User talk:Skomorokh/〣

WGGH on WP:RPP

I answered your question on the WP:RPP page under "WGGH". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, I have replied there (though I won't act on the request because I am not experienced in the area). Regards,  Skomorokh  21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Thanks for your flying visit and the present of the above. I drop at your feet the chewed rubber ball of gratitude! HeartofaDog (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:TTN#Your_personal_attacks_and_calling_editors_by_there_user_name Ikip (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ikip, it looks to be resolved for now as far as I am concerned.  Skomorokh  14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for 40billion.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 40billion.com. 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. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Stifle, I have commented there.  Skomorokh  11:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussed on ANI

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C DJ_Pusspuss.2C_Benjamin_Holman.2C_and_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless Ikip (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Watching, thanks Ikip.  Skomorokh  15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain further your closing judgment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suspect guest house, Jalalabad?

1. Simplest question first. So, when you wrote, "consensus here that the known sources do not satisfy community norms concerning inclusion" were you saying that when I can provide non-OARDEC sources that talk about the Jalalabad guest-houses and/or safe-houses you would endorse restoration of this article to article space?
2. It has always been my understanding that part of the role of the closing admin in a deletion discussion is to evaluate whether the arguments advanced comply with policy. It has always been my understanding that part of their role is to simply discount arguments that don't comply with policy. Could you please tell me whether you think I have that right?
3. It has always been my understanding that when an official policy is in conflict with an apparent consensus, that when the official policy is clear it over-rides an apparent consensus. Consensus can be a local and temporary phenomenon. It has always been my understanding that when a subcommunity within the larger wikipedia community arrives at an apparent consensus that is at odds with a clear official policy, their only option is to try to use the wikipedia's channels to get that policy amended or replaced. Could you please tell me whether you think I have that right?
4. It has seemed to me that most closing administrators do not discount a discussion participant's arguments when they make ad hominen characterizations about the judgment, character, personality, motives or intelligence of those they disagree with, when they think that buried within the abusive participants' uncivil comments there is a valid point. Can I ask whether that is your practice?

I have an additional question arising from this particular {{afd}}, but not specifically related to your conclusion of it. I'd appreciate your opinion it as well.

Several participants in the discussion accused me of "filibustering". I do my best to ignore this kind of personal attack. I do my best to not respond in kind. I think I do okay at not responding in kind. In spite of my best efforts I do take the personal attacks personally. I think this particular accusation was, frankly, disruptive. I disagree that responding to points brought up in this {{afd}} or one or more of the similar {{afd}} the nominator initiated at more or less the same time should be characterized as "filibustering".

What advice do you have as to the avenues open to an {{afd}} participant who feels they are being subjected to personal attacks? Do you think it is wise for one to complain about them, after an {{afd}} concludes in favor of the position of those who leveled the personal attacks?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Namaste, GeoSwan. As you can appreciate, there's a lot to address in your message, so I will need to review the pages in question and respond after due consideration. Regards,  Skomorokh  23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding my role as closing administrator: it is not first and foremost to assess the sources, but to assess editor's assessment of the sources. If you could provide independent reliable sources which covered the topic in sufficient detail to base a decent-length stub on, then I as editor might support a mainspace-article, but the decision would still need to be made following a community discussion, namely WP:DRV, as this is not the autocracy of Skomorokh.
2. I would say it is part of the role of closing admin to assess the strengths of arguments, rather than narrowly assess them against policy. Policy, remember, is not prescriptive, but descriptive of existing strongly-held community norms, which are ever-changing.
3. Project-wide consensus overrules, at least in the short-term, local consensus. Project-wide consensus is always subject to challenge and amendment, but only after the usual communal deliberation. If you're on the right side of local consensus and the wrong side of project-wide consensus (i.e. policy/guidelines), then yes, I think proposing an amendment to policy/guidelines is often an institutionally-healthy way of moving forward.
4. Yes, I distinguish quality of argument from standards of behaviour. The extent to which one makes good arguments, and that to which one is an asshole, are separate issues.

