User talk:Keithbob/Archive 1

TALK PAGE ARCHIVE FOR THE YEARS 2008 AND 2009

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Keithbob. 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.

Thanks for your comments and editing the article.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Maharishi Vedic Science, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Dear Keithbob,

I have seen your many contributions in finance. I am curious - are you affiliated with a financial publication or organization?--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No I am not affiliated with any financial org or mag, I'm just a regular Joe like you! --Kbob (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I will be applying for formal mediation shortly. Please let me know within the next two days if you will be available for mediation or not. This does not mean you accept the mediation, but just that I can include your name as party to the mediation. Thanks. (olive (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Hi Olive, and yes, I am available to participate in mediation if it occurs.--Kbob (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I see you recently PRODed David E. Fairbrothers, which is perfectly fine. However, instead of putting the current date (May 17th at the time) you changed the date to May 13th, presumably in an effort to get the article deleted faster. (diff) This is a totally unacceptable action and could be considered disruptive editing. If there is a pressing concern, please use Speedy deletion. If the article doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, you have to wait the required 7 days of PROD or send it to WP:AfD if you are concerned that someone will dispute the deletion/remove the PROD tag. Thank you, --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Thaddeus, thanks for your message alerting me about the Deletion Date. This was a typo and I appreciate that you fixed it and have brought the mistake to my attention. However, please do not make assumptions and jump to conclusions that I was trying to pull a fast one and get a fast deletion. Nothing could be further from the truth. If I wanted speedy deletion I would have used the speedy deletion tag. I don't need to go around being deceptive as you seem to have thought. What happened was that I used the template I have stored on my user page and I forgot to update it to the current day. Thanks again for your vigilance and for letting me know the situation. Wishing you All the Best! --Kbob (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to assume wrongly, but normally it is deliberate what someone mis-dates a prod. This is especially true since there is no need to supply the date yourself. In the future, use {{subst:prod|reason}} rather than trying to use {{dated prod}} directly and you won't have to worry about what the current date is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow you're fast! OK, thank you for the apology. All is well. I also apologize if I was a little defensive. Thanks again, --Kbob (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Being new to Wikipedia, I need to solict your advice and feedback. What is the proper way/process to engage someone to to resolve a dispute? How do I engage them without it turning into a battle? Thanks --Dranster (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dranster and welcome to Wiki! I looked at your user page and have the impression that you are growing into a good editor. Wiki is incredibly complex and the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. So we are all students of Wiki. Anyway I am flattered that you have asked me for advice. Some tips that I have found useful when involved with disputes on talk pages are:

• Remain calm, friendly, respectful and civil
• Talk only about the edits not about the behavior of other editors
• Compliment or thank editors when they do something you like or appreciate
• Make your argument based on Wiki policy rather than your personal opinion
• Avoid going head to head with an editor, ask: What do other editors think? and bring others into the discussion.

You are probably doing most or all of these things already. If things still are not working, then you can also request a third party opinion. See WP:THIRD for more info on this. If you have more questions let me know. It is not considered good practice to invite a friendly editor to join your side in a dispute but since I am already active on the Palin article, I am always happy to join a discussion if I think I can add something of value. Like every human being I have my likes and dislikes but I try my best to be a neutral editor.--Kbob (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi KeithBob,

Thank you for your words of advice. I will use each of the tips you have offered. Being new to Wikipedia, I want to make sure I am following all of the right steps to come to a consensus on this issue. The one thing I don't want to do is turn this into pointless battle. In fact, I am waiting a day or so to respond to the latest edits that have been made to the article. Thanks again for the advice.--Dranster (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Generally speaking Wiki likes to preserve content. So an editor should have a pretty good reason for deleting a sentence or section from an article. This generally makes the burden of proof, so to speak, with the editor who wants to delete. Usually when I delete something I cite a Wiki policy as my reason in the Edit Summary box. For example: "Removed self promoting sentence see WP:POV see also talk page". My use of that Wiki policy can still be disputed but it puts me on pretty solid ground to start. If it's an article where other editors are active I will then make an entry on the talk page saying what I did and why. This shows I am being up front with my edits and I'm a team player.
• If I am working on an article that is contentious and/or on probation then I would be more careful and I would go to the talk page first and give my proposal, get consensus and then make the change. If an editor skips that process and just makes a deletion without discussion than I would consider that to be poor behavior and I would bring it up on the talk page and get the support of other editors and then reverse the deletion by the offending editor.
• Reversing someone's edits needs to be carefully considered because no one likes it and it almost always gets an emotional reaction. If it goes back and forth between editors without a discussion or consensus then it becomes an edit war and this could lead to problems for one or both of the editors involved.If I revert someone's edit I always go to the talk page and explain why and get a dialogue going. Communication is key.--Kbob (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Freeze_(exhibition)#Recent_edits. Ty 02:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kbob, just wanted to take a moment and say thanks for the help and insight you've provided regarding the Ursa Major page. It seems your presence has helped keep things from getting out of control. Though I TU MADRE 've always tried to stick to official, verifiable sources, your input has been a reminder to me to keep a careful eye on information that's included in articles. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy that I could help.--Kbob (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbob,

