User talk:Robert A West

This user may have left Wikipedia. Robert A West has not edited Wikipedia since October 9, 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived to User talk:Robert A West/Archives/Nov2024. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

Dec 06
Jan 07
Feb 07
Mar 07
Apr 07
May 07
Jun 07
Jul 07
Aug 07
Sep 07
Oct 07
There is no November 2007 archive.
Dec 07

rear admiral and/or Rear Admiral, but Rear admiral?

I posted the following on the talk page, but as yet have had no response. Perhaps you can explain it to me?

I've read the above discussions with interest, and I can understand how it could be titled "rear admiral" or "Rear Admiral", but I can not understand how the above discussion resulted in "Rear admiral". The most quoted example is "Rear Admiral X is a rear admiral". "Rear admiral X is a Rear admiral" was never justified, or even advocated, yet that's what the article ended up being called. Can someone explain this to me please? Pdfpdf 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in anticipation of your reply, Pdfpdf 12:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoyed your time away; thanks for the reply. Yes, your reply is helpful. It's always handy to have a second opinion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C.Soon?

English version one is the commonly-used one and can be trivially sourced. The second version is unknown to me and I can't track it down. The 2007 version by "C. Soon" looks like pure Original Research. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the C. Soon version, as I too could not find it anywhere and the edit was the person's only edit to date on the Wiki.

Version 2 was added:

18:02, 19 December 2005 User:Heptazane (Talk | contribs) (Added alternate version. Version 1 is the most common that I've seen, and V2 (which was originally here) seems like an older version?) (undo)

So version 2 was actually the first version that appeared on the Wikipedia. Since it is actually a French song I am sure that there are regional differences in word interpretation that probably exist in Hymnals etc. I wouldn't worry about the 2 versions too much. What about the last most recent version in Ilocano? That might be beeter served being moved to the Ilocano Wikipedia (if there is such a thing) and creating a sidebar link? Good Luck. Saudade7 19:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Ilocano (Ilokano?) version to the Ilokano wiki, made a sidebar link, and explained in the edit summary. I don't know why I am even on this page (again!). I translated the French version (which someone else thankfully repaired! Once I am inside French I forget how English is supposed to sound!) Anyway, next time if you think something is funky you can just be proactive and do it yourself. You can never mess up too badly or destroy anything because there is always the history and a whole bunch of people to keep you (and me) honest! Good luck! Saudade7 20:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A YEAR's hiatus?!? Where were you, in the jungles of darkest Borneo hunting for Bulwer's Pheasants? Saudade7 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

Your input in this discussion will be most appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure

I just wanted to let you know about the formation of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure. We hope to cover all the major motions and parliamentary procedure terms. You are welcome to join. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Amendment

That's fine if you don't want to have states capitalized. The only reason I did it was for consistency because states was capitalized in the first sentence of the exact same paragraph. I assume it was done because the page revolves around the meaning of the Constitution where States is always capitalized (even in modern amendments). But if you want to stick with modern convention I'll go ahead and change the other one to lower case. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about "regulation." I knew that, but I guess I just wasn't paying close enough attention. Thanks for correcting it. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

The matter on numbers I mentioned to you is at WT:MOS#Comparable quantities; the discussion at the end of WT:NCNT on titles seems to be dying down. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broder lord

I would read it as intending to say: "The Marcher lord is equivalent in status [or power] to the Pfalzgraf, although Markgraf is the German cognate." To what extent the first half is true, I have no idea. I suspect a bad translation from the German; it certainly will convey little to most anglophones even after copyediting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hesse-Kassel

You Germanize more than I do; have you an opinion on Talk:William VIII, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel or Kassel? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I'm a little lost in the multitude of cases, but I agree in general. Somewhere in the wilderness of guidelines (it's not at WP:PRIMARYUSAGE now, but I think it used to be) is a rule of thumb that primary usage (i.e. an article called plain Foo), should be 80% or 90% of the usage in English. (That's part of WP:Disambiguation; there is a live discussion on the talk page.)

