TALK PAGE ARCHIVE FOR THE YEAR 2011
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...
Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva
Thank you very much for all of your help! -- Michaelparks ( talk) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
I don't know how it happened, but you added a talk page template to the Dickie Goodman article. I moved the template to the talk page, but I am not a member of the GoCE so you should check it and the article. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 11:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Right here? 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Template:GOCEreviewed is a talk page tag. "Use this template on an article's talk page...". That's why I moved it. What caught my attention was the background color: article templates are mostly light blue. Templates with a tan background are used, as far as I know, only on talk pages. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Good day, This is a message to inform you that you are a named as a party being involved in the following Mediation Cabal case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-03/National Democratic Party (Egypt). Please take notice that your case has been taken by a this editor as a mediator and an initial review has been filed in the case, and is now awaiting discussion from you and other involved parties. For comments regarding this matter, please leave me a message on my talk page. For discussion involving this case, please see the relevant section within the case itself. Thank you, LTC b2412 Troops Talk 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive
![]() Greetings from the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We have reached the end of the month and the end of another successful drive; thanks to all who participated.
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the November 2010 Backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering the barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Thank you for participating in this year's first Backlog elimination drive! We hope to see you in March. Your drive coordinators – S Masters ( talk), Diannaa ( talk), The Utahraptor ( talk), and Tea with toast ( talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi, Please read my last comment in this Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I apologize for having offended you at the Donald Trump BLP Noticeboard. I also left an apology there and struck the offending comment. I explained there what I was trying to do, but obviously I used ill-chosen words. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 18:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Have just had a look at some of your recent edits and am concerned that you have removed some of the notable/unique characteristics about John Butler, particularly in respect to how he first became established as a credible musician. Also need to include details about his playing style, his solo release etc. I agree with your view that the article needs to be more objective - its just that we need to find that happy medium. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2
In the past, I regret failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.
I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this:
WP:AGF is drained of meaning by
WP:POKING
WP:BAITING -- see context
here +
here which justifies
zero tolerance.
This makes me sad. I didn't understand.-- Tenmei ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Several editors did reverts in Tom van Flandern article and posterior edits without discussing them at talk page.
I commented this on Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern, but received no response.
I commented this in my talk page User_talk:JuanR, in the section about civility where you posted, but received no response.
I commented this in the Wikiquete allerts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=413173016#Tom_Van_Flandern), where you again posted, but received no response.
You did some comments about my civility in my talk page and in Wikiquette alerts, but you did not comment about the central issue: the quality of edits. I will comment this here waiting some response:
Thanks by your collaboration. JuanR ( talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
After about two months, some anonymous editor has changed the wrong word "believes" in the heading to the correct word "beliefs". Although English is not my first language as you suggest, I am glad that with each little step, the version of the TvF article by good-faith editors as DH and Cyclopia looks more like the original consensus version which was available before their invalid edits. I am still waiting for the rest of questions raised above about the quality of the recent version of the TvF article. What is your advice? Would I wait another two months before the changes and glaring corrections are done or could I just make the changes by myself? Regards. JuanR ( talk) 12:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Theres been repeated vandalism through the years by single users - Can you assist in putting a lock on the page ? Please review ? Shmuley Boteach Jonathangluck ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Would you please clarify your comment on this noticeboard thread? Thanks! Nightw 12:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Your statements on my talk page are most likely a result of being uninvolved in the conversation. I have never in my entire life dealt with someone as unintelligent as Levdr10. Eightball ( talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your virtual beer. Will Beback talk 21:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with the copy editing. I am right now updating the history part of the German version and will then translate. So more on that page will be coming. Cheers :-) -- SabineCretella ( talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I would have left it all. OTOH, the discussion that was deleted was not particularly important. If you think it's worth keeping then you could restore it. Will Beback talk 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind message, but your revert and subsequent edit do not fix the neutrality problem. You'll agree that neutrality is a core policy of Wikipedia. The impression is still given in the text that the experiments in question support the theory. I don't see the problem with wikilinking "homeopathic": maybe it would be a good idea to put it back in? MartinPoulter ( talk) 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Raam currency.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Keithbob, why is noone doing anything against this article? It has been reported by several different users and suggested for deletion. Everytime Wikipedia administrators just say, this article needs a massive cleanup. This repeated a few times since 2009! But noone does a cleanup. It just gets weirder and weirder with more false claims of this person. Journalists do not read the Talk page. They just google the name and see: Hey, Wikipedia also says so, it must be true. If they are very good, they look at the reference section and see just Ukrainian stuff. Of course they wont check it. And then they write it in articles and people doing research on memory performances have to explain again and again and again that this is not true.
