User talk:Somno/Archive 7

RFA

I liked your answer to SoWhy's question. A bit of historical context for you:

(imagine your grandfather waving his cane and shouting "when I was a boy...")

... there was no such thing as speedy deletion. The right to decide what should be deleted was firmly in the hands of the community; administrators were just janitors, and the idea of giving them the authority to make unilateral decisions was anathema.

But as time went by, more and more crap oozed into Wikipedia. Remember that there was no such thing as semi-protection back then, nor were there any waiting periods to create an article, nor had PRODding been invented. (and we had to sleep on rocks. And I had to walk twenty miles barefoot to school. After I'd milked the house cow)

It reached the point where AfD was simply overloaded with garbage (except it was VfD then; that's right, we voted). So a proposal was put to allow administrators to delete certain classes of articles on sight. It was bitterly fought. Many people opposed it on philosophical grounds. Many more supported it on pragmatic grounds. In the end it scraped through, but only because the criteria were very stringently circumscribed. Initially, there wasn't even a "no claim to notability" criterion; that was added later. Basically you could only speedy stuff that was indisputably utter garbage.

The moral of the story is: speedy deletion is a privilege grudgingly given by a jealous community, so don't use it if you're not certain you're doing the community's will; and if a good faith user challenges one of your speedy deletions, undelete immediately.

Hesperian 05:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints Gramps. ;) Ah, the olden days... That was a time when I just read the encyclopedia and it solved a lot of trivial arguments with friends and co-workers, without me realising that there were arguments going on behind the scenes. Somno (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

May I have a welcome template? Thanks for your welcome~!--JN 11:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome

Thanks for your welcome! You have a good sketch in your userpage! Is it drawing by yourself?--JN 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

:-) I am from Chinese Wikipedia, it is also the main-wiki..... I am translating article from english to chinese^^, which is Gwon-gyokdo. BTW, do you know chinese language... Your timezone is very near to Chinese Country...--JN 09:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Great Scott! I vote support to you in your request of admin.....Sorry for my bad englsih...It was really bad..really bad..I am from Hong Kong~ Do you have any IM...Good for chatting~--JN 09:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine^^--JN 10:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you adpot me? I have seen a fun page about adpot user in en.wikipedia.. sounds like a good idea I think..!--JN 14:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing...I would like to try that till I can using en.wikipedia without other one's helping...--JN 09:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA ... I have already commented -- Tinu Cherian - 10:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dom omladine Beograda

Yeah, I like that better too, I only used Serbian b/c they use it on their site; which I will also update now :) Nikola (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your Request for Adminship as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well deserved. --Chasingsol^(talk) 11:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Right as you were posting that, I noticed a bunch of new tab links at the top of the screen. :) Somno (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Somno, I am sure you will do a great job. Now it's time to head to WP:NAS and most importantly, choose which userbox you want to use. Someone will be around with your admin-shirt any minute, I just forgot where I left it... ;-) SoWhy 11:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, choosing a userbox. I must put everything else on hold and focus on the most important part of adminship! ;) Somno (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought getting an entry at the super secret Cabal page was the most important part? I'm so confused... _{p.s. those buttons at the top are your ticket to infamy... use them wisely :)}--Chasingsol^(talk) 11:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, I'm sure you'll do very well with the tools. Your RfA was agreeably low on the drama side too... as far as RfAs go, anyway! Best of luck. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and Best wishes again -- Tinu Cherian - 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll go around to !voters' talk pages and thank everyone properly soon. Somno (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA!

Pretty graphs! Already the RFA has paid off. :) Somno (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The pleasure was all mine. My graphs are created and rendered in OOo, converted to PDF, converted to SVG and then exported to PDF (because the MW renderer hates the text, and frankly turns anything 'pretty' into garbage. Thanks for spending the time leaving me a message. :)

And I already got my trouting :D — neuro^(talk) 12:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

For someone repeatedly identified as he during the rfa

Well done girl! :) hope you dont mind me calling you that ! SatuSuro 14:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope he doesn't mind you calling him a girl ;) — neuro^(talk) 15:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh? people vote in rfas and dont even look at the user pages - nah i dont believe it SatuSuro 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

