User talk:Nsk92/Archive 9

Rationales
I've blanked my own message to you for reasons which should be obvious. Read the page history; I'll revdel it later. DS (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, noted. Nsk92 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Kelainoss
I note that you reverted a number of edits today by the non-registered user 178.123.107.230. It is clear from the nature of the edits that this user is one and the same as User:Kelainoss, to whom you issued a number of warning earlier this year, and to whom I issued a warining both today and yesterday. Davshul (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's probably true but I am not sure (at least not yet) if it is worth filing an SPI report over this... Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

AfDs
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Afshin Ghotbi protection
Hi. I'm sorry I made the mistake of writing three months while responding to your request on the requests for protection page. Currently, I've given protection for only one month, as protection levels, in general cases like this, should be progressively increased. Thus, the next time you or anybody reports this issue again - if the issues continue, that is - you'll be able to request a three month or even a six month protection. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you require further assistance at any time. Regards.  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  05:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The wife of Podgorny's and the wife of Shvernik
Seeing that you are Russian and all, it's probably much easier for you to find this than me. Anyhow, could you do me a favour? If so, could you find the names of Nikolai Podgorny's and Nikolai Shvernik's wife for me? I've tried anything, but the little Russian i can doesn't seem to be helping on this one. --TIAYN (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'll take a look, but I live in the U.S. now, and don't have access to Russian libraries. But I'll see if internet searching will turn up anything... Nsk92 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, for Podgorny this book gives his wife as Nazarova, Yelena Alekseyevna (1908-1995); plus it also mentions two daughters (Natalia and Lesia). Nsk92 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For Shvernik the relevant entry appears to be on p. 470 of the above referenced book. Unfortunately, GoogleBooks tells me that this page is not a part of GoogleBooks preview - you could try from your end, maybe you'll be able to view the page. Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) --TIAYN (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have another question for you (seeing that you are Russian and all), I've been trying to track down the Chairmens of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, e.g. the Chairman of the parliament and not the chairman of the presidium, and i'm not finding anything on English sources. Seeing that all Soviet Republics had a chairman of the Supreme Soviet, such as the List of Chairmen of the Supreme Soviet of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, did the Supreme Soviet have one to? If so who were the chairmens? --TIAYN (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just have to say...
...that, really, you deserve a medal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to work on a possible RfC/U
I am working on a potential RfC/U about User:Geo Swan. The draft is located at User:Fram/Sandbox. I have used a discussion where you were involved as part of the evidence, and would like to invite you to go over the draft RfC and add or correct whatever you feel is necessary. Obviously, if you feel that an RfC/U is not appropriate or not the best step to take, feel free to let me know as well. Fram (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now at Requests for comment/Geo Swan. Fram (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith
Your comments here verged on assumption of bad faith and biting a newbie. The user might not, in fact, have had a previous account. S/he might have simply chosen that username because s/he liked it. Or, s/he might have, in fact, had a previous account. However, this doesn't justify accusing the user of sockpuppetry (and the ad hominem statement "So, basically you are a sockpuppet who also can't read." {{diff|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skilling v. United States|prev|418615712}| (1) }}). The best way to handle this would be to leave a note on the user's talkpage explaining WP:SOCK and asking them politely if s/he has a previous account. There's a good chance the user might not know about that policy. An assumption of bad faith will only frustrate him/her.

Also, as far as the user participating in AfDs right after account creation, it's possible that s/he used to participate as an IP (as I did before I created my account) or has observed the process but never participated. I'm not saying that is for sure what happened, but it's a good idea to at least consider the possibility.

