User talk:BobEnyart

Welcome!

Hello, BobEnyart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Flex (talk|contribs) 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I've noticed you editing the article on Bob Enyart. I also notice that you claim to be the subject of the article. Editors should not be editing articles about themselves in violation of our conflict of interest guideline. A better tactic would be either to discuss your concerns on the article talk page or to take things to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Our biographies of living persons policy affords subjects protections against the introduction of false or defamatory information. I think alerting other editors to your concerns is a much better course of action than editing your own article. AniMate^draw 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, you should not add discussion about yourself, your views or your actions, into Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates our guidelines on conflict of interest. LK (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that info! --Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Plica semilunaris of conjunctiva

In a recent Edit summary to the article Plica semilunaris of conjunctiva you wrote, "used an 'edited collection' citation template to clean up the formatting of this source; template doesn't seem to support multiple editors, so left out that info". Actually, {{cite encyclopedia}} supports |last1=, |last2=, etc. In this case, however, there is only the one author. (Also, don't bother to add ~~~~ to edit summaries as they are ignored there. Your name appears automatically in the Revision history.) I have tidied things up; see diff. (I have never used {{cite encyclopedia}}, so I learned something today.) If you wish to respond, please do so here. HairyWombat 03:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Hairy, I'll try to figure out how to send you this thank you (for your help). The template has editor-last and editor-first fields, and I tried adding to them as in the last1, first1, last2, first2, which technique works for multiple authors. But editor-last1, editor-first1, editor-last2, editor-first2, didn't seem to work. Should I have just used the author fields? And thanks for getting that Chapter 2 detail in there (I couldn't figure that one out either)! Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The doc page states, "for multiple editors, use editor1-last, editor1-first through editor4-last, editor4-first for up to four editors." (Also, note the use of indents to separate different contributors to your Talk page, as per Talk pages#Indentation. There is much useful stuff there.) HairyWombat 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Also Hairy, I'm confused about how you can edit and leave a user comment from HairyWombat, but when I click on your linked name, I get a message saying that there is no user by that name on Wikipedia. Thoughts on this one? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The error message you get says that my User page does not exist. I do, it does not. My User talk page exists but, as I asked you to respond here, there is no reason for you to go there. HairyWombat 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks HW, I appreciate knowing all those things. And yes, this is a helpful page: Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation

Talk pages

New sections go at the bottom. (If in doubt, click on the "New section" tag.) If you wish to respond, please do so here. HairyWombat 04:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm The Banner. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Margaret Sanger seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner _talk 08:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BobEnyart The Banner _talk 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to appeal the block; don't understand why it's been imposed...

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BobEnyart (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have never used multiple accounts; I found out about the block when requesting help from the Dispute resolution notice board Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 11:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Per this ArbCom ruling, recruiting like-minded editors in support of your position is treated as though you yourself abused multiple accounts. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

