[edit] User:Msrasnw/Matthew Watson

Dear Skomorokh, could you have another look at Matthew Watson to see if it could be resurrected yet or do I need to make it bigger yet. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

Yo Msrasnw; the problem is not with the article but with the topic. If you can demonstrate that the professor passes the professor test, I'd be willing to consider unilateral restoration. If you cannot, but you are confident that you would be able to convince the editors who supported the deletion to change their minds, we can put it to the community again. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Skomorokh, one of the criteria for promotion to a chair as at Warwick is "Evidence of sustained output of high quality, peer-reviewed research publications or other equally recognised forms of research output, and evidence that they have made a significant contribution to the discipline and earned an international reputation." This alone would seem to mean that Watson would pass our Professor Test - if that is Warrick's promotions panel is viewed as being in good position to judge Watson's contribution to Political Economy. Do we consider we are better able to judge contributions in IPE than panel of senior academics selected for the purpose? However if we accept this logic then I think this would be a one of those slippery slopes - and we could have loads more academics (nearly as many as our footballer collection). Notwithstanding this I think his publications record is enough - he has published a lot of (>30) articles, many in high quality journals - and some of his own books. He also engaged in debate with Ben Cohen - the leading figure in this area. Anyway my reading is he has done enough to make him an important figure in this area.

Arguments in support of the deletion of the article were based on

• does not seem to pass WP:PROF - lack of citations - "Two articles and a book is not notability".
• "Few Assistant professors are notable"

I think these arguments were mis-leading or wrong.

• He has two single authored books, jointly edited another (with another forthcoming) and had more than thirty articles published in peer reviewed academic journals and these have been widely cited
• He is a full professor.

Support, even proposal, for deletion might well have been based on inaccurate information (the proposer thought he was not a professor) and deletion itself based partly on this. To me he passes the test and I think to anyone knowledgeable about British IPE he would pass the test. Anyway many thanks in advance and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

Dear Skomorokh, Hi - I am not sure what to do next. I was thinking of either asking for other opinions about this article, or start going through the citations to Watson's work and then introducing his work elsewhere and refering back to this one. Or perhaps expanding it further with more of his contributions - perhaps the work on fair trade. I think it is already substantially bigger - with his contributions and evidence of his notability clearer - than when it is deleted and so could justify another look. How many books articles and how much citation is needed by our Prof test seems to be based on subject areas and he would seem to me to meet, and to have been shown in the articles sourcing to more than meet, the norm in Econ/PolEcon. Anyway what would you suggest? (Msrasnw (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

Dear Skomorokh, I have had a look at the deletion review stuff and believe that having discussed it with you, the deleting administrator, and tried to resolve it with you first and that we have not been able to work out a satisfactory solution. (I still think the article shows that Watson has passed the Prof Test - and you have not been satisfied yet) Then the matter should be brought to Deletion Review. What do you think? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC))

Dear Skomorokh, just want to make sure things are OK with you to go to a deletion review.

Is the following OK for a deletion review text?

• Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question.
  • This would seem to apply! (Does it?)
• This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
  • I think we have done this. (Have we?)
• Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly
  • I think this is the case. In the debate "The majority of editors in this discussion favoured keeping this article"

However you argued they lacked a compelling rationale, relying mostly on WP:ITSNOTABLE. But I believe there were sufficient references to the author's work which included links to his large number of publications which are well cited. Arguments for deletion included substantial inaccuracies which were not addressed during the closure:

• does not seem to pass WP:PROF - lack of citations - "Two articles and a book is not notability".
• "Few Assistant professors are notable"

I think these arguments were mis-leading or wrong.

• He has two single authored books, jointly edited another (with another forthcoming) and had more than thirty articles published in peer reviewed academic journals and these have been widely cited
• He is a full professor.

