User talk:Bob A/Archive 1

Archive 1

Great work

Great work at Arguments for and against drug prohibition, I had been meaning to do exactly that for awhile. Keep it up. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi, Bob A. While I agree with the proposed move from Archeology of the Americas to Archaeology of the Americas, I'm afraid I had to undo your changes. To change the title of an article, one should use the "move" function, not copy-and-paste the contents from one article to another. Among other problems, this destroys the edit history of the article, a requirement for the GNU Free Documentation License. If the intended target exists, however, one cannot move a page there, unless the target has no history except being created to point to the article. For this reason, moves of this sort require an administrator to delete the redirect at the target, then move the article there. Please see Wikipedia:Page moves (or m:Help:Moving a page actually) for more information. Continue editing the article as before, and when enough time has passed, an administrator will review the discussion, and if there exists sufficient consensus, will move the page. Please ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

anti pope

Hi.

You might be aware that there has been some contention around the use of userboxes. There has also been a new speedy deletion criterion added with regard to templates.

A box you are using, Template:User Antipope was recently tagged as such. I've removed the tag, but would ask that you {{subst:}} the template. You may also wish to contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes if you are not already.

brenneman^{T}{L} 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic Primacy Article

What would you like tended to on the Aramaic Primacy article? --Steve Caruso 14:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Human rights in the United States

Hi, see the talk page, I left a comment about changes I made to your edit. --Deville (Talk) 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tool-assisted speedrun

Although I agree with the moving of tool-assisted speedrun to its own article, I would have preferred it if you had cleaned it up a little. It doesn't contain a bold tag for the article term, could use some more links from speedrun's external links section, and doesn't have a <references> tag. I was going to move it myself, but after I finished writing it. Anyhow, I'll just start working on this article right now (I intend to actually place the original content of "tool-assisted speedrun" back into the Speedrun article because it's just a short summary of what can be written about it, and the speedrun article ought to have at least that summary about a very important part of its community). —Michiel Sikma, 05:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Get the facts

erm... why merge :) ? I'm not flustered, just curious :). Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 22:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Aramaic Primacy links

Good eye on the Bible Code link. I didn't even realize it was there. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/poll) 14:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Messianic prophecies of Jesus

Dear Bob, thank you for your contributions, but please do not redirect so hastily without proposing a merge or seeking a consensus. I and another editor spent much time creating the article, and I hate to see the information thrown away so quickly. Best wishes, AdamBiswanger1 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Isaiah 53

Bob, I hate to keep bothering you and I appreciate everything you are doing, but I gotta disagree with you about removing the text from Isaiah 53. Not only does it make it infinetly easier to understand the article by having a side-by-side comparison, WP:NPS states "Some short texts such as short poems and national anthems are usually included in their article, e.g. Ozymandias". I think this is a short text, or at least borderline. I'm going to put it back. AdamBiswanger1 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bob, you must merge the information into the article, or leave it alone. You cannot simply put up a redirect and eliminate hours and hours of work. I have been busy lately so I haven't been able to merge the info, but if you would like to feel free. AdamBiswanger1 02:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Messianic prophecy

Hey over on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_prophecy things were getting chaotic. Then I made some edits, you made some edits, andrew made some edits things are getting a little more cleaned up to a better article. It all just got reverted. Could you come help us come to a consensus of what an article on Messianic Prophecy should entail? Thanks. --Home Computer 17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bible

Hey bob! i rearanged some things over at "The Bible" page. Maybe if you ahve a sec, take a look at discuss. Thanks. --Home Computer 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

LewRockwell.com

Bob, I swapped "Austrian School" for "free market" in the sentence that was at issue at the LRC article. Use of that term seems to me to be precise enough to avoid contention. What do you think? Cheers, DickClarkMises 18:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

yes; that's good. Bob A 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messianic prophecy

Dear Bob A, I just closed the AfD above as there was consensus to redirect and I redirected the article to Messiah. Best regards, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

i see. thanks. Bob A 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of three-revert policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|i made only three reverts that were instances of edit warring; the first two were of a script that misidentified my first edit as vandalism.}}

