Jump to content

User talk:Lord Roem/Archive7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Final Remarks by Guy Macon

Please see "Final Remarks by Guy Macon" at the bottom of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Guy Macon#Discussion of candidacy. There is no need for any response if it does not change your mind, but I wanted to make sure that you saw it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the note. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance

Thank you for your AFD close regarding the article Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance.

Could I trouble you to perhaps leave a slightly more in-depth AFD closure rationale?

Thanks for your time, — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. I have added a short rationale on the AfD page. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, what's your goal with WikiProject Free Speech? I'm definitely interested in collaborating on some articles. Lord Roem (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
My goal is to help provide a collaborative space for Wikipedians to improve articles on Wikipedia relating to Freedom of speech and associated topics. We'd love for you to join the project at WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech/Participants! — Cirt (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech! Perhaps you'd be interested in this new article I've created, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. — Cirt (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Reminder: Wikipedia Loves Libraries Atlanta event - November 17

Hello Lord Roem: I wanted to give you a reminder for the Wikipedia Loves Libraries event that is scheduled for November 17. If you had signed up as tentative, please visit the meetup page and confirm your participation. I look forward to seeing you there. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Transclusion

Actually, I was waiting until I was done with all the questions. No harm, though.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Tried to fix an archived amendment request

Please see my recent edit where I tried to fix a missing 'archive top.' Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Everyone is definitely free to help out with small clerical stuff. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Lord Roem. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSpecialUser TSU 04:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Nirmal Baba

Dear Lord Roem, Thanks for the note. I did read through those links but it would help me the most if an unrelated admin (or you in this case) were to help out. It is clearly a case of sock puppetry and those guys are all arguing against each other to simulate a real discussion. But, at the end of it, they all reach a consensus and blank out sections and say they had a discussion on the talk page. I am tired of constant reversions and if no one helps me out I'm just gonna have to leave that page be </insert sad kitten>. Have a look at the article once, please? Noopur28 (talk)

I'll have a look later today. If your concern is sock-puppetry, and you feel there's some real substantial evidence for such claims, head to the board for sock-puppet investigations here. Lord Roem (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Afroyim v. Rusk hopefully FAC soon

Hi. Afroyim v. Rusk (a 1967 Supreme Court case on citizenship law) is, I believe, very close to being ready for FAC. As a significant contributor to my last FAC a year ago (United States v. Wong Kim Ark), I'd be interested in whatever observations you might have. In order to avoid another knock-down, drag-out FAC session like last time, I'd very much like to clean up Afroyim v. Rusk as much as possible before I formally nominate it. Thanks, in advance, for any help. — Richwales 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Commission appointment

Hi Lord Roem. Please be aware that Jimbo has appointed you as a member of the Electoral Commission for this election. Good luck, and thank you for volunteering. AGK [•] 10:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi AGK, thanks for the note. Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Election coordination

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Coordination#Suggested_agenda_for_the_Electoral_Commission and also my set up on the project page.--Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


ACE2012 Statement

Hi Jc37 -- could you amend your statement to include a willingness to identify to the Foundation, if elected?

Thanks and best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Done (I hope).
And sorry, I thought I had, but I guess I only directly mentioned that in the questions. - jc37 21:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the prompt fix. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in the 2012 United States elections. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

re Template:Did you know nominations/Ship Shoal Light

If you will check the history again, you can see that the article was only published five days ago. Mangoe (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mangoe, thanks for following up on the DYK nomination. Ship Shoal Light was created in June. If an article wasn't created in the past five days, it can still be eligible if it's expanded fivefold in prose character count. You have certainly expanded the article, but it is not a fivefold expansion at this time. Lord Roem (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I would call your attention to Eligibility criterion 1.d: "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." The article was not moved to article space until November 20. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that part of the rule; however, I don't feel this qualifies under that exception because the article was created in June, and you simply worked on expanding it in a user subpage. It wasn't "worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage" prior to it being moved to mainspace because it had already existed beforehand.
The type of scenario 1.d refers to is where Editor X writes 2036 Presidential Election in User:Editor X/Draft and then moves it into the mainspace, even if the Draft subpage was created months before. The date the article was created, despite it existing in that user space, is what matters. Here, as I wrote above, the article already existed. Lord Roem (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What makes you think that the article already existed? There's no sign of that in the history. Mangoe (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Please see my comment on the hook nomination page. Lord Roem (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be so insistent but I've been around this track a few too many times. Anyway, thanks for the correction. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite

Hello Lord Roem. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume III, No. 3 – December 2012

