Jump to content

User talk:Robert A West/Archives/Oldest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

I pass on the greeting I got when I arrived

"I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

[to which I add Septentrionalis]

"For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~." - which you forgot to do on Talk:Democratic Peace Theory.

Be bold!

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:22, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also Template:Welcome"

Again Septentrionalis 19:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine[edit]

You may wish to comment on [[1]] Septentrionalis 23:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and I was just about to say the same thing. :) Thank you for your support on my Talk page, btw. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 00:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to move your comments to the main RfC page under the "outside response" so that other editors can come along and endorse your summary, which is what Pmanderson did. Thanks for your input. 172 | Talk 21:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina, the Treason State[edit]

Do you remember if South Carolina was prepared, however briefly, to levy war on the United States in the late 50's? If so, 1832, 1861, 195? would make a nice contextual addition to Christian Exodus. (and most of the SC government "returned to their allegiance" in 1780) Septentrionalis 15:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect HMG to distinguish. I think the point intended is that only the Thirteen (+I think 3 others: HA, TX, VT) have ever been recognized as independent by anyone, and even these people see that the overlap between that set and {States willing to become a Christian Republic} is small. Clarification may be warranted. I don't think I can do that NPOV. Septentrionalis 16:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, Ultramarine is trying to game the system. I;ve added to his RfC. Septentrionalis

Raffiniert[edit]

I've sat in front of it at dozens of EAS lectures, and some of them have even gotten me gazing through the p-orbitals in the windows; but, after all, "Fine Hall" is now taller and on the other side of Washington. Septentrionalis 16:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sobbi[edit]

You wrote:

"You blanked this page while undergoing VfD. That violates policy, so I reverted. Go vote to get rid of this page. Robert A West 21:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

I pasted:

All Wikipedians, however, should try not to appear terse, gruff, and abrupt in their VFD postings. All Wikipedians should do their best to treat contributors with respect and good will.

I made what I thought was an okay thing to do. The syntax on the page said:

"End of VfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point"

...and that is what I did.

Blank this out after you have taken the time to read it over. Show a little patience to the newbies. A message to me would have sufficed Thanks.


Wikipedia:Deletion reform[edit]

I have posted a long suggestion, under the heading Wikipedia:Deletion_reform#Speedy_redirect. (On the above note: I suspect the rule against blanking a VfD page is largely intended to preserve the tag, so the anon's action may have been just within the bounds of propriety. Feel free to blank this comment too. ) Septentrionalis 18:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Moving[edit]

We discussed how to move an article to an occupied spot. The template to mark a talkpage for moving is {move}; the listing page is WP:RM (RfM is mediation.)

I did also propose a change on Template talk:vfd; I wonder if anybody will comment before I am bold. Septentrionalis 02:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Septimius Severus[edit]

The Emperor Severus, having seized Rome, first made war against Pescennius Niger, the Governor of Syria, having promised Claudius Albinus, the Governor of Britain to divide the empire with him. He then turned on Albinus and killed him. If these are not the origin of Rowling's names, I will be astonished. (Whether the parallel goes on to the fratricide between Severus's children, I do not know; this would imply that Snape was secretly married, but Janet tells me this is possible.) Septentrionalis 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Þ[edit]

The suggestion has been made to move this article to Thorn (letter), on the grounds that that is the name of the letter. I supported this, and you may find the discussion a nice break in the Wiki-nonsense. (Ah, a change of nonsense; just what I needed!) Septentrionalis 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution[edit]

A proposal to resolve the style wars by developing style info-boxes. You may want to see, or comment. Septentrionalis 15:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. I am pleasantly surprised that we seem to have a clear consensus developing. Given how bloody previous battles have been, and how the division was so stark if we had an option of different fonts for styles people would have fought over that (people were fighting over absolutely everything in the last discussion on the issue), I am more than a little surprised that getting agreement on the principle has proved so easy. What we all need to work at now in getting agreement on the form of boxes, now that there appears to be agreement that the use of boxes is the way to go. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DPT[edit]

