User talk:Skomorokh/δ

Have you retired?

Hey Skomorokh, where'd you go? Are you officially retired now? Kaldari (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Kaldari, I had been detained with meatspace projects, hopefully returned for a sustained stretch now. All is well? Congratulations on your appointment by the way. Skomorokh 12:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mongoliad DYK entry

Sorry to bother you again, but this entry is still not quite ready. Basically, I'd like to see 1-2 extra inline refs added in the text (see my comments at T:TDYK). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, have commented; multiple successive citations to the same source would not add value. Regards, Skomorokh 22:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Mongoliad

On July 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Mongoliad, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the saddle, aw yeah. Skomorokh 17:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make your day

Uh, did you want me to delete that page or something? (Or am I just not getting the joke as usual?) —fetch ·comms 20:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Routine hazing as part of new admin school, trying to see if you could entice you into deleting a submission you had declined. Good work corporal, you passed. I'm sure the next seven tests of strength will go well, if you follow the Path. Skomorokh 20:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi. Thanks for the swift revert of the vandal edit on my talk page. --Soman (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, no worries, thanks for writing Under röd flagg, which is why I was watching :) Skomorokh 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was a quite interesting piece to write (although largely based upon a single reference). I would like to write something on Proletären also, which is the periodical Bergegren moved on to, but my google searches came up with nothing at all. --Soman (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falsity tax

In case you are interested Truth in numbers. I argue that there is no inherent social mechanism that favours truth over falsity. To do this, you need a falsity tax, as it were. Interested in what the libertarian take on this would be. 109.154.101.3 (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting on the Arb Com noticeboard

Xeno has sorted out the formatting so that I could see what you wanted to change; from the diffs it looked like huge chunks had been copyedited. If you had just put "capitalising Arbitration Committee" in your edit summary rather that c/e it might have helped... Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a result of the (sometimes wonky) diff handler; just be sure not to change minor elements like spacing and whitespace around =headers=, as it will cause the diff to look like a complete re-write as opposed to the change of a couple letters. –xeno^talk 12:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Kisses, Skomorokh 13:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was a blasé choice of edit summary for an arena of such sensitivity. A word to the wise in the clerking line of work though: read before you revert. Cheers, Skomorokh 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Hicks

Hi, thanks for your assistance at Bonny Hicks. I appreciate it very much and it made the article better. If in your view it is worthy of Good Article status, you may now declare it so and it can become so. Newenehpets (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It requires a review first, which I will post in the coming days and you will have time to respond. We should be done within the week I hope. Skomorokh 16:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dive bar

It looks like a straightforward dicdef to me, though you may be right and there is potential to build it up into some kind of article. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dive bar. SilkTork *^YES! 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading

I don't think there was really any other way to close the BLPPROD discussion, but thanks for taking the time to read through all that craziness. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm sorry nothing more came of it, but that is how these things tend to go sometimes. Skomorokh 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query about your comment on the Arbitration policy draft