People are silly. Usually that's just me, though. — neuro^(talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Yeah, I thought everyone calling me "he" was pretty funny because Hesp's nom statement clearly referred to me as "she", and I assumed the people !voting would have read that. :) Somno (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

I've just been looking at your userpage, and figured I should make mine more minimal. Would it be alright if I modified the content of and proceeded to use yours? — neuro^(talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've got it up at User:Neurolysis (with attribution in the source). If you would prefer otherwise, hit me up. :) — neuro^(talk) 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good! I like minimalist user pages. :) Somno (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

grats

Uh, let me be the first to offer you congratulations on receiving a coupl'a extra tabs. Hesperian 11:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You were the first to support, and I think that counts for something! :) Somno (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ce

Unless you are closing up shop for the evening, I was wondering if I could ask you to run your eye over Novae Hollandiae Plantarum Specimen? cygnis insignis 13:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look and I'm not up to reading through it properly at the moment. :) I'll be back on here tomorrow morning and I'll have a look then, if that's OK? Somno (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it'll be later today. Somno (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm

Ok I have heard you are a real person from some who went to the last meetup (sic) = thanks for your thanks = its reassuring we arent all bots or templated trolls :) SatuSuro 04:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I have a whole heap of ideas = knowing you have access to things I dont - give me a week or two and I'll be back with a wish list :) SatuSuro 04:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wish I could have said something...

Congratulations Somno. I was oblivious to all the recent RFA activity. I would like to have contributed my strong support of course, but having read through all the RFA comments, it would not have made any difference anyway. An extraordinarily high support:oppose ratio & much of the oppose comment appeared to melt over the course of a few days. To a brilliant editor - well done. Your adminship - not only well deserved by you, but good for Wikipedia. GlenDillon 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very nice of you to say. :) RFAs can easily pass by unnoticed, so no worries about not !voting. I definitely didn't expect so much support and it was a pleasant surprise. Somno (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also have supported had I been aware - glad to have you on board :) Orderinchaos 13:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If I do break the wiki though, you two will be able to stand back and say "well, at least I didn't vote for her". Haha. ;) Somno (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A7 and your RfA

First, I responded on my talk page that was one of the better thankspams I've seen, but I did want to respond to your answer to the IAR scenario at your RfA. A7 explicitly excludes fictional material. So a character or something made up should never be deleted per A7. A7 only covers REAL people, REAL groups, REAL whatever. If it is made up, then it can be deleted as G3 vandalism. An argument might be made for G2 test page and depending on the scenario, G1 MIGHT apply, but G1 is over used by a lot of people.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 18:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's going to be ages before I even consider deleting something by slightly bending a rule; I'm just happy I can start getting rid of the obvious criteria-meeting crap! Somno (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why I supported ya... while I don't believe that you never IAR, I think it should be rarely done at CSD. We have too many careless deleters... people who delete first and think they know when to break (not bend) the criteria.---I'm Spartacus! ^{The artist formerly known as Balloonman} 15:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

precarity

actually, i didn't try to do what you said. what i tried to do was a simple fork of precarity, because there were 2 different, but apparently there are 4 groups working on different concepts that do not overlap. anyway, it isn't my issue, i was jsut trying to resolve the issue between groups.--Buridan (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Buridan's talk page. Somno (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

should give attribution, just a nice thing to do. given the communities involved, there was no need.--Buridan (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. Somno (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

actually there seems to be a somewhat confused notion of legal, as it is not necessary for 'legal reasons' here, as the practices preclude it if you mean u.s. copyright law. in published works of claimed authorship, then yes, but here we do not have claimed or solo authorship, we have community authorship, so good luck with the 'legal reasons', because there aren't any to speak of given the terms of participation in current frameworks of copyright law given the stated policies and current practices. else if we did have to do such things, we'd have to close the whole project because we cannot account for copyright, nor the moral rights of the author claims we'd face. I can see the moral necessity, but alas, i'm afraid you'll have to explain the legal issues quite a bit more for me to recognize them.--Buridan (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

