This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Lord Roem! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Ute in DC (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not see the benefit. Although there has been a lot of debate on this article, very little has involved TMQ's concern. Also the issue of references to terrorism and terrorists affects numerous articles beside this one. The article Terrorism, for example, received 50 times more traffic than Left-wing terrorism last month and is much more liberal in the use of these terms. TFD (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
So what happened? My request for mediation has been deleted? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The other user declined to participate [1]. Mediation requires both/all parties to approve of the process. I cannot mediate talking to a single person. A more formalized understanding of that policy is here [2]. However, don't be put back. There are other options beyond mediation that will allow the whole community to help out. You can still open an RfC, request a third opinion or ask for 'editor assistance'. Try these steps before trying mediation - maybe then the other parties will want to take it on.
Sucessful mediation cannot be rushed - everyone has to agree it is for their benefit. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I already did open an RfC and gained a fair amount of involvement, but no consensus. What's the next step? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The next step would probably be to ask for a third opinion (as it seems this is between two users) - WP:30. If that does not work, and you are absolutely sure there will be no resolution after all possible steps to reach compromise - file a case at the Mediation Committee. While all participants there must agree to mediation, failure to agree to that process may result in an arbitration case. However, you should do your best to act in good faith and try alternate means before proceedings with such a process. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the reasoning behind the speedy deletion? I apologize if my skeleton led you to believe I would leave it like that, but I just wanted to make sure the page was saved and my work wasn't lost. It is now filled in completely which should meet the guidelines. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Lord Roem, I just wanted to say that although you were completely in the right, you can avoid this issue by putting {{construction}} at the top of the new page. That will automatically place a notice at the top of the page that alerts other editors that you are still editing. Alternatively, you can create your own sandbox by creating a page in your user space, say "User:Lord Roem/Sandbox" where you can edit at your leisure. —Ute in DC (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Illinois v. McArthur at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Adoption
Hello,
I noticed that you are interested in being adopted. I am looking for someone to adopt. You seem like a user who would benefit the most from having a mentor. I have over 5000 edits to Wikipedia, although most of them are mostly on medical topics. If you still want to be adopted please reply to this message or contact me on my own talk page. Thanks!!! Peter.C • talk 22:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Lord Roem. You have new messages at Peter.C's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Question?
Hello there. Just wondering, do you use this name elsewhere on the web? All the best,--White ShadowsThose Christmas lights 03:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Does that forum happen to be AH.com? (I edit there as 1.36 and just happened to notice that you have a name that matches another one's there)--White ShadowsThose Christmas lights 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it is :) (I'm currently a candidate for the Sandbox Congress there) Anyway, just curious. Back to work ;) (BTW, this conversation fell under WP:MYSPACE so just pretend that we never spoke of this) If you need any help here...I'm at your service. I've been here over a year and know my way as much as most people. Good luck working on the 7th most visited site in the world. All the best,--White ShadowsThose Christmas lights 05:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for taking on the review! Looking forward to responding! — HunterKahn 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I responded over there. — HunterKahn 03:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review! I know it was a long one, so I truly appreciate your thoroughness! — HunterKahn 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Without taking any significant effort or time on your part right now (I know you're busy reviewing other articles), how close do you think Vance v. Terrazas is to becoming a Featured Article some day? And what sorts of things should I be thinking of doing in order to raise it to that standard? Thanks. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
DYK
Hi could you please check out my DYK nomination for the Frans Otto Eriksson article that I created today. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I have fixed your concerns with the article. Thanks for the input.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
While you at it could you please check out my nomination for Joanna Yeates that I put on December 25. The article is currently in the ending of a Afd that will end up in a definite Keep, hope that is no problem because the hook is good for the article. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. And when you check it please find out if he/she can find someone to perhaps if they find it OK to close the Afd. Because Keep consensus has been reached.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
And dont forget to approve the Frans Otto Eriksson article ;),.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Im no expert and I might be wrong and the article already granted DYK, but dont you have to put a , and a small explaination for the approval as a confirmation..hmm?--BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
RfA
Re this edit, would you mind replacing your opposes and the like, adding a : mark to prevent them being counted, and striking them through? Otherwise my comment is all lonely (and it looks strange) :p. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez
Me again! Peter-C came to me and went "there's a law-related guy on my talkpage, could you help him out"? Small world, matey. Anyway, the article as it is seems fine. If, however, you plan to stick it up for say, WP:GAN, you need to expand it and use far more sources. I've done some searching around (I've got access to most of the American law journals) and found three journal articles and about 15 news articles. If you email me your email address using the "Email this user" function, I can send them over. Ironholds (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No problemo; check your inbox in a couple of mins and it should all be there (and, once you've done, feel free to hit me up for a copyedit/GAN review). Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Now sent; enjoy. Ironholds (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you can't claim points for that DYK, as it is from last year. Only content worked on and nominated this year can be used to claim points (although that is an interesting article). J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've also removed the other article, which was from last year. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Re:Question - re:WikiCup
