User talk:S Marshall/Archive13

Château-Gaillard
Hi, I'm wondering if you can lend a hand with a spot of (French to English) translation? I'd like someone to go through the final paragraph of the Under French control section of the Château-Gaillard article to make sure I've understood the source. I was working from this, and think I've covered the main points but can't be sure as my French is not great. Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Forget trouts - find yourself a whale
I totally apologise for besmearing your talkpage and edit history by my posting some invective that I intended for someone else. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Secret Maryo Chronicles
Hi, since I can't read German, if you have some spare time could you check if it is possible to incorporate and  into the article? Thanks a lot. Timotheus Canens (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy new year to all
Thank you all for your various messages and I'm conscious that some of them require my attention. My Wikipedia time is severely restricted between now and the new year, but please rest assured that I don't intend to ignore you forever!— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

G'day S Marsh :-)
I saw your comments over at the deletion review for the article I've been working on about chinese immigration to sydney - I thought they sounded like a good way forward, so as well as replying at the review, I've re-started the article (see here) and would welcome your thoughts on whether or not it's a good fit for mainspace development work at this point? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Computer failure
My laptop is very sick, and going to the doctor's shortly. Estimated AFK time is at least two weeks. Apologies for the continued delay in responding to messages.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ah don't sweat it, S Marsh :-) - I've made your computer some chicken soup, if that helps......hope it gets well soon. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

History of Hertfordshire
You changed Little Berko to Berko but left a footnote referring to Little Berko. I don't want to wade in on an issue I know nothing about, so I thought I'd just point it out. Cheers, Bazj (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, --Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brief Chronicles
Hey S, how you doing? Please have a look at this AFD. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Parliamentary constituencies in Hertfordshire/GA1
This article was sitting in the queue for a GA review for months. I did the review - and then found the nominator has gone on a long term break for family reasons, departing just 2 days ago. My bad timing. Anyway, my main concerns with the article relate to historical information, and you appear active in this area. Would you be willing to take a look? I'll leave it on hold for longer than usual and see what happens. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'm grateful. I'll reply there.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks S Marshall. I think it is likely the nominator will be unable to do any work on the article, due to circumstances beyond their control. I have identified two editors who may be able to fix the article to GA standard: you, and User:Nev1. But unless you two take up the task, i don't think it is going to get done. I'm happy to leave it on hold for a couple of weeks to give you as much of an opportunity as possible. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Nev1, and would very much welcome the chance to collaborate with him on this.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help out where I can. From a quick glance, the article's got potential. I'll read through it properly tomorrow to see how I can help out. Nev1 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checking - are you still planning to help improve this article? I've still got it on hold for now. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

RiCEST article
As someone who participated in the deletion review for the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology article, would you have the time to take a look at the notes I'm making here? What I'm looking for is comments on whether an article is feasible and (if possible) help in drafting an article. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Call and response"
Hi. I don't think I "botched" the closure at all. The article, as I deleted it, was a single sentence under a relatively implausible title and nothing more. The apparently young individual recreated and expanded it per my message on his talk page, not realizing that there was already an article on the film. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On the April 15 AfD page, we have a "Call and Response Film" listed as having been speedily deleted (with you as the fixer of a botched deletion). The page is still there (as a redirect to Call + Response)...  Is that what was meant to happen?  Doesn't SEEM to match the action stated on the AfD log page.  Just wondering.  (oops.  Didn't notice someone else posted re: the same page). --David V Houston (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It was recreated after deletion as a redirect. By "fixing a botched closure", what I meant was that in PMDrive1061's original closure the afd header showed above the  parameter and I fixed it so it didn't.  I make the same minor mistake fairly often when I close AfDs, and I intended the word "botched" in a descriptive sense rather than a critical one.  Apologies if it caused any offence.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) This was jut one of those times when the "ignore all rules rule" got a bit mixed up.



PMDrive1061 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

South West African stamp - ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg
Dear S Marshall, hi - I have added a little comment on your contribution here: best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

List of centenarians
Being bold is fine. However, if you had read the talk page you would have realised that discussion in this regard has been going on for some time (possibly too long, but users can get busy doing other things!). Cheers, (Talk Contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's great! Aside from saving me the work of doing it, I think that the way it is organized now is MUCH better than all the other suggestions (aside from the fact that I had to add a dozen pages to my watch list, haha). If it survives the AFD, I'll create a Navbox for it. Thanks again! Canadian   Paul  00:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, S Marshall. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Matt Rider
Hi Stifle. I came across the Matt Rider article while category-sorting BLPs, and I see it's been deleted once before (AfD). Is the new version substantially identical?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. Deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Is Matt rider now a G6?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure is. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ►  constablewick  ─╢ 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV
Bit confused by your rationale on the Surf Shop DRV. By saying "Endorse", surely you are saying the close was correct, and thus endorsing the result that was gained by canvassing? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied there.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  16:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Hertfordshire/archive1
Please would you undo the alterations to my comments at this FAC, if you wish to reply please do so below the original comment Fasach Nua (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. In future, please do feel free just to revert me if you object to something I've done.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fasach Nua is correct: it's considered bad form to strike out a user's comments at FAC. I know you're a newbie to the process, so no worries! It takes time to get used to this pomp and circumstance. :) The original editor may strike their own comments if they feel you have addressed their concerns, but don't do it yourself because they may feel otherwise; case in point, I think some of my comments were misunderstood.  A block quotation is ANY chunk of text separated from the rest, no matter what template you use.  This is what I meant by removing those blockquotes that are less than three lines long, and integrating them into the rest of the text.  The citation formatting, while heading in the right direction, is still confused.  Rather than "BBC: British History Timeline, retrieved 5 May 2010" and "Daily Mail: Will George slay England's patron saint?, retrieved 9 August 2009", use the style you've already established with the other website citations, such as in ref 5: title, then publisher, then access date. Because the Daily Mail is a publication, format it like this: "'Will George slay England's patron saint?', Daily Mail, retrieved 9 August 2009." You can use a citation template if you think it would help with the formatting consistency, but it's not necessary. I hope these points make more sense now, María ( habla con migo ) 12:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Per this comment, I don't believe you've "mortally offended" anyone -- especially not me! If you're confused or frustrated, I understand; just take a look at other FACs to see how nominators respond to comments.  At Featured article candidates/Ernest Hemingway/archive1, for example, Truthkeeper simply responds to each comment in turn, and the other editor strikes out what they think has been sufficiently addressed.  Or you can respond below the comments in one huge chunk.  Whatever works.  Just don't strike other people's comments and don't include images, and you'll be fine. :)  Interaction is the key, I think. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, please don't worry; by "mortally offended" I intended exaggeration humour. It wasn't meant to display frustration or confusion.  Text is a bad medium for indicating mood.  I want you to imagine whenever I say anything, I'm kicked back on the sofa with a pint of beer in my hand and a wry grin. :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)