so yes, there are no legal issues, unless you are claiming each discrete page is a separate project, which it isn't and you want to claim that there is no way to determine past authors of the current pages, which would seem to be pretty hard to argue given that you found it and the bots found it before so there is a clear trail. i agree giving credit is a wikipedia convention and part of the gfdl(granted all of my contributions are public domain), but simple examination of these pages shows the same contributors took the 'forked page' and started making a mess of it, so it is sort of moot. it would be nice to do, but unnecessary. if you want to do it, be bold, but alas, i did what i did, and i'm not going to go back and do more there, nor am i likely to act differently unless there is good reason in the future. I agree with the convention, i don't see that it is a norm, nor should i really worry about it. but i welcome your concern and efforts as you see fit. --Buridan (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

speedy deleted page

I would like to write an article about AsiaPay but it is speedy deleted. As there is many article about online payment gateway, may AsiaPay also included in Wiki? May you please kindly advice how I can write to meet the Wiki standard? Here is the article being deleted. "AsiaPay Limited is an online payment service provider, strives to electronic payment processing solutions and services to banks, corporate, SMEs, charities and others in Asia market for credit card, debit card and other prepaid card payments. AsiaPay serves as accredited TPP processor and payment gateway solution vendor for banks, certified IPSP for merchants, certified international 3D-Secure vendor for Visa, MasterCard and JCB. Headquartered in Hong Kong, AsiaPay operates 5 other offices across Asia including Thailand, Philippines, Singapore, Macau and China."

AsiaPay is the authorized vendor of 3D-secure in industry. ie. http://www.visa-asia.com/ap/hk/en_US/cardholders/offers/vbv_index.shtml, http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/solutions/securecode_vendor_list.html Besides, AsiaPay is in the Registry PCI DSS Service Provider list (http://www.visa-asia.com/ap/sea/merchants/riskmgmt/vrsp_list.html). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowielkk (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bowielkk, please read the Frequently Asked Questions page for businesses, particularly numbers 4, 5 and 6 in the list of contents. It explains the notability requirements for articles, and how to write an article that meets Wikipedia's standards. Once you have established notability (through multiple non-trivial mentions of AsiaPay in independent, reliable sources), make sure the text is neutral and not an advertisment. The article I deleted, Paydollar, was a blatant advertisement (e.g. "integrated payment transaction-processing service that enables your business...", "Visit our PayDollar eCharity corner to learn more." etc), hence why it wasn't suitable for Wikipedia. I hope that helps; please ask if you have any more questions. Somno (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

chrysler car club of south australia

Hi Somno, I sent you an email yesterday but I'm not sure if you would have received it so I decided to write to you here. I hope that is alright. How are you. Thanks for reading. I recently put up an article for the Chrysler car Club of South Australia, which you deleted as 'blatant advertising'. OK, I gather therefore that some of the content was in breach of the Wiki rules. I certainly did not intend to write an advertorial, as our club is a not-for-profit community group, and I tried to tell true facts and not mention anything such as about membesrhip fees, so can you please explain to me why you deleted it and give me some direction on what would make a better entry, as I would like to rewrite and post it up again. I'd be very grateful not only for your commentary but also if you could provide me with the original copy (as I seem to have misplaced it). Many thanks. Kind regards, Ursis (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)ursisUrsis (talk)

Hi Ursis. I check Wikipedia more regularly than I check my Wikipedia email, so this is the best place to get in contact with me. I have copied the article into your userspace here: User:Ursis/Chrysler Car Club of South Australia. This gives you a chance to work on the article and get it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. When you believe the article is ready, you can ask me and/or other users to review it, and we can give you further advice or OK its move into "mainspace" (article space). This process will avoid the article being deleted again.

Wikipedia's definition of "blatant advertising" does not distinguish between for-profit and not-for-profit organisations; what it basically means is that the article does not meet the neutral point of view policy because it is written in a promotional style, rather than an encyclopedic tone. The article's other issues are:

• has no reliable sources to verify the information provided;
• does not establish that the organisation is notable; and,
• includes too much directory-style information (e.g. "Model T Ford Club at Port Road, Welland on the second Tuesday of every month"; "approximately 400m from the South Road intersection and another 400m from Welland Plaza - in the central island strip (almost opposite the Officeworks warehouse)"; "These are advertised in the Weekly Trader in the "Collectors & Vintage" column, or the Advertiser newspaper's Club Notes section on Thursdays.").

