User talk:Keithbob/Archive 2

TALK PAGE ARCHIVE FOR THE YEAR 2010

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.

I just wanted to drop a note to partly apologize for getting an exasperated tone sometimes in the Moneymaker discussion. I hope you can appreciate that the Moneymaker issues are not in the same league as stuff like Constant Rijkenberg but we have to guard against any precedent for allowing something in that will be seized by editors who think edits like this are appropriate. I deal with a lot of the vandals on here who just want to be mean, so that is always on my mind, even though sometimes I may be a bit overvigilant. Anyway, happy editing. 2005 (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your words are appreciated. I look forward to working together.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, you appear to have accused me of making POV edits and engaging in tag team editing.[1] Those are both serious accusations. I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from making charges like that lightly. If there is a problem with my editing my user talk page is open to any one who wishes to comment. As for those specific charges, I think that it'd be wise for you to look to your own editing to see if perhaps it doesn't include those flaws you see in others.   Will Beback  talk  23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, in the past three days you've made 51 edits to MUM, 33 edits to TM, 26 edits to MSV, 21 edits to MVC, 19 edits to Greer, 17 edits to TMM, 11 edits to talk:MUM, 10 edits to MVAH, and 10 to DLF, plus other related edits. And yet you're saying that I've been editing the TM topic too much recently. You deleted a properly sourced assertion, without using the talk page to explain it, yet you're accusing me of deleting material. You've made accusations against me and another editor of colluding and other malfeasance, and yet you say that I am creating an "intimidating atmosphere". And now you're telling me to go take a hike. I suggest again that you follow your own advice.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Settle down now Will. It was a friendly suggestion to take a day off and enjoy the outdoors. I took my own advice yesterday and I literally went for a hike, as I suggested for you. Just a friendly suggestion to take a break. I'm sorry you have taken it so defensively. All the best, -- — Kbob • Talk • 16:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I got your message on my talk page last month, but I've done a horrible job of following up and saying hello. (Although I did weigh in on the discussion you mentioned.) I've been more or less retired from Wikipedia for a while, but I'm starting to get the bug to edit a bit again, so I though I'd say howdy. Rray (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Rray, no worries, I look forward to editing together in the future.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TM editors for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am one person, who edits on one Wiki user account, Keithbob. I don't use any other accounts and I am not a sock puppet.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, there is some indication that you and other editors may be sharing the same computer or connection. If you could explain that on the SPI page then itt'd help clear up this matter.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your talking about and I don't know anything about other editors. I have one Wiki user account and that's what I use.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, check this out. I was once accused of being a puppet. I was cleared, and everything moved on. It was even funny at the time. If you really aren't sharing a computer with any of the other editors you have nothing to worry about, just laugh it off. -- Atama頭 02:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

After a long investigation, all parties involved in this case, including myself, were found by ArbCom to be innocent [2] "After extensive review of checkuser data, contribution histories, editing patterns and (in some cases) the actual edits of certain users, we have found no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case. With this in mind, I do not foresee any arbitrator proposals relating to sockpuppetry, restrictions of ISPs or IPs, or anything similar."-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

		Civility Award
		Thanks for your civility in our discussion of the John Mayer article.Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please make sure that the dates on editing tags are correct when you add them.[3] You can also leave the dates blank and a Bot will come through and add them.   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I very often edit articles from the Articles Needing Copy Edits list, I add tags to articles on a regular basis. For this reason I keep some of the most frequently used tags on my user page for easy access. This means the tag dates are old I have to update them manually, which I am very vigilant to do each time. However, it seems this time I forgot. Thanks for catching and repairing my error.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation movement and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, –MuZemike 19:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk Notice Please refactor your evidence so that it is less that 1000 words in length. This requirement is stated twice on the evidence page. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You disappoint me KBob. I should have thought that you could find better examples than these. [4]. Let me know if you need some assistance in finding better diffs. Fladrif (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Kbob, I've placed some questions about your "POV Pushing Teams" tables, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence‎#POV Pushing Teams. When you have a chance, your reply would be appreciated.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, I too have placed a question about these [[5]]. I am somewhat confused. Clarification would be helpful. Thanks Tuckerj1976 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, I have also asked for action here [[6]] per your comments. Are we to assume this will be addressed in your next edit? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerj1976 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

An oversight I am sure, but I would suspect that Kala Bethere is still waiting for you to update per [[7]]. As I said, I am sure he is very disappointment having his spelling, grammar, etc thought to be like mine.