Is the correct process to start a dialogue on the Palin talk or to engage the specific party? I want to start moving forward on this issue Thanks, --Dranster (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dranster, If you want to communicate to a particular editor then best to do it on his user page but be careful as it could get confrontational, and that's not good. However, if you are concerned about something in the article then bring it up on the talk page of the article so that all the editors can give their input and you can avoid a one on one disagreement that doesn't go anywhere. The Palin article has several strong, experienced editors so that's a great place to bring up stuff about the article. Just remember that talk page discussion is always about the article content and not about the behavior of an editor. If you have an issue with an editors behavior than that can be brought up to administration but through a whole different method and I don't think you need or want to do that. I hope that's the info you needed.--Kbob (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, just wanted to say it is a pleasure working on this with you at the moment. I think this maybe the way to edit: quick and to the point with both of is making sure the edit reflects the sources and neither of us accidentally incorporate weasel wording, POV, etc. And also, logically and without "temper" This is a genuine compliant. Thank you. Perhaps, we might try addressing the Otis study in the same manner? Although, I have to leave home now would be happy to do so later The7thdr (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And, this involves WP:COI how, exactly? Fladrif (talk)

Sure, you can strike it through or just add a notice that you've posted at the Admins' Noticeboard and that you will pursue the matter there instead. Or do both if you want. I personally don't know how much success you'll have there. You've stated, "Fladrif has engaged in a continued pattern of disruptive behavior." I read into that, that your intention is to show that Fladrif is a disruptive editor which is appropriate for that noticeboard. I'm not an administrator but I think that they might see your evidence as showing a content dispute, and might recommend going through dispute resolution. That can be a long process with many steps that could eventually lead to the ArbCom. ArbCom could bring sanctions against Fladrif such as topic-bans or an extended block, but it's really slow, and you need to exhaust everything else at WP:DR first.

WP:RFC/U might be faster than going through regular dispute resolution and it's definitely slower than WP:ANI, but it might have a greater chance of success. It might also not go anywhere, you need to show that you've attempted to settle things with Fladrif directly and that those attempts have failed.

Basically, WP:ANI is your way of saying, "Help, I need an Administrator to do something!" WP:RFC/U is your way of saying, "I think this guy is hurting the encyclopedia, I've tried to work with him but I can't, please do something." WP:DR is a way of slowly escalating an issue a bit at a time, first asking for an uninvolved editor to comment, then asking the whole community to come in and comment, then asking for a mediator to try to resolve the problems, then finally bringing things to Wikipedia's version of a court. You can look at each page to see which you think applies in your situation. Just know that for the most part it doesn't hurt to simply ask at one of those places, as long as you're doing so in good faith, and I think you are. -- Atama^chat 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

These are all good points. Thanks for your help.--Kbob (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had some help at first, see my 2007 talk page archive for some tips from the super-awesome EVula. Basically, though, my best advice is to look at a signature you like and look at the code used to produce it (one way to do that is to edit a section that an editor signed where it shows the plain text of the signature). Then "tweak" it however you like. If you use HTML color codes, there's a chart that will help you figure out what code goes with what color. What I specifically did in my signature was to make each letter of my username a progressively darker blue, until the last letter was almost black. Then the link to my talk page is just the color black, with a superscript markup. I used to have it be red fading to black but I noticed too many other people doing the same thing, plus the red was garish. -- Atama^chat 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Kbob 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Kbob. I appreciate the award, it means a lot to me. :)

Just an FYI, it looks like your signature isn't pointing to the correct user page anymore. I think it needs to point to your actual account name in front of the pipes "|" to redirect people to your proper page, it's currently trying to go to User:Kbob which doesn't exist.

