User talk:Bob K31416/Archive 2013

Talkback
Very eloquently said, Bob. Thanks. I appreciate that you're probably waiting for Epeefleche to comment (I'm not sure he will reply). In any case, whether he decides to respond or not, you might want to give your view as an outside view? &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 04:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Al-Ahliyya Amman University‎
Hi Bob K31416! I caught the discussion in regard to Al-Ahliyya Amman University, as I have had a bit of a concern in regard to ClaudeReigns. Unfortunately, in looking at the issues, it was clear that more had been copied over, so I had to remove it. However, I'll see if I can add some stuff back - I don't tend to rewrite directly from the copyvio, as that runs a risk of creating a derivative work, but I don;t like to just blank valid material either. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
&tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 09:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to close
His rants and comments which don't make any sense, combined with the editor's time zone, mean they are valid concerns. GiantSnowman 16:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you mean it as an attack, or advice for him? If it was advice, then you might have discussed it on his talk page instead. If it was an attack, then WP:NPA applies. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Advice, always - please AGF. GiantSnowman 16:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you edit and rephrase what you wrote. As I said on your talk page, mentioning the possibility that someone is drunk or incompetent is a personal attack. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not, they're statements of fact if true. GiantSnowman 16:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like one could say that about most personal attacks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Most personal attacks are subjective, whereas my comments are either true or not. GiantSnowman 17:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks can just as well be true or false. You have concluded that this mostly doesn't happen, and I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Would you care to explain in more detail why you believe that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone is drunk or not. Someone is incompetent or not. Whether somebody is a "stupid cunt" or "fucking bastard" etc. or not isn't as clear-cut - and certainly far more offensive. GiantSnowman 17:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They are all personal attacks because they reflect negatively on the targeted person. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never found being drunk to be a negative (at least not until the next day...) GiantSnowman 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate
But I am done. The final straw was the brilliant performance by a few admins in a couple of arenas. I'm just waiting around to see if there's anything positive to come out of the RFC/U besides a pat on the back for Epeefleche. Feel free to keep in touch if you like: "daniel.judd@gmail.com". &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 07:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Positive things have already come out of it. People have become aware of the issue. The Al-Ahliyya Amman University article has been improved, to mention one, and I actually got interested in the place. When I looked at the first video in the external link, I got a kick out of seeing the real students, etc. after only working on text. Best wishes, --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work. But it's one article. Have you seen his contributions? Every other day it looks like the Red Sea. You and Bilby have done fantastic work, but it's not enough to workshop one article if there's no genuine collaboration on improvement on the 999 other articles touched. And, in the meantime, we've learnt that (1) the best way to avoid any real criticism of your own actions is to kick up drama; (2) offwiki canvassing is an effective strategy, particularly where the other side doesn't; (3) admins can bait; (4) while having an account to respect students is a good idea, and seems allowable through IAR, admins can ignore consensus and block anyway; and (5) admins are immune to NPA. A net negative. See you around. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 08:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Trying to fix things is tough. When considering what to do about it, I think it should be seen in the proper perspective when it comes to priorities in one's life. Remembering that, unlike a job where one needs to earn a livelihood, Wikipedia is entirely voluntary.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Your recent editing history at Al-Ahliyya Amman University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Bilby (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC. Thank you. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 05:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Epeefleche
You may or may not be aware that the RFC/U on Epeefleche's approach to removing easily and obviously verifiable content has closed. Epeefleche essentially ignored you and I, and refused to respond to the main point of my criticism. The closing admin, also, has gone on to completely ignore your and my perspectives also in taking Epeefleche's side. Yes, there was a roughly two-thirds split against my position (keeping in mind that there was some circumstantial evidence of offwiki canvassing, including that Epeefleche has a background of doing exactly that), but that's not a unanimous enough reason to categorically ignore one side, and then to criticise me. This is an outright endorsement of the strategies and approaches used by Epeefleche's side, i.e., that wikidramamongering is an effective defence against any criticism and to silence opponents.

I no longer care. This is the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned regarding the culture at wikipedia. I have retired, primarily due to the admin conduct around the wikidrama of this RFC/U, and do not intend to return. There are other communities around the web that I have found which are far less combative and far less tolerant of dramamongers, and perhaps I'll see you there. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Drmies (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin: Undid Hidden/Archive
Bob, I wondered why you undid the hidden/archive conversation of Gaijin42? That conversation seems to be going no where by someone that is clearly uncivil, maybe even an internet-troll and/or sock-puppet. Thanks. ─ Matthewi (Talk) • 23:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also confused by the action. The editor was blocked for disruptive editing for those specific edits, and is a was determined to be a sockpuppet(eer)

Gaijin42 (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Betsyrossmadison
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
 * (Link to archived version, Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive788 . --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC))


 * Hi, I was away from the article for awhile and when I came back, I first encountered the hidden/archive material when I was looking at the Talk page history and tried to click on a link to one of the Talk sections and it didn't work. It turned out that the section was in the hidden/archive which broke the link. I thought that was inconvenient for editors working on the article. Then I gave a quick look at the hidden/archive section and noticed that two editors, Gaijin and Isaidnoway, appeared to make changes to the article according to what Betsyrossmadison wrote. So at least that part of it was a useful discussion and I undid the  hidden/archive change because of that.