Not a single of his performanes or results is even possible. In the article the most absurd claims have been deleted, like that he proofed mind-reading, but on the topics where most authors are unfamilliar, like memory records, they still remain there. What am I supposed to do to get this fixed?
And I agree that the word "claim" should be avoided. But every single fact in this article including his "biography" is only referenced with his own interviews. Everysingle demonstration is just a claim and not exepted by international institutions. 145.253.118.83 ( talk) 06:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a question, and don't want to make the tech. analysis discussion page look like a forum... I have a hard time believing the Lo book states that the market is unpredictable, since Lo is a proponent of the idea that EMH is wrong and that technical analysis works. If it is in the book, he may be stating what many academics believe. However, that is the opposite of his conclusion, and using the book to reference that, unless it is made clear that Lo states that many believe this, although he sees otherwise, is a bit misleading. So my question is, did the Lo book actually state that the markets are not predictable? Sposer ( talk) 18:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kip Kay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kip Kay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 09:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. As I posted at the top of my talk page, I always respond on the other editor's talk page. It's a habit.
Regarding the COI problems the TM topic, your list does show how hard it has been to resolve these problems. I really don't understand how folks are interpreting the COI guideline, but the impression I get is that no one involved in that topic believes it applies to them. May I ask you a purely hypothetical question? Do you think that the COI guideline applies to people writing about their employers, friends, colleagues, or spiritual leaders? Will Beback talk 10:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Traditional vs. Risk Parity.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from
this list, click on
this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on
Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --
ImageTaggingBot (
talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Done-- —
Keithbob •
Talk • 14:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
ukexpat ( talk) 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Norman E. Rosenthal at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Sorry it looks like this one isn't going to work out for you (unless you have a lot more material for further expansion), but please try again with your next article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob,
Thanks for the cleanup/clarifications you made to David Deida's entry recently. I am a new editor and am moving slowly to examine what is appropriate to revert, change or clarify, following along w/ your examples and guidelines references (thank you for those!). Jcarey1 ( talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate your patience w/ this. There is a lot to learn here so I'll take it step by step :) Jcarey1 ( talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank you for the input at this article. I wish you could stick around and keep it honest. LessHeard is off his/her rocker and just throwing around pseudointellectual crap, bullying people around and restricting the progress on that article. As of now it isn't bad, but they need to yank the halo off Bob Ross and keep it simple. Also, keep it honest. Anyway, thanks again. 75.21.99.57 ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Your reasonable and much needed comment has been noted. Thanks for the healthy dose of rational, logical thought there! 76.195.83.171 ( talk) 05:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You turned out to be the worst of the lot. Acting civil and concerned that I was hurting from the attack when having huge life problems to deal with. You drove through the article like a tornado and left a path of destruction. Removing material that was defo not POV, even the reception which told how fans have an angry reaction. That shows a POV on your part, Keithbob, and eaving the references ragged and red. Hope you feel good about everything. I know you do feel completely justified and are having a good chuckle. You and your friends were wrong and hurtful and destructive. But the majority rules, huh? Hope you are having a good evening doing some transcendental meditaiton, perhaps? Cheers, 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to post again here.
I'd like you to see this excerpt, my latest addition to the talk pages. And by the way, who removed the ability to edit the article? Why was that done?
From the Painting section: "Ross's former mentor, William Alexander, has claimed that he taught Ross the "wet-on-wet" technique and that Ross "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own."
This does not sound right. Alexander "claimed he taught" Ross? Ross himself acknowledged twice that Alexander taught him. Is this the final expression of that fact for the article?
I object to that sentence. It should state that Bill Alexander taught Ross the method. Ross acknowledged this, and thanked Alexander (on the air) for being his teacher. The rest of it mentioning Alexander's feelings of betrayal is OK as-is.