Thanks. We were in fact editing on WWI simultaneously. Ottoman Turkey is a very complicated case, especially on the questions of how much power the Sultan had by 1914, and how much the Young Turks were answerable to the parliament they had called. The standard objection to DPT is the Western Front, and I thought I should keep the focus there; but now that I think about it, I'll put the above sentence in the article. Septentrionalis 19:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means take it out. Septentrionalis 20:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am bemused by the opinions on Talk:Spiro Agnew. The anagram "Grow a penis" is obviously trivial, but "radiclib" speaks to his character. Septentrionalis 20:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think chore is the right word; I may return to the page in 5-6w eeks time, I'm facing a period of a few weeks without internet acces at the end of September anyway; hopefully you'll have had some succes in resolving the conflict by then! Robdurbar 08:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two versions[edit]

Found citation; it's in the RfC: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ultramarine#Two-versions


I suppose it cannot be presumed that Ultramarine has actually read this passage, however. Septentrionalis 17:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ming, of course. He does not seem to have responded to it, or to your reply (which was the truce announcement) so it may be unfair to say we showed these arguments. I shall be adding to the RfC shortly, and then reading other policies; he has no reverted Criticisms of communism 3 times in 26 hours. Septentrionalis 18:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted twice; he's also just reverted DPT. Septentrionalis 18:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to[edit]

Go to the page history, and click on the latest edit of the buried version. This will show up, and the URL will end in oldid={eight-digit number). Copy that number and go back to the current version. Edit the whole page, and at the top there will be {twoversions|other eight digit number} Replace (other eight-digit number) with the one you copied, and save.

Please also look at the draft in the top of User:Pmanderson/Preston_Brooks and edit, and decide if you would like to sign. Septentrionalis 21:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO he is a True Believer in Hoffer's sense; he believes, in good faith, any argument which serves the cause of Truth. (I have duly voted; making 3 to an abstention.) Septentrionalis 21:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it: an anarcho-capitalist who thinks that this is how true individualists settle their differences. "I don't got to go along with nothing I ain't agreed to."

Is his ignorance of German economic history and the existence of Marxian socialists real? I suppose it must be. Septentrionalis 18:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

You started the "Is there consensus?" poll; you should have the honor of deciding when it is conclusive and acting accordingly. I would be happy with somewhat less than the 24 hours I suggested. Septentrionalis 18:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the edits I made to Democratic Peace Theory and my comments on its talk page Robdurbar 11:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Reform[edit]

Made my idea into a proposal; let me know what you think: Wikipedia:Deletion reform/Proposals/Speedy redirect Septentrionalis 18:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr[edit]

Accidental, this system is being very balky. Septentrionalis 15:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still have to look up Acts, move a parenthesis, check that all the references are to the right things, tell Ultramarine, and file. But I think it's done.Please have a look. Septentrionalis 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Filed the WP:RfAr. (RfA is admin nominations) Septentrionalis 17:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration[edit]

Notification of you being an involved party in the following Request for arbitration [2]. Ultramarine 19:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that he wishes your input; if you could provide evidence, that would be helpful to us. If you don't chose to, then we won't hear your perspective on what has happened. It it possible, but looking at the request, highly implausible, that you would be found at fault, and obviously were that so and you failed to comment, we might not fully understand the circumstances.
However, don't be worried - any help you can provide in deepening our understanding of the case will be greatly appreciated.
James F. (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proper procedure for providing input? Do I respond on the RfAr under Party #1? Do I add my own section? Do I wait for interrogatives from ArbCom? Thanks. Robert A West 07:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Adding your own section would be best, yes. We won't go chasing for people's input, though (people who care are generally quite happy to discuss). Feel free to put in anything you feel might be helpful.
Thanks in advance.
James F. (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Barrens[edit]

Mwanner has moved the dab page on to Pine Barrens. I am feeling both collegial and exhausted, but I would like to make it a redirect to Pine Barrens (New Jersey). How much do you care? Septentrionalis 01:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, an RfM, not a sudden move.

NPoV[edit]

The edit history suggests that the normal state of {npov} is as a redirect to {pov} which has the actual text and category. Somebody is making a WP:point by reverting it, and putting on the deletion tag. Last time this wasn't on TfD, though. Septentrionalis 01:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curses, foiled again[edit]

(as the turkey said to the oven)

What shall ever we do now? Only Ultramarine's purity of heart, gentlemanly manner, and keenness of vision could have winkled out our nefarious plot to undermine the virtues of Rummelite Democracy. I shall flee to the Pine Barrens.

You may wish to put that diff on the RfAr; I gather it's legitimate to amend. Its own subhead under Novel policy?