 * After I saw your above two messages, I decided to carefully read the whole thing. To my surprise, Betsy was making intelligent arguments that I thought were worth considering.    I would have to follow up some more on Betsy's comments to evaluate them and determine whether and how to use any of the ideas in the article. Also, it seemed like Betsy was neutral regarding the two sides of the case, and was only criticizing the editing of the article, although if I missed something I would welcome anyone to point that out.


 * I noticed that Isaidnoway restored the material to hidden/archive status. I can work with that.   It might be hard to keep in mind WP:DONTBITE in this case, but it might be worth considering to some extent.   Regards. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is wide agreement that there were valid suggestions in his rants. As you pointed out, both myself and Isaidnoway made edits based on his posts. This should have been a sign to him that we were willing to work with him, and that he should tone it down. the issue was His civility, which was disruptive. Multiple editors and admins gave him advice to turn down the righteous fervor a few notches and WP:AGF, which he ignored and continue to use the talk page in a way that was disruptive. That is why the section was closed. Him then creating a sock to argue with was icing on the cake that he was not going to work within the rules and culture of the wiki, and he was blocked. If he comes back, and can keep his rant under control, I (and I assume others) are willing to work with him to address his concerns. But this article is already contentious enough without someone rampaging through on a drama crusade. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just reading the archived discussion and I wanted to make some comments, but unfortunately it was closed to discussion. So I looked at the page for the template that was used, Template:Archive top, and it said, "When used on a talk page this template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors." Looks like it was used improperly. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of that restriction, and you are correct, however I would make the argument that the comments in question where also not within policy per WP:SHOUT, WP:MULTI WP:TPNO and in particular WP:TPO as the posts were considered disruptive by multiple editors and administrators. I only did the archive after the other editor had been blocked, and revealed as a sockpuppeter. In any case, even with the archive closed I and I assume the other editors would have welcomed any comments or questions by you or others. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to comment on parts of the archived discussion, for example the misuse of the word "house". It's inconvenient to try to work around the situation as is. Also, if Betsy wanted to continue, she could just start another section outside the archive and continue to annoy some editors if she wanted to, so the archive doesn't seem worthwhile. Also, the archiving may look like suppression of discussion that some editors don't like, using Betsy's tone as an excuse.  Not to me because I AGF, but possibly to  others, for Betsy or others may claim  that this archiving is an example of how the process of editing of this article  is biased or incompetent. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:NOR
Hi Bob: Following your observations, I have introduced a proposal for adding to WP:NOR. You might like to comment? Brews ohare (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Meta-ontology
Hi Bob: Thanks for your input on this article. There is some stuff about Frege that could be provided. Maybe Snowded would accept it, who knows? My opinion right now is that it isn't worth putting this material together and then spending a month trying to get it past Snowded. For sure, Snowded is not going to assist in crafting any contribution to meta-ontology. Brews ohare (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at Snowded's contribution list before and noted that in general he doesn't appear to contribute content but rather oversees that the content is proper. Which is fine. And I think that you are mainly a content contributor. From the article Yin and Yang, "Yin and yang are actually complementary, not opposing, forces, interacting to form a whole greater than either separate part; in effect, a dynamic system."


