User talk:Rklawton

Lurita Doan

Hi Rklawton, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind dropping by talk:Lurita Doan. We're having a pretty lively discussion at the moment and a rather large rewrite has been proposed for the "controversies" section. Thanks. Kind Regards --Happysomeone (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hemingway

Robert, I dug out my Ernest Hemingway books and left a post at Talk:Ernest_Hemingway#Restoration about some ideas for how to work on the article. You'd expressed interest at the recent Good Article Review... If you're still interested and have access to some good books, or just have some good ideas, or whatever else, please share whatever you've got! Should be fun too. Cheers, --JayHenry (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

possible sockpuppet?

I think there is a possibility that User:I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not may be a sockpuppet of a user you have previously had experience with. Comparing the contributions of User:M.V.E.i., User:No Free Nickname Left, and User:I'm sexy, I'm hot, I'm everything your not, I noticed similar arguments about inclusion of ethnicity in biographical articles, particularly as they relate to Russian or related biographies, including accusations of vandalism when items were removed. I made edits to information on Igor Sikorsky which resulted in reversion and charges of vandalism which were edited to then be a discussion about my edits. Since No Free Nickname established the "sources" that I removed, it raised the question of why User:I'm... was so vehement about their inclusion. From the discussion, I observed grammar syntax similarities between the two users, which raised suspicion in my mind, especially when I saw from User:No Free Nickname Left's user page that he was a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Other similarities exist in my mind, but I feel someone else should take a look at it. --Born2flie (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I second this opinion. He is certainly a sock of M.V.E.i. Colchicum (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's something to bring up with the checkuser folks. Rklawton (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:DUCK applies here. Most of his previous reincarnations were blocked per WP:DUCK. Colchicum (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's more a case of "I don't have time." Rklawton (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I knew it would be a matter if you had time or not. I appreciate the look and thanks to Colchicum and Papa November! --Born2flie (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved informal mediator

I'm pursuing some steps in relation to followup on this discussion. The next step in the formal dispute resolution is to invite an uninvolved responsible and known editor to offer mediation. I'm pondering whether to pursue this matter further, that is a request for comment on User:Grayghost01, who while otherwise a qualified, energetic and valued contributor inside the American Civil War task force has become an enormous drain on the attention of several other valued contributors. If interested in learning more, I encourage you to read the ACW TF talk space and recent archives. The specific pagespace content issue is Original Synthesis; the behavior issue is overt partisanship and advocacy. FYI, I'm also inviting User:Gwen Gale. At this time I need one volunteer; I'm asking two I trust. Both of you happen to be administrators. BusterD (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Declined - Sorry, no time to do this proper justice. Rklawton (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your consideration. Gwen has offered to help at this time. Using you had the advantage of employing someone knowledgeable about WP MilHistProj. Gwen offers the advantage of NO association. Hope you and yours are well. All the best. BusterD (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Dom Martin

To: Administrators Mgm, JNW, RkLawton, and ChildofMidnight: Apparently notability was not the only issue with my article about Dom Martin. Although administrator Rklawton has never communicated directly with me (Patricia Maier), I now find (in going to the link provided to me by JNW) [1] Rklawton has assumed that Dom Martin wrote and launched his own article, thus violating Wikipedia policy. This, then, appears to be the underlying cause for the speedy deletion of my article without further recourse to what might be called 'due process' procedures of Wikipedia. I come to this conclusion since in the communications posted on my talk page between administrators Mgm and JNW regarding my article, Mgm indicates “. . . it’s not suitable for speedy deletion”, and JNW wrote back “I was preparing to nominate it for WP:PROD when I noticed it was deleted by an administrator.”

I can assure you that I, Patricia Maier, the author of the article in question, am certainly not one and the same as the subject, Dom Martin. Not only do I look nothing like the artist, being of a completely different ethnic background, but I am a woman who was born on a different continent, in Washington State, USA, some years before this man was even alive! I can only assume that Rklawton reached this incorrect assumption since I share the same internet service provider with the subject, as do many individuals with computers in the same office or residence facility. If this is going to be the criteria for throwing out articles, based on one individual’s jumping to wrong conclusions, and others then being inspired to support that erroneous opinion, without further verification, then there is no justice to be found on Wikipedia!

