User talk:Roger A. Lohmann/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:48, 7 October 2020

1, 2, 3

TSCF article updated

Dear Roger, I just made small updates to the article on The Social Capital Foundation, corrected links. Could you please approve the new version. Thanks. Koen Demol 19:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Roger, I am looking forward to having your return. Koen Demol 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I am looking forward to having your return. Koen Demol 10:55, 2 May 2011 (CDT)

New politics author

Roger, we have just been joined by Levan Ramishvili of Georgia as a new politics author. You may wish to post a welcome message on his Talk page. Milton Beychok 03:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

History editor input needed

There is a complex controversy over appropriate terminology and neutrality policy starting in the article on Josef Mengele and spilling over to War crime and perhaps other places I am not aware of. Input from history editors might be helpful. Sandy Harris 03:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of current information here.

Just to clarify, so there’s no misunderstanding or hard feeling, this issue is above editor input level.

This matter has gone to the ME and the Ombudsman, and is currently before the EC as Case http://locke.citizendium.org/cz_ec/DR-2010-001.

I believe that due to the time zone difference, the EC Secretary will have retired already, which is the reason I’m commenting.

I am sure the EC will contact Dr Lohmann officially should his input be needed.

Aleta Curry 05:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, but the accused in this matter may well contact experts, and no Charter or EC rule prevents discussion. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Editorial guidance for WikiLeaks

Dear Roger,

would you be available to guide content development at the WikiLeaks article? Just as in the section above, this case involves Howard and Martin, who are both Editors on the article, but far from an agreement on how its content should be structured, weighed, phrased and sourced. As a Politics Editors, I think you would be well positioned to handle that matter. Thank you! --Daniel Mietchen 15:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Note: I didn't write the comment but I did see its contents and I concur completely with its deletion from my page! Roger A. Lohmann 13:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Editorial guidance for Politics

I am no longer seeking approval for this article because I accept Martin Baldwin-Edwards' points about matters that should be added (see Talk:Politics#Towards approval). But I should be glad of a ruling on the point made by Sandy Harris - and for any advice that you can offer.Nick Gardner 09:45, 7 May 2011 (CDT)

Please review Los Alamos National Laboratory for consideration as an Approved article

Roger, would you please review Los Alamos National Laboratory and see if it is ready to be nominated for Approval? Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 00:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review Politics for consideration as an approved article

I have done what I can to prepare Politics for approval and I have created a new article on the History of political thought to meet the need for an historical context. Is there anything further that should be done? Nick Gardner 09:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Re re-approval of Cypherpunk Feb-Mar 2012

Roger: I am planning to nominate Cypherpunk/Draft for re-approval. Will you take a look at it and let me know if I can include your name as supporting the nomination.

I will allow two weeks for comments before we need to certify for approval. Thanks. --Anthony.Sebastian 03:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Europe is now certified for approval

Roger, thank you very much for your input on Europe. Great work, and enabling.

I hope you will consider sharing your fountain of knowledge further on CZ; no one will mind getting splashed if that fountain showers CZ with new or upgraded articles.

You can even continue working on Europe if you want; I will try to expedite re-approval when you' like.

An article, History of Europe?

Anthony.Sebastian 22:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for Management and Editorial Councils

You have been nominated for seats on both the Management and Editorial Councils in the July-August Special Election. The nominator was myself. To accept or decline these nominations, please visit the Nominations page here (for the Management Council seat) and here (for the Editorial Council Editor seat) by midnight UTC on July 27th. You may write an election statement for each if you wish (linked from the Nominations page).

The Management Council seat runs until June 30th, 2014 or June 30th, 2015 (the successful candidate with the fewest votes receiving the shorter term) and the Editorial Council seat expires on December 31st, 2014. In the event that Referendum 1 is passed, all seats will expire on June 30th, 2014. Thanks! John Stephenson 17:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Pompeii article nomination

Hi - this article was approved some time ago by you and Russell, but for some reason it never went through. Russell has now approved a new version which mainly fixes typos. Can you consider supporting it within the next week by adding your name to the metadata? Thanks. John Stephenson (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Links

I have noticed that Talk items signed by you as Roger Lohmann (I presume it's the same person without the A), are showing up in red, as though you were not there. I am glad you are there. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin,