Support, even proposal, for deletion might well have been based on inaccurate information (the proposer thought he was not a professor) and deletion itself based partly on this. Are these sufficient reasons for taking to deletion review if you don't feel able to restore the article? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Hello Skomorokh and Msrasnw. I saw the userfication of this article and I made a couple of very small improvements to it. It's laudable that Msrasnw is willing to keep improving the article. In my opinion the missing ingredient is outside recognition of Watson's importance. This is also a problem with other articles on International Political Economy. We are left with the impression that the scholars in the field all think it's a wonderful thing, but we don't know what anyone else thinks, even within the academy. We are not sure if they are economists or political scientists, we don't know if they are 'left' or 'right', we don't know if they are mathematical or not, we don't know if other political scientists (not members of their school) consider them to have made important contributions. This is the kind of summary information that might interest a Wikipedia reader. Lacking it, to me, the Watson article has an air of unreality. Even the lead just seems to say that he wrote two books and thirty articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, in repsonse to the discussion my plan is to add even more evidence of outside recognition. But I am not sure if the outside recognition will be enough for some. He seems to me to have been recognised via his appointment a Warwick as having provided something like "sufficent evidence of sustained output of high quality, peer-reviewed research publications or other equally recognised forms of research output, and evidence that they have made a significant contribution to the discipline and earned an international reputation." He has produced lots of work in peer reviewed journals which all claim to be producing and vetting output to make sure it is of international quality and they have been used as such by UKs RAE. Other authors in his area quote and cite him. He has served/serves at a national level in the discipline in UK academia etc.

Also I think our IPE article is not so confused on what IPE is: " academic discipline within the social sciences that analyzes international relations in combination with political economy. As an interdisciplinary field it draws on many distinct academic schools, most notably political science and economics, but also sociology, history, and cultural studies. The academic boundaries of IPE are flexible, and along with acceptable epistemologies are the subject of robust debate. This debate is essentially framed by the discipline's status as a new and interdisciplinary field of study." It could do with more work (but I don't have time given the time spent on undeleting things :) ) I think also there is sufficient evidence on that page for IPE as being recognised as being important/notable. I guess the problem might be interdiscplinarity. Anyway I am not sure about whether Skomorokh's page is right for this (sorry Skomorokh). I have been thinking of perhaps moving the article from my userpage to Wikipedia:Article Incubator before trying for a deletion review. It might be less of a running sore there.

I have rearranged again the lead to adress you criticism. Anyway Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

[edit] chocman

Yes, that's me, Chocolate Man, or ChocMan[1] for short. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Mmmm, I think my subconscious is trying to tell me something!  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Footer for Cla68

Just taking a wild guess while I log in for a couple of minutes, but I think it is you who is putting in the footers on the Arbcom candidate page. Seems Cla68's is linking to Chutznik's data, can I ask you to please see if this can be rectified? Thanks. (Incidentally, you and Ultraexactzz seem to be doing a good job of keeping things organized, and thanks for that too.)Risker (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem; do have a direct link? If you're talking about {{ACE candidate}}, it works like {{ACE candidate|Username}}, so if it says Cla68, it should link to Cla68. If you're talking about the General Summary page, I'm doing that manually so there are likely to be errors. Merci beaucoup for the encouragement.  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, think I've found it. Thanks again,  Skomorokh, barbarian  19:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] arb election thing

with your 'monitor' hat on, I'd like you to take a look at Jhochman's candidate statement page, which now features a spiffy audio section - thoughts / feedback most welcome :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hat off, I love the addition of new media, the professional layout and so on, and I don't have any qualms about it – good work! Hat on, there might be issues with the partiality of the interview (voters might wonder if this is an official sanctioned organ of the cabal, or favourtism towards one publication among many, when it is quite different from the rest of the ACE2009 election material); the perception of soapboxing and so on. If there are concerns about this appearance, the interview(w) might be better placed on the candidate discussion page(s), for instance. Personally I don't have a problem with it, think it's a valuable addition, but you should probably raise this at WT:ACE2009. Unless anyone kicks up a fuss, run with it. By the way, I hope you have another dozen or so of these in the pipeline :)  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking states

I've created a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Linking#Linking City, State. You might want to chime in there if you think this should be officially discouraged.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Extended discussion

Alison wants her remarks on the front page, but I think I want all questioners and commenters treated equally. Discussion goes to the talk page. What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/Jehochman/Questions_for_the_candidate#Followup_from_Alison. Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Got it, will leave Alison a note.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

Taqi Haider (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Skomorokh's Day!