Sorry to bug you about this. Thanks for taking the time to read it. If you reply here, could you put a on my talkpage? Much obliged, — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, please give me a break! Nobody who is a truly new user starts their editing by participating in several AfDs. Moreover, no-one chooses a uswer name starting with "Forgotpassword" just because they "like it". I have been here more than 3 years and know how to recognize a newbie when I see one. So if you want to patronize someone, then pretty please with sugar on the top, go and do it somewhere else. But you are not welcome here at my talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian federal election, 2011 at ITN
--Kslotte (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar in bibliography
Hi, At some point you felt it may be reasonable to include google scholar statistics in the bibliography section if the article is particularly notable. Do you still feel this way? I am not sure what official wiki policy on this is right now, but some editors are systematically deleting all such mentions, which I think is a pity. Tkuvho (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. To be honest, I don't think that including GoogleScholar stats in actual articles is a good idea, except perhaps in some rare and unusual circumstances. I do think, however, that GoogleScholar data is useful and relevant in talk page notability discussions and in AfDs. Nsk92 (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Academic
Sorry -- didn't see that edit summary was an acceptable way to record reasons for removal. I'm of the mind that the article is appropriate for deletion. I think that the actual number of sources that lack ties to the academic are extremely low -- most supposed "news" about him is either distributed by organizations he works for or tied to self-publication. I also have broader notability concerns. Finally (and not sure if this is an appropriate factor or not -- I haven't made my judgment based on it, but it's worth noting), his article has been developed as part of what appears to be, frankly, either a personal or a third-party soapbox campaign (there were four or five articles that were augmeneted with inappropriate references to the individual, lacking citation, misstating sources, or just failing to cohere with the purpose of the article).

All that said, before I go the formal AfD route, do you have any thoughts? You seem to be involved in this sort of work, so it would be interesting to hear your opinion. Note, if possible, I would appreciate if we could carry out this conversation here on your talk page -- my own page is associated with a number of people because of its IP, so it might be disruptive to discuss there.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.169.21.1 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what we have WP:AfD for. If you still want the Marvin Ammori article deleted, you should list it for AfD, so that an in-depth discussion can take place there. Nsk92 (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was just trying to get your informal thoughts, since you seem to have experience in this area, before going into the whole formal process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.169.21.1 (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not have a firm opinion as I have not spent that much time looking into this, and, to be honest, I am not particularly interested in the subject. My preliminary impression, based on the GoogleNews search is that there is enough newscoverage of him by sources other than news-releases. The Philadelphia Inquirer article that I added as a ref is a good example of that. Again, looking at the GoogleNews results I see plenty articles there published in bona fide independent newspapers (rather than news-releases). That is why I removed the PROD and, based on what I have seen so far it seems more likely than not to me that the subject passes WP:BIO and perhaps WP:PROF as well. Nsk92 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate the input. I'll take some time to consider the guidelines and the available sources and then, as appropriate, proceed through the AfD process. I also want to step back to objectively evaluate the notability of the article. Truthfully, part of my reaction was to what I detected as obvious soapbox behavior by someone -- I hate when wikipedia becomes hijacked as a tool for the promotion of anyone or anything; it doesn't seem true to mission or spirit or philosophy of the place. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.169.21.1 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea about taking a step back. There are alternatives to deletion, if the subject is notable. You can edit the article directly and remove/modify bits that are promotional or otherwise violate WP:NPOV. Nsk92 (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Michael Hogan (academic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page News-Gazette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which I have just withdrawn roughly an hour prior to the deadline.

Sorry, I missed your most recent response as I was withdrawing my RfA. I'm sorry for having irritated you. It was not my intention to make you feel badgered or attempt to persuade you into thinking otherwise. Rather, I'd simply wanted to explain myself so that you (along with anyone else following the discussion) would get better insight into the reasoning behind some of my decisions. In any case, water under the bridge. I'm not one to hold grudges.

Speaking of adminship... up until today, I had been under the impression that you were an administrator for several years. It came as quite a surprise to see that you had not logged a single admin action, so to speak. But then I noticed the retirement notice on your userpage and realized it was a moot point. Nevertheless, I felt inclined to bring it up.

