Jump to content

User talk:Lord Roem: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Virago250 (talk | contribs)
1,448 edits
Line 97: Line 97:


:I will participate if Virago will. It does seem somewhat premature. I was in a mediation recently and it was sorted out by a post on RSN, which could have been made before the mediation. If you would like to recommend anything before mediation, whether 3O, RfC or whatever, please do. But if you do think it will be appropriate to start mediation now, please take this as my formal agreement. I will abide by the outcome of the mediation. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
:I will participate if Virago will. It does seem somewhat premature. I was in a mediation recently and it was sorted out by a post on RSN, which could have been made before the mediation. If you would like to recommend anything before mediation, whether 3O, RfC or whatever, please do. But if you do think it will be appropriate to start mediation now, please take this as my formal agreement. I will abide by the outcome of the mediation. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
::I see that discussion is beginning on the first issue in our mediation case, and that you've left me a question to answer. I promise to answer it within 48 hours. Best regards, [[User:Virago250|Virago250]] ([[User talk:Virago250|talk]]) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


== Shutter (Software) ==
== Shutter (Software) ==

Revision as of 18:40, 9 January 2012

Archived Material

December 2010 - January 2011

February 2011 - November 2011


RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 16:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Welcome

Welcome to my talk page. I am just getting the hang of this place after reading through formatting explainations for over an hour :) so apologies if I make an error. Lord Roem (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Please comment on Talk:The Bolshevik Influence on Political Correctness

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Bolshevik Influence on Political Correctness. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Please comment on Talk:Censorship

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Censorship. 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) 11:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

Welcome to our mediation cabal case!

Greetings, Lord Roem:

Thank you for contacting me. Yes, I intend to participate fully in mediation. "Cabal" implies a group, so I have two questions in this regard:

(1) Will there be other mediators beside yourself? (2) I notice that you deal with legal questions, focused perhaps on areas of free speech. While I think a legal viewpoint is very constructive, there are also technical questions; specifically, areas of symbolic logic and mathematics. It might be useful to have other mediators with expertise in symbolic logic and mathematics.

When questioned about technical material that has been excised without even reasons being supplied, Itsmejudith instead has reverted to making corrections concerning grammar, spelling, etc. I am not challenging corrections of this type; in fact, any such appropriate corrections made by anyone are welcome.

I don't wish to bias the situation, but I don't recall if I included the following related material when I applied for mediation. (If I did, and you've seen this already, please disregard:)

Similar directly-related disputes, that have already been resolved, have arisen between me and Itsmejudith. I view her ill-considered censorship as biased and perhaps based on consequent antagonism. Thus, without trying to bias the issue, I would appreciate it if you would examine the conversation that has already occurred with regard to Wikilinks such as Shark Island Extermination Camp, Okahandja Concentration Camp, Swakopmund Concentration Camp and Windhoek Concentration Camp; specifically, the section on "Bridging the Second and Third Reichs" -- not only with regard to the table of concentration camps, but also the confusion of continuity there with "continuity" used in a technical sense by Lucy Dawidowicz.

I look forward to your participation in mediating my case.Virago250 (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lord Roem,
Thank you for your response. I have put a watch on the mediation page. I am more than happy to restrict my comments to what material should be on the contested page (what is relevant vs. what is not relevant). I realize that this particular Wikipedia page is complicated and thus presents special problems: mainly, that there is no way, in my view, that the material can be simplified and still provide a meaningful and valid coverage of the material. Similar material is dealt with in a very simple way: it's not covered.
I would like to have complete justification for taking material out: for example if it is felt that predicate logic should not be included, I would like to know the specific reason WHY. As far as I am concerned it should only be removed if it adds unnecessary complexity. (This is only one such example.) I had hoped that making Wikilinks to relevant subjects that already exist in Wikipedia (such as Predicate logic) would remove questions of bias.
I am sure that you have been exposed to other disputes over issues of censorship while mediating on Wikipedia, and realize the absolute need to provide solid citations.
Sincerely,Virago250 (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will participate if Virago will. It does seem somewhat premature. I was in a mediation recently and it was sorted out by a post on RSN, which could have been made before the mediation. If you would like to recommend anything before mediation, whether 3O, RfC or whatever, please do. But if you do think it will be appropriate to start mediation now, please take this as my formal agreement. I will abide by the outcome of the mediation. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that discussion is beginning on the first issue in our mediation case, and that you've left me a question to answer. I promise to answer it within 48 hours. Best regards, Virago250 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shutter (Software)