Thanks Tucker ^talk 03:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit sorry, per this [[8]] of course, especially after your comment here [[9]]. Again, thanking you in advance for your attention in this matter. Tucker ^talk 03:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPI is still under way, I have just submitted a list of socks used by The7thdr which also need to be cross referenced with you and Kala. After that we wait for the Arbitration Committee to weigh the behavioral evidence for your SPI, as well as the TM SPI. Neither SPI has yet been completed or ruled on by ArbCom. Both cases are still open. If any of us had been ruled as confirmed sock puppets our accounts would have been permanently blocked. Meanwhile, there is a link provided as part of my Evidence Section and anyone is free at anytime to use that link to visit the SPI page and get updated on the proceedings. It will be awhile yet, so keep your skirt on and enjoy the ride!-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think you will find that a response has been made per your comment:

"I have just submitted a list of socks used by The7thdr which also need to be cross referenced with you and Kala".

See here: [[10]]

An update would be nice I think (poor old Kala Bethere, does seem to have suffered a little from abuse by you, Little Olive and BWB for sometime regarding this matter after all. Also, I think there are slight differences, you have already been confirmed to be a sockpuppet [[11]]. Again, thank you for your attention in this matter. Tucker ^talk 04:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your understanding of the SPI process is incorrect. I have been cleared of Sock Puppet allegations. [12] "After extensive review of checkuser data, contribution histories, editing patterns and (in some cases) the actual edits of certain users, we have found no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case. With this in mind, I do not foresee any arbitrator proposals relating to sockpuppetry, restrictions of ISPs or IPs, or anything similar."-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Kbob, please be more careful when making accusations. This material, [13], is a review of evidence I added about another editor, not about my own editing. I don't mind legitimate criticism of my own editing, but an accusation made on a misreading of the context from an entirely separate case is unhelpful to this arbitration process.   Will Beback  talk  08:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment here [[14]]. Least you miss it (there is much to read through after all) Kbob, this now not only getting embarrassing but a lot like your definition of "harassment every time you do it. Could you please cite evidence of when I have been "uncivil"? Or are you still insisting that I am at least three different people? Thank you Tucker ^talk 19:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Kala Bethere incivility:

• “the utter disgust and contempt I have for, alleged, "omission by silence" editors” [15]
• “Littleolive Oil……. I think you need to have a long, hard look in the mirror” [16]
• “Littleolive, quick, go look in the mirror! Your nose, it's growing!” [17]
• “Poor Littleolive Oil still is beating her ‘peer review’ dead horse if as if she didn't hear. If you've ever spent any time around TM True Believers, this exact same "peer review" card is a common one commonly dragged out, as is the ‘I didn't hear you" excuse’” [18]
• “Sadly for your argument Little Olive Oil………. What are you trying to hide other than your admitted COI?” [19]

Thank you for that (although I would suspect that would need to be seen in context and were responses to the harassment the fairfild residents have shown Kala Bethere )Also, I am not sure that all of them are examples of incivility, but statements of fact (COI, etc)) ) But again, can you provide the evidence where I have been uncivil. I am sure it must be very confusing for you with all of the edits. Again, as I have said when you thought I was Will Beback (here: [[20]]) please let me know and I will endeavor to help you read the edit history of a page and help you workout who has edited what. I shall patently await your reply. Thank you. Tucker ^talk 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Disparaging and Sarcastic Comments by Tuckerj1976