In all fairness, I kindly request that my article please be reconsidered and put though the “deletion review process and article for deletion discussion process” which I understand from Mgm can be utilized, and wherein a consensus is required to delete the article. Patriciamaier2 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest is never a reason to delete an article. I deleted his article for lack of verifiable notability. And I've checked: Dom Martin initiated the first deleted article. And then, somehow completely out of the blue and two days later, you came along and recreated the very same article. Care to explain your relationship with Dom Marin? Rklawton (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Referring to your post above to me, Patricia Maier, you asked what my relationship is to Dom Martin.

I met Dom Martin many years ago in 1980 after viewing his artistic contribution of more than 60 paintings at the Bom Jesus Basilica, a World Heritage Monument. I am a person who was most impressed by the volume, scope and style of his artwork. As his artworks have remained on continuous exhibition in the Basilica Art Gallery since the 1970’s, and my close relationship with the artist has continued to the present time, I am also a person who felt inspired to write an article about Dom Martin. It seemed apparent to me that this was a significant enough exhibition, on a grand enough scale, for a lengthy period of time, in a globally significant monument visited by millions of people, to meet the Wikipedia guidelines under “Additional Criteria” for notability.

Of particular applicability, under “Creative Professionals” is the criterion: “the person’s work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition . . .” [emhasis added]

And under “Any Biography”: “The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.”

Again, as the Basilica Art Gallery is part of a World Heritage Monument, is principally devoted to the works of Dom Martin, and has been visited by millions of people from all over the world for more than several decades, it would certainly seem that the above criteria have been met.

It is not uncommon for the author of a biographical article about a living person to confer with the subject. In fact, given the problems that Wikipedia has experienced with people objecting to what people have written about them, it would seem very appropriate to go to the source to verify data. I worked on the article over a period of several weeks, at one point using Dom Martin’s computer to work on the article – perhaps this accounts for your thinking that he initiated the article, as I may have accessed Wikipedia after he had logged in using his user ID. However, I’m quite confused by your saying that the article was deleted and then recreated, as my recollection was that I initially input a rough draft on the Wikipedia edit box to work on reference links, but I thought it was only after I uploaded the final draft of the article that it was then tagged by JNW and then deleted by you. In any event, I hope the above information clears things up a bit for you.

As to your mention of verifiable notabiltiy, below are references, which span more than a quarter of a century of time, and substantiate the permanent display of the artworks of Dom Martin at the art gallery in the Bom Jesus Basilica, a World Heritage Monument in Old Goa, India:

http://www.archgoadaman.org/Dioceses/SFX/prog.html

http://christianartmuseum.goa-india.org/index.php?page=of-museums-and-more

http://www.dommartin.cc/Boise%20Vision%20article.htm

The first reference is to a page on the website for the Archdiocese of Goa, which contains a copy of the official brochure for the 2004 exposition of the body of St. Francis Xavier at the Bom Jesus Basilica, and states: “Art Gallery in the Basilica, featuring: a) paintings and crayons on Christian motifs by Dom Martin, well-known exponent of Surrealism, of Goan origin, now settled in the United States of America; . . .”

The second reference is to the website of the Christian Art Museum, Goa, India, which indicates: “The Bom Jesus Basilica art gallery. http://www.dommartin.cc/Basilica%20ptgs/Basilica%20ptgs%20index.htm This gallery was established in 1976 and quite easily, is the first and largest one of its kind in the eyes of onlookers. With the exception of the Archaeological Museum in Old Goa, the Basilica art gallery predates most -- if not all the galleries and museums mentioned above.” [Note the direct link on the Christian Art Museum website to the artwork of Dom Martin in the Bom Jesus Basilica Art Gallery.]

The third reference given above is to a photocopy of an article that appeared in a 1980 Boise Vision magazine [appended to Dom Martin’s website]. Boise Vision states: “In 1970, the Jesuit Rector of the Basilica, commissioned a relatively unknown painter, Dom Martin, to decorate the Basilica’s art gallery with paintings depicting the Saint’s [Francis Xavier] life as well as works illustrating other religious themes . . .”

