User talk:Roger A. Lohmann/Archive 2
User bio is in User:Roger_Lohmann
follow-up to our conversation about culture area
It occurred to me just now that you might be interested in developing an inter-disciplinary approach to the article on ethnonyms as well. It was one of the first articles I worked on here, and I've hardly looked back since, but it would be a good candidate for attention from many different perspectives. --Joe Quick 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
final version for approval on folk saint
If you have a moment, please have a look at the most recent posts here. In order to include Shamira's copyedits in the approved article, the to-be-approved version number has to be updated in the metadata by the nominating editor. Thanks! --Joe Quick 15:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
U.S. Education History articles - merge needed
Currently, there are two articles on Citizendium concerned with this topic, to wit:
The former, written by myself, consists at the moment in an introductory section only. I wish this to be retained as it provides a general overview and perspective. However, the two artilces should be merged. Both are assigned to Workgroups "History" and "Education", though they differ as to which is the primary WG. I assigned "History" as the primary WG and I believe this to be correct.
My question is: which should be the title article and which the redirect? Your call. Let me know and I will do the merge which includes moving the references on the one article to the subpages.
(The merge is simple enough - just add my intro section to the other article or vice versa, and construct the subpages. However, you are a History WG editor, so you could overrule this, of course. In the absence of a redirect, I'm glad I did a thorough search for duplicate articles before setting to work in earnest on this subject.)
James F. Perry 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Approval question
Could you take a look at Seven Wonders of the Ancient World? Its not my best work but I do think it's ready for approval. I don't really see any way it could be improved except maybe formatting issues. But I'm open to suggestions.Drew R. Smith 09:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Grand Trunk Railway
Hello Roger, I just nominated this one for approval. Please look it over; you're the only other history editor who would be familiar with such things. Thanks! Russell D. Jones 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Re-approval Adams-Onís Treaty draft
Roger, since I'm the author of the Adams-Onís Treaty/Draft article, I can not nominate it for re-approval and need another history editor to nominate it. Would you please look it over and consider nominating the draft for approval? Thanks. Russell D. Jones 12:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
final touches on the Grand Trunk Railway
Russell updated the version of Grand Trunk Railway to be approved to the most recent revision and the article is just about ready to go, but we need you to have a look over those changes and let us know whether you also agree with them. Once we've heard from you and Milt, Hayford or Matt can make it official. Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 12:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be a bother but did you see the note I left above? I noticed that you've been on the wiki in the last couple of hours but didn't respond here or at the article talk page. --Joe Quick 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Kamehameha I
In my opinion, Kamehameha I is as close to being "complete" as it can be. I think I have covered all major aspects of his life. I am asking you four; Joe Quick (as approvals manager), Roger Lohmann (as a history and politics editor), Russell Jones (as a history editor), and Howard Berkowitz (as a military editor), to look over the article and suggest any changes you think neccessary. Between the five of us, I don't see why we can't get this article improved. Thanks for your time. Drew R. Smith 09:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
changes to Grand Trunk
Hi Roger, have you seen the comments on the talk page of Grand Trunk Railway? Milt and Russell are already on board for a quick re-approval. If you have a few minutes, could you stop by? Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 13:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Editor applications
Hi Roger, any chances that you can take a look at the editor application queue, there seem to be some there that probably need some attention. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 00:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Roger for looking into those editors, poor things were in purgatory for a long time! Is that really his name? I know there is a section of India (I think) that only uses one name. D. Matt Innis 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- So it seems! Roger Lohmann 23:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you help?
Hi Roger! Good to see you hard at work again!!! I hate to slow your progress, but I wonder if you might stop in at Eric Holder and see if you can help with a comment concerning the article content.
- Matt, I just tried to post this to the Talk Page of Eric Holder, but it appears you've locked it. (Can't imagine why! ;-)
- This is the comment I was going to post.
- I've just read this article through once without attempting to comprehend any of the comments on the Talk Page (except what was necessary to scroll to the bottom!). My initial reaction is that once again we have a problem trying to get the right focus on a politically-controversial living public figure.
- And in this case, its complicated by Holder's position as Attorney General. Is he the President's man, a neutral public servant, are the two roles in conflict and do we even know yet, since he's only been in office for a few months. Moreover, with his appointment of a special prosecutor, the political controversy is likely just beginning. For CZ purposes, the current article is not yet encyclopedia; it reads a little too much like the kind of "box score" daily political commentary we have come to expect from CNN and Newsweek and the blogsphere. But, that's fine; its a good start. I didn't see any overt evidences of political biases, The article does makes the Attorney General out more to be a partisan political figure than the nation's #1 law enforcement official. (Obviously, that isn't an either or proposition.)
- This is the start of a good solid encyclopedia entry. There is certainly no reason for any kind of drastic action about the article at this point. It might be a good time however for a "time out" on continuing to add to the growing body of argumentation on the talk page. Mostly, contributors are probably talking past one another anyway. (They usually do). The only contribution I can see worth making at this point would be a purely editorial one: a list of short bullet points extracted from that discussion, noting continuing issues and concerns only (and not reviewing any of the arguments pro and con.)
- How about a moritorium for a week or so on additions to the main entry? Authors and critics can go on to other things for that time; like building the subpages. Meanwhile, I'll try to sift through the comments on the talk page and compile my own list (and invite a couple of other editors to do the same). Then, let's see if, a week or so we can be at a new starting point and ready to move on. In the meantime, please don't shift the discussion and pummel me with private emails, because I won't read them until later anyway.
- Roger Lohmann 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)