I see he's annoyed the Libertarians, too. Talented, our very own Preston Brooks. Septentrionalis 22:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I filed against Ultramarine, and notified him, since the requirement is to notify the other side. He made countercharges, and notified you and Mihnea, since I was already a party. I will go look at the comments. Septentrionalis 00:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would add as the last line of statement 1:

For my part, this is not a content dispute. This is a dispute about Ultramarine ignoring and abusing policy. He asserts new versions of policy which let him do what he wants, and let him denounce and harass others for doing what he doesn't want. (For example; "cite sources" as harassment. [3] There is no question of which website; the article cites it, and we've all quoted it).

But this could use work. Edit it here if you like, and if you don't hear from me in an hour, feel free to post it yourself. Septentrionalis 00:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of communism[edit]

I've been asked to investigate whether the ongoing dispute over the Criticisms of communism article is mediatable. From looking at the history and the talk page, it seems that there are two divergent versions of the article that differ in a significant number of ways. It would be in Wikipedia's interest to coalesce these versions into a single version. I would like to arrange a discussion amongst the editors in question with the goal of reaching a single, mutually acceptable article so we can end this dispute. Please get back to me over your willingness to mediate this issue. The four editors I've identified as party to this dispute are Ultramarine, Septentrionalis, Mihnea Tudoreanu and Robert A West; this message is being sent to all four of you. If any of you are willing to allow one of the others to act as representative (thereby reducing the number of parties to the mediation), or knows of someone else who should be included, please let me know. I am willing to act as mediator; if anybody is unwilling for me to serve in that capacity, I will instead help you to find another mutually acceptable mediator. Mediation is, of course, a voluntary process, and you are not required to participate in mediation. The page is currently protected, however; a successful mediation of this dispute will speed the process of getting the page unprotected, so I strongly recommend that mediation be pursued.

Regards, Kelly Martin 17:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to mediation. I understand that my idea of NPOV is subject to criticism, as is everyone else's: perhaps a fresh perspective will help cut through, and we can end up with a really good article. I would be interested in actively participating, provided that having four parties will not overwhelm you. I hope that this is the appropriate means to communicate this consent: I have only been actively editing for a couple of months, and haven't had to go through this before. Robert A West 18:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's my preference to conduct mediations in a private channel (email, IM, or IRC) rather than on the Wiki. Normally I would have sent emails to all the parties but some of the parties in this dispute do not have registered email, so I didn't have that option. Multiple methods of private communication are indicated on my user page; please feel free to avail whichever one of them you find most convenient. Kelly Martin 18:08, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

See main[edit]

There seems to be a concerted effort to discourage the usage See main article, up to deletion of the template which used to expand into it; apparently making it a redirect is not enough:

See TfD on Template:see main; Wikipedia talk:TfD#seemain and Template talk:main. Septentrionalis 18:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Price gouging[edit]

Well, you did delete the sentence about price gouging as disparagement of the merchants concerned; maybe that's what they're talking about. Or maybe it's just more Wikinsanity; see Inalienable rights and Talk:Elisabeth of Bohemia [sic] for more. Septentrionalis 22:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And your correspondent Mateo has a bee in his bonnet about Marbury, in Congress of the United States. Please let me know if you can find any meaning in his protests. Septentrionalis 22:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Barrens[edit]

Mwanner's back; I am continuing the discussion on Talk:Pine Barrens. I said I'd invite you. Septentrionalis 18:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine has been accepted. As Ultramarine has made complaints against you also, your editing behavior will be considered as well as his. Place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence. Fred Bauder 20:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Final decision[edit]

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ultramarine case. Raul654 17:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DPT[edit]

If you want to use the floating TOC, which I like, then we should definately move the charts to the bottom as external links.... What do you think? I think that they're in they way and pinch the page. -- Scaife 00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something has got to be done with this article. I second what Septentrionalis has observed that Ultramarine's /Sandbox3 has become very active. I am afraid that he is about to replace the entire article with his. --Scaife 04:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the sandbox is just symptomatic of the overall problem. The overall problem being that Ultramarine is keeping this article from being edited in a collegial manner. As I have stated before, we all have our own personal beliefs and political leanings, especially with regard to such a controversial subject as this. I am a political science garduate student, so I am aware how devisive this subject is. The major problem that I have is that Rummell is being used so significantly that this piece has become more of a vanity page than anything, at least it was when I first arrived. I changed up the history section quite abit as well as the Kantian peace section to make it NPOV. Everyone seemed to accept the changes, esp after your re-write.

