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
→Kosovo: new section
Line 506: Line 506:
|}</div>
|}</div>
<!--Template:WikiProject Cleanup invitation-->
<!--Template:WikiProject Cleanup invitation-->

== Kosovo ==

Hi,

According to [http://wikiacademykosovo.org/speakers.html this website] the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo organized Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013 within its [http://www.mfa-ks.net/index.php?page=2,4,1151 Digital Diplomacy Strategy] which [http://www.mfa-ks.net/?page=2,4,1549 is strongly associated] with some of the country’s most important political attempts.

The Deputy Foreign Minister of Kosovo, Petrit Selimi, responsible for initiating design and implementation of Kosovo Digital Diplomacy says we ... are preparing Wikipedia trainings....

What do you think about it?--[[User:Antidiskriminator|Antidiskriminator]] ([[User talk:Antidiskriminator|talk]]) 23:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:31, 25 February 2013

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 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Wikipediocracy-related conduct   21 October 2024 4/1/2
Marine 69-71   26 October 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion (orig. case) 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Congratulations on getting Washington v. Texas promoted to the Featured Article level. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Washington v. Texas

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Washington v. Texas. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

archive time change

Was the change of archive time in this edit intentional? NE Ent 16:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link isn't me, but I did change it earlier, yes. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meant this one. NE Ent 17:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dorsey v. United States

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lord Roem. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Lara/archive1.
Message added 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of help needed

Sorry to burden you with lots of questions, but I've become party to an Arbcom case request without expecting it, and I know nothing about the process. I'm coming to you because I really don't know (or know about) any of the other clerks, as far as I can remember. In short, SarekofVulcan has filed a case ("User:Doncram") and named me as a party, and I'm clueless about the process. Do you mind giving advice? Frankly, I really don't want to be a party (I'd much prefer to sit in the background, as it's my final semester of grad school) and would like to know nothing of what's happening until the decision is announced at WP:AN. However, I'm not sure whether it would be responsible of me to duck out; the list of people named as parties is appropriate, and I fear that it's my duty to participate instead of forcing others to do it all. Advice question — do you think I should remain a party, or should I ask to be removed? Please respond at my talk page or leave a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the guide will tell you, it is always in your best interest to be involved in the process. As a named party, you probably want to say something on the request, even if it's a comment that you feel you are uninvolved. Should the case be accepted, you will have the opportunity to present evidence; this is the primary way the Committee gets an understanding of the dispute, so involvement by all sides is important. Again, the guide is a great resource on what to expect in terms of the process involved in an arbitration case. Best regards, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration is easy! In your initial statement, just answer the question "Should there be a case?" There is no deadline to respond, but after a few days or a week, the Committee will decide whether to take the case, and if you haven't posted something by then, your opinion won't be taken into account. Jehochman Talk 08:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the guidance. I've left a statement (which is shorter than some others, so I doubt that it will be considered too long) and hope that it expresses my opinions clearly. One other opinion — in my statement, I mentioned comments made by other people. Is it appropriate to leave messages on their talk page to the effect of "You're quoted in this arbitration request, although your actions aren't the subject of the request"? Or would that be seen as a sort of canvassing? Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've mentioned someone in your statement, it's not a bad idea to leave a short note on their talk simply saying you mentioned them. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. 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) 15:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Teletraan AfD

Hi. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teletraan and I wanted to inform you that I plan to speedy renominate the article. I took a look at the discussion, and saw that out of the 3 keep !votes, none provided any source or indicated that our notability criteria were met, and 2 are actually personal attacks directed at the original nominator.

I thought there was no need to take this to DRV, since it is obvious they would have invalidated the deletion debate. Maybe I should have done so, I don't know. Instead I thought it better to tag the article for notability concerns (to give anyone interested in good faith in the article the chance to find sources) and then renominate after 7 days. And before doing so, I wanted to ask you about it, out of courtesy (I'm aware that speedy renoms are usually frowned upon, but I figured it wouldn't be a big deal here given how the deletion debate turned out) .

