User talk:Keithbob

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
2,239		Chaos theory (talk)						Add sources
558		Fourier analysis (talk)						Add sources
19		Monash University, Caulfield campus (talk)						Add sources
1,069		Auguste Comte (talk)						Add sources
9		UWS School of Medicine (talk)						Add sources
6		Victoria University Student Union (talk)						Add sources
223		SECAM (talk)						Cleanup
112		Chris Whitley (talk)						Cleanup
239		Emergency vehicle lighting (talk)						Cleanup
1,316		RoboCop (talk)						Expand
75		Telexfree (talk)						Expand
48		Qype (talk)						Expand
300		Endless Love (song) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
517		Indian mathematics (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
3,907		The Shining (film) (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
81		Pure tone (talk)						Merge
1,836		The Walking Dead: Season Two (talk)						Merge
16		Ajam of Iraq (talk)						Merge
398		LTI system theory (talk)						Wikify
76		Music of Austin, Texas (talk)						Wikify
2		Tomáh Errázurih (talk)						Wikify
10		2D Filters (talk)						Orphan
6		Timeline of numerals and arithmetic (talk)						Orphan
8		Hexagonal sampling (talk)						Orphan
7		Jackie Winters (talk)						Stub
10		Standard Emergency Warning Signal (talk)						Stub
6		Pekin, Iowa (talk)						Stub
166		Tehsildar (talk)						Stub
6		My Good Friend (talk)						Stub
6		Dwarf siren (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to my talk page

DRN Service Award

		Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Award, Grade 1
		For serving as coordinator when another user took an unexpected leave. Well done, and thanks for your service at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard! — MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
		This award comes in five grades: Base Grade (no stars, awardable to DRN volunteers or to individuals involved in a dispute) and Grades 1-4 (1-4 stars, respectively, awardable only to DRN volunteers).

Thanks my friend, very generous of you. I will pass the gratitude and appreciation forward. Thanks again! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:La Roux

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Roux. 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, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This is basically a request for discussion and since its a topic I have no knowledge of, or inclination to research, I'm going to pass. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yelp History

Hi, I should explain why I reverted your undo of 'who instigated the local services project based on user reviews' on the early history of Yelp regarding David Galbraith. Regarding your comment: "redundant and creates undo weight, his role as co founder is clear". I don't think his role is clear if it merely mentions that he came up with the name, as he clearly outlines his role instigating a project based on user reviews on his website: http://davidgalbraith.org/portfolio/companies-yelp/ with pictures which show the original office where Yelp was incubated and original designs for Yelp. This story is further validated by Om Malik in the article linked to, which adds weight not only because he is one of Silicon Valley's most well known journalists, with more than a million followers on Twitter, but that he states he had first hand knowledge of the early days of Yelp and that its history was not completely known, something which Wikipedia is specifically good at getting to accurately, and so this seems important. I originally though the undo might have been someone vandalizing (hence the tone of the note on the undo I did, which I apologize for, but having looked at your impressive history of edits realize that you care deeply about accuracy. I hope you agree with keeping the original I propose since it reflects a balanced view of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.229.132 (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my comment was not clear. The sentence clearly states that Galbraith is the co-founder and he came up with the name. Its not necessary or desirable to specify every nuance of his minor involvement. WP summarizes sources and does not include any detail. Furthermore Galbraith's personal website is not a valid source for such claims per WP:RS. Galbraith's involvement in Yelp is rarely mentioned in the hundreds of articles on Yelp therefore a minor mention that he was co-founder and came up with the name is enough. Per WP:BRD I urge you to allow my deletion to stand and join other editors on the talk page for further discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The sentence doesn't state that Galbraith was a co-founder of Yelp, as is said in the Om Malik article, but that could be added. In fact the main thrust of the Om Malik article is that the company history omits this and that his involvement was not minor and that Om Malik was a first hand witness.. The Galbraith source was not linked to for this reason but provides photographs and examples of works that demonstrate clearly that the Om Malik article is correct. The edit that you have made is not removing 'every nuance' but removes every sense of the history of Galbraith's involvement other than the coming up with the name, giving the false idea that he was not involved. The Om Malik article suggest that the involvement of Galbraith was much more that I suggested, I could have added this, however merely added information that is uncontroversial, pertinent to the history and clearly corroborated by Galbraith's personal account, so I have undone your deletion and we can take this to the general talk page as you discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.229.132 (talk) 05:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In response to the comments made by Mr. KeithBob, I thought I will weigh in. It is surprising that the company has gone to great lengths to whitewash the history for no apparent reason and erase a key contributor. But this is common behavior lately. There were many of us who are first hand witnesses to the formation of the company and can reaffirm of the role played by David Galbraith -- Om! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.155.193 (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that single purpose IP accounts are intent on repeatedly returning to give undue weight to the marginal coverage Galbraith has received in the press in regard to his involvement with Yelp!.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gaza War

