User talk:Robert A West
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Redirects
Hi there. Thanks for your excellent contributions on the Barons West. I noticed that at one point you'd created a redirect to a non-existent page, in preparation for creating the page. I think people sometimes frown on creating redirects to blank pages, even if only for a short time (I've been criticised for it myself). One option is to create the final page first, and then the necessary redirect. Another way to achieve the same result, which I find quicker, is to initially create the article on the page which you want as the redirect, and then immediately move it to its final location, using the "move" button at the top (which creates an automatic redirect on the page you've moved it from). OpenToppedBus - Talk 16:29, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Baron West
No worries, glad to help! The succession box system is somewhat complicated, but until (unlikely) improvements in software it's the best we've got. I suggest having a look at Template talk:Succession box. Best, Mackensen (talk) 6 July 2005 19:50 (UTC)
One other note of clarification. When it's a simple one-to-one box (predecessor, title, heir), we use Template:PeerNavbox instead of the succession boxes. We also don't include the years in which the title was held. Mackensen (talk) 6 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)
[edit] Voting on wikipedia:conlangs has started
Since you've been part of the discussion I thought I'd let you know. Do spread the word to others who would like to vote on it too. --Kaleissin 14:26:36, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
[edit] Income tax
You're welcome. I didn't think to check it was a copyvio until today, either. Hopefully we can do something about that article soon. Mateo SA | talk 23:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Exchange on Congress of the United States
Thank you for your comments about Pmanderson/Septentrionalis/whoever, but I'm not so willing to dismiss him as a misguided "expert". I've responded to his/her condescending and deliberately obtuse remarks on Talk:Congress of the United States and I'll leave it at that. Otherwise, I'll avoid arguing with a user who refuses to actually respond to valid arguments. Mateo SA | talk 18:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Words of Wisdom
Oh, lots of people need these. See Talk:Phaistos Disc, Talk:Unalienable rights....
[edit] Naming conventions
You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names); this deals with both article titles and use of names in the text. Septentrionalis 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] P-P-P-Powerbook afd
Hi there, an admin closed this afd that you started in a way I think is not in line with process (he/she closed it very early, declaring it a bad faith nomination, invoked WP:SNOW for keep even though the discussion was leaning to delete, and said that the last afd was a mere month ago (actually more like 30 days)). The afd may be too soon after the past one - I am not sure as Wikipedia does not have a clear guideline on this, as far as I can tell. Anyway, I am asking the admin to clarify his/her closing. I might end up taking it to Deletion Review. regards, Bwithh 00:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revisionist
Now I'm an extreme revisionist. I am attempting to change history by asserting that many textbooks have called and do call the Democratic-Republican Party Democratic Republicans. See Talk:Democratic-Republican Party (United States).
See also Sixth Party System for a hoot; it appears that we changed party system in 1964 just as we did between Madison and Jackson.
For a more useful contribution, see User:David_Gerard/Process_essay Septentrionalis 05:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Malformed AfD
I see you've attempted to nominate skank for deletion a second time; however, you've malformed it and the previous AfD from April is on the current AfD log. I'd find the problem and fix it, but literally do not have the time at the moment. Agent 86 19:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Transformation Story Archive got rewritten
Just a heads-up, User:Serpent's Choice did an extensive rewrite of Transformation Story Archive after you voted on the AfD for it. Does it satisfy your concerns? Bryan 18:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] P-P-P-Powerwhatsit
Well it look like the p-p-p-owerbook affair is finally ove. As a footnote, I noticed this overlooked [vote for deletion discussion (as they called it back then) for P-P-P-owerbook] from way back in May 2004 which ended in a delete vote, basically on notability grounds it seems ("non-notable", "ephemeral", "not encyclopedic"). (I think you were very right and astute about stressing the verifiability issue in the last afd, but I just wanted to share the reassurance that notability criteria was effectively used for this sticky "meme" at one time]. Bwithh 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I spoke too soon. Further discussion is taking place over at Deletion Review. Bwithh 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:ATT alternative
I've started maintaining my own stripped-down, reorganized interpretation of the proposed Wikipedia:Attribution policy on my own site. I ran it by SlimVirgin who says (on my talk page that its content is good, if a bit 'legalistic', but she doubts it will fly since there is so much momentum behind the current organization. Nevertheless, I'd like to get your thoughts on it, if you have the time. Thanks! —mjb 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bible Article
Regarding N.T. language -- If the source is so readily available, why not simply footnote the statement and use it? I believe controversial articles like Bible should be using footnote-style sources anyway. --Shirahadasha 02:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Citecheck
Last summer you added this template to a few pages Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes andWikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. I was the editor who requested the template's creation and thank you for putting this in a couple of places I didn't know about. However, I'd like to let you know that I've needed to change the description. It really applies only to a rare type of problem where an editor misuses a source, such as taking a quote out of context or asserting the opposite of what a reference really states. Citecheck tends to get misapplied at articles where the real problem is WP:NPOV or a shortage of citations. In a few examples such as Talk:Einsatzgruppen the implications of misusing this template could be rather serious. Respectfully, Durova 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] PAP Worldwide View tag
Thanks for the heads-up. I hope you understand my reason for the tag and can help improve the article. Robert K S 04:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] tfd
Just took me a minute to type out my reason for deletion. I think you should find everything in order now! savidan(talk) (e@) 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Consensus
Robert, if you're not going to allow edits to guidelines, then we'll never achieve consensus and get them promoted to policy. Please allow others to edit WP:ATTRIBUTE. Thanks. 