Following from the above, I paid no attention to the mudslinging in closing the discussion. I don't tend to deal with behavioural issues as an administrator, so I am not best placed to answer, so I would encourage you to proceed to venues such as WP:WQA or WP:RFCU if you feel there are behavioural issues with particular editors that are likely to be disruptive in future. I think it unwise to try to conflate behavioural issues with content issues, and to argue for example, that an AfD be revisited due to bad behaviour on the part of one's "opponents". I'm not quite sure I understand the thrust of your message, so feel free to follow up if there's anything else. Regards,  Skomorokh  23:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought any of the participants in the most recent barrage of {{afd}}s were sockpuppetmasters. I have been the target of some remarkably vicious and persistent sockpuppetmasters. I know some of them have been permanently blocked, while others seem to have left the project, or have picked new targets.

Cheers Geo Swan (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't infer anything about sockpuppets (and wouldn't, having spent very little time dealing with them) in recent AfDs, don't worry. I'm sorry to hear about your former difficulties with them. Here's hoping they won't persist in future. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article Dave Steidel

You deleted the article based on reason A7:

"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."

Take a look at any Wikipedia article at random and see if it "indicates why its subject is important or significant", other than by the content of the article, which is subjective to the reader. To truly meet the citeria, every Wikipedia article should state "This article is important because - - - -". Look at Wikipedia articles about porn stars and tell me why they are important. Dave Steidel is a published author. His topic is the American Football League, which the NFL itself calls "the genesis of modern Professional Football", and about which the Pro Football Hall of Fame website states "Almost every element that makes pro football the world's most popular sport that it is today can be traced to the American Football League and the huge changes its presence eventually brought to the sport."

Why isn't an article about the author of a book on the league important or significant? SugnuSicilianu

Namaste, SugnuSicilianu. Firstly, you are right in that assessing importance or significance is necessarily subjective, but rightly or wrongly, the project has given me the responsibility of making such assessments. The question each new article has to answer is "why is this an appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia?" In the case of porn stars, taking a few at random, I would say that Cristina Bella is important because she has won several prestigious industry awards, Charles Dera has appeared twice on the cover of Playgirl, and Saya Misaki has an article written about her in the Tokyo Journal. All these are indicators that the individuals may be notable, which unlike significant or important is an objective inclusion criterion.

So what does the Dave Steidel article tell us? He has a few degrees, and has worked in several capacities as an educator. Nothing encyclopaedia-worthy there, I am afraid, as there are millions of people of similar provenance worldwide. No, Steidel's claim to fame, at least according to the article, is as an author. He has written articles for a magazine, Baseball Card; again, this is not in itself significant, as the vast majority of such contributors labour on without ever attracting fame or renown. Secondly, he wrote a book "Remember the AFL ~ The Ultimate Fan's Guide to the American Football League, published by Clerisy Press in 2008". It's clear from the title that this is not a serious scholarly work, a suspicion compounded by the description of its contents, which include "trivia questions".

If Mr. Steidel was an author of some significance, we should not expect that he would remain working as a high school counsellor. There is no indication in the article that anyone paid any attention to his book, and the publisher is further indication of non-significance. I'm sorry, but there is nothing whatsoever in the article to indicate to me that this is a subject that demands an encyclopaedia article. That other articles may seem similarly insignificant, is no argument in favour of retaining this one. If you wish me to provide you with the text of the deleted article, or show significant coverage of Mr. Steidel in independent reliable sources, then please let me know. Regards,  Skomorokh  15:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

_why?

Maybe I don't get what encyclopedias do, but removing reliable information and replacing it with "Unknown" doesn't make a lot of sense. Any rationale, or is this an aesthetic statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.71.124 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You cited no reliable information – do you know of any?  Skomorokh  00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Gillette posted to the ruby-talk mailing list alternating between the why account and a jonathan account http://listlibrary.net/ruby-talk/2002/06/00iG41gy

_why and Jonathan have been working on the same open-source project at the very same moment (from javuh commit logs) http://javuh.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/javuh/javuh/Model/Psychoo/Object.inc?view=log&pathrev=MAIN

Jonathan Gillette (with Kylie Gillette) appear in music from "Starving But Happy" http://ftp.df.lth.se/pub/scene.org/music/groups/starving_but_happy/sbh-lp003-moonboots-elfin_princess_%28starvingbuthappy%2c_2004%29/

Looking at the text file in the above link, it appears Jonathan is a computer programmer, and his wife Kylie is author of one blog: http://misstrudy.hobix.com.

They also belong to another music group, “The Child Who Was a Keyhole”.