Maybe you could also just cancel your close and relist the discussion, though. But since the nominator attracted personal attacks the first time, I thought we would have a better chance at a civil discussion if someone else took over the nomination.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folken de Fanel, thanks for giving me the heads up first. I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the AFD discussion. All three editors who commented on the nomination agreed the fictional computer was notable, so it was a fairly clear non-admin closure. That's my take, but you're certainly free to renominate it. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to DR/N volunteers! Dispute resolution discussions need attention

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there are currently discussions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard which require the attention of a volunteer. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. Below this message is the DR/N status update.

You are receiving this notification to request assistance at the DR/N where you are listed as a volunteer. The number of cases has either become too large and/or there are many cases shaded with an alert status. Those shaded pink are marked as: "This request requires a volunteer's attention". Those shaded blue have had a volunteers attention recently

Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
15.ai In Progress Ltbdl (t) 25 days, 21 hours Cooldudeseven7 (t) 2 hours Cooldudeseven7 (t) 2 hours
Tuner (radio) In Progress Andrevan (t) 21 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 hours Andrevan (t) 11 hours
Wolf In Progress Nagging Prawn (t) 17 days, 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 7 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic New Randomstaplers (t) 13 days, 8 hours Robert McClenon (t) 8 hours Randomstaplers (t) 4 hours
NDIS Closed ItsPugle (t) 9 days, Robert McClenon (t) 7 hours Robert McClenon (t) 7 hours
Russian Invasion of Ukraine Closed Rc2barrington (t) 3 days, 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 8 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 8 hours
Genocide New Bogazicili (t) 1 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 13 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 11:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive#Request for Comment: Result of the Offensive

Hi Lord Roem. I listed Talk:Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive#Request for Comment: Result of the Offensive at WP:ANRFC here. At the discussion, you wrote: "In 20 days (unless there is lengthy discussion, then it would be moved to the regular 30), they've asked me to close the discussion. The question and their statements are below:"

If you are unable to close the discussion, would you leave a note at ANRFC indicating that other editors are free to close it? If you intend to close the discussion, please note that you will do so at ANRFC. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a note there saying anyone is free to close it. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

RfA nomination

NW (Talk) 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you guys don't mind but I'd like to muscle in on this and co-nominate with NW ;) I'll add a bit to the page very shortly.  Roger Davies talk 15:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now transcluded. NW (Talk) 20:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFA answer 6

Good RFA answers. In regards to my question 6 something similar did happen recently! If you want to read up on it see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#User:CrimsonBot_is_malfunctioning and Wikipedia:An#Blocking_misbehaving_bots. Good luck with your RFA ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 07:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFA answer 8

I was hoping you would notice that I was IP-block-exempt. For over a year I retained this status, despite having no need for it, because the admin forgot to remove it and I forgot about it altogether. Reading question 4 in your RFA reminded me and I though why not drop another question. Anyway, you have my support (my first !vote ever in RFA) and good luck with the rest of the RFA. Mohamed CJ (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Please comment on Talk:2013 India–Pakistan border incident

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 India–Pakistan border incident. 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) 16:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

The admins' T-shirt. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I have just closed your RFA as successful. You had a lot of community support, and a few oppositions which are worthwhile taking into account as you make your way onwards with the mop. Well done, and by all means call on any of your fellow admins should you need some advice. My best to you, and thank you for your ongoing efforts at the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, LR.  Roger Davies talk 20:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats!. — ΛΧΣ21 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! You deserved it! :) Vacation9 20:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I gave you a hard time, I want to stop by to congratulate you and to very sincerely wish you the very best going forward. (After all, I did support you the previous time.) As I said there, I hope that you will learn from what some of us said to you. I'm confident that, going forward, you'll prove that I was wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, good luck, and make us all proud. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate everyone's support! Some of those who opposed are people I highly respect; I take everything they said to heart. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Lara FAC