• “to you Timidguy and to any of your potential sockpuppets. To be honest this has proven it difficult to take you seriously and I am unlikely to respond to anymore of your comments.”[21]
• “the insults that have been already made by the TM org Sockpuppets” [22]
• “contemplating the Fairfield residents evidence: Considering the frequency with which they are used, the words/phrases: Harassment, Peer-review, biased research/journalism against TM and Coincidence, are these TM mantras?” [23]
• “And look at this wonderful re-write by certain editors (in no way indictive of a COI I am sure) and this is quaint…. It is wonderful to see how 3 editors worked so well and quickly together to get this done (that they have now been confirmed to be sock/meat puppets has nothing to do with it I am sure)” [24]
• “Or are you still insisting that I am at least three different people?”[25]
• “I think any evidence provided by these editors must be seen within this context of possible confusion.” [26]
• “it is not the first time you have argued unsuccessfully for it to be removed, then removing it later when it seemed no one was looking” [27]
• “I hate to use these words but there are editors here who seem to be "true believers" in the TM movement.” [28]
• “I am amazed to find the amount of collusion, manipulation and outright dishonest editing that has taken place around this one subject since at least 2006.”

[29]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That alas is not incivility, but just a matter of fact. By the way have you read these? Very interesting, especially the comments I find:

• [[30]]
• [[31]]
• [[32]]
• [[33]]
• [[34]]
• [[35]]
• [[http://the-transcendental-meditation.blogspot.com/2008/11/transcendental-meditation-reduces.html}}

Tucker ^talk 01:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, ref this comment here [36] I think it is spelt "Travis" Tucker ^talk 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The following behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

• (a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;
• (b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;
• (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;
• (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

2. Other uncivil behaviors

• (a) Taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves;
• (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings;
• (c) lying to mislead, including deliberately asserting false information;
• (d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jeff Peckman. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Peckman. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As you have previously had a warning about your evidence section being too long, I've refactored it to below the word limit. If you readd the content back, or go above the word limit again, you'll be barred from submitting any evidence. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're around 170 words over. Can you sort this out asap? Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'll do it right away. Thanks for the warning.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ta Tucker ^talk 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Due to an edit conflict several comments of yours were deleted. I believe I've restored them all properly,[38] but please check to make sure.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think they are OK. Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

With ref to Puppetry: KalaBethere and Tuckerj1976 SPI/RFARB[366] [367] [368] TM[369] Ref 369 above goes into an open page edit dialog box which may get edited in error. Are you ok posting these links or would you like me to help you with the technical side?. If you need any help just let me know. Tucker ^talk 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed em, thanks for the heads up.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem Kbob, anytime Tucker ^talk 13:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: On April 11, 2010 Tuckerj1976 was found to be a sock puppet and was banned indefinitely [39]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations: "You would never guess what had been added here from the comment. Note how it completly xchanges the tone (Good luck in finding the refernce source online by the way?)" “These are only a small sample of the edits to this section by one user during one day. Each alone is minor however, note how the tone of the section completely changes across all of them (also note the gradual addition of many primary sources,” The entire post can be seen here: [40]

The editor cites these diffs below to prove his point but the only thing they prove is that his accusations are baseless and that my edit summaries are proper and accurate and the sources I added a valid secondary sources.

Accusation: This edited is listed as MINOR by Kbob with no description of what was added Tucker talk 20:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary reads: M, Here I deleted white space, there is no text change therefore it is a minor edit[41]

Edit summary reads: “ce and refs” that means copy edits and added citations. CE is a standard Wiki abbreviation for use on an edit summary. Source: Pathways Magazine [42]

These Edit summaries read: “added text and ref”.

