User talk:Somno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HOME ♦ TALK ♦ CONTRIBS ♦ DYK ♦ BOOKMARKS

---

Archives
-- Oct 2007 to Jan 2008
-- Feb 2008 to Apr 2008

Contents 1 Joy 2 Gulfton 3 The Muppets' Wizard of Oz 4 GA 5 River Oaks, Houston, Texas 6 G G-S 7 Joel Selwood Peer Review 8 GAN work 9 Gulfton 10 Portal 11 Review:Sources of Islamic law 12 America's Cup number plate 13 semi 14 could you please do me a favor?

Joy

Looking at your recent contribs and cf'ing them with mine - such a drag - the slog of beating off the hordes - well done anyways SatuSuro 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's what I do when I can't be bothered writing stuff. :) Somno (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you like eccentric referencing - check out Ten Pound Poms for a great variant on standard usage :( SatuSuro 09:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would be good - try something like either the americas cup in wa art or licensing plates or something in oz -im about to be off for a while so enjoy! cheers SatuSuro 06:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Gulfton

I began the improvements - I'm not finished yet, but I already added and removed sections and added information as per your suggestions :) WhisperToMe (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, looks good so far. Just noticed something though - make sure you avoid one sentence paragraphs where possible, because good articles need to follow the Guide to layout. :) Somno (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Somno, it appears you did the GAN review for The Muppets' Wizard of Oz. Would you mind taking a look at the discussions I initiated on the article's Talk page regarding sources? I'm concerned that many of the sources do not support the statements to which they're attached. Some of the issues appear to have been raised by you during the review, but may not have been adequately addressed by the article's editors. If I'm missing or misinterpreting something, feel free to let me know. Thanks for your input and time.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi JimDunning. The GA review for this article was a little frustrating, because some issues I brought up were dismissed, only to be brought up repeatedly in subsequent peer and FA reviews (reliable sources, whether DVD prices should be included and so on). I agree with you about sources - I didn't check that each one backed up what it cited, just a couple of them, and that they all worked. The article has definitely improved, but it would improve further if the feedback provided by reviewers was embraced and incorporated. I support all you've brought up on the article's talk page and will comment there shortly. Somno (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that as well as I reviewed the peer review and FAC discussions. Many of the recommendations that the article's editor(s) claimed were accepted and executed were, in fact, never done. After I raised the initial source questions I did a more thorough review and found that substantial portions of the article are unsupported by the attached cites. So much so, that many statements probably are WP:OR. Not on a grand scale, certainly, but many statements may have been "loosely" written to make the prose interesting and to fill in "gaps" between supported statements. OR nonetheless. Unfortunately, once you remove those phrases, the quality of the writing suffers and the information content is noticeably diminished. That's why I raised the question of reassessment with you. Also, I'm fearful Limetolime may take my crticisms personally (as any of us might when it comes to an article in which we've invested a lot of effort). I've tried to tactfully (and gently) raise these concerns on his Talk page, but I fear that the volume of issues may make it appear I'm landing on his work with both feet. Let's see what happens.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of issues is a little worrying, but you're just trying to improve the article. My concerns are the Future developments section, DVD prices and ratings boxes being re-added without discussion and the tendency for the article to be owned by one editor. Somno (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

GA

Thanks for reviewing Old Stone House (Washington, D.C.). Let me know where improvements can be made and I'll correct them ASAP. Cheers. APK ^{yada yada} 03:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you're quick! I'm just reviewing it now, but I can tell you already that it's very close to GA and any suggestions should be easy to implement. :) Somno (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Gracias. I'm quick because I spend waaaay too much time on this site. Where's my WikiPaycheck? Jimbo owes me overtime! :-) Anyway, as mentioned on the article's talk page I'm not feeling well (fever and nausea are never fun), but will try to work on it when possible over the next day or so. Cheers. APK ^{yada yada} 04:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on improvements, but there is still one issue explained here. When I first wrote the article I spent 2 hours trying to find the origin of the house's name! I thought that would be one of the easiest things to find. bangs head on wall LOL. Cheers. APK ^{yada yada} 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