User:Skomorokh has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Skomorokh's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Skomorokh! Peace, Rlevse 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Aw shucks, twice this month?! Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Darn, how'd I do that? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: CSD of James Wilkes (theatre)

Okay, how am I supposed to know any production at this theatre is notable? There is very little information about this company provided. All four "adaptations" listed are plays that have been produced many times. I don't mean to sound as if I'm whining, but I looked hard to find a reason to mark this as notable & couldn't. (I live in the US, so I know little about British theatre & nothing about this company.) In fact, shortly after this article I felt so uncomfortable about guessing whether something was notable from the article contents alone that I decided to leave New Article Patrolling to someone else. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Llywrch. A apparent lack of notability is not an urgent or insurmountable issue, which is why non-notability does not feature in the criteria for speedy deletion. New page patrolling is about sorting the complete rubbish from the redeemable from the good content, rather than trying to find a reason to delete pages. If you're not sure whether or not an article meets the criteria, it's best to pursue avenues other than deletion. There are helpful guides at WP:FIELD and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  06:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I've Replied

Hi, I replied to your opinion at 86.128.38.210 (talk) I hope that is right! 86.128.38.210 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yo, no worries, you've got the right place! I'll reply on your page to keep everything on the same page. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review for Matthew Watson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Matthew Watson. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Dear Skomorokh, I have submitted a request to have your deletion reviewed. Hope it is OK and I have done it properly. Best wishes Msrasnw (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries Msrasnw; I'm sorry I haven't the time to look into the matter further but I've made it clear at the discussion that I consent to recreation. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Gibson (journalist)

Could you please restore the page David Gibson so that I can change whatever small bit of copyright violation there was, while maintaining the good parts ? I had in fact re-written much of the article before and I thought it had become okay until you deleted the entry unexectedly. ADM (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Namaste, ADM. I'm afraid I can't restore copyright violations, but the version I deleted was only two lines long, so it should not be difficult to cover that ground from scratch. It mentioned his careers, Catholicism, and stays in Providence and Rome, if that helps. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stromfront

A recent editors actions seem to be disruptive over on this article. Would you care to take a look? Thanks, Verbal chat 17:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've no interest in collaborating in hostile environments, and unwatched the article a while back. WP:NPOVN might be of help, but I think such an article will always attract contentious editors.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Election notices

Theres a little under 2 days left.--Tznkai (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nov 23 -> Nov 24 = one calendar day.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zach Braff

Could you please outline what bits should be changed in the 'False Report of Death' section? I'm willing to change it but I don't think it should be deleted altogether, as it is an importanat and popular part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R013 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure; the content needs to be supported by references to highly-reliable sources as the topic concerns negative content regarding a living person. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources for details. The material should not be added until there is consensus that it meets the policy. If you have further questions or want a second opinion, feel free to start a thread at the noticeboard. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, and ...

I stumbled upon the great work you did on the issue with the "suicide girl" pic, talking with the particular person whose image was in use. Thank you; I really like to see  people, interact  with others so respectfully, especially where so sensitive an issue is concerned. I do have one request, though, that I hope you'll consider. I wanted ask whether you might change your sig a bit? I'm sure you spent considerable time on it, to get it just the way you wanted it to look, and I know people get very attached to their signature art. Naturally so since it's a bit of self-expression. As art per se, I admire it; it's pleasant to look at,  even, interesting . But the problem is that I can't bring up a page that you've signed without my eyes immediately darting to every instance of your signature that occurs on it. No offense, I hope, and sorry to have to tell you so, but that gives me a kind of motion sickness or something every time. It makes the page prety hard to read for me. That black-backround thing is every bit as attention-grabbing for me as highlighting is, for me. See now, didn't your eyes first jump to the "backlit" words when you first saw this message? And doesn't that interfere with actually reading the text for you, too? Thanks in advance for considering it. Cheers, Ohiostandard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

