User talk:Skomorokh/Է

Back and Forth

Hey there Skomorokh, I noticed you move Back and Forth (album) back to Back and Forth. The reason I moved it was to move Back and Forth (disambiguation) over to Back and Forth. Considering the album Back and Forth only had 35 copies made (at least, according to the article), I felt it was inappropriate to have it as the primary topic. Hopefully this clears up my page move. — Σxplicit 05:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Eek, sorry. Just let me know your preferred locations for the different articles and I'll try to clean things up. Regards,  Skomorokh  05:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It should basically be moved as followed:

• Back and Forth → Back and Forth (album)
• Back and Forth (disambiguation) → Back and Forth

Pretty sure that's it. I'll take care of other redirects I'm aware of afterward. Thanks in advance. — Σxplicit 05:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, moves made, we good?  Skomorokh  05:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

All good. Thank you. — Σxplicit 05:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, apologies for the misunderstanding. Ciao,  Skomorokh  05:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd opinion on a GA review request

I've reviewed California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 for GA criteria, but since this is my first review I'd prefer someone more familiar with good article criteria to perform a quick double check. Since you listed politics as one of your interests on the mentors page I was hoping you could take a look at it. Do you think you could take a look at it, or should I go ping someone else to take a look. Thanks for any help in advance, -Optigan13 (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ciao. I tend to specialise in political theory rather than political events, so it might be worth your while checking WP:GA and WP:FA for other election articles and asking the contributors of those articles for a second opinion. That said, on a superficial analysis the article looks as if it meets the criteria, the review is short but seems to touch on all the important points, and the contributor User:Wehwalt knows his stuff. Thanks for helping out the GA project! Regards,  Skomorokh  05:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've pinged User:Happyme22 since he worked on Reagan and other California politician articles to see if he could give it a shot. If I do more reviews over time I'll probably get the hang of the formatting of the review and the criteria in general over time. Thanks for the quick response. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging more issues in Microsoft Word

I appreciate your efforts to removing issues that may deem unnecessary; however, I still believe there may be more yet unidentified, especially since removing "cleanup" and "wikify" which in my opinion is desired to be resolved if those other issues were resolved terribly. I would like you to look through and compare Microsoft Word and {{Article issues}} before tagging issues to resolve. --Gh87 (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It aids neither readers nor writers to deface the head of an article with half a dozen ugly tags. WP:OVERTAGGING is not acceptable. Choose the one or two most pertinent ones and describe the full list of issues on the talkpage – that's what it's there for. Even better, why not try to resolve the issues yourself? Sincerely,  Skomorokh  12:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Speedy

Like I said to DGG, very very sorry about the bad tagging. I'm trying to become more familiar with CSD, but a lot of it's not working out. I doubt CSD will ever really be an a place of interest for me, but while I'm working on a coaching program with Juliancolton, I requested we cover it. Sorry again! iMatthew ^talk at 15:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! For some reason I thought you were an old hand (which is not a bad sign, eh). If in doubt, WP:PRESERVE will usually prevent crotchety inclusionist admins complaining at your talk page. Best of luck with the coaching! Regards,  Skomorokh  15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The_Masque-_An_Erotic_Renaissance

Hello. You changed my speedy delete to a prod on this page. While I don't mind the change itself, your reasoning was that you didnt see an entity being promoted and I wanted to explain my reasoning. The first version of the webpage consisted of a "History" that was blank, and a "Features" which included forums, chat, social networking ect ect. Sounded like a website being promoted.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I understand where you were coming from. Thanks for the explanation (and I doubt the article will survive long either way). Cheers,  Skomorokh  20:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The creator removed the PROD so I escalated to an AfD.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wise move. Cheers,  Skomorokh  21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Clayton_Junkins