The CD cover is very familiar for those who know the art of _why: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/tcwwak

Jonathan Gillette, “The Child Who Was a Keyhole” guitar player/singer, looks also like _why: http://www.ewrecs.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.71.124 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

24.218.71.124, meet Wikipedia:Original research. This is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag. Wikipedia exists to reflect well-documented information about notable topics. We rely on reliable sources; preferably professional, peer-reviewed, with editorial oversight, and published by reputable organizations. At the very, very least, an identification of the individual concerned in a mainstream newspaper or trusted industry journal, or a self-identification on the part of the individual concerned, would be necessary in order for us to publish these details.  Skomorokh  00:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The above was cut and paste and not exactly my "original research". It is the work of a bunch of amateurs though and not very "professional". I guess for that we'll have to wait for People Magazine to do a spread on him/her. Until then I apologize and accept that this individual may not actually exist. Yours anonymously

The alice rose

I was wondering if you could elaborate on your "no consensus" decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The alice rose. To me, it appeared that there was an overwhelming consensus among established users that the media coverage was not significant. Not including the nominator, there were four recommendations for "delete" and one recommendation for "weak delete" by established users. On there other hand, only one of the five recommending "keep" was an established user. The other four had only ever edited within the Afd. Thanks! Location (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Namaste, Location, I would be more than happy to elaborate. Firstly, whether or not an editor is "established" or not had no bearing on my close – Wikipedia is not a hierarchy but a cluearchy, where strength of argument is supposed to beat social capital. Secondly, AfD is not a head count – the numbers of editors recommending various outcome was a secondary consideration. As this was a divisive discussion, what I was looking for in trying to find consensus was strong arguments that either swayed other contributors or decisively rebutted contrary arguments without counter-argument.

The first two comments (both to delete) I discounted, as they failed to address the potential notability of the topic. The next two (both keeps) were significantly stronger, providing links to coverage in reliable sources. However, they failed to argue convincingly that the coverage was significant. The next comment, from User:Niteshift36, is a somewhat weak rebuttal. This is followed by two more keep comments unearthing more coverage. After the relist, we have another weak rebuttal of the coverage – it asserts rather than argues that the NPR coverage is insignificant, and fails to address the other sources provided. One of the SPAs point out coverage in "The Austin Chronicle, The Austin American Statesman, The San Antonio Express News, The Austin American Statesman, Austin Monthly, The Riverfront Times (out of St. Louis),Pop Culture Press and The Onion A.V. Club (Austin)". You comment on the NPR and USA Today refs, but fail to address the previously mentioned reliable sources, as do the other editors favouring deletion. Finally, Singleuser returns to reinforce the significance of this otherwise-unassessed coverage. So, on balance, we have a number of keep-friendly editors pointing out coverage in reliable sources, and a number of delete-friendly editors downplaying the significance of a portion of that coverage.

To conclude, should it turn out, hypothetically speaking, that all the new editor were socks of one account, it would not for me sway the outcome much, as there were no winning policy-based arguments in the discussion as far as I am concerned. I hope this clarifies my closure somewhat, and please feel free to take the matter to deletion review should you feel it was lacking. Regards,  Skomorokh  23:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to take this to review. I understand that Afd is not a vote and that Wikipedia is not a hierarchy. I was curious to whether or not you were aware of the SPAs and how they factored into your decision. Keep up the good work! Location (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by being aware of the SPAs – I read the discussion and had a quick look through the contribs of some of the unfamiliar editors (red-linked and blue-). Like I said I pay comparatively little attention to numbers of !voters, and several editors making identical arguments does little to sway me, so I did not factor unproved suspicions as to the intentions of the editors in the discussion into my decision to a large extent. I tend to put behavioural issues secondary to content issues – if a quality article is written, I'm not overly concerned if the author has a conflict of interest or is a returning editor.

You'll likely find quite a diversity of perspectives among administrators on these issues, so the AfD could very well have gone another way had the closer been another, I'll grant. Thanks for your interest, and joyous editing,  Skomorokh  23:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

From user:ikip

Hello again Ikip :) Just wondering what the idea behind this is. Regards,  Skomorokh  00:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I respect your rules on your talk page (I was going to move this to yours) LOL. *Blush* I made a mistake, and have now corrected it, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Ikip (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, not rules, just trying to make sure that conversations don't get lost in duelling archives – as long as the back-and-forth stays on one page I'm happy. I wasn't trying to point out a mistake, I just don't get what you we're trying to do...is it for article talkpages? Sincerely,  Skomorokh  00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for pointing out that problem anyway. The conversation can stay here, if that is okay.Ikip (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of riots

