User talk:Lord Roem/Archive 7

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

Welcome!

 * }

Left-wing terrorism
Thanks for offering to 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 . 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 . 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)

Speedy deletion nomination of Glover v. United States


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the reasoning behind the speedy deletion? I apologize if my skeleton led you to believe I would leave it like that, but I just wanted to make sure the page was saved and my work wasn't lost. It is now filled in completely which should meet the guidelines. Cheers! -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Lord Roem, I just wanted to say that although you were completely in the right, you can avoid this issue by putting at the top of the new page. That will automatically place a notice at the top of the page that alerts other editors that you are still editing. Alternatively, you can create your own sandbox by creating a page in your user space, say "User:Lord Roem/Sandbox" where you can edit at your leisure. —Ute in DC (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (Richwales)
Rich wales (talk · contribs) 07:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Illinois v. McArthur
Hello! Your submission of Illinois v. McArthur at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Adoption
Hello, I noticed that you are interested in being adopted. I am looking for someone to adopt. You seem like a user who would benefit the most from having a mentor. I have over 5000 edits to Wikipedia, although most of them are mostly on medical topics. If you still want to be adopted please reply to this message or contact me on my own talk page. Thanks!!! Peter.C •  talk  22:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Question?
Hello there. Just wondering, do you use this name elsewhere on the web? All the best,-- White Shadows Those Christmas lights 03:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Does that forum happen to be AH.com? (I edit there as 1.36 and just happened to notice that you have a name that matches another one's there)-- White Shadows Those Christmas lights 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is :) (I'm currently a candidate for the Sandbox Congress there) Anyway, just curious. Back to work ;) (BTW, this conversation fell under WP:MYSPACE so just pretend that we never spoke of this) If you need any help here...I'm at your service. I've been here over a year and know my way as much as most people. Good luck working on the 7th most visited site in the world. All the best,-- White Shadows Those Christmas lights 05:54, 31 December 2010 (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)

Vance v. Terrazas eventual FA?
Hi. Without taking any significant effort or time on your part right now (I know you're busy reviewing other articles), how close do you think Vance v. Terrazas is to becoming a Featured Article some day? And what sorts of things should I be thinking of doing in order to raise it to that standard? Thanks. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK
Hi could you please check out my DYK nomination for the Frans Otto Eriksson article that I created today. Thanks--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have fixed your concerns with the article. Thanks for the input.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While you at it could you please check out my nomination for Joanna Yeates that I put on December 25. The article is currently in the ending of a Afd that will end up in a definite Keep, hope that is no problem because the hook is good for the article. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. And when you check it please find out if he/she can find someone to perhaps if they find it OK to close the Afd. Because Keep consensus has been reached.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And dont forget to approve the Frans Otto Eriksson article ;),.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Im no expert and I might be wrong and the article already granted DYK, but dont you have to put a Symbol confirmed.svg, and a small explaination for the approval as a confirmation..hmm?--BabbaQ (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (Richwales) re: LSC v. Velasquez
Rich wales (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 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
The DYK project (nominate) 02:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Exceptional newcomer

 * 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
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; 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!

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, 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)