User talk:Robert A West/Archives/Feb2007

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)

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 Devonshire^Yo 23:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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"...

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise... surprise and fear... fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise....   I'll come in again.

— Liber Montis Serpentium.       – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 06:51, 2 Dec 2006 (UTC).