Hi Skomorokh—The "final decision-maker" point: I must say, the difference between the third draft and FT2's suggestion is very subtle: "which the community has not resolved" versus "which the community has otherwise failed to resolve". It eludes me! Doesn't the current wording do it more neatly? Tony (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo Tony. I don't think the difference is slight – FT2's version requires the community to have tried and failed, the current draft version means ArbCom can jump into any active dispute (i.e. even if community dispute resolution is in process or has not even been tried). Skomorokh 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. Don't really like "otherwise". How would you feel about "which the community has tried and failed to resolve"? or even "which the community has been unable to resolve"? Tony (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything along those lines is fine by me (I'll leave the precise wording to the experts!). Skomorokh 12:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Hi, I think there was a misunderstanding between us in IRC just now. The reason why I trouted you was because of your un-helpfulness. We're in the help channel to help people. And even if it means going the extra mile, so be it. You don't just dump a link to someone and ask him to dig through it for a template. If you're busy, ask the person to hold on a moment/sec. They don't mind waiting a minute or 2 if you can help them. If you still can't handle it, ask another helper to help you. If you don't ask, we won't know that you need help. I saw you helping them, but refrained from coming into the conversation for courtesy sake. Just to clear up the air, Bejinhan talks 14:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is disappointing to see this sort of line here after our discussion earlier. The help channel is a busy environment and resources do not always match requirements; triage is a requisite. The channel does not demand all of your attention all of the time, but it is unacceptable to stand by when another helper is trying to assist multiple users simultaneously (particularly users whose problem arises from one of your on-wiki reviews), and then throw around childish insults publicly – a basic standard of professionalism is expected, and your conduct did not meet it, to put it lightly. I appreciate your good intentions, and your attempt to clear the air, but unless you can conform yourself to appropriate standards of behaviour in the help channel, you may have to find other areas in which to contribute. I don't know how to make this any clearer. Sincerely, Skomorokh 16:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh, to tell the truth, I've very disappointed in your attitude. I have handled multiple user simultaneously before. I could manage it. Tough, yes, but I did it. How would I know that you couldn't? The user only mentioned my review after I trouted you(the channel logs will verify it). You can't blame me for it seeing that I did not know what he was talking about(and neither did you because you asked him to paste the link). How would I know his request is related to me? Communication, politeness, and helpfulness is very important in the channel. I don't know why you're talking about my behavior and about me throwing "childish insults publicly". You left the channel because you were offended. You did not give me a chance to reply to you. Our conversation in the channel was private. The only thing public was when I trouted you. I hate leaving things half-hanging, hence, my post here. Bejinhan talks 05:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay to add unsourced info and violate WP:V on article pages?

Skomorokh, I must admit I am a bit confused: [1] [2] [3] = this is not just a "content dispute", these are clearly edits that violate WP:V. You are saying that is perfectly okay for a user to do on Wikipedia? Add unsourced info and material violating WP:V to article pages? -- Cirt (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were, I'm sure I would have said so. Not all editors work at the same pace, and KD's comment seem to me to make clear that he had no intention of leaving the information in question unverified. So yes, it does boil down to a difference over the appropriateness of the claim and the reference, or at a stretch a microcosm of eventualism vs. immediatism – in other words, a standard issue content dispute. Regards, Skomorokh 18:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the above three edits in question are perfectly acceptable and the type of behavior to be encouraged? It is just confusing to me, that we would want to encourage editors to add unsourced info and info violating WP:V to encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know how you could have concluded that from what I wrote. Skomorokh 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is what he did to the article page. Not once, but multiple times, after requests to stop doing so and remove the material pending appropriate verification to WP:RS sources. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be clear at this point that KD had taken the information from a source he considered reliable, and intended to cite that source in due time had the pace of reversion – was acting in good faith in other words. It goes without saying that its preferable to cite your sources as you go, but it would stretch credibility to consider not doing so a hanging offence. I don't think there are any further issues of interest here other than those raised at WT:V. Skomorokh 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Skomorokh 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Skomorokh. I feel bound to point out, although it should be obvious, that two of the three edits Cirt cites include a citation to a perfectly plausible primary source for uncontroversial information, the business's own website, which I did have before I started editing. Cirt intervened within three minutes of me making the edit, and to my surprise I found that the source only referred to the chef by his nickname "Chuck" - the Bio section was still under construction. The other edit Cirt cites was to the introduction, where one would not expect to find the reference. I could only have avoided Cirt's wrath in that regard if I had worked through the article backwards. I found an alternative source twenty minutes later, and would have found it quicker if I hadn't had AN/I to deal with. Sorry to intervene here, but such assertions, if uncorrected, can come back to haunt.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

KD Tries Again (talk · contribs) admits here to citing a source before even checking what the website said at all. Unbelievable. -- Cirt (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opposite of what I said, Cirt, but let's not mess up an uninvolved editor's talk page. You know where to find me.KD Tries Again (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_amendment, and the subthreads above it. You are being notified as you enacted the original sanction. Note also that I logged the sanction at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community as you may have inadvertantly missed this at the time of enacting the sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, that's the first I've heard of that page. Best, Skomorokh 14:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese syndicalism