 * Anyhow, I'm glad you stopped by. Regarding one of the refs I found the following, "Indeed, much of the book is not easy to follow unless one is well schooled in the scholarly literature inspired by the work of Frege and Wittgenstein, including the works of Michael Dummett, Crispin Wright, Bob Hale, and others." So it might discuss the connection between meta-ontology and Wittgenstein, or it might be found in some of the other refs. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob: I am sorry for the disconnect between us on meta-ontology. I hope it will not affect our ability to collaborate further. Brews ohare (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Introspection
Your link is fun. I see that you have managed to detach yourself from the WP bickering and still retain an ability to contribute. Congrats. Brews ohare (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed replacement page 'Deflationism' for redirect to 'Deflationary theory of truth'
It is proposed to start a page to replace the present redirect from Deflationism to Deflationary theory of truth. An RfC can be found on its talk page at Deflationism. Please make comments and provide suggestions for improvement. Brews ohare (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Added paragraph on Carnap
Bob: I have added a summary paragraph to your presentation of Carnap that you may wish to look at. I also have suggested adding the adjective 'existence' to these two sentences: "questions regarding the existence of these kinds of entities are called internal existence questions" and "Existence questions that are not asked inside a linguistic framework are called by Carnap 'external existence questions'." In my mind, these additions are logically impeccable, and are neutral as to whether all internal and external questions are 'existence' questions, making no assertion at all about the source of our disagreement. I hope you might agree with these changes. Brews ohare (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer not to add "existence" there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Is your preference based upon the view that including 'existence' is unnecessarily non-committal? That is, you feel that in fact Carnap intends to say (although he never says so explicitly) that all internal and external questions are indeed existence questions?? Brews ohare (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Our long discussions on the subject is enough for me. For now, I don't care to resume them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bob: It's Y/N question. Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Good bye. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for annoying you. Brews ohare (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

See answer
Hi, you have an answer here --Krauss (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OR
Please read the section and the essays linked from WP:OR; it is clear you do not understand this policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference, ChrisGualtieri is referring to my last comment in this version of the Talk section http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&oldid=563706006#Explanation . --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob
I reverted you change to WP:Verifiability as that wording has a very strong consensus formed through a very long and sometimes heated debate. Usually it is best to discuss changing our core policies before the edit to know if it will stick.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would help if you could say here what specifically you think is wrong with the edit. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That would assume that I felt there was something wrong with the edit to begin with Bob, other than we generally don't change core policy without discussion first. Such Bold edits are sure to be reverted when it applies to wording that went through such a huge consensus discussion. Consensus can change, but on WP:V, we need to seek a consensus change first.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And actually, that discussion isn't even archived yet, it is still ongoing (I mistakenly thought that was the Burden of evidence section). No changes have been decided on. Please join the discussion. Since we are already on the subject, chances are that your simple suggestion of a single word change would not be objected to.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Explaining
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OR and figures
Hi Bob: Thanks for your interest concerning OR as applied to figures. I appreciate your viewpoint. I have proposed an explicit amendment, which appears to be having the usual effect - nothing. Brews ohare (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Handling disagreement
Hi Bob: On Talk:WP:OR you have suggested:
 * A discussion between only the two editors doesn't seem to be making progress towards agreement, and seems pointless. It may be that there are no other editors who wish to get involved. For situations like this in the future, the two editors might try to reach some general understanding about what to do when they disagree on an issue and no other editors are interested in getting involved.

You have yourself had engagements with Snowded that went nowhere, and simply ended them with "Goodbye". Is that your advice? Brews ohare (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am led to the observation that the articles in philosophy were written primarily before 2007 and since then have been subject only to small corrections. It seems clear that the number of Wikipedians interested in philosophy has dwindled so far that at most a couple of authors ever show up. There is no evidence of an interest in building content or adding to new articles. It is a dismal environment, mainly one of mindless bickering. Actual development of topics has vanished along with all awareness of the pleasures of joint development as motivation. Instead, focus is on 'scoring points' in some imaginary accolade. Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that interacting with other editors is part art, part experimental, and a big test of one's judgement. Also it might be helpful to consider the policy section WP:NOTCOMPULSORY as it applies to other editors and oneself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A good point, Bob. The issue it raises for me is just what the objective of the project is for various editors. The relation of community to content is complicated. In my opinion, the relation is tenuous for many, and community is paramount and defined without connection to an encyclopedia. It is a bunch of souls unconsciously looking for group therapy in an environment without expertise in such matters. Brews ohare (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin RfC
I'd appreciate if you would take another look at the RfC discussion on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I'm not sure whether you noticed that I proposed specific text for consideration on 16 Aug in the discussion thread. I hope you will comment on that specific proposal. Dezastru (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I recall, your proposal included a statement that consesnsus in an RfC previously found to be unacceptable, so I didn't pursue going against that consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo page discussion
I don't think I missed your point at Jimbo's talk page, although anything is possible.

In fact, I am drafting a proposal for alternative ways to reach consensus. One aspect is a moderated discussion, which, of course, requires moderators. Those moderators would have specific powers, but not (necessarily) the admin set. In fact, I would envision them having some powers that admins do not have so it isn't a case of being an admin lite, it is a difference function.

