User talk:Lord Roem/Archive/2011/Jan

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Left-wing terrorism

Thanks for offering to Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-12-05/Left-wing_terrorism mediate. The problem is ongoing, but the other involved party, User:The Four Deuces does not seem interested in engaging with mediation. I'd love your help, but I'm not sure what you can do. Thanks again. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the benefit. Although there has been a lot of debate on this article, very little has involved TMQ's concern. Also the issue of references to terrorism and terrorists affects numerous articles beside this one. The article Terrorism, for example, received 50 times more traffic than Left-wing terrorism last month and is much more liberal in the use of these terms. TFD (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So what happened? My request for mediation has been deleted? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The other user declined to participate [1]. Mediation requires both/all parties to approve of the process. I cannot mediate talking to a single person. A more formalized understanding of that policy is here [2]. However, don't be put back. There are other options beyond mediation that will allow the whole community to help out. You can still open an RfC, request a third opinion or ask for 'editor assistance'. Try these steps before trying mediation - maybe then the other parties will want to take it on.

Sucessful mediation cannot be rushed - everyone has to agree it is for their benefit. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I already did open an RfC and gained a fair amount of involvement, but no consensus. What's the next step? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The next step would probably be to ask for a third opinion (as it seems this is between two users) - WP:30. If that does not work, and you are absolutely sure there will be no resolution after all possible steps to reach compromise - file a case at the Mediation Committee. While all participants there must agree to mediation, failure to agree to that process may result in an arbitration case. However, you should do your best to act in good faith and try alternate means before proceedings with such a process. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking on the review! Looking forward to responding! — Hun ter Ka hn 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I responded over there. — Hun ter Ka hn 03:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the review! I know it was a long one, so I truly appreciate your thoroughness! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback (Richwales) re: LSC v. Velasquez

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 · contribs) 01:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Re this edit, would you mind replacing your opposes and the like, adding a : mark to prevent them being counted, and striking them through? Otherwise my comment is all lonely (and it looks strange) :p. Ironholds (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez

Me again! Peter-C came to me and went "there's a law-related guy on my talkpage, could you help him out"? Small world, matey. Anyway, the article as it is seems fine. If, however, you plan to stick it up for say, WP:GAN, you need to expand it and use far more sources. I've done some searching around (I've got access to most of the American law journals) and found three journal articles and about 15 news articles. If you email me your email address using the "Email this user" function, I can send them over. Ironholds (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No problemo; check your inbox in a couple of mins and it should all be there (and, once you've done, feel free to hit me up for a copyedit/GAN review). Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Now sent; enjoy. Ironholds (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Illinois v. McArthur

On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Illinois v. McArthur, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. McArthur that police do not need a warrant when they have probable cause to complete a search? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2011/Submissions/Lord Roem

Sorry, you can't claim points for that DYK, as it is from last year. Only content worked on and nominated this year can be used to claim points (although that is an interesting article). J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've also removed the other article, which was from last year. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez

On 2 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the United States Supreme Court ruled in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez that the First Amendment protects against free speech viewpoint discrimination? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Question - re:WikiCup

Not really. Ideally, any reviews being claimed will have been done entirely this year. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no problems with claiming that one. J Milburn (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph

On 3 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Green Tree Financial Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph that arbitration agreements do not need to discuss the costs of arbitration? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for this article Victuallers (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional newcomer

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		In a short amount of time, you have created several important articles on Supreme Court cases, reviewed GA nominations, and had 3 DYKs on the front page. Keep up the good work! —Ute in DC (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind of you. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. You've jumped in with both feet and a jetpack. Welcome! - Dravecky (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

2010 in review: Review of the year

News and notes: Record fundraiser celebrated and debated; Board-appointed Trustees; brief news

In the news: Fundraising success media coverage; brief news

WikiProject report: Where are they now? Redux

Features and admins: Featured sound choice of the year

Arbitration report: Motion proposed in W/B – Judea and Samaria case

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Joseph Mitchell Parsons

Thank you very much for your time. I have responded to your comments in the GA review. KimChee (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the prompt feedback. It was a pleasure. KimChee (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Kentucky Supreme Court; Morten Lange; Ryan Farquhar; Ridin' Solo; California gubernatorial election, 1958; Hämeenmaa class minelayer; Anantharam; California gubernatorial election, 1986; California gubernatorial election, 1990; California gubernatorial election, 1954; Lędziny, Opole Voivodeship; Jesse Soffer; Eero Somervuori; King (magazine); United States presidential election in California, 1964; Grizzly Vidyalaya; Quantum gyroscope; VVS Moscow; Benjamin Raspail

Cleanup: Michael Jackson; Shrek Forever After; John Kampfner
Merge: United States federal courts; Lucas Jones; Air Jamaica
Add Sources: Judicial review in the United States; Rockstar 101; Chinese State Circus
Wikify: James Plaintain; James John Unger; Surfboard lock
Expand: Index of United States–related articles; Barbadian people; Burnham v. Superior Court of California

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)