Thanks for asking. Yes, they are both me. The history on that is long and convoluted and well buried in the past. There are actually a number of Roger Lohmanns in the U.S., including one other who is not me in the social sciences but when I first joined CZ, Larry was dead set against initials. It was only later that I got to claim the A! Roger A. Lohmann (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election

You've been nominated as a candidate for the post of Managing Editor in the June 2016 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguating Company and Corporation

I started this but will need you help to make some decisions, because company and corporation are so often used interchangeably--but not always. These exist now (and are cross-referenced to each other):

Pretty soon, we should put these redirects in place:

Company redirecting to Company (disambiguation)
Corporation redirecting to Corporation (disambiguation)

However, I have not put those redirects in place yet, because I wanted to give you a chance to Search to find all the existing article which have either Company or Corporation in their title or their text, and thus, flesh out and organize the two disambig pages above.

That sounds like the best way to do it.Roger A. Lohmann (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

And there are page naming questions for the articles to be disambiguated. For example, I always thought that LLC stands for "Limited Liability Corporation", but someone has instead put the article under Limited liability company and redirected every possible variation they could think of to that. Maybe we should move it to either LLC or Limited Liability Corportation, and redirect all the variants to that. Tell me which you want. There will be other similar decisions.

I'm really not sure about this either. We'll have to look more closely. Roger A. Lohmann (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I have temporarily moved Corporation to Corporation (general). That may not be the best name, but I have to move it somewhere so that we can conduct an exhaustive search on "corporation". Please revise the two disambig pages to suit yourself and them put the redirects above in place as soon as you are ready.

Sorry it's such a mess!Pat Palmer (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The mess may be somewhere between the states and the IRS. As the link below shows, a search of the IRS website on the tag "limited liability CORPORATION" produces - wait for it! - lots of references to Limited Liability COMPANIES". I suspect this is an effort by the IRS, paradoxically, to make the matter easier for tax payers. The whole question is really enough to make a tax lawyer's eyes glaze over!

https://www.irs.gov/site-index-search?search=limited+liability+corporation&field_pup_historical_1=1&field_pup_historical=1

Perhaps the best thing to do might be to include some discussion of the discrepancies in word use. Roger A. Lohmann (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Planning article collection

I have noticed some rather odd articles with "Plan" in the title, such as Single Integrated Operational Plan. I have no idea if this article should be disambiguated, or whether it is worth existing at all.

Pat, I'm not certain how many articles like S.I.O.P. there may be, and I was never quite sure what Howard was doing in exercising his enthusiasm, but that one certainly could be subsumed under a Planning subtopic of some sort; perhaps something like Military planning (or, even M.A.D. - Mutually Assured Destruction) on the Planning (disambig) page. But that particular article could also do with some serious shortening. Once we decide, there is a huge Bot-suggested list attached there also. Roger A. Lohmann (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If we temporarily remove the redirect from Planning or Plan to the disambiguation page, you'd be able to see literally everything in the search, including articles with different names that have a lot of "planning" in their text. It is one good reason not to make the main keyword the disambiguation itself.

I'm not certain I understand what you are proposing here. Would this produce a different search result than what I get when I select the italicized "containing Planning" at the bottom of the scroll-down? BTW, I see what you mean about a lot of mentions of planning. My usual approach would be to work through the search result and integrate selected items (like Chicago Plan) into the Related Pages listings, but now I'm unclear of whether is should go there or on the disambiguation page. Roger A. Lohmann (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow! I never even noticed that ability to search on "containing". Useful! The thing is, when Planning exists as a redirect to Planning (disambiguation), some articles with Planning in their title could be invisible to you, because Search will just take you to the disambig page, end of story. So by deleting it for a day or few, you can check out what was being covered up by the presence of that redirect. I need to do a similar article inventory for the whole Cryptology mess over in the Computers Workgroup. Not sure when I'll get time to tackle that, but it's on my list.Pat Palmer (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to work in this area, feel free to request deletion of strange articles that are not in a very complete or useful state. In other words, get it all organized in a way you can easily work with. Let me know if you need the redirects removed or any other help.Pat Palmer (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Will do. Roger A. Lohmann (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)