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

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." [1]

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)

Hi MILH, I'll address your points one by one:

1. I have not 'attacked or disparaged' you and making such allegations is considered a personal attack in itself unless 'diffs' (URLs to specific edits) are provided (see WP:NPA) so please be careful. All of my posts to you have been polite and civil. What I have done is outlined (with diffs) on your user talk page the many instances where you have attacked and bullied an editor who you were in a content dispute with and I noted that you had received a warning from User:Robert McClenon on Sept 29th. [2]
2. You are correct the word 'new' was an inept adjective. I apologize. However you are, in fact, an inexperienced editor with only 313 edits. This is underscored by your comment above about the film director-producer text which has no basis in any reliable source.
3. As User:Doniago has suggested, please post any future comments you may have about the article on the article's talk page. That will be more productive. I look forward to working together on the article talk page via discussion and group consensus. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lira directed at least one feature film. Here is an external link to the trailer: http://cinechile.cl/pelicula-84. Yet you removed the information that he's a film director/producer/writer—which gives credence to your claim that he's non-notable.

Your strategy seems to be to remove everything the man has ever done, then use that as the excuse to wipe him from Wikipedia altogether.

That, at least, is how I see it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The man co-wrote, co-produced and directed at least one feature film with reputable actors—yet you deleted that information.

The man appeared as an econ pundit on a whole bunch of TV shows, all of them on YouTube—yet you deleted that information.

The man had a huge blog following, with verifiable claims of big numbers—yet you deleted that information.

All you have allowed him to have is his novels and say that he's "a blog writer for economic web sites".

Your edits to the Lira entry suggest you want to eliminate him as non-notable. You appear to be doing that by removing the things he is notable for.

What's that all about? --MILH (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

MILH, This is your last warning. Stop the personal attacks and harassment. If you have comments about the article content, put them on the article talk page-- not here on my talk page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NRM Manual of Style

As you are a member of the New religious movements work group, I thought I should bring to your attention the fact that someone recently gutted the New religious movements Manual of Style. I have found this article to be quite helpful in editing articles related to NRM's. I reverted the edit but that was re-reverted (if there is such a word) quite soon aver my reversion.

Perhaps, all that is needed is that the name of the article should be changed from "Manual of Style" to something more appropriate (e.g. General guidance for articles on NRM's or something similar). However, I really would prefer not losing the guidance and thought that I should bring this to the attention of those in the work group. Taxee (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doug Ducey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Lane. 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) 09:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Time for the moral high ground

You should stand back from the editor you believe to be the aggressor. There is no purpose served by any interaction. Leave them to others is my advice Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the input.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmargi comments

Thanks for your attempt to get Drmargi to discuss. It did not seem to help, nor did Drmargi even respond to the dispute. I suppose I will keep trying. I may have to get some others involved in the discussion/dispute resolution since it was closed.AbramTerger (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that is not working out. It would be good to take a careful look at your own way of doing things and see if there is something you are doing that is putting people off and making them not want to discuss with you. I don't know what that might be but I do notice that you have been warned several times (three I think) on your talk page for edit warring. So think it over. It takes two to tango as they say. See what you can do to clean up and sweeten your behavior and editing patterns and you may find that others start to soften also. Good luck. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice. I have taken the warnings to heart and I have tried to discuss things more, but it also takes at least 2 to discuss. And even when there has been a local consensus, that consensus has still been reverted by Drmargi. Followup question: What triggers the WP:3RR warnings we receive? I have gotten them in the past (as you noted), but Drmargi has done 3 today on me and even more a couple of days ago in a dispute with someone else (both at Person of Interest (TV series)) with no comments on their page and no warnings on their conduct.AbramTerger (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)