• [43] Source: Pathways Magazine
• [44] Source: Journal News
• [45] Source: Skillman Foundation
• [46] Source: Pathways Magazine

The Edit Summary reads: “Add text and ref plus ce” [47]

Edit Summary reads “move sentence and ref and copy edit” No new text or sources were added. [48]-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Still selectively choosing my comments Kbob? By the way, how was David? [[49]]. what a coincidence that must have been. Tucker ^talk 16:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: On April 11, 2010 Tuckerj1976 was found to be a sock puppet and was banned indefinitely [50]-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		NLP states, as a fundamental principle, that people never do anything they believe is "wrong", they only do things they think are "right". Whether that is the case or not is another matter. I do believe that what you have done for TM is because you believe it is the right thing to do (which is why I never take your personal comments and accusations about me with any bad temper). Anyway, it is at least good to see youtain retain a sense of humor  :-) [[51]] Tucker talk 20:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Natural Stress Relief, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Stress Relief. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fladrif (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Celebrity Sleuth. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Sleuth. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the DLF source a couple of days ago, but you restored it. Could you explain? Talk:Ali Stephens#Sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware that you had removed the source but am happy to discuss this on the article talk page with you now.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about categorizing the predictions into 2002 and 2007 sections. I think the 2006 and 2007 predictions are largely regarded similarly and largely make the same pronouncements. Perhaps, 2006 would make for a improved breakpoint....? Good work cleaning up the article, by the way. BigK HeX (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes good point, or maybe no break at all?-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Separating them seems fine. Maybe no categorization would work better, but I think I like the idea of having a small break in there. Probably not a huge deal, either way. BigK HeX (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that you had an open <ref> tag. If the citation is more than a link I suggest indenting it with two asterisks. That's easy to do and easy to read, and much simpler than using footnotes. I've restored the year headings to help keep things in order.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob- I just wanted you to know that I answered your question finally. You asked on the Self-Religion Talk p if we should nominate the article for deletion. I honestly think we should. It seems like a coatrack article to me. (not so much since you deleted the section you did) but still something that I think is part of a broader POV pushing. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

After watching the discussion, I think that the article should be nominated for deletion as it violates WP:NOR. I have said as much on the talk page. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob, Thank you for your message about self-religion. I just wanted to let you know of a similar kind of situation over at List of Scientologists. I don't think that the article should be deleted per se, but I think the problem of it is that it uses a dubious definition of who is a scientologist. The problem being that, scientology is very controversial and people being labeled as scientologists could be dammaging. I would appreciate it, if you would look at the issue I raised with the talk page of the article and offer your opinion. Thank you Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Keithbob, thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Please feel free to reorganize the RfC and move the template as much as you want, I am quite inexperienced at the proper format to use for RfCs. No need to worry about stepping on my toes, I would prefer that to having my mistakes stand uncorrected. Sorry for this delayed response, but I'm on a sort of a wikibreak and am not going to logging in too much for the next month or so. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

• All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.
• Editors are reminded that when editing in controversial subject areas it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies. In addition, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and to adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counselled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area, and to find other related but less controversial topics in which to edit.
• Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
• Uninvolved administrators are invited to monitor the articles in the area of conflict to enforce compliance by editors with, in particular, the principles outlined in this case. Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations.
• From time to time, the conduct of editors within the topic may be re-appraised by any member of the Arbitration Committee and, by motion of the Arbitration Committee, further remedies may be summarily applied to specific editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner.
• User:Fladrif is (i) strongly admonished for incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith; and (ii) subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After three blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month.
• Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of the block.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Amen and thank you to all those that participated. Particularly the Committee for taking their time and reviewing the matter carefully. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Keithbob, and thanks again for your kindness on my talk page. Here's my question: I went to look at the Peter Schiff talk page, to refresh my memory about what was going on there, and I saw, under my contribution, a comment followed by this: "—Preceding unsigned comment added by BifurcatingBellCurves (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (Note: BifurcatingBellCurves is a sock of the same banned user as GypsyBanksters)". According to WP policy, should I revert that contribution? It seems clear that I should, but after reading so much about how much harm can be done by hasty reverts, I want to make sure. Also, should I report the contribution somewhere, since violating a ban brings further consequences? Thanks! --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. For the record -- because I get confused when I see half-conversations on talk pages -- thanks for the help you rendered via my talk, and I did as you suggested. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel sickish. Can you help? --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

