User talk:Bob K31416

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Progress[edit]

From December 11 to Jan 4. Think its 10% or 20% of the way to Good Article yet? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

For now, I'm not considering evaluation for Good Article status. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I was seeking it, but I'll leave the article since there is too much opposition to the edits required to maintain professionalism. Cwobeel and a few other editors seem to have confused "it is written" as the mere basis for inclusion when the demands of GA and FA are neutrality, accuracy and stability. This will be impossible under the current circumstances without eliminating a few editors from the area - and that is a reprehensible act at this point. Anyways, I got to dig in the archives a bit and do some relaxing research - ping me if anything important comes up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you've made an extraordinary effort to try to improve that troubled article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

!vote[edit]

Im confused by your !vote. You said "remove" the headphone pic. Remove from where? Its not in the article right now. Do you mean just that you prefer the other photo? Or no photo? Also how does a picture of headphones misrepresent behavior? Wouldn't the graduation photo do so even more? All in all your !vote is very hard to parse. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The picture is currently in the article. [1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks, I had somehow not noticed that. So is the summary of your !vote "no photo (and especially not headphone)" then? It might be worth clarifying that. I still don't see how the photo misrepresents behavior though (any more than any photo of Brown would that isn't actively showing him robbing a store) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Aside from being sure that the headphones picture shouldn't be in the article, I'm not sure what to do about another picture. Having a picture of Brown in a graduation gown may appear to some to be a biased portrayal, although that is somewhat offset by the scowl on his face and being only a couple of months or less before the incident. There is a picture of Brown with the graduation gown cropped out. [2] Complicating things is that there is no picture of Wilson. What's the situation regarding Wilson's picture? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

CS1 / harvnb at Michael Brown[edit]

WP:CITEVAR advises against mixing citation styles in an article. Is there a reason we shouldn't use (for example) <ref name=DOJ.ShootingReport/>{{rp|p.6}} instead of {{harvnb |USDOJ |2015 | p=6}}? I would be happy to make the changes. ―Mandruss  18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Since the harv citation style was in the article first, I think we should stay with it unless a consensus thinks otherwise. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I see no harvnb in the article until this 29 March edit. Prior to that, it was CS1 except for a few bare URLs (which is not a citation style by my understanding of the term) that eventually got converted to CS1. I found a revision from August 11, 2014, which contained some CS1 and no harvnb; I can hunt that down again if you need it. In fact, I'm sure I could show that the first addition of either style was CS1. So I'm not understanding your assertion that harvnb was the first style used. Perhaps you could clarify that? ―Mandruss  19:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a question of when {{rpl }} style was first used in this article. Going by memory, I thought it was after the harv style, but check me on this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You're correct, there were no rp's on 29 March. And it appears I was mistaken, the use of harvnb is not a "citation style" in the sense meant by WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE (which means neither guideline bears on this discussion). Nevertheless, as there are advantages to the rp style, I would like to at least seek a consensus in article talk. Any objection to my copying this? ―Mandruss  21:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I started a thread without copying this. This would only confuse because we were both incorrect as to applicability of the guidelines. ―Mandruss  23:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank article talk page[edit]

There are some discussions on leo frank article talk page that you might be interested in commenting upon. I see in the past you contributed greatly to discussions about the article. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lede inclusion on Leo Frank article about Governor Slaton being part of lawfirm representing Leo Frank at his murder trial[edit]

Why are you removing the fact that Governor Slaton was member of the lawfirm that represented Leo Frank during his trial from lede? GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave my reason in my edit summary. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior on Nikola Tesla talk page[edit]

Hello. Would you consider making a joint report for FkpCascais. His behavior is very disruptive. Up to now he had used this personal attacks against me : lunatic, cynical person, Croat, claiming I'm making fools of others..etc...

Furthermore he had been POV pushing in the following manner.

I posted 3 sources and 17 minutes later he called them "obcure revisionist Croatian or Serbian sources", later he admitted he had not even see them (even went so far to claim that is good faith): "I even assumed good faith and initially believed he really had a source and I didn't reacted for some days, until I didn't actually digged into it". He provided a source with a quote that does not exist in there, and he refused to point to the quote although I plead several times. He had not admitted a mistake, but he kept using that source. He had been using a source he himself called "I was obviously not using it as source, it is just a ridiculous nationalistic conspiracist website with zero enciclopedic value." with the later claims like "I just brought it here as exemple of how even in Croatia there are people that are aware that the telegram was fake", "I just brought that conspiracist Croatian source as exemple of how even those know the telegram is fake.". He's contradicting even himself. His whole attitude is hostile. And lastly he had been saying a source says something which is totally false. I asked him to provide a quote but he keeps repeating the claim see here. Also he had been doing that for quite some time on Tesla page. Also he had accused numerous people of sock puppeting, and I counted 3-4 cases of false accusations. I think that is the only reason he had not called me a sock puppet (well an anonymous ip had called me Asdisis, but I wont attribute that to him). Also he had been removing every trace of "Croatia" from the article. Also he started a section called "What we are experiencing on this talk-page is the result of a wide-scale nationalistic phenomenom in Croatia regarding Tesla worth mention in the article". The title speaks for itself. I really do not know what to do. I had never seen such behavior. He himself had reported Asdisis for such behavior. In fact Asdisis was much less disruptive than him, and his behavior was not reviewed. I come to wikipedia from time to time to edit, but I'm pretty sure this is disruptive behavior. At least it is to me. I had not posted so much in the last few years. He keeps answering every comment with misinterpretations and direct lies, and I really do not know how to "battle" that. I just wanted to post some sources regarding Military Frontier so people stop making all kind of claims that are not sustained by any source but I'm being disrupted. Your advice would be much helpful. If this continues I'm leaving Nikola Tesla page for good. I simply do not have all days to deal with that. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that it's difficult to side with one editor over another regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND when both editors seem to be exhibiting battleground behavior. Here's an excerpt from that policy,
"If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely."
--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I made an account. Firstly,I don't think others had any problem by siding with FkpCascais against Asdisis, nor did they have any problem by siding by FkpCascais in this discussion, accusing me of POV pushing. I will take your opinion as objective, and I won't be participating Tesla discussion. I don't have time to "battle" all the editors that had gathered around that article. Well I wasn't participating anyways, but I was interested only in the section I started. That's now being moved to Military Frontier talk page. I now see Michael Cambridge had also withdrawn himself from the discussion, so you might as well. Thank you for your advice. Detoner (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I will support you in a joint report against FkpCascais, his accusations and personal attacks are atrocious.Michael Cambridge 10:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talkcontribs)
Thank you Michael Cambridge, but he seems to have a support of senior editors in his behavior, and since even Bob K31416 is against it, I don't think there's anything we can do. However, I will be making a case out of this if he continued with the present behavior. Detoner (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Leo Frank and GBH[edit]

Curiouser and curiouser. GBH has opened a complaint about me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. The best I can come up with is that he confused my edits with your efforts to rein in his BLP violations. I provided diffs from you in my response and pointed out that the BLP violations have continued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the situation got taken care of.[3] BTW, I would suggest restoring the 00:56, 25 June 2015 version of the first two paragraphs of the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I've taken your advise -- we'll see if it gets reverted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Taking sides in battleground[edit]

It seems other editors summoned by the reported editor have no problem in taking sides although they haven't been included in the discussions and are not familiarized with the topic. Detoner (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)