User talk:Michael Ramey

Nomination of Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI
I appreciate your retraction of your comment, but you're missing the point a little. It isn't appropriate to call people names, whatever userboxes they have on their page. In particular, suggesting that non-straight users are incapable of impartial editing is a great way to get blocked. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was not meant to suggest that non-straight users are incapable of impartial editing; I am very sorry it could be construed as such. I merely meant to point out that your leftward leanings and the rightward leanings of organizations associated with the Amendment clearly conflict - that alone does not mean Wiki should delete the page. My bias is public and a part of this debate; I felt it only fair that yours be included, too. Neither of us is totally neutral on this. Deletion of a page regarding an active and growing movement for lack of media coverage is, in my opinion, premature. Michael Ramey 20:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:CRYSTAL. If this "movement" develops, an article on it can be created, but absent significant media coverage, at best it deserves mention in the article on US ratification of the Convention. COI =/= bias; I'm not being paid to promote anything. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot and do not deny that I am paid by ParentalRights.org. But the others who have significantly edited this page from my original offering are not. They received nothing for their work, were not in any way associated with us, and they have contributed a great deal to edit the article and make it more neutral. Again, my position is not a reason to take down the article as long as my goals do not conflict with those of Wikipedia, and I aver that they do not. This is becoming a major issue; it will further Wikipedia's goals to keep it. If it is deleted, it will only come back in a few months when the media catch up and its notability is no longer a question. Michael Ramey (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the article can be re-created then. Right now, unfortunately, there are simply no reliable sources that give it significant coverage and thus justify keeping it. See, again, WP:CRYSTAL - we can't have an article on something that hasn't happened because one editor promises us that it will definitely happen someday. Would you agree to deletion if the page could be userfied (ie. made into a subpage of your user page, like User:Michael Ramey/Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, where you could add sources as they turned up and move the article into mainspace when it had achieved sufficient notability)? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a little bit today in hopes of answering, at least in part, the notability issue. In addition, I find at WP:CRYSTAL "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The legislative history, including that added today, is certainly verifiable and the subject would certainly merit an article if the event - passage of the Amendment - had already occurred. I cannot say this is a no-brainer. I see your argument, and I am comfortable with saving the page in the manner you suggested and reintroducing it later if Wiki agrees with your stance. But I also see where this page could be judged to be within Wiki guidelines. Not a slam dunk, but inside the lines. I must also admit I am not nearly as skilled with Wiki as you are, and I am certainly open to hearing more details on various options such as the one you mentioned. It may be that your suggestion is in fact the perfect solution, but I don't know enough about it. I still think I would like Wiki to weigh in, but not to be beligerant. I would like to get a clearer understanding of Wiki guidelines in this tricky area so that I can best abide by them. And keeping the page public while things develop will allow other editors to keep it neutral so I don't manage to reintroduce a newly notable but biased page later on. I acknowledge my bias, and know I benefit from the participation of other editors on this project. Thank you for your discussion. I look forward to hearing more details and options. Sincerely. Michael Ramey (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be worried about introducing a biased page. The currently existing version looks well-written and decently neutral, and even if it weren't, you could seek out input from other users (via relevant WikiProjects, for example) either before or after introducing it. (There's no rule against editing someone else's user space if they've given you permission, and I believe it's sometimes done for draft articles, so you could definitely get help while you developed it if you were concerned about bias.) As you correctly noted, the content you just added supports the subject's verifiability (or rather would if it had been cited properly, but "I did a search" isn't a source - can you cite the specific page? Let me know if you need help); however, it doesn't support its notability. Ie. you have added sources which would confirm that the proposed amendment exists, but not that it merits an article (for which you would need reliable secondary sources, like press or books, that cover it in significant detail). Anyway, I'm not sure how to userfy something that's already been in mainspace. If you're interested in this option, you might want to post a comment to that effect on the discussion page, so that if the consensus is to delete, the closing admin might userfy it for you without you having to ask. I'll keep an eye on the draft and add any sources I come across in the future. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I was advised to bring up your COI at the conflict of interest noticeboard and have done so. The resulting discussion hopefully will help you with ideas on contributing constructively in other areas. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Michael: I see that you have been working with several editors on this article. What is dangerous is for a new user to come in to edit something they are very close to, and have preconsived ideas and biases regarding that article and how it should form and what the purposes of wikipedia are. What might be of significant value would be for you to take a break from this article, say a month or so. I know it sounds like a long time, but this is an old issue, so it can stand to sit for a while. Let some other editors work on it for a bit. Instead, spend some time editing other articles which you have a personal (non-professional) interest in, such as photography, or nature, or motocycles or whatever your particular interests are. Take a little bit of time to contribute on those non-political areas, and learn the ropes of Wikipedia a bit, and then perhaps dive into similar types of political bills for areas you aren't directly involved in. Cut your teeth, so to speak on those articles. Something you don't have a personal/professional interest/conflict in. Then return back to this article with fresh prospective. I believe it will help out a lot. It will also provide you with a lot more credibility. There is a policy about single purpose accounts which aren't forbidden, but are looked at with caution by other editors, especially when there is an established conflict of interest, as well as there being a disputed article such as this. Hopefully that provides you some help with moving forward. If you have questions please let me know. Tiggerjay (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that you are still allowed to edit the article per WP:COI. But you must follow WP:NPOV and other policies, and not make controversial edits. The discussion at WP:COIN didn't find any disruption nor promotional editing nor ownership. Just be careful and ask someone if you are unsure. – Lionel (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Parental Rights Amendment
Hi! You're getting this message because you voted keep in this deletion discussion. Please consider adding secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the article's subject; otherwise, it may still be liable to be deleted. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Second AfD for Parental Rights Amendment
See Articles for deletion/Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution (2nd nomination) for the new deletion discussion. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to participate at the AfD and vote Keep, Delete or comment. As long as you edit appropriately and make good points. Per WP:SPA.– Lionel (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Parental Rights Amendment
Hi Michael! A quick Google search shows enough sources to Keep the article at AfD. But just barely. What do you think about expanding the topic to include state amendments, in particular the failed Colorado amendment, which was well covered? – Lionel (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to 2nd AfD
Thank you, Philosopher, for alerting me to the discussion. Thank you, Lionel, for the supporting documentation. I welcome edits to the page to fix this problem, as I have from the start. I also can see where Roscalese is coming from. Two months later, we still are not seeing a lot of coverage - I can't argue with that. I think Lionel has a point and has provided some good sources, but I can't say if that will satisfy everyone or not. If the page comes down for this reason, I have no doubt it will be back (because the need will be met), so I will not argue the matter either way at this point, though I reserve the right to weigh-in latr in this discussion. I appreciate all of you (pro- and con-) trying to do right by both Wikipedia and this topic. Michael Ramey talk 23:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Article was Kept. I'd like to invite you to the talk page to discuss ideas for improving the article and review any issues about your editing the article.– Lionel (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)