User talk:Somno/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Pinhas Rubin, Moriel Matalon

Dear Sir,

The pages of Adv. Zvi Ephrat (as well as Adv. Pinhas Rubin, Adv. Moriel Matalon and Adv. Ariel Zelichov) were all removed due to copyright infringement.

The picture of the lawyers, is under the copyright of Gornitzky law firm- and i, as gornitzky & Co. representative am using it in this Wikipedia links.

You can see the exact pages on the hebrew version of Wikipedia: http://he.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%A1_%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9F

http://he.wiki.x.io/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9F

Can you please bring back those topics you deleted ?

thanks,

Adv. Zohar Fisher (Zoharf@gornitzky.co.il) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gornitzky (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The articles were not deleted because of the pictures (which were not copyright violations to my knowledge, hence why they're still here, e.g. File:Ariel zelichov.jpg) but because of the text. The text of the articles was copied straight from other websites, e.g. http://www.gornitzky.com/content.asp?page=ArielZelichov and online news articles. Wikipedia cannot accept text from copyrighted websites. If you hold the copyright to the text and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), please send an e-mail from an address associated with Gornitzky (e.g. the email address you have written in your message) to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under the GFDL. Alternatively, you can rewrite the articles in your own words. Please note that articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources. Regards, Somno (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Somno, i am a lawyer at Gornitzky & Co., and to your request i have sent the email you requested to the noted email adress. In addition, i have re-loaded the articles under Gornitzky & Co.- Pinhas Rubin and Moriel Matalon. I wrote these text in our website and in Wikipedia. Please do not delete them, until i get an answer from Wikimedia. Thanks again, Adv. Zohar Fisher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gornitzky (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, that will fix the issue with licensing and the problem will be solved! Somno (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Majora Carter - Drawnsome

hi, this person who really has it in for Majora Carter (my wife) is at it again. please check his edits (mostly deletions) on Majora Carter, and note the absence of any discussion but for some slightly angry commentary left in the page history notes (i wish i knew how to do that). I have asked for justification for any of them, but there is no reasoning.

can we please delete Majora Carter from WP altogether, for a couple years say; or bar this individual from editing her article? If things are as bad as Drawnsome seems to believe, surely others will continue his "work" here. My guess is there will be a normal pattern of give and take among many people, and not just one person repeatedly deleting sourced info.

thanks, --believe me (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Givechase; I will have a look. Since your wife is notable, it's unlikely the article will be deleted but perhaps there are some other remedies. Drawn Some is using edit summaries to explain his/her changes, which is certainly better than not explaining them at all, although the talk page is recommended to obtain consensus for contested changes. I recommend you have a look at the page on edit summaries - it explains how to use them. Please refrain from assuming bad faith on Drawn Some's part - s/he is just trying to improve the article too. Regards, Somno (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

not sure what to do with the petroleum article...

Hey. Not sure how to approach an issue concerning Petroleum in Western Australia which a user moved to Oil Industry of Western Australia yesterday. A significant change with only a brief edit note claiming "standardization". I haven't raised my concerns with the user who made the change. I disagree with the change for a number of reasons, including, mainly, that: (1) Title is now inaccurate as oil is a specific product (part of the set of petroleum products) (2) Most of article is unrelated to oil. I tried to undo the change and was going to explain the basis for my revert on the talk page but the edit didn't happen. I don't fully understand the technical aspects of Redirect vs Move etc. A redirect from Oil Industry... to Petroleum Industry would be appropriate but I'm firmly of the view that the original title should stand. Have you any thoughts on how I should approach this, including the approach I might take. e.g. originally thought I'd just boldly undo the change and explain myself fully on the talk page, but is this something I need to raise directly with the person who did the move? Its no big deal to me, except that if it stays as is, I'd feel obliged, in the interests of accuracy, to substantially change the article - relocating about two thirds of the content to a new article on Gas Industry in WA etc etc. Would appreciate your brief thoughts. GlenDillon 02:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I'd be interested too, standardisation issues plague categories to the point of absurdity SatuSuro 02:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Its a bad move IMO. It makes no sense in terms of the article content and was done without discussion or consensus. As Satu alludes to, the action was likely motivated category standardisation issues. It is a big deal to me when a high quality article gets stuffed around with in this manner. I'm reverting and will leave a note at Neelix's page suggesting further discussion be at the article talk. Djanga 05:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

brilliant. thank-you very much Djanga. GlenDillon 05:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you three. "Standardisation" for the sake of standardising, with no leeway for regional differences, seems pointless to me and the article is about petroleum, not the oil industry. Glen, feel free to go ahead and revert another user's changes; just explain why in the edit summary and/or the talk page (I tend to revert with an explanation in the edit summary, and leave an explanation on the article or user's talk page if it seems appropriate). Moving pages creates redirects by default, and a page can't be moved over existing page (unless the existing page is just a single-edit redirect) except by administrators. When you try to move a page, you'll receive a message if you're unable to move it to the new location (then you could take it to requested moves or ask an admin to move it directly if it's not controversial). Oh, and thanks for being quicker than me, Djanga. :) Somno (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Petroleum_in_Western_Australia SatuSuro 23:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Appreciated. GlenDillon 13:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep two articles for "Erik Telford"

I have created a disambiguation page for the entry of "Erik Telford". One of us is a musician Erik_Telford_(musician) and the other is a political activist Erik_Telford_(activist). We are two separate people and both deserve a page so users don't confuse the two of us so please do not delete either or merge them.

If you have a specific issue, please contact me directly at (etelford at gmail dot com).

Thank you, Erik Telford Etelford78 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on Erik's talk page. Somno (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

reason for deletion?

Why was my article on the song: When it Rains deleted? What are your criteria for importance, and what can I do to assert the importance more clearly?

Thank you, Saebjorn Saebjorn (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Saebjorn, Wikipedia's notability guideline for music sets out the concept of importance/notability; I have cut-and-pasted the relevant section below:

Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

It does not look like "When it Rains" meets this criteria, which is why I redirected the article to the artist's article. Hope that helps. :) Regards, Somno (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Requisition

For the article "Requisition", i tried to give some sample vendors, which were removed. I want to know:

1) How one can mention some sample vendors in an article 2) Secondly if mentioning of vendors is so bad then when we see "MS SQL Server", "Business Objects" appearing in the articles there are also products, are we discriminating on the basis of company size? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminmalik (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Please be aware that people on Wikipedia are in different time zones and are volunteers, so always give them at least a few days to respond to you. There is no deadline and nothing is so important on Wikipedia that it can't wait a few days for a response. You can mention example vendors if they have a Wikipedia article. If they don't, then they're not a good example anyway as people won't have heard of them. Business Objects and Microsoft SQL Server have articles because they meet notability criteria, which is also why they are sometimes used as examples.

Please read about spam on Wikipedia. Your repeated insertion of links to trxlink.com (e.g. here, here) are against Wikipedia policy and if you don't stop, you will be blocked for spamming. Regards, Somno (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Aminmalik (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Appreciate the comments and advice, may i know how can i access an article's "talk page" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminmalik (talk • contribs)

Yes, in the tabs at the top of each article, next to "Edit" is a tab called "Discussion" - that's the talk page. You can post there to get feedback. Somno (talk) 05:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are on

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings - how would you respond to the two eds? This is not a setup - its just that I really am tired of revert tennis issues - just see Chopper Read SatuSuro 10:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Chopper Read editor is removing unsourced info from a BLP... they should be more communicative, but perhaps they think they're doing the right thing? With the Bali bombings, I see Glebesam's point - Fool Me Twice is given undue weight, especially considering the film's article has been deleted. Conspiracy theories could be mentioned in a short paragraph linked to reliable sources though. Will post on talk page. Somno (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - next task (hmmm) St Patrick's College, Launceston‎‎ needs a watch - thanks for the above much appreciated SatuSuro 08:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Yeah well i suppose it when it gets to the problem level it might need a protect :( - for some weird reason - most of perth private schools seem relatively unharmed of recent SatuSuro 10:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I predict there'll be all sorts of trouble in the Perth articles now you've said that and jinxed it. :) Somno (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah itll be alright on the night - want any jinxes try putting List of gamelan ensembles in the United States

or http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Wheelchair_Epidemic/Article_Deletion_Squadron on your watch list SatuSuro 03:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The most recent revert by Kasaalan

"very bad edit removing everything his published books, or public teachings are not trivia" - for a start, an edit designed to improve the article is, by definition, not a bad edit. I did not remove any of the information about his published books. The article still mentions that he spoke at schools, and now also mentions that he did poetry readings at local coffeehouses, which is more information than before. Also, now the information is sourced to reliable sources. If you have an issue with information that has been removed, then explain it and add that information back in. Reverting an edit without discussion is inappropriate. Somno (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did. Assuming good faith, maybe you don't know what you were doing. Yet the logs are very clear. Huge Info You Deleted including His Published Books Actually you have edited on his life, and I have missed your edits there, sorry about that misunderstanding on that part. Why I called the edit is weak for it removes too much notable info on Phil Goldvarg in the first place. You deleted his published books, his composed poems, memorial events, and most of all the references. Actually you are the one that removing info without discussion. And you are not doing it per part basis, instead you delete a huge part at a time, and that is why I had to undo you in the first place. Original Page before you remove a huge content is still better than your edit. The info you removed is, clearly his published books, sourced neutrally but his publisher's pages, and 3rd party magazines. Kasaalan (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet your other edits and additions of reference is really good and more than welcome, since it improves the content, and clearly I thank you for impoving the article that parts. I still insist the published books, and composed poems should be in the article either in a paragraph or as a bulleted list or the article will be missing crucial info. Kasaalan (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do know what I'm doing - removing irrelevant info and adding relevant info, to improve the article. I didn't remove references to his published books, simply formatted it in prose rather than lists (as prose is preferred in encyclopedia articles). I added the part about him being honoured posthumously for his work, so I don't know how I've removed "memorial events". I formatted the article per the Manual of Style, rather than adding bold and italics all over the place. It was not a "huge info removal", it was an information cleanup, so the relevant information was highlighted and added to, and the trivial stuff (e.g. the quote from a non-notable local poet in the lead) was removed. Somno (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You removed a lot info including his published poems by poems-for-all series claiming non notability, and the song that composed with his poem. Kasaalan (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

We should work per case, I replied on your claim of non-notability of keep on crossing project, try discussing in main article page for better convenience. Kasaalan (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you have commented there and I will get to it when I can - I am very busy at the moment with off-wiki stuff. Thanks, Somno (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Philip Munger Article

Without wikifying the quotes, what is your main reason to delete the article, article is notable based on good references. It had blockquotes with clear references, waiting for wikifying. You deleted the article as a whole, removing all info from it, without discussing or warning, or expressing your concerns. At least you could give me time to take a copy of the article before deleting it. What was your exact hurry. Kasaalan (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan, sorry I didn't get a chance to drop a note on your talk page about this article when I deleted it. The article was deleted per CSD criterion G12 as an unambiguous copyright violation (99% of the article was copied from other sources). There are a few ways of dealing with copyright infringement - reverting the article back to a non-infringing version, which was not possible with this article as there was no non-infringing version, rewriting the article (which was the option I chose with Phil Goldvarg in February, when I explained copyright infringement to you but you continued to edit war over it) or deleting the article. The best way to deal with Philip Munger, when the entire article was a copyright violation, was speedy deletion. This does not exclude the article from being recreated with non-copyvio text. Somno (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to your message here, the sorting issue is caused by users who haven't added a defaultsort template to their user page, so it is up to them to fix. If you are looking for someone to provide a copy of Philip Munger, no admin will restore a copyright violation (which would have been my answer if you'd asked me as the deleting admin to restore it). I can give you the links in the article though if you like, which will enable you to access the content that was in the article anyway? Somno (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You claim copyright violation, yet it had selected parts from his biography as a lead, and some clearly referenced blockquotes from various sources waiting to be wikified in musical career and on his discussion with Sarah Palin over dinosaurs, along with various reliable external links and references. Yet again without trying to improve and wikify an article, discuss it, warn it, or asked for improvement you tried to delete it. Except the generally required wikifying the article was in good shape, because all the research needed has been done by my work. At least I found a copy of the article. You simply lack the collaborative and positive approach to build an article, the rules are for improvements of the articles not deletion of them. Kasaalan (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kasaalan. 99% of the article was a copyright violation. Wikipedia can't have an entire article filled with stuff copied in from other websites, even if it's formatted in block quotes. The article was not in good shape - copyright violations are illegal and not welcome on Wikipedia. I don't know why you say "yet again without trying to improve and wikify an article", because all I do on Wikipedia is improve articles. If you remember, in February, I chose that option with Phil Goldvarg, which was also a copyright violation, and you edit warred over it until I gave up and the copyvio version remained. I'm not sure if you are intentionally being tendentious to wear other editors down, but I had hoped you would show acceptance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by now - otherwise I cannot assist you. Somno (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can say 1 paragraph long blockquote is not proper, yet as long as they are referenced no it is not copyright infringement at all by any means. They were publicly available in the first place, where they didn't put a notice on

You could easily tag the article for improving. I took 3 different copyright classes in university and published a number of academic papers, a case where you clearly adress the source is not same as you put text as your own. I specifically put the text as blockquote for other editors can be easily aware they are blockquotes needs to be wikified. You have a point the article had 4, 1 paragraph long blockquotes from 4 reliable sources, yet they were clearly referenced, and deleting the article completely is not a constructive approach. And they could converted into proper format by especially more experienced editors. You are right they need to be wikified, but instead putting any effort on wikifying them, ask for help from other editors or discuss with me, you deleted it yourself completely, without return. That is not a constructive approach, you know it, but you have a delete this, delete that approach in applying guidelines. When I asked your opinion on my notability proofs for another case you claimed "I am very busy at the moment with off-wiki stuff" to give opinion, yet you have time for all the pages that "needs to be deleted". Kasaalan (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan - please stop cross-posting messages in multiple unrelated forums. Focus on the actual issue at each location, rather than repeating yourself over-and-over. What you think of my editing "approach" is irrelevant to me. I feel no need to defend myself, because my behaviour is not being questioned by many editors across Wikipedia. Please read WP:TEND; it relates very well to your situation.

In regards to your last point, reading multiple paragraphs of your explanations takes much more time than reading a short article, checking its sources, noticing it is a copyright violation (which is different from plagiarism - you seem to have the two confused), checking if it can be fixed, and pressing delete when I find out it can't. Please stop passing judgement on others (including Ricky81682, Enigmaman, etc, as well as myself) and focus on the issues.

Please refrain from posting any more duplicate messages on my talk page. Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts and the AFD are on my watchlist, so I see the messages you post at those locations. If you still have an issue with my speedy deletion of Philip Munger per G12, then please take it to WP:DRV. I have already explained several times why it was deleted and if you are not satisfied with the reason, then that is your next step. Somno (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Different editor here. Hey Somno, I got an inquiry from an acquaintance who knows I've done Wikipedia editing who asked me about the deletion of this article. His fear was that it might have been deleted for political reasons (besides being a composer, Philip Munger is also prominent in Alaska as a progressive blogger critical of Sarah Palin), & he asked me to check into it. That brought me here. I have now assured my acquaintance that it was not political issues, but the copyvio stuff, that led to deletion of the article. Munger is still a notable figure, & I'd like to restart the article without copyvio problems. I understand from your discussion above with Kasaalan that you were willing to provide of the links originally used as sources -- are you still able to provide those, just so I don't have to look themselves up myself? I can promise you that I'll construct the article far differently than as a collection of block quotes. Regards. -- Yksin (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. There are probably better references out there (considering three of these are primary sources), but at least it's a start. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The article was deleted for being a copyright violation, but there was another issue that should be considered when rewriting. Half of the deleted article was a coatrack against Palin's beliefs, which was out of place in an article about someone else. If Munger is notable for his criticism of Palin, it deserves mention, but it doesn't need to go in depth into what is wrong with Palin's views. I apologise if I'm mentioning stuff that is really obvious; I just feel the need to mention it so that you can avoid both of the deleted article's issues - copyvio and coatracking. :) Somno (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I created a sandbox article based on previous one, and before recreating page it needs wikifying, yet you could easily tag the article or ask for other editor's help or discuss before you getting it deleted as a whole.

Also you didn't answer for KeeponCrossing project at Talk:Phil_Goldvarg about notability issues for some time. Kasaalan (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, copyright infringement is not welcome anywhere in Wikipedia, including sandboxes. Currently the sandbox article is still an unambiguous copyright infringement. You have been warned several times about copyright infringement, so please address that ASAP or the sandbox article will also be deleted. I will reply on the talk page for Phil Goldvarg about Keep on Crossing. Somno (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You are pushing way too hard to remove article. How can if we don't build a sandbox first create an article, with collaboration.

A blockquote with a clear reference is not likely should be considered as infringement. I took 3 copyright classes from 2 different college from experts, yet even in academic standards, 1 paragraph quote never considered as copyright infringement when you clearly adress the source.

Yet I will read relevant wiki policies, again, then reply. Also in the meantime can you post the exact relevant guidelines that consider 1 paragraph blockquote from free online sources with clear reference, as copyright infringement.

I didn't post the sandbox link anywhere in public, so noone can reach the page unless anyone trolls my all edits, anyway, yet I removed the blockquotes over your copyright infringement allegations untill I paraphrase them fully. Kasaalan (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not modify other people's comments and stop accusing others of trolling and me of "copyright paranoia". If the majority of an article is copy-and-pasted from other sources, it's a copyright violation. I believe you're confusing it with plagiarism - it is not plagiarism as the sources are attributed. Posting copyright infringing text in userspace is not allowed. I suggest using a text file on your computer or something like Google documents to store the material for rewriting, rather than Wikipedia. Somno (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If you expect assuming good faith on you, you should also show some. Copyright paranoia is not a personal attack in any way, if you claim so you have a wide perception of personal attack.

Stop posting my personal sandbox article publicly so google won't indexes it, especially if you claim copyright infridgement exist. It is my personal sandbox you publicly posting, therefore I am editing the address not your post. I really cannot consider posting other user's personal sandboxes publicly without users' consent, as highly ethical. Stop posting my sandbox.

1 paragraph blockquote with clear reference is not copyright infringement. Text file or google lacks the editing tools needed for improving the article. If you claim so refer to the guideline that explicitly refers it that way. Only paragraph I could find on infringement in wiki guidelines which refers "extensive quote", and according to my experience in the area based on my higher education classes, no 1 paragraph quote can be considered as infringement when you clearly address the source, especially when free and publicly online sources involved. So prove your claim first. Also where it says userspace for an article improvement, that doesn't published publicly anywhere but you, has such high concerns. When the paraphrasing done, no copyright issue will be left anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, do not modify others' comments - userspace is not indexed by Google so that is not an excuse. Accusing me and Enigmaman of "trolling" is a personal attack, and now you have also said I am "unethical" because I linked to "your" userpage - userspace is not private. I have shown good faith at every step here. For example, how many times have I explained copyright infringement since coming across Phil Goldvarg in February? When a whole article consists of "extensive quotes", it's a copyright violation - this is not up for debate, so move on. You posted the same text that was already deleted via G12 at Philip Munger. If you remember, this deletion was also supported by Fut.Perf., but if you still have a problem with it, take it to WP:DRV. Your last two posts on my talk page have been to say the exact same thing you have already repeatedly said in multiple forums - to complain again that you have not infringed copyright when you blatantly have. Accept it, move on and quit being disruptive. You are welcome to post on my talk page about other issues, questions or concerns, but any further repetitive posts will be removed without comment. Somno (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You accusing me, then deleting my replies, so I won't further discuss in your talk page, if you have any further issue discuss with me in my talk page, or relevant project pages. Kasaalan (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Fruits of the desert

Guess what category has suddenly come up for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants! And I had nothing to do with it. Another win for apathy and procrastination. Hesperian 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, hilarious! I don't know if it's true that you "quietly loathed" the category though, since you have mentioned it previously! Somno (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But only offline. Online I haven't said a word... I think. Hesperian 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on 2002 Bali Bombing article

Hi Somno, thank you for your comments on the above page, I appreciate you taking the time to consider the question. You seem to know a great deal about editing wiki entries so I was wondering if I could ask you some questions. Firstly, now that there has been some discussion about the inclusion of the film Fool Me Twice do you think I am now able to delete the reference to the film? Also, if the film contains a number of copyright violations (I believe it uses music without the rights to do so and also photographs) is this grounds also to have the reference deleted? I'd appreciate your advice. Oh, and one last question, how can you support Freo and the Cats? I know who I'd be behind if I had the choice!sc (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome; I hope we can reach a good outcome for the article. I have not seen a convincing reason why Fool Me Twice should remain in the article, but I'm concerned editors may edit war over its removal if we cannot replace it with a short well-sourced, neutral conspiracy theories section. Let's see if the other editors can suggest some sources first, as perhaps this will lead to the quickest resolution. If editors do edit war over the article's content, we can ask for the article to be protected so discussion and consensus can be encouraged, but for this to be successful, it needs the support of the other editors, so let's try diplomacy first. Can you prove that the film includes copyright violations - is it mentioned in a reliable source? It's not that I don't believe you (I haven't seen the film, so I have no personal opinion), but we will need some proof.

In regards to supporting two teams, it is a long story... Some Western Australians support two teams as a legacy from the days before WA had its own AFL teams - formerly some supported VFL teams based on whether their colours or nicknames matched WAFL teams - for example, supporters of the red-and-white South Fremantle Football Club may have supported the South Melbourne Football Club (now Sydney). How Swan Districts ended up equalling Geelong and not Collingwood in my family is one of those enduring mysteries. I became a West Coast Eagles supporter when WA finally got its own team, however, due to intra-family rivalries the Eagles ended up last on my list a few years after the Fremantle Dockers appeared. At the moment, it's quite good supporting two teams, because at least if Fremantle loses, there's probably a Geelong win to balance it out. :) Somno (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Somno, as you're probably aware I am new to Wikipedia editing and I enjoy hearing from experienced editors. I think your suggestions are all good and I am prepared to wait until other editors agree that the film is not a reliable source and should not be referenced in the article. As for the claim of copyright infringement, I have no evidence other than a feeling that the filmmakers would not have cleared songs from the Matrix Revolutions soundtrack! That would be an expensive proposition! I am currently writing a point by point response to the allegations made in the film, and while this will not be a reliable source by the standards of Wikipedia, hopefully it will be of interest to those who have followed this issue.

Can I ask you when you think it will be appropriate the remove the reference to the film from the article?

And I totally understand your AFL conundrum. I am from Adelaide originally and used to support Carlton before the Crows came into the competition ( because my school football jumper was also navy blue) I now live in Sydney and have developed a soft spot for the swans, but when they play Adelaide my affection for the crows wins out. As for Collingwood, nobody chooses to support Collingwood, you are born that way and there ain't nothing you can do about it.

Thanks again. sc (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a South Australian would understand! I see you have removed the reference to Fool Me Twice. If, as Japan1000 says, that is the only source for these claims, then the claims shouldn't be there at all so I definitely support its removal. Somno (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: CSD A9

Hi, Somno. Whoops! I wasn't applying A9 correctly. Sorry for creating a nuisance, and thanks for pointing out my erroneous interpretation. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, now you know for next time. :) Regards, Somno (talk) 09:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect A7 Designation - Army Staff Sergeant Richard S. Eaton Jr

Dear Community:

The following entry (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Army_Staff_Sergeant_Richard_S._Eaton_Jr) on US Army Counterintelligence Special Agent Richard S. Eaton should not be considered subject to the “speedy deletion” criteria articulated by the Wiki community: 1) There is no copyright violation – all sources are footnoted. 2) There are no inflammatory language, ideas, or thoughts and no redirects. 3) The entry does not advertise a service or group. 4) There is no content forking as this is a factual (verified with press and third party sources) entry. 5) The entry had mainstream, internationally reliable sources including the Associated Press. 6) Verification of sources can be found be investigating the embedded links. 7) The entry meets the relevance standard because of Mr. Eaton’s record of service, his combat related death as it speaks to the increasing strain on US military forces conducting repeat tours – see OPSTEMPO 8) The entry doesn’t breach the policy on living person bios as Mr. Eaton is deceased 9) The entry is not redundant as this is the first mention of Mr. Eaton 10) The entry is not over categorized as I am not even sure I know how to categorize it 11) The images used are all from open source venues with appropriate hyperlinks or from internal Wiki sources 12) The entry does not violate and is not contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace since it didn’t exist before I created it 13) All content on the page is verified, cited, and sourced. In turn, it doesn’t violate content for suitability.

From a historical and military history perspective, I think you should be aware that the Richard Eaton is the son of Brigadier General Richard J. Eaton.

“He was twice assigned to the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was Brigade Commander in the 3d Infantry Division in Germany and V Corps Chief of Staff. His awards include: Distinguished Service Medal, 3 Silver Stars, 2 Legions of Merit, 2 Distinguished Flying Crosses, Soldiers Medal, 4 Bronze Stars with V, 6 Purple Hearts, 5 Air Medals, 2 Army Commendation Medals with V, and numerous other U.S. and foreign awards. He holds 3 Combat Infantry Badges, Master Parachute Badge with Combat Jump Star, 13 Bronze Stars (campaigns), and Bronze Arrowhead (invasion). Brigadier General Richard J. Eaton is a true Patriot. Throughout his entire career, Ranger Eaton Led the Way by his personal example.” Source: https://www.benning.army.mil/rtb/Hall_of_Fame/HallofFame6/brigadier_general_eaton.htm

As such the historical parallel makes the entry pertinent to the study of both history and military history.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to further refine and ensure compliance with Wiki standards. I believe this entry is worthy of Wiki and I have added only factual information. Please let me know if you there is anything that needs to be changed.

Best, Tim

TC1234 8923 (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Your list above is correct, but none of those are reasons why the article was deleted. The article was deleted per speedy deletion criterion A7, because it was about a real person and did not make a claim of significance/importance. There have been millions of soldiers in the world, and they are not all automatically notable. Even if Richard Eaton's father is notable, it does not make the son notable because notability is not inherited.

I have "userfied" the article for you (which means I moved it to your userspace) here: User:TC1234 8923/Army Staff Sergeant Richard S. Eaton Jr. This will allow you to work on the article to make a claim of significance, if possible, and preferably to reference the article using reliable sources. Please ask if you have any questions. Regards, Somno (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Something you may be interested in...

this Enigma^msg 19:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought I missed out on the sockpuppet saga, but I see the article is still at DRV. Sigh. Somno (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, but then Ricky asked me to put it back, so I did. What I really am interested in is a checkuser. I asked Luna Santin a few days ago, but he hasn't gotten back to me. Blocking the sock and not investigating further doesn't accomplish much. archived AN/I thread. Enigma^msg 19:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a checkuser would definitely be worthwhile. It is obviously a sock of another user and that user should be identified, even though the sock is blocked. Anyone with common sense would know that creating another account solely to disrupt the encyclopedia is not allowed and they should be held accountable. Somno (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

unfortunate Enigma^msg 10:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Foster

Thanks for your recent edits to Peter Foster - Kingcoconut and the other members of the Peter Foster fan club have done some serious POV-pushing on the article. Autarch (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That article is shockingly bad, especially considering it's a BLP. I'm not sure what Kingcoconut is trying to achieve, but if he keeps it up, he's going to find himself blocked for much longer than 12 hours. Kingcoconut probably also believes I'm a "Foster hater", since I think it's inappropriate to say in an article's lead that Carole Caplin described Foster as "the greatest lover I've ever known". It's ridiculous! :) Somno (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That paragraph was even worse at one stage, being phrased to badly that it could be read as attributing the quote to someone else! A [message] was left on my talk page from an anonymous account claiming that the editing was being done by someone doing research into discrimination against prisoners for a thesis, yet most of the comments that were edited back in repeatedly had little or nothing to do with issues of discrimination. The message even said You'll hear alot more about this, but in the interim, I would very much like to interview you by telephone if you wanted to defend your actions. - naturally I refused to get involved. GenericBob got a [similar message]. Thank you for blocking the editor in question - at one stage the article was getting difficult to edit because of the disruptive editing. Autarch (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why Kingcoconut seems so focused on you, but as long as you stay cool and keep improving the article, he's just making himself look worse. Somno (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied up some sections of the article and fixed some references which were not where they were needed. I templated the article and kept putting them back when Kingcoconut removed them. He had a go at GenericBob first when the latter intervened, but has switched attention to me - possibly because I edited the article more than GenericBob. Anyway, the recent sockpuppet has been recognised as such as and Kingcoconut has been warned that any more disruptive behaviour will only get a single warning from me. Thanks for your help. Autarch (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In the drawers

Rule number one with journos (sorry David if you read this, I'll owe you another coffee or beer sometime) is never expect anything but wanting to make mileage out of tyops and idiocies of POV - (so maybe we should try keep as many of the super crawlers = ie pollies - on watch) and as for Indie - side cover - they dont need thanks for anything, but thats another story SatuSuro 05:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised that nobody from the ALP fixed the article before I looked at it. Inside Cover is one of my fave sections of the paper (the other is the Letters page), so my thanks was more an overall thanks for entertaining me every day, rather than thanks for pointing out the issue with the article. :) Somno (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wellfor some the only real part of the worst is the funerals and deaths to make sure you dont miss the funerals of those whose careers families and lives and etc have crossed paths in this life... have missed so many funerals in the last 10 years its getting bad SatuSuro 12:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

MTH

Thanks mate. Hesperian 06:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Gianni Vernetti

Hi Somno. I tried to insert a citation and references in all the parts of the article where you have inserted the "citation needed" note.

Why do you still consider this article as an autobiography?

There are also article in italian and piemonteis and many people ahve contributed

Best regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianni Vernetti (talk • contribs) 23:51, 30 May 2009

Do you have access to independent, reliable sources that you can add? The references you have added are to press releases, which are not independent. I consider it an autobiography because you are either Vernetti himself or writing on his behalf, and one of the issues with autobiographies is that they only include positive information (i.e. they are not neutral). If there are any notable controversies, gaffes, etc, they are usually left out of an autobiography. Somno (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Somno. You have new messages at Rmzadeh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I fixed the typo, thank you  Rmzadeh  ►  20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

This article has been deleted many times (most recently by you) on the basis of a year-old AFD. As someone who's been accused of deletionist tendencies on more than one occasion, I can attest that the article, as it appears at NickiMinaj, passes WP:MUSIC and is not a WP:COPYVIO (another problem previous versions of the article suffered from). I'm asking that you unprotect Nicki Minaj so that NickiMinaj can be moved there. If someone wants to bring it back to AFD, so be it, but the article is clearly different (and superior) to the one deleted via AFD last July. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The age of the AFD does not matter when the content is the same (i.e. no new information has been brought to light that might influence the results of an AFD). The content of this article is pretty much exactly the same as the version deleted in July 2008, except that this version is sourced (and decently sourced). I don't believe it qualifies for G4 anymore, and should probably go to AFD instead to establish the current consensus. I have moved the article per your request. Somno (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. TheJazzDalek (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

merge

Yes please, go ahead. No, I most certainly do not object. And thank you for asking first! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Cowboy Bebop Experience.

Hi, you deleted the entry. That's not so great. Your reasons for deleting it are a little flawed we think. The significance of the article was implict in what was being discussed.

If the geelong football club can have a page, why can't a group of physicists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primarchus (talk • contribs) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Primarchus. The Geelong Football Club meets the notability criteria and information about the club is verifiable. If you can show that The Cowboy Bebop Experience has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, the group might qualify for a Wikipedia article, however, the article I deleted met speedy deletion criterion A7. Best wishes, Somno (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)