As a concrete example, I'd like your opinion, whatever it may be, at Talk:William Duer (delegate)#Requested move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cold War

I just responded to your thoughts over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Cold War. I'd like to know more about your thoughts on the article, if you have a chance. Take care, user:j (aka justen) 02:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See response on your talk page.Robert A.West (Talk) 03:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to respond here. The issue isn't fading away in three years. Significant usage of the term goes back nearly a decade. Two published books have been written. Our job isn't to determine what is or isn't sensationalistic, our job is to cover notable, verifiable topics and to cite them with reliable sources, which is what's been done in that article. user:j (aka justen) 03:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the same few commentators riding their favorite hobby horse to me. A mention in an article on Russian-American relations seems appropriate to me. A full-fledged article does not. I'll look some more when I get some time, but for now, my opinion stands. I did mention to another Wikipedian with more inclusionist views than mine to get a different perspective. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your viewpoint either way, and if the content gets to the point of deletion, I'll look at integrating some or all of it into Russian-American relations. Look forward to hearing more of your thoughts soon. user:j (aka justen) 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I yours. There is a certain amount of art involved in deciding either way. Happy editing! Robert A.West (Talk) 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Peace Theory

I object to citing the South-Ossetian War.

The cited blog entry with McDonalds pictures refers to the Golden Arches Theory rather that the Democratic Peace Theory.
The war itself is hardly an exception. According to the 2008 Freedom House report, "Russia does not have a democratic political system".
See also http://freethinker.typepad.com/the_free_thinker/2008/08/the-democratic.html Fomels (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JNADC

Here is what the article contained when it was deleted. Clearly it meet the criteria since there was noting there except external links. All of the previous versions had less material.

== External Links == [http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm NASA Project Mercury - Multi G centrifuge] [http://www.vpnavy.com/nadc.html VPNavey - NADC] [http://www.everywheremag.com/articles/65 Everywhere Story: NADC] [http://www.airspacemag.com/issues/2007/april-may/the_g_machine.php Air & Space - The G Machine] [http://www.airfields-freeman.com/PA/Airfields_PA_Philly_NW.htm#warminster Abandoned & Little Known Airfields (Photos)] [http://www.dli.state.pa.us/landi/cwp/view.asp?a=11&Q=52223&pp=3 Labor and Heritage Markers - Bucks Country] [[Category:United States Navy facilities]] {{USN-stub}}

Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HIM Empress Farah Pahlavi

We do not begin article titles with royal/imperial titles when the article is about a monarch, for example Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Empress Farah was never a monarch; she was married to a monarch, an emperor, thus she was imperial consort with title of empress. The previous title, Empress Farah Pahlavi, was better; see Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sofía of Spain, Queen Sonja of Norway, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fictional film

For your amusement. Come and comment if you like. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon vandal @ Doylestown, Pennsylvania

I have blocked the vandal you mentioned. Thanks for the heads up.

One thing though... Be careful when you revert vandalism, because in this case, you reverted away two constructive edits.

Cheers, caknuck _° is geared up for football season 04:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction... "one constructive edit and one good faith (albeit misguided) edit" ;) caknuck _° is geared up for football season 04:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm here for. Upon further review, you were right about the "December Day" thing, so I plucked it from the article as well. Let me know if I can be of assistance in the future. Cheers, caknuck _° is geared up for football season 05:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting sources

But why? Why would we specifically demand quotations from non-English sources and not from English sources? That's just completely unintuitive to me. Haukur (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mameluke

An interesting question of primary usage; this is a horse - the Egyptians are at Mamluk. Do we move to Mameluke (horse)? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palins

I saw your comment on WP:MFD for the talk page of Bristol Palin. I know little about Bristol but I know more about Track Palin. That page, too, is page protected so I discussed why PFC Palin deserves a draft article (not yet having an opinion on if the man deserves a regular article). I even wrote what a possible article may include, including references. Some want it deleted. This is sad because these are just proposed articles and people want to destroy discussion. At this very moment, I'm not even suggesting that the draft on the talk page be moved to the article space! 903M (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Electoral College (United States)

The Twelfth Amendment that requires, if the Senate elects a Vice-President, a majority of the whole number of Senators as the minimum number of votes required. There is a question here whether

This provision prevents the Senate from selecting a Vice President through the votes of half of the Senators together with the vote of the President of the Senate.

RL30804: The Electoral College: An Overview and Analysis of Reform Proposals, L. Paige Whitaker and Thomas H. Neale, January 16, 2001 has been presented as proof. Does it support the assertion? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pro se (self-representation) article