Just a note - are you sure you closed this AfD? I saw you removing the AfD tag & putting the oldafd tag on my watchlist, but not actually closing the AfD discussion itself. It's not showing up in your contribs or the page history, either. Tim Song (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sharp as ever, Tim! Cheers,  Skomorokh  03:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthony drouin

Although it's not an A2 speedy, it is definitely an A7, and a borderline G3 as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Je ne parle pas Français, dommage.  Skomorokh  04:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

BlogStar

I couldn't find much information. But the only reference to this channel on Wikipedia had the wrong name, the name before it was changed. I fixed that link and then put up the info I found with the notion that someone might come along and embellish. Pepso2 (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Pepso2. I'm sorry that I deleted the article, but there is such a high volume of submissions of new articles that we have to be quite brutal with articles that don't have references to reliable sources or show why their topic is important. If you like, I can restore the article and move it to your userspace (i.e. at User:Pepso2/BlogStar) – that way you can work on it without fear of deletion. Thanks for your contributions, and I hope this won't put you off editing in future. Regards,  Skomorokh  16:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Eccleston

OK, I see that addition to the Champions League squad may make him more notable but surely he would fail WP:ATH? He had a squad number for Liverpool last season and the consensus was to delete after an AFD debate. I don't see that he is more notable now. Objections against renominating under AFD from you? Best Steve-Ho (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections at all. I merely think that the latest version is not a repost, but added with the honest intent of surpassing the objections in the AfD. Personally, I don't think the player meets ATHLETE, but that is not a reason for speedy deletion. Regards,  Skomorokh  21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concern

Hi, thanks for the speedy response. I'm concerned about User:Sayedalam76. I think the guy means well, but I don't think he understands the copyright proceedure. I could be wrong, but it seems that he copies much, if not all, of his source info straight from other websites. I suppose he could be author of those pages, but he makes no effort to claim so or cite any of his sources. I can usually find most of the copied text (regarding a freshly created wiki page, one not yet mirrored to a different site) off a quick google search. See page Hazarth Sayed Hashimpeer Dastegir for an example.

I'm not trying to do anything punitive against the guy, I think his subjects do have notability, but he needs to actually write the articles. Please tell me if I'm out of line on this. Thanks!Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_concern.  Skomorokh  22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

talk: Holocaust denial

Ifollowed your advice and stayed away for a while. I come back and i see that Stevertigo has deleted my comment. I do not want to get into some argument about whether my comment constituted a personal attack - there are proper venues for that. But it was not obscene and I still consider it justified. Be that as it may, there is a longstanding principle at Wikipedia at you do not edito or remove someone's comments from talk pages. I have seen cases that went all the way to ArbCom and still, a comment that one editor found insulting remained on the talk page. Now, I follow your advice, and in the meantime, Tigo deletes my comment and identifis his won comment as minor, That is not right. You know, I am profoundly insulted by his cigarette lighter/Holocaust (lighter = lighting the crematoria? Or making light of the Holocaust) comment. But I said so, I did not delete it. We should not delete people's comments, even when we find them offensive, that is why I have not deleted Tigo's comments. But you let him delete what I wrote while telling me to stay away .... Slrubenstein | Talk 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I came across the thread at ANI, went over to the talkpage and quickly noticed two things; the long debate between one editor and everyone else, and the most recent comments which had gotten quite heated. Not having engaged in the discussion myself, I hoped to bring it around to a more constructive debate, and I meant my comment at your talkpage as honest advice from one administrator who sometimes becomes intemperate to another – hopefully to keep the discussion from devolving into a flamewar. I didn't mean it as instruction or with an "or else...." attached. Having engaged in the discussion, I see my optimism was likely misplaced, and little good can come from it.

On the issue of removing "uncivil" comments, I don't have a strong position on it. If I had, I might have asked you to remove yours, and might have removed Tigo's. I didn't. To say "you let him delete what I wrote" is to place me in a position of authority I never assumed – there are seven million other users out there who did not act on Tigo's comments, but we would be wrong to fault them for allowing any misbehaviour. So just to be clear, I never made a decision to allow or remove comments.