Hi, thanks for your recent New page patrolling. Just to let you know, I've removed your speedy deletion tag from the article Shutter (Software) because software is not one of the subjects where the A7 speedy deletion criteria applies. Thanks. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Sorry about that :-/ Lord Roem (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LSC v. Velazquez

Hello, Lord Roem. You have new messages at Richwales's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Richwales (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited United States v. Hatter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Medicare and Social Security (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for rollback

Hi Lord Roem. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 WikiCup

Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

case histories

I usually start with the SCOTUS decision and see how many cases are given, then I (carefully, since it can get complicated) work backward from the circuit, then district, and eventually down to state courts as far as I can locate the decisions. In most cases I get all I need from Google Scholar's legal search (one has to be watchful: not all decisions are linked), but sometimes I supplement it with general web searches (i.e. to ind docket numbers of unreported cases). Circéus (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. I like that kind of wiki work. Circéus (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois v. McArthur

Hello Lord Roem, I just reviewed a GA nomination you had, Illinois v. McArthur. My comments can be viewed here: Talk:Illinois v. McArthur/GA1. Regards, --12george1 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arb report

Thanks for writing the Arb report. I did plan on doing it today, but nevertheless, thanks :-). You might want to add something about this amendment request as well, which is part of the reason why I didn't start a draft until, well, today :) Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for United States v. Hatter

The DYK project (nominate) 06:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbComOpenTasks template

These are not 'random letters' but an essential part of the template coding. If you see something that needs updating on an arbitration committee page or template, please contact one of the clerks. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited United States free speech exceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Seling v. Young

Hello! Your submission of Seling v. Young 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! Presearch (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Lord Roem: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Lord Roem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cleveland v. United States (2000)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Arb report

Hi there. Sorry to do this, but do you think you'd be able to write the report this week? It was to be the first thing for me to do this morning, but since then other more pressing matters have come up. I should be able to do it next week though. Let me know if you can't manage and I'll scrape something together. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

Many thanks for your contributions to GAN, in particular, your efforts to raise discussion at the RfC you started. I was partly as surprised by the strength of the consensus as you must have been, but I was also reassured that the ideals of GA have taken a deep root, and hope you might understand those ideals better by reading the comments made by editors there.

For my part, reading your RfC, and similar discussions elsewhere, caused me to spend some time thinking about the longer term. We may eventually need to moderate nominations in some way, so we need to ask what constraints would be compatible with the GA goal to improve as much of the encyclopedia as possible as soon as possible?

And I think I have the beginnings of an idea :) Geometry guy 23:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the kind words! I am glad we had the discussion, and as I said on the project page, I think it is good for proceeding with GAN in the future.
As to your idea, I'm very curious ;-) Lord Roem (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Kim Ark FAC

Hi. In the past six days since you expressed support for promoting United States v. Wong Kim Ark to FA status, I've done a substantial amount of work on the article — mostly in response to specific concerns raised by others. I suppose it's possible (I don't know how possible) that some people might discount your support on the grounds that the current article is not the same as what you said you supported. If you have time, it might be helpful if you could go through the article and the FAC discussion again, comment on the outstanding concerns if you feel inclined, and make it clear whether or not you continue to support promotion of the article as it stands now. Please note that I'm continuing to work on some of the concerns that have been raised, and there may be a few where I'm not sure what I'm going to do because I may not necessarily agree with the criticisms. Thanks for any additional input. — Richwales 01:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to look through the article's progress and make any necessary changes/additions to my statement. Keep up the good work! Lord Roem (talk) 03:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for City News & Novelty, Inc. v. Waukesha

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem&oldid=470477289"