Right now it says:

[[User:Kbob|<span style="color:darkgreen">K</span><span style="color:darkgreen">bob</span>]][[User talk:Kbob|^{<span style="color:#orange">chat</span>}]]

Kbob^chat

When it should probably say:

[[User:Keithbob|<span style="color:darkgreen">K</span><span style="color:darkgreen">bob</span>]][[User talk:Keithbob|^{<span style="color:#orange">chat</span>}]]

Kbob^chat

Just wanted to let you know, thanks again! -- Atama^chat 04:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

--Kbob^chat 14:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

--^chat 18:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

--Kbob^chat 18:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

-- — Kbob 18:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the reason your chat link doesn't work is because you are testing the signature on your talk page. If you test the signature on your user page, for example, you'll see that the chat link will work (but the other link that goes to your user page won't work, naturally). I should have warned you about this and I had meant to, but forgot, because I ran into this exact same problem when I was trying to customize my signature. Sorry about that! -- Atama^chat 18:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I see how you managed to get 4000+ edits so quickly. Diff Fladrif (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fladrif, yes the diff you have cited is my rather crude method for getting a URL to come up for a specific section on a page. If you know of a more efficient way to accomplish this, I'd be happy to hear it. I'm always learning new things about Wiki. As for my 4,000 edits in one year I am very proud of them and stand by my work. I congratulate you on your service badges as well. Thanks for visiting my user page! Keithbob -- — Kbob • Talk • 13:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I had no idea that worked, and no, I don't know of another way to do it. And, I was just pulling your leg. You have certainly been diligent and industrious here. Congratulations and well done. Fladrif (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Answered Kbob's question. -- Atama頭 19:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kbob, that template is totally generic. Check out the details here, where it says, "The purpose of the "resolved" tag is to give a visual hint to readers of talk page items, making it easier to ignore already-resolved issues. Also, it is hoped that the existence of such a tag will encourage the resolution of items on a talk page." I've seen it used all the time on various talk pages. As you can see on the template's page the idea you have for using it is exactly why it was created. -- Atama頭 19:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Atama is a Japanese word that means "head". In real life my last name is "Head". I studied the Japanese language for 3 years in high school, and other students nicknamed me "Atama-san" in those classes, so I often use it as an alias when online. The kanji symbol I'm using now in the talkpage link in my signature means "head" in Japanese. It's funny that you're the first person to ever ask me that. -- Atama頭 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Way cool Atama-san. I don't know much about the Japanese culture excpet what I learned reading James Clavell. Great writer! Thanks for the insight.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of it. I usually leave a message on the other person's talk page though I know it makes more sense to keep the conversation all in one place. I don't know why I do that. -- Atama頭 23:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kbobb. I have noted this on the TM Talk Page. --BwB (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw from here that it's been exactly one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. It could we be short lived, and looks pretty much of the adolescent variety. If it continues I'll leave a warning on the talk page and then if still continues notify an admin. to warn and or block. An IP vandalizing a few times may not even look at a talk page. Generally this kind of vandal just disappears, in my experience anyway (olive (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

Blocked by Will.[1] (olive (talk) 04:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

A tag has been placed on File:Lexpalace-325px.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the photo from the article on 9/19 after receiving this notice. The photo deletion can be seen here. [2]-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Raam currency small.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This image was deleted on Sept 27th. I am still learning the process for properly uploading photos and meeting Wiki copyright requirements.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kbobb, can you please check the format of the Red Cross Banner you left on Flad's Talk page. I have tried to add new text below you banner, but instead of creating a new section, it add the text to your banner. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's OK, I figured it out. You needed to put |} on a new line below your edit to complete the banner. It is working fine now for others to add new text. Always learning at Wiki!!! --BwB (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I had a lot of trouble with that banner/tag. I find them to be very tricky. Glad you got it worked out. Sorry for the trouble.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've posted a comment on Fladrif's user page. I'm not sure what to make of your comment about allies. Who are your allies?   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will thanks for making a comment on Fladrif's user page regarding his un-civil remarks on the talk page.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And in regard to the "allies"?   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My original post on your user page, to which you are alluding, was very straightforward. I don't think it needs any further discussion-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me. You seem to be accusing me of being in an alliance with another editor. If there alliances then I assume you are in one too. If there aren't alliances, or if you're not willing to talk abot your own allies, then I don't think it's helpful for you to make that charge. Please either withdraw the charge or list the editors to whom you are allied, so we can figure out what alliances are at work.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My alliance is with you. And not only you but every editor on Wiki who follows Wiki guidelines and policies and uses their common sense and best intentions to work together and create the best possible free encyclopedia. Don't you feel that way too?-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a lovely sentiment. I'm glad you think of Fladrif as your ally as well as mine. That wasn't clear from your comment.   Will Beback  talk  00:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are all allies. Peace! -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Keithbob. Regarding the tag you placed on the Nudity article pertaining to the number of images, could you please provide a little more information about your concerns? I followed the link provided in the tag and read the related guidelines, but everything seems to be within the described norms. I see a similar issue was discussed not too long ago here. Your input on the article talk page regarding your specific concerns in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the inquiry. This is a reasonable request and something I was intending to do. Thank you for the reminder.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no worries at all. Yes, the section was getting hard to read with the cite tags and the banner too so thought to get rid of some of it. Beat you to it I guess.:o) (olive (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for your welcome, KBob, but i'm hardly new to Wikipedia. i nixed all of those "citation needed" markers because they did indeed clutter up the article, and i feel they went way overboard in requiring citation for many points that are common knowledge about the man. If you check out any other Wikipedia bio of a living person - let's say, at random, Ed Begley, Jr., you won't see the same heavy-handed number of citation requests. Some points are cited, some are not. Check out the second paragraph of Ed' "Personal Life" section, or the entirety of his "Acting Career" section.