See here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BobEnyart/Archive. The original announcement of the investigation is mention just above the block notice. The Banner _talk 00:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that what we actually have here is two colleagues who both have severe conflicts of interest. Bob, you must not edit articles about yourself; Nathan, you must not edit articles about your colleague Bob. Now that you know this, are you still interested in editing Wikipedia? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment: User:BobEnyart edited the article Bob Enyart in October 2009, long, long ago. User:Nrambeck never edited the article Bob Enyart; he only ever edited the article Margaret Sanger, before being blocked indefinitely the following day. HairyWombat 17:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Both were active on the article and talkpage of Margaret Sanger. The first proposing controversial changes, the second supporting these changes (after it was clear that there was unsufficient support to get them in the article). The Banner _talk 19:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello JPGordon, I doubt I was blocked for editing an article about myself, because that happened years ago very briefly, back when I didn't know that was not allowed (and at the time, I don't think I even knew that I had a User Page). I was wrongly blocked for using two accounts, which I haven't done. It is now known that another user was mistaken to be me, and he was apparently blocked thinking that he was me, and I was blocked because of the claim that I was him. Can the block on my account be removed? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your own employees to support your edits is just not done, mr. Enyart. In Wikipedia-World that is just as off-limits as picketing private homes in real life... The Banner _talk 19:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Banner & JPG. Nathan is in no sense my employee, and he has never to my knowledge edited anything about me. If a friend of yours restores an edit of yours that was undone because he thought the Undo was from bias, should you be blocked Banner? And this happened a total of what, once? Being a radio talk show host for 21 years, I have not used the radio program to ask people to edit WP articles. And it's not surprising that of the hundreds of public friends I have via the radio program, that in five years or so, one of them might reverse an undo that seemed to him or her bias related. At first, someone (was it you Banner? I don't know that this process works to be sure), someone thought this other person was me, using two accounts. Now you know it wasn't me. But you say he's my employee, which he is not. You should be able to see there was no violation of WP rules, and certainly no intent to violate them, and no desire to violate them in the future. Again Banner, do you, or does JPG, know how I could go about getting the block lifted? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the checkusers have a different opinion. They have access to other technical information that I have no access to. But clearly, their technical evidence gave them good reason to say that you and Nathan were likely meatpuppets/sockpuppets. The Banner _talk 21:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I NOW UNDERSTAND AND ACCEPT THE BLOCK: Banner, having just read about checkusers and meatpuppets, I now see the reason why an administrator would think a violation occurred, because Nathan and I have been associated, and when he saw your Undo, he reversed it. So I realize that the block of my account was done in good faith. Banner, your comment above though, criticizing me for protests that are external to WP, suggests that you do not have a neutral position toward me as another editor. I wonder if you might therefore voluntarily remove yourself from future interaction we me? I'm only somewhat familiar with WP etiquette, and if this request violates good manners here, I'm happy to withdraw it. Thanks. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We should keep on speaking terms, because that is one of the essentials of Wikipedia. But is a fact that we don't have to agree with each other. The point is that articles should be neutral at all times and that is what I try (within my own limitations) to achieve. Neutrality and properly sourced articles is absolutely essential. The Banner _talk 17:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Another question: Donna Czahchy. Is that a familiar name to you? Employee, volunteer, member of your church or so? The Banner _talk 18:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone by the name Donna Czahchy, nor do I have any idea who that might refer to. How did you come upon that question? Please consider, I've been on the air for 21 years daily. Of course my practice is to not use the broadcast to encourage folks to edit WP articles that I'm interested in. I'm sure you agree though that I can't police the folks I've interviewed and nor the thousands of listeners who might have WP accounts who agree with me. After years of being on WP, I think this is the first time this has even arisen as an issue. CNN's Anderson Cooper undoubtedly has interviewed hundreds of folks who agree with him, and even interacted with hundreds of audience members, and I wouldn't think that he should be banned if any of those folks happen to support one of his edits. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Banner, I'm happy to keep on speaking terms with you. Yes, let's do that! And as you probably know, I've made a hundred or so WP edits on a wide range of topics many of which have nothing to do with controversy. But because of the disapproval you expressed against me above, for activities outside of WP, narrowing my request, I'll ask again. Would you allow the greater WP community to Undo any of my edits that might be questioned, rather than you following me around and policing me? Is that ok? Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no intent to follow you around. If you edit outside my field of interest, I will not notice that. Unfortunately, Margaret Sanger, Euthanasia (and related articles) and Groningen Protocol are subjects where our roads can cross. You can see my other fields of interest on my user page. I will not exclude any subject from my visits. Due to vandalfighting and my work on disambiguation links, I can pop up everywhere (and in most case I will leave just as quick). The Banner _talk 23:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds fine Banner. And when my block is lifted, I'll attempt to continue to get input from the Dispute resolution notice board regarding that Sanger quote. Thanks for your input.Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That might not be the brightest idea, as it really looks like POV-pushing. We can still talk about it on the Sanger-page. And you still haven't provided secondary sources that your quote is an important one. The Banner _talk 15:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Bob. From what you write here, I see that you now understand why you were blocked and are willing to abide by our rules in the future; this means that my block is no longer needed and, therefore, I have just lifted it. Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Salvio (albeit a bit belated). Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:BobEnyart

User:BobEnyart, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BobEnyart and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BobEnyart during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Banner talk 19:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have closed this discussion as keep, but see WP:User pages and WP:NOTWEBHOST for guidance on the use of user pages. Regards, JohnCD (talk)

If you understand being critical about (self-)promo the same as stalking, then you have a point. But I am not stalking you. The Banner talk 22:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If any knowledgeable person around here knows a way that I can ask the powers that be to stop The Banner from stalking me, please let me know. It feels creepy with him crawling around. Thanks! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This user had a couple of blocks, and then was indefinitely blocked. Enjoy the peace.50.111.33.130 (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank You