I believe I have corrected everything you brought up, could I impose on you to take another look at the article? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC) (P.S., congrats on your successful RfA!)[reply]

Block of 50.137.200.251

Are you sure you want this to be indefinite?--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Deng is faster than me... The same question. --Makecat 02:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, definitely can be shorter; I'll change that now. Looking at the history of the AIV page, it appeared that most vandalism-only accounts were indef blocked. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how you would misclick - this is an anonymous user.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IPs are almost never blocked indefinitely, as they commonly change owners, hence affecting unrelated users. Generally, 31 hours is appropriate for a first-time IP block for vandalism. You are correct that most vandalism-only accounts are indefblocked, but this is an IP address. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for the quick note everyone. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramush Haradinaj

Dear Lord Roem,

I want to find a solution to the issue regarding Haradinaj, but it is very hard with the NEW USER. He destroyed so many articles, removed source etc. He himself can not insert sources and he undervalued other sourses which throughout wikipedia are already established. I want to finde a away, but he does not understand how wikipedia works and he make a one man show or ignored other sources. Me and him alone will not find a solution without help, I'm sure. I add...I find it not fair from you that you've also banned me on this subject. I am a long time member here, have already contributed to many articles, but he is brand new and "poaching" here. I find not right, the put for the start both of us in the same basket. best wishes--Nado158 (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to help mediate on the talk page. As per the protection, both of you had reverted each other's addition and removal of content WAY above the legal limit. But I feel both of you are trying to act in good faith and so I'd prefer a shorter solution than a block. If you are truly a long time member, you should know better than to act the way you did in both your edit warring as well as your edit summaries. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, but I used to do a bit of editing around the Kosovo page, and felt I should point out that you've locked the Haradinaj article in a form that contains in the opening paragraph alone some pretty libellous false claims - a clear violation of BLP, as I understand it. (Most notably this '19 witnesses killed' stuff - a quick internet search will show that the ICTY has repeatedly stated this is untrue.) I'd advise you to revert to the last neutral version before this edit war started - though of course that's entirely up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.123.232.20 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I fear that we've spun out of control again on the talk page. I've suggested a compromise I think reflects our positions. Could you possibly intervene?Epeos (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to bother you again but I had rather feared this would happen. Nado does not agree with the language we agreed upon. PLease can look at the history of the page. I made two changes to the page today to address the issue and inserted the language into the article. This is becoming very frustrating.Epeos (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please be wary of continuously reverting him, without going back to discussing it on the talk page. Don't get drawn into an edit war. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reverted him. I just made the changes I thought we had agreed upon and sent Nado a message on his page to review those changes. He then reverted me! In any event, we reached a compromise that has now been abandoned. Which leaves us where we started and leaves the page the same content that caused the dispute.Epeos (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lord, all other editors on this talk except Nado158 have 0 EDITS outside the subject. All are SPA accounts and IP-s, and i may imagine that all are returnees out of some blocked and banned accounts. Should we really keep this article unlocked and open for this continuum of reverts. After the formation of some agreement, epeos again removed sources and content from this page. What do you propose, or what can be done here. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is important to me. I've never used wikipedia before and said that when we started this discussion. My contributions have not been in bad faith. I have tried to compromise. And in fact we reached a compromise based around wording Lord Roem put forward. I agreed to it. I thought Nado agreed to it. That wording was then reverted by Nado not by me. I am new to wikipedia. I admit that. does that make my contributions less worthy? I have now suggested a further compromise based on NAdo's comments. I feel like I am trying to work towards consensus. I am operating on the assumption that we all are.Epeos (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think an agreement has been reached, feel free to make the added change. If reverted by the other party, don't revert back. Just go to the talk page again to discuss. Yes, this is sometimes an arduous process, but getting to that consensus is important. Epeos, if nothing works over the next day or so, open an WP:RFC to gain broader community input on the dispute. This way, you can outside opinions that will be relatively neutral on the dispute. All I can do is ensure you two aren't edit warring, but I think an RFC would be a good option to look at with the content-side of things. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will look into that. I do think that your input dramatically improves the direction of the discussion. I've suggested another compromise that takes into account more of Nado's concerns. I know you have a million other things to do but if you think its reasonable your input would be invaluable. (likewise if you don't think its reasonable I would sincerely appreciate that input. Often we get so surrounded by the echo chamber of our own position its hard to keep proper persepctive. ThanksEpeos (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he reverted back right after it. I just want to remember you that this subject is under ARBMAC restriction, so this kind of POV slow-motion edit wars are very much unhelpful. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Hopefully their discussions (or a future RfC) will avert the need for any further action on my part. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Cbbkr