Dear Mr. West

Self-Represented Litigation is a subject that I have collected references on and am familiar with. When I started contributing to this article it said 8/26/08 "there is no fundamental right to self-representation." No citation was given for that at all. I posted various quotations of the U.S. Supreme Court, which were deleted on the grounds that you can't quote the Supreme Court. However, another user has more recently quoted the Supreme Court in a different case and there has been no objection to that. I went to the U.W. law library, a 5 floor library, and used their computerized search on both "pro se" and "self-represented". There were only two books and I checked out both of them. One was on reserve. After posting my intention on the comments page, I spent all day Monday typing in the table quoting the various state constitutions, which Non Curat Lex "disagrees" with. That was from the AJS book that I checked out from the library reserve for 24 hours. I posted the American Jurisprudence Society quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, which was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I posted an ABA article I found on the Internet and that was deleted I think by "Non Curat Lex". I am having problems finding the exact wording but on Wed night it was changed to something to the effect that there is a constitutional right to self-representation in a criminal proceeding but not in a civil matter. A 1964 S.C. case concerning the right to a government paid defense lawyer in a criminal prosecution was cited as a reference. I changed that to say that there is a constitutional right in both civl and criminal matters. I emailed to the ABA and asked them for their input and they emailed to me a location on their web site. I quoted that and it was deleted. Here is another ABA publication, which says that there is a "constitutional right".

"Constitution v Ethics There is little disagreement that individuals have a right, rooted in the U.S. Constitution, to represent themselves in a court of law. The exact source of that right has been debated and at various times attributed to the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution, the First Amendment Right to petition the government for redress of grievances, the equal protection clause, and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments requiring a meaningful hearing. The Supreme Court, on many occasions, has found self-representation to be a constitutional right. It is, therefore, a long-held belief that the courthouse door should be open to everyone. The practical application, however, is not clear. Exactly how far must courts and judges and lawyers go to assure that access is truly equal? The problems with that issue lie in the ethical dilemnas faced by those charged with carrying out this mandate." Source: Patricia A. Garcia for the American Bar Association "Litigants Without Lawyers. Courts and Lawyers Meeting the Challenges of Self-Representation." 2002, p. 11. ISBN 1-59031-061-6

My quotations of the New York Times were also removed.

It seems to me that "Non Curat Lex" has a POV that the article should say that there is no right to represent oneself even though the ABA, the American Judicature Society, and other "legal authorities" disagree. I have absolutely no problem with anyone adding any references to the article but I am bothered by the idea that the article will again be incorrect and convey that there is no right to self-representation. Kay Sieverding Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What an erroneous comment. When have I ever said that there is no right to represent oneself? EVER?!

Anyhow, Mr. West, the other day, I posted this proposal on the talk page the other day intending to be a request for urgent action, but no one seems to have noticed. Feel free to leave any thoughts you might have - if you feel like it. Non Curat Lex (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been swamped with work lately -- preparing for a lengthy business trip -- and so have not had the time or energy to look into the article. If you feel that the situation is urgent, you might want to take a short break and see if you feel that way in two days. About the only emergencies I have seen on Wikipedia are runaway or ill-programmed bots (which can foul up hundreds of pages per hour), and mass vandalism (i.e. Squidward). Robert A.West (Talk) 11:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to visit the wp:village stocks for some urgent situations. Sometimes patience is a virtue, RAW, sometimes impatience is justifiable. This was a case of the latter. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did say "about". I had forgotten about Ed Poor's deletion of VfD. My time is severely rather constrained between now and October 3, and somewhat constrained for ten days thereafter. I regret not being able to be of more assistance for the moment. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Mr. West, I was not bringing that up to "win an argument" because there's little resemblance between stuff like that, and stuff like Kay's runaway editing - but the VS stuff is amusing, isn't it?

In any case, I didn't mean to make work for you. However, there was some confusion being caused by the silence as to whether there was still a mandate for the administrative actions; my remarks seemed to be "lost in the flood" as it were. I didn't want our warnings, or Lar's, to become an idle act. Thanks again. Non Curat Lex (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it as trying to win an argument: I was actually quite tickled by the opportunity to recall the Great Deletion Deletion. As for making work, I had fully intended to return to a greater level of Wiki-activity than I have been able. My expression of regret that I cannot do so quite yet is sincere, and arises out of my desires, not yours. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, there will be Wiki. Non Curat Lex (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Johnson

Is now in a long review for FA; linked to from the talk page. Coming at it fresh, I see the following sentences which seem to me clumsy; am I being too severe?

Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS),[5] a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians.

in the nursing care of Joan Marklew. In context, this appears to be Johnson's wet-nurse.

Johnson could not bring himself to regard the poem as granting him any merit as a poet.

However, not all of his work was confined to The Rambler. One such work, The Vanity of Human Wishes, was written with such "extraordinary speed" that Boswell claimed Johnson "might have been perpetually a poet".

The principal author claims that this sentence is intended to suggest that Johnson was published by others; but Vanity was self-published.