But I see that editing is out of the question. Who blocked the article from editing? Or am I missing something as usual?76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)' Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Ross"
What is going on over there? Is there a vandal? Or is Nuujinn simply reverting every little improvement I try to make there? 76.195.83.171 ( talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
My thanks, Keithbob, for returning us all to our proper measure of cool logic. I think it is fair to say that I can sometimes come across as a bastard, but it is equally fair to say that I had several good points.
When you speak of Wikipedia's collaborative aspects, I have to chuckle to myself when I think of the countless articles I either originated or wrote all alone. Then Years later I see people fighting over the dumbest things, taking articles over as if they were personal possessions. That is why I rarely edit here at all.
Again, my thanks for showing us the way back to sanity. 75.21.159.173 ( talk) 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Autograph_as_signature_in_infobox Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 06:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey KB, would you once again pop over and assist? Someone has put a personal/private research comment into the article - that is just plain wrong. It's a double standard. And I have added a remark which I am too dumb to tag with its reference. See the talk page. Sorry about this.
I just want to add, ref: your most recent comment there, I don't see this as wanting anything except that the article conform and that it be a good one. At least that is what I want. I see other editors get away with a lot more ....
75.21.159.173 (
talk) 03:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Done-- —
Keithbob •
Talk • 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
My God Man! how can you have the cheek to act "holier than thou" about my writing and motivations? You have a very high percentage of the edits on this article, that concerns one of your 'niche' interests on WP. When you took over: Bridgewater Associates tagged as advert and Now: substantially more POV than when you first started editing it: Now with many POV statements. It has all of the factors that you have suppressed in my editing as you continue your disenginuous assault on my character and continue to disallow the very same type of RS sourced material and wording on an article that I have been main editor on, that you have inserted into one of your 'favs'. - Just amazing - your continued lack of WP:AGF as opposed to your rules of civility posted on your Keithbob's civility rules userpage. This strikes me as oddly very transparently hypocritical and/or highly motivated by some unknown agenda. Agadant ( talk) 16:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you're adding a lot of "evidence" that was already reviewed by the ArbCom in the June 2010 TM case, especially related to COI. Is it your intention that we review all of the COI evidence that was already covered in that case? That seems like it would be unproductive, but if that's where you want to go with it I'll start preparing evidence in reply. Will Beback talk 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Keithbob, I'm certainly not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to tell you that opening cans of worms is sometimes unhelpful in dispute resolution. Since you seem intent on following your path I'll make you a deal. I'll grant permission to publicly post my private email to you if you will give complete and honest answers to the same three questions that user:NuclearWarfare has posted on the talk pages of user:TimidGuy and user:Littleolive oil: [9]
Let's settle this COI issue for good. Will Beback talk 20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, [[
Quantum_Group_of_Funds ]], has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going [[
Talk:Soros_Fund_Management |here]], and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
HaroldErica (
talk) 16:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
claiming that her husband is a billionaire but he isn't and no where in any reliable source - forbes, fortune, ny times, etc - does it say that he is. 108.41.20.105 ( talk) 13:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
For some reason the ip user above that started this section seems to want your input with respect to the Kara Young article. I have tried explaining that the RS is acceptable, but instead of debating the merits the user is making tendentious arguments and making unreasonable demands, the latest being provide a link that does not require registration. As we both know this is not required for cites. Perhaps you might be able to assist in the discussion page? Thank you. Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed your comment from my talk page because I think it only escalates the problems. Yes, I can see what's going on. My advice to him is to take a break from the article. I don't think that going into details is at all helpful given past discussions like those you point out. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Because tea is soothing. Sorry to see your frustration at WS; frequent breaks are a necessity when working in stressful environments. Kind regards! VQuakr ( talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
Here is the source you requested: Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Keithbob, I see you've developed an interest in Lyndon LaRouche-related topics. I presume that it's simply because of my involvement in those topics. Am I correct that you do not see a problem with following editors with whom you're in a dispute to other, unrelated disputes? Will Beback talk 22:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Keithbob, thanks for your response. then I take it that you do not see any problem with having more editors on any topic, regardless of who began editing that topic first. In other words, following an editor to an article is acceptable behavior. Will Beback talk 02:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed the Risk parity article that you nominated and have put it on hold until the minor issues have been addressed- SCB '92 ( talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
One more thing: is it Risk parity or Risk Parity? the title of the article uses a small "p", but the actual writing in the article uses a capital "P"? if it's a capital "P", then the page should be moved to "Risk Parity"- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a pass- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Yes, it was a great (logical, needed) change; I'm glad you were there w/ experience in this type thing to do correctly, etc. (I didn't have confidence yet for so major a change.)
