User talk:LAWinans
Welcome!
Hello, LAWinans, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Tom 16:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes I agree with your comment on this talk page. I've noted my thoughts there SuzanneKn (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this article! I was not aware of this group, but I am very glad to hear of it, and the Carlson book, as well. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am interested in all of those "Third Way" paths, as well. The whole left-right divide has gotten old, useless, and dangerous. It is good to meet a fellow enthusiast. Let me know if I can ever be of assistance. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]I just took care of the problem. Thanks.Redddogg (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of American Rescue Workers
[edit]A tag has been placed on American Rescue Workers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
REPLY -
The idea of Wikipedia is excellent. The Internet should have a comprehensive encyclopedia of academic and pop culture topics.
It doesn’t work in the real world, unfortunately.
The most common complaint is that it is open to any one to make a contribution. However, since it is continually peer-reviewed this is not the problem that it may appear to be. Bad information is corrected and may indeed lead to a more informed article/essay after editing and discussion.
No, the real problem is the designation of a score or so “SuperEditors” who have the authority to delete or change an article although they, generally, lack any knowledge base from which to make such decisions.
My expertise lies in the history and operations of religious denominations and sects, and of comparable political parties and ideologies. I can tell anyone more than they want to know about Hardshell Baptists, or Free Will Baptists or Primitive Universalist Baptists and can equally account for the activities of Gold Democrats, Loco Focos, Hunkers or Mugwumps. Religious or political oddities are a specialty of mine.
With this background, I happened to note that while Wikipedia had articles on the Salvation Army and Volunteers of America, they lacked one on the third such church-based social welfare organization, American Rescue Workers. I, therefore, posted such an entry.
A “SuperEditor” speedily deleted it, he felt that it wasn’t important enough. The SuperEditor obviously didn’t know that the ARW was organized in 1884, that it operated many charitable programs, enlisted the assistance of thousands and served hundreds of thousands annually. Indeed, the “SuperEditor” didn’t bother to read my article. It was deleted, quite frankly, because the “SuperEditor” was woefully ignorant and unwilling to learn.
Interestingly, I also discovered that the Wikipedia “SuperEditors” approved of an article about a political organization that really doesn’t exist. Or rather to be precise, a “organization” which is the creation of one person operating out of his apartment. When informed that this organization probably doesn’t deserve its own entry due to lack of importance, the “SuperEditor” informed me that it must exist because it has a website! Anyone can have a website.
So an organization that serves several hundred thousand people a year out of six major headquarters with a 130 year history isn’t important enough for Wikipedia but one that has only one-member with his own website does.
Silly? Absurd?
- I've replied to your comments at [[1]] Bluap (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I addressed your comments at Wikipedia:Village_pump (policy)#SuperEditors should be required to know something, which should help resolve this problem. If you have further questions regarding this process, please feel free to contact me on my talk page and I will do my best to assist you. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
SuperEditors should be required to know something
[edit]Your post has been moved to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), a more relevant forum. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#SuperEditors_should_be_required_to_know_something. Regards, --Cybercobra (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have edited your deleted article a bit and moved it into main space. Thanks for contributing an article on an encyclopedic topic and for bringing attention to the article when it was deleted. Wikipedia now has an article on American Rescue Workers! --Kleopatra (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Drop me a line if there is a subsequent attempt to delete this article at Articles for Deletion, it seems to be a clearly encyclopedia-worthy topic and would appreciate the opportunity to state such a rationale, should it become necessary. Keep up the good work! Carrite (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, LAWinans. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, LAWinans. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Attorney General of Minnesota
[edit]I have updated the party affiliation for Harry H. Peterson from DFL to Farmer-Labor during his tenure as Attorney General. I was able to confirm this via the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library[1].Blackforest92 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, LAWinans. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)