User talk:Lord Roem: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 122: Line 122:
:Not sure, honestly. One link b/c the editor is frustrated, on its own, probably isn't enough for a sanction. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
:Not sure, honestly. One link b/c the editor is frustrated, on its own, probably isn't enough for a sanction. '''[[User:Lord Roem|Lord Roem]]''' ~ ([[User talk:Lord Roem|talk]]) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
::Well I removed the link, but if you look at their contribution history, its full of this sort of crap. be silent for awhile, come back and post rants about bias. Turn up at articles, declare bias, then try to edit article to their POV. Its been going on a long time. I have generally ignored most of it, the stupid stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SageRad#Please_comment_on_Talk:North_Yemen_Civil_War respond to bots making pointy comments]. But its getting to be a joke now. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
::Well I removed the link, but if you look at their contribution history, its full of this sort of crap. be silent for awhile, come back and post rants about bias. Turn up at articles, declare bias, then try to edit article to their POV. Its been going on a long time. I have generally ignored most of it, the stupid stuff like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SageRad#Please_comment_on_Talk:North_Yemen_Civil_War respond to bots making pointy comments]. But its getting to be a joke now. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end]] ([[User talk:Only in death|talk]]) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

== ARCA notice ==

I have filed two actions at [[WP:ARCA]] of which you are named party:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organisms action 1], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Genetically_modified_organisms_2 action 2]
--[[User:David Tornheim|David Tornheim]] ([[User talk:David Tornheim|talk]]) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:22, 27 July 2016

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 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


Admin statistics
Action Count
Edits 10896
Edits+Deleted 11064
Pages deleted 640
Revisions deleted 15
Pages restored 2
Pages protected 177
Protections modified 27
Users blocked 167
Users reblocked 7
Users unblocked 3
User rights modified 78
Users created 1

Hello! Welcome to my Talk Page!

Leave a message or shoot me an email if you need me! -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you all the best . . .

Merry Christmas, Lord Roem, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, thank you for the kind wishes and apologies for the insane delay on my reply! RL has made things impossible for me to do as much as I used to on here, but I still poke around every now and then. All the best to ya! --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this. Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Searle

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Searle. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message

Hello @Lord Roem: I left a message at the page protection page on Wikipedia, thanks (121.214.14.118 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Lord Roem: I left a reply to your message. (121.214.14.118 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Consider

It was not my interest, aim, desire, or idea of a good time, to have any discussion whatsoever re Talk:Donald Trump signature size. The long-standing default sig size was shrunk ridiculously small by an editor, I changed it back to the default, and he/she reverted. On that basis, I opened the issue on the Talk page. (Probably that shoe was on the wrong foot; the editor needed to justify reverting the long-standing signature size, I didn't need to justify anything.) It wasn't my interest, idea, desire, or idea of a good time, to involve in the discussion in that thread. But the other editor kept inventing shifting rationales, inventing non-existent "consensus", and also kept changing the signature size to a reduced inappropriate size, without offering any reason, not even WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

So why do you blame me for a "silly discussion" that was not my idea or stemming from any of my interest? There was nothing wrong with the long-standing default signature size, and the shrinking of it was without basis, so my involvement was limited to restoring and defending the long-standing size, I gave reasons for embracing it, there were no reasons given to shrink it that made any sense.

Also, it wasn't my idea, interest, or desire to open the WP:EWN. The other editor did that, and in addition while it was open, continued to revert the article signature size, and drop new meaningless arguments on the BLP Talk page.

Also, another editor decided to insult by calling me "kid", and double-downed with "playground" insult. I am a serious editor on WP. I did not sign up as volunteer to receive insults on my maturity level. (If I have to do that, accept abusive insults in order to retain volunteer editor status at WP, then I'll immediately retire.) I'm not sure why you feel my response to personal attacks by that editor needs admonishment, and why exactly you feel that initiating an insult on an editor's maturity level is somehow more acceptable.

It's easy when you are not involved. Easy to call someone a "kid" and not take offense. Easy to call a discussion "silly" when you are not a serious editor objecting to a ridiculous change, then being reverted, and ground down to death with repetitive ridiculous made-up arguments continually claiming "consensus" when no such thing exists.