With lots of eyes on the Trump article, and no one protesting, it seems logic/reasonability is universal? Yet few will act!? Appreciatively, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 15:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
Keithbob, you appear to be maintaining what is called an attack page. For over a month you have been filling it with negative material about me. Please take it down. You can keep your file off-Wiki. Will Beback talk 22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I do not consider my sandbox to be an “attack page”. Instead I consider it to be a “defense page”; a response to long term and recently accelerated attempts to use WP:COI as a stick to attack and intimidate me beginning in November 2009 (despite my objections ( here and here). Recent examples would include:
Furthermore the sandbox in question is linked to this recent talk page thread which discusses this same COI issue in detail, so it has relevance and archival value. In addition the information in the sand box will be used in the near future for an upcoming RfC/U. This makes it a valid use of userspace and in compliance with Wikipedia policies, in my opinion. However, I am open to further discussion before making a final decision about what to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to my original request, could you please move the material off-Wiki? I have cited the relevant guideline and ArbCom decision. Cla68 has been talking about organizing an RFC/U against me for nearly a year, so there's no reason to believe he is planning to do so imminently. Will Beback talk 19:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of your request. That is what we are discussing. I have given a detailed account above of why I feel that the page is relevant and meets Wiki guidelines. To summarize, there are three considerations:
Don't you think I have a right to prepare information with which to defend myself against your, on and off Wiki, accusations? Also, there is a similar sandbox being developed by Jmh649 do you object to that sandbox as well?. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The article
Norman E. Rosenthal you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Norman E. Rosenthal for things which need to be addressed.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting those notices. However I see that you did not notify all of the involved accounts - was there a reason for not notifying everyone? Will Beback talk 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Keithbob. I see you have been editing the Hedge fund article recently, and I have posted some concerns about the current introduction section on the discussion page. I think we may have some differing views on the introduction, but I would like your input so we can find a solution that we all agree with. If you would like to share your thoughts, I would appreciate it. Thank you. -- Bryant Park Fifth ( talk) 13:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Plarem has given you some
caramel and a
candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun
Halloween treats, and promote
WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{ subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
![]() |
Happy Halloween! – Plarem (
User
talk
contribs) 15:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Keithbob. Please see this version of Will Beback's talk page which shows that my comment to Will which followed yours was getting swallowed into the beer award box you left him. In my next edit I hacked a bit at the HTML but you are welcome to correct what I did, especially since it was your comment :-). Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The article
Amos Lee you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Amos Lee for things which need to be addressed.
♫GoP♫
T
C
N 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The article
Amos Lee you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Amos Lee for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and
review a nominated article yourself?
♫GoP♫
T
C
N 10:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote Amos Lee to good article status. |
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
– Plarem ( User talk contribs)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
– Plarem ( User talk contribs) 13:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
TimidGuy posted an appeal at Arbcom. I've named you as a party. [15] Will Beback talk 12:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Bridgewater Associates, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Currency exchange and Portfolio management ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob. This may not have been your intention, but the remarks you posted about Willbeback did not include any evidence whatsoever, and are thus an unsubstantiated attack on his character. Please remove the remarks until such time as you have conducted at least some research to determine whether your assertion is true or not. Once you have diffs to post, you can restore the assertion. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For working Bridgewater Associates into a Good Article. Congratulations! AstroCog ( talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC) |
TALK PAGE ARCHIVE FOR THE YEAR 2011
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...
Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva
Thank you very much for all of your help! -- Michaelparks ( talk) 17:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing to participate in mediation in the past. We don't seem to be able to resolve this "bone of contention" on our own. I will be requesting formal mediation on the lead of the TM article, specifically this sentence, "Independently done systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Please let me know if you wish to be included, or alternately you may add yourself to the list of involved users once the request is made. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 20:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC))
I don't know how it happened, but you added a talk page template to the Dickie Goodman article. I moved the template to the talk page, but I am not a member of the GoCE so you should check it and the article. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 11:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Right here? 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Template:GOCEreviewed is a talk page tag. "Use this template on an article's talk page...". That's why I moved it. What caught my attention was the background color: article templates are mostly light blue. Templates with a tan background are used, as far as I know, only on talk pages. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 18:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Good day, This is a message to inform you that you are a named as a party being involved in the following Mediation Cabal case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-03/National Democratic Party (Egypt). Please take notice that your case has been taken by a this editor as a mediator and an initial review has been filed in the case, and is now awaiting discussion from you and other involved parties. For comments regarding this matter, please leave me a message on my talk page. For discussion involving this case, please see the relevant section within the case itself. Thank you, LTC b2412 Troops Talk 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive
![]() Greetings from the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! We have reached the end of the month and the end of another successful drive; thanks to all who participated.
If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the November 2010 Backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering the barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Thank you for participating in this year's first Backlog elimination drive! We hope to see you in March. Your drive coordinators – S Masters ( talk), Diannaa ( talk), The Utahraptor ( talk), and Tea with toast ( talk) |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC).
Hi, Please read my last comment in this Rfc. Is wikipedia a dealing company ?!!! Now that I have discovered it, the author should have his own article. *** in fact *** ( contact ) 11:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I apologize for having offended you at the Donald Trump BLP Noticeboard. I also left an apology there and struck the offending comment. I explained there what I was trying to do, but obviously I used ill-chosen words. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 18:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Have just had a look at some of your recent edits and am concerned that you have removed some of the notable/unique characteristics about John Butler, particularly in respect to how he first became established as a credible musician. Also need to include details about his playing style, his solo release etc. I agree with your view that the article needs to be more objective - its just that we need to find that happy medium. Dan arndt ( talk) 02:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Re:
Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2
In the past, I regret failing to do enough to oppose harassment in the form of baiting.
I responded to Bobthefish2's new gambit here at Senkaku Islands dispute by posting this:
WP:AGF is drained of meaning by
WP:POKING
WP:BAITING -- see context
here +
here which justifies
zero tolerance.
This makes me sad. I didn't understand.-- Tenmei ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Several editors did reverts in Tom van Flandern article and posterior edits without discussing them at talk page.
I commented this on Talk:Tom_Van_Flandern, but received no response.
I commented this in my talk page User_talk:JuanR, in the section about civility where you posted, but received no response.
I commented this in the Wikiquete allerts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=413173016#Tom_Van_Flandern), where you again posted, but received no response.
You did some comments about my civility in my talk page and in Wikiquette alerts, but you did not comment about the central issue: the quality of edits. I will comment this here waiting some response:
Thanks by your collaboration. JuanR ( talk) 20:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
After about two months, some anonymous editor has changed the wrong word "believes" in the heading to the correct word "beliefs". Although English is not my first language as you suggest, I am glad that with each little step, the version of the TvF article by good-faith editors as DH and Cyclopia looks more like the original consensus version which was available before their invalid edits. I am still waiting for the rest of questions raised above about the quality of the recent version of the TvF article. What is your advice? Would I wait another two months before the changes and glaring corrections are done or could I just make the changes by myself? Regards. JuanR ( talk) 12:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Theres been repeated vandalism through the years by single users - Can you assist in putting a lock on the page ? Please review ? Shmuley Boteach Jonathangluck ( talk) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Would you please clarify your comment on this noticeboard thread? Thanks! Nightw 12:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Your statements on my talk page are most likely a result of being uninvolved in the conversation. I have never in my entire life dealt with someone as unintelligent as Levdr10. Eightball ( talk) 20:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your virtual beer. Will Beback talk 21:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with the copy editing. I am right now updating the history part of the German version and will then translate. So more on that page will be coming. Cheers :-) -- SabineCretella ( talk) 19:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I would have left it all. OTOH, the discussion that was deleted was not particularly important. If you think it's worth keeping then you could restore it. Will Beback talk 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind message, but your revert and subsequent edit do not fix the neutrality problem. You'll agree that neutrality is a core policy of Wikipedia. The impression is still given in the text that the experiments in question support the theory. I don't see the problem with wikilinking "homeopathic": maybe it would be a good idea to put it back in? MartinPoulter ( talk) 17:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Raam currency.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Keithbob, why is noone doing anything against this article? It has been reported by several different users and suggested for deletion. Everytime Wikipedia administrators just say, this article needs a massive cleanup. This repeated a few times since 2009! But noone does a cleanup. It just gets weirder and weirder with more false claims of this person. Journalists do not read the Talk page. They just google the name and see: Hey, Wikipedia also says so, it must be true. If they are very good, they look at the reference section and see just Ukrainian stuff. Of course they wont check it. And then they write it in articles and people doing research on memory performances have to explain again and again and again that this is not true.