Barely two (2) hours after your declining my request, another assault. Please reconsider. Cbbkr (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one week. Left warning on IP's talk. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon

Sure you didn't mean to semi-protect that? A week of full protection is usually considered a bit extreme.—Kww(talk) 03:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; didn't see that I clicked on the wrong button. Thanks for quickly pointing that out! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you removed its move-protection (sysop/Move=Block all non-admin users). Could you restore it? Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Thanks for the close

Thank you for this close, the mention of policy and detail you provided were exactly what was needed. Cheers! Zad68 05:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message for you on my talk page

It's at User_talk:GeorgeLouis#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion_3. Actually, it's the second notice with the same title. You have to scroll down when you get there. You might want to read and comment on this first: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_16#3RR_exclusion. Thank you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid George's posts on this matter have been tendentiously misleading. George refers to BLP's provision that contentious material may be deleted and wants his edit-warring to be exempted/allowed on the provision he quotes. But he neglects a crucial phrase. The full provision reads: "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately". The difficulty for George, then, is that the material is amply sourced, as extensively demonstrated on the article talk page (see in particular a list of sources with quotes here). Under these circumstances, I fear you will have emboldened George to continue edit-warring in a way that will lead to unfortunate consequences for him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering if the remark you noted by RIR at User_talk:Rhode_Island_Red#Note should be posted as an additional item at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rhode_Island_Red.2 or if it would seem that I am just "piling on" ? I noticed that RIR had for a time really softened in his incivility, but he seems to have reverted to his old habits. Your advice? (Per policy, I am notifying RIR of my question here.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that RFC has been closed. I think it was successful in its own way, as I noted here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, as noted here.[1] I am urging that we go the next step and take this for binding formal arbitration, as it appears to be the only way of achieving long-term stability and a less stressful editing environment. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As someone familiar with the arbitration process, I'd urge you to be extremely cautious about taking that step. Ensure that all other possible routes of compromise/discussion have been attempted, because most parties don't come away from arbitration being entirely happy. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the cautionary note. Unfortunately, there is ample reason to predict that the conduct problems that have plagued the article will continue regardless of the outcome of the RfC. Several senior editors/admins who have already looked into the situation suggested that ArbCom would likely be necessary and an appropriate measure to take towards resolution. I have no qualms about trusting the arbitration process to achieve a fair and reasonable outcome. In fact, I think it would be best to have scrutiny from as many experienced uninvolved editors as possible and to address all of the issues comprehensively in one fell swoop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK help

I think I did something wrong. I thought the nomination page was supposed to automatically be closed when I added the hook to the prep area. Can you explain how this works? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's easy! Go to the nomination page, edit the top bracket thing that says DYKnom by adding "subst:" in front. Then, where it asks for the result of the nomination, replace that with "yes", and you should be good! -Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It seems very complicated. When I approve the nomination, is it automatically removed from Template talk:Did you know or what? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at Template:Did you know nominations/Caleb Moore, should there be multiple DYK make templates or just one? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First question: not sure, I think it's removed by a bot. Second: that nom looks good, no need to split it for each contributor. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So this was the right move? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said "no need" to split it! :) If they helped with the expansion then keep those tags in so the bot gives them credit when the DYK update is posted. I know this is all a bit technical; I hope this has been helpful! --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is very technical. Quite simply, were those tags that I removed supposed to be there? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Fixed. Sorry about all the questions, I'm new to this aspect of DYK. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to help. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get your help with a review