Have you checked out Mediation? It is not what I plan to propose, but it shares some elements.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming to visit. I didn't think anyone had any interest in my last two messages at Jimbo's talk page.
 * Re "I don't think I missed your point at Jimbo's talk page, although anything is possible." —  Not sure my ideas were clear enough in the short space I used to give them. I would appreciate it if you could say what you think I meant. It would be useful feedback for me with respect to how I communicated the ideas, and would help me if I try to explain what I meant to you.
 * Re "Have you checked out Mediation?" — I wasn't aware of it so thanks for the link.
 * Re "It is not what I plan to propose, but it shares some elements." — I'm glad you mentioned that WP:Mediation is different since from what you mentioned so far I didn't see the difference. Feel free to give me a link to your proposal when you're ready.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk page talk
If you had posted something to my current talk page I would have seen it. Many other editors have done this in the past and it almost always works. But if you are worried about a stable location to have a talk page discussion, why not invite me to come here for that discussion? That seems to be a pretty obvious solution to the problem. So if you have something you want to talk about, put it here. I'll check back in a while to see if you do. 99.192.81.74 (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)
 * Thanks for dropping by. I thought your message was too inflammatory. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted your recent changes to Chelsea Manning
I'm not averse to the changes you made, but I don't think they work very well the way you made them (I think "Also known as Bradley Manning and born Bradley Edward Manning" is a little clunky, and the format with only one makes the inclusion of the birthday really messy), but I just wanted to let you know. Cam94509 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how to add "also known as"? I think it's an important point that Manning isn't just known as Chelsea, but is also known as Bradley.
 * Also, I didn't understand the part of your message, "the format with only one makes the inclusion of the birthday really messy". Could you explain? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, one, I don't think it's all that important to note that Manning is also known as Bradley, especially given that "born as" gives enough information to make the matter clear. (The "format with only one" was a reference to your first edit, which had the problem that the inclusion of the birthday in the parenthetical didn't work at all.) Given that I don't think the inclusion is all that important, I wouldn't worry too much about fixing it up, but if you think it's super important, I'd reccomend finding a way to use the name "Bradley Manning" no more than once, and keep the birthday in the parenthetical. That said, I'd like to know why you think "Also known as" is important in this case. Cam94509 (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I responded at the article talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In re Talk:Chelsea Manning "Just Wondering"
Hey. I think a big part of the reason people are so dismissive of the hypothetical is because if the comment is specific to the Chelsea Manning article then, well, that was the focus of discussion on the talk page for about a month and a half with two major discussions on it and people are, understandably, pretty burnt out and wanting to move on. Conversely, if it is more related to some other topic (As suggested by 99.192) or is more general, then it really belongs, respectively, on the talk page for that article or Wikipedia talk:Article titles, rather than the talk page for the article on Chelsea Manning. Simple Sarah (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the title was the focus of discussion previously, I didn't recall this particular point being mentioned before. And if it had, an editor should simply point that out in the discussion.
 * I thought the hypothetical was sufficiently specific to the article. As an editor noted, when refactoring it's better to err on the side of caution.
 * I don't think we should give the impression of a talk page that suppresses ideas that the majority may not like since, for one thing, it gives the impression that the majority may not be correct and that their ideas may not hold up after further discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing. To start with, I disagree with you on the hypothetical being novel, since it seems very similar to some of the arguments seen in the RMs (the first one especially), but without the offensive baggage many of those analogies had. In the end, it was determined that WP:COMMONNAME controlled and the move was made to Chelsea. Considering how much time, effort, words, and emotion were invested in the last 6 or so weeks in determining what the article title should be, I don't think bringing it back up so soon is helpful or very constructive.


 * All that being said, I do somewhat agree with you that the response to the question could have been better handled and that the original closing was probably too swift and just prolonged everything (With the caveat that you yourself have been a driving force in keeping things going). Simply responding to point to the RMs and COMMONNAME would have likely been sufficient. Simple Sarah (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Re your "somewhat agree", at least that's something. I think the discussion would have just faded away by itself without the hatting. Not sure if the editors were fearful or something else, but in any case it didn't seem like good behavior to me. So what else is new on Wikipedia? : ) Anyhow, thanks for coming by.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your name and mathematical constants
I’ve referred to you on Talk:Chelsea Manning as Bob K$\pi$, and it’s just occurred to me that you may not want to be known as such. So since I couldn’t find anything here and your User page is empty, I’ll ask: Do you mind either way? —Frungi (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, don't mind.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

ANRFC
Hi Bob K31416, I've replied to your comment at WP:ANRFC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * [For reference, . --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)]

FA Nomination on Avatar (2009 film)
Hello, Bob K31416. I have recently nominated the article above for nomination. Due to me not being the most active editor on the article, users are requesting that it should be cancelled. Since you are the most active user on the article, as Flyer22 described, I would like to ask if you would like to take over my place as nominator, and do the nomination yourself.  Blurred   Lines  18:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking but no. I haven't worked on the article for a year and a half. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, well that figures.  Blurred   Lines   20:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)