[edit] userficiation question

could you remove the mainspace categories from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tothwolf/XiRCON please? also, does wp:own not apply to userfied articles? thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

By all means feel free to remove the categories as appropriate; WP:OWN does not apply to userfied articles. If the user in question does not want others editing the draft, that's their prerogative. If they want to reintroduce it to the mainspace or other communal venue, then it's open season. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

the user in question was reverting attempts to remove to categories [[2]], which is why i asked. so they can keep the mainspace categories (and rollback attempts to remove) into a userfied article? Theserialcomma (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean; it was not readily apparent that your questions were related. Active mainspace categories of course fall under the community sphere rather than the userspace sphere. Have you asked the editor why they reverted the blanking of categories?  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

as you're an uninvolved party to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence, but the one who userfied the article for him, i have asked you to remove the mainspace categories. i don't think he'd want me to do it. you can see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Miami33139#Leave_me_alone and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaxthos#Leave_me_alone Theserialcomma (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The plot gets thicker. In light of the arbitration case, it is probably prudent to avoid interaction with the editor. I'll see to the userfied article. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

my concern with userfied articles is that they sometimes show up in google searches, which subverts the deletion process. is there a way to stop this? is there a 'no search engine' category? Theserialcomma (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Placing {{NOINDEX}} on a userspace page will remove it from search engine results. For a recent discussion on this, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] István Varga

Thanks for that decline of SPEEDY, I was not sure meself. I know in a sense one only takes to SPEEDY for uncontroversial things, but part of your job is to decide, and as an inclusionist I don't take it lightly. It was a tricky bugger to decide so thank you very much for your opinion.

While it was waiting for SPEEDY I added an Infobox Sportsperson and did some tidying. It looks a little better now. Still very sparse, but I am rather busy editing other Hungarian articles to be able to take this on. It could probably do with adding {{Expand Hungarian}} at the top, I will check if there is more info on HU:WP.

Thanks for your efforts to help make this community. I really appreciate it. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yo Simon, no worries about the article. WP:A7 speedy deletion is generally reserved for articles that give the reader no indication of why they might be suitable for an encyclopaedia. One I just deleted for example had "Brea Mackey was born on September 1st 1991. She's trying to get a singing career started [3]" as its only content; how might Ms. Mackey be significant? Certainly not as a singer, as she has yet to begin her career. In the case of Varga, however, we read that he is an established sportsperson that has played at the highest level and represented his national team; it's clear that he could be a famous sportsperson. It's great that you took the time to improve the article after tagging it, and for future reference it would probably be best to leave speedy deletion for completely hopeless articles; proposed deletion works fine where there is doubt. Thank you for your courteous message, and I hope you keep up the good work too. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  09:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

On HU:SP Hu:Varga István is a disambiguation page. His entry, check for 1943, is a redlink. I guess that it was added from the "handball" aspect not the "Hungarian" one. This happens a lot with HU:WP as they like to keep a small, good encylopaedia instead of a large, erroneous one. (To put it bluntly.) For example they check every edit by the Great and The Good whereas on EN:WP aything goes cos noperson is better than any other. I could link to that article but it is a redlink. So interwiki link to a redlink is maybe not so good, but obviously they have decided the titles already. On EN:WP I wouldlink it as a redlink, but they don't show as such on Interwiki links. Should I link or not? Si Trew (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links are only used in situations where pages on the same topic exist on two different wikis; if hu.wp don't have an article on our handballer, no link is needed. Once it's created, I'm sure the Hungarians will link to our article, after which the bots will add the interwiki as appropriate. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It helps a lot. I Interwiki a lot, because I translate a lot. Sometimes the topics are not the same e.g. Vőfély which I just did links to bridesmaid in german (well actually to bridegroom but it is redirected to bridesmaid) and really has nothing at all in common with what a Vőfely is, a man who manages wedding arrangements, not a bridesmaid. So I think I will delete that link on the DE and HU. The bots do well to link it up, but if they get it wrong it has to be taken down manually. Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Technical setting up of SecurePoll