He did complete one poem, the first of his tutorial exercises, on which he spent comparable time, and which provoked surprise and applause. (This is all that is said on the subject; no indication of what it is comparable to that I can see.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again

There is another proposal for moving all the major American cities to their simple names, omitting the state. It includes Saint Louis, Missouri, this time. See here; I have already taken Philadelphia, Pennsylvania this time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Deviant sexual intercourse

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Deviant sexual intercourse, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This article has remained unreferenced since flagged in November 2008. It thus appears to be interesting, but also more of an essay or a personal opinion than a cited, notable and verifiable article

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Deviant sexual intercourse

I have nominated Deviant sexual intercourse, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deviant sexual intercourse. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 South Ossetia war title vote

Since you were involved in the previous rename discussion, maybe you would be interested: there is a vote up again at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Article name vote. Offliner (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed Doppelganger

Hi, please could you visit User:Jac16888/Sandbox#Failed Doppels. This is a list of failed attempts by users to create doppelganger accounts, and at least one of the pages is yours. Creating a doppelganger account involves actually registering the account as you would normally, simply creating a userpage doesn't do it. Please either create the account, or else indicate that you no longer want the page(s) so that I can delete it. Thank you--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing to your notice

Someone in WP management needs to look at the Barbara Biggs entry, as it seems to my amateur eyes to be largely an advertizement of Biggs books, and a beat-up of her deeds and status based on what is written in same self-authored books. There are some references to media who interviewed her about her books/deeds but these again rested mostly on her own opinions about herself drawn from her self-authored books. Is there not supposed to be independant verification of her claims? 58.165.69.67 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Biggs editing her entry again

Can you please intervene? Biggs has removed an Original Research tag [1] which was placed in the article at the place where Biggs herself makes a claim, without a citation, about parents being "ordered to send their children to contact visits with abusive exes by the Family Court". There is absolutely no verification for this claim about the Family Court and I suggest it is original research by Biggs (like several other comments she has placed in her entry). I note that Biggs has placed a link [2] at the end of this same section leading to a government document which says ZILCH to confirm Biggs claim that "parents ordered to send their children to contact visits with abusive exes by the Family Court". Therefore I suggest the Original Research tag be replaced or better still, the entire OR sentence deleted or reworded to make clear it is her own unscientific belief.

I note also that Biggs herself writes "Regarding abuse victims, Biggs writes and speaks about the much-misunderstood phenomenon of emotional attachment to the abuser". Is this Biggs, the novelist, claiming to speak on behalf of herself, or is she speaking (as appears) in the guise of a psychology academic on behalf of victims plural? Might I remind that biggs is not an academic, her credentials coming down purely to her own personal experiences.

Finally, the openly anti-father group 'Anonymums' with whom Biggs is affiliated has placed the following menacing threat [3] in the talk section on behalf of Barbara Biggs:

"Response from Anonymums

What a load of rubbish!... Expect that you will no longer are able to continue your propaganda and whilst Barbara and other advocates have been incredibly polite and considerate of your needs and thoughts - We are not! Lies and propaganda will NOT be tolerated. You have been warned. Expect us"

Biggs has been asked previously to not edit her own article [4]Don't edit your own article. Perhaps she needs reminding again? 123.211.186.53 (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not an Admin?

Robert, forgive me but I had wrongly considered you were an administrator of Wikipedia. When I looked at your user page I did not see any mention that you are. My apologies. Please ignore my above request and I will seek an admin.

Regards 123.211.186.53 (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Barbara Biggs

Robert, I'm sorry to add this here, but I don't know how else to contact you. You helped me with my article once before, in 2006, and I'm looking for someone to help again. Might you be available? Barbbiggs

From the Slobbinpolit Zhurnal

You may be amused by this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slobbovia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Close order formation

The article Close order formation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article adds nothing not available in detailed articles in its categories. It is a potentially huge subject which no-one seems to make a real start on. However, there is the possibility of a viable article here, so if there was the enthusiasm, would recommend WP:INCUBATE. If not delete.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Monstrelet (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Cleanup-link

I have nominated Template:Cleanup-link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnotable or scarcely notable products ursurping names of english words

At Fray and Fray (disambiguation) we have a problem you encountered before with the music band 'The Fray' (of whom I have also not heard before). An obscure comic book is ursurping an article title of an english word for its own. Since you have participated in this article mess before on this issue and in the way I regard as positive, I invite your participation.