You had citation requests on nearly every other sentence of the Prince article, which had two effects on me as a reader: 1) it made the thing a drag to read, and 2) it was like putting "dick quotes" around words. You know dick quotes? Like, if i say Keithbob is a "good" Wikipedia contributor? That he is very "helpful"?

When i read a sentence like "Orson Welles directed and starred in Citizen Kane [citation needed]", i roll my eyes, because it's another example of an over-zealous Wikipedia contributor taking the rules too far. Sure, there may be some citations needed in the Prince article, but you don't have to require them every second word. Tone down your Wikipedia legalism. User:SlickVicar —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Slick, thanks for your comments. Sorry I didn't see this thread until just now. You are correct I was a bit overzealous with the cite tags. At the same time I am sure you are aware that BLP articles are held to a higher standard on Wiki. I think you would agree the article is lacking in citations and not up to to Wiki encyclopedic standards. It reads more like a fan article. However, over the past week or two, I and others have been adding citations and tuning up the text. Lets work together to bring the article to the next level. If you have any other specific comments about the article lets discuss them on the talk page so everyone can benefit and join in the conversation.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Keithbob, you're the principal editor of Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health, having made more than a third of the edits to the article. Can you affirm that you have no connections to the entities or people discussed in the article? If the people are your friends or colleagues, or if you have business ties to the entities, then I think any reasonable person would presume that a conflict of interest exists.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking me for personal information?-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am asking you to either affirm that you have no conflicts of interest regarding the TM-related topics you're editing, or to avoid editing them. In other words, if you do have a conflict of interest you do not need to disclose it, but if there are significant undisclosed ties to the entities and people in those articles then you should stop editing them. For example if you are an employee of any of the organizations with MVEDC-licensed trademarks, or a personal friend of any of the researchers, then those would be obvious conflicts of interest when writing about TM-related topics. If you can honestly say that you have no such connections then that would satisfy my concern.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A third option, which is perfectly legitimate, is to acknowledge having a conflict of interest without specifying it, and to limit yourself to making suggestions for article improvements using the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like some fancy word game you are playing to try and get me to reveal personal info. -- — Kbob • Talk • 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it sounds that way, that's not my intent. My request does not require disclosing anything: can you affirm that you have no connections to these entities or people, or instead, are you willing to stop editing the articles where you have undisclosed conflicts of interest? That's all I'm asking.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have performed about 7500 edits on a wide variety of topics and have been serving the Wiki ideal of creating a top quality, balanced, accurate and free encyclopedia for about 18 months. I am familiar with Wiki's COI policy and I edit according to that policy and in a way that serves Wiki's best interest and ideals. At the same time, I do not wish to give out any information, overt or implied, about my job, my hobbies, my interests, my medical preferences, my family, my associates, my investments or my friends and according to Wiki policies I am not required to do so.-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, but it ducks the question. Because of the lack of any statement to the contrary, it's hard to escape the conclusion that you do have an undisclosed conflict of interest. This has never been about disclosing any private information, but about editing only those topics about which you can be neutral. Your response indicates that you will continue to edit despite significant undisclosed conflicts of interest, and I don't see how that can benefit the project.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I am ducking are your tricky attempts to get me to disclose personal information. Your accusations that I edit with conflict of interest because I won’t reveal personal information indicate that your goals lie in some devious personal agenda not the best interests of Wiki. You are an administrator, you know that COI issues are handled on the COI noticeboard, yet you choose to single me out for absolutely no reason and harass me on my User Page. Shame on you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 12:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not singling you out. I've made this request of all editors involved with the MVAH article. For the nth time - I'm not asking for any personal information, and I certainly don't have any "devious personal agenda". My agenda is exactly what I've said it is - to ensure that the TM-related articles are not skewed by editors with conflicts of interest. You are one of the principal editors of the topic, and the fact that you will not confirm that you are free from conflicts of interest is worrisome. Hidden COIs are the worst kind, and they don't reflect well on Wikipedia or the TM movement.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that I am aware of Wiki policy on COI and that I edit in accordance with that policy and with Wiki's best interests. I am a neutral editor. But you continue to pursue me to express your concerns about how I make a living and who are my associates. You say because I am 'principle editor' I deserve to be interrogated on COI issues. Is that some new Wiki policy? I am also the principle editor on the Dean Foods and Stephen Gill (photographer) articles. Will you next be telling me that if I work at the Dean Foods plant or if I went to college with Stephen Gill I should stop editing those articles? And if I don't respond to your inquiries in a way that satisfies you, will you tell me that my reluctance is "troubling" and "worriesome" and reflects badly on the Dean Foods corporation? At the present time what I am most worried about is your lack of regard for the rights of a Wiki editor and the questionable use of your administrative role.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have conflicts related to Dean Foods or Gill then you should handle those properly too. And yes, the conflicts of editors who've made more than half of the edits to an article are of greater concern than those of editors who've only made a couple of edits. I'm sorry that you are unwilling to affirm that you are free from conflicts of interest regarding the articles which you are actively editing. I don't think your flat assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia's policies and practices will resolve this issue and, just as it has several times in the past, this issue will probably continue to fester.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That’s exactly the point. I have no conflicts of interest on any of the articles that I edit and a large number of edits to an article does not provide grounds for accusing me of COI. It’s ironic, that during the month of November, you Will, are the #1 contributor to the Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health article with 46 edits while I sit in 6th place with only 11 edits during the same month. [3] Maybe an Administrator should be interrogating you about your potential conflicts of interest ie. pushing editors around with your Admin status on an article(s) you actively edit? You also seem to pick and choose who you want give the third degree to. An editor like Fladrif who has a history of personal attacks and discipline gets little or no action from you even when its posted on your user page.[4]Instead you ignore bad behavior and wait for another Admin to respond. [5]At the same time you seem to have plenty of time to spend having long discussions with other editors over alleged COI issues. And so I ask the question. Exactly what proof do you have that tells you that I am violating COI? Is it the accusations of an abusive editor who has asked for your administrative help? [6] Do you have proof of biased editing on my part or are you just repeating the obviously biased, personal attacks from an editor like Fladrif?-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"I have no conflicts of interest on any of the articles that I edit" - that's all I've been asking for folks to say. Thanks for confimring it, though it took several exchanges. Short of resigning as an admin, I don't see how I can participate in discussions without having admin status. However having the status and using the tools are two different things. I got mesages on my talk page about Fladrif, and responded to those concerns, and I got a message from Fladrif on my talk page and so I'm trying to respond to those concerns too.