I'll stop myself there. You have seen his behavior and knwo it better than I. I have looked at the old ArbCom findings as well as his behavior on other articles. I am afraid he is trying to run us off like he did the other editors at the R.J. Rummell article and has ran of the bulk at Criticisms of Communism, Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin....usw. I have tried to get some of the older editors to come back to help out in getting this thing right. Unfortunately, with editors like UM out there who believe that their own POV is right, and not looking at WP as an academic exercise, I feel that not only is the article, but the project in its entirety is subect to failure.

I would like to hear your thoughts and perhaps we can try to reach a consensus amongst ourselve to rectify this situation. Cheers! --Scaife 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your post in Scaife's talk. Let's keep this conversation in one place. Septentrionalis 03:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Phaistos Disc[edit]

There is an anon with a Truth to promulgate on this page. See also Talk:Pelasgians. It is occasionally possible for a newcomer to see some compromise that will do what the Prophet actually wants. (And if not, numbers are always useful.)Septentrionalis 18:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarined[edit]

I see that there is a User:FWBOarticle being Ultramarined at R. J. Rummel. I expressed sympathy and asked for details, so check my talk page. Septentrionalis 03:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Pine Barrens (New Jersey)[edit]

Some good soul is attempting to remove the dab header and revise the apportionment of articles for the convenience of WP's search engine. You may wish to have a word on the talk page. Septentrionalis 04:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use English[edit]

You wanted to be told when there was an issue about whether to use English or not, See

DPT[edit]

Ultramarine is viciously offended by a mention of Matthes White's webpage in a footnote, and complains that I have missummarized his proof why Rummel is always right. See the recent diffs. If I did somehow mischaracterize his summary of Weart's arguments, I'd like to know. Septentrionalis 22:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lighter side of Wikipedia[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal_attack_and_original_research_accusations_against_living_prominent_professor_and_researcher for what happened on Talk:R. J. Rummel. Septentrionalis 20:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And see Talk:Greeks#Unbelievable for the Greeks and the Turks arguing over whether the Empire of Japan was multiethnic or not. A real Anna Russell moment...Septentrionalis 03:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual peace[edit]

Ultramarine's latest exercise in harassment began when I proposed to merge this with world peace. See the history of the page. Septentrionalis 00:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Scaife wants to delete R. J. Rummel. I wound up putting it on AfD, because they were revert-warring over speedying. Septentrionalis 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well... it is POV and he is non-notable. Ask any Political Science professor working today. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome Back! --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes over DPT[edit]

Ultramarine has listed his complaints with the current text, before I had finished revising it. He has 30 (he numbers 29, but wrongly). Three are repetitions of old complaints where the next has not changed. Two are new and genuine disputes. Please come see if the rest are meritorious, when you have time. Septentrionalis 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the genuine disputes? --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that 5,9,18,19, 32, and I suppose 33 (the last being Ultramarine's claim that everybody says zero) need more attention. But I would like a doublecheck of my judgment, so if you two could look at the others, it would be nice. Unfortunately, on some things you must either trust me or have JSTOR. Septentrionalis 23:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I think you are aware, I have an unbreakable annual committment that should take all my time until the 20th. Scaife probably has JSTOR -- if you two concur on the reading of an article, it is probably a waste of my time to check. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an eventualist; next week is blinding speed. Most of the issues do not involve access to the papers; #6, for example, is
  • Factually incorrect "Studies have also argued that lesser conflicts (Militarized Interstate Disputes in the jargon) between democracies have been more violent; but rare, less bloody, and less likely to spread." Incorrect, this is what the paper found "When examining these MIDs in more detail, the inter-liberal disputes have on the average more hostility, but are less likely to involve third parties, hostility is less likely to be reciprocated, when reciprocated the response is usually proportional to the provocation, and the disputes are less likely to cause any loss of life.[4]"
I agree that Ultramarine has copied successfully. I also contend that there is no substantive difference here; am I right? . Septentrionalis 16:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neoliberalism in international relations[edit]

I could use some help on this per User_talk:Pmanderson. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 20:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max Planck[edit]

You know, I was wondering exactly the same thing myself. Poor old Max's entry seems to be hit a lot. The only thing I could think of is that he's on a science syllabus somewhere and happens to be getting taught in a lot of school right now? Anyway, glad I could help out. I'm keeping an eye on his page and will continue to revert vandalism where I see it. Best, Gwernol 22:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under construction[edit]

