User talk:Keithbob

Welcome

Welcome to my talk page

Welcome back

Good to see you back around the wiki. Was afraid you were gone for good. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I had been logging a lot of hours in advance of my RfA. After that I just needed a bit of a rest. Thanks for the welcome!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back Kbob. Very nice to see you here again.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Joining the choir with gladness, - disregard "sorrow" on my talk, that's something else, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Great to see you back! Hope you are feeling relaxed and refreshed. Wikipedia needs all the good editors it can get! Have fun and keep smiling, Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Make that a "me too". Welcome back! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Keithbob, Welcome back! Glad to have you back to the fold :) Audit Guy (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Don Fury article

Hi Keith,

re: Don Fury article.

Thanks for your comments.

Any particular suggestions about improving the article?

I removed a subjective reference to the Agnostic Front "Victim In Pain" LP in the summary.

Intending to add short 'early recordings' list.

Regards,

Noah hedroum (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Noah, thanks for your good work on that article. You have done a particularly good job formatting the citations. Very nice. I think the tone of the article needs some clean up and that is why I put the Fan POV tag on it. It reads too much like a magazine article praising the subject. What we need is a dis-interested, encyclopedic tone. I'll try to find some time to come by and make some edits. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

hi Keith, I cleaned this up and dried it off. Got anything that seemed too subjective out. Edited the intro/summary which seemed like a place holder. Added an Early Recordings section and a variety of citations and smaller edits to improve the flow throughout. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Thanks.

Noah hedroum (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've done quite a bit of clean up and reformatting today. Take a look at the article and my comments on the talk page. I think Fury has some good sources and the article could be expanded further. Thanks for collaborating on this with me.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

hi Keith, thanks again for your guidance and editing. I restored some information about Fury's manager Sandy Roberton of World's End, and the TVT record deal included in the original (hard print) Billboard article. And cleaned up a few spots. I wasn't sure what to do about citing the early recordings - I used the inline reference discog.com, which is pretty thorough. I think that section should be titled 'Early recordings. Discog.com has about 300 titles for Fury.

Noah hedroum (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

hi Keith, Thanks for your guidance about staying 'on topic' while authoring, and editing on Wiki in general…

A couple more notes re: Don Fury -

Career: About Max's Kansas City and CBGB - I am sure the proximity of Fury's 17th Street studio to seminal punk club Max's Kansas City ( less than 2 blocks away) and the proximity of Fury's 18 Spring Street studio to seminal punk club CBGB ( 4 blocks away ) had great effect on Fury's career, and that the locations were important choices. These clubs hosted the same punk and hardcore bands that used Fury's studios and were within easy walking distance. Had Fury opened his studio on his native Long Island in the late 1970's, he never would have met these punk and hardcore bands. The significance of the 17th Street location and Max's Kansas City is supported by reference - Brian McElhiney (9 October 2010) - and the significance of the CBGB location is supported in all references, while the distance of 4 blocks can be derived from the actual street addresses.

Fury recordings: citations or references - there are no hard published guides to many indie record producers' discographies. I found discog.com very thorough, and noted the same as a reference ( including retrieval date which has since disappeared? ). Fury's official website also has a discography, but discog.com is arm's length, more thorough, and I thought the better reference of the two possibilities. You will find that most punk and hardcore bands with Wiki entries have discographies without citation - perhaps discog.com is sufficient for this purpose. Noah hedroum (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Noah, It would be more appropriate to discuss the article on its talk page. Let's end this thread and move the conversation over there, OK? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Rational

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Rational. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back!

