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)

Huh, I don't know if you are implying that I am OWNing or if you are reflecting on yourself. You've actually spent more time on it than I and shown more resistance to changes to your version.

It's been about a year since I started on this page and I don't think more time is needed. However, it is unlikely another editor besides myself will bring it up to GA and if there is too much resistance to my participation for me to do it myself, while following the site's COI rules, then there is nothing that can be done. CorporateM (Talk) 02:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not accusing you of ownership. Just reflecting on the concept in general and explaining my approach to mitigating the natural tendency for editors (including me) to want to preserve their work. As you know I have not been actively editing the article for some time, and yes I have given my views on the talk page as that is part of the collaborative process. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:04, 6 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 2600 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)

Hi, thanks for the question. The article text says: "steal penises". You inserted a link for the term "penis panic" which auto-forwards to an article called "Koro" which is self described as "a culture-specific syndrome in which an individual has an overpowering belief that his or her genitals (e.g., penis or female nipples) are retracting and will disappear". Because Koro has nothing to do with "steal penises" (except for the word penis) I reverted the edit as the wiki-link you created took the reader on what many would consider a wild goose chase. I hope this helps and thanks for coming by. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon closer examination, I see that there is a specific subsection of the Koro article that references Malleus Maleficarum and the phenomenon of witches removing and hiding male genitalia. In light of this finding, I've created a wikilink that takes the reader directly to that subsection of the article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention and sorry for the error.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I should have linked to that subsection in the first place. Thanks for fixing it. 70.75.233.253 (talk) 18:50, 6 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)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mail

You've got it. Mail, that is. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I have more than mail! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Brevan Howard response

The only thing I would note from both the page and the talk page discussions is that there seems to be more than enough evidence to switch the location to Jersey, both in number of news references and recency of information. Geneva doesn't seem like it's accurate any longer. Silverseren^C 00:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Good, that will make the company person happy as I was resisting that change. I'm happy to concede to your 'outside' opinion and have made that adjustment to the lead. Thanks so much for taking a look. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi Keithbob! I would like to thank you for your years of hard work and valuable contributions which you have done for Wikipedia :) I can truly understand how difficult it would have been for you to recover from an unfortunately failed RfA. Although I didn't take part in it, I have full faith in you and wish you best of luck for the times ahead, and I hope that you'll surely succeed next time. Best Regards! -TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you my friend, your support means a lot to me. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Religion in China

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Religion in China. 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, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Brevan Howard Page Converstaion

Hi Keithbob,

Great to see you’re back on Wikipedia and thank you for looking at the Brevan Howard page again. Also thank you so much for making the headquarter location change from Geneva to Jersey, would it be possible to change this in the information box on the right of the main article as well, to ensure consistency?

I would definitely like to get your input in getting the outstanding inaccuracies changed and the article corrected. The outstanding points which I would welcome your input and opinion on are as below (sources are included currently on the talk page or I can provide them separately for reference).

I look forward to hearing back from you and to discussing any of this further. Again thank you so much for your input so far, it is very much appreciated. Please let me know how we can move this forward and how I can help in anyway.

"Fund manager, Geraldine Sundstrom, joined the company in 2007 and oversees the Brevan Howard Master Fund."

Geraldine Sundstrom joined as a partner at Brevan Howard in 2007 and was the portfolio manager of the Emerging Markets Strategies Master Fund Limited. In February 2014 Brevan Howard announced it was closing this fund after a poor performance in 2013 and Geraldine would be leaving the organisation.

"According to a company press release it also manages two closed-ended feeder funds, BH Global Limited and BH Macro Limited"

Brevan Howard also manages three closed-ended feeder funds; BH Global Limited, BH Credit Catalysts Limited and BH Macro Limited

"As of 2012 its assets under management (AUM) were second among the European hedge fund management firms."

Brevan Howard has retained the title of "Largest Hedge Fund in Europe" for the second year in a row with around $40 billion in assets under management in 2013.

The current article mentions Brevan Howard manage 11 funds but only names six of them. I hope to change this to name all the funds.

