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. |
Talk page archive for 2016
I am wondering if you would be able to assist in the creation of an article. I am new to wiki and am looking for guidance. I have produced some neutral well sourced copy but there is a COI in publishing. If supplied with the copy would you be able to check it for neutrality and potentially assist with the publishing of the article. Any help or advice would be great, Thanks, Scorb1 ( talk) 09:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
perseverance and willingness to compromise | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 731 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Keithbob, Thanks for your commentary on my talk section. I actually am not trying to make attacks on the Eric Greitens page. His gubernatorial campaign has actually been fascinating to watch as it is so controversial. I am simply attempting to put that into the section because it has been something the candidate has fought and is attempting to refute. Another user, however, upon seeing that deleted the entire section on multiple occations, to which I construed as vandalism. I will work to find more rebuttals to the criticism by his campaign as that is only fair. MOpoliticaljunkie ( talk) 20:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob,
About a month ago, I began my first Wikipedia edit on a subject with which I am very familiar, Parelli Natural Horsemanship. I have been a serious student of PNH for almost 10 years. (By serious, I mean that I have devoted about 2,000 hours of horseless study [videos, auditing clinics, etc.] and probably another 7,000 hours to with-a-horse(s) practice. Please note, though, that I have no conflict of interest. Horses have always been a passion for me, but never a paycheck.)
About 2 days after I had made my first entry, which had taken a fair bit of time, it was deleted in its entirety. The editor who deleted it, Montanabw, called it "very promotional," among other untrue and unnecessary unpleasantness directed at me. I may be new to WP, but I am no stranger to the written word or to advocacy. My goal in writing was NOT to advocate but instead to add some neutral basics about PNH that were, somewhat mysteriously, not included anywhere on the page.
Wanting to understand where she was coming from and why everything I had written had been deleted, I asked a series of detailed questions. She responded but ignored the majority of the substance of the questions and instead stated forcefully her belief that PNH was nonsense, worthless or whatnot (I am paraphrasing). I tried again. She dodged again. I will give her credit for saying the right things in terms of principles (e.g. repeatedly referring to NPOV and such). However, as she was saying the right things, she was doing the wrong thing -- deleting everything that did not comport with her vehement prejudices against a program that she clearly is not familiar with.
Something similar happened in a subsequent edits: I added. She deleted much of my addition and engaged in a "discussion" that amounted to little more than a conclusory rant about how PNH was a cult, Pat Parelli (the founder) was little more than a good marketer (vs. being a talented horseman) and that natural horsemanship was just renaming common techniques to sell overpriced tools that were little different from their lower-priced counterparts. Her responses are her opinions. She has no business deleting factual content about a program simply because she holds that program in contempt.
I have several concerns, in order of specificity.
(As an aside, I have also noticed what appears to be a similar campaign to delete most of my additions to the Natural Horsemanship article [the general NH article, not Parelli NH]. I have not broached that topic with her, so I mention it only in passing here.)
I apologize for the length of my note to you. I had planned to keep it much shorter than this, but I see that I didn't quite succeed. (And I apologize in advance if my attempts at discussion [including the links provided] with Montanabw are overlong. I really did try to get this resolved in a friendly manner with her.) JackieLL007 ( talk) 22:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
KB, I just sent a message to the mailing list. I'm beginning to wonder if it's working. Would you confirm that you received it? Just leave me a note here, I'm watching. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you please not remove all that content from NamePros? I worked hard to write it, and I tried to be as accurate as possible. There are a lot of articles and such out there; if you really want to make changes, feel free to fix things, find better references, etc., but it's not constructive to remove content unless there's a very high likelihood it's inaccurate.
— Zenexer [ talk] 03:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I hereby award you this barnstar for your heroic efforts to ensure our biographies are reliable, properly sourced, and neutral. Philafrenzy ( talk) 22:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
I originally sent this message to you: Why do you are you removing updates regarding Eric Greitens? The information regarding his first wife Rebecca J Wright is accurate and can be traced via California court records? I don't want to have an update campaign with you - but will reach out to Wiki to make the data permanent.
As it stated, Greitens first marriage was to Rebecca Jane Wright, PhD in English Literature at the University of Oxford; the couple met while Greitens attended Oxfrd in 1998-2000 as a Rhodes Scholar. The couple married in 2001, in the United Kingdom. In 2004, Wright petitioned Greitens for a dissolution citing "irreconcilable differences". Greitens first marriage lasted 3 yrs and the couple had no children.
My apologies, I have since discovered that the edits were made by 96.35.158.10.
Hi Keithbob, I'm a journalist writing about neutrality and notability on Wikipedia, and I thought you might be a good resource and provide insight. It would be great to speak with you. Genemode ( talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Best regards, TransporterMan ( talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Peebles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DailyRecord and Middle of the Road. 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) 10:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob, you invited me to give you a reminder to join the discussion: [1] So here it is. Thanks, - Roberthall7 ( talk) 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm on a Wiki break for the next few weeks........ -- — <>Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have referred to you here: [2] - Roberthall7 ( talk) 08:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail (regular, not MedCom). Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Keithbob. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob,
The Brevan Howard wikipedia page now contains lots of out of date information with regards to most of the figures cited on the page, and the different investment funds they have. I have the sources that would make the page up to date and accurate. Could you please suggest how you would prefer I present this information to you. Many Thanks! Algo0101 ( talk) 15:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algo0101 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob, please see below for a list of updated references and which points they refer to. I hope this helps.
