Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion/Skomorokh

Articles by Skomorokh edit

Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus edit

I created an article with three links to coverage by reliable sources, two of which were significant. The article clearly identified the subject, and was tagged and deleted as patent nonsense, without any communication whatsoever with the creating account. Skomorokh, barbarian 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I deleted the article was that the wikilinks did not have the proper markup. In addition, "See also" should be used instead of "See articles" and "External links" should be substituted for "Sites". Willking1979 (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure any of those reasons are relevant to CSD, and sadly I note that User talk:...and the circus leaves town is still a redlink. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I had to read Williking's comment a few times to make sure it wasn't a subtle parody. (Just to check: he did genuinely mean that comment, right?)
  I think we can end this experiment now; it's an obvious success. --Gwern (contribs) 22:37 8 October 2009 (GMT)
  - This is an eye-opening example. I had no idea that admins were deleting such pages and not seeing the error of their ways. Willking seems to not understand what he did wrong or that deletion is not cleanup. He's a brand new admin and seems to be doing only blocking and deleting lately. Fences&Windows 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Gwern, but I'd like to continue this. Aside from a number of RFAs where overenthusiastic speedy tagging has come up; I've had error conflicts in the past where I've been declining a speedy deletion, but another admin deleted it whilst I was cleaning it up, so I wasn't surprised that it has started this way. I think it is important to continue the experiment to give us a better idea of the scale of the problem, and also because the methodology skews early results to the ones that get deleted. Who knows, in a weeks time we could be saying that 20 took the challenge and 19 survived the week. I've had a suggestion that this be written up for the signpost, and I'm happy to do that as I think that publicity will help get taggers and admins to rethink some overzealousness. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know about scale of the problem, but I can tell you about length. This sort of abuse of the patent nonsense criterion has been on-going for years. My advice on the subject was in the very first revision of User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, and it was a long-standing problem even then. Uncle G (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, deleting an article simply because of redlinks or some such is what I would call borderline vandalism, and I for one have become really quick with handing out the pink tags lately. But I did notice that the code for leaving a note on the author's page seems to be forgotten by a lot of taggers (the same goes for other templates like {{notenglish}}). On the other hand I must say that the majority of new pages I come across are clearly not meant to contribute in a serious way, either they are those pesky autobiographies by Joe Teen, obvious spam, outright vandalism or very clearly not notable for other reasons (my advice for speedy taggers, if in doubt, use {{notability}} rather than a CSD tag). What doesn't help either are established oldbies who think creating an article with one single sentence and then adding some more bit by bit after some time should be tolerated. Not only does this mean a lot of unneccessary workload for the web servers but it confuses patrollers to the extent. Oh, and last but not least, thanks for the star, WereSpielChequers! :) De728631 (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from Skomorokh's initial statement: "The article clearly identified the subject, and was tagged and deleted as patent nonsense, without any communication whatsoever with the creating account." Why does this article not show up on the Deletion Log [1]? stmrlbs|talk 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to query on the whole article name Deletion log for Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus Not just on Jesus. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised by this requirement, as most searches take keywords. There is no text saying that the entire title must be entered to find the article. I tried "Searching for the Wrong Eyed Jesus" with a blank,instead of a "-" (Wrong Eyed), and the search couldn't find it [2]. The title must be an exact match right down to the punctuation. This must be very confusing to anyone searching to find an article with a name of any complexity. I did a regular wikipedia search for "deletion log" and found many entries where people say they cannot find an article on the deletion log - what happened to it? Perhaps this is something that could be changed so that anyone, and especially those people new to wikipedia, can easily find out what happened to an article on which they worked. stmrlbs|talk 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zero History edit

Article on a not-currently-notable topic, deleted at AfD with minimal communication with the [protesting] creating account (Dogsolitude (talk · contribs)) and little-to-destructive editing of the article. Poor outcome, decent process, poor treatment of editor and article. Skomorokh, barbarian 08:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance was this comment in the AFD part of the test? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! Although I was very amused. I haven't edited as an IP for the purposes of this test. Skomorokh, barbarian 01:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English Russia/EnglishRussia/EnglishRussia.com edit

Article on notable topic created in triplicate [mimicking new editor behaviour], two versions speedied instead of redirected, one version twice tagged for CSD but rescued by a good Samaritan; tagbombed creating account (Koenigswarter (talk · contribs)). A mixed bag here. Skomorokh, barbarian 08:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]