I have read the articles concerning the failed predictions of Big Bang. I have understood Big Bang to be a myth (as it has been repeatedly falsified many dozens of times from multiple sources around the world for the past 90 years), and I'm surprised that it is still taught as if it is a scientific theory. What is worse is that Wikipedia editors do not know any better. All the best!Wavyinfinity (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome Wavyinfinity! All the best to you too! http://rsr.org/bb :) Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, BobEnyart. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, BobEnyart. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Time, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fourth dimension (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So, are we supposed to respond to bots? Hello bot. Very good point. I'm not sure what else to do since I didn't want to create a circular reference and I didn't want to edit in "fourth dimension" to the physics article on time. :( Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, BobEnyart. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your user page

As a courtesy I will not tag them now, but I noticed that your user page meets WP:CSD criteria WP:U5 or WP:G11. Alarms: promotion, external links... —PaleoNeonate – 18:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your courtesy PaleoNeonate. As far as I understand (and as has been upheld previously regarding my own page) user pages are allowed to link to their owner's own websites and briefly describe how their work and background relates to their interest and participation as a Wikipedian. This is what I believe I have done with my page. I understand you thinking that the page might qualify for deletion, of course, for if it were a regular wiki article, then you would be correct. But it's a user page. So to help with that, as you can click over and see, I added a "User page" tag to the top of my page. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Relative time expressions

Hello. Thanks for trying, with this edit of yours at Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik. However, this was not an improvement, because you took an absolute time expression tied to a time point in the past with a fixed expiration date (i.e., 5/27/2016 + 3 years) and removed the "three". But that converts it into a relative time expression. because what if nobody touches the article anymore and a reader views it ten years hence? Is that statement still true then? We don't know. You basically want a sentence that remains true, no matter when it is read in the future. "As of <date>, the autopsies had not been released," would work, but so did the original wording. WP:RELTIME explains this in more detail. Can you please revert that edit back to the old wording, or use new wording that is not a relative time expression? And going forward, please keep RELTIME in mind. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mathglot for tidying things up! I haven't gone back and looked at this, but I do think you may have misread it, and even if you have, no need to revert to my original edit. I didn't write that three years 'have' passed, but I used the past participle 'had', indicating a lengthy time interval between releases. A reader a century from then would still know that for some reason, the sherrif's department held back the autopsies of the perpetrators for years longer than those of the victims. Perhaps there was a good reason for that, perhaps not. Regardless, the dates that remain for the bimodal releases tell the story, though more indirectly. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't misread anything, and I think you may be a bit confused in the sequence of events at the article. Let me see if I can clear things up. Thanks for the thanks, but I have never edited that article, neither to tidy up the time expressions, nor at any other time. But the main point is that the article is now fine, wrt RELTIME, because you fixed it, two days later with the use of the simple past after the autopsies were released. However, your account above regarding "have" and "had" and what you originally wrote in the article, is off; I'm afraid your memory fails you. The article history preserves all the changes made, and you can step through it if you want to, to see what happened. In this case, you didn't use 'had', that was somebody else, before you got there. As I explained above, your change turned one sentence into a relative time expression, which is problematic for the reasons explained. In particular, Here's the Before & After of your change from 24 September that spurred my initial comment to you above:

• Before: More than three years after the attack however, autopsy reports for Farook and Malik had yet to be made public.
• After: However, in the years since, autopsy reports for Farook and Malik have yet to be made public.

The before is fine, the after is not. As it was before you arrived at the article, that sentence referred to 5/27/2016 + 3 years, a fixed point in time in 2019 which is not dependent on when the reader is viewing the article. After your change to the article, however, the sentence became a relative time expression due to the expression "have yet to be made public" which is not a fixed point in time, but depends on when the reader is reading it. That was the point of my original comment. RELTIME is somewhat subtle, and my apologies if I did a poor job of explaining it, the first time around.

But even if I didn't tidy anything up on the article afterward, you later fixed it yourself, in this edit on the 26th, after the autopsies came out. I hope this clears things up. Mathglot (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much Mathglot for taking the time to make that clear! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Earlier English Translations of Luther's On the Bondage of the Will

There is indeed a famous English translation of Luther's De Servo Arbitrio! It was translated into English and published by Henry Cole in 1823 and available in Google Books, The Internet Archive, and Christian Ethereal Classics. You were asking about translations that predate those by Philip Watson and J.I. Packer.--Drboisclair (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Rest in peace

When recently writing an essay some of my inspiration was from a user page I remembered of, but I had to search to locate it again. It turns out that it was Enyart's Wikipedia user page, but I also saw the recent death notice there. I didn't know Enyart but express my condolences to those who did. Farewell, —PaleoNeonate – 05:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)