Have a read through the links above and work on the article in userspace so it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. :) Regards, Somno (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Reviewmageddon

Hi, I see you reverted several invalid speedy deletion claims from User:Ryoga3099. It's just one of his valid claims did go through and the Reviewmageddon article has been deleted. Is there any possibility of recovering the article at all as it was taken down by a bogus claim? Thanks!--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

When someone tags articles using non-existent criteria, there's no way the articles should be deleted. The deleting admin has restored Reviewmageddon now, so it seems it's sorted out? Somno (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD for New York Mets Radio Network

It was speedy deleted under A1 this user also created the similar Philadelphia Phillies Radio Network. Since I didn't get a chance to see the original, I ask for recreation, and for allowing to at least tag categorize and include in {{Major League Baseball on the radio}}. The article certainly lacks quality and could be better, but we shouldn't WP:BITE and in particular in view of {{Major League Baseball on the radio}} it most probably was not CSD A1. Could you please reverse? --Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Also applies to San Diego Padres Radio Network. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I try my best not to be bite-y! Nine hours lapsed between another user tagging the Mets article and me deleting it, which is enough time to add more content or a hangon tag (as the user was still active), in which case I may have declined the speedy rather than delete. To me, an article consisting of the name of a radio station and a call sign is not encyclopedic content - same as, for example, the name of a company and an external link. Philadelphia Phillies Radio Network has been improved by other editors though so I'm willing to take a chance that these two articles will be too. I think you're also aware that this user had another 20 articles deleted that were much the same? Somno (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, San Diego Padres Radio Network has been speedily deleted again with much agreement at its AFD, and New York Mets Radio Network has been made into a redirect. If you think the articles belong here, it looks like you'll need to recreate them because consensus shows that Bryn Morgan's versions of the articles don't meet Wikipedia's standards. Somno (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Theo sparks

Oops, did I put the incorrect tag? It was previously deleted per G11 so I just put the same tag. decltype (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the text was different - last time it was promoting his website, this time it wasn't promoting anything in particular. If Theo doesn't stop mentioning himself everywhere on Wikipedia soon, I don't think he'll be able to edit here for much longer. Somno (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahh yes, now I remember. Thanks! :) decltype (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Smokestack america

There are plenty of cites, see Talk:Smokestack america. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks heaps better, but is it still only a dictionary definition? I'll comment on the article's talk page. Somno (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Will Stephens

You should also check out the blatant ad bio of his law partner who is running for office and non-notable. See James W. Borkowski. 69.119.113.6 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That biography does have issues, but then an article edited by "Borkowskiforsheriff09" is bound to have neutrality problems. I've tried to find references and prove he's notable, but I've failed. I'll take it to AFD - other editors can chime in and we can find out if he's notable. Somno (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Arachnidpohbia

Plenty of active red backs up in the hills at the moment :) SatuSuro 11:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: stay out of the hills. Somno (talk) 11:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Active redbacks, fascinating! I had some around, but the daddy longs ate 'em. Then two wolf spiders came and ate those; they would freeze when I turned the light on, watching me as went through the room. Shall I tell you more? cygnis insignis 12:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but no, that's enough information already. Somno (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Putnam Victory Fund

I do not think that this section should be removed. There have been plenty of articles written on it, many of them are now archive only, but this story culminated with an FBI raid (and there is a reason this guy lost his re-election bid with only 20% of the vote).

Check these out:

• "Ball assails Stephens over Southeast trash contract". The Journal News. August 23, 2006. http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060823/NEWS02/608230309/1026/NEWS10.
• "Secrecy is not best reaction to Federal Investigation". Danbury News Times. August 24, 2006. http://neighbors.newstimeslive.com/opinion/edit.php?id=1011167.
• "Galante an issue in NY election". Danbury News Times. August 23, 2006. http://www.newstimeslive.com/news/story.php?id=1011109.