I've noticed you are very active in the DYK project, and wanted to ask if you would be willing to review an old nomination seen here.[2] It's about a Beijing musician who was died in custody a couple days after being incarcerated for his belief in Falun Gong. The fifth anniversary of his death is coming up on February 6, and I thought it would be nice if it could appear on the main page on that day. But the nomination has just been languishing for weeks.

The editor who originally reviewed the nomination had a history of deleting information about the Chinese government's persecution of Falun Gong, and he was also frequently caught up in arbitration proceedings related to that topic. In light of his history and conduct in the review process, I believe he may have been trying to disrupt the nomination so that it wouldn't appear on the main page. Once it emerged that his involvement violated the supplemental rules for DYK reviewers, we sought a new reviewer, but I think maybe people are intimidated by the volume of text. If you are willing, I would invite you to look at it with fresh eyes. Cheers. TheBlueCanoe 14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback (AK)

Hi Lord Roem, thanks for granting me Rollback permissions! Arctic Kangaroo 15:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Thanks, that was quick! Widr (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello, in here you dismissed my report of edit warring (not 3RR violation). I was trying to stop ongoing disruptive editing. Please let me know which is the right place to go, Andreasm just talk to me 00:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it deserves a warning, but two reverts over the course of a few days is not enough for me to contemplate a block. If the issue continues though, feel free to leave an additional note on my talk. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I was expecting. Thank you anyway, Andreasm just talk to me 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I am really confused. I went to the Adminsitrators' noticeboard because I was trying to avoid an edit warring. When you dismissed my report, I came here asking for advice because I did not want to revert any more since there was an ongoing discussion. Given that you provided me with no solution (it was not me who broke the dialogue), I reverted to the last edit before the edit warring. Was I wrong to do so? Andreasm just talk to me 01:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should not be making more edits including the disputed material. The page history shows you first added it, were reverted, then added it back in. All I'm saying is that you need to be as careful as the other editor in not edit warring. For discussion purposes for the overall dispute, consider starting an WP:RFC to gain broader community input, or just discuss it together on the talk page. But whatever you decide to do, reverting each other in this situation is not appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And all I'm saying is that your replies were misleading, given that I was looking for orientation; only now you mention the existence of this page, when I specifically asked you for a place to discuss the issue (category talk pages don't tend to get much attention). And what you are saying about my edits is just not true, since it was not me who added those categories: They were added on 4 February 2009 and were dismissed by Smetanahue on 23 January 2013; added on 12 August 2012 by Sadads and dismissed by Smetanahue on 23 January 2013. My edits only came afterwards. Andreasm just talk to me 17:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting another editor's revert without discussion is the beginning of edit warring behavior. All that matters is how you reacted to that 'undo'. You're not in trouble for that, I've just warned you to keep your cool. I hope the RFC link is helpful; it's a widely used process and tends to have a good record at finding consensus if consensus exists. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct

If you're going to block someone for edit warring then lock the page temporarily it would have been good to at least ensure the page was in a neutral state or block the other user for equally guilty actions. Instead the other user reverted the article before you locked the page and the user has taken the liberty to continue the issue onto another article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasetry (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They've also been warned about their conduct. It is also not my place to correct the article to prevent views you disagree with. The page has been protected though and I do encourage you to engage in discussions on the talk page. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Warning isn't blocking and being neutral isn't preventing views I and other editors have disagreed with. It is putting it in a state that favours neither editor thus avoiding any claims of impartiality. Pleasetry (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never Getting Back Together

