User talk:Bob K31416/Archive 2012

Problem editors

You stated "I found the above comment of Jayjg disruptive and with little substance. This talk page seemed to be heading towards a more productive and cooperative environment. Perhaps editors who disagree with it and similar types of comments should ignore them? Not sure how to handle this. See also a previous discussion."

Well one way to do with since it is clear Jayjg is continuing with his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and boarder line violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks warrant a trip to RFC/U with the editors that are being defamed also being contacted.--67.42.65.209 (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful message, which adds to my understanding of the situation and options. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fyi

• [1]. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 03:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Fyi Verifiability

Hi, you have enough experience as an editor not to leave a silly edit summary like that. Vandalism, indeed. <--N What happened, just too quick on the edit button, couldnt think straight? nfa, cheers NB-->. Thank you NewbyG ( talk) 06:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For reference, subject edit.[2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

V question

Hey Bob, I didn't intend to insult you, my apologies if it appeared that way; I honestly just didn't understand your question! If you rephrase to help me understand, I would appreciate it...I'll even strike the word 'hell' if you like, it wasn't directed at you. More like "Holy crap, I don't get it....!!"  :) Dreadstar ☥ 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Leo Frank

I was quite impressed with your clever forensic approach to determine the accuracy of Leo Frank's height by looking at his various college debate team photos and then looking up the heights of the other team members sitting next to him in back of the Cornell Senior Year Book (1906). I got the impression from your remarks in Leo Frank talk that Tom Northshoreman caused you to leave the Leo Frank entry in frustration over his efforts to stonewall the addition of accurate information to the footnotes. Am I approximately correct along these lines and in these regards? I find you to be a breath of fresh air in the controversial Leo Frank entry in your honest efforts to make it neutral, reliable, verifiable and as accurate as possible. Editors like you who are able to disconnect themselves from the contentious and emotional drama surrounding controversial subjects are rare indeed. I can't help but think that at times you represent a model for all editors to strive. Carmelmount (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Bob K31416: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bob K31416, and thanks for your input to the mediation page. I'm very grateful for your help in collecting the views for step three of the mediation, especially as participation from the others in the mediation has been low. I notice, however, that you haven't agreed to the ground rules, added a statement for step one, or submitted a draft of the policy intro for step two. If you plan on participating further in the mediation, would you mind submitting these? I'll make the appropriate sections for you on the mediation page, and you can find the instructions on what you need to submit in the archives. Let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the the typo fix. ;) At least I'm not as bad as this guy... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation compromise drafts

Hello Bob K31416, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Thanks for changing "Skittles and iced tea" to "snacks". I was going to make that change too. It was things like this that caused the case to be unfairly tried in the public media. Intrepid-NY (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five

Hello Bob, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film)

I have nominated it to be a Featured Article. Please see the link on the talk page. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 09:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Trayvon.

Both ages are in lead and his age was in the preceding paragraph by date same as Zimmerman. Put it back if you want, but it seems unnecessary to have the dates and then the next line stating his age again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change made by ChrisGualtieri. Intrepid-NY (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A response.

I'll try and make sure that my Talk comments seem to stay in the realm of its purpose. I would just like to remind you that in a moment of humanity, I thought I might respond to what seems like a frightened editor living in a moment where they aren't sure what the next week will bring, whether it is riots or peace, I hope for the best. So for a moment, I tried to identify with their concerns and fears and for that, there is no excuse. -- Avanu (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman Section

Hello fellow editperson. Hope you are having a wonderful day.

Regarding your edit below:

13:13, 14 April 2012‎ Bob K31416 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,889 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎George Zimmerman: added "His goal was to become a police officer." per source) (undo)

An edit request was made on the talk page regarding the exclusion of words to the effect that Zimmerman was studying criminal justice, or pursuing a career in criminal justice, etc. Discussion followed, and the edit request was granted. Please undo your edit above, or point me to the talk page where you got consensus on negating the previous edit request. Grrrr. Nah, I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to edit war me, and it was an innocent oversight. Thanks in advance. ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you aren't going to respond to me. That fact, that Z expressed, at some point in the last few years, an interest in pursuing a law enforcement career has contributed greatly to 'gossip' about him being a wannabe cop and vigilante. He's expressed interest in other careers as well, and followed those interests further than the interest in law enforcement. Look to his recent employment and past expressions of interest in that field. I'll end my attempts at dialog with you at this point. Cheers, Ari ArishiaNishi (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw your above messages for the first time. I think that the discussion you were referring to was this. The problem text in the Wikipedia article was,

"At the time of the shooting, he was working toward an associate degree in Criminal Justice at Seminole State College."