Take care, and good luck with any future endeavours. =)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 22:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Retirement
Hi. I've just noticed that although you declared WP:Retiring  on  17 February, you've made 63 edits since then, practically without  a break. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so? What is your problem with that??? Retiring is not the same thing as using RTV, and 63 edits since February is hardly an indication of spending days and nights over here. Nsk92 (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Glad to see that even if you're 90% retired, you're 10% still here. Nice work at Teddybear Airdrop Minsk 2012. Khazar2 (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Teddybear Airdrop Minsk 2012
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

G-Dragon
Hi, I've blocked the IP who has been vandalising G-Dragon for 31 hours. Kind regards, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Retired template
You claim above that you are "90% inactive on Wikipedia", yet a single glance at your recent contributions suggests otherwise. On the contrary, you seem to be quite active lately. Are you sure it is still accurate to refer to yourself as "retired"? Kurtis (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, why does it matter? Second, I had a short amount of time (about three weeks) after the end of a conference trip and before the start of the academic year when I had some significant amount of free time and was fairly active on Wikipedia. That period is basically over and I don't expect to have much (probably almost any) time for Wikipedia after the classes start next week. If that changes, I'll change the template at the top of this page. Nsk92 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter, it's just that you seemed more active lately than otherwise. Take care, and good luck with your studies. Kurtis (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - and it's actually more "teachings" than studies -:) Nsk92 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well, the reason I said "studies" was because I was under the impression that the "92" in your username may have referred to the year of your birth. Honest mistake, we all make them. :| Kurtis (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support
Thanks for your support during my recent RfA, Nsk92. It was much needed and much appreciated. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mohammad Sharif Chattar
Back in July 2011 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael John Lewis
The page has been updated. The children's birth dates have been removed. Now it is worthy of a keep. Michael John Lewis (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lyuba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nenets (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

RfA question
Hi there, Just noticed that you had not responded to my reply to your question; When you said about help asked for at RfC, I assumed you meant IRC. Is this correct? Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  13:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did mean IRC, not RfC. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciated your thoughtful participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 19:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Explanations
I'm always willing to explain any of my deletion rationales upon request. I use plain language rather than cryptic codes because they're easier for people to understand without learning a full set of cryptic codes. (G4! A6! C11! Bingo!)

"For user's own good" means that, in my expert judgment, this is something that the user will significantly regret posting on Wikipedia... although possibly not for a few year, by which point it may well have spread to however many mirror sites. I was on OTRS for a while. On more than one occasion I dealt with people who had created accounts, spent a few days making an idiotic userpage which made seriously problematic statements associated with their real name, and then never edited again; I had to explain to them that once those statements are on mirror sites, Wikipedia can no longer take them down. Have you posted something that will get you brutally mocked? Have you posted something that you desperately want to not show up when potential employers search for your name? Have you posted something that could get you a punch in the face? Oversight is only used if very specific criteria apply (and I've reported literally hundreds of pages for oversight); if I judge that the page could cause you serious trouble later down the road, but the oversight criteria don't apply, I delete the page For Your Own Good. I should also point out that the vast majority of these pages have been abandoned by the time I delete them. I'm willing to go into further detail for any specific page you have questions about.

As for "notability not asserted", that's what I always say instead of "not notable", because it indicates that the flaw is in the article, not (necessarily) the subject. Often, these pages have been up for weeks before I get to them, and have not been edited by anyone at all other than the creator (who joined Wikipedia, submitted the article, and then left) and possibly some maintenance bots. If someone has an objection or question re: a specific deletion, I'm always willing to explain in further detail. I'm even willing to restore such articles as drafts if there's reasonable evidence that the article can be expanded and a reasonable claim of notability can be made.

