# User talk:Bob K31416

## Your name and mathematical constants

I’ve referred to you on Talk:Chelsea Manning as Bob Kπ, and it’s just occurred to me that you may not want to be known as such. So since I couldn’t find anything here and your User page is empty, I’ll ask: Do you mind either way? —Frungi (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, don't mind. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

## ANRFC

Hi Bob K31416, I've replied to your comment at WP:ANRFC. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

[For reference, [24]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)]

## FA Nomination on Avatar (2009 film)

Hello, Bob K31416. I have recently nominated the article above for nomination. Due to me not being the most active editor on the article, users are requesting that it should be cancelled. Since you are the most active user on the article, as Flyer22 described, I would like to ask if you would like to take over my place as nominator, and do the nomination yourself. 18:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking but no. I haven't worked on the article for a year and a half.[25] --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, well that figures. 20:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

## reverted the close of a discussion.

The discussion looks closed, but I didn't appreciate you saying I was mischaracterizing comments when referring to what verifiably happened. You were making it sound like you didn't [revert a closed conversation] before that comment. I'm sure you had good faith reasons for doing it, but it wasn't me imagining that it happened. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by.
First off, I think there's a difference between misinterpret and mischaracterize. I used misinterpret.
Regarding reverting a close, that's not a comment but an action. I didn't dispute that I reverted a close.
For reference, here's the last diff of yours that I think you're referring to [26]. Could you give it a second look and see if there is anything in it that might be a misinterpretation of what I wrote? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I was sure you preferred the earlier discussion open after the admin closed. You did say, "that should be part of the discussion without closing." It seemed like it was both comment and reverting action. If I misunderstood, I'm sorry. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Re "If I misunderstood, I'm sorry." — I'll leave it at that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC) [27]--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

## Talk:Chelsea Manning

You reverted my edit at Talk:Chelsea Manning. My edit was simply a removal of a post that violates sense. Do you really think the edit that I removed but that you brought back by reverting is an okay edit?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response to that editor. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

## April 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 12.234.39.130 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

[28] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

## Brew's and Philosophy

I don't know if you are still monitoring the ANI case. However I have just posted a [edia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Moving_forward link to a suggested way forward] on one article in the hope of breaking what is an entrained pattern that is getting stressful for all involved. I admit to loosing my cool a few times in the last few months. If you have the time/energy your comments would be appreciated. ----Snowded TALK 09:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track with the section Handling talk page discussions and edits. I can see that you are trying to avoid confrontation in that section and to that end I would suggest deleting the last half of the second sentence so that it becomes, "My goal is to use this article to see if progress is possible." --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point, actioned ----Snowded TALK 13:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, a personal opinion (hence bringing it here). I don't think you are helping Brews by giving him the space to avoid changing his behaviour in respect of using primary sources. He failed to do that on Physics articles and we know the consequences. You may think my own behaviour does not match up to your ideals, but even a patient editor such as Pdhorest is evidently at the end of this tether with Brews at the ANI page discussion. If Brews doesn't change then sooner or later sanctions are inevitable. My point on the way he uses references although trivial of itself illustrates the wider behavioural issue. A simple change that would make life for other editors considerably easier is not one that he is even prepared to countenance. I put it there partly as a test to see if he was prepared to make even a small change that would cost him nothing and he refused ----Snowded TALK 08:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

One thing at a time.[29] --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

## Enaction (philosophy)

Bob: Your reaction to MachineElf's actions is normal. However, it appears that MachineElf did not understand what was going on. He first interrupted the PROD to remove Enaction without understanding how the process had been arranged. He seems to have confused Enaction with Enaction (philosophy), and discussion of possibilities with agreements to act. And his reactions to questions are intemperate, as he doesn't recognize his lack of patience in understanding what is happening.

However, your presence has led to a reasonable scenario that I hope will lead to a good pair of articles Enactivism and Enaction (philosophy). However, your help in keeping things on track is critical. Brews ohare (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, I've changed my mind. There is no point continuing where there is no sign of interest. Brews ohare (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)