CorporateM (Talk) 04:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yelp discussion

Hey, for the image of Jeremy Stoppelman - do you think it would suffice to do a 3PO and go with whatever they say? Figured it might be more light-weight than doing a half-dozen RfCs everywhere we disagree. CorporateM (Talk) 21:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what you mean. Did we have some dispute about his photo?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I normally see photographs of executives on company pages as a sign of COI and promotion. You said you felt the image should be kept. OTOH, I would consider a user interface image to be a de-facto image for a software (or SaaS) page and you felt in turn that a UI image was promotional. I think we'll also need another RfC for the "Controversies" section, which seems like a WP:Criticisms problem to me. It seemed like there was support for "Integrity of reviews" though I think eliminating the section entirely and spreading it throughout the article as user:DGG suggested would be better. But if we have to RfC everything, it would take years, so 3PO seems like a lighter weight method. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, yes a third opinion WP:3O on the photo issue is fine with me. I'll go with whatever the third person says. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, 3PO requires a link to the discussion, but looking through the archives, the discussion has been fragmented and across multiple pages, etc. I was going to suggest we start a new string where each of us summarizes our point-of-view, so that it's nice and tidy for 3PO. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 22:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Based on the input we got in the RfC, I made it non-personal, so the 3PO can state whether they support using a specific image, without knowing whose side they are taking. Seems like that would make it less personal and less editorialized. CorporateM (Talk) 22:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, personalizing disputes is not helpful. With that in mind I'm not sure why you opened a thread saying you were in a dispute with me over the photo. You must be having a very busy day and doing too many things at once!  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are the two that were arguing about it previously. We argue alot. It's not a bad thing, as editors with different viewpoints is a healthy way to create quality articles, as long as all the involved editors follow AGF, OWN, etc. and are reasonable. I prefer not to argue about such small things where I have a COI (or even where I don't), but if there are arguments about everything, what can I do but argue? + I agree with user:Candleabracadabra that in many ways the article is actually getting worse over time.

Anyways, I am timid about harping on the controversy too much. I got the sense that Yelp wasn't even really very comfortable with participating on Wikipedia in general, but again, what else can we do but what I am doing? But I wanted to swing by you how we might structure that discussion. I would like to posture it this way - that there are five POVs that should each be represented fairly per NPOV: Small businesses, Yelp, the court, the public, and academics. We can copy/paste what is currently in the article for each POV and discuss them one at a time and advertise the discussion on the NPOV board. Thoughts? Each POV can be represented as part of the narrative and not as a "he said she said" kind of thing. CorporateM (Talk) 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi CM and thanks for your comments and willingness to discuss. Yes, we often disagree on content but I don't believe we've ever had what I would call an argument. As far as the Yelp content goes, I understand that you are in a position that is like trying to corral a bunch of cats while your hands are tied behind your back (the cats being both content and editors). For this reason you may be trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Sometimes controversial articles are never ready for GA because there is no clear consensus on all the content. Also the editors, consensus and content are constantly changing. Further, and I know this is not your intention, but there is an appearance that you are trying to shape the article by creating a continuous series of RfC's and jamming them with multiple issues some of which have already been discussed. I fully sympathize with your position and you are a prime example of all the ways in which WP is not addressing the needs of companies, organizations, notable people and PR firms who want to create or modify content while respecting WP's policies including WP:V and WP:NPOV. I feel that your current path is stirring up controversy and debate on the talk page rather than stabilizing the article and refining its content for a GA review. You are doing this by creating multiple back to back RfC's on content that has been relatively stable for the past few months and by listing the various editors names and their estimated opinions and giving RfC participants multiple options. I know this is the opposite of what you want and it must be very frustrating as you look for ways to make significant changes to the article while limiting yourself to the talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that is a pretty good bulls-eye, except the article being "stable" does not mean it is "good". Even from a clear counter-COI perspective, I'm concerned the viewpoint of small business owners ("I declined advertising and my ratings went down" & "they said they would alter the reviews if I bought ads") are no longer in the article. This is the central premise of the whole thing - why would anyone remove it?

Any improvements I propose - some argument will be found to why it shouldn't be made. Therefore I must find consensus, but trying to reach consensus is controversial and clear, unambiguous consensus rarely exists anywhere. Additionally, any argument that escalates will involve editors that are unhappy about the outcome and will claim the process was contaminated by COI - a common POV pusher tactic even when no COI exists.