Trash invades N.Y. politics Author: Fred Lucas THE NEWS-TIMES Article ID: story86971 Date: July 10, 2006 Publication: News-Times, The (Danbury, CT)

BREWSTER, N.Y. - Putnam County politicians are talking trash. Specifically, they are talking about garbage contracts and political contributions from garbage companies. Though James Galante's federal racketeering case is playing out in Connecticut, the garbage kingpin has become a political issue just across the New York state line, mostly in the race for Putnam County executive and in a state assembly Republican primary.

Trash probe in new phase Author: Karen Ali and Fred Lucas THE NEWS-TIMES Article ID: story74375 Date: September 13, 2005 Publication: News-Times, The (Danbury, CT)

A federal grand jury in New Haven has asked for documents from the agency that oversees Connecticut's trash and recycling industries, apparently as part of an investigation into possible wrongdoing by trash haulers. At the same time, officials in Putnam County, N.Y., confirmed federal officials in New Haven requested records.

FBI raids Article ID: Edit1820 Date: July 31, 2005 Publication: News-Times, The (Danbury, CT)

The July 19 FBI raid on James Galante's trash collection and disposal business in Danbury was quite shocking. Agents worked late into the night at Galante's Automated Waste Disposal on White Street and carried out box after box of his business records.

Simultaneously, agents appeared with search warrants at the Danbury office of Galante's attorney, Jack Garamella, and Galante's home in New Fairfield.

FBI 'mole' boosts Galante probe Author: Fred Lucas THE NEWS-TIMES Article ID: story73173 Date: July 27, 2005 Publication: News-Times, The (Danbury, CT)

Defense lawyers do not know the precise focus of a large-scale federal probe into the region's trash hauling industry. But they have learned of one way the government built its case against Automated Waste Disposal of Danbury. The federal government apparently planted an undercover FBI agent in the White Street complex where dozens of trash trucks dump their loads every day and trash is sorted, an AWD attorney said.

Galante at center of probe Author: Fred Lucas THE NEWS-TIMES Article ID: story73082 Date: July 23, 2005 Publication: News-Times, The (Danbury, CT)

In the past few days, federal agents have collected tens of thousands of documents from a dozen trash hauling companies in Connecticut and New York. And though the full scope of the investigation is still unclear, it has become apparent James Galante, owner of Automated Waste Disposal in Danbury, is a primary focus of the investigation, his lawyer said Friday night.

"Based on the warrants issued, I would expect they are trying to build a RICO case," said attorney H.

Federal raids baffle trash haulers Author: John Pirro THE NEWS-TIMES Article ID: story73051 Date: July 22, 2005 Publication: News-Times, The (Danbury, CT)

DANBURY - Local trash haulers remained either mum or mystified after federal agents searched three Danbury firms this week as part of a federal investigation of the garbage industry in Connecticut and New York. In an addition to raids at Automated Waste Disposal on White Street, the largest solid waste company in the region, and at Country Disposal on Beckerle Street, one of the smallest, investigators examined business records at LoStocco Refuse Services on Beaver Brook Road on Wednesday

Feds expand trash probe Author: John Pirro. Karen Ali and Tony Jones Article ID: story73043 Date: July 21, 2005 Publication: News-Times, The (Danbury, CT)

THE NEWS-TIMES FBI raids at two Danbury trash hauling firms appear to be part of a larger investigation into possible organized crime involvement in the waste disposal industry in Connecticut and New York.

It was well after midnight Wednesday when agents finished loading dozens of boxes from the Automated Waste Disposal complex on White Street into a Ryder truck.

About 16 hours later, FBI and Internal Revenue Services agents searched the offices of Country Disposal on Beckerle Street in

Feds review suits by former Galante firms Saturday Nov 15, 2008 "Every lawsuit is being reviewed, regardless of when a particular contract, to which it's related, was signed or renewed," said Tom Carson, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's off...

Susan Elan, the Journal News

Hauling magnate will be sentenced today for mob-supported conspiracy Wednesday Sep 3, 2008 "The conspiracy was long-lived, extensive, predicated on arson and other acts of violence, threats of violence, economic extortion, fraud, bribery and witness tampering," prosecutors wrot...