Morton DevonshireYo 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Petulant Behavior
Because I was attempting to add what I consider to be relevant material to the article on Daniel Brandt which ran contrary to Robert A West's opinion, he is now attempting to delete a valid article on Jennifer Ann Crecente.
What other instances of his petulant behavior can other user's share with the community? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drew30319 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Fictional texts
I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two Dickinson Street Co-op
My complaint at this point regarding the speedy deletion of the Two Dickinson Street Co-op article is with the process, not the substance. It was marked as not a proper candidate for speedy deletion, and then it was speedily deleted.
As to your point about the significance: I can't see why it is less notable/significant than the Eating clubs. If every eating club has its own Wikipedia page, I can't see any justification for not including one about the co-op as well. The history of co-ops at Princeton goes back over a century, and 2D for 30+ years (with a relationship to the early-in-the-century coops). On the now-deleted Talk page, there were references to numerous other student co-ops similar to 2D that have their own Wikipedia entries as well. Ajkessel 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your tips and helping me along a bit. I was somewhat more active back in the early days in 2001, and everything has changed quite a lot since then.Ajkessel | Talk 02:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you're watching Talk:Two Dickinson Street Co-op -- I left a question for you there.Ajkessel | Talk 00:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Frankfurt (Oder)
So, what is the English for Frankfurt an der Oder? This appears to be the current German official name; but I don't think it's English. Septentrionalis 00:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Core policies?
Since you were part of the earlier debate about this on WT:ATT, please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:List of policies. Thank you. (Radiant) 17:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] B-B-B-Back from the Grave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_23#P-P-P-Powerbook <=P Bwithh 18:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks (re:"Page on an Arizona shopping mall deleted without warning")
I did leave my complaint on the admin's page (I placed it on his user page by mistake, and he moved it on his talk page). I will also go ahead and follow your suggestion and submit the article for deletion review.--Msr69er 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Burr-Hamilton
I do not recall what was used at the commemoration; this page uses Burr-Hamilton consistently; one of its subpages uses Hamilton-Burr. "Burr-Hamilton" is alphabetical order.
- On looking at it again, I see one Hamilton-Burr (from Newsday), before a string beginning with NPR and the Weehawken paper, which use "Burr-Hamilton" (as I said, subpages differ.)
May I direct your attention to Talk:John Jay; and, on a completely unrelated subject Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector? Septentrionalis 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another unsourced BLP
You may wish to consider Robert Edward Johnson. I suspect it's typical of unsourced BLPs; largely accurate, largely autobiography, needing wikification and other clean-up, and difficult to source or amend (For example, the daughter of the subject should have birthdate rather than age; if this is derived from the campaign mentioned, the date should be 1982, but that would be guesswork. Septentrionalis 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It has two sources for the 2006 campaign; the bachelor's degree is obviously sourceable; the 2004 campaign ought to be. Septentrionalis 17:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Internal links to third party sources
Please read what I wrote in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Internal links to third party sources and explain their why it is bad practice. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: "The four cases" → "The five cases"...
— Liber Montis Serpentium. – SAJordan talkcontribs 06:51, 2 Dec 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Settlement names
Did you mean to make these comments to me, or to User:Serge Issakov as well? Septentrionalis 20:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barbara Biggs
I'm Barbara Biggs. I don't know how to make a new link to discuss my entry so am making it here. I'd also like to ask you, as I've asked Alan, why certain entries have not been asked to provide citations for the opinions cited as facct, such as in entries Satanic Ritual Abuse, Recovered Memory Therapy and The Courage to Heal. Also, as my own entry is still earmarked for deletion, when is a decision made? Thanks Barbbiggs 13:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll reply on your talk page, which is customary. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requiems
Hi. I did not add the category you mentioned to the article on Fauré's requiem. Deb 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- And I'm sorry about my error in categorizing Ein Deutsches Requiem. I'm not familiar with the work. Deb 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