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gaza War. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A discussion that may interest you

Please see the COI Noticeboard, here [1], for an ongoing discussion of the POV issues with the George M. Church article you recently edited. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC

I've left a comment there. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism. 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) 00:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jennifer Rubin (journalist). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitch McConnell

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitch McConnell. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disability-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Avril (singer)

Greetings Keithbob, How can you close the dispute without addressing my concerns? The information I added to the article is sourced and not defamatory. If you can prove how it violates Wikipedia's BLP policy, I'll rest my case. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the closing of your case was strictly procedural and has nothing to do with the validity of your case. DRN is for moderation, if the other party refuses to participate the case is automatically closed. You will need to try some other dispute resolution venue such as WP:RfC or WP:3O etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republican Party (United States). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

You received a Wikipedia email about access to Newspapers.com about 2.5 weeks ago about access to WP:Newspapers.com access through the The Wikipedia Library. We currently don't have record of your response on the Google doc. Please make sure to follow the instructions in that email for obtaining access, Sadads (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I had created an account but did not follow through on the other items in the email. However, I have today, completed all the items. Please let me know if there is anything else you need. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day

Happy First Edit Day, Keithbob, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Another year on the pedia!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. 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) 00:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

A Question?

Hello! Recently, I attempted to begin moderating the dispute over Bob Avakian. However, you stated that the dispute would be closed in 24 hours unless a DRN volunteer begins moderation? Did I miss some policy to notify some list that moderation had begun? Did something not recognize me as a volunteer because I only signed up as a volunteer a few days ago? Is there anything more I should do? Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Icarosaurvus, thanks for stopping by. I had the impression from your comment: "I hope I"ve been of some help" at DRN that you had just stopped by to give your opinion and left the scene. You did not make it clear that you were opening the case for moderation or indicate how the discussion should proceed. In hindsight I should have contacted you to clarify, so I apologize for not doing so. I'll strike the 24 hr close notice and allow you to continue to moderate the case. Please keep in mind that DRN is not a 'third opinon' situation. We have WP:30 for that. Though its not prohibited, giving your opinion in a case is something I personally try to refrain from doing as I feel it inhibits my ability to stand apart from the discussion and be an impartial moderator who maintains order and leads the discussion and reminds participants of WP policy and guidelines as needed (which you have done). So please go ahead and continue with the discussion and let me know if you need advice, guidance or assistance with anything. And thanks for helping at DRN. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate any help you could render, as this is certainly the first time I have done this. I simply read half a dozen randomly selected logs of such situations, and attempted to phrase my comment in a similar way to the ones phrased by the volunteers in those logs. If you've any advice at all on how to proceed, I'd love to hear it. Additionally, if there is anything I should do differently in the future, please let me know. Thank you for responding in such a timely manner. Icarosaurvus (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is EnRealidad, the user who has been involved in the dispute over the Bob Avakian page. I'm really new to the "Notice Board" process and am trying to figure out how to proceed, both practically (e.g. who do I write to, where do I post, etc.) and also how to move forward with the content of the dispute itself. I have had a chance to digest the comments from Keithbob about the page, and also saw the note from Icarosaurvus that he/she has volunteered to moderate the dispute.

I have some thoughts about Keithbob's comments, especially the question of references to primary sources, and while I think there is merit to the Wiki standards on this question, I don't think it can be simply or mechanically applied in this case where there's a question of presenting the actual views of the living person featured in this biography. My objections to many of the edits made in the past were that they distorted the positions of Avakian in a way that substituted the views of the other editors for Avakian's views, making it seem like he was advocating positions or presenting opinions that were actually quite different (and in some cases directly in opposition) to what he has actually had to say. That's part of the reason for citations to his own writings.

