editors on this topic have been to the noticeboards several times, do you expect a different result with a future posting? If you think that would help I can start another COIN thread. What I'm not willing to do is ignore the problem entirely, as that can't really be done. It's like a herd of (very calm) elephants in the room. :)   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It certainly isn't my intention to harass anyone, and I don't think that I have done so unintentionally either. But I don't see anything in your posts about how to deal with the COI problems that editors refuse to address. Are you proposing that I ignore them, and that I am the only editor who should follow the COI guideline?   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, I'm still wondering how you think it's best to handle the COI issues surrounding TM topics. You've objected when I've posted to user talk pages and to article talk pages. There have been multiple noticeboard postings, but editors keep rejecting the community feedback. The ArbCom case reaffirmed that COI is an applicable guideline. So how do we deal with this?   Will Beback  talk  04:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Both sides of this discussion, including my responses, can be viewed in one place here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Traditional vs. Risk Parity.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Traditional vs. Risk Parity.pdf. 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) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keithbob. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ukexpat (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Wikiquette alerts#Dave1185

• Greetings, let me point you in another direction so you can have a better picture. User talk:28bytes#This is a thankless work. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dave, the user now understands from several editors that his behavior is not acceptable. Hopefully he will settle down and become productive but if the attacks continue then maybe an uninvolved Admin could step in and take appropriate action. Thanks for all your good work on Wiki. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Norman E. Rosenthal

Hello! Your submission of Norman E. Rosenthal at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

Sorry it looks like this one isn't going to work out for you (unless you have a lot more material for further expansion), but please try again with your next article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'm still learning about the process. Appreciate your help.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes to David Deida's bio

Hi Keithbob,

Thanks for the cleanup/clarifications you made to David Deida's entry recently. I am a new editor and am moving slowly to examine what is appropriate to revert, change or clarify, following along w/ your examples and guidelines references (thank you for those!).Jcarey1 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, let's work together to improve the article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks Keithbob! The basic items I'm looking at concern the addition of self-help in the bio, the # of books published by Deida from ten to five, and the citations that were removed. I'm looking into your suggestions for the use of inline URLs and links for citations as well, and will verify all sources for citations I propose we add back to the text.

I really appreciate your patience w/ this. There is a lot to learn here so I'll take it step by step :) Jcarey1 (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if I can answer any questions or steer you in the right direction. Meantime let's start a discussion on the David Deida talk page here OK?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob Ross

I want to thank you for the input at this article. I wish you could stick around and keep it honest. LessHeard is off his/her rocker and just throwing around pseudointellectual crap, bullying people around and restricting the progress on that article. As of now it isn't bad, but they need to yank the halo off Bob Ross and keep it simple. Also, keep it honest. Anyway, thanks again.75.21.99.57 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've left a commment on the talk page. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your reasonable and much needed comment has been noted. Thanks for the healthy dose of rational, logical thought there!76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for being civil to me. Will you help to restore the article as it was to this point so that it can be discussed. I am not capable of doing anything further right now but feel like a melt-down. I have many personal issues I am trying to deal with and this attack on me and the article is devastating to me and I can no longer think clearly. Please help altho perhaps you are upset with me, as I opposed you. Agadant (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, everyone deserves to be treated in a civil way. I am not upset with you, my only concern is the article. I understand your position, that you have spent a lot of time on the article Web Sheriff and you feel committed to preserving it. But when we get consistent feedback from the community that the way we are thinking about something is not correct, then we have to listen and step back and reconsider our position. I know this is not always easy to do, but its a necessary part of the collaboration process on Wikipedia. Nothing belongs to us, it belongs to the community and will always be subject to change. I am sorry to hear that you are having some personal challenges. All the more reason to give yourself some time away from Wikipedia and let things settle. Most of the changes I see are good and I think the situation just got to the point where some folks just felt it was time to stop talking and make bold changes. I think having a discussion first would have given the same result only more slowly. Remember, you are a good person and a good editor, and a good Wikipedia volunteer. Take some time to rest and rejuvenate yourself. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I depend on you to be as fair as your conscience takes you. Please take the time to restore fragmented references and not stub the article please. Will you remove the tage also. When you get through there should be no conflict. I do feel like this was an all out attack on me by them and showing me a thing or two for my honesty on other articles and viewpoints.I should have known to only speak WikiTalk. I was not in the condition to handle it calmly and that was taken advantage of by editors who should have been balanced and more patient. I am going to take your advice and relax for now. Thank you agian. Agadant (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea this would be misinterpreted that I was taking an extended break. I was sick that day and had to rest for a few hours. I can see that I wasn't perfectly clear that it was for only a few hours or until I felt better but I did say "right now". I was expecting as you can see that the article would be put back in condition as in place at time of NPOV event or that you would make only minor edits. (I was very ill that day!) It's regretful if you mistook what I said. Cheers, Agadant (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL

You turned out to be the worst of the lot. Acting civil and concerned that I was hurting from the attack when having huge life problems to deal with. You drove through the article like a tornado and left a path of destruction. Removing material that was defo not POV, even the reception which told how fans have an angry reaction. That shows a POV on your part, Keithbob, and eaving the references ragged and red. Hope you feel good about everything. I know you do feel completely justified and are having a good chuckle. You and your friends were wrong and hurtful and destructive. But the majority rules, huh? Hope you are having a good evening doing some transcendental meditaiton, perhaps? Cheers, 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll fix the refs when I have time, but as I have said repeatedly, you are taking this much too personally and you need a break. Good luck to you. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How dare you? TOO SERIOUSLY!!! A year of voluntary work destroyed. Hours and hours of my free time! and you dismiss it? What kind of an editor, are you? You should know the seriousness of it! Agadant (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob Ross discussion page

Sorry, I had to post again here.

I'd like you to see this excerpt, my latest addition to the talk pages. And by the way, who removed the ability to edit the article? Why was that done?

From the Painting section: "Ross's former mentor, William Alexander, has claimed that he taught Ross the "wet-on-wet" technique and that Ross "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own."

This does not sound right. Alexander "claimed he taught" Ross? Ross himself acknowledged twice that Alexander taught him. Is this the final expression of that fact for the article?

I object to that sentence. It should state that Bill Alexander taught Ross the method. Ross acknowledged this, and thanked Alexander (on the air) for being his teacher. The rest of it mentioning Alexander's feelings of betrayal is OK as-is.

But I see that editing is out of the question. Who blocked the article from editing? Or am I missing something as usual?76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)' Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Ross"

What is going on over there? Is there a vandal? Or is Nuujinn simply reverting every little improvement I try to make there?76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Profound thanks for weighing in with the fact and the re-do of the sentence. I concur with your work there and the application of rules. I wish Elektric Shoos would get off that verifiability horse, as if no one else understood it. I'm sick of all this "verifiability trumps truth" crap, and it really has no application here as the fact satisfies that anyway.76.195.85.222 (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

We have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is collaborative and sometimes that's frustrating. I have the page on my watchlist and will try to participate when I can. Good luck. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My thanks, Keithbob, for returning us all to our proper measure of cool logic. I think it is fair to say that I can sometimes come across as a bastard, but it is equally fair to say that I had several good points.

When you speak of Wikipedia's collaborative aspects, I have to chuckle to myself when I think of the countless articles I either originated or wrote all alone. Then Years later I see people fighting over the dumbest things, taking articles over as if they were personal possessions. That is why I rarely edit here at all.

Again, my thanks for showing us the way back to sanity.75.21.159.173 (talk) 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for your comments and participation! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Autograph as signature in infobox: Request for your participation on my point of view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Autograph_as_signature_in_infobox Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I have read the thread and don't have anything to say other than to repeat what I've already said and so I'm just going pass and leave the discussion as it is.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob Ross: either laughing or rolling over in his grave

Hey KB, would you once again pop over and assist? Someone has put a personal/private research comment into the article - that is just plain wrong. It's a double standard. And I have added a remark which I am too dumb to tag with its reference. See the talk page. Sorry about this.