For the record again, my talk page is gloriously restored (if, in fact, the episode wasn't just a hallucination). !! --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Keithbob, would you be willing to adopt me? What a strange experience it is, to ask for such a thing! Have you mentored before? We seem to "click," and you've already been so helpful. Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Yes you can be my firstborn editor. :-)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I accidentally reverted a whole bunch of your edits recently. I also intentionally reverted some of your edits. I am now restoring the ones I reverted accidentally. Gregcaletta (talk)

No problem, thanks for correcting it and letting me know. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:MaharishiUniversityofManagement, Argiro Hall.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 created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:TonyNadar as Raja Ram.JPG. Pardon my disbelief, but you took that photograph yourself? It looks like a professional promotional photo. Good work.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was the photo deleted after you'd released it into the public domain?   Will Beback  talk  19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, interesting picture.

Regarding your link to join in the lede discussion at Eckhart Tolle, I had a good read but felt you guys were doing well discussing there and my Knowledge of Tolle is very limited, I do agree we shouldn't have large promotional quotes from the subject in the lede, but presently that doesn't seem to be an issue. Thanks for asking and feel free to ask me to comment in future, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me of the recent ArbCom activity concerning TM article, and for the policy advice. I admit to being scared off, so to speak, after I initially took interest in the main TM article a few years ago, by what I called then and what I'd still call, POV pushing from a small, stable group of editors. I'll process all these new proceedings, and see if I can't help in some small way to help improve the article's neutrality and informativeness.Civilizeme (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a question for you at Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi#Plagiarism.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Keithbob,

I am writing here to offer my thanks and give you credit for the effort you made to copy-edit Leo Green. I arrived at the article repairing a link leading to a disambiguation page. I saw that the article was unreadable and put up a copy-edit tag. I've seen various tags languish for years without any action, but within a few days you arrived at the article and made serious improvements on its readability. As a side-note about the notability of Green, I agree with you. Work like yours is seriously needed in too many articles in WP. Keep it up. Cheers, Atavi (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Atavi has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Atavi (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Kbob, thanks for your note. However I think you may have misinterpreted my remarks from last month. When I wrote "You seem to be the only one who believes that", I was referring to the authorship of the book, not the fact that MMy was a disciple of Guru Dev, which is widely known.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything Else Is Taken has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

You've been making a lot of errors in the past month: you uploaded a photo incorrectly claiming ownership, you claimed material had been plagiarized when it wasn't, you've used improper sources or misinterpreted them, you've expressed bad faith towards other editors, and so on. The recent Arbcom case was closed with remedies that covered these issues. Consider this an informal warning to adhere more closely to that decision. If problems persist then the next step would be a formal warning by an uninvolved admin.   Will Beback  talk  01:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my edits and my editing behavior. As a fellow participant in the TM ArbCom your hands are not clean and your perspective is strongly biased. You are also an active editor on the TM articles and have no right or authority to issue any "warnings" to me. Any such further posts by you on my user page, will be considered intentional intimidation and harassment.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't stood by your edits. When I asked you about your claim of owning the copyright of a picture that looked promotional, you refused to answer. When I asked you why you'd called a bunch of text plagiarism, you refused to say which source you thought they'd been copied from. You've used poor sources that promote a pro-TM POV in the same way that you did a year ago. If you'd like to stand by your edits then do so. But please don't keep making bad edits like this.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzz.....-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick Wiki EL policy lesson Keith. Appreciated. --BwB (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. Wiki is continuous learning experience for all of us.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about one of your edits. Talk:Transcendental Meditation#Over 200 scientific studies.   Will Beback  talk  05:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2000TowerOaksBldgbyRonBlunt MG 6475.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