I created National Libertarian Federation of Trade Unions, do you know any additional sources for expanding the article? --Soman (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look but I'm afraid Kanji is outside my comfort zone, the books I have don't mention it directly and title of the article is a Googlebomb. This bibliography of Japanese anarchism might be of use; I see you've found the Crump already. Skomorokh 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton

Thanks for picking that up this morning, but I somehow think this is going to be a long term problem - see here. Oh, and I realise I am again snitching, but this sort of behaviour is terribly disruptive. --Snowded ^TALK 12:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks that way alright. You couldn't pay me to wade into British isles but I'll keep an eye on the bio as best I can. Skomorokh 12:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of a nightmare ...--Snowded ^TALK 12:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really getting absurdly time wasting at WP:BISE - he is repeatedly re-inserting offensive material. Can I ask you to refer this to an admin who is willing to take a look at it please? Be grateful for any help. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't participate in this area but I have every confidence in the active admins Black Kite (talk · contribs) and TFOWR (talk · contribs) to mete out fair justice. If you're having trouble that isn't being looked at, a short post to WP:AIN briefly explaining the disruption and asking for one or two uninvolved admins to take a look should have the desired result. Skomorokh 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe their concern is that - in theory... - Black Kite and myself are away this week. In practice I suspect I will need to check up periodically ;-) Other than that: guys, don't hassle Skomorokh ;-) I'd echo the ANI advice - the editor in question is subject to a topic ban: ANI should find it straightforward deciding whether that ban has been breached. Other issues: ANI as well, though it may get messy. Got to board flight now, will check in later if I can. TFOWR's left sock 18:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by, TFOWR, safe journey. Skomorokh 23:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question, was Dave Snowden or was he not born in Ongar Essex?

Simple question, was Dave Snowden born in Ongar, Essex or not?

I don't see the controversy and made the all the categories to work.

If it is recording a fact---which it is---it is hardly "manipulating". That comes across as heavily loaded and pejorative.

Did he point it out to you? --Triton Rocker (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not fooling anyone and I strongly suggest you find another topic area of interest. Skomorokh 12:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, mate, but I have no idea what unwritten rule I am breaking here. I have not changed it back---but the guy was born in Essex. That is the fact.

It is a very strange world where this same individual can go about reverting my perfectly good, well referenced and non-controversial edits---time and time again---without punishment but not have a simple fact on his own topic.

I'd show you the facts but I get the feeling you are already not interested.--Triton Rocker (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The unwritten rule is: don't go editing biographies of editors you are in dispute with, particularly to re-insert contested material without a source. End of story. Skomorokh 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which would only apply to contestable material---and that edit was not. Serious. Step back from it and tell me what is factually wrong with it. Nothing. The majorities of biographies have just such links. I saw it and fixed it. Am really I "in dispute", or am I being pillorised by editors (Snowded (talk · contribs), HighKing (talk · contribs) etc) who have been edit warring over a petty naming dispute for a far more longer time than I have been editing on the Wikipedia?

I am serious my friend, what I am discovering here is that there are all sorts of unwritten codes and alliances going on here. People who are grinding their axe over their chosen issue have not a care in the world how their actions erode the goodwill of others. Within that, snitching and deliberately provoking others reverting other people's work appears to be the norm.

Honestly, am I wrong ... or it is just against some other unwritten rule to point it out? --Triton Rocker (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facticity is not the issue – though if it were you could trouble yourself to read the history and talkpage of the article in question and find answers to your question. If you expect goodwill and the benefit of the doubt, 1) stop harassing those who disagree with your edits and 2) find an uncontroversial topic area within which to make productive contributions and show that you are worthy of the respect of others. Given that you're cruising towards an indefinite block I doubt you will take this advice, but on the off chance you are remotely sincere, there lies the path to peace and happiness for all. Skomorokh 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on bureaucrat removal

Hi. I've started the RfC on bureaucrat removal here. Thanks again for expressing your interest. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the heads-up. Skomorokh 23:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship Ephemera