I just want to add, ref: your most recent comment there, I don't see this as wanting anything except that the article conform and that it be a good one. At least that is what I want. I see other editors get away with a lot more ....75.21.159.173 (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)  Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

WAH!

My God Man! how can you have the cheek to act "holier than thou" about my writing and motivations? You have a very high percentage of the edits on this article, that concerns one of your 'niche' interests on WP. When you took over: Bridgewater Associates tagged as advert and Now: substantially more POV than when you first started editing it: Now with many POV statements. It has all of the factors that you have suppressed in my editing as you continue your disenginuous assault on my character and continue to disallow the very same type of RS sourced material and wording on an article that I have been main editor on, that you have inserted into one of your 'favs'. - Just amazing - your continued lack of WP:AGF as opposed to your rules of civility posted on your Keithbob's civility rules userpage. This strikes me as oddly very transparently hypocritical and/or highly motivated by some unknown agenda. Agadant (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Agadant, Our only interactions have been in reference to the article Web Sheriff. A number of editors (including myself) have asserted on that article talk page and various noticeboards that you have been behaving in a disruptive manner, as if you own that article. [3][4] [5] [6] Your post above which criticizes me, my user page and my editing history, is a response to my participation in content discussions on the Web Sheriff talk page. Your post above, smacks of stalking and personal attack and appears to be an attempt at intimidation. Further, you have approached other Editors on their talk page in response to their edits or comments on the Web Sheriff article in an effort to influence their editing there.[7] [8] I suggest to you, as I have before, that you re-consider your actions, as you may be digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, I looked at your writing 'for guidance' and found it even more POV than the WS article I wrote on. (*POV: as defined by first you and then others on NPOV) I have not edited on your articles or commented on their talk pages. I wrote my personal opinions on your talk page only and that is not stalking. I have been personally attacked in several publicly viewed pages on wiki by you and the other editors. Agadant (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think overall you are a good writer as far as prose, phrasing, wording, etc. goes. I wish you would more often give me the benefit of the doubt as to my intentions and motivations. You are often "off the mark" and that does annoy me. - and I'm sure my saying that it does, 'annoys you' but I don't know any other way to relate than being completely honest. Agadant (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with all of your comments above but I think our time is better spent working together in a cooperative way on the article and corresponding talk page, and I am committed to doing that with you and any others that want to join in. So why don't we just let this go for now and go back to editing in a collaborative manner. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. That sounds good to me too! Agadant (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC/U

I see you're adding a lot of "evidence" that was already reviewed by the ArbCom in the June 2010 TM case, especially related to COI. Is it your intention that we review all of the COI evidence that was already covered in that case? That seems like it would be unproductive, but if that's where you want to go with it I'll start preparing evidence in reply.   Will Beback  talk  06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying that re-fighting old battles is a waste of time.   Will Beback  talk  12:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Keith, your input to the RfC is welcome. I'll also invite you to co-certify it when the time comes to post it. I notice that as opposed to me and Will, you have a clean block log. Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I accept your invitation to co-certify, please alert me when you post. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, I'm certainly not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to tell you that opening cans of worms is sometimes unhelpful in dispute resolution. Since you seem intent on following your path I'll make you a deal. I'll grant permission to publicly post my private email to you if you will give complete and honest answers to the same three questions that user:NuclearWarfare has posted on the talk pages of user:TimidGuy and user:Littleolive oil:[9]

1. Do you now, or have you ever, worked in a paid position for an organization associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement?
2. Do you now, or have you ever, worked in a volunteer position for an organization associated with the Transcendental Meditation movement?
3. Do you now, or have you ever, worked as a teacher of the Transcendental Meditation technique?

