User talk:S Marshall/Archive14

Reminder to myself
This.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks in Hungary
I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Was this removal of my post intentional? HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. I think I double-clicked the mouse on an edit conflict.  I was just trying to reinstate your post when you re-added it.  I'm very sorry!— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. It seems to happen quite frequently on ANI. We seriously need a better way of dealing with edit conflicts! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

RFA 2?
I saw your sage comments about bilateral relations articles at the DRV, and it reminded me that you're a seasoned, level-headed editor who is not yet burdened with the mop. It's been nearly a year since your lucky escape, so despite your expressed reluctance in November do you want to turn WP:Requests for adminship/S Marshall 2 into a bluelink? No rush of course. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh God, I'm not sure if I'm stupid enough to submit to that a second time. :)  Give me a little while to think, please?— S Marshall  T/C 00:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It could even be as fun as this. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go again...— S Marshall T/C 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, here you go. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stifle! Before I transclude, please review what I've said, since I commented on something you said.— S Marshall  T/C 11:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reworded; let me know if that's a better summary. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. Hell week begins: this is no drill.  ;)— S Marshall  T/C 13:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How dare Keepscases suggest that you're not a sincere pastafarian? New religions are always misunderstood and attacked. Fences  &amp;  Windows  15:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You might like to enable the aggregate parts of X!'s edit counter so that editors reviewing your contributions have an easy access to your month-by-month and article stats. You can follow the instructions at the bottom of the existing page for your account: Espresso Addict (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure.— S Marshall T/C 21:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh well, you didn't desperately want the mop anyway! I considered replying to Pedro's oppose, but thought it'd be best to leave alone as it was a fine example of the usual grandstanding at RFA: "full of sound and fury and signifying nothing". Just keep doing what you're doing and ignore this kind of sniping. At least I got my revenge :) Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination)
Hi, S Marshall. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)
Hi, S Marshall. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates
Hi there. I think we disagree somewhat on how History of Hertfordshire should look. I'm sorry if you found my examples unhelpful, and if my tone got a bit short, well it shouldn't have. Anyway, I have started a thread at the link above, because my own view is that a history article should not be a chronology, and i wanted to canvas the views of other experienced reviewers. You might want to participate in that discussion. BTW i did a bit of work on the Iron Age / Roman section that tried to pull it more toward the kind of text that i thought was appropriate. It was a lot of work just doing those few paras, so kudos for what you've achieved so far, however far there might still be to go. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

SNG on Bilateral Relations
There is now a centralised discussion on Bilateral relations for the possible guideline many have asked for. I dont think im at risk of being warned for canvassing per the fact your views on the matter seem to be respected and valued by both sides of the Inc/Del divide. :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Steveyeu/sandbox 1
Hi. Actually the editor, wanting to create a sandbox as a subpage, wrongly created it in the mainspace and then, realizing his error, listed it at AFD; that's why I tagged it for G7 and not U1. ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 15:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you're correct! It's been speedily deleted under U1 anyway, so nothing to worry about.— S Marshall  T/C 15:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hannah Monyer
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Antje Boetius
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD/Kim Ki Whang
I thank you for tentative support and weak praise, better than none, on the Kim Ki Whang article.

If you wish to be strictly adherent to the detail of "notability and multiple sources", you might have some grounds for failure to strongly support retention of the article.

On the other hand, if I pile up sources that honor the contributions to the martial art, can you support retention of the article? As you say, he's a very big fish in a relatively small pond. But is that an excuse to deny notability? When GM Kim was a primary instructor in the US of Korea Martial Arts, although his pool of students was small, still he was their main instructor. Almost all subsequent expansion of teaching Korean Martial Arts in the US was a direct result of the actions of GM Kim and perhaps 5 contemporaries. Thus his notability, in the same way that Daniel Boone was notable, as in "he was a pioneer".

Please check back at the AFD page for Kim Ki Whang, and review my arguments. I think that anyone honored by the US Naval Academy Karate-do Club (US Naval officers martial arts training school!) might be considered notable. One of the reasons my father selected GM Kim's school for his slacker teen son was the fact that the leading martial arts instructor for naval officer said "Kim is the best and his school produces champions who aren't aggressive outside of structured competition". Again, more notability: GM Kim taught exceptional skills to people who would restrain the use of those skills. Now that is a special philosophy. I wanted to take note of that when I wrote the article. Perhaps you could search some for variations on "moo duk kwon" and "mooduk-kwan" (transliteration styles vary widely) and "ki whang kim", "ki-whang kim", "kim ki whang", "kim-ki-whang" and even "kiwhang kim" or "kim kiwhang". Despite his history being written in five or six different variations of name, still his history is seen all over the greater history of Korean Martial Arts, especially in the context of introduction to the USA.

