User talk:Someguy1221

(Archive 1, January 2007 - July 2008)
(Archive 2, July 2008 - April 2009)
(Archive 3, April 2009 - November 2009)
(Archive 4, November 2009 - February 2011)

Unsure about your warning

Hello

I notice you left a warning on my userpage saying that "I know what I did". Please enlighten me.

Regards, Fabs 115.64.159.41 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If you don't know what you did, then it's because you access the internet through an IP address that is either dynamic (it changes user from time to time) or it is shared amongst multiple users including yourself. I say this because not only were the offending actions definitely performed from your IP (there are records of it), the offender and myself even had a conversation about it in April of 2009. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Someguy1221! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Henoch-schonlein purpura

Hello friend, am looking for your help to get access to these 3 articles related to Henoch–Schönlein purpura article, PubMed, PubMed, PubMed, can you do that for me?? MaenK.A._Talk 18:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 378 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation using AWB on 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

you AFC reviews

Hi, an user asked at WT:AFC why he wasn't informed on his talkpage about your review on his submission. Maybe use our AFC helper script (located at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js) and it will greatly help you in reviewing submissions, e.g: it informs the submitter, it creates talk pages (when submitting), update /recent (when submitting), etc. Simply include it in your skin.js and hit review at the top (similar to twinkle). Regards, mabdul 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that script is amazing! Thanks Mabdul. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dojo Mobile Draft Article - Not sure how to fix "Unreliable source" problem

Hi! I am not sure how to fix the resources so that they become reliable. Are all the resources unreliable? Which ones? Kaoru Hosokawa (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am looking for references from other parties now. In the meantime, I understand that if the article is not edited, the review will be declined. However, after that will the article be removed? If so I need to back it up somewhere. Kaoru Hosokawa (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

According to longstanding policy, the draft will be retained indefinitely. I don't see that policy changing anytime soon. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Niose

Can you be a little more specific as to why the Wiki entry for David Niose was rejected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NixManes (talk • contribs) 14:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We need sources that are written about Niose. Not sources that were written by him or those associated with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Trevor Blake

Hi Someguy1221, just wondering if you could be more specific about what changes need to be made. Is there "puffery" here? Where do you get a sense of partiality? Thanks for your keen eye. DeQuendre — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeQuendre (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to be written from Blake's own point of view, and indeed you accredit him in many of the statements in the article, in addition to one entire section. The neutral point of view would be the point of view taken by independent sources, rather than his own biographer. The source of the problem may be that only two of the sources provided are independent of Blake (the rest are written by himself, or employees of organizations he has been involved in). You may want to collect a few more independent sources, see how they speak about Blake, and follow that same tone. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Prof Mark Alfred Gillman

Hi there

Thanks for your comments. If the material is reinforced by media articles (written by journalists), will this be acceptable?

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientist1234! (talk • contribs) 09:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't say without seeing the sources myself. But there is no limit to how many times or how often you can submit the article, so feel free to add whatever sources you can find, and submit for another review. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Romsey County Primary School

Hello.

This is my first attempt, and obviously I got it wrong, but I can;t see where - can you give me a pointer or two regarding your comment that it cannot be verified please? I have given references to other sources which confirm the name, location, school logs, change of name and other factors of the school, and it was my own primary school 1962-1965 so what I have written is from my own personal knowledge?

It would be a shame for the info to be lost, as the school has been moved to a new location but many thousands of people originated there.

Many thanks.

Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.216.250 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to demonstrate the notability and verifiability of the article, we need independent sources. The sources you've provided were published by the school itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the suggestions about Patna College. I shall surely try to improve it. Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ted Parkhurst

I have read multiple articles about other people and I believe I've listed as many if not more "3rd party" references than most of the other articles. I just don't understand why everyone keeps rejecting my article about Ted Parkhurst. He is a prominent publisher in the USA, is a well-known artist with many paintings displayed throughout the country and is a major organizer when it comes to the well-known National Storytelling Network. He was the ONLY person honored as the distinguished alumni at U of AR in 1999. He is as notable as about 40% of the individuals who have articles written about them here. Sandilouwiki (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll want to ask Chzz, the editor who reviewed your most recent submission. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Mark as reviewing?