In any case, I don't have time now for a long response but definitely would like to be actively involved in additional discussion on the page and any edits or proposed edits occur. Can you let me know the best way to do this? Thanks in advance. EnRealidad (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article talk page is the best place for discussion on this article. If there are disagreements than outside input can be invited at various noticeboards or an WP:RfC etc.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

request for meditation

Dear Keithbob

Could you please come and mediate between me and the Middayexpress as we reached a dead on reaching a resolution in our dispute regarding the SSC regions of Somalia here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khatumo_State#SSC_clans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.164.181.138 (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have had prior content disagreements with Middayexpress on another article related to Somalia, so I would not be a neutral third party. Maybe try WP:30 or a WP:RfC. Good luck, sorry I cannot help. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation on Bob Avakian page

Keithbob and Icarosaurvus,

I wrote to both of you a few days ago about moderating the dispute on the Bob Avakian page that was requested by Xcure1fendx. I haven't heard back from you, but wanted to see if you'll get involved more actively. (If I posted it incorrectly, my apologies. I'm somewhat new at this.)

My particular concern is that after Keithbob posted his thoughts on what was needed in terms of edits to the page, an editor named Cwobeel removed two major sections without any comments about why. I reverted the page to what it had been, then Xcure1fendx removed the same sections, removed all links to writings of Avakian that are listed, and also did some small edits to the "Claims of 'Cult of Personality' page. Xcuref1endx's only explanation for the changes (and for reverting my reversions of Cwobeel's edits) were that Keithbob had recommended changes.

It seems to me this is violating the whole notion of "dispute resolution". I take Keithbob's comments seriously. But I also understood this to be a process, not a fait accompli.

For example, I disagree with Keithbob's comments about removing some of the citations to Avakian's own writings and talks. I think that in a case like this were we are dealing with a living person with very controversial views, there is a need to reference his own writings and talks in order to accurately capture what he has to say.

That was the source of my disagreements with a whole series of edits by Xcuref1endx in late 2011 and early 2012 where he had rewritten extensive sections of the page in ways that might have captured his/her own views, but were decidedly different than Avakian's. I thoroughly explained each change and why I felt the Xcuref1endx edits distorted Avakian's views.

(I find it a bit ironic that Xcuref1endx keeps complaining that there is little controversy about Avakian's ideas outside those affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party that Avakian leads, yet he/she seems determined to keep editing the page in a way that favors his/her views over Avakian's.)

Anyway, I would like to engage in some actual, constructive discussion on Keithbob's suggestions, as well as those of others. I am not that familiar with Wiki protocol and don't know how this is done, so I'd appreciate any advice and instructions on how to go about this. But in the meantime, I don't think it is appropriate for Xcuref1endx to simply act on suggestions in a way that implies they are orders from on high and the case is closed on any differences.

EnRealidad (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors on that article should follow WP:BRD. IE if they change something (regardless of the reason) and it is reverted they should begin a thread on the talk page and discuss the issue. Then once there is WP:consensus either through normal discussion or dispute resolution like WP:3O, WP:RfC etc. final changes should be made. My comments on the talk page are the observations of an experienced, seasoned editor and should be respected but they are at the same time the words of just one person and WP is a collaborative project. ISo please open a talk page thread and discuss one issue at a time. I'll participate as time allows.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please check the Avakian page again. All changes done recently have been reverted by Enrealidad.-- xcuref1endx (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems this has been remedied now. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the procedure is, but is there an admin that can insure the page isn't constantly reverted to Enrealidad's original article? No matter how many times changes will be made to that page, Enrealidad is going to show up and revert it and insist that that his version is the true NPOV. This has been the main issue with any changes made to that page for the past few years. -- xcuref1endx (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question has already been warned [2] by User:Drmies who is an administrator (which I am not). If you see further unresolved issues I suggest you notify Drmies and he/she will attend to it as needed. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, Drmies is an admin, unfortunately. But in this article, I'm just another editor: I've made serious, extensive content edits, and I've reverted Enrealidad's unwise changes once or twice. The only thing to do, xcuref1endx, is to place a request at WP:RFPP and ask for full protection. The problem with that, of course, is that no one else an edit either.... So we are left with a problem, but if that editor reverts again we can file with WP:ANEW, or maybe start a thread on ANI, to get those edits reverted and the editor blocked or maybe topic-banned. Enrealidad, I am puzzled as to how you can edit an article and be so utterly oblivious about Wikipedia's guidelines, about the difference between primary and secondary material, about how fewer words are better than more. I do not think that you are competent enough to edit this article. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