Timothy O'Connor, the Journal News

Plus the original 3 sources... 69.119.113.6 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But none of those links or the original three sources work, so we have no way of verifying the information. I will check some news databases and see if I can find anything. If we can't, then we have to remove the section. Somno (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Google News doesn't show a single hit in its archive about this issue in relation to Stephens,[1] and I've searched two online news databases and found nothing. All I have found is one article where his political opponent accuses Stephens of the conflict of interest,[2] (which I linked to before on the article's talk page) but it doesn't appear that the newspaper or anyone neutral and reliable investigated the allegations. I couldn't care less about Stephens, but I do care about the biographies of living persons policy -- there's no way we can keep this uncited negative section in his article. Somno (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Left Rights (album)

The artist's article does not exist, it's just a redirect to the album. I still think it's a pretty clear cut A9 that doesn't need to slog its way through AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the band was Mindless Self Indulgence, but now I see it's a side project of that band. Somno (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Geraldine Davies

I'd prefer if you'd add a decent reference, but I'll restore it since I'll admit that I'm not 100% sure about whether the team she played for meets WP:ATHLETE. Steven Walling (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Steven Walling's talk page. Somno (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article called "The Train That Never Came"

Hi Somno,

Hope you're well.

My name is Hugh Gaffney and I’m author of the wikipedia article on the fantasy novel "The Train That Never Came".

I’ve just discovered that in your job as a wiki editor you have removed this article:

09:32, 15 March 2009 Somno (talk | contribs) deleted "The Train That Never Came" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising).

I’m new to wikipedia, so I looked up clause G11, where it says:

"G11: Blatant advertising. Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopaedic."

First of all I wish to say honestly that I have no money interest in this product. My article wasn’t an ad. I wrote the article as a college project because I read the book through a friend and wanted to find out more about it. Seeing there was no article on wikipedia I took it as an opportunity to write an article myself (for extra course credit). Soon afterwards I wrote a short article about the book and placed it on wikipedia.

Very quickly a wikipedia editor marked the article as a ‘stub’, asking online contributors to make it longer. I did this and also fixed some mistakes (in the original article) and added links to other books and films. I did this because another editor said there weren’t enough links in my article. I think this shows that we have been following all the rules and notes of wikipedia, and this is why I was surprised to see it was gone when I looked today. Also at the end of the article I criticised some parts of the book, which isn’t exactly great for ‘promoting’ the product. I was also very careful not to say anywhere in my article that I thought the book was ‘good’ (I did this because I checked the rules before uploading the original article). I just told people what it was about.

Rule G11 says that "Simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion", in the page about wikispam it says "A differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities."

This is why I am writing to you now. Because I wrote an article that was about a book, not “for the book” or the writer who I don’t know. I didn’t say anywhere that the book was good or should be bought by anyone.

This is why I think it’s unfair to take away my article, which is not an advertisement and really wasn’t the intention. It talks about other books and criticises the book that’s described.I hope I’ve explained my article and the purpose sufficiently for you to reconsider and reinstate it.

Finally, I will of course take off the link to the Amazon site as I didn’t realise that this may have been what made it appear like an ad.

Thanks Somno.

Yours,

Hugh aka Rosewood 999 Rosewood 999 (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hugh, thanks for your questions. There are a few reasons why the article seemed like spam to me, but the main factor was the article's tone. It read like a promotional book review (e.g. "It tells the story of twelve year old Sami Winter, and her discovery of Atheron, an alternate universe full of magic, peril and intrigue."; "Fans of the genre will most likely appreciate the depth of historical data presented in the text"). When dealing with spam, deletion is not the first option - the first option is to rewrite or remove the promotional text, but I didn't see that as viable here because all the text seemed dedicated to explaining how great the book is.

