Talk:James E. West (politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved by Cleared as filed. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 19:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

For some reason James E. West redirects to James West which is a dab page. If someone types in "James E. West" I doubt they want to be sent to a dab page for the more generic "James West". Amongst people with "James E. West" as their name on Wikipedia, I also believe this to be the more notable "James E. West". (The other "James E. West" article is about Boy Scouts guy, and is currently a copyvio at that).

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support --Locke Cole 02:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge Shannon Sullivan to here

Hello. I have proposed that Shannon Sullivan be merged into here. Essentially the Sullivan article would be removed and redirected here. Her role is already mentioned in the West article. The long autobio that is currently on her page would be removed completely. Please provide your thoughts. Lbbzman 14:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

I've moved it back. I'm not entirely sure if there was an attempt to setup a dab page (which is silly IMO, there's only two articles that dab to "James E. West", and having "James E. West" redirect to "James West" is equally silly; if someone types in "James E. West" they don't want to be sent to a less specific dab page), but "James E. West" was redirecting to the "James E. West (politician)" article anyways before I moved it back. If there's some argument over who's more notable, we can hash that out, but I really don't see the harm in dab'ing to "James E. West (scouting)" at the very top of the article for the time being. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 14:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• James E. West → James E. West (politician) — This no longer serves being the main name, when there are several people for the same name — Talk:James E. West — Chris 00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support move, for reasons stated below. Chris 01:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The two men seem equally notable, so a disambiguation page should be at James E. West. -Will Beback 01:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Will Beback. Lbbzman 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

As there are two James E. Wests, and as both are of import to different groups of people, I have requested to the moderators to move this page to "James E. West (politician)". Not worried about who's more notable, more about both being notable enough to have their subject mentioned in the title of their article, as per Wikipedia policy. Chris 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Outcome?

The article says nothing about the investigation outcome. Was West considered guilty of the alleged molestations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.227.246 (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence to try to answer this question. The newspaper continued their campaign against the mayor even though they never really had a reliable case against him. The Spokesman Review never followed up the charges made by Galliher, apparently due to his unreliability as a witness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.93.164 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mayorwest.gif

Image:Mayorwest.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bisexual

I restored the bisexual categories recently removed from the article. The subject admitted to having sex with men and used the chatroom handle of "therightbi-guy".[1] That seems sufficeint to characterize the subject as bisexual. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"I am being destroyed because I am a gay man." He identifies as gay, not bisexual. That should trump his [in-closet] online handle. Like You Never Did See (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

It looks like somebody deleted all the internal links to wikipedia articles... Not really sure why. Restoring a previous edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.6.64 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)