I'm assuming your talking about Felony murder. If that is the case, the article had remained unedited for over a day and a half. For a random user to come and see the tag on an article that IMO is not actively being edited, is not needed as the tag is rather intrusive on any article. Pepsidrinka 02:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, {{inuse}} is used for something else. The in use tag asks other editors to be courteous and not edit while the tag is on the page. The under construction tag welcomes users to assist in the editing if they want. They serve two distinct purposes. Please read Template talk:Underconstruction for the use of this template. There is no "lower bound" as you suggest, nor is there an "upper bound." I felt it was on their too long and so I removed it. That is really how wikis work. Nonetheless, the talk page suggests that if the article is not actively being worked on, it should be removed. And since it remained unedited for 36 hours, that falls within my definition of not being actively worked on. Pepsidrinka 02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.[edit]

No problem. It's easy to miss that sort of thing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Greeks[edit]

The arguments being used here may interest you. The claims being made appear to be that the Byzantine Empire was an ethnic nation-state, and that (while it is not in fact wholly true that the modern Greeks are descended from the ancient Greeks) wikipedia shouldn't admit anything so embarassing. Septentrionalis 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Germans[edit]

See Talk:Hesse-Darmstadt and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#German_nobility (the odd stuff being parentheses). Septentrionalis 22:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gryffindor has now taken this to denying the sovereignity of Wyoming. I thought you might have a handy reference for the sovereignity of the several States; I don't off-hand. Septentrionalis 18:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DPT[edit]

Ultramarine's latest arguments have descended into open dishonesty (or, AGF, illiteracy). I have moved to strike the tags on the article. Please comment. Septentrionalis 17:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary executive theory[edit]

Appears to be another case of "only advocates of a theory are reliable sources."Septentrionalis 04:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us end this[edit]

Hi! I have made this peace proposal to Pmanderson and make the same to you. The conflict takes a lot of time and I am sure we both can find something better to do. Here is my suggestion: The DPT article should have two sections, one that present the arguments against the DPT and one that present the arguments for. The controversial Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict have a similar structure. I agree to only edit the section with arguments supporting the DPT, you and Mr. West similarly restrict yourself to the section with arguments against. If I disagree with something you write, I do no delete your text or edit it. I instead make a response in the pro-section. The same with you. This way I hope we can end this conflict. Please see User:Ultramarine/sandbox4. Please add your arguments to "Arguments against the democratic peace". I will add to the other section. Ultramarine 17:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a good argument. I agree that the DPT is certainly a very disputed theory. It seems to me that this way structure may be a good way to organize the arguments and lessen the conflicts since each side can present their view without inteference, like in Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I will try to write the "arguments against section", if no one else will, although my bias may affect the result. I would be very glad for further suggestions. Ultramarine 22:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The objection that there have been few wars so that the statistics are uncertain is certainly relevant. I have added some more from the article to my talk page. MIDs are used precisely for this reason since there are so many more of them. Please give me your thoughts regarding this. Ultramarine 04:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Press Releases and Unverifiable Claims[edit]

May I suggest that you bring your point to the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) talk page also. The idea is that Verifiability only excludes material on the basis of the non existence of reputable sources. You seem to suggest that we should not include all verifiable material. You are unlikely to find support for your proposal over there, unless you argue that sources that report opinions of individuals in press releases are not reputable. On the other hand, your proposal might be in perfect accordance with Neutral point of view. You could argue that some views have no prominent adherents and seems to be only pushed by few individual through press releases. I think that NPOV says that we should not include such a view. However, this is something that might need a clarification. So, it will be useful that you mention your point in the NPOV talk page as well. -Lumière 14:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion in the Verifiability talk page was good in my opinion. The policy, especillay here, is clear that editors can evaluate a source to determine whether we can use it or not, and this is not original research. I know that you understand that because you explained it in one of your posts. However, the apparently experienced editors that replied to you don't seem to understand that. Perhaps, the source of confusion is that the policy suggests at other places that instead of excluding a source we should use it and say what kind of sources it is. For example, in Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary_and_secondary_sources:

In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article's neutral point of view.