1 2 3 4. All exactly the same edits, textbook 3RR violation. The Evil Spartan 00:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

excuse me? that has absolutely nothing to do with my explained reason. Bob A 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. You broke 3RR. The fact that you claim some script misidenitified your edits is either blissful ignorance or ridiculous wikilawyering. You clearly broke 3RR. The Evil Spartan 00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

funny how words like "wikilawyering" get thrown around like that. anyway, i dont really see any point in discussing this anymore. Bob A 01:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the script in question isn't automatic. While I wouldn't have described your edits as vandalism, that description wasn't wholly unfair either. For future reference, human may make errors about description, but that miscommunication won't insulate you from 3rr in the future. Thanks.--Chaser - T 01:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

i see. but why is my ip still blocked? Bob A 02:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

nevermind. anyway, thanks. Bob A 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anarchism in the US

Rothbard's article says he's an individualist anarchist. Anarchism has him as one. Individualist Anarchism has him as one. For you to place a "disputed" tag on the article especially without doing so to the other pages referring to Rothbard as an individualist anarchist smacks of Disruption to make a point. I would ask that you stop and think about what you're doing. Knight of BAAWA 02:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

well, i was just focusing on that article and i wasnt trying to disrupt anything. Bob A 03:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You have to take it all in a package deal, Bob. If several pages refers to Rothbard as an individualist anarchist, and you only "dispute" one of them, that would probably seem a bit fishy to most people, especially after your revert-war and comments in the Talk section. And please don't edit my comments, even if it is to remove bolding. I find that rude. Knight of BAAWA 04:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

it doesnt matter now anyway, so please just leave me in peace. i wont censor criticism on my talk page, but i find your use of bolding somewhat disruptive. thats all i mean to say. Bob A 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

February 2008

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Anarchy, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Introducing unicted POV language is not a minor change скоморохъ 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

calling something an ideology doesn't strike me as being derogatory, and i didn't mean it that way. i was just trying to reword it. i stand by the minority of my edit. Bob A (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ideology" has a negative connotation that "school of thought" or "philosophy" does not share. I'm sure you meant well. скоморохъ 06:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your motivations

Bob, I reverted your redirect of Zaxlebax to Long, as Long's page does not discuss the matter, whereas Issues in anarchism does, at length. I've tried hard to assume good faith with your edits, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that you are on an ideologically-motivated crusade against left-libertarianism on Wikipedia. Would you care to explain your motivations? скоморохъ 02:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

no it doesn't. i redirected it because it's most relevant to long. i briefly thought about having it deleted, but that didn't seem like the way to go. you can do whatever you think is good. i don't see how that edit could be interpreted as being ideologically motivated. if you want to know why i'm interested in these subjects, i used to be a "left-libertarian", but then switched to anarchism. however, i am annoyed by wikipedians who are insistent that "anarcho"-capitalists be called anarchists, and that the ideologies be conflated, and by the fact that "anarcho"-capitalism and its proponents are over-represented. it's a good faith "annoyance", though. i do find "anarcho"-capitalism frightfully unattractive and harmful, but if it weren't for those circumstances, i'd much rather ignore it. Bob A (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your honest and forthright response. скоморохъ 02:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

you're welcome. Bob A (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Slashme (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ff6grandfinale.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ff6grandfinale.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Içtaîl

I've made up fully functioning scripts too. So what? Içtaîl is not used, and transcribes a languages that no-one speaks. It's fiction, and should not be used to determine script typology. Maybe you can get other editors to agree with you on the talk page. kwami (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, Içtaîl is written boustrophedon. I don't know what I was thinking. Bob A (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Anarchy in Somalia

This has been peer-reviewed as a Good Article, and it is unacceptable to unilaterally delete content; please take any concerns you have to the talkpage.  Skomorokh  02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The content in question was added after the review. Bob A (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please avoid making pre-emptive moves while a move request is under discussion. Please revert, if you can, the move of Designer baby to Trait selection. Thanks. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ithkuil

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ithkuil. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ithkuil (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ilakash

I support its deletion on the same grounds, and I can't nominate it for the same reason that you can't. :-\

KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

CFD: Category:Paleolibertarians

I have nominated for deletion a category you created. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 9#Category:Paleolibertarians.   Will Beback  talk  07:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)