User talk:Soms/Archive 2008 March

RFA time!

You may find this page's section to be of assistant. Congratulations! —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Soms... so we meet again.

So you've Created an Account, eh?

Well, on IRC you may be a person.

But on Wikipedia, I am a person.

~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not banned you from the internet. You had been asked to calm down and stop trolling/harassing numerous times. You took your harassment further so I chose to contact your ISP. They chose to do what they would like. I'd appreciate you not bringing it here. Somitho 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"OMG OMG OMG" ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

That's an interesting response. Admins cop a hell of a lot of abuse and rude comments and your sensitive reaction makes me feel assured that I was correct that you just aren't ready for adminship. Additionally, I did not say your RfA "should have been SNOW'ed" because you have less than that 2,000 edits. I simply made the observation that usually such RfAs ARE SNOWed and I couldn't understand the supporter's comments. Your questions-as-comments regarding editing test wikis and such don't change the fact that an RfA candidate with less than 70 mainspace edits, less than 15 article talk edits, less than 100 user talk edits and less than 160 project edits has no real chance of passing RfA. It has nothing to do with making nonsense edits or editing to please other people and everything to do with demonstrating experience and knowledge to the community. This is impossible to do with so few edits. I have seen other candidates with lower-than-usual edit counts get through RFA on the basis that they prepare their edits off-site and make them in one go, but never with a total edit count anywhere near as low as 370. Perhaps if you get more experience on Wiki, instead of IRC, and take the time to review other people's RfAs you will come to see that yourself. And yes, it certainly was a very Twilight Zone-ish experience. Sarah 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

my comments on your RfA

Hi there, I'm glad that you found my comments helpful. I try to explain my reasoning in my RfA votes, especially when opposing, so that the candidate can see what he or she does well or could improve upon. I personally think it's more useful than just saying "Oppose per xxxx."

Now that your RfA has been closed, I do want to point out a comment you made in response to User:Flameviper:

"Your persistent trolling in #wikipedia-en lead User:Sean Black to ban you. User:Bumm13 banned you in #wikipedia, I banned you in #wikipedia-social. Stop the harassing / trolling. Second, do not take out issues regarding IRC here. If you have a complaint you can take it up with an IRC Group Contact. Somitho 18:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)"

I didn't want to bring this up while your RfA was still active, but I think it would have been better if you didn't write "Your persistent trolling [...] harassing / trolling." because it makes you sound as if you want to discredit Flameviper based on off-wiki behaviour, and there is a certain conflict of interest in your doing this. It might also be seen as being vindictive, which is something that an administrator absolutely should not be.

It would have been better if you just typed "Please do not take out issues regarding IRC here." As Sarah pointed out, the RfA should have centered around on-wiki contributions, not on whatever you or Flameviper may have said on IRC. I don't know what the full story is behind this conflict, nor do I care to find out.

I hope that you will grow from this experience and perhaps become a more promising RfA candidate in the future. --Kyoko 18:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In my defense, I would like to say that based on past experience with power he has been given elsewhere, I was merely stating the obvious. Add his off-wiki negligence to his on-wiki inexperience, and we have a Flameviper Oppose^(R). ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 15:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case

Can Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-11 Islamic democracy be closed? --Ideogram 04:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCU and clerks

Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:

• Consider adding yourself to the list of active clerks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks.
• In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
• Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
• Add Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Clerks/Noticeboard to your watchlist to stay up to do date on the latest communications happening regarding this role.
• "Be aware that this position is rather dull and carries no particular prestige; status-seeking will not be looked upon kindly."

I am not involved with the checkuser system. I am acting only to inform you of this change. Thank you. --Durin 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Religious democracy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Religious democracy, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious democracy 2. Thank you. - David Oberst 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Carbon Copy (band)

The article Carbon Copy (band) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Meta:user:Somitho

Since your user page doesn't say you have a page on meta wiki, lack of authentification proof, the endorsement submitted by that account will be removed. Just for your information. --Aphaia 04:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I will hopefully succeed in a month or two. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 02:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you able to help with my research?

Hello Somitho,

I'm currently in the middle of a PhD at the University of Bath, UK. I'm examining the way that mediation differs between face-to-face, video-conferenced and text-based meetings. You can get a gist of the research from my (somewhat sparse) homepage here.

I notice that you've mediated in number of cases. Would you be willing to spare some time to talk to me about your experiences mediating? It'd help me out no end!

If you'd like some more info, you can leave a message on my talkpage or contact me via the e-mail on my homepage.