I do not disagree with this rule. However, from an exclusionistic viewpoint, it is a delicate aspect of the policy. With the help of this rule, it is easy for a few editors that want to include a source to keep arguing that the source is reputable so that at the end we have to include this source. The policy says that we can provide an account of this source, but this is still delicate because it moves a discussion that ideally should only occur in the talk page into the main page. Also, it places the burden of arguing against a source on the side of those who have the intuition that the source is not reputable for the specific material considered. It is easy to do in the case of the Nobel prize nomination because it is public that it is a non disclosed information and thus only very good sources could possibly have access to such information. The replies that you got suggested this approach to you. In my opinion, this is not what the policy says we should do. On the contrary, if it is so obvious that the source is not suitable for the information, we should not use this source. I disagree with the few experienced editors that say that the natural approach is to include the source and provide an account of this source. I certainly completely disagree with those who say that evaluating sources in the talk page and possibly exclude them is original research. The above rule clearly only applies after all parties have discussed in good faith whether or not the source is reputable and acceptable. In fact, at some other point in the policy, in Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication?), it is clear that the focus should be on getting a consensus about the reputability of the source:

When dispute [in the talk page] arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition.

Here, they don't even mention what we do when we fail to have a consensus, but it is clear that we must do every thing possible to have a consensus. Therefore, the policy does not say at all that the natural approach is to use the source and provide an account of this source. On the contrary, it is your proposal that is natural and totally in accord with the policy, which says that we should first do every thing possible to achieve a consensus about the source. Your proposal explains how the policy should be applied in the specific case of press releases. It is perfectly in accord with the policy and should help editor achieve a consensus in this specific case. -Lumière 17:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Denver[edit]

You may be interested in this article. Subarticles follow. Septentrionalis 16:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of them promptly received with Category:fiction and Category:Importance. Spoilsports!

Speaking of cats; Category:Science fiction fans is up for deletion at WP:CfD as unverifiable. (It includes 4SJ, John Boardman, Sam Moskowitz... plainly not intended for people who just read the stuff.) Septentrionalis 14:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unbalanced[edit]

Hey, you expressed an interest in User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric controversy. The template, {{Unbalanced}}, is currently up for Deletion. If you are interested, could you vote and/or comment? Thanks. -- infinity0 17:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West of Bingley; e.g. Viscount Cantelupe[edit]

Do you have info on them, including Timothy West? IP Address 12:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this branch the one that is descended from Joan Beaufort, Countess of Westmoreland, via Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland? IP Address 13:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may be indeed pre-Jamestown. http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/WEST.htm That page doesn't go into enough detail on the West family in what is now South Yorkshire, but it verifies my ancestry. I know that I'm descended from King Henry III of England, but some Wests are also descended from King Edward III of England through another marriage. I'm trying to find whether I am also part of that line, but I have established that I have a Lancastrian background regardless. Look at these: http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DE/DE_LA_WARR.htm http://www.newenglandancestors.org/research/Database/genealogies/west/default.asp IP Address 00:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I don't use Jamesdow! http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/ IP Address 00:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Genuki, but it has very scarce info at times. Look at this website we are at! Do you think the Wiki is a valid source? IP Address 00:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that thing about Nature. I try the same as you. Have you been by the 1911encyclopedia, newenglandancestors or Genuki? IP Address 00:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason why I contacted you, was for your work on the Baron West article. You aren't committed to it? IP Address 02:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know which shire the Wests arose in? IP Address 15:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship[edit]

I'm not sure I follow you all the way, but the proposal could stand rewording. In a completely separate development, having nothing to do with trolls, I've requested that DPT be protected. See WP:RfPP. Septentrionalis 22:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are on Wp. You may be interested in what I am about to add to WP:ANI Septentrionalis

My Rfc[edit]

There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. If I am left alone on this, I have no chance. Maybe you can give a useful outside view. -Lumière 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. tax law and Eastman's site[edit]

Thanks for your comments! Please see my latest mental meanderings on my talk page. Yours, Famspear 19:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA?[edit]

The other one :). I've found your contributions to be well thought out and very helpful. We need more editors like you and more admins like you. In fact, I had to check that you weren't one before I asked. So had a read through the links at the top of the RfA page, let me know here, and I'll nominate you if you like. - Taxman Talk 14:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this here and on your talk page. I will read the materials carefully when I return from this coming weekend. I should have been off Wikipedia for hours now. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being impolite and not replying sooner. I have not had time to Wikipedia much in the past five weeks, which is probably a good illustration of why I should not be an admin. I thank you for the kind compliment. Perhaps in a few months I can reconsider. I will copy this message to your talk page, in case you are no longer looking. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Griesbach[edit]

My guess on this would be:

There are two levels on which texts can be similar:
    • Overall narrative: How many loaves? How many fishes? Where? Then what happened?
    • Exact wording: and versus but versus no connective.
Mark sometimes resembles Matthew on one level and Luke on the other.