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


The Signpost: 03 December 2012

AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Definity

You recently closed the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Definity as keep based on the rationale that "No policy-based argument to delete & there's consensus that Avaya Definity is notable." I ask you to please reconsider. No policy-based arguments were made to keep. Deletion was supported by WP:GNG. No reliable sources were presented to establish any form of notability. --Nouniquenames 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nouniquenames. I'd be glad to address your concerns.
There was a clear consensus to keep. In the deletion discussion, almost all editors agreed the product was notable and had significant third party coverage. For example, one editor pointed to Google Books, another pointed to some news sources. One of the two editors who voted to delete qualified his oppose after comments, saying they had been confused due to the title. The only argument against the article, from the discussion, was that the article was written like an ad. Policy says such a concern is better resolved by tagging for cleanup and then reworking the article as opposed to deletion.
At the end of the day, this all established that the article was notable (without any argument against that point) and the only standing basis for deletion was not grounded in policy (as cited above). Thus, I felt this was a very clear NAC.
If, however, you do not agree and believe there was some procedural flaw in the closure, you are always free to go to Deletion Review. If you simply disagree with the consensus and are dissatisfied with how the discussion turned out, I'd strongly urge you to read this.
All the best, Lord Roem (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I have taken it to DRV. Thank you for clarifying, though. --Nouniquenames 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend in reversing your closure, as how I read the debate, there wasn't any strong rationales for keeping or deleting this article with non-rebutted policy based arguments, and doesn't seem like relisting would help the situation so it's an automatic no consensus. But considering the terrible shape of the article, it's better for the DMV to run its course for a second nomination to evaluate the sourcing better, and how it can help for the subject to meet our notability guidelines or not. You are right that the delete arguments got flawed once "potential" reliable sourcing was proved to exist, but non of the keepers were giving any links to these sources during the debate nor bother saving the article to meet our guidelines making their rationales just as flawed. Hope this helps. Secret account 07:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Avaya Definity

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Avaya Definity. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nouniquenames 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Grant Shapps

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Grant Shapps. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

US v Alvarez GA

LR: Take a look at WP:IBID. At present Alvarez has several of them. I don't know how they will impact the GAR, but I encourage redoing the references. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Rich. I'll definitely work on that over the next week as I'm revising the article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Happy to help. There's a template somewhere for tagging reference sections that use ibid, but I was too lazy to search it out. The only other problem I see is OR -- like many other law related articles, editors read the case decisions themselves and determine what they think is important. Law review articles which discuss the case or statues would be better. Happy editing.--S. Rich (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. I found a Harvard Law Review article on the case that I'll use for most of the analysis of the decision. That, along with a few news articles about the decision, will all be included as I revise it. Thanks again for the note. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Accident

Hey. I apologize; I mistakenly (actually I don't know how it happened) reverted your last edit on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012. I see that Rschen7754 took care of it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 20:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. --Lord Roem (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Merry Christmas!!

For all you do. We need more Wikipedians like you :)


Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

US V Alvarez GA multi ref template

Actually the multi ref template will work without the quote marks -- if it is a single word. Why are quote marks used? Well, the citation guide exemplar showed it with quotes, the citation bot will insert quote marks, the Wiki markup template below use the quote marks, and almost everybody actually uses quote marks. But take a look at my one and only GA: Carl Eytel. No quote marks! So there is no need to "arrgh" over the problem if you see it in the future. (Now if the template uses two words without quote marks, it will produce an error. But that can be fixed with an under_score between the words.) Glad to see you are making progress. Thanks and more happy editing! --S. Rich (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I got to share my distress with somebody! Thanks for the note. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of indigenous peoples

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of indigenous peoples. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

In the news

For your info, you're welcome to delete this section if you've already seen it. . dave souza, talk 05:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I find it funny that this gets coverage. <minirant> I think this only goes to show how important complying with our BLP policy is when even a reverted attack gets in the news. </minirant> -- Lord Roem (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree, thanks for your work on this. Ir's the attacking rather than the reversion that's the news, but the journalist decided to spell out the details. . . dave souza, talk 06:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science

Lord Roem, I really think that because context has been the biggest problem on the Christian Science page, someone with the patience to go through the conversations and see what has been happening between editors, and newcomers trying to improve the page, is necessary. I am a Christian Scientist, and there seems to be a presumption on there that anyone knowing anything about Christian Science should not be listened to, and their sources should be considered suspect, whereas all the sources (which people like me) know are biased and based on trash journalism, are being given prominence in this article, and primary sources have been disallowed basically. There seems to be a conscious effort to suppress anything that will actually explain what Christian Science is really about. You will see Alexbrn's rudeness, his willfulness is proliferating stuff that is completely the opposite of Christian Science. The whole thing is chasing people like me, who could help the article, away. The assumption that a Christian Scientist can't contribute objectively is also very unfair, like saying that a math teacher would be biased in editing a math page. Christian Science is not your average religion. There is an entire synthesis to it that most of the sources being used simply don't understand, and so they are misinterpreting it. Editors like me can accurately explain it, and I have great sources, but it's like trying to swim against a strong current of antagonism. LeviTee (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