Not a single of his performanes or results is even possible. In the article the most absurd claims have been deleted, like that he proofed mind-reading, but on the topics where most authors are unfamilliar, like memory records, they still remain there. What am I supposed to do to get this fixed?
And I agree that the word "claim" should be avoided. But every single fact in this article including his "biography" is only referenced with his own interviews. Everysingle demonstration is just a claim and not exepted by international institutions. 145.253.118.83 ( talk) 06:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Just a question, and don't want to make the tech. analysis discussion page look like a forum... I have a hard time believing the Lo book states that the market is unpredictable, since Lo is a proponent of the idea that EMH is wrong and that technical analysis works. If it is in the book, he may be stating what many academics believe. However, that is the opposite of his conclusion, and using the book to reference that, unless it is made clear that Lo states that many believe this, although he sees otherwise, is a bit misleading. So my question is, did the Lo book actually state that the markets are not predictable? Sposer ( talk) 18:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kip Kay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kip Kay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Vejvančický ( talk | contribs) 09:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. As I posted at the top of my talk page, I always respond on the other editor's talk page. It's a habit.
Regarding the COI problems the TM topic, your list does show how hard it has been to resolve these problems. I really don't understand how folks are interpreting the COI guideline, but the impression I get is that no one involved in that topic believes it applies to them. May I ask you a purely hypothetical question? Do you think that the COI guideline applies to people writing about their employers, friends, colleagues, or spiritual leaders? Will Beback talk 10:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Traditional vs. Risk Parity.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from
this list, click on
this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on
Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --
ImageTaggingBot (
talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Done-- —
Keithbob •
Talk • 14:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
ukexpat ( talk) 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Norman E. Rosenthal at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
Sorry it looks like this one isn't going to work out for you (unless you have a lot more material for further expansion), but please try again with your next article. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob,
Thanks for the cleanup/clarifications you made to David Deida's entry recently. I am a new editor and am moving slowly to examine what is appropriate to revert, change or clarify, following along w/ your examples and guidelines references (thank you for those!). Jcarey1 ( talk) 21:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I really appreciate your patience w/ this. There is a lot to learn here so I'll take it step by step :) Jcarey1 ( talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to thank you for the input at this article. I wish you could stick around and keep it honest. LessHeard is off his/her rocker and just throwing around pseudointellectual crap, bullying people around and restricting the progress on that article. As of now it isn't bad, but they need to yank the halo off Bob Ross and keep it simple. Also, keep it honest. Anyway, thanks again. 75.21.99.57 ( talk) 00:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Your reasonable and much needed comment has been noted. Thanks for the healthy dose of rational, logical thought there! 76.195.83.171 ( talk) 05:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You turned out to be the worst of the lot. Acting civil and concerned that I was hurting from the attack when having huge life problems to deal with. You drove through the article like a tornado and left a path of destruction. Removing material that was defo not POV, even the reception which told how fans have an angry reaction. That shows a POV on your part, Keithbob, and eaving the references ragged and red. Hope you feel good about everything. I know you do feel completely justified and are having a good chuckle. You and your friends were wrong and hurtful and destructive. But the majority rules, huh? Hope you are having a good evening doing some transcendental meditaiton, perhaps? Cheers, 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I had to post again here.
I'd like you to see this excerpt, my latest addition to the talk pages. And by the way, who removed the ability to edit the article? Why was that done?
From the Painting section: "Ross's former mentor, William Alexander, has claimed that he taught Ross the "wet-on-wet" technique and that Ross "betrayed him" by presenting the technique as his own."
This does not sound right. Alexander "claimed he taught" Ross? Ross himself acknowledged twice that Alexander taught him. Is this the final expression of that fact for the article?
I object to that sentence. It should state that Bill Alexander taught Ross the method. Ross acknowledged this, and thanked Alexander (on the air) for being his teacher. The rest of it mentioning Alexander's feelings of betrayal is OK as-is.