Septentrionalis 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Game DRV part deus[edit]

Could you explicitly state if you want the article undeleted/restored/kept or deleted? Just "endorse closure" is ambigious, even if I think the rest of your comment shows which way you want. Kotepho 03:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Network neutrality[edit]

Confirms the impression I get from other sources. Septentrionalis 04:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Xi'an Incident[edit]

This is the article I mentioned. I have added a note that the transliterations used were not contemporary. Unfortunately Ribbentrop took over in Feb. 1938; but I suspect the idea can be retained. Septentrionalis 18:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible wars between liberal democracies 2[edit]

If you can see anything in this article which I have not, I would like to know about it, and so would AfD; but you may be more interested in Talk:Zygmunt III Vasa. Septentrionalis 19:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Polish medieval monarchs naming[edit]

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is requested[edit]

A request for peer review on the article regarding Democratic Peace Theory has come to my attention. I am interested in helping. I am willing to act either as a reviewer or as a mediator. I have posted a comment on the talk page for Democratic Peace Theory. I invite you to respond and let me know how I can help with this article (an article that seems important but is in somewhat bad shape). --Blue Tie 03:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it would be helpful, I am willing to try; however, the amount of reading and the care needed to see whether Ultramarine is using his sources accurately is a burden. You should be aware that Ultramarine considers me a co-conspirator with Septentrionalis, and so my participation is likely to provoke him. Our acquaintance began in a rather unfortunate way -- while I was still learning the ropes here. The article was a featured candidate, but basically presented Rummel's view alone. Septentrionalis and I each criticized Rummel's statistics and methods what I consider grounds obvious to any sophomore, citing only textbooks on method. When Ultramarine insisted on interpreting WP:V strictly -- don't find a statistics book that lets you make the critique, find someone who made it in context -- the search began. In the process, I have been accused of a various set of perfidities, including speculations as to real-world identity, institutional affiliation and so on.
I am, however, perfectly willing to try, if you still want me. A lot of electrons have given their all for DPT, and it would benefit Wikipedia for it to be a good, or even featured article. Robert A.West (Talk) 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton[edit]

I may be carried away by the heat of the moment, but I am seriously annoyed by Rjensen's actions here. I have discussed the matter on Talk; would you double-check me? Septentrionalis 23:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you can propose a less tendentious wording, please do; I seem to myself to have simply summarized the facts. That they are discreditable is a private judgment. Septentrionalis 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Imbros and Tenedos[edit]

Someone has made a request to move this back; his reasoning, on WP:RM, is that the Turkish names are official. Septentrionalis 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Turk who respects himself will edit the article under this name. <Sigh> Septentrionalis 17:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan O'Connell[edit]

Fought Alvanley (whom I've never heard of), declined to fight Disraeli - both in the same year. While I'm writing, you may have an opinion at Talk:Plzeň (or should it be Pilsen?) Septentrionalis 17:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essence and accident[edit]

You're right of course that the "married bachelor" thing is essential; but the actual article accidental property had some discussion on Aristotle and the logical point, while essential property doesn't. However, I'm not really all that happy with the example anyway, despite it being well known in discussions of logic and philosophy.

Possibly the whole analogy-with-English thing is just the wrong approach for the programming language discussion. I think the famous example I added about "furious green ideas" actually does OK with "syntactical but meaningless" (there was some other weird example that I replaced a while back). But the "false" part is funny—a necessary untruth isn't really what we want, just an obvious one. The thing about "grass is purple" that was there before just seemed peculiar, not self-evident. I also don't want to make up something off the top of my head that I simply know to be false (or think is obviously so)... a famous example would be better.