Thanks for the temporary protection, hopefully that'll calm it down. L.cash.m (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Lord Roem ~ (talk)

My right nut

I added to my watchlist just on time to see the show. I also think that user name is not very appropriate, is it? It sounds like a reference to a couple of... :-) Best. --E4024 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual request

I bet you don't get this often, but would you mind un-promoting my DYK hook, Template:Did you know nominations/Mo Cowan‎? I haven't actually provided a QPQ yet (the reviewer mistakenly gave me the check mark anyway) in part because I'm waiting for his US Senate portrait, which I would like to go up with the hook in honor of Black History Month. He should have that portrait taken by tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch! I love that you're that interested in helping out. Best regards, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:EscapeX

About this block. The user has come back from the block and edited the same thing. I have tried to engage the editor of there talk page to no avail I guess. I think we have a lack of competences as this edit summary leads me to believe they dont understand the problem raised. Odd thing they are waring over but not sure what to do - could just leave them but the IP at the article will revert the overlinks soon again - thus a new war.Moxy (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League

Hi there, you appear to have forgotten this article which was bundled in this AfD. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the note! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problems! GiantSnowman 17:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

verbum sapiens was a failure

[3] shows clearly an ongoing problem with Rhode Island Red which is past any rational level. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red shows this to have been an ongoing problem also noted by at least 8 other editors including Jehochman and Elonka inter alia. His behaviour and threats, as well as continued abysmal etiquette is abhorrent to me and others. And this is how he responds to your own advice on his talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following the situation. Thanks for the note. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prolly already noticed by you: [4] where RIR seems bound and determined to ABF "You do know that this page is for discussing specific content issues right? I've invited you several times to take off-topic discussions about conduct to your talkpage, lest this thread get derailed, and yet you are still at it (and making unfounded accusations about WP:SPA). Again, I refer you to WP:TPG. " seems less than collegial, and actually a teeny bit offensive IMHO. Collect (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Help with User:Nado158?

I see you have successfully arbitrated with this user before. I stuck my nose into an issue at Talk:Srbobran, offered a compromise, and was promptly insulted and abused for it. Do you have any suggestions? Would you be willing to offer an opinion yourself?Brianyoumans (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE#Ceco31

Hello Lord R. Thanks for your closure of the AE. Can you please log your action in WP:ARBMAC? Usually we record normal admin blocks in the case too, if the issue is related to the domain of the arb case, even though they are not considered AE blocks. At least I've done this in the past. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder Ed. I've added a link to the warning on the log. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Please do not give Rollback right to Peacemaker67. He is POV pusher and he will abuse that right. He revert war in Balkan articles all time, not only with socks. Check his older edits. He revert war with everybody. This is problematic person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.78.144.69 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Lord Roem. Here is a great example of why I applied for rollback privileges. This is a sock of the indefinitely blocked IP-hopping sockmaster User:Oldhouse2012 who is currently being considered at WP:ANI for a site ban. He creates a lot of disruption on a lot of articles and is hard to track due to the IP-hopping. But I accept your decision and will carry on regardless. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Progressive utilization theory

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Progressive utilization theory. 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) 17:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AE

While SMcCandlish hasn't replied at AE yet, he replied to my notification on his talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the link. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, in an area that's highly-charged enough that ArbCom had to remind everyone to be civil, it's perfectly ok for SMC to claim, with no evidence whatsoever, that the primary, and possibly sole, reason DirtLawyer wants the mop is so that he can win MOS disputes? When there's no evidence of that from any of DL's comments? This just Does Not Seem Right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I don't think DS applies to RFA; maybe a personal attack block is more appropriate for what you're looking for, but I don't feel the scope of the case goes to every possible mention of MOS on the encyclopedia, regardless of location. On an RFA about an individual, everyone can bring their own qualms and concerns about any candidate. That's neither unusual or unfair. However, if that seeps over into actual discussions on the MOS pages, then we have something that is actionable. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven

Check out the Teahouse Genie Badge, awarded for solving issues on the Teahouse Wishlist.