ps, what I mean about it not being your average religion (my poorly worded sentence) is that it is predicated on something that sets it apart from other theories and belief systems. I would never attempt to go edit a subject that I don't know anything about, unless it was to make corrections to punctuation or something. But these guys are trying to explain what Christian Science is, and they are getting it way wrong. Even the history of the development of the church is missing. There is so much that could be in there that would be so informative. Now what people are getting is a "hit job" on Christian Science, and those are the words of a world class journalist whom I know of who went to the page and was aghast. LeviTee (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi LeviTee, thanks for taking the time to write out your concerns. From what you tell me, it seems like you are a good-faith editor who wants to improve an article of interest. That's great! But, I think a brief review of some Wikipedia guidelines and policies will be helpful in moving forward. Note that I haven't yet taken a look on the Christian Science page; nevertheless, these are some consistent rules that apply in any situation, and seem applicable based on what you're telling me. First and foremost is the idea of Original Research (WP:OR). We can't have any content that is simply based on a personal extrapolation of sources or our own synthesis of what different texts say. This rule is set up to ensure that we get the most accurate and comprehensive content as possible. So, we rely on reliable secondary sources (e.g., law reviews, newspaper commentaries, etc.) that are independent of the subject material (i.e. we don't cite the lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court to see whether the Justices were fair to his side or not) to produce the content on an article page.
With those rules understood, let's look at the way forward for your specific situation. If you think some material on the page is incorrect, make the case for that on the article Talk page, using reliable secondary sources (in your case, maybe books on Christian Science or discussions of its history/background by religious scholars). If you add something in, and someone reverts it out, don't fight a constant undo-undo-undo battle with that editor; just take it to the talk page. Now, if there is not consensus for the change, then you just need to take a breather and see if there's other ways to help the article. Essentially, if you can "prove your case", you shouldn't have a problem with fixing what you see as wrong. But you have to remember to use secondary sources, not your own opinion.
Finally, if the talk page discussion falls into disarray, take your dispute to the DR Noticeboard (which I linked on your talk page already). Focus on the argument, not the editor; always keep a cool head. Remember, there's no deadline for Wikipedia.
Again, if you have any further questions on this, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks and yes, I am aware of these guidelines. I hav been diligently studying them. As I said, you really need to take a look at the trends in the conversations on that Talk page to see what is happening. Also, among the rules I have read is one that says that rules are at times to be broken in favor of common sense. This article is a prime example of why common sense should be important. I also read on the religion reliable sources page where it states that Wikipedia articles on religion should draw partly from the sacred texts of that religion, and that there may be instances where primary sources can be used carefully. Even edits I have made from secondary sources have been undone, picked apart, while those same editors leave gross inaccuracies that aren't even sources, up for weeks. We assume good faith, but does that mean that everyone is acting in good faith. At what point to we take an honest look around when an article is really bad? LeviTee (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
If you assume good-faith, you shouldn't be asking if others are acting in good-faith. I understand your frustration, and I think a step off Wikipedia for a day or two, just to cool off, would be useful. Don't stress out! Everyone is here because we enjoy working on subjects that interest us, and we enjoy the collaborative nature of the environment. Make sure you work with that environment -- work with others -- to improve the article. There's never a circumstance when you can forego discussion because you personally think something is wrong. We have to work together, even if that's difficult.
At the end of the day, you have to just stay at it. Work with the editors there and improve the article through consensus. Avoid getting too entrenched about the issue - that's when we, as humans, tend to act out. I want you to stay as an editor here, and avoiding any negative experiences like a block for edit warring. So please, heed my words and the fantastic advice still waiting for you on the original Arbitration page. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I will look at what you said there... Now, can you real quick, take a look at the last section of the Talk Page, the part about Idealism. Look at how that discussion is shaking down, and note that the editor put the incorrect statement back in which I took out. Now I provided an entire chunk of text from the very source that the statement supposedly based on that explains that Christian Science is not based on philosophical idealism, and that only by taking what the author says totally out of context can such a conclusion be reached. This is the kind of thing that is killing this article. And I still want to encourage you to go in when you have time and read those talk pages. Please. LeviTee (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll take a look later this afternoon. Just note up-front that I have very little knowledge of this area; I work primarily with US Supreme Court cases. Lord Roem (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem/Archive7&oldid=1160936933"