Hi Skomorokh

I may have missed it, but has anyone set in motion the technical arrangements? I believe Tim Starling helped out on the AUSC election. Tony (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ciao Tony, and no, not to my knowledge. This is all I know.  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think SecurePoll is going to happen magically unless we take steps to make it. Tim Starling just advised me that no one has mentioned anything to him, and that he hopes we don't need software changes. Sorting this out is a matter of urgency. I'm going to email Roger Davies, who has experience of the AUSC system, and will buzz UltraExactXX on his talk page. Tony (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I share your concern. I know User:Mr.Z-man and User:Happy-melon have indicated that they might be available to help out if there's a concrete list of things needing to be done. I'm not the most technically adept editor, but seeing as we have little time and few people willing to take the lead, I'll try to hammer out a proposal for the changes desired by consensus based on the results of the RfC and on Roger's summation of the AUSC feedback.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Skomorokh. Have the election monitors and scrutineers been approached/chosen? Tony (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. There have been some rumblings about asking the scrutineers from AUSC 2009, and selecting checkusers as the election monitors. I should be able to round up the checkusers, but I am not familiar enough with stewards/meta to deal with the scrutineers. What do you think?  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

At this stage, my gut feeling is to draw on the experience of the AUSC election as much as possible: it went well. I'm gonna ask someone who knows meta to point us in the right direction as far as stewards go. Tony (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talkback

Amsaim (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Speedy deletion declined: Brian Joseph Stone

I disagree with this decison, based on the fact that simply being a soldier or earning a medal does not make them notable, as if it was, there would be hundreds of thousand of un-notable soldiers in the encyclopedia. There are 0 Ghits other than the wikipedia page, and there is no true assertion of notability. Please see the two medals/ribbons this person has been awarded National_Defense_Service_Medal and Army_Service_Ribbon and see that neither of these awards are notable, as provided for in WP:ANYBIO, as they are awarded to every soldier (in the case of the Army Service Ribbon), and are awarded to large block of people, meaning anyone who enters the military within a certain timeframe (in the case of the National Defence Service Medal) . Therefore, there is no credible claim of notability, and therefore meets CSD7 as an un-notable person. --Fbifriday (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Fbifriday, and thanks for your note. I appreciate your concern, but your argument falls down on the fact that the only mention of notability in WP:A7 is the implication that it is a higher standard. Articles do not need to assert notability to survive A7, simple as that. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  20:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on this issue. I will open an AfD discussion for this article instead. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries; if you think it's uncontroversial, just put {{subst:PROD|reason=your reason here}} at the top of the article. i have no objections. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have to challenge the notion that the service medals are an assertion of notability. They are awarded to all service members, regardless of service. Essentially, they are awarded for doing no more than showing up. If showing up is the new standard of notability, then any and all service members could have Wikipedia pages that are not eligible for CSD. Including the guy who hasn't done anything yet except finish boot camp. DarkAudit (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you're going to comment, you would do well to read the thread first; notability is a red herring, as it is not within the domain of speedy deletion.  Skomorokh  03:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I did read it. He joined. He got training. He's done no more than his job, same as hundreds of thousands of others who serve. What makes this article deserving of any more consideration than it's already received? DarkAudit (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • What relevance has any of this to speedy deletion?  Skomorokh  04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You tell me. Your position on A7 is confusing. This guy has none nothing more than show up. Just showing up is not an assertion of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
          • The confusion is mutual – why do you keep bringing up notability as if it is a speedy deletion threshold??  Skomorokh  04:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I usually agree with you, Skomoroth, but I have to agree with Cunard here that receiving an "award" that every service member gets is not an indication of significance or importance. Tim Song (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
              • He's not important, either. He has done absolutely nothing than any other soldier going to the same school would have done. There is nothing in the article to suggest he has set himself above or beyond his peers. DarkAudit (talk) 04:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Now that is another story. I declined the speedy for good reason, and should it assuage the pointless commotion here and allow everyone and his dog to return to productive contributins, I'll make a comment to that effect in the deletion discussion.  Skomorokh  04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Please see User talk:Cunard#Service medals. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DON'T PANIC. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stewards