It's easy to be an admin. All one has to do is claim superiority, and threaten a bunch of editors, call their interest "silly", and ignore other editors who initiate personal attacks against them, but admonish and threaten the abused editor if they respond bluntly. Yeah, that's why I never want to be an admin.

Sincere, IHTS (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I have no idea how you think you have contibuted anything positive to resolve the issue which the other editor has pursued relentlessly, to shrink the long-standing default signature size without valid reason. (He/she offered several bogus, absurd reasons.) What have you done to stop that editor? What have you done to give me a path to stop him/her? The discussion on the Talk page provides no solution, that discussion is already 1,000 times longer than it should have been. You apparently don't see what I'm dealing with re that editor, and with your actions have provided no help toward any path to resolution. (Unless I've missed something. If so, please tell me what I have missed.) IHTS (talk) 10:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.p.s. I don't need any more insults. (I.e. your "silly" comment.) And I don't need patronizing. ("Take a break.") IHTS (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ihardlythinkso: You undid another user's change to the signature size, then did it again after you were reversed, both in the span of a few hours. The Donald Trump page is subject to a 1 revert rule. Changes of any nature, except for reverting unambiguous vandalism, need to be discussed first on the talk page instead of debated through edit summaries. Additionally, on the edit warring noticeboard, instead of lowering the tenor of the argument, you chose to escalate ("And fuck you for it asshole"). The warning remains as does my advice that remaining calm is essential, especially on heated political pages. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You managed to not respond to a single thing I asked. IHTS (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"You undid another user's change to the signature size, then did it again after you were reversed, both in the span of a few hours." I've read the DS article restriction. What you're conveniently skipping to mention, is that the other user s/ not have reverted my undo, and in doing that was in violation of the restriction: He/she made an edit that undid the long-standing default sig size, I undid that change, he/she was obligated (not me) to taking it to the Talk page, instead of reverting me, which violated the DS restriction. (If I'm wrong about it, then please explain.) IHTS (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor made a change to the sig size at 19:25 on 14 July. You undid that a few hours later. A different editor undid your change thereafter. About 15 minutes later, for a second time, you undid that user's edit regarding the signature. That's more than 1 revert in the same 24 hour period on an article where there's a 1RR in place. Of the editors involved, only you broke the rule. Now, you're right in saying the issue should be discussed on the talk page if it's in dispute, but wrong to suggest your second revert is right because you prefer it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I was referring to. (But now that you have brought that up, I'm flabbergasted that you cannot see, that the first edit of mine that you diff above, contained a gross error resulting in an unintended gross signature size, and that Yopienso came in behind me to reset the size parm before I messed it up so as to correct my gross error. And then my next edit "about 15 minutes later" was simply to make the edit that I had intended to make earlier, instead of the edit I did make containing the gross sizing error. [So your characterization that I "undid" Yopienso's edit isn't a fair one--that user had essentially come to the rescue for WP readers to restore the size condition before my error that grossly messed it up, and that I did not immediately see. And after that rescue I went back in to re-do my edit the way it should have been done to render the size I originally intended instead of the gross error in size I previously made. So your counting that re-do as "violation", perhaps it is the "letter of the 1RR law", but clearly not the "spirit" of same. {So wouldn't it be better looking a bit deeper before making judgment re 1RR "violation", when it would have revealed that my edit was purposed to re-do an earlier gross edit error and not to "undo" another user's edit, and that user's edit was purposed to fixing an unintentional mess I made for WP readers by my grossly errored edit!?}]) What I was referring to is what happeneed at the beginning of the dispute: I made edit to restore the long-standing sig size [1] as soon as I discovered it had been changed to a minuscule size. (I didn't know when it was changed or what editor changed it, turns out it was changed by this edit.) What I'm referring to is that user Devorguilla's change to minuscule size had been undone by me, and that user didn't have the liberty under DS restriction to revert my edit as was done here. And that the user s/ have opened a Talk thread discussion instead. (And that you overlooked the fact, and instead have accused me!?) Sincere, IHTS (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unintentional or not, there's a 1RR on the article that you should be, and now certainly are, aware of. This is why I gave you a warning and didn't impose a block. Any future violation--barring one of the few exceptions to the rule--will cause a different outcome. Secondly, Devorguilla's edits in the two diffs above are separated by several weeks, thus no 1RR violation. I hope this answers your question. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after looking again and refreshing, you're right--my edit was intended to revert Yopienso, because I was mistakenly seeing his edit not as the rescue it was, but as an undo of my previous edit. (I was unaware of my gross sizing error rescued by him until minutes later. Only then did I redo my edit w/ purpose to fix my sizing error [2].) So thank you, for not blocking. On the other topic, Devorguilla's edits that were separated by 19 days ... good-faith question: I don't see anything in the DS documentation where a time limit regarding reverting a change is mentioned, am I overlooking something? And if it's not in the doc, then isn't one person's idea of "too late" arbitrary and going to be different from someone else's? (It didn't feel like 19 days to me of course; I restored the long-standing signature size immediately upon seeing that it had been shrunk to misuscule size.) Sincere, IHTS (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think you might be confused. The 1RR rule is a "no more than 1 revert in 24 hours" restriction. That's why two reverts over 19 days is treated differently than two reverts in the same 3-4 hour period. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/EW resolution (Donald Trump)

