User talk:Keithbob: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 06:59, 6 October 2013

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

My Talk Page Archives

Friendly feedback

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award The Original Barnstar to Keithbob for particularly fine and diligent editing at the Stock market bottom article. Keep up the good work. :) — neuro^(talk) 12:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		Thanks for your civility in our discussion of the John Mayer article.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Friend Award
		The Good Friend Award is greatly and enormously appreciated, but only accepted if it is shared, because it is people like you who are the driving force behind a constructive wikipedia! :) Robster1983 (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Butler and, indeed, wikipedia is better now. Thank you for your calm, mature and professional approach to a possibly difficult situation. I hope we can collaborate on another article one day.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

	The Original Barnstar
	You do great work! I'm enjoying learning from you. Thank you. Jojopsychicpower (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	the Civility Barnstar
	For defending civility even when it is not the most popular choice. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk\|contribs)} 07:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

	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

	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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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

		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)[reply]

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

		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)[reply]

Welcome

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 remove this notice 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

For the creation of Mahasundari Devi article - Ekabhishek^talk 05:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Hi, thanks for stopping by.

My warning was posted on the IP's user page at 17:50 UTC on Sept 15th. [1]

The IP then re-added the disruptive content at 1:11 UTC [2] Sept 16th

and again at 1:48 UTC on Sept 16th [3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've requested page protection. [4] as follows:

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – This article has been the subject of several complaints at WP:BLPN [5] [6] and user talk pages. [7] Despite intervention from editors at BLPN there has been constant POV edit warring between IP's. [8] One SPA with at least two IP addresses [9][10] has been attacking myself and User:FreeRangeFrog on our user talk pages [11] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [12] [13] [14] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)