That's a wicked cool portrait you chose there! I don't think I had ever looked at your userpage and so had never seen it before. Makes me want to upload something more stern! Protonk (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers guv', strikes an appropriately schoolmaster's tone for the incoming students I reckon. I think you're already putting most editors to shame with the "I have made physical contact with a female" angle of your current portrait, though I'm sure with the facial hair you could pull of something fearsome in a Rasputin vein. Skomorokh 14:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! didn't think of that. I picked that one because it was the most recent picture I had not taken through a laptop camera. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

First, I want to thank you for your interest in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. I only have a few minutes. As you noted in your edit summary, the article is currently in rough shape in the Development section, primarily because I have been concentrating on putting in source material. I believe I am mostly done with getting source material for that section although there is a whole list of sources to go through (the ones at the top of the article's talk page, some under the References section on my talk page and the existing sources. I would imagine that some of the material in the Development section will find their way to other sections, e.g. Plot and Gameplay. And I think a thematic organization, rather than a chronological one, will be better for development, e.g. climate model, balancing/playtesting, social engineering. So I would expect to reorganize that section. Finally, there will be a lot cut down. Once again, thank you for your interest. Vyeh (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, that all sounds good; whatever is best for the article's long-term development. Excising the dodgy sourcing and getting the rest up to scratch (publishing details for citations etc.) will be a long process but there is the bones of an interesting article there. Skomorokh 14:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bienvenido

It's good to see you back. Best wishes. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! Skomorokh 13:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been meaning to ask - what happened to your mop? I was quite keen on you getting it, and my brief look at your logs turned up nothing... TFOWR 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chucked it in for arcane meatworld reasons and hadn't needed it since I returned to editing. May run the gauntlet again though enforcer is not a natural frame of mind personally. Skomorokh 13:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, I'm finding playing "bad cop" disturbing. OK with obvious vandals, enforcing policy... not so much. I did mention at my RfA that I had no intention of blocking veteran editors for civility "issues", but there seem to be all sorts of areas where folk expect me to wield the mop where I'm not entirely happy doing so. Oh well! Incidentally, I had a feeling that you'd also changed username (I remember learning something about an obscure Russian affinity group from the late 19th century?) Or am I mis-remembering/making it up? TFOWR 13:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner

Hey, you .!. drive by article improver... Thanks! - Roy Boy 03:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, sorry if the changes were overly dramatic. Skomorokh 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Featured article candidates/Courageous class battlecruiser/archive1

From time to time Sandy leaves exasperated comments about SHIPS FACs being hard to parse ... one problem comes when she's not sure whether a reviewer's comments have been addressed to the reviewer's satisfaction. Could you give this a quick look and indicate whether you're happy with Sturmvogel's replies? - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a little late, chief. Skomorokh 16:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a second look at your deletion decision concerning article: Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives

Dear Skomorokh

You deleted the above article that I wrote: "The result was delete as there is clear consensus that this topic has not passed the threshold of notability. Please feel free to request undeletion if the content can be used fruitfully in other articles. Skomorokh 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)"

I would be grateful if you would take a second look at your decision, and consider undeleting my article. The main concern in the discussion leading to your decision was that the article was about a method, known as the "Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method (as used for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis) that had sprang from this single source (an article I wrote, which I cited in the article and the discussion):

P Hansen & F Ombler (2009), “A new method for scoring multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 15, 87-107 (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122577495/abstract).

Since deletion, the following 2 other peer-reviewed articles have been published that cite the above article. Both articles are largely based on applying the method (and reporting the results of applying the method). The authors are independent of me.

T Neogi et al. (2010), “The 2010 American College of Rheumatology / European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report”, Arthritis & Rheumatism 62, 2582-91 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.27580/full)

W Taylor & G Laking (2010), “Value for money – recasting the problem in terms of dynamic access prioritisation”, Disability & Rehabilitation 32, 1020-27 (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/09638281003775535)

I can send you the PDFs for both, if you'd like to see their discussions of how the authors applied the method and their references to the first article above.