Let's settle this COI issue for good.   Will Beback  talk  20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• NOTE: A further development of this discussion, including my responses, may be seen in its entirety here. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for [[ Quantum_Group_of_Funds ]]

An article that you have been involved in editing, [[ Quantum_Group_of_Funds ]], has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going [[ Talk:Soros_Fund_Management |here]], and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. HaroldErica (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the notice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

someone keeps adding false material to the Kara Young article

claiming that her husband is a billionaire but he isn't and no where in any reliable source - forbes, fortune, ny times, etc - does it say that he is. 108.41.20.105 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For some reason the ip user above that started this section seems to want your input with respect to the Kara Young article. I have tried explaining that the RS is acceptable, but instead of debating the merits the user is making tendentious arguments and making unreasonable demands, the latest being provide a link that does not require registration. As we both know this is not required for cites. Perhaps you might be able to assist in the discussion page? Thank you. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add my two cents.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Web Sheriff

I've removed your comment from my talk page because I think it only escalates the problems. Yes, I can see what's going on. My advice to him is to take a break from the article. I don't think that going into details is at all helpful given past discussions like those you point out. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I respect your judgment on the issue.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Because tea is soothing. Sorry to see your frustration at WS; frequent breaks are a necessity when working in stressful environments. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Gilgamesh in the Outback

Here is the source you requested: Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

LaRouche

Keithbob, I see you've developed an interest in Lyndon LaRouche-related topics. I presume that it's simply because of my involvement in those topics. Am I correct that you do not see a problem with following editors with whom you're in a dispute to other, unrelated disputes?   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, please AGF. I think in the recent past it was recommended, after you asserted that two out of three editors did not constitute a consensus, that more eyes were needed on the LaRouche topic. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Cla68, if I wanted your opinion I'd come to your talk page to ask for it. I came here to ask Keithbob a question.   Will Beback  talk  07:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, your tone indicates you came here for more than to ask a question, especially given your posts to Kbob recently [10]. Cla68 is doing us all a favour by asking that WP:AGF be adhered to. Its standard to comment on user pages, I know you do it all the time so your comment to CLA68 is inappropriate. And as an aside, if you are really asking a legitimate question and want an answer I'd suggest a more approachable tone might get you better results.(olive (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC))

Littleolive oil, if I wanted your opinion I'd come to your talk page to ask for it. I came here to ask Keithbob a question.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Keithbob, I'm sorry for the reception you're getting at the LaRouche article. Additional participation at the topic should always be welcome. Cla68 (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Will, how silly. You don't own talk pages. Whether you want my opinion or not is immaterial to me, and if I find behaviour that is objectionable I may very well comment. (olive (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC))

Keithbob, thanks for your response. then I take it that you do not see any problem with having more editors on any topic, regardless of who began editing that topic first. In other words, following an editor to an article is acceptable behavior.   Will Beback  talk  02:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My participation in this conversation can be seen here-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Risk parity on hold

I've reviewed the Risk parity article that you nominated and have put it on hold until the minor issues have been addressed-SCB '92 (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

One more thing: is it Risk parity or Risk Parity? the title of the article uses a small "p", but the actual writing in the article uses a capital "P"? if it's a capital "P", then the page should be moved to "Risk Parity"-SCB '92 (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a pass-SCB '92 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Yes, it was a great (logical, needed) change; I'm glad you were there w/ experience in this type thing to do correctly, etc. (I didn't have confidence yet for so major a change.) With lots of eyes on the Trump article, and no one protesting, it seems logic/reasonability is universal? Yet few will act!? Appreciatively, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Attack page