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

  • And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:


Teahouse Host Badge Teahouse Host Badge
Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.

Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.

Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problem.

If you see fit, could you please remove the phrase "multi-level" from the lede paragraph of Frank L. VanderSloot, as provided in this section:

Under the Biographies of Living Persons policy, Wikipedia takes a "First, do no harm" stance with biographical material. If there are remotely credible allegations that the material under dispute is libelous, defamatory, poorly sourced, invasive of privacy or written so as to bring its subject into disrepute, remove it immediately and, if necessary, protect the page to prevent its reappearance. Such actions do not constitute "involvement" in the dispute; rather, you are acting to protect the biography's subject from potentially false and unfair attacks or privacy invasions. Instruct involved editors to discuss the material, its sourcing and its suitability on the article's talk page.

Thanks so much. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presently that phrasing is under discussion at an RfC. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceco31

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that Ceco31 is continuing his revert warring by socking as an IP editor [5]. Athenean (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your fair and sound judgment on the Frank L. VanderSloot article and for helping us settle the RFC dispute. HtownCat (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LR, you asked yesterday if anyone had an objection to your closing it today. An editor lodged an objection. It is then, shall we say, unusual that you would go ahead and close it anyway. It is very unlikely that a close under these conditions will settle the matter -- particularly as you have also not seen fit to let it run for the usual 30 days. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a close is policy-based, 180 days would not make a difference with regard to policy. The conclusion that a specific consensus is needed in order to include language would not change even at the half-year mark. I rather think Lord Roem is correct in his understanding of WP:BLP here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See ANI discussion; I think that the conclusion is contrary to Wikipedia policy. And .... anyone who says there is not a consensus that:
  1. The company is an MLM, and
  2. fact (1) is adequately sourced, even by BLP standards,
has no place on Wikipedia. The question of whether there is or needs to be a consensus for inclusion is a little different; I think the wrong decision was made, but that would be arguable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I demur - "inclusion in lede as a 'statement of fact' in Wikipedia's voice" is a different question from "inclusion with weight given to all views 'ascribed as such' in the body" which was the issue at hand - and WP:BLP is correctly read by Lord Roem. Collect (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:HtownCat. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a policy violation to exclude MLM from the lead, although I do think it's a mistake and not required by policy; I am saying it is a violation of WP:NPOV to exclude it from the body. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfA: thank you for your support

Lord Roem, thank you for your support and kind words during my RfA, and even more for sticking with me after the sh!t began to fly. Hopefully, I was not a complete disappointment to you as a candidate. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue


Case timeline

I see the Doncram template says that the workshop closed yesterday and the proposed decision would be posted. Has this been officially pushed out, or just not done yet? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not out yet. The late evidence will likely delay the PD a few extra days. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. I wasn't sure if I had missed something.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Block evasion of Ceco31

It's obvious that the specific blocked user, continues the same kind of activity [now as an unlogged editor].Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Close

When you get a chance, can you please clarify your RFC close per the ANI discussion? I've protected the page until then.--v/r - TP 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Armenian National Congress (1917)

Hi Lord Roem,

I'm bugging you only because you approved the hook, so I figured you'd know more than me about this. This DYK is on the main page, and the article's creator and main author was notified once it was on the main page, and noticed that the hook was factually incorrect. I've corrected that, but I'm concerned because the author said they didn't know about the DYK nom. I'm unfamiliar with how DYK works; is it OK for a page to be nominated by someone other than the one who created/expanded it? If so, shouldn't it be SOP to let that author know? For one thing, it seems courteous, but for another thing, the author would be in a good position to notice if the hook said something untrue. Again, not saying you should have done the notifying, just trying to figure out how DYK nominating works without spending 3 hours reading documentation somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any editor is allowed to nominate new articles for DYK, not just the article's original creator. But when the bot puts up the new list of hooks, it puts a notice on the creator's talk pages to give them credit for their work. I'm don't think a rule requires it, though I agree it's good practice for nominators to leave a note on the creator's talk page. I hope I answered your question. :) Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. As much as I dislike new rules in general, I may propose a new one to cover this case. Would WT:DYK be the best place to raise the issue? There are too many subpages for the DYK system for me to be sure where to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the right place. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive‎ RfC closure