If you like, I can "userfy" the article? This means I move the article into your userspace where you can work on it before moving it back into mainspace (article space) when it's ready. Let me know if you'd like this. Somno (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

MacDonald and Kahn

Somno; Re MacDonald & Kahn I have contacted family to see if they will create page for MacDonald...as well Tex Thornton page needs work.. I will pursue family to see if they might help--charles moore (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Charles. There was no content in this article so I'm not sure whether it would be appropriate for Wikipedia. It is preferable if articles aren't created by family members, who have a conflict of interest. Just make sure the articles are neutral and reliably sourced before posting to avoid them being deleted, or draft them in userspace and ask other editors to have a look first. Somno (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

When I started "Wiking " a month ago Gatoclass set me up with a SandBox where I built a page. When the family is ready to write the story (who better?) then lets set em up with sandbox. I wrote (with tons of help from Gatoclass & Nuero) Charles E Moore as impartially as i could , then Gato edited..... --24.5.23.95 (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)--charles moore (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good plan and definitely what MacDonald's family should do. Somno (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"userfy" the article titled "The Train That Never Came"

Hi Somno,

Hope you're well.

Thank you very much for offering this alternative. I would be v. happy to rework the article along the lines you've suggested and would therefore be grateful if you could move the article to my userspace (forgive my ignorance, but is this my 'talk' page?). I'll make the amends there before moving it back into the mainspace.

If you have any further suggestions viz this process, ie: pointers that might smooth the transition back to 'legitimite' wiki-space, I'll make certain to take these into account also.

Best,

86.155.212.21 (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have moved the article here: User:Rosewood 999/The Train That Never Came. It is a sub-page of your userspace, separate to the talk page. You might like to take a look at some of the Featured Articles for some inspiration - they have been judged the "best" of Wikipedia and are very comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced. You don't need to get The Train That Never Came up to anywhere near the same level, but it might give you some tips about content and encyclopedic tone/writing style? A few examples I've found are: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, To Kill a Mockingbird, Romeo and Juliet and Bone Sharps, Cowboys, and Thunder Lizards. Regards, Somno (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Willis

Hello Somno --

I was rather surprised to see the page "Dennis Willis" removed on the basis that it does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The subject of the article has been one of the leading film critics in San Francisco for over a decade, produced a nationally-syndicated program and is a featured member of the air staff of California's biggest radio station (all with external links). There was also a link to a Hollywood Reporter article. If you could please reconsider, provide some guidelines or at the very least, userfy the page so I don't lose the work, I would be grateful. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snd33083 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snd33083. The article didn't state why he is important/significant - from what I could see when I reviewed the speedy deletion tag, he provides movie reviews on a local radio station, he hosted a TV show on a local unnamed station, he released a short film and a short documentary through self-publication, and the cited source just confirmed that Dennis Willis exists. Perhaps I misunderstood the content, but if so, that shows it wasn't clear enough why Dennis and his achievements are significant and should be included in Wikipedia. I have userfied the article here for you to work on: User:Snd33083/Dennis Willis. Please let me know if you need assistance with anything. Regards, Somno (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

boring

Hey,

To prove to myself that plants aren't the most boring topic in the universe, I whacked out this slightly sloppy article on some old lady's house. Thought I'd pass it to you, since you're the local heritage places buff.

Hesperian 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Places are much more interesting than plants. :) I will take a proper look when I have some more time (shouldn't be on here at all at the moment; just checking my talk page and watchlist!) Somno (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I said that 4 hours ago :( SatuSuro 03:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The last time I came on "just to check my watchlist" I was on here for about six hours, so I hope I do better this time. Somno (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

12 step programs for wikiholics are needed :( Im a good candidate - thank god and others I have to go out in a few minutes SatuSuro 03:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Redrafted "The Train That Never Came"

Hi Somno,

Hope you're well.

Thanks you for your guidance around bringing my "The Train That Never Came" article 'up to speed'. Subject to your suggestions I looked at the H2G2 article, and the others you mentioned. While my redraft isn't to their standard, it is nonetheless based on the style of their approach. I have thus rewritten the text with the following objectives:

• Removoval of text that might have suggested a positive bias.
• Restructuring and reformatting of layout.
• Addition of more 'critical' text.
• Addition of in-depth exposition.
• Removoval of Amazon (ie: commercial) link. This has been replaced by a link to the publishers site which does NOT offer the book for sale.