Hello Keith,

Great that you accept the challenge. English isn't my first language, if any problem simply ask me again. Only for the record, I had already notified DS [3]. I hope we are going to have a lot of fun. Regards, --Keysanger (Talk) 07:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK good to know about the language issue. I have not accepted the case, I'm just helping to get into a condition that will allow another volunteer to accept and moderate it. I am currently moderating a different DRN case. If it finishes soon I may take your case. Let's see how it goes.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Greeting, I am interesting in taking over the case, but I am very new to volunteering, could you point me in a few directions? Thanks. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My advice to you is to spend more time editing WP and getting involved in spirited talk page discussions before you do any work at DRN. Also I suggest starting with a simple DRN case with only two participants and a minor dispute then work your way to more complicated cases. A DRN mentor is also a good idea. Also, a DRN moderator needs to be fully versed in the major policies and guidelines (WP:5) as well as the DRN guidelines and procedures and the FAQ. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I had read some of the materials already before contact you. I was thinking neutrality and objectivity are the keys. One more thing I would like to point out is that I am involved in one of the ongoing dispute Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Traxon_Technologies. And the page mistakenly added me as one of the volunteer. Should I refrain from joining? Thanks. 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimsky.cheng (talk • contribs)

Because you have edited the Traxon Technologies page you have been named as a potential participant in that DRN case. This has nothing to do with you being a DRN volunteer. I would suggest you participate in that TT case at DRN as an editor and learn from the experience. See how DRN functions. Then later, you can try being the moderator for your own DRN case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the head up. Rimsky.cheng (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith,

What about this case?. Can we move ahead or should we wait for a volunteer?. The other claimer is already there. --Keysanger (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I"ve opened the case.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Keith,

please don't close this case after all formal steps have been done. I will post at least 2 {{Talkback}} in all talk pages of involved editors. We need only one editor for each side (at least). I will begin on Tuesday, if no one respond on Monday. BTW, on 18 September an editor gave 3 sources, but at Wars of the Americas (page 584) and Reference Guide (page 155) I can't find any support for "war started on 14". --Keysanger (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry about that. The contrast between actually editing interesting articles on fascinating topics, -i.e. contributing usefully to wikipedia,- and having to debate endlessly what I regard as nonsense by editors I am constrained by WP:AGF to accept as interlocutors, is just a little too aggravating personally for me not to sound dismissive. You were not the object of my displeasure. I did not wish to waste time there, added a comment out of respect for one editor's efforts, and found it was talked past by the primary disputant. I know you are a very competent and decent mediator, and feel duty-bound to apologize for any displeasure this may have, unintentionally, caused. I get insulted every other week around here, and therefore tend to have a tough hide, and a manner that may seem overbearing, though unless one is tough-minded in the I/P editing cesspit, you die a quick death, and perhaps my 8 years there shows. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, no worries, I didn't feel insulted by you. I did think your tone was a little hot however I fully understand how that can happen and I've done it a few times myself. It happens when you are working in a contentious area rubbing shoulders with people day after day. However, it can't be tolerated in a mediation setting or the process doesn't work. I appreciate your apology very much and I'm still off the case but I hope you folks get your issues worked out in one forum or another. All the best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Small comment on possible close out of dispute

Hello Keithbob; Regarding the re-open you just placed on the 2014 Israel dispute. The message I just posted this morning there was actually to suggest an immanent close out of the dispute based on the recent discovery of WP:Lede issues. If you concur with the reasoning there you are welcome to close it out along with my support since you are the one who really did the leg work here. Also the open RfC on the disputed Talk page can also be closed out at the same time and for much the same reason since WP:MoS allows only settled material in the main body of the article to be summarized in the Infobox. By definition of differing and on-going news reports on casualty statistics in that region, this information can not go into the Infobox since it has not yet been settled in the press. If you can look at this you are free to close these with my support. FelixRosch (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Felix, The discussion should not be labeled as 'stale' if there is ongoing discussion, which there is. So we were a bit behind on the case status label (which is fine). On the subject of closing the case I am in support of that. It already falls outside the scope of DRN and should be closed. However, if you feel you are on the verge of a break through that could lead to some kind of resolution I want to support you and the participants. Unfortunately I don't really see that as so far the participants are unable to fully support your proposal to adhere to MOS and LEDE. Even if they agree to that, there is still a long way to go before resolution is reached on the wording for the lead. That is why I was letting the participants know its now or never. I think a close is imminent, but let's see how they respond. Thanks for your support and assistance. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Bob Avakian edit

I posted this on the Talk page for the "Bob Avakian" article and am also posting it on the Talk pages of individual editors who have commented on this recently.

Nobody has bothered responding to any of the criticisms I put up on the “Bob Avakian” talk page about edit by Keithbob and others, other than Keithbob saying that I should start a separate thread if I "have concerns about a specific sentence or source". No, it isn't a problem with one or two phrases or sources – I have concerns about the overall totality of the article as rewritten. It is inaccurate, possibly libelous around certain allegations of legal issues, and biased.