The admin who closed the RfC misinterpreted it.[6]
The RfC result description is misleading. Can you take a look? -YMB29 (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I probably would disagree simply on the basis of the lack of significant back-and-forth to establish such a position. I see you're talking with the editor on their talk page. Consider asking if a second editor (preferably an admin as the initial close was a NAC) could look at it. While I'm not "involved", a completely fresh pair of eyes would certainly be useful. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to look at? We all agreed that there was no consensus, and that was one of the reasons why the mediation was closed. -YMB29 (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying having a second admin look at it to confirm that analysis is better than escalating it in any other manner. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The user now says that, since the RfC was tied to the mediation, you can make the decision to change it. -YMB29 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the RfC was initiated by me but in no way was binding or controlled by me. All I'll say on the matter is that my personal closure of that short RfC would be no consensus and I'd encourage everyone to move on. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so can you change the RfC result to that?
I mean you suggested to start a new RfC on this, but it will be hard if this one is marked as having reached a consensus... -YMB29 (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to change it? The user who made the entry won't object if you do.[7] -YMB29 (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RM backlog

As a new admin, I hope that I can encourage you to take a stab at closing a dozen of the RM backlog requests. The way WP:RM is set up, requests can be closed at any time, but are not intended to remain open for longer than seven days, meaning that all should be closed before they reach the WP:RM#Backlog. In other words, after the backlog is cleared out, standard procedure should be to close all of the requests just before they reach the backlog. In some cases, though, this means relisting, which also should be done before reaching the backlog. Closing instructions are at WP:RMCI. If each new admin closes a few requests the backlog can be cleared. Apteva (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Apteva. Thanks for the note, I'll take a look later this week. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nado158

Dear LordRoem, please wait. Please see also my opinion (and please read my new comments above). By the way, we both have worked together a few weeks ago. In this collaboration, they have given me even partially right. I, another user and you have found together a solution in the end. There were no problems. I think that I not deserve such hard punishment--Nado158 (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, i wrote about 98% Serbian sport, especially about football, but also basketball etc., I never had a problem with nobody. I improved a lot of articles, wrote about players and stadiums etc. I create also a lot of articles about sport. I get even a barn star. You can all see this on my Wikipedia edit history etc. Please allow me to write about Serbian sports. This have nothing to do with politics and is not a controvers topics. I'm only come because of sports to wikipedia, only the last months I am moved a little bit to other topics. But my main topic, my beloved topic is sport, this is a topic which interrested me 120%. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia, why so a hard punishment. I made mistakes in politic topics, but I never hat a problem with sports. You banned me because of my mistakes about controvers politic topics, but why i banned also for sport, although i never made mistakes there and although I was never prosecuted there?I think its right to punish for things who someone done wrong, but I never made mistakes there and i was never prosecuted there. I have no other interest area here and I had to wait a year to get back to improve Serbian sporting articles or update. Please allow me to write about sports in Serbia.--Nado158 (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

Please comment on Talk:2013 North Korean nuclear test

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2013 North Korean nuclear test. 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) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Lord Roem.

You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo

Hi,

According to this website the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kosovo organized Wiki Academy Kosovo 2013 within its Digital Diplomacy Strategy which is strongly associated with some of the country’s most important political attempts.

The Deputy Foreign Minister of Kosovo, Petrit Selimi, responsible for initiating design and implementation of Kosovo Digital Diplomacy says we ... are preparing Wikipedia trainings....

What do you think about it?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord_Roem&oldid=540397130"