Just to let you know that several volunteers have already contacted me in one way or the other, and I will forward their contact information to you directly later on today. I don't think your team will have to worry about finding scrutineers. :) Risker (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That's brilliant Risker. That just leaves the need for us to connect the stewards to the developers. Thanks greatly again!  Skomorokh  14:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And since I presume the stewards will be managing the issue of "problem votes", I've removed that section from the vote page, as well as rationalising it. (Will that vote page be used, I wonder, or is the whole thing now redundant?) If the text about voter eligibility is to appear on a SecurePoll page, I think [

the update is better than what was there for last year. Tony (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] English Russia/EnglishRussia/EnglishRussia.com

Do we still need all 3 articles up for Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD? I stumbled across them at Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD/Skomorokh#Searching for the Wrong-Eyed_Jesus. If I had stumbled across these in NPP and noticed all 3 before taking any action, English Russia would stay and the other two would get redirected as duplicates, then I would evaluate English Russia on its merits. If I did not notice all 3 at the same time my actions would've depended on the order I noticed them and whether I remembered seeing the earlier ones when I spotted the later ones. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Outside the use of a time machine, EnglishRussia.com is the only non-redirect of the three. I'm not sure what you're asking exactly.  Skomorokh  21:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking if I can take a nap. Must be too much thanksgiving turkey still in me. Yeah, 2 were redirects. I was about to blank this comment but it's too late now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jolly good, carry on!  Skomorokh  21:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion declined: Ben chan

Why do you assume that you're right and that I'm wrong, and that I need to be re-educated? "Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages."

Please do not be so patronising, and try checking the accuracy of claims made by biographers and self-publicisers in future. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an automated message; I'll grant that it does come across as a little condescending, and for that I apologise. That said, the article is not eligible for speedy deletion under the criterion you invoked as it makes a credible claim to significance – if it turned out that this fellow were notable, it is easy to tell from the article why this might be. As to checking the accuracy of the claims, that is not something that ought to be done at speedy deletion, but deserves proper investigation; for speedy the questions asked are "is this claim of significance credible? is it a hoax?". If you want to prod it or send it to AfD I would have no objection, as evaluation of the sources and notability does need to be done at some point. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Two CSD tags and now one AfD says that you're wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Vox populi, vox dei? No, a convincing argument would say I am wrong. : )  Skomorokh  02:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

When you're wrong you're wrong. Live with it. I bothered to check the "facts" and you didn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That, with all due respect, is bullshit. The "facts" were not in question – their assertion was. The article has been deleted by another administrator on promotional grounds – which is fine as it is within the discretionary zone. It does not make the original tagging any less mistaken, but it is the outcome that matters. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The only bullshit I see is coming from you.[4] --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a non sequitur; I've already made it clear that I thought that deletion and thus closure was within discretion. It simply does not follow from the premise that an article is deletable on promotional grounds that is deletable on assertion of significance grounds.  Skomorokh  02:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe whatever you like, you are wrong nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I could justifiably reply in kind, but what good would that do? If you want to share your point of view as to why the initial tagging was accurate and why I was wrong to decline it, I'm all ears, and if my patrolling can improve as a result all the better. Sticking one's tongue out and repeating "I am right and you are wrong" over and over again does neither of us any favours.  Skomorokh  02:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That the article was speedily deleted despite your objections ought to tell you something. The initial tagging was accurate because the claims made were unsubstantiated by the sources. Sure, I could have chosen to tag as a {{db-g11}} instead; I just didn't realise that I was dealing with ... I'd best say no more. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)