Could you mark submissions you are reviewing as 'being reviewed' please. We have both just reviewed Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Delano Seiveright. Pol430 talk to me 22:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Sorry about that. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your request for a UTRS Account

Hi Someguy1221,

I'm a tool admin for the UTRS tool and can see that you've requested an account but you haven't made a confirmation edit on this page to prove that it is you who is requesting the account, please could you do so to allow me to approve your account? If you could leave a talkback on my user talk page when you've done this, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

The Helpful One 18:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, your account has been approved. Please create some test requests and act as if you are an admin handling the requests but please also look at it from the perspective of the blocked user. The Helpful One 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Heroux

Can you please tell me why Joseph Kennedy III gets a Wikipedia page and Paul Heroux does not?

They are both an equal candidate for Congress in the 4th District in Massachusetts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shineroo (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Because Joe the third has received independent news coverage. If Paul does as well, it has not been demonstrated. Simply standing for election does not make a man notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles J. Ping: AfC Review

Hi Someguy1221,

I'm writing as an advocate for eatoussant, who made a recent revision to increase notability on Articles_for_creation/Charles_J._Ping. The additional source demonstrates that Ping notability goes beyond "small-time publications." Will you take another look? Thanks, Matthewvetter (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The only source that was added since the review was a single citation to his own foundation. Anyone is free to resubmit the article for review if you want a second opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Traan (Process)

My sources are reliable ie published book or journals, why is my article being regarded as "humorous"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.123.30 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Because you made the thing up. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So because something is only being researched at the moment and hasn't been studied very far, its obviously made up? I'm sorry but having researched this along side some of the leading anatomists, I believe this page should be created, unless I should wait until more papers are published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.123.30 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the sources you provided, and they don't mention anything about "traan", or any "bony processes" for that matter. In addition, there is nothing of the sort named "traan" described anywhere on the internet. If a thing is unverifiable, it cannot appear on Wikipedia. We do not put our trust in random people on the internet, and we do not ask our readers to trust them either. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/creations landscape designs

I updated my article per your feedback and hit the save button but do not see an option to resubmit for review. UMM

Respectfully, confused — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramidio (talk • contribs) 03:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because you deleted the instructions :p

I've redone it for you, and I'll let another reviewer take this one. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/VidPon

Please elaborate on what you did not like in the submission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogbuehi (talk • contribs) 03:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A company is not considered noteworthy for Wikipedia simply because it exists. Rather, it must have been the subject of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) for more information. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Your review at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/VidPon

Once again, I am confused as to why you are rejecting my submission. Explain what is wrong with my sources please. (Or just delete the ones you think dont work?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogbuehi (talk • contribs) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources work. Any company can start a website or file a trademark. These don't make them notable. You need sources that are published and written independently of the company itself, that actually discuss the company. The only independent source you used never mentions the company. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection request.

Hello. Sorry to disturb you, but can you protect the articles Yu-Gi-Oh!: Bonds Beyond Time and Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light? An Irish vandal using addresses on the 86.43.*.* range keeps removing all Japanese references and credits from these pages. It seems that he doesn't want admit these two are Japanese films. He is doing his vandalism long-term. He is also adding hoax "Digimon Tigers" credits to several voice actor pages. BTW, they're listed in WP:RFPP right now, but I read that it is currently backlogged. Thanks in advance. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Juice

Regarding the pedophile block: can you please semi Rind et al controversy, Child Sexual Abuse and Pedophilia? I don't think short duration is going to be enough as there appears to be a concentrated effort. N^oformation ^Talk 07:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The effort doesn't look that concerted to me. Just one easly-spotted socker. Ask at WP:RFPP if you would like a second opinion. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for taking care of the block. N^oformation ^Talk 07:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanxman307

You beat me to it: well done. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For recognizing quality contributions, as you did here. (Note: I proposed full protection!) Drmies (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you know how to involve more people into discussion of elementary physics articles?