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

TALK COPIED TO HERE FROM THE TALK PAGE OF USER: FUTURE PERFECT SUNRISE

• Thanks for your post on the photo notice board. You have recommended asking the company who issued the photo to send an email giving permission to Wikipedia. I can try to arrange that. My question is do they need to also send the photo in the email? Or is the email itself enough? Thank you for your assistance.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 8:09 am, Today (UTC−4)
  • E-mail alone is fine; it should just identify the photograph clearly by wiki filename or link to it. It's also crucial that it specifies exactly which license it is to be placed under. Recommended license CC-BY-SA. Please make sure when you contact the owners they need to be aware that they are allowing its use not just on Wikipedia but re-use anywhere else for any purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 8:19 am, Today (UTC−4)
    • Great, thanks for the info. I'll see if I can get this taken care of.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:31 pm, Today (UTC−4)
      • Ok I have sent them an email with all the pertinent details. How will I know if/when the send the proper email to [email protected]? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 1:17 pm, Today (UTC−4)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just notifying you that you received an answer from the author in Talk:Ioan Dem. Dimăncescu#General Comment on the Article. I'd like to see how it progresses.--Maashatra11 (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've added several citations from obituaries of MMY, and you date them to 2005.[52][53][54] It's my understanding that MMY died in 2008, and that these citations are from that year. I know that "5" and "8" can sometimes look alike. Could you please review the citations you added today and make sure they have the correct dates? Also, while I'm on the topic of citations, don't forget that there is no space between the punctuation and the footnote, but there is a space after it. "Like this.<1> Then this."   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In a recent edit to the page The Beatles in Rishikesh, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. 'Travelling' is the correct British spelling. All pages about The Beatles are to be written in British English. (Unless writing the Traveling Wilburys, which is a proper noun.) McLerristarr / Mclay1 09:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I was not aware that the Brits spelled traveling with two "L", I thought I was making a standard spelling correction. Thanks for the heads up. I would however, encourage you in the future, to Assume Good Faith and take a more civil and cordial tone when you are leaving a message for a User who has just spent his time making a number of constructive edits to an article (including the addition of text with reliable sources) and innocently removed one letter from a word that they thought was spelled incorrectly.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(From my talkpage) I just used the standard template. It's not my words, except the specific bit about 'travelling'. I agree though that it probably needs a 'please' in there.

Please keep the conversation in one place. Also, I didn't revert your edit so you didn't lose your other edits. I didn't know you didn't know that that was the correct spelling; I just saw someone changing English to American and told them not to. Wasn't meant to be offensive and I was entirely assuming good faith and being civil. McLerristarr / Mclay1 02:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to working together. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, can you explain me in one detailed way, why you considered the article like irrelevant?I know that is better that I could find others sources ,preferably in English, but the sources that are there right now are absolutely reliables.These sites are from state's publication and all theirs arguments are perfectly secures, so on this way I can find others sources but I believe how the article is now, is enough.Also, if your position is for help you-self can find anothers sources too on Internet or maybe in another site, but not to consider firstly that the article are irrelevant simply because you believe that.Do you read the external links before really?Thank you Vicond2 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly,sorry for to include one more note to your now too bigger user page. Yes I was read the guide and I understood primarily that references are better than links.On that way I suppose some links that are there right now, and on the Spanish Wikipedia too, could serve like reliables sources giving the just treatment.It's a very long manual that is necessary to read very carefully for to know all the rules and to not fail.So that require a several quantity of time.I read also the complicated problem with YouTube, so basically I don't know now specifically what can I do for the health of the Anabell López article.That sound now a little scabrous.I suppose I have to read very much about all that.But I only know now that links referred there are absolutely serius, so I will see how much I can do for it.I only tried to make a contribution for Wikipedia, but I believe I haven't time to become in one Wiki-Lawyer.So if you have time and or want to contribute with something else,in a good-faith way to the article I sincerely will thank you.Bye and Regards.Vicond2 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok,Thanks by your kindness.Vicond2 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved Mary Kay Letourneau/Sources to Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau/Sources. VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. That's where I had intended to put it. Must have gotten the URL's mixed up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See [55]. I would like to inform all parties that could provide useful information, but I am not sure what is the best way. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Transcendental Meditation 2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When you have a chance, could you please give your input on Olive's suggestion about the right length for the Beatles material in the MMY article?   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! The Wikipedia Guild of Copy-Editors invites you to participate in the November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, a month-long effort to reduce the backlog of articles that require copy-editing. The drive will begin on 1 November at 00:00 (UTC) and will end on 30 November at 23:59 (UTC). The goal for this drive is to reduce the backlog by 10% (approximately 500 articles). We hope to focus our efforts on the oldest three months (January, February, and March 2009) and the newest three months (September, October, and November 2010) of articles in the queue. Sign-up has already begun at the November drive page, and will be open throughout the drive. If you have any questions or concerns, please leave a message on the drive's talk page. Before you begin copy-editing, please carefully read the instructions on the main drive page. Please make sure that you know how to copy-edit, and be familiar with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Awards and barnstars A range of barnstars will be awarded to active participants, some of which are exclusive to GOCE drives. More information on awards can be found on the main drive page. Thank you; we look forward to meeting you on the drive! — The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Thanks for your note. It's very kind of you to say that.   Will Beback  talk  10:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