I assume the above paragraph is from WillBeBack. If so, then OK, so let's get back to editing and put this behind us.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were behind us. It's beside us instead. Just as our shadows follow us, so do our innate biases. That's why it's best to edit lightly those topics closest to our hearts.   Will Beback  talk  09:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no demonstration of any evidence or proof of any violation of COI policies. I am now closing this thread.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

ce=copy edit

cat=category

wl=wikilinks

fmt=format

Those are some that I use frequently. For a full list, see Wikipedia:Glossary.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks Will.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Nancy Lonsdorf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had the article watchlisted ever since I began editing MVAH and someone added it as a red link. I had been thinking of writing the bio myself, but I didn't see enough material on her to establish her notability. Also, I have this talk page watchlisted and so the notice above popped up. Due to my super ESPN powers, I can even tell you sports scores. ;)   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Copying text without placing it in quotation marks is plagiarism. Every time I come across an instance of plagiarism in TM article I find it was added by you. Here is one I just found, added as recently as October.[7] It was doubly problematic because you elided text without indicating it, changing the meaning. Please review your own edits to Wikipedia and make sure that no similar instances are still in the encyclopedia. And please do not engage in such copying again.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As you can see the text was clearly attributed, I just forgot to put the quotation marks in, it was an oversight. Even so, your point is well taken and so I'll be more vigilant on future edits. Thanks. -- — Kbob • Talk • 04:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hope you both have a wonderful New Year. It will a great year ahead in Wikiland! --BwB (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey Kbob, I appreciate the tip on signing my posts properly. If you got anymore, I'm all ears. --Early morning person (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I have left a comment to discuss your comment, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)