But I see that editing is out of the question. Who blocked the article from editing? Or am I missing something as usual?76.195.83.171 (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)' Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_Ross"
What is going on over there? Is there a vandal? Or is Nuujinn simply reverting every little improvement I try to make there? 76.195.83.171 ( talk) 05:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
My thanks, Keithbob, for returning us all to our proper measure of cool logic. I think it is fair to say that I can sometimes come across as a bastard, but it is equally fair to say that I had several good points.
When you speak of Wikipedia's collaborative aspects, I have to chuckle to myself when I think of the countless articles I either originated or wrote all alone. Then Years later I see people fighting over the dumbest things, taking articles over as if they were personal possessions. That is why I rarely edit here at all.
Again, my thanks for showing us the way back to sanity. 75.21.159.173 ( talk) 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Autograph_as_signature_in_infobox Hindustanilanguage ( talk) 06:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey KB, would you once again pop over and assist? Someone has put a personal/private research comment into the article - that is just plain wrong. It's a double standard. And I have added a remark which I am too dumb to tag with its reference. See the talk page. Sorry about this.
I just want to add, ref: your most recent comment there, I don't see this as wanting anything except that the article conform and that it be a good one. At least that is what I want. I see other editors get away with a lot more ....
75.21.159.173 (
talk) 03:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Done-- —
Keithbob •
Talk • 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
My God Man! how can you have the cheek to act "holier than thou" about my writing and motivations? You have a very high percentage of the edits on this article, that concerns one of your 'niche' interests on WP. When you took over: Bridgewater Associates tagged as advert and Now: substantially more POV than when you first started editing it: Now with many POV statements. It has all of the factors that you have suppressed in my editing as you continue your disenginuous assault on my character and continue to disallow the very same type of RS sourced material and wording on an article that I have been main editor on, that you have inserted into one of your 'favs'. - Just amazing - your continued lack of WP:AGF as opposed to your rules of civility posted on your Keithbob's civility rules userpage. This strikes me as oddly very transparently hypocritical and/or highly motivated by some unknown agenda. Agadant ( talk) 16:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you're adding a lot of "evidence" that was already reviewed by the ArbCom in the June 2010 TM case, especially related to COI. Is it your intention that we review all of the COI evidence that was already covered in that case? That seems like it would be unproductive, but if that's where you want to go with it I'll start preparing evidence in reply. Will Beback talk 06:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Keithbob, I'm certainly not trying to intimidate you. I am trying to tell you that opening cans of worms is sometimes unhelpful in dispute resolution. Since you seem intent on following your path I'll make you a deal. I'll grant permission to publicly post my private email to you if you will give complete and honest answers to the same three questions that user:NuclearWarfare has posted on the talk pages of user:TimidGuy and user:Littleolive oil: [9]
Let's settle this COI issue for good. Will Beback talk 20:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, [[
Quantum_Group_of_Funds ]], has been proposed for a
merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going [[
Talk:Soros_Fund_Management |here]], and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.
HaroldErica (
talk) 16:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
claiming that her husband is a billionaire but he isn't and no where in any reliable source - forbes, fortune, ny times, etc - does it say that he is. 108.41.20.105 ( talk) 13:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
For some reason the ip user above that started this section seems to want your input with respect to the Kara Young article. I have tried explaining that the RS is acceptable, but instead of debating the merits the user is making tendentious arguments and making unreasonable demands, the latest being provide a link that does not require registration. As we both know this is not required for cites. Perhaps you might be able to assist in the discussion page? Thank you. Fasttimes68 ( talk) 05:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed your comment from my talk page because I think it only escalates the problems. Yes, I can see what's going on. My advice to him is to take a break from the article. I don't think that going into details is at all helpful given past discussions like those you point out. -- Ronz ( talk) 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Because tea is soothing. Sorry to see your frustration at WS; frequent breaks are a necessity when working in stressful environments. Kind regards! VQuakr ( talk) 03:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC) |
Here is the source you requested: Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 21:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Keithbob, I see you've developed an interest in Lyndon LaRouche-related topics. I presume that it's simply because of my involvement in those topics. Am I correct that you do not see a problem with following editors with whom you're in a dispute to other, unrelated disputes? Will Beback talk 22:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Keithbob, thanks for your response. then I take it that you do not see any problem with having more editors on any topic, regardless of who began editing that topic first. In other words, following an editor to an article is acceptable behavior. Will Beback talk 02:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed the Risk parity article that you nominated and have put it on hold until the minor issues have been addressed- SCB '92 ( talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
One more thing: is it Risk parity or Risk Parity? the title of the article uses a small "p", but the actual writing in the article uses a capital "P"? if it's a capital "P", then the page should be moved to "Risk Parity"- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a pass- SCB '92 ( talk) 16:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Yes, it was a great (logical, needed) change; I'm glad you were there w/ experience in this type thing to do correctly, etc. (I didn't have confidence yet for so major a change.)