Ultimately, I am sympathetic to your feelings about the talkpage discussion, and have said my piece to that effect at ANI. Now it is for our uninvolved colleagues to step in with whatever measures are appropriate. Regards,  Skomorokh  00:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I appreciate the comments you have left at ANI and at the article talk page. I appreciate your good faith attempt to help editors in conflict reach a compromise or consensus resolution. Your comments have been thoughtful and articulate. If I understand correctly you ended by concluding Stevertigo is a disruptive editor. My problem is that I reached this conclusion a very long time ago. I ought to know better - that the principle of "do not feed the troll" is the only effective strategy for dealing with one. Alas, I confess, sometimes another editor writes something so outrageous I have to say something. I was especially pissed off last night when my comment was deleted. My comment here was not meant to suggest I blamed you, only that I felt frustrated. I want to reiterate that I appreciate your constructive comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jared Jeffrey

Hello,

I disagree with the decision

Athletes criterion

1. People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[8]

2. People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

1. He played already in the first team

See http://www.clubbrugge.be/nl/nieuws/bericht/3649/Club-scoort-vier-keer-in-Torhout

OK it is in Dutch but if you would scroll down you will see who played then & also who scored (one goal by jeffrey)

Club: De Vlieger – Vermeulen (60’ Ciman), De Mets, Alcaraz (60’ Evens), Klukowski – Jeffrey (70’ Van Ruyskensvelde), Clement, Leko (70’ Blondel), Meeus (70’ Dirar) – Salou (80’ Capon), Djokic (80’ Chavez). Doelpunten: 9’ Djokic (0-1), 18’ Salou (0-2), 42’ Jeffrey (0-3), 51’ Alcaraz (0-4).

2. In 2007 he played for the USA in the FIFA U-17 World Cup Source: http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Other/2009/03/11-Questions-With-Jared-Jeffrey.aspx

This year he will play in the -20 youth world in Egypt from 26 September until 16 October 2009 Source: http://www.ussoccer.com/Tournaments/FIFA-Under-20-World-Cup/2009-FIFA-Under-20-World-Cup/Roster.aspx http://www.clubbrugge.be/en/nieuws/bericht/4998/Jared-Jeffrey-selected-by-US-for-U-World-Cup

So he matches both criterions

Regards,

Joris

JorisLeuven (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Joris. Thank you for the message and for your research. Just to be clear, I deleted the article because of a decision by the community at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Jeffrey, which is a separate issue from meeting WP:ATHLETE.

Now, onto the criteria. I do not believe the second criteria has been met, unless he has played at the highest adult amateur level. As for the first criterion, and the match between Club Brugge and Torhout – what competition was it? Thanks,  Skomorokh  18:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Festival du nord de la culture urbaine

Hi. I'm curious why you wouldn't consider an article about an event

• that hasn't happened yet and isn't an instance of an existing, notable, recurring series;
• that isn't mentioned anywhere on-line;
• where the article was posted by the person who created the event
• and where the article includes promotional graphics, a detailed program of the event, and a sentence like "The concerts are today the best way for groups of Moroccan music underground to be known by an ever more present and responsive, to be welcomed and supported by national and international media"

to be unambiguously promotional. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it's primarily informational, and not a lost cause for an encyclopaedia article should the topic turn out to be notable. Cheers,  Skomorokh  19:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you not feel that "unambiguously promotional" includes "it's quite clear the author's purpose in posting it was overwhelming for his own benefit". Throughout, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines make it clear that articles are supposed to be posted for the benefit of spreading human knowledge and not for the purpose of benefiting the people posting the articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Note that WP:G11 reads "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." – not "pages that have been contributed for exclusively promotional reasons" or suchlike. From an article-assessment point of view, it does not matter who contributed the content or why; what matters is the quality and potential of the content. I've written articles overwhelmingly for my own benefit, to have a high-quality resource in a convenient location, but that does not mean said articles are not of benefit to the mission of the project. Yes, "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines make it clear that articles are supposed to be posted for the benefit of spreading human knowledge and not for the purpose of benefiting the people posting the articles", no that does not mean the encyclopaedia benefits from summarily deleting such articles. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of SFK article

Can you tell me why you decided to delete this article? thanks, mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mike, and certainly. You can read my rationale at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SoftwareFreedomKosovo. If you think I made a bad decision, please feel free to raise the matter at deletion review. Best,  Skomorokh  15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Prod from Truth in Numbers

Hi. I removed your prod from Truth in Numbers because it's been at AFD three times (here, here, and here) and MFD one time (here). This makes it ineligible for prodding per WP:PROD#Nominating. Feel free to list it at AFD. talkingbirds 16:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're quite right, don't know how I missed that. Thanks for the note,  Skomorokh  16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)