Not really. Ideally, any reviews being claimed will have been done entirely this year. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, no problems with claiming that one. J Milburn (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Lord Roem. You have new messages at Peter.C's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any specific ideas on how to improve it? I don't really know what to do. I wrote most of it but I guess it is hard to read. All I really did was summarize what sources said.Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions· 22:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Some of the sentences seem to run-on and it reads like fact, fact, fact, and its hard to put it all together. It may just be a personal sytlistic choice so you're free to remove the tag if you disagree. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I might have done that and I should fix it if I can. I'll look at it.Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions· 19:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think any of what I fixed was my work. That's not to say mine couldn't be improved, but I don't see any way to do it.Vchimpanzee· talk·contributions· 16:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Lord Roem. You have new messages at Peter.C's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Question
First of all thank you for the good review and for promoting it to GA. I would want to ask you what you think of the chances for the Murder of Joanna Yeates article to pass a possible GA review? Is it any point in putting it up for GA at this time?--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You certainly are interested in murders aren't you :P
At first glance it looks detailed enough to have a good shot - maybe try expanding the 'Background' section. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, right now I am in a "murder article mode" I could best describe it..;). OK, sounds good.;)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Even though I would personally label Linda Norgroves article as a terrorism/war crime article..;)--BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you very much for the GA Review of article Kendrick Moxon and for your kind words about my work on the article. I have responded to all of your GA Review points, by noting that was what I was addressing, in edit summary notations. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Florida v. Thomas
Hello! Your submission of Florida v. Thomas at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 12:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Gibraltar
Hi! Thanks for volunteering with MedCab. Dispute resolution can always use a few more hands. I've been working on trying to get a process together to follow at Talk:Gibraltar to resolve the dispute. Regardless of my efforts, they could still use the active presence of a mediator. I would like to work together with you to help resolve the disagreement there. I believe there may be a graspable resolution between my efforts to get them on a solution track and a mediator to keep productively focused, contribute neutral requests for outside input, and so on. Please share any thoughts you have about the proposed process. Also, please let me know if you have any thoughts on how we might be best able to work together on this. --Vassyana (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Richard might take a couple of days to respond, as he sometimes breaks for a bit. I imagine he will be responsive to mediation when he returns. I'll move things over to the mediation case page and leave a note on the talk page. I'd be glad to provide a neutral summary of things as it gets underway. I look forward to working with you to help them sort this out. Cheers! --Vassyana (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Your userpage
At a meetup yesterday, someone drew my attention to your userpage and its mention of me, which I don't believe I'd seen before. I'd like to thank Your Lordship for the mention, and also for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Would I be able to pose a question during mediation? Regards. Wee Curry Monstertalk 13:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is the case being presented as A) or B), it is supposed to be collaborative. I've never demanded my text or somone elses. I've asked for their input. Wee Curry Monstertalk 21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
OK fair enough but I have others, I would always run them by your first. Wee Curry Monstertalk 22:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Session of Christ
Thanks for your review. I've made quite a number of changes to the article, but I'm not able to address all the points you raise. So it's your call. But thanks anyway. StAnselm (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors
Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
would you suggest that GA is not possible at the moment? I was looking for some specific changes to improve ther article, but the review seems to suggest theres nothing that could GA it right now.(Lihaas (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)).
LSC and other articles
Hey; I've given a (brief) GA review. For future reference, when you want to create/do create an article, leave a note on my talkpage - I'll find you all the sources I can get my grubby mitts on. Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Great! I looked at the review and will make the suggested changes later this evening. Thanks again for helping out with the sources in the LSC article :) - Lord Roem (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I've now passed the GAN; I see a lot of DYKs above. Want me to search for sources for them, if you feel like expanding to GA status? Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
A large amount of the DYKs above are on very small cases, as the 'redlinks' usually are unanimous, technical rulings. However, I think Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. would probably have academic analysis considering its importance and the split nature of the decision. I must again thank you preemptively for taking the time to help find sources for the article. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant; now emailed you what I can find. Ironholds (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Got it Lord Roem (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Illinois v. McArthur at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