With lots of eyes on the Trump article, and no one protesting, it seems logic/reasonability is universal? Yet few will act!? Appreciatively, Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 15:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
Keithbob, you appear to be maintaining what is called an attack page. For over a month you have been filling it with negative material about me. Please take it down. You can keep your file off-Wiki. Will Beback talk 22:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I do not consider my sandbox to be an “attack page”. Instead I consider it to be a “defense page”; a response to long term and recently accelerated attempts to use WP:COI as a stick to attack and intimidate me beginning in November 2009 (despite my objections ( here and here). Recent examples would include:
Furthermore the sandbox in question is linked to this recent talk page thread which discusses this same COI issue in detail, so it has relevance and archival value. In addition the information in the sand box will be used in the near future for an upcoming RfC/U. This makes it a valid use of userspace and in compliance with Wikipedia policies, in my opinion. However, I am open to further discussion before making a final decision about what to do.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Getting back to my original request, could you please move the material off-Wiki? I have cited the relevant guideline and ArbCom decision. Cla68 has been talking about organizing an RFC/U against me for nearly a year, so there's no reason to believe he is planning to do so imminently. Will Beback talk 19:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of your request. That is what we are discussing. I have given a detailed account above of why I feel that the page is relevant and meets Wiki guidelines. To summarize, there are three considerations:
Don't you think I have a right to prepare information with which to defend myself against your, on and off Wiki, accusations? Also, there is a similar sandbox being developed by Jmh649 do you object to that sandbox as well?. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The article
Norman E. Rosenthal you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Norman E. Rosenthal for things which need to be addressed.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for posting those notices. However I see that you did not notify all of the involved accounts - was there a reason for not notifying everyone? Will Beback talk 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Keithbob. I see you have been editing the Hedge fund article recently, and I have posted some concerns about the current introduction section on the discussion page. I think we may have some differing views on the introduction, but I would like your input so we can find a solution that we all agree with. If you would like to share your thoughts, I would appreciate it. Thank you. -- Bryant Park Fifth ( talk) 13:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Plarem has given you some
caramel and a
candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun
Halloween treats, and promote
WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!
If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{ subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message! |
![]() |
Happy Halloween! – Plarem (
User
talk
contribs) 15:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Keithbob. Please see this version of Will Beback's talk page which shows that my comment to Will which followed yours was getting swallowed into the beer award box you left him. In my next edit I hacked a bit at the HTML but you are welcome to correct what I did, especially since it was your comment :-). Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 18:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The article
Amos Lee you nominated as a
good article has been placed on hold
. The article is close to meeting the
good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See
Talk:Amos Lee for things which need to be addressed.
♫GoP♫
T
C
N 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The article
Amos Lee you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Amos Lee for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and
review a nominated article yourself?
♫GoP♫
T
C
N 10:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This user helped promote Amos Lee to good article status. |
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)
– Plarem ( User talk contribs)is wishing you a Merry Christmas.
This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.
Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
– Plarem ( User talk contribs) 13:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
TimidGuy posted an appeal at Arbcom. I've named you as a party. [15] Will Beback talk 12:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In Bridgewater Associates, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Currency exchange and Portfolio management ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob. This may not have been your intention, but the remarks you posted about Willbeback did not include any evidence whatsoever, and are thus an unsubstantiated attack on his character. Please remove the remarks until such time as you have conducted at least some research to determine whether your assertion is true or not. Once you have diffs to post, you can restore the assertion. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For working Bridgewater Associates into a Good Article. Congratulations! AstroCog ( talk) 15:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC) |