In trying to get a sense of where editors stand on the TM article split merge situation It would help to have a definitve statement from each editor. This is not as I see it, to determine a change but to determine whether we can agree on this important issue and if we can't to get outside help. Input here: [56](olive (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC))

I joined the copy editors guild but how do I make a tag to show that I'm working on a piece? thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

A request for comment regarding the overall layout of the TM topic area is ongoing here. As you have commented previously your analysis of the best way forwards would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! Discussions are underway to elect our inaugural group of GOCE Coordinators. Guild members and Drive participants are invited to have a look at the Coordinators page and join the discussion on its associated talk page. We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

See Talk:Transcendental_Meditation#Rfc:_Should_the_Transcendental_Meditation_movement_article_be_renamed Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be requesting formal mediation. 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. Thank you.(olive (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC))

Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats 58 people signed up for this drive. Of these, 48 people participated in the drive. Although we did not eliminate the months we planned to (January, February, and March 2009; and August, September, and October 2010), we did reduce the backlog by 627 articles (11.2%), which was over our goal of 10%. 49 awards will go out to 33 of 48 participants. Check out the complete list of barnstar winners here. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 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 these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

No problem thank you too :D BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Keithbob, thank you for the cookie! -- Health Researcher (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

You have twice misrepresented the same source as saying the complete opposite of what it actually says.[57] See Talk:Transcendental Meditation movement#Poor research, again. If you can't summarize sources about this topic accurately, or even semi-accurately, then maybe it'd be better if you worked on other topics instead.   Will Beback  talk  10:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Your views and opinions are noted. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 10:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That came out wrong. I was peeved when I wrote it because I'd just find that you'd done the same thing twice. I don't want you to stop editing the topic. I do want you to stop citing that source as saying the opposite of what the author actually means. It's been a general problem. We're all human, but we've been over this before. Anyway, I hope you're well - you've been gone a while. Best wishes for the new year.   Will Beback  talk  11:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that we've dealt with my comment, can you please explain why you keep misrepresenting that source?   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the interpretation of suggestion #5 in the TM article. Your input would be appreciated. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 503 editors 2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives Our encounter with Jimbo Wales Guild home pages reorganized and redesigned Report on our inaugural elections Guild Plans for 2011 New barnstars introduced Requests page improved Sign up for the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011! – Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 backlog elimination drive Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! The drive is halfway over, so here are some mid-drive stats. Participation So far, 43 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 25 have participated. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Progress report We have eliminated two months from the backlog – January and February 2009. One of our goals is to eliminate as many months as possible from the 2009 backlog. Please help us reduce the size of this part of the backlog if you haven't already. Another goal is to reduce the entire backlog by 10%, or by 515 articles. Currently, we have eliminated 375 articles from the queue, so if each participant copy edits four more articles, we will reach that goal. Thank you for participating in the January 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success! Your drive coordinators –S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk), The UtahraptorTalk to me, and Tea with toast (Talk)