User talk:Robert A West/Archives/Jan2007

Transformation Story Archive got rewritten
Just a heads-up, User:Serpent's Choice did an extensive rewrite of Transformation Story Archive after you voted on the AfD for it. Does it satisfy your concerns? Bryan 18:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

P-P-P-Powerwhatsit
Well it look like the p-p-p-owerbook affair is finally ove. As a footnote, I noticed this overlooked [vote for deletion discussion (as they called it back then) for P-P-P-owerbook] from way back in May 2004 which ended in a delete vote, basically on notability grounds it seems ("non-notable", "ephemeral", "not encyclopedic"). (I think you were very right and astute about stressing the verifiability issue in the last afd, but I just wanted to share the reassurance that notability criteria was effectively used for this sticky "meme" at one time]. Bwithh 03:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I spoke too soon. Further discussion is taking place over at Deletion Review. Bwithh 14:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:ATT alternative
I've started maintaining my own stripped-down, reorganized interpretation of the proposed Wikipedia:Attribution policy on my own site. I ran it by SlimVirgin who says (on my talk page that its content is good, if a bit 'legalistic', but she doubts it will fly since there is so much momentum behind the current organization. Nevertheless, I'd like to get your thoughts on it, if you have the time. Thanks! —mjb 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bible Article
Regarding N.T. language -- If the source is so readily available, why not simply footnote the statement and use it? I believe controversial articles like Bible should be using footnote-style sources anyway. --Shirahadasha 02:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Citecheck
Last summer you added this template to a few pages Template messages/Disputes andTemplate messages/Sources of articles. I was the editor who requested the template's creation and thank you for putting this in a couple of places I didn't know about. However, I'd like to let you know that I've needed to change the description. It really applies only to a rare type of problem where an editor misuses a source, such as taking a quote out of context or asserting the opposite of what a reference really states. Citecheck tends to get misapplied at articles where the real problem is WP:NPOV or a shortage of citations. In a few examples such as Talk:Einsatzgruppen the implications of misusing this template could be rather serious. Respectfully,  Durova  21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

PAP Worldwide View tag
Thanks for the heads-up. I hope you understand my reason for the tag and can help improve the article. Robert K S 04:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Income tax
-   - You're welcome. I didn't think to check it was a copyvio until today, either. Hopefully we can do something about that article soon. Mateo SA | talk 23:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC) -   - == Exchange on Congress of the United States == - Thank you for your comments about Pmanderson/Septentrionalis/whoever, but I'm not so willing to dismiss him as a misguided "expert". I've responded to his/her condescending and deliberately obtuse remarks on Talk:Congress of the United States and I'll leave it at that. Otherwise, I'll avoid arguing with a user who refuses to actually respond to valid arguments. Mateo SA | talk 18:00, September 2, 2005 (UTC) -   -    -    - == Apologies == -   - Hi there, sorry about deleting the link it's just I had no idea you were in the process of creating it, apologies and enjoy your New Years Eve! -   - Respectfully.... Tellyaddict Talk 19:31, - 31 December 2006 (UTC) -