Thanks for any support you have given, and any that you might give. Thardman22 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See User talk:B for more on this. Actually, it doesn't matter whether I put the word "support" in bold or not. Whoever closes that AfD will read my words as opposing the deletion of this material, unless and until there's a discussion about whether Black Belt Magazine is a reliable source.  (It is; see WP:RS for the definition of what's a reliable source.  There are good reasons why I preferred to phrase that as a question.) With the discussion in its current state, how it's closed is a lottery depending on which closer we get, and whether they incorrectly decide based on the article's current state (as B and Starblind have done) or correctly decide based on its potential state.  Worst case scenario is that the article's deleted, in which case I will see that it's re-created later, with different content.— S Marshall  T/C 07:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Seax of Beagnoth
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

paint crew
Who are you to make demands on people?? What's wrong with calling out people for their anti-perdue hatred? You people are all too stuck up into your nonsensical rules and crap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.41.138 (talk • contribs)
 * That's a classic example of how not to get your way. Please see []. Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Swearing at people isn't a good way to persuade them you're in the right, mate.— S Marshall T/C 08:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Holy Thorn Reliquary
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note
A file which you previously commented on has been nominated for deletion – ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► voice vote ─╢ 08:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Thank you very much, for your kind comments about me, at Articles for deletion/Kenneth Dickson (2nd nomination). I plan to bring up the vitriol wording used by the AFD nominator chosen in his AFD nom wording to describe a living person, after the AFD closes. Unfortunately, it does seem possible that the AFD itself may have been tainted in such a fashion with some degree of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I did actually make some edits to address concerns and remove specific text wording as was suggested, but I'm not sure what else to do with regards to the article itself. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: . Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Charitable trusts in English law
I have responded to your concern; thank you for taking the time to conduct a review :). Ironholds (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All passed now. :)  While I have your attention, Ironholds, do you happen to know anything about agricultural law in the UK?— S Marshall  T/C 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comments on Articles for deletion/Neemrana Hotels
I think you should keep your comments on deletion pages to discussing the article and not commenting on actions that editors took in reviewing an article, which, at the time, appeared to be extremely biased, promotional and of little notable content. A simple view of the article I proposed for speedy deletion here shows clearly it was highly promotional and poorly sourced. This may have changed now, due to the good work of another editor, but that was not the case at the time. Although the article started out reasonably, as it progressed it became purely promotional. Text such as "Neemrana Hotels remain the foremost example of how we can pick architectural treasures from the national dustbin and put value to them." or "It would not be easy to quantify the direct / indirect impact in India or abroad. But Neemrana now offers the world a new to experience Indian heritage." and every line in between is pure 100% unambiguous advertising, and so I CSD'd it.

What ever your opinions are, please keep it to the user talk pages. --Triwbe (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the repeated re-insertion of CSD tags, I think I'll stand by my assessment of the conduct issues in that AfD. That was disgraceful and an embarrassment to Wikipedia.— S Marshall  T/C 13:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, in my defence, I did not replace the CSD after it was removed, nor did I (or would I) place an AfD on it. I have an very good record on AfD and CSD nominations and I see nothing embarrassing about protecting Wikipedia from WP:SPAM and advertising from an editor who has a probable conflict of interest. I do WP:AGF but we cannot allow Wikipedia to be degraded by promotional non-encyclopedic articles. You are entitled to your opinion about other editor's actions, but please leave the comments on the talk page. --Triwbe (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you under the impression that my comments were aimed at you personally? They weren't.  This is what I felt should be achieved and I'm pleased to see the main culprit won't be repeating his actions.— S Marshall  T/C 02:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

WQA Discussion on Nineteen Nightmares
I'm not sure if this should go to you or someone else, but assumed it would be you since you were the one that closed the AN/I. If it needs to go to someone else, let me know and I will take it there instead.

Since the AN/I matter was closed, I went back and closed the WQA entry that started the process. If I was incorrect in doing this, please let me know, and feel free to revert. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!— S Marshall T/C 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)