Contradict Tag On Paladium

These are the reasons the tags were added:

I added those diffs. The diff referring to palladium mentioned that platinum develops a patina, where the information is absent on platinum. This is a fact that should not be omitted because this would indicate oxidation or reactivity which is not explained on platinum.Curb Chain (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what is being mentioned. A patina is the result of a chemical reaction. This would not be possible if platinum does not oxidize in air or reacts with something in air.Curb Chain (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you understand my issue: palladium stated that platinum will develop a patina over time, which would mean that platinum would oxidize or react in air, but this is not mentioned in platinum, and infact, tends to repudiate.Curb Chain (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

patina says that it is a kind of tarnish, so then this is a chemical reaction. Platinum is reactive to sulfure, but it does not say it is reactive to SOx, and NOx is not a halogen (nitrogen is not a halogen).Curb Chain (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to support Materialscientist. The link you provided (http://www.diamondcuttersintl.com/a-platinum-primer) does not have an references, is an article which would possibly have a conflict of interest in platinum by "promoting it positively", and your sentence-addition would contradict patina because it says that a patina is a tarnish and a tarnish is a chemical reaction, not a physical reaction (i.e.: scratches).Curb Chain (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, infact yesterday, I took a closer look at patina. Unfortunately, chemical articles are best dealt with evidence that is of a scientific nature, when using references. Physical scratches aren't notable information to be included, so when we are saying that patinas can be found on platinum, that is just another way of saying the hardness of a material. Moh's hardness is not the best scale to measure this, but it is a relative scale, and we already have it on the article's prose and infobox. That's why we should not include patina except for the chemical semantic/meaning.Curb Chain (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is an issue of NPOV. The reason these metals can be scratched is because of the softness of the material. Including such information is like saying that playdoh can be scratched sometimes, can this is beautiful to some people. Of course the industry will say that. And infact, we should not include such information.Curb Chain (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "wear-and-tear" semantic you are talking about is the product of the chemical element's hardness. It is not necessary to include such minor details.Curb Chain (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about palladium, silver, gold? And other soft metals? Do trade publications market surface scratches "desirable"? If you are to include this, this should be included on all the metals. Frankly, if it is not useful, it shouldn't be included. That is not nonNPOV.Curb Chain (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to move the discussion to the talk page.

Of course we decide issues on a case by case basis, but we also want to have a level standard for articles. I have no qualm if you have a source that says AND EXPLAINS why surface scratch patina is desirable, because I know that esthetics and culture are characteristic of metals, plastics, etc. if this is the case, this concept is not foreign to me. But I can assure you that not EVERYONE appreciates scratches. This is why I require you to source your writing.Curb Chain (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excrescence (architecture)

I noticed the article Excrescence (architecture) which you started. I understand you are working on the references, so I was wondering fi you could to userfy the article? It does not seem a notable, as of yet.Curb Chain (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add references (which you state you intend) about how it is used outside of the book, I wouldn't say that the topic is not notable. But if those references can not prove it is used outside of the book, then yes, I will have to put it up for deletion.Curb Chain (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good observation on Earned Income Credit

Hi Robert,

I think you made a good observation regarding the cost figure of ineligible filers. I'd look at it myself but I'm busy with other aspects of EIC.

Maybe you could include in the text that the figure is twenty years old? (I mean, qualify in a straightforward, middle-of-the-road kind of way) But it sounds like the reference didn't even have that figure at all. Please jump in and help and just use your best judgment, if you can spare the time. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

See WP:Hatnote#Examples of improper use section Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. The article name "Robert Lansing (state senator)" is not ambiguous. In fact, he was dead when his homonynous grandson was US Secretary of State. Besides, the latter is mentioned in the text, so no confusion will arise. Hatnotes serve to direct the reader to the right topic, if he lands on the wrong page looking for some simple search item. Thus, "Robert Lansing" must have a hatnote directing to the dab page, because there are several persons of this name, the reader might be looking for. I doubt that anybody types in the search window "Robert Lansing (state senator)" when looking for the actor or for the Secreatry of State. Kraxler (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh

[7] Best thing I've seen all day. :-) —Emufarmers^(T/C) 03:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to November 30 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

through a roof and hits a woman taking an afternoon nap. This is the only documented case in the [[[Western Hemisphere]] of a [[human]] being hit by a rock from space.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something that may interest you

Hello Robert A West,

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Quran that may interest you.

Bobby Martnen (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to November 18 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

– The [[Council of Clermont]], called by [[Pope Urban II]] to discuss among other topics) sending the [[First Crusade]] to the [[Holy Land]], begins.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Robert A West. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Robert A West. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]