Algo0101 ( talk) 14:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
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. |
Talk page archive for 2016
I am wondering if you would be able to assist in the creation of an article. I am new to wiki and am looking for guidance. I have produced some neutral well sourced copy but there is a COI in publishing. If supplied with the copy would you be able to check it for neutrality and potentially assist with the publishing of the article. Any help or advice would be great, Thanks, Scorb1 ( talk) 09:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
perseverance and willingness to compromise | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 731 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Keithbob, Thanks for your commentary on my talk section. I actually am not trying to make attacks on the Eric Greitens page. His gubernatorial campaign has actually been fascinating to watch as it is so controversial. I am simply attempting to put that into the section because it has been something the candidate has fought and is attempting to refute. Another user, however, upon seeing that deleted the entire section on multiple occations, to which I construed as vandalism. I will work to find more rebuttals to the criticism by his campaign as that is only fair. MOpoliticaljunkie ( talk) 20:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob,
About a month ago, I began my first Wikipedia edit on a subject with which I am very familiar, Parelli Natural Horsemanship. I have been a serious student of PNH for almost 10 years. (By serious, I mean that I have devoted about 2,000 hours of horseless study [videos, auditing clinics, etc.] and probably another 7,000 hours to with-a-horse(s) practice. Please note, though, that I have no conflict of interest. Horses have always been a passion for me, but never a paycheck.)
About 2 days after I had made my first entry, which had taken a fair bit of time, it was deleted in its entirety. The editor who deleted it, Montanabw, called it "very promotional," among other untrue and unnecessary unpleasantness directed at me. I may be new to WP, but I am no stranger to the written word or to advocacy. My goal in writing was NOT to advocate but instead to add some neutral basics about PNH that were, somewhat mysteriously, not included anywhere on the page.
Wanting to understand where she was coming from and why everything I had written had been deleted, I asked a series of detailed questions. She responded but ignored the majority of the substance of the questions and instead stated forcefully her belief that PNH was nonsense, worthless or whatnot (I am paraphrasing). I tried again. She dodged again. I will give her credit for saying the right things in terms of principles (e.g. repeatedly referring to NPOV and such). However, as she was saying the right things, she was doing the wrong thing -- deleting everything that did not comport with her vehement prejudices against a program that she clearly is not familiar with.
Something similar happened in a subsequent edits: I added. She deleted much of my addition and engaged in a "discussion" that amounted to little more than a conclusory rant about how PNH was a cult, Pat Parelli (the founder) was little more than a good marketer (vs. being a talented horseman) and that natural horsemanship was just renaming common techniques to sell overpriced tools that were little different from their lower-priced counterparts. Her responses are her opinions. She has no business deleting factual content about a program simply because she holds that program in contempt.
I have several concerns, in order of specificity.
(As an aside, I have also noticed what appears to be a similar campaign to delete most of my additions to the Natural Horsemanship article [the general NH article, not Parelli NH]. I have not broached that topic with her, so I mention it only in passing here.)
I apologize for the length of my note to you. I had planned to keep it much shorter than this, but I see that I didn't quite succeed. (And I apologize in advance if my attempts at discussion [including the links provided] with Montanabw are overlong. I really did try to get this resolved in a friendly manner with her.) JackieLL007 ( talk) 22:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll let you draw your own conclusions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
KB, I just sent a message to the mailing list. I'm beginning to wonder if it's working. Would you confirm that you received it? Just leave me a note here, I'm watching. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 21:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you please not remove all that content from NamePros? I worked hard to write it, and I tried to be as accurate as possible. There are a lot of articles and such out there; if you really want to make changes, feel free to fix things, find better references, etc., but it's not constructive to remove content unless there's a very high likelihood it's inaccurate.
— Zenexer [ talk] 03:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
I hereby award you this barnstar for your heroic efforts to ensure our biographies are reliable, properly sourced, and neutral. Philafrenzy ( talk) 22:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC) |
I originally sent this message to you: Why do you are you removing updates regarding Eric Greitens? The information regarding his first wife Rebecca J Wright is accurate and can be traced via California court records? I don't want to have an update campaign with you - but will reach out to Wiki to make the data permanent.
As it stated, Greitens first marriage was to Rebecca Jane Wright, PhD in English Literature at the University of Oxford; the couple met while Greitens attended Oxfrd in 1998-2000 as a Rhodes Scholar. The couple married in 2001, in the United Kingdom. In 2004, Wright petitioned Greitens for a dissolution citing "irreconcilable differences". Greitens first marriage lasted 3 yrs and the couple had no children.
My apologies, I have since discovered that the edits were made by 96.35.158.10.
Hi Keithbob, I'm a journalist writing about neutrality and notability on Wikipedia, and I thought you might be a good resource and provide insight. It would be great to speak with you. Genemode ( talk) 19:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Best regards, TransporterMan ( talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard Peebles, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DailyRecord and Middle of the Road. 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) 10:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob, you invited me to give you a reminder to join the discussion: [1] So here it is. Thanks, - Roberthall7 ( talk) 14:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm on a Wiki break for the next few weeks........ -- — <>Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I have referred to you here: [2] - Roberthall7 ( talk) 08:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail (regular, not MedCom). Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Keithbob. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob,
The Brevan Howard wikipedia page now contains lots of out of date information with regards to most of the figures cited on the page, and the different investment funds they have. I have the sources that would make the page up to date and accurate. Could you please suggest how you would prefer I present this information to you. Many Thanks! Algo0101 ( talk) 15:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algo0101 ( talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Keithbob, please see below for a list of updated references and which points they refer to. I hope this helps.
Algo0101 ( talk) 14:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)