Please reconsider your previous position and at least give my article a fair chance for deletion review by other editors and administrators. Perhaps there may be some suggestions for modification or additional verification of the article to make it acceptable. --Patriciamaier2 (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• If this guy was a notable artist, then we'd see numerous articles about him and his works. We don't. However, this looks like it's worth public debate. Since you clearly have a conflict of interest and should refrain from editing the article directly. You're welcome to submit ideas on the article's talk page. Next, due to our verifiability requirements, we can *not* "go to the source" for information. Best wishes. Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

After Hours Poetry

11/28/2008

We at R.L. Crow do not wish to create any conflict with the editors at Wikipedia. We have tried to address the issues mentioned and are at a loss as to want is needed. Several other Wikipedia editors have helped edit the article to bring it into conformance. You have our full cooperation in correcting and addressing your concerns. We are new to this and just do not understand what is needed. Any help you can give is forever appreciated.

The current list of references was chosen as follows:

1) Wagner, D.R., to show the history of After Hours Poetry 2) Access San Francisco, to show that After Hours Poetry is and has been in the public arena. 3) Six Foot Swells, to show that other publishers have and continue to work in the genre of After Hours Poetry.

Yes one of our authors was used as a reference here. It needs to be noted that one of our editors mistakenly used his personal information to open an account here. The error has been corrected.

Please review recent changes in the article, as we believe we have met the spirit of Wikipedia’s needs.

We respectfully ask you to please remove this article from you delete list.

We can be contacted here or by email at editor395@yahoo.com .

Thank you, K. St.Marie, R.L. Crow Publications Editor395 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition Author Comment: In reference to the news article you mentioned. The article was not included as a reference to After Hours Poetry. However, it does demonstrate that the genre has been recognized in the media for a long time. Also, it should be noted that there are well over one hundred such articles posted on the internet, all in reference to After Hours Poetry and the writers who work in the genre. We have intentionally stayed away from using these article for references, as we feel they do not meet Wikipedia’s criteria. After Hours Poetry is a relatively young genre of poetry that continues grow at a rapid pace. We feel comfortable that in a short time frame others will be enhancing the article, adding additional references and strengthening its content. We trust the Wikipedia editors will allow the After Hours Poetry article to continue to be part of the Wikipedia world. Again, thank you.

We can be contacted here or by email at editor395@yahoo.com. 24.10.8.50 (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Order of the German Eagle

From the history of said article, I see you've added some award recipients. Can you please add valid references for your edits as per WP:CITE? Thank you. _(talk)raghuvansh^(contribs) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that then. I was mass-messaging every contributor who appeared to have added recipients to that article and probably didn't look too carefully at your addition. However, if the subject interests you and you happen to know of any sources, please add them to the article! Thanks. _(talk)raghuvansh^(contribs) 18:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you removed an unreferenced template from the recipients section apparently assuming that the Wikipedia articles linked in the section give references. Most of the articles linked there do not even mention the award, and the few that do mention the receipt of said award cite no sources for it. So I've undone your edit and put the template back._(talk)raghuvansh^(contribs) 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be more useful if you added a fact tag to each person listed so we'll know which ones are lacking - and follow up on bio articles where it's included but not cited. Rklawton (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I stumbled upon a source yesterday that mentioned almost everything there, so most of it is now accounted for. Some aren't, though, and I forgot about fact tags completely. Will do that now._(talk)raghuvansh^(contribs) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Xavier Verodiano Award

After delving further into the complex structure of wikipedia’s objectives and guidelines, I am beginning to come to a better comprehension. As I now understand, when an article gets an AfD tag, it is subjected to discussion with the aim of either salvaging the article or sending it to the deletion chamber. It has further become apparent to me that the Vincent Xavier Verodiano Award article was deleted without giving it an opportunity to invite debate.

This article has been in Wikipedia for several years (I do not have access to the history to establish date of entry), and it went through the scrutiny of other administrators and was allowed to remain on the basis that it passed the notability test.

Below are additional links that will shed further light on the award’s notability: As you will note, none of the links originate or point to my website. The award consists of a citation, medal and a check. The cash value of the 2007 award was approx. $2,500.

Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/341775025.cms

Goa University http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:qnUcNjCK5hcJ:www.unigoa.ac.in/academic_staff.php%3Fstaffid%3D72+verodiano+award&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=21&gl=us

GoanVoice http://www.goanvoice.ca/2004/issue20/

GoaCom News Bulletin http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:7Cvvzr7UXfIJ:groups.google.co.in/group/soc.culture.indian.goa/tree/browse_frm/month/2003-11%3F_done%3D%252Fgroup%252Fsoc.culture.indian.goa%252Fbrowse_frm%252Fmonth%252F2003-11%253F%26+vincent+xavier+verodiano+award&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=24&gl=us

http://www.goacom.com/PFAgoa/award.htm

http://www.goacom.com/joel/news/2008/sep/19sep08.htm --Dommartin99 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Never mind the blatant self-promotion, this "award" is not even close to being notable. Your own article was just deleted. I recommend giving it a rest. Rklawton (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

" Oh RkLawton, you just know everything and are my hero (sandwich)! cathytreks (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) "

Dear Mr Lawton my apology's to you regarding whoever who was using my account. My name will not be used or be seen here or be a bother. I changed both my name and password. --cathitreks (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DenisHume's indef block - why was it extended?

Why the extension of DenisHume (talk · contribs) from one week to indefinite? Did something happen in the nearly 5 hours that he was blocked for 7 days to warrant an extension? Full disclosure: I petitioned Protonk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to shorten the block, he gave an adequate reason for why my petition should be declined. But indefinite? That implies something new happened after Protonk's block or Protonk missed some very important information when limiting the block to 1 week. So, why the indefinite block? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The only implication is that I disagreed with the original length of the block. DenisHume's stated purpose for the account violated WP:SOAP and his behavior consistently violated WP:CIVIL. As a result, I gave his account the same treatment I would give any other new account created for the purpose of vandalism. Rklawton (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to second-guess other admins, then I could just as easily lift the block entirely because I disagree with your block. I'll leave it to Protonk to do that, but I must say that banning a user for a couple angry statements seems to be WP:BITE. kwami (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

True. Note that this case involves more than a couple angry statements. Every post indicates the intent to violate SOAP and/or inflict incivility upon dedicated contributors. Rklawton (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This user's account was clearly not created for the purpose of vandalism. Yes, he was only concerned with the one issue and yes, he was clearly employing unacceptable levels of incivility, which he accepts. To deprive him of any chance to redeem himself is absurdly harsh, and very inconsistent with the second, third and hundredth chances given to other users far more disruptive than this guy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that DenisHume violated his block by making this post from an IP to the same talk page he has been disrupting for days. He is obviously here for no other purpose. His incivility is about as extreme as anything I've seen on Wikipedia. He calls other editors rapists and pedophiles and tells them he wishes they were dead. Excellent block. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The last block-violating IP post was very unfortunate, I'll agree. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is grounds to extend the block. IMHO the original 1 week was a bit too long but it's within the "acceptable range" for an editor with his history. I won't strongly object to doubling it to 2 weeks providing his edit talk page is opened up at least a few days before so he can have a chance to talk. I's prefer it be kept at 1 week with talk page privileges restored 3 or 4 days beforehand. This will give us a chance to see if his attitude has changed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a long precedent for indef blocking accounts that are 100% problematic, and it's clear we have such a case now, and this case is much more serious than a trivial vandalism spree. Rklawton (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be confusing maliciously-disruptive accounts and accounts created by someone who is in a highly emotional state. The former are here with the intent to disrupt, good riddance to them until they cease being bad people. The latter are here to contribute they either just don't know how or are so emotionally wound up that they are unable to be constructive today. They would benefit from a mentor and short and if necessary repeated blocks until they decide to either work within the system or they decide maybe it's better if they spend their time elsewhere. I believe this user fits in the 2nd category. He is obviously emotionally charged, but unlike vandals, I don't think this person's goal is to wreck the project or deliberately waste people's time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, his user page states that it's his intent to change Wikipedia - and all his edits support this - and worse. Rklawton (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

His user page doesn't say that. It's a critique (unhelpful and inaccurate, in my view) of Wikipedia process and of Wiki editors and admin as a whole. A bit of a rant, but I think there's a clear difference between this guy, who appears to be well-intentioned but currently unacceptably volatile, and the usual vandals and timewasters. There could well be a decent editor in there if he familiarises himself with what is and isn't acceptable and recognises that other people's points of view are of equal value to his own. Some editors do start participating on Wikipedia much as they would on an internet forum. Once they realise that the two are entirely different, they fit in just fine. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Rklawton--
If I may be so bold, I would like to state that I respectfully disagree with your position. It is my belief that there is a fair-to-middling chance that User:DenisHume will become a productive editor. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt now that he has strongly implied that he has calmed down.
--NBahn (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)