An article that you have been involved in editing, Clayton_Junkins, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayton_Junkins. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TParis00ap (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you restore and move a page to my user area

you moved one of my pages to my user area for me can you also restore my other page E-Ligion Movement and move it to my user area. Thanx Sonichippie12 (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, will post to your talk page when I am done. Namaste,  Skomorokh  16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Blood on the dance floor (Band)

You deleted this page a few days back. Would you mind sending it to my userspace? Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem: User:Bdb484/Blood on the dance floor. Check out WP:BAND for what needs to be done to get it into shape. Namaste,  Skomorokh  16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Up Country

Is there any way to view the Up Country article that you summarily deleted? Nelson DeMille is a best selling author, and Up Country is now the only one of his books without a Wikipedia article. I haven't looked it up, but I'll bet that Up Country was on the NYT best-seller list, which makes it more notable than 99% of the other books that have Wikipedia articles that you haven't deleted. If the article was lacking, you should have pointed that out and given other editors a chance to remedy the situation. Having said all that, I'd still like to see the article your deleted -- is that possible? HMishkoff (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Namaste, Hank. I know how it must feel to have an admin delete an article on a topic you know is perfectly appropriate for the encyclopaedia, so apologies for any frustration I caused. The article was not deleted out of concerns of notability, or poor quality or anything like that; it was deleted on the grounds of WP:A3 – having no substantive content whatsoever. The deleted version is just an infobox that gives the name of the book and the author's name, and below an external link to "Up Country on Nelson DeMille's Official Website". So I won't restore it, but as a gesture of solidarity I will write a stub in its place. I hope this is satisfactory, and please feel free to ask if there's anything else I can help with. Regards,  Skomorokh  10:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Satisfactory" is an understatement, it's fantastic, thanks!! I'll take a closer look at it when I get a chance (probably next weekend), at which point I may indeed take you up on your offer of help. Thanks again! HMishkoff (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, more than happy to be of assistance. Best of luck,  Skomorokh  11:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

List of The Boondocks characters

Hello, Skomorokh … I'd like to call your attention to both this discussion and this one about merging five of the individual articles about minor characters into this list article … you did a merge/redirect of one of them, but neglected to update the navbox Template:The Boondocks to reflect the redaction (so I took care of it) … anywho, if you feel that consensus has been achieved, then please merge/redirect the others as well (the discussion appears to have run out of steam), and cite the discussion. Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)}

Ciao, no particular editor has any special power over merge discussions, so feel free to close them yourself if you think you're impartial. I don't have enough knowledge of the topic area to have an informed judgement to make on the worthiness of the articles, so I will not be participating. Regards,  Skomorokh  00:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh … you redirected Rollo Goodlove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and removed the {{mergefrom}}, which is why I contacted you about the others! :-) — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad! … I did not realize that you were closing an AfD … somehow missed it, or I would have included discussion of the others there. — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coming Up Easy

I think you were right to relist this - I'm not sure why the discussion was closed so quickly after only two further comments, one for deleting and one (mine) in favour of waiting a few days. The closing comment "Its still at #62" is rather odd since it was always going to be at #62 for a whole week until the next chart is published. Thoughts?--Michig (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ciao Michig; it's unusual for me too, but then I have very little experience in the notability of songs. We allow editors to exercise their judgement when closing AfDs, so it really is User:Spartaz's call and you should consult them if you want the discussion re-opened. Regards,  Skomorokh  12:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Since you relisted the AFD I thought I'd check with you - If you're ok with the closure then there's probably little to be gained from taking it further. I don't feel strongly enough that it should have been kept to make an issue of it, but if it climbs the chart in a few days time, someone will probably just start it again from scratch. --Michig (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you notice it climbing, drop me a line and we'll see about taking it to DRV or re-opening the AfD. Appreciate your diligence,  Skomorokh  16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD/Zipeg