Any ideas? LotLE×talk 21:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following me?[edit]

That's OK, I'm very happy to have the guardian angel :-). I saw your helpful (but small) edit on Population history of American indigenous peoples, which I recently edited moderately extensively, but for the first time. My edits, in turn, followed a request on my talk page. I get involved in most topics the same way... with over a million articles to think about, there are far too many to just say: that is the thing that interests me. So typically I stumble on something just because of some offhand mention of it on a talk page, or because I saw some other editor I had chatted with worked on it, or that sort of thing. All the best. LotLE×talk 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

major revisions complete[edit]

The Half-life computation article has undergone substantial revision which has hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. If you have any further comments after looking at the article again, please list the items you do not like, make whatever comment you have and please be specific and allow time for further revision. If there is any reason I can not comply with your wishes then I will let you know the reason why. ...IMHO (Talk) 12:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply[edit]

My only purpose is to make the Wikipedia better so that it might serve everyone interested in a particular topic and not just experts. The opportunity to edit and improve the article instead of deletion was certainly there so the conclusion I must now reach is that the Wikipedia only serves a small “community” with the power to defeat other Wikipedians otherwise known as a "Sysoptionary." This has been the way of BBSes since the late seventies and early eighties so I should not expect any change now. BTW where may I obtain a copy of the work I have done? Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 21:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

attitude[edit]

Yes if one does not have the "correct" attitude one is easily ostracised from the wiki and I would call that defeated. It is obviously and shamefully possible for a particular religious group for instance to form a Clique and rule over an article or a deletion action or anywhere else with impunity and self-righteous zeal sorry to say. ...IMHO (Talk) 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article copy[edit]

I have examined the deletion article your referenced and have found absolutely no reference to the copying of a deleted article to a user's userspace. Please provide a more accurate reference or just tell me in pllain words how this might be done. (BTW in reference to the majority of problems I find with article in the wiki please refere to the article on the Golden Rule as it applies to British law - also know as the British Rule. This may help to clarify my "atitude.") Thanks. ...IMHO (Talk) 23:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Pro-slavery[edit]

No, of course not; I merely deny that Hamilton did it all with one hand tied behind his back, as I expect the next edit to be. I do in fact have all those objections to Jensen's text; I shall explain them, and then see if his new source does anything more to alleviate them than the others. Septentrionalis 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel like proposing a compromise, expectation is that I will accept 95% of it. Septentrionalis 23:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a one-time protest, in the hope of inducing second thoughts about a revert war already begun, and of making clear to a mediator, who has not yet shown up, the nature and force of my objections. But I have promised to reconsider. Jensen's conduct hereafter will be part of that reconsideration. Septentrionalis 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit]

I see you don't use the Wikipedia email feature. Please send me an email so that I can get in touch with you, if you don't mind. 172 | Talk 01:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFVertigo[edit]

Now he has deleted his own talk page text a second time. I have restored it. Famspear 04:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) (I mean he again deleted our comments - not just his own. Famspear 04:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah. I saw. Where do they make these guys? Robert A.West (Talk) 04:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know but I think he might be on his way to cooking his own goose (or however that old saying goes). By the way, what are we doing up so late? It's almost midnight here in Texas -- see ya'll tomorrow, I'm goin' to bed. Yours, Famspear 04:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is only 1AM here in PA. <grin> Robert A.West (Talk) 04:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More names[edit]

A new section, I think:

Rjensen[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rjensen. Since the certification has to be someone who actually tried to settle the dispute, which you did once. I should be obliged if you could see your way to do so. Septentrionalis 02:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are signing this as much as I am; so feel free to add it. Septentrionalis 22:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

I have added one of these to the appropriate sublist of WP:Templates; the others should probably be there too. Septentrionalis 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Ivy League[edit]

You may be amused by the discussion of whether eating clubs contribute to a perception of elitism at the bottom of Talk:Ivy League. Septentrionalis 19:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Research[edit]

I've suggested a Research WikiProject at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#WikiProject:Research. Septentrionalis 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Nationalism?[edit]

See Talk:Goce Delchev. The subject is a national hero to the Republic of Macedonia and to Bulgaria. Both have named towns after him; both spell him identically in Cyrillic, but transliterate differently. There is a move request, from a compromise transliteration to the spelling of the Bulgarian town.

The chief evidence involved is Google searches; I think these are worse than usual, since they are measuring how the town is spelled. Is there some point I'm missing? Septentrionalis 22:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the pronunciation should be at least a tie-breaker. If you can make these comments more clearly on the talk page, please do. 14:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_A_West/Archives/Oldest&oldid=1160940654"