I agree that the source did not say this. However, the source did say that his goal was to become a police a officer,^[41]

"He reenrolled in Seminole State College with the goal of becoming a cop in 2009 and was working toward an associate degree."

This info about his goal is properly expressed in the Wikipedia article and is explicitly supported by the source.

"His goal was to become a police officer.^[41]"

41. Los Angeles Times, Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman, mystery gunman

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for taking the time to respond. :) I don't think "with the goal of becoming a cop" meets the requirements of BoLP and Verifiablity/ReliableSource particularly "Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." The author does not directly support the claim. He just states it. Do you feel that is enough for a BoLP, especially knowing how that statement has been used to malign? I'm not convinced that we should include it, and for BoLP, when in doubt, don't. imho Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia requirements you mentioned apply to Wikipedia editors, not to the authors of reliable sources. The subject material in the Wikipedia article is directly supported by the material in the reliable source. Wikipedia does not require that the material in the reliable source be directly supported by material in another reliable source. With regard to BLP, the main concern is not to include unsourced contentious material. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah... okay. Hey, thanks for clearing that up for me. I appreciate you taking the time. Really. ArishiaNishi (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:shooting lead

I want to advise more then edit on this matter since it has become a rather hot issue again. I'll prefer to keep my distance in edits and update as needed with commentary and direction. I am not opposed to rainy night because it was raining at the time this happened and several other callers on the 911 tape and police reports state that it was raining. The only thing it that it might sound cliche with 'it was a dark and rainy night when George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin as he was walking back from the 7-11 with skittles and iced tea.' Really, sounds almost like a fairy tale. Sharpton not withstanding of course. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that it was a rainy night contributed to the chaos and confusion of the incident. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Shooting of Trayvon Martin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Skittles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon lead

Bob - please see my latest comments at "Lead II" - my edit summ got smooshed , and was supposed to say that the material was not in the sources and is not in the body of the article - plus, when did we reach consensus about including details of Zimmerman's claims in the lead? Don't want to have a side discussion, so let's discuss over there, but i wanted to explain my last edit to you since you reverted me. Cheers Tvoz/talk 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts

Hello Bob. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Final drafts proposal. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions, concerns?

So did you have any further questions? If you are planning on working on the topic and you don't have access to one of them you could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure

Hello Bob K31416! You are cordially invited to a discussion at the verifiability mediation in which we will be deciding once and for all what combination of drafts and general questions we should have in the RfC. We would love to hear your input, so why not hop over and let us know your views when you next have the chance. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - to protect, or not to protect

Hello again Bob. Do you think the upcoming verifiability RfC should use a system of protection and transclusion, as was found in the recent pending changes RfC, or should we just keep the entire RfC unprotected? There are good arguments both for and against, and at the moment we are at a stalemate. Could you give your opinion on the matter? The discussion thread is here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin

You have made a serious accusation at RfA, specifically that this editor, who is currently active, is applying for admin responsibility via a sockpuppet account. I feel that you should either produce concrete evidence at the SPI page, or else retract and apologise. While you have not been here as long as either I or she have, you have been here long enough to appreciate the fundamental seriousness of your accusation. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

For reference, here is the actual comment.

"I suspect that this account History2007 has been sometimes used at WT:V by the the same person that has formerly used the account SlimVirgin there and who hasn't been posting messages there anymore with the account SlimVirgin. In other words, the account may be used by at least two people."