River Oaks, Houston, Texas

I see you've tagged this article for review. I took a brief look at it, and unfortunately, it's nowhere near meeting the GA criteria. Probably start-class at best. I added a few comments to it, but held off on failing so that you could add your comments. I guess if you wanna put it on hold, it's up to you, but there's so much work to do to get it up to standards, that failing and subsequent renomination is probably the better route at this point. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I still want to properly review it and give the editor(s) my suggestions. Thanks :) Somno (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Somno, I made some revisions to this article. Perhaps it is in better shape, but I look forward to your comments to improve the article. Thanks! Postoak (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just reminder, but you tagged River Oaks, Houston, Texas with the GAreview tag several days ago. Have you completed your review comments yet? Dr. Cash (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have, I'll post the review tomorrow when I'm on the right computer. Thanks. Somno (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Review posted: [1] Somno (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've added many of the recommended changes...guess were ready for the final review. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

G G-S

wow thats a good art - I knew him and knew his son quite well having lived v close by - thanks for that - cheers! SatuSuro 05:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Never heard of him myself, but that hasn't stopped me from creating biographies before! :) Somno (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with personal acquaintances - memory is one thing - and sufficient refs/cites to back up ones memories is another :| SatuSuro 10:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Joel Selwood Peer Review

Hi, thanks for the taking the time to provide a peer review for the Joel Selwood article. Much appreciated. Boomtish (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I agree with Mattinbgn that the article could benefit from an outsider's review too - the football terms that make sense to us mightn't make sense to them. Congrats with what you've done with this article and Tom Hawkins, both are great. Somno (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN work

Have some kudos; you're doing great! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot. I'm trying my best. :) Somno (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gulfton

I took your advice, so I turned several one sentence paragraphs into two sentence or more paragraphs. - I found more detail on the fire department and the parks. Once I have more material I will re-nominate. I think it's close to being a GA. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Don't give up, it'll get there. :) Somno (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I renominated the article after finding more information WhisperToMe (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Portal

It may be me but i didnt think that news in the west constituted a linkable item from the portal - I may well be very wrong but I thought it might link to a section of our articles - rather than outside wikiedpia SatuSuro 10:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first too, but a look at the archives, and the lack of specifics in the portal guidelines led me to believe otherwise. The ideal would be to link to relevant items on Wikinews, but that's hopeless ([2]) and I didn't want to commit myself to updating Wikinews! :) Somno (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gawd - youre brave - some prefer to be more neutral and ambiguous - take care with that level of exposure :| - I mean I prefer landscapes for my own ambiguity - cheers and well good luck :| SatuSuro 03:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just got sick of being referred to as male. I'm not a fan of the "this user is female" userbox, and I wasn't putting up a photo to maintain some level of anonymity, so that's my compromise. I'm far from an artist, so the sketch only vaguely resembles me. :) Somno (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well youre amongst an excellent group of oz eds of your gender - I would say overall more helpful, more steadily productive and more considerate than the majority of the lot that i belong to :| SatuSuro 04:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Review:Sources of Islamic law

Hi, I found you're reviewing the article while there is GA tag on the the page. Unfortunately the article has some problems from technical viewpoint. I asked another Muslim wikipedian to tell us his viewpoint. Can you wait to discuss on it more.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good article. I put it on hold. I'll change it back. Somno (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. But please remove it from WP:GAN.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't do that because I've taken it to Good Article Reassessment, rather than simply delisting it. I think delisting straight away is too hasty and since another editor thought it passed GA criteria, reassessment is a better option as it encourages more reviews. If consensus is that it's not a Good Article, it will be delisted. Feel free to comment on the reassessment page. Somno (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please write your idea about alternative lead which I've proposed[3].--Seyyed(t-c) 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your concerns. Question: will you fail this article in one week if no decision is reached? If yes, please hurry in giving me back feedback. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this article's GA progress has been quite complicated, so I think more than a week is fine, as long as people are still working on the article. Somno (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I finished my work on the new lead. Please check it. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

America's Cup number plate

Hey, I just saw your photo find. Thanks muchly. Moondyne 09:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to reply to this. No worries - stumbled across it while searching Flickr for something else! Somno (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

semi

want me to semi-protect (i.e. IP-protect) your talk page for a month? Hesperian 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Say yes it works very well - have had it myself at times SatuSuro 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be good, thanks. I won't be doing any new page patrolling for awhile so it's unlikely any other anons will need to contact me. Andygradel could use the same protection. Somno (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 01:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we need protects from ones like that below as well :( SatuSuro 05:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 05:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unable to help. Best of luck with your thesis. Somno (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)