User talk:S Marshall/Archive2

The Motley Moose
Sir, I wanted to discuss and contest your decision at Deletion_review/Log/2009_February_28. Sir, if the only criteria for article deletion is a consensus, as you seem to suggest, then a poll should have been posted and results decided thusly- correct? Or are you suggesting that, strictly speaking, the editor followed the purview of their responsibility, rather than judging on the merits of any discussion? Furthermore, if the consensus was flawed in the ways I have chronicled above, this would further call the decision into question. Furthermore, affirmation of the deletion decision should be based on the merits of arguments presented, not simply on what a majority of the people felt- or am I mistaken in that belief? Even if you disagree with my positions, though, I'd like to thank you for participating in the discussion. At the very worst, this helps me understand the inner workings of Wikipedia and my role in helping make it a better place. Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ks64q2. Wikipedia proceeds according to consensus, which isn't the same as democracy.  At AfD, the closing admin's only proper role is to implement the consensus.
 * The closing admin has discretion to disregard any view expressed in the AfD that's not in accordance with policy. They may also disregard a view that's expressed by a suspected sockpuppet or single-purpose account, and they tend to give greater weight to a view expressed by a long-established editor who has a clear understanding of policy.
 * In this case, I feel that the consensus was so unequivocal that the closing admin had no room to exercise any discretion or judgment.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to thank you again for your advice and discussion with me; it was very helpful. You took the time to point out where I was misunderstanding the issue, rather than to assume I understood but was being "difficult". It's much appreciated, and is helping me grow as a Wikipedian. Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome, and if I can help you again, just drop me a note here.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Past-time"
Hello. In what variant of English is "past-time" the correct local spelling of "pastime"? I've never encountered it, and am not seeing it in any dictionaries. --McGeddon (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hiya. It's a British English spelling, cf for example .— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, fair enough. I'm English, but I haven't ever seen it spelled that way outside of 19th century texts. I'd have thought that "pastime" fell under WP:ENGVAR's "opportunities for commonality", as that spelling is also commonly used in the UK. --McGeddon (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd never actually seen "pastime". It sounds like a kind of pasty.  :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar of Recovery
Why, thank you very much!— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Adminship
I am sure that you would make a fine admin, and I wonder whether it might be time for you to pursue an RfA (apologies for my prodding, certainly, if you've previously expressed a disinclination to go thither). 68.249.7.193 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm honoured. Thank you.  But I don't feel ready and even if I did, I won't put myself through the complete bullshit of the current RfA process.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Entirely understandable but nevertheless lamentable, particularly because our most acute need is for admins who recognize that adminship is ministerial, an understanding that your frequent participation at DRV bears out you well have (just as we libertarians have learned, to our dismay, that those who are most disposed toward and capable of reducing government generally are least interested in entering government, even for the purposes of diminution, I find that those who best appreciate that the scope of adminship is limited [viz., that admins act only to divine for what action a consensus exists and then to undertake that action] are less interested in undergoing an RfA than those who embrace a more muscular conception of adminship). Good on ya, in any case, for your continued good work.  Cheers, 68.249.7.193 (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think the amount of power Wikipedia sysops wield, apparently with the community's consent, is a bit over the top and there's too little recourse in cases where the sysop's disregarded the consensus. See WP:SMARSHALLISRIGHT. :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Essay
Nice essay you have there. It would be nice if it had a bit more visibility. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. User:Drmies collaborated with me on it and deserves at least a half-share on any credit.  :)  I might move it into the main WP space.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I'd support having it in the Wikipedia namespace. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, the word is out! Great work, S Marshall, and you're giving me way too much credit. But I gotta tell you, it was really, really nice, after a busy weekend, to find two stars on my talk page. Thank you so much! Oops, gotta run. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Aelfric
You missed the account in ASC--it's one of the classic stories of actual medieval knights behaving like they were in Monty Python--see my link at the AfD. DGG (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh!— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  08:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think Stenton and Blair left him out of their AS histories for that very reason? BTW, nice work from both of you--I ran across the AfD late at night and didn't have the energy to do the legwork, so thanks to you both. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel so stupid.:(— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't--you already broke enough of a lance, and at least you thought to look at the ASC, which is more than I did--granted, it was late at night and I'm depressed cause Duke lost to UNC :(. Keep up the good work, and see you next time! Drmies (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a small addition to the essay concerning the Impact Factor. Please have a look when you have a moment and feel free to cut, cut, cut. Also, I've just received some good news from an academic journal regarding a certain submission made by a certain Wikipedia editor ;). All the best to you, Drmies (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you've had an academic article published? If so, congratulations!— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it needs revision, and lots of it, apparently, but they said nice things. If it ever comes out I'll send you a link. Now let's get back to work! Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be interested to read it. What's your field?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's something I wrote--please remove after clicking ;) Drmies (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. :)  A published academic, no less.  :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, just crap on the internet, haha. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way...
...I don't think I've ever said this, but Level bomber is a really fine piece of work--when it came up at AfD, I didn't think it had any potential at all. I'm glad you proved me wrong. So:



— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ælfric of Hampshire
Hey S, the