Backlogs are huge and volunteers are few. I may not be as formal as you like, but I'm actually doing the work. If you're not satisfied with how I do it, you're welcome to help whittle down the backlogs. DS (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you mean well, that you invest a lot of your own time in doing volunteer work here and that most of the articles and pages you delete do need to be deleted. But the explanations that you provide above describe standard practices of about 12-13 years ago, the Wild West days of Wikipedia when IAR was basically the only rule and when admins relied only on their own judgement, rather on standard policies and procedures, when deleting various pages. Things cannot and should not be done that way now, with the project being as big as it is. For example, your explanation regarding "notability not asserted"/"not notable" makes me much more concerned that I even was when I wrote my statement at RFAR. The fact that you think that an article's subject is not notable (or even the fact that the subject is indeed not notable) DOES NOT give you the right to simply unilaterally delete it. There is a reason why we have CSD,PROD and XfD processes. WP:CSD sets a pretty strict and precise set of criteria for when an article can be speedily deleted. But "not being notable" is absolutely not a sufficient reason for speedily deleting an article without discussion. Doing so is extremely inappropriate. If the article does not meet a specific CSD criterion (such as A7, for example), and you still feel that it should be deleted, you should list if for AfD or PROD it. But it is completely inappropriate to simply delete an article without any tagging and without any discussion in such a case. It is a gross abuse and violation of our deletion policy and if that's what you are doing then you absolutely must stop. Having good intentions is not enough here, you must not exceed your authority and must play by the rules that apply to everybody. You are not infallible, your judgement may be incorrect, and appealing the deletion you performed to you directly should not be the only recourse available to the creators/editors of the pages you deleted. As I said at RFAR, with the kind of deletion summaries you provide, it is unclear to the interested editors under which of our deletion processes you have deleted a page and hence it is unclear where and how they can appeal it. Regarding what you say about "for user's own good" embarrassing content that some users have at their user pages: I can sympathize with your motivation but again you are going about doing this the wrong way.  There are many alternatives to outright deletion, especially one without prior warning and without indicating which deletion process is being applied, that could and should be tried first. You could leave a warning at the user's talk page; leave a warning and blank the page; revdel the edits that introduced problematic personal material; MfD a user page; and finally CSD tag a page if appropriate. Summary deletion should be the last, not the first, resort in such cases, notwithstanding your best intentions.  There are good reasons why WP:UP exists, and WP:UP gives users substantial leeway in terms of the content of their user pages. Deleting a page without warning, even if this is indeed done in the best interests of the user in question, is often seen as a slap in the face and drives away inexperienced users who might otherwise stay.  Nsk92 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment
There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation that I am Astbam
Please note that it was Astbam who put the seed into the mind of Davey that the Nu-Venture article should be deleted for lack of notability. I only got involved in Wikipedia 10 days later, in an effort to keep it. Since the common interest in Nu-Venture at around the same time was the only part of your accusation which I thought had any real substance to it, would you please consider withdrawing the accusation, now that it appears to have been misguided (you perhaps didn't make the connection because it wasn't Astbam who actually made the proposal, and for some reason he didn't actually follow that suggestion up by voting delete himself either). Whatever people think of me, I'm not the sort of idiot who goes around getting articles put up for AFD just so I can then say they should be kept. Everything else you have presented is easily explained by the fact Davey and Charles do the same things to the same people for the same apparent reasons, meaning it's more than likely to piss the victims off in the same way. That's all that happened here. Notforlackofeffort (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Results are in, I'm not him. Hey, I'm a poet but I didn't know it. Have to say it was nice of you to stick around for that whole process. I see that the guy who reported me to ANI buggered off soon after as well. Is that a Wikipedia thing? Drop people in the snake pit and run away, laughing? Notforlackofeffort (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wrong in suspecting you to be a sock of Astbam. But that's what the SPI and Checkuser are for, namely for getting definitive answers in such situations. That's the Wikipedia thing. I still find it more than a little suspicious that Astbam suddenly resurfaced after several months of absence to make a single edit, in an ANI thread regarding you, and then immediately disappeared. He never posted at ANI before, and there was nothing about the ANI thread at Davey2010's user talk page (even assuming that Astbam had that talk page watchlisted). So it is rather curious as to how Astbam found out about that ANI thread at all. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Ignatius has been nominated for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione opened
You recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Evidence. Please submit your evidence before 16 January 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Backlogs
I've looked at your contributions. You are doing precisely zero to help whittle down the backlogs. In light of this, I politely request that you either pitch in and help out, or stop complaining about how I'm emptying the dumpsters and flushing the abandoned toilets. DS (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At first I was going to write a snarky response, but after thinking about it more carefully, I realized that it is indeed time to leave this project for good. Nsk92 (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
for your wise contributions to the Wifione arbitration request. I'm sorry to see the "100% retired" template go up. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . ..
Merry Christmas, Nsk, and may your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Nsk92!


Happy New Year! Nsk92, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Foskett (academic), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Financial Express and The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boris Levin has been accepted
 Boris Levin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  Onel 5969  TT me 15:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Boris_Levin help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.