I haven't posted the redraft onto the mainspace, rather left it where you placed it until you have a chance to suggest further editorial: User:Rosewood 999/The Train That Never Came

Thanks again,

Rosewood 999 (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! The tone and structure are much more encyclopedic. The only thing it still needs are references from reliable sources about the book (for example, book reviews that discuss the book's themes). Referenced articles are much less likely to be deleted or taken to articles for deletion. Great job so far; it's really impressive. When you have some references, I'll take another look but it should be ready to go back to mainspace. :) Somno (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

External Links - "The Train That Never Came"

Hi Somno,

Thank you again for your time in consideration of my article, the feedback you provided was an essential part of my redesign/redraft, and will in the future form the basis of any further wiki contributions I make.

Subject to your notes I looked online for book reviews (viz. reliable sources). Unfortunately, the only reviews are on the Amazon site and are therefore unusable.

The book also appears on the Barnes and Noble site (without reviews), but again I don’t want to place any commercial links and would rather leave this off.

I emailed the publishers and they said they know of no ‘independent’ reviews of TTTNC, online or otherwise. This ‘review deficit’ is therefore an obstacle to moving forward as per your notes.

To this end might I suggest a compromise solution?

If you’re happy with the tone/feel of the article would it be possible to reinstate the text with the proviso that I commit to monitor any online reviews that appear in the future and add only those that are appropriate?

I can also (if it’s OK with you) run these past you before I post, thus ensuring a neutral stance. I'd also be v. happy to look to any further suggestions you might have viz. moving forward.

Thanks again,

Hugh. Rosewood 999 (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought the book had been reviewed, but I'm not sure why I thought that (I must have imagined it! :). You are right that Amazon and Barnes & Noble reviews don't count. If you look at the notability criteria for books, we need to show that the book meets one of those criterion. Somno (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Somno, having looked at the notability criterion I'm thinking it would be best to leave this article off the mainspace until the book has won an award, or been independently reviewed, as these are the most likely criterion to be satisfied moving forward. As I'm still interested in placing the article for my course work I'll monitor the digisphere for reviews, etc, and with your permission, come back to you when/if same materialise.

Rosewood 999 (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. If we move it to mainspace as is, chances are high that the article will be taken to articles for deletion and deleted, which would be a real shame after you've put all this work into it. The other option would be if the author meets Notability (people), the content could be included in his article. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Somno (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Somno - hope you're well, and thanks again for your help. I've looked up the author online and his name already appears twice in Wikipedia articles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beckett_on_Film and - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Island_(TV_show)

There are 5/6 pages on google citing different sources where he's mentioned, he seems to have a varied career - writer/director/producer/presenter. The film maker Atom Egoyan has mentioned him in his book "Image and Territory". I had looked him up previously to cite his online work but had not considered creating a page for him. Do you think he sounds 'notable' enough to justify a page of his own? Would that in turn support the Train That Never Came Article? If you think this may be the case I'd be happy to draft an article on him. Or would it be better to wait for reviews of TTTNC to appear online? What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosewood 999 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm well thanks, except a bit too busy with non-Wikipedia stuff and not as responsive on here as I'd like to be! I can't find much on Pearse Lehane in Google, such as newspaper interviews or articles specifically about him (for example, a newspaper article about his life or career), so I'm not sure he meets WP:Notability (people)? Perhaps there are offline sources or perhaps I'm missing things in Google?

If the author is notable, it wouldn't mean that The Train That Never Came could be a standalone article, but that it could be a section in Pearse's article. Somno (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Somno, thanks again for taking the time to guide me through the Wiki-sphere (as it were). I'll take a look at Pearse lehane and see if there's anything 'notable' about him. I'll get back to you with what I can dig up. Cheers, Hugh Rosewood 999 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

When I looked at both pages, I must have gotten confused... as I remember "scratching my head", as I couldn't find out exactly what was wrong with it. So it was a copy and paste move? I'm glad that got worked out. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's one that I didn't understand when I first came across it either. That article has since been history-merged back together by Anthony Appleyard so it's all fixed now. In the future, check the history of both articles and you'll usually see at some point the original content was cut-and-pasted elsewhere. This is common among new users who are not yet autoconfirmed (account hasn't made 10 edits or is not over 4 days old) because they don't have access to the Move tab, so they assume cut-and-pasting is the best way to do it. Somno (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)