My criticisms are very specific, based on carefully locating and studying each one of the sources added to the article, researching the authors of those pieces, and looking at what I know of the actual facts. I have offered specific criticism and comments about different elements of the article. And I've raised concerns that this is very connected with the basic methodology that led to this – just find something that someone said, don't bother looking at whether they have any basis to say it, and then simply cite it as truth. This is precisely what leads to rumors and inaccurate summations being turned into "facts" when there is no basis for this.

Nobody has addressed any of this. Instead, the argument seems to be simply an empty call for "consensus" without dealing with the content of that concensus. Just because the majority of people say something doesn't make it true. Think about the fact that most people in this country question basic scientific understanding like evolution, or global warming.

Again, it is inappropriate and frankly irresponsible to simply remove an article that was the result of literally months and months of careful study of everything I could find on Avakian, whether supportive or critical, and carefully source every statement in it, and instead substitute a poorly researched, biased "substitute". It goes along with removing all of the content of Avakian's views and writings without any effort to even engage them. Again, readers of Wikipedia come here to find something accurate, reliable and informative. EnRealidad (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Lira talking to the points

I just received a threat from User:MILH for editing my own user page: " Don't even think of deleting this warning—as you did before—as I'll not only revert your deletion, but I'll also inform admins of what you're pulling and see to it that you are banned for good." I was uncertain if my deletion was bad form so I checked; "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." [4]

I don't think User:MILH understands content issues can be addressed, and reconciled, on a point by point basis in the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Lfrankbalm (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, with exception of certain disciplinary notices, users may remove posts from their talk page at their discretion. As for threats I'd suggest that you focus on the DRN case and after that has concluded if there is continued threats or misbehavior then you can request help from an Administrator using this template.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

List of largest cities in Brazil

Hi, I see you're quite active at WP:DRN. I'm having a problem with reversion without edit summaries at the above article. I've posted at the talk page (and a users talk page) without response, and thus it can't be said to have been extensively discussed at talk. I'd be grateful for any initial thoughts. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not the edit summaries that concern me its the edit warring. I suggest you post a note on the user page of User:GiantSnowman who already issued a warning to that editor. Also, start a new discussion thread on the talk page and put a polite note on the other editor's talk page and ask them to join you in a discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Your edits remove relevant information

Your edits are removing information from from the subject Gonzalo Lira. You wrote me a note saying that the info was "primary research"—yet previous editors objected because the information on the subject was not adequately sourced. I'm reverting your edits because you are removing the items that made the subject notable, mainly his blogging and punditry. --MILH (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Checking your other edits, such as Noah Gundersen, you have a habit of calling anyone you don't happen to know "not noteworthy". Then you remove information that provides context and noteworthiness to the person. Example, on the aforementioned Gundersen entry, you removed two entries in Sons of Anarchy soundtrack compilations that he contributed to, and that would make him a noteworthy performer/songwriter—then said, "He's not noteworthy".

The analogue would be to remove Barack Obama's position as US President and former US Senator—then claim he's therefore "not noteworthy".

You also remove citations/references that prove and/or give evidence of the noteworthiness of the individual—then put a "citation needed" note. Again, that's counterproductive.

I understand you are eager to improve entries. But please do so in a way that is responsible. Don't change entries for the sake of changing entries, hurting the entries in the process. Thank you. --MILH (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi MILH, Its obvious from your comments that you are not yet familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have made the Gonzalo Lira article into a fluff pieces using things like a link to You Tube search results and a link to search results on a personal website as citations. These are not acceptable on Wikipedia. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:BIO. Wikipedia requires significant in depth coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. At the present there are no sources in the article that do so. I have listed all of the so called sources on the talk page and illustrated why almost none of them meet Wikipedia's standard for reliable secondary sources. Please read WP:BLP and WP:SECONDARY and then we can discuss further on the article talk page. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

By attacking and disparaging me, you're dodging the issue, which is that you base relevance and notability on what you personally know. If you determine on your own that a person is non-notable, you remove precisely the things that make him notable, in a just-so approach. This is not the way to edit an entry.

As to being "new to WP", I've been editing since 2006. "New" in a geological sense? Yeah, I guess so. --MILH (talk) 01:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If I may butt in, might I suggest discussing this at the article's Talk page, where other interested editors will be more likely to see the discussion and have the opportunity to weigh in? DonIago (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Keithbob, in the talk page of the article, I'm pointing out that you removed the fact that he's a film director and producer. Which under WP guidelines is a relevant issue, but hey, you don't know about it, so it can't be relevant, right? --MILH (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)