Keithbob, you appear to be maintaining what is called an attack page. For over a month you have been filling it with negative material about me. Please take it down. You can keep your file off-Wiki.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Your sandbox.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this the sandbox you are referring to? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the one.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You claim that: "For over a month you have been filling it [sandbox] with negative material about me". However this is a false statement. If you look at the edit history for the sandbox in question, you will see that on Sept 14th, I removed over half the content that was stored there. Since that time I have made several copy edits but have not added any additional content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the schedule of edits, it is nothing but negative material about another editor, and it's been up for over a month. Please move it to your personal computer and off Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  21:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like the same stuff arbcom cases would look like, ie, diffs proving behavior. What you afraid of Will, the truth about you coming out?95.143.32.103 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

@WBB, OK so you don't like it that I have a sandbox that contains diffs of your abuses of the COI policy. I get that. But everybody has sandboxes where they develop and store information, that's what sandboxes are for. So what's the problem? First you says it's objectionable because I've been expanding it for a month. Now you admit that that is not true and in fact I've been reducing it. But now you say it should be removed because its been up for more than a month. Is there a policy about that? I'm not aware of one.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Both the ArbCom and the community have opined that maintaining "lists of fault-finding diffs...and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. "[11] See also: WP:UP#POLEMIC. The period of time you have been maintaining that page exceeds a reasonable limit on material being prepared for imminent use. I have been asking you politely for a week and a half to move it off-Wiki.   Will Beback  talk  07:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You say: "I have been asking you politely for a week and a half to move it off-Wiki." Here is another statement that misrepresents the facts and is not helpful to this conversation. You made an initial post on Oct 4th but I was not active on Wiki from Oct 4-12 because of real life responsibilities and issues with my browser. I returned to Wiki activity on Oct 12th and since then I have been responding to you in a timely way. First I requested further info since, you did not specify what page you were talking about, and I corrected your false statement that: "For over a month you have been filling it [sandbox] with negative material about me". So the fact of the matter is that we have been in discussion for only 2 days, not a week and a half. So please avoid these kind of grandstanding and misleading statements. Also, as far as I can tell, no one died and made you King and your requests are not decrees. So now we are discussing the matter to see if your request has any merit. Now that you have, finally, specified the page of concern and cited a specific aspect of policy that you feel is relevant, we can discuss this further. With that in mind, I will look at the the Arbitration and guideline subset you have cited and post a response to them later today. Thank you for your patience.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a very busy "real life" day today. It is very late here now. I will post again in the morning. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I do not consider my sandbox to be an “attack page”. Instead I consider it to be a “defense page”; a response to long term and recently accelerated attempts to use WP:COI as a stick to attack and intimidate me beginning in November 2009 (despite my objections (here and here). Recent examples would include:

• Your Aug 31 email implying outing, if I continued to add information about your abuse of WP:COI, to Cla68’s draft workpage for your upcoming RfC/U.
• Your Sept 1 post on my user page, again, asking for personal information and accusing me of conflict of interest. [12]
• Your Sept 10 post on my user page accusing me of “following editors with whom you are in a dispute”. [13]
• Your Sept 12 email saying you were submitting evidence to ArbCom about my conflict of interest on Wikipedia.

Furthermore the sandbox in question is linked to this recent talk page thread which discusses this same COI issue in detail, so it has relevance and archival value. In addition the information in the sand box will be used in the near future for an upcoming RfC/U. This makes it a valid use of userspace and in compliance with Wikipedia policies, in my opinion. However, I am open to further discussion before making a final decision about what to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The ArbCom case on Manipulation of BLPs was closed about six weeks ago. Since no good faith requests for comment have so far been proposed and no other evidence of substantive problems with editing have been produced, the subpage in user space mentioned here as well as another subpage, maintained intermittently within the user space of Cla68, will be probably be listed for deletion in the near future. Laundry lists like these are normally not allowed to fester in user space. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mathsci and thanks for your comment. To the best of my memory, you and I have never interacted before, so I'm quite befuddled as to how or why you have my talk page on your watchlist. If I'm mistaken, please feel free to refresh my memory. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel befuddled. I was a participant in the ArbCom case on MBLPs and, as a result, I followed various edits that were connected with issues raised during that case. Some of those edits included 40 edits you made to Cla68's subpage.[14] Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to my original request, could you please move the material off-Wiki? I have cited the relevant guideline and ArbCom decision. Cla68 has been talking about organizing an RFC/U against me for nearly a year, so there's no reason to believe he is planning to do so imminently.   Will Beback  talk  19:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of your request. That is what we are discussing. I have given a detailed account above of why I feel that the page is relevant and meets Wiki guidelines. To summarize, there are three considerations:

• The RfC/U to which Cla68 posted a draft last month, which indicates that he is working on an RfC/U and it is imminent.
• The sandbox in question is linked to a recent discussion on your User Talk page in which you again, asked me for personal information and implied that I am violating WP:COI.
• On Sept 12 you emailed me saying you were going to report personal information about me to ArbCom and charge me with violating WP:COI

Don't you think I have a right to prepare information with which to defend myself against your, on and off Wiki, accusations? Also, there is a similar sandbox being developed by Jmh649 do you object to that sandbox as well?. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Keithbob/Sandbox.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: as a result of the above community discussion, I voluntarily blanked the page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Norman E. Rosenthal

The article Norman E. Rosenthal you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Norman E. Rosenthal for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy notices

Thanks for posting those notices. However I see that you did not notify all of the involved accounts - was there a reason for not notifying everyone?   Will Beback  talk  19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I notified everyone who has content under discussion per this list If you feel there are others who need to be notified, please let them know.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What about David Spector?   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hedge fund introduction

Hello, Keithbob. I see you have been editing the Hedge fund article recently, and I have posted some concerns about the current introduction section on the discussion page. I think we may have some differing views on the introduction, but I would like your input so we can find a solution that we all agree with. If you would like to share your thoughts, I would appreciate it. Thank you. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Plarem has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Happy Halloween! – Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 15:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked an award which you left

Hello Keithbob. Please see this version of Will Beback's talk page which shows that my comment to Will which followed yours was getting swallowed into the beer award box you left him. In my next edit I hacked a bit at the HTML but you are welcome to correct what I did, especially since it was your comment :-). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you were drowning in my beer :-) Thanks for fixing. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Kbob, thanks for the note. However I find it a bit confusing. On the noticeboard you complained extensively (and inaccurately) about my editing, then you thank me for participating and wish me a good holiday. I don't want to assume you were being disingenuous, so I guess I'd take that to mean that you endorse my points after all and want me to continue acting as I've done in the past.   Will Beback  talk  20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: I responded on Will Beback's talk page telling him that I gave him the same thank you note that I gave to all 8-10 participants on the noticeboard. It was a simple act of civility, nothing else.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amos Lee

The article Amos Lee you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Amos Lee for things which need to be addressed. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amos Lee

The article Amos Lee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amos Lee for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This user helped promote Amos Lee to good article status.

Thanks GOP, I have reviewed a few GA articles recently. I'll see if I can find time to do one or two more. thanks for you help on Amos Lee. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

om nom nom... Thanks :)--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)} 13:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, happy holidays! :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Appeal of ban for COI

TimidGuy posted an appeal at Arbcom. I've named you as a party.[15]   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed you as a party.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Bridgewater Associates, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Currency exchange and Portfolio management (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) 13:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for defamation

Hi Keithbob. This may not have been your intention, but the remarks you posted about Willbeback did not include any evidence whatsoever, and are thus an unsubstantiated attack on his character. Please remove the remarks until such time as you have conducted at least some research to determine whether your assertion is true or not. Once you have diffs to post, you can restore the assertion. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not my intention to defame, so I'll remedy the situation with some diffs. Thanks for the feedback. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not too concerned about your issue in specific. In general I want to encourage Wikipedians to always include the evidence at the time of making a serious allegation against another volunteer. It should be an exceptional thing to make such an accusation. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, including evidence is important. Thanks again. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for Good Article promotion

		The Original Barnstar
		For working Bridgewater Associates into a Good Article. Congratulations! AstroCog (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)