User talk:Skomorokh/᠔

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)

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)

Skomorokh, so do I understand that the current situations is: we'd be happy to find a third CU as an election administrator (in addition to Z and Happy), and another one or two non-English-wiki stewards, in addition to the five we already have? Tony (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Jpgordon (CU) has added himself to the WP:COORD9 list, and Erwin and Millosh have been mentioned as possible scrutineers if you want to follow up on those leads now.  Skomorokh  06:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Mike.lifeguard a non-en.WP steward? Tony (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.[1] --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)

Jewish anarchist

Well, he's already listed as being Jewish and an anarchist...so... 71.82.218.4 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I've removed the anarchist categories for now because there does not seem to be a reliable source to support them.  Skomorokh  22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Things that need to be done today

LOL, down to the wire, huh? I guess Wikipedians are a buncha procrastinators. Myself included at times. :P Cirt (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Finger-biting stuff; wouldn't have it any other way!  Skomorokh  09:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Urgent: suggested edits to Special:SecurePoll/translate/80/en

Hi Skomorokh: please see my post here. I can't edit the page in question. Can you check out my suggested changes, plus any feedback on the election talk page, and implement the revised instructions as you see fit? Tony (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PS, I go to bed in about an hour, dead to the world until about midnight UTC. The Signpost has just asked me to write an election report, if you please, and I suspect the deadline is about ... now. Tony (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ping ping. I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Awake and active; email replied to, fires at WT:ACE2009 being put out. Cheers,  Skomorokh  22:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Roger will send to me and I'll adapt as necessary to this context. I can only get snatches of time today. Tony (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, that's fine Tony, much appreciated.  Skomorokh  02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

DublinBikes

Dear Skomorokh, why has the DublinBikes page been deleted? Best wishes Ciarancreilly (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talk page, Ciarán.  Skomorokh  02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Picture of grave in article

Hi there. Could you please take a look at this article? The article is about an actress who has died, and in that article a picture of her grave is being shown. In my opinion this is a very tasteless and disgusting thing to do. Does Wikipedia allow the showing of dead people's grave in wikipedia articles? Apart from this, is there any place where such tasteless issues can be reported, other than WP:ANI? Amsaim (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello; there is no convention prohibiting or discouraging the use of images of graves as far as I am aware. Concerns over "tastefullness" are generally dismissed, as this is an encyclopaedia whose first duty is to provide an accurate view of the topics. The place to discuss the image is Talk:Anne Bancroft, the talkpage of the article in question; if you want to raise the content issues more generally, the content noticeboard would be much more appropriate than WP:ANI, as administrators have no special control over or insight into content. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  10:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

(Sorry to bring it here, but the conversation is so stale that you're probably not watching for my reply at this stage)

I can't remember why I semi-protected the page in the first place. Not opposed to unprotection, though I would recommend a quick heads-up on the talk page, to make sure no active editor has a concern. Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, and you're probably right about my not seeing your response. Posting to the talkpage is a good idea; do you happen to know if the documentary is still a hot-button issue in the US such that we should expect future edit-warring?  Skomorokh  20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The page has attracted very little attention recently, and the film seems to have faded from most people's consciousness. So my guess would be "no", I wouldn't expect much to happen if it were unprotected. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, I'll get on that; thanks very much for your input, I appreciate it. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good Article review help.

I saw that you are listed on the Good Article Review Mentor page and was wondering if you could look this over and offer any advice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Conventions/GA1

I'm asking you because you mention "referencing and research". If you read the article talk pages you will see questions about sources have come up again and again mainly because "Christian Conventions" does not publish anything at all let alone anything to specifically counter its critics.

It might be more than you want to tackle if so let me know.

Thank you, JesseLackman (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hullo Jesse; I'm afraid I have my hands full right now and would not be able to give the article the (re-)review it deserves. Just some general advice; it's not up to you as reviewer to convince the editors of the article of your objections, and if you're not entirely convinced, don't pass the article. If you're not comfortable with a given source, make the editors of the article justify explicitly how it meets WP:RS in the context, or how a particular passage satisfies WP:NPOV etc. Unless you are satisfied that the article meets the criteria, fail it and let the authors re-nominate if they so choose. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages

Is there any policy on preventing another editor from commenting on one's talk page? There's been some back and forth on the question on my talk page, but the issue remains unclear. At what point does a fellow editor's continued unwanted comments become harassment? Certainly, I can just keep removing them, but I'd rather he simply left me alone, especially considering he's nothing helpful to say. I would appreciate some guidance, even if not strictly policy-based. Cheers. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Grey area. If the other fellow's activity is not generally considered disruptive/hounding, it's seen as bad form to try to bar them from commenting. A polite but forceful request that shows an understanding of where they are coming from and a suggestion for where to take any problems they have with you usually does the trick though. FWIW, the relevant guidelines are Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages and WP:UP.  Skomorokh  03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. As for telling him where he can take, or put, his problems, I'd like nothing better, but I'd probably end up saying something rude. He says nothing useful, and knows I am not interested in his opinion, he even makes reference to that fact in his messages. The only substantive talk page interaction he and I have had was back in August, and another editor told him then that he was wrong, so I have nothing further to add to that discussion. Currently, he is intruding himself into a "Troubles"-related discussion that is contentious enough without his tuppence worth. Interestingly, he is suggesting that I be sanctioned, for what, I do not know. The adventure continues. As always, I appreciate your time. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ping

I've emailed you. Tony (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Online and responsive.  Skomorokh  05:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrej Grubacic

Dear Skomorokh, I have been working a little on Andrej Grubacic and looking to restructure it or add to it to address what I percieve to be legitimate doubts about our establishment of his notability. Can you help in some way? Is there some way (criteria) of establishing notabilty for a part activist - part academic - part commentator? User talk:Bobmarley13 is particularly worried by my request for evidence of notability and I am not sure how really to justify our requirement to him. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC))

Ciao, Msrasnw, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. There are no notability guidelines for theorists; Grubacic's prominence is not as an academic. I'll take a look at the page once I get the time. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Skomorokh, User talk:Bobmarley13 (who is one of Grubacic's students and has "offered to help him make a good page" ) has being making what he considers to be serious efforts to improve the Grubacic article. However it seems to me all that has happened is that he has added lots of references to blogs and the like - many, which do not support the statements they are supposed to support. My understanding is that Dr Gurbacic is notable in the anarchism blog world - but not cited much in the mainstream media except slightly in the academic area (but not notable there according to our criteria). As the creator of the article and an administrator could you have a look at it and see what you think of the article and its sourcing and let me know how notability is or might be demonstrated in this case - are blogs and the like deemed OK in this area?. Or failing that could you suggest somewhere I might go for assistance in this matter. My view would be the article needs substantial rewriting and ridding of lots of - what I think are called - peacock phrases. And still it is short of any proper sources establishing notability. I think my raising of my worries have already upset Bobmarley13 so I am reluctant to start any serious editing of the article as that might be viewed as problematic. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

David Thorne (writer)

Full protection is a bit much when it is an IP address adding libelous material and a confirmed user reverting that content.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any libellous material but multiple editors warring on both sides. I'm not sure what stress you put on "confirmed user", but the Simon Dempsey account had been reverted by two registered editors (Thedarxide and Craftyminion) during the proceedings. It's not immediately obvious that the is one side in the wrong, so rather than block all concerned I am giving everyone a chance to resolve the dispute. I have no objection to another admin changing the protection or removing content per BLP if they see fit. Regards,  Skomorokh  03:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your civil comments. I am somewhat disappointed at the dismissive or political comments by some of the other editors. Once again, thank you for helping make this election much better than the last one, at least for me. Jehochman ^Talk 02:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, sorry for the disagreement. Be sure to let us know if the sock investigation comes back positive. There hasn't been much trouble witht he voting phase thus far, and hopefully it will stay that way. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser is stale, and I now see that the behavioral evidence points to unlikely, given some extensive interleaving between Die4Dixie and one of the former accounts. It is somewhat annoying that the account only got to vote after his indef block was improperly lifted by another candidate, and then reinstated as a community ban. That vote should not have happened, but there's no way to write rules to accommodate every possible situation. Jehochman ^Talk 05:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Feedback page

Hey Skomorokh, could you take a look and tell me whether it's going in the right direction? Edit as you please. Wikipedia:ACE2009/Feedback Tony (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work Tony; very concise though perhaps overly stern and structured in places. I'll get to work on it today.  Skomorokh  05:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice ... it's transformed. I guess it should be linked to from the election talk page? (The election page itself?) I have to write the election report for The Signpost very soon (I promised after welching on it last week, when Hiding did an excellent job in my place). I guess the feedback page should be mentioned there, too. I've asked Hiding to look at the draft of the election report when I've produced it, particularly for any POV that might have crept in and things I might have accidentally left out; perhaps you might too, if you're awake? Tony (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

We should put in the banner (/Menu) when the vote closes. The Signpost was great btw, sorry I wasn't around to look it over.  Skomorokh  21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification AND amendment: Alastair Haines. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Saw it thanks; I don't expect to participate unless called to do so. Regards,  Skomorokh  10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)