In addition, the method is referred to in these 5 conference papers and proceedings (again, the authors are independent of me): A Fitzgerald, B Conner Spady, C De Coster, Ray Naden, GA Hawker T Noseworthy (2009), “WCWL Rheumatology Priority Referral Score reliability and validity testing”, abstract, The 2009 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting, Arthritis & Rheumatology 60 Suppl 10, 54; T Nosewothy, C De Coster & R Naden (2009), “Priority-setting tools for improving access to medical specialists”, poster presentation, 6th Health Technology Assessment International Annual Meeting, Singapore, 2009, Annals, Academy of Medicine, Singapore 38, S78; C De Coster & T Noseworthy, “Improving wait times in the referral-consultation process: WCWL priority referral scores”, Taming of the Queue VI: Improving Patient Flow, 6th National Invitational Conference on Wait Time Measurement, Monitoring & Management, Ottawa, 2009; C De Coster, A Fitzgerald & T Noseworthy, “Developing priority-setting referral tools for medical specialities”, Canadian Association for Health Services & Policy Research Conference, Gatineau, 2008; A Fitzgerald, C De Coster, R Naden & T Noseworthy, “Priority-setting for referrals from primary care providers to rheumatologists”, American College of Rheumatology, 2008 Annual Scientific Meeting, San Francisco.

Finally, 1000Minds software, which applies the "Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method has won or made the finals of these 7 innovation awards: Finalist, Telecommunications Users’ Association of New Zealand (TUANZ) Education Innovation Award 2009; Finalist, Bayer Innovators Award 2008; Winner, Consensus Software Awards 2007 (“The only independently judged Awards for Australian & NZ software, proudly sponsored by Microsoft and IBM”); Winner, Telecommunications Users’ Association of New Zealand (TUANZ) Healthcare Innovation Award 2005; Finalist, Global Entrepolis @ Singapore Award 2005 (with Asian Wall Street Journal’s Asian Innovation Award – 1000Minds was 1 of 6 finalists from 148 entries, 14 countries); Finalist, 2006 New Zealand Health Innovation Awards; Finalist, Westpac Otago Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Innovation Awards 2006.

The result in the Global Entrepolis @ Singapore Award 2005 was written up in the The Asian Wall Street Journal issue of 21 September 2005, available from http://www.1000minds.com/Library/aws2005.htm.

In conclusion, I would respectfully suggest that the "Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives" (PAPRIKA) method is notable. Admittedly in some of the sources referred to above, it is not referred to by name; instead it is referred to via the software that implements the method, and/or how the method works and was implemented by the particular user is described (in essence, a shortened version of the Wikipedia article I was hoping to have published). I realise that this may sound self-serving on my part - as I co-invented the method, and also the software implementing it. But that does not change the fact that other people, who are independent of me, are using the method and referring to it. As I said at the start of this message, I would appreciate if you would take a second look at your deletion decision.

Yours sincerely, Paul Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Paul. If what you write above about the coverage of PAPRIKA in the Neogi and Taylor/LAking papers is bourne out, it would seem as if the topic is worthy of inclusion. The decision to delete the article was not really mine however; as an administrator, my job was to determine what the consensus of the editors in the discussion thought should be done with it. So I have asked that the article be restored to a userspace sandbox at User:Paulwizard/Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives, and I suggest that you use the new sources to improve it there. Once you think the sandbox has overcome the reason for deletion, come back to me and I will assess it. Is this satisfactory? Skomorokh 14:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Skomorokh. That's more than satisfactory. I will do exactly as you suggest. Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Hello again, Skomorokh, I have improved my article as you suggested. Would you please assess it? Thank you. Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great Paul; the new version looks good to me (although the topic is somewhat outside my area of competence), and I have started a discussion here on restoring the article. You may wish to keep an eye on the discussion and respond to queries raised/misconceptions et cetera. hope this is helpful and sorry for all the bureaucracy, Skomorokh 04:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Skomorokh. Much appreciated. This is very helpful. In fact, I am very impressed by "all the bureaucracy" as exemplifed by you! Fast and fair ... Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.113.11.239 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]