FYI, I was expressing a suspicion (rather than making an accusation which is more certain) that two or more people were using the account. Please note that it wasn't about pure sockpuppetry where one person alone uses two accounts. It was about a person with an account History2007, who I suspected of letting another person who has the account SlimVirgin, occasionally use the History2007 account. In other words, not the classic sockpuppet situation. I don't care to go into the details, so do what you feel you must, and I'm willing to accept not editing Wikipedia anymore. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

unsupported allegations in a request for admin

• - Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/History2007#Oppose

Hi - You alleged in a WP:RFA that a admin candidate was a sock puppet - your comment was objected to - and you were requested to retract it or file a WP:SPI - I repeat that request - either retract it or file a spi - its closed now, the RFA, but you are still requested to do one or the other - if you do neither I will request admin action against you and the removal of your editing privileges for unsubstantiated allegations - thanks - Youreallycan 20:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi - you have failed to retract and failed to make a SPI report -and although you stated, " I'm willing to accept not editing Wikipedia anymore " - you are still editing - please either retract your comment or file the report - Youreallycan 19:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could benefit by having your own Pooka. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing the verifiability RfC

Hi Bob. I just thought I'd drop you a note to apologise for never responding to you on Jimbo's talk page. I don't frequent the page - just happened to spot something and comment at the time, it didn't occur to me that someone might reply to me! Stupid I know. Looking at your tables, I think they're very well written, it is very similar to my calculations (which I no longer have), except I had combined "Support and wanting more change" and "Support with reservations" into "Would like to see change, but not this proposal".

Once you do that, you had 225 for the proposal and 220 not for it (51 not directly for it, 149 directly against it, 20 neutral to it) I believe my maths was a little different too, but not far off. So it was pretty even numbers in my head. The arguments themselves were pretty even too. As such, I felt that there was no consensus for a change, as I explained at the time. Perhaps I misspoke with "very large proportion", but "significant enough proportion" would be about right.

I'm not expecting you to necessarily agree with my interpretation of the data, but I thought at least I should explain where I was coming from. As for the close this time, I'd be available, but I'd also understand if the decision is that I'm not the right person to do it. It's not something I'd worry about either way. Worm^TT(talk) 12:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC - final call for alterations

Hello again Bob. This is to let you know that I have made a final call for alterations to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

trayvon martin revert

Your summary said reverted per talk, but I did not see any talk? I agree my original text ("Police report") was wrong, but capias was straight from the linked sources? I don't think that the specific name of the source is important really, but I think that "one police document" sounds odd. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In my edit summary, I gave the time stamp of my talk message. Did you have any trouble finding it from that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IBAN

Hi Bob K31416

I have gone back to my earlier version but I trust that I got your changes in OK. Martinvl (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: AN/I request

I have deleted the diffs from your WP:AN/I report. This report is a case for oversight; it should have gone directly there, per the directions when you filed the report at the administrators' noticeboard. (Admins can't suppress edits entirely; it requires a higher level of privileges)

I have also filed a report at WP:Request for oversight myself. Those reports are filed via email: for one thing, it keeps the sensitive information, and where the sensitive info is, out of the general edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Leo Frank Height Reliability and Sources

Any chance you could come to the talk page of Leo Frank and provide some input on the dispute over source reliability and verifiability concerning his height? The issue seems to be over Leo Frank's United States Passport (1907) and the Cornell Senior Yearbook (1906).Carmelmount (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cornell Yearbook looks more like a secondary source than a primary source. See WP:PSTS. The yearbook synthesizes information about class members' heights to form a table, just like a secondary source would do. Also, the yearbook wasn't written by Frank. So try to use that. If there's still a problem, let me know and I'll look over there some more. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you could respond to the height thread, It seems Tom Northshoreman is using the ignore technique to win his point. Wikipedia isn't about winning as they say, but consensus, it would be nice if you could chime in on this issue as you know the rules here on wikipedia better than I do. Carmelmount (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to determine consensus, I suggest that you have an RfC. Otherwise, it may be an endless discussion among only a few editors. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I posted a message there, but that isn't a substitute for having an RfC if you need to determine consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Shortcuts

When you implemented [3], the shortcuts got broken. I have fixed WP:BURDEN, but could you update the rest? Thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Refs

We prefer review articles over primary research per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Copy of discussion continued at Doc James's talk page

== Trends in Colorectal Cancer ... ==

"Trends in Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rates in the United States by Tumor Location and Stage, 1992–2008". Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 21 (3). 411–6. Mar 2012. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1020. PMID 22219318. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)

From the abstract section of the above source,

"Data from cancer registries in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program were analyzed to examine colorectal cancer incidence trends from 1992 through 2008 among individuals aged ≥50 years (n = 267,072)."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the message you left on my talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beltrami identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functional (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

[4] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Calculus of variations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Function and Variable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

[5] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Functional derivative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functional (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[6] --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bob K31416. You have new messages at TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)