As of September 2013 Brevan Howard manages the following 11 funds: Brevan Howard Master Fund Limited (“BHMF”), Brevan Howard Emerging Markets Strategies Master Fund Limited (“BHEMS”), Brevan Howard Asia Master Fund Limited (“BHA”), Brevan Howard Multi-Strategy Master Fund Limited (“BHMS”), Brevan Howard Credit Catalysts Master Fund Limited (“BHCC”), Brevan Howard Commodities Strategies Master Fund Limited (“BHCS”), Brevan Howard Systematic Trading Master Fund Limited (“BHST”), Brevan Howard Credit Value Master Fund Limited (“BHCV”), Brevan Howard CMBS Master Fund Limited (“BHCMBS”), Brevan Howard Investment Fund: Emerging Markets Local Fixed Income Fund Limited (“BHEML”), Brevan Howard Investment Fund II - Macro FX Fund Limited (“BHMFX”)

--Jenny.barrett (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jenny and thanks for stopping by. I'd be happy to help. I've copied your requests to the Brevan Howard talk page. Let's continue the discussion there so other interested parties may join and the information can be preserved for future reference. Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey

Hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.204.113.130 (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Khojaly massacre

I'm not sure why you abruptly closed the discussion. Divot, Lhakh and I presume Antelope Hunter were in agreement with me that the Azerbaijani figure of 485 should be included since it was confirmed by a third-party (De Waal). This is not the same state that the 613 figure is in, which is merely government propaganda without any evidence and which is not backed by third-party sources.--Urartu TH (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I summed up my reasons for the close in my summary which is located at the bottom of the DRN case. In that section I specifically comment on consensus for the inclusion of the 485 figure. Take a look at that and if you still have questions or concerns we can discuss them. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My concern is that the 485 figure and the 613 figure are both from the Azerbaijani government--one from a parliamentary investigation (485) and another cited by various government sources more recently and without any evidence. These are clearly of significantly different value. Due to WP:UNDUE we couldn't possibly include both in the infobox. Per the discussion in the DRN, most if not all editors agreed that wild and unsubstantiated claims should not be in the infobox even if they are in the body.--Urartu TH (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see an consensus at the DRN for the removal of the 613 figure but you could raise it again on the talk page and re-evaluate. I felt we had accomplished a fair amount at the DRN and the discussion was beginning to degrade into personalized arguments. I didn't see any point in keeping it open. DRN is not a substitute for the article talk page but more like a stop over to try and break a log jam and get things moving again. I've been at DRN a while and many cases are rejected due to lack of participation, many others go round and round and stall and are referred to RfC or Mediation. So I feel we did well to get as far as we did and hopefully things can get moving again on the talk page. It's always difficult writing an article with so many people with different educations, values, background etc. It's the dark side of this kind of anonymous, written, collaboration :-) Good luck with your good work on WP and thanks for stopping by. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

We did reach the conclusion that wild and unsubstantiated claims violate WP:UNDUE and should not be in the infobox. This can be seen in the straw poll and its discussion in the DRN. Therefore I will go ahead and remove 613. The editors in the straw poll did not stick around to reiterate their sentiment later on but it's all quite clear.--Urartu TH (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You can do what you want but based on the discussions at DRN such action would be unduly aggressive and without consensus.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Presa Canario Attack Statistics

As a Presa Canario owner and breeder, I feel that adding the sourced attacks for this breed, or any, is unfair and discriminatory without adding similar information for ALL breeds of dogs. Simple internet searching will reveal that both the chihuahua and the dachshund are both in the top ten of dog bite situations, but yet neither of these vicious animals have their wiki pages denoting this information. Dog attack information can be sought out freely on the interwebs, but listing these attacks without a basis for comparison with other breeds can make this breed seem more vicious and aggressive than other similar dogs. I just don't think it's fair, and would challenge you to tell my Kharma Jean that she is anything but a sweetheart... -Juan

Hi Jaun, Sorry but without knowing your WP user name or the name of the article you are referencing I'm unable to help you. Please give me more information so I know what you are talking about. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Need for Speed

I explained my edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flyer22#Message — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.44.98 (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by. Sorry you are having problems. I've left you a note on your talk page. peace! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronan Farrow. 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, 14 March 2014 (UTC)