So in other words I should just watch the article degrade helplessly, popcorn in hand, even as random IPs add primary sources. The whole thing is very depressing. CorporateM (Talk) 20:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right stability has little or no direct correlation with an article being high quality and/or neutral. As for IPs adding primary sources, we should be able to reverse that when it happens. The article shouldn't degrade. Generally what I do after I've spent a lot of time on an article like Yelp, is walk away for a while and let random members of the community tweak it for a while. Then I may come back from time to time and do my own tweaking. But I try to avoid directly undoing other people's edits or micromanaging the article lest it seem like I feel that I 'own' the article. Of course when one invests themselves in an article and feel they've raised the level of it, it's hard not to feel some attachment to it. So it requires some reflection and self discipline.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PS I've removed the trivia that the IP added using Yelp FAQ's as a source. If that kind of thing happens again just put a note on the talk page and I think it will get cleaned up pretty quick :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help to fix rejected article

Hi, My article (Vungngaihlun_(Lulun)_Tonsing) was rejected with the remark 'Please cite your sources using footnotes'. Could you please help? Thanks! Aksharapitre (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksharapitre (talk • contribs) 05:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left a message on your talk page. Also, please remember to sign your messages. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your inputs. I am currently in the process of getting some more reliable sources. Apart from that, is there anything else I could do improve the quality of the article on Wiki? Apologies for the third degree but this is my first time... Aksharapitre (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sources are the foundation of any article so we have to start with that. Let me know when you have posted more sources at the article and I can help you develop it in a way that will allow it to pass inspection. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It involves an RfC closure that you made at Right-wing socialism. I don't believe you have done anything wrong, nevertheless, I think you ought to know. Regards Op47 (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks OP47. Experienced editors are permitted and encouraged to close RfCs as there is a backlog at WP:ANRFC. There is a process for contesting RfC closures [1] and a reversal by a participant who disagrees with the outcome is not part of that process. However, I'll let ANI sort that out and avoid the drama. Peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, since my right to make the close and my judgement have been called into question I felt the need to explain my closing process and so I did post at ANI. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Serbia women's national beach handball team

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Serbia women's national beach handball team. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)  Done -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Note to self

Look at this page for possible AfD's-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Skaramuca

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Skaramuca. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Keithbob:

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

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation

Please comment on Talk:Moral responsibility

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Moral responsibility. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mediation for Azerbaijan

Hello Keithbob. You said in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page that you can take the case about solving the dispute around the section added by me in the article Azerbaijan and about the map there. As the discussion there was closed I filled the requests for mediation, as user TransporterMan recommended. --Interfase (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK good luck with the mediation. Keep in mind that mediation is also voluntary and if participants say they don't want to participate you may have to think of a new plan. T-man also suggests an WP:RFC as a way to bring new editors to the talk page discussion and get outside input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Category links

Hello Keithbob, I notice you used some full URLs in your recent comment about AfC backlogs on Jimbo's talk page. Did you know that you can link to a category without causing it to categorize a page, by starting your link with a colon? E.g. Category:Articles to be merged. Best, — Scott • talk 15:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know that, good tip. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN

Would you consider taking Highland Clearances? The last time it came up you were out and it failed because no one (including me) wanted to take it. Feel free to say no. Also feel free to offer to the disputants to take the case but to condition your acceptance on the filing party, the IP editor, creating an account and only editing signed-on in the future. While we as a forum don't have that right, you as an individual volunteer certainly have the right to condition your participation as a mediator on whatever conditions you want and there's even support for that at WP:MEDIATION#Control of mediation. That's what I would do (and may do if you choose not to take the case). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, meantime User:TransporterMan, what is the perceived advantage in having the IP create a named account?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view, it shows that they're serious enough about their editing to take responsibility for it and take ownership of it. It also seems to me that they ought to be willing to do at least that much if they're going to go beyond just editing and make use of Wikipedia's processes. Of course it only works if the IP editor is, as in this case, the filing editor. If they're a responding editor, making such a request might prevent them from joining in, which would not be a good thing. Having said all of that, I've not actually done that before, but I would this time if I took this case. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Malleus Maleficarum

Not that it's particularly important, but why did you revert my linking the mention of penis theft to the relevant article? Surely this is ordinary Wiki practice? 70.75.233.253 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chris Christie

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Chris Christie. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — 10.4.1.125 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)