I don't know what happened here [1][2]; but I think that wires were crossed. I'm going to put a note at Eluchil404's talk page as well as here. —SlamDiego_←T 14:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks like we ec'd on the close. It's a no consensus for me, but I will defer to Eluchil404. Thanks for spotting that,  Skomorokh  14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Eluchil404 noted to me that the AfD discussion that he closed was from 2007, and that the article was evidently recreated. So what was needed was an edit to the {{Oldafdmulti}} at Talk:Zipeg, filling-in some paramters. I have done this. At your convenience, please review the edit to see that it is satisfactory. —SlamDiego_←T 12:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, looks like I had too high hopes that the tagging system would catch all the discussions. Thanks for straightening that out, everything looks fine as far as I am concerned.  Skomorokh  12:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FIFA Two

Apologies for the 2nd PROD template - I'm not sure how that happened but it might have been because I was switching between different browser windows and had lunch in between. Thanks for not giving me a bollocking about that. I'm still wondering about this article though. First the title - it's been chosen to highlight the case and is not referred to by this title in any articles. Second is the fact that this is a news story - what is the "notable" topic as such? If you think about how much drama there was over whether Death of Michael Jackson should be a seperate topic, it's hard to see how this article covers a major event or is notable? What do you think? And thanks again. --HighKing (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries about the second PROD. The title is not the universal name for the topic, granted, but it is used by the sources. The notable topic is more nebulous than most, but still well in line with encyclopaedic standards, analagous to the Bosman case and the 6+5 rule. Let's not worry about the "importance" or ephemeral nature of the topic; it is notable because it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (see refs added to article), and in particular in light of the repeated RTÉ coverage. Regards,  Skomorokh  16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I might just have been letting my own opinion get in the way on this one. --HighKing (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Avatar (Ultima)

Would you mind changing the outcome to "No consensus" at all? It often makes it a lot harder to actually get something merged/redirected with a "keep" verdict. Seeing as the "votes" were equal in number, with some of the keeps leaning towards merging, it also makes sense. TTN (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The closing statement was phrased so as not to preclude a merge, and really, merge discussions belong on article talkpages; Afd is for deciding whether or not something should be deleted. If it were the other way around (see the "Subtle appeal of AfD judgement" thread above), I wouldn't be inclined to alter either. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main problem is that some people really like to cite that a keep means that "the article never should be deleted", which is the position of the main opposition of the merge. People often ignore the actual statement within the AfD even if it's pointed out to them. There merge discussion was started before the AfD, so it was unnecessary for it to have been put up for deletion in the first place anyway. TTN (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, and if anyone tries to stonewall merge discussions on the basis that the AfD was a keep, just drop me a line and I'll set them straight.  Skomorokh  22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion/restoration of Up Country

Hello! I have a question about the recent deletion and restoration of the article Up Country, which you carried out. I was surprised to find on logging in a couple of days ago that this page had been nominated for speedy deletion and, subsequently, deleted (see the notification on my talk page), on the grounds of having no substantive content. I edited this article a few times in December 2007, and to my recollection it did indeed have content, so I could see no reason why it should have been deleted. Having no access to the page's history before it had been deleted, I couldn't verify anything, but the article has since been restored by yourself. Out of curiosity, why was the page originally deleted? Thank for your time and service to the encyclopedia. Cerebellum (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. If you look a few threads up, "Up Country", it may clarify a few things. The article now at Up Country I wrote from scratch; the deleted version had no text, only an infobox, links and categories. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:31, 20 August 2009(UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Thanks for the info! Cerebellum (talk) 02:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, fruitful editing!  Skomorokh  02:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Double deletions

Hi Skomorokh. Sorry for the disturbance but what is the purpose of a double deletion as in here? Thanks. Dr.K. logos 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. It means the Goliathon article was created, deleted by administrator User:NawlinWiki on August 6th of this year because it did not offer any indication as to why its subject ought to be included in an encyclopaedia, then recreated and deleted by myself today for the same reason. Hope this helps, and for more information see the criterion for deletion and the notability requirements for musical groups. Regards,  Skomorokh  03:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see the date difference. I was not enquiring about the criteria for deletion. Rather I saw today, but I don't remember where, two admins deleting an article with 20 minutes of each other and I was wondering why this happens. Obviously in your case the time difference can be explained but I can't understand the reason for the shorter time difference. Dr.K. logos 03:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

FoOlRulez

You deleted the {{db}} and {{hangon}} tags from this page with the edit note "Userfying", which generally implies that you will move the page to the author's user page because it does not meet general article criteria but would be fine as a personal user page. However, you did not then move the page. Can you explain what happened?