You may be intrigued by my reply at AN/EW. The user in question has been generating light as well as heat. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. As I replied there, I don't think I'll "un-warn" the editor, but I am glad to hear they're working to cool things down. Hopefully that will continue. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silvana sin lana

Hi, I want to know why I was reported for alleged "edit warring" and why the article Silvana sin lana was protected because I don't do any of these edits with bad intentions. I provided the user Philip J Fry with three reliable sources in my talk page and he still reported me. Administrators should investigate first before doing those type of things. Borikén (talk ·ctb) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seriesphile: Disputed additions need to be worked out on the article's talk page. Protecting the page should give you and the other editors time to discuss the content dispute. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deluxe Entertainment Services Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Localization (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) 09:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE

I have asked a question at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Debresser in reaction to your post there. Since you might not notice it, I though I'd draw your attention to the question. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I've added a reply with an answer to your question. If I missed something you asked, please let me know! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I get the drift. Basically the best idea is to discuss. Which is what we did. The problem is that not always there is a clear consensus, often there isn't, and bold editing does help get move things along. In an area with so many strong POVs, that is almost the only way to make progress. Usually a consensus coalesces after a while, but sometimes editors try to game the system by group blocking of a certain point of view, or by reporting editors for what really isn't a violation. We all skirt the borders at times, some more than others. I tried to show that this was a good faith case from where I stand, with Nableezy pushing their POV by numbers and making a bad faith report at WP:AE. I think that to some extend, even with the warning at my address, I have managed to bring that point across. I am not a problematic editor, and I work fine with Nableezy many times, and I hope after this is closed, we will continue to do so. I hope you won't see this post as canvassing, but since the issue is in all likelihood about to be closed, I supposed that's okay. I just felt like I needed someone to talk with, I guess. Debresser (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an update in view of Nableezy further making tendentious edits.[3] Debresser (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have read the material, and reached conclusions opposite to mine. I have however added a reply to my section, where I refute those accusations and prove the behavioral problems of Nableezy (and Nishidani) in this case. Including the fact that a WP:RS/N post agrees with my point of view, and you should just read their replies there. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travel/Work (Busy)

I'll be traveling over the next day or so and may be busy with RL business. If you need to contact me for whatever reason--especially for AE or other sanction review--please email me. Thank you! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heya

I don't actually know how to ping someone, but I've added the diffs as requested. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll take a look later today. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sagerad

While I generally ignore their rants about the unjustness of everyone here (except where they start into direct personal attacks), they are now using their talkpage to link to attack content off-wiki. See here. Whats the next step? AN for ban? AE? The arbcom case in which they were topic banned clearly called out their behaviour however I am not sure thats sanctionable at AE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, honestly. One link b/c the editor is frustrated, on its own, probably isn't enough for a sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I removed the link, but if you look at their contribution history, its full of this sort of crap. be silent for awhile, come back and post rants about bias. Turn up at articles, declare bias, then try to edit article to their POV. Its been going on a long time. I have generally ignored most of it, the stupid stuff like respond to bots making pointy comments. But its getting to be a joke now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA notice

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA of which you are named party: action 1, action 2 --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]