A number of articles on the elementary physical concepts (e.g. velocity, work...) are rather poorely written or organized. I made a few attempts at improvement, of different scope and with different outcomes. And what I find most frustrating is the lack of response at talk pages. Sometimes nothing at all. At best one or two people - and, naturally, we may not agree on the approach or execution. On one hand, these articles practically border with common knowledge, whereas on the other - they are the very basis for understanding of most other concepts, and therefore should be most carefully written. And because of this latter, they would require attention and collaboration of more that a couple of editors, as well as some protection after good editing. Is there some simple way to involve e.g. peoople from WikiProject Physics, if that is what they do?

I chose to ask you for advice (after your response to my center of gravity question) as you obviously are much more experienced on wiki than I am. For example:

In the Work (physics) article I made some edits to correct the most obvious mistakes. That went well (I even got some help regarding my English). Then I started a discussion about restructuring the article, which was going well for a while (and some progress was made). But the point came beyond which the other editor and I did not quite agree any more. So, I let him have his way (though not without some ill-concealed bitterness), whereas what I really wanted would have been several more opinions - but nobody else chose to participate.

Another example: I wrote anew the Net force article. I believe it is farly good, and much above the present start-class attribution. Then another editor, and an experienced one, messed it up a bit with some inapropriate diagrams. On my request (perhaps not a too polite one) at his talk page he gave a rather obscure explanation, and then I over-reacted at the article talk page. Though probably nobody will read that any time soon, I see that I am not handling this well.

My problem is that I spend considerable time and effort trying to produce a conceptually and methodologically good text before doing an edit. So I hate to see careless superficial interventions ("be bold") particularly by experienced editors. And I am not the type who would do reverts, re-edits and such stuff.

Any advice? Including a possible suggetion that I am not really compatible with Wikipedia.--Ilevanat (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about this, and...no. I have no advice. I have long noticed a problem with articles on general concepts like this. It's such a basic concept that everyone has something to add about it, but the experts who write the textbooks don't bother spending that much time discussing it. So you're left in this limbo state where more people feel they are qualified to write about the topic than is reasonable, but even those who are qualified have trouble getting sufficient sources to make a great article that's up to Wikipedia's standards. What I can do is help. If there's anything specific, I'd be glad to. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me first thank you for considering the issue. And then for an honest answer. Which, however, does not comfort much. How will Wikipedia EVER present general/basic concepts with reasonable reliability if no facilitating mechanism is developed to deal with the issues recognized, a mechanism that can be more or less routinely invoked? As for your offer on specifics, I shall take some time to decide if I can use it without dragging you into inappropriate disputes.--Ilevanat (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The only way to fix anything on Wikipedia is to find a critical mass of Wikipedians willing to help. There are entire categories of articles that have been terrible for years simply because no one is willing to work on them. And if there are ignorant editors resisting good changes, the few who want to help often burn out before there is critical mass. But things can get better. I've seen it. You just need enough people. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Query

Do you have any relation to someguy827? -waywardhorizons (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, no relation at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Syndicated Shows

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

ARS list DRV

I am requesting that you comment here on a deletion review regarding the rescue list.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your comment, be bold and please cast your support and vote

Your support would be very much appreciated, as far as I understand, a "support !vote" would help as noted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory_%28TV_series%29#Requested_move_to_promote_clarity.2C_minimize_confusion.2C_and_make_wikipedia_a_better.2C_accurate.2C_and_precise_research_tool.21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.12.67 (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Someguy1221,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 378 submissions waiting to be reviewed. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

--Bmusician 12:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What is G6.Pendragon5 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)