Ciao, Dan. I'm afraid it looks as if the move was blocked by duplicate content at the target; that is to say there was a parallel version of the article at User:Woxxap/FoOlRulez. AfD is an appropriate venue. Cheers,  Skomorokh  13:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wolf

Please see Talk:Gray_Wolf#Move.3F. Many mammal articles use titles that capitalize every word. You should not have moved the article[3]. Gimmetrow 13:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I was fulfilling an uncontested speedy move request from an experienced contributor which was consistent with the general rule, as has already been pointed out to you. There's nothing stopping consensus for an exception to this forming at the talkpage, and if this emerges I will be happy to move it back.  Skomorokh  13:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These moves are inherently not uncontroversial. You've been around long enough to know that. Gimmetrow 13:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry W. Meers Jr.

My understanding, through many AfDs and from reading Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians is that candidacy alone does not confer notability. Perhaps there is an ambiguity about whether that makes articles like this speedy deletable, but they are certainly deleteable, without further claims to notability. No? Hairhorn (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Lack of notability in no case justifies an article for speedy deletion. You nominated that article under WP:A7, which reads, emphases mine:

An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

On the specific issue of notability, WP:NOTCSD has more to add: "Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a reasonable indication of why the subject might be important or significant."

It's a common misconception though, so don't feel too bad; I'd encourage you to read through WP:CSD once from start to finish, it only takes a few minutes and can save a lot of difficulty down the line. Hope this helps, and sorry I was not adequately clear in my edit summary originally. Regards,  Skomorokh  16:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the wording, I think this is a difference in interpretation of what it means to "indicate something is important or significant". See, for example, this speedy delete. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You began by discussing notability in the context of speedy deletion, hence my quoting the policy; unlike notability, there is little objectivity or agreement involved in determining importance, so I think it's neither surprising nor problematic that we would see it differently in this case. A7 speedy deletion is for no-hopers, and it wasn't obvious to me that Meers fell in that category.  Skomorokh  14:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollo Goodlove

Since when "We don't delete articles on sub-topics of appropriate pages"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Pardon? The topic was already included in the target article; there is no sense in deleting the content. Regards,  Skomorokh  12:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

we could delete the content and create a redirect afterwards. this always depends on the content. for example what would you do if the content was violating copyright? --Magioladitis (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright would be a different story, but even then we don't delete copyright-violating old revisions of extant articles, do we? I honestly don't see anything in the history of the redirect problematic enough to merit deletion, and it is of potential use to editors trying to revise the Rollo Goodlove section of the list. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My first disagreement is with your closing comment but as I understand you didn't mean it in general since they are many cases that we delete content in this context. My second one is that as far as I understand was a clear consensus to delete. Thanks, 07:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why's biography

Ruby inside discusses his supposed real name and the possible link between it's publication and his disappearance. Is it considered an RS? I would have prefered him to remain anonymous, but if an RS discusses the matter, the fact that a there is a possibility that he's JG should be mentioned in the article.

http://www.rubyinside.com/why-the-lucky-stiff-links-2333.html --139.165.38.29 (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if a reliable source reports on the situation, there's a case to be made for including it in the article. I am afraid I am not the editor to ask about RubyInside.com, not being familiar with the field; you could try the reliable sources noticeboard or biographies of living people noticeboard. (Until there's agreement that it a source is reliable, for these situations they should not be used). Hope this helps,  Skomorokh  13:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)