Many thanks

MattB2 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

(Over at Talk:Church of Christ (Temple Lot)) - I'm not sure if you're watching that page or not, so I figured I'd mention that I've responded there with a question. The Jade Knight 06:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate too that the page is on your watchlist. I've since discussed the topic with The Jade Knight on his user page and mine too, and we are both amenable to mediation. However, I feel that a public discussion of a BLP violation (or even a potential BLP violation) runs the risk of becoming...a BLP violation. Plus, even if Jade Knight and I resolve our dispute, what is to keep a continual stream of 'newbies' from causing the same problem? The problem is that a person is named, and grossly mischaracterized in a published report (libel), and it should not be quoted or linked in a Wikipedia article. A Catch-22 develops, to where 'newbies' are usually so persuaded by the libel, they instinctively feel they are in the right to malign and harrass the victim of the libel. This is what "slander and libel and "character assassination" is all about, and is why it is a crime. It is disappointing, even bizarre that Jade Knight considers newspaper reports to be broadly reliable sources of information. No court does....that is why a "change of venue" is often provided in cases where the alleged crime was heavily reported in newspapers and other media. Anyway, I'm willing to sign up for mediation here in the next day or two, and will give it a try, but am not confident it will lead to a realistic solution. Thanks again, that the page is on an administrator's watchlist, and THAT may turn out to be a solution...the article is kept on a watchlist for WP:BLP violation long after JadeKnight and I come to an understanding. Piledoggie 00:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem, you see, is that User:Piledoggie thinks that if a newspaper article is controversial, any link whatsoever to said newspaper article is a violation of BLP, and believes that any discussion of how said newspaper article may or may not be appropriate for an article is also inherently a violation of BLP (and should therefore be eliminated with extreme prejudice). Thus far, Piledoggie's enthusiasm to this end has earned him two blocks (under anonymous accounts)—one for vandalism, and one for violating the 3RR. The Jade Knight 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that Piledoggie is saying any such thing (and I'm Piledoggie). He is saying that no courts in the U.S. recognize the verifiability of newspaper reports, and it is courts which decide in libel/slander/defamation lawsuits, not amateur Wikipedia editors such as yourself. (and I mean "amateur" as an accurate descriptive, not as an insult: I too am an amateur Wikipedia editor). Thus far, my "enthusiasm" for seeing Wikipedia's strict BLP policy not be violated by spiteful fellow editors has "earned" me a whole lot of obfuscation and mischaracterization on Jade Knight's part. He is less than half my age, by the way, and demonstrates it every time he supposedly "challenges" my purpose in this: Defend Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles from those who would add false and defamatory information. SeeWP:BLP for a crystal-clear explanation of what I'm doing, and why. And why I use more than one username, mostly anonymous. Go ahead, check it out: WP:BLP, please don't just skip on to the next "pop-up" question or remark. Thanks. Piledoggie 15:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-Protect?

Please check out my recent reply to you at the page which you un-protected, even though the WP:BLP complaint has not been resolved or mediated, as per "If this isn't moved to mediation in 7 days, I will have the protection released. Somitho 06:07, 30 July 2007." And please re-protect the page immediately if the citation involved is added again by any editor, for any reason. This is not an editorial dispute, the OTRS ticket was issued because of a complaint by a 'living person.' With all due respect, you were completely mistaken in the reasons you gave for unblocking the page. A forgiveable mistake, though: As I told Jade Knight at the very beginning of our so-called "edit war," (it is actually not an edit war, but a WP:BLP complaint) please do not make quick or cursory edits to articles involving Mormonism in specific or religion in general, because it will "open a can of worms" every time. 69.154.18.251 15:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel

Greetings. I left a note for you at User_talk:VanTucky#Boerboel_Reverts. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS ticket on Mitch Mustain

Hi. I saw your message on the talk page of this article that you are handling a related OTRS ticket. I'm not sure if this is related, but after blocking a new user for blanking big chunks of the article (after warnings and whatnot) I received an email from someone claiming to be the subject's mother and complaining about the content of the article and the sources used. I never got a straight answer from this person as to what the specific problem was, but we emailed back and forth a few times. If the emails would be helpful I can forward them to you. Natalie 16:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All duly forwarded. Feel free to email me back or post on my talk page if anything doesn't make sense. Natalie 15:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin nom

Thanks for the thought Somitho, I feel that I have improved after my last RfA, and have followed the advice of those who offered suggestions on how to improve. So, yes, I accept :) Brian | (Talk) 10:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I know you're not mediating it. I just wanted to give you some more background on what was going on. The Jade Knight 20:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

John Cage

Hello,

I've been working on articles about Cage's works and accidentally found an orphan article by a user who only logged in a couple of times a year ago, User:SilverStrings. The article's name is Works of John Cage, and I noticed that you tried rewriting it, wikified it, etc, but all of that also happened a long time ago. That article contains some biographical information (already covered in John Cage) and unsourced analysis of the first five pieces of Sonatas and Interludes. Thing is, I already wrote Sonatas and Interludes, which is properly sourced and contains a lot of information; I wouldn't want to merge the two articles because Works of John Cage has a lot of technical details I can't find sources for (and those only for the first 5 pieces) and a few unverifiable and/or POV statements.

I was thinking of nominating the article for deletion, since merging the Sonatas.. information is tricky without proper references (and I have no idea where the guy found the info), and the rest of the article is already covered in John Cage. I tried asking at Talk:John Cage, noone responded; User:SilverStrings hasn't been here for more than 12 months; I found your messages to him and found out about your involvement in the article, so I thought I'd talk to you first - would you agree if I put the article on AFD?

Of course, you haven't been active here since August, but I thought I'd try anyway.

Regards, Jashiin (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup on May 17th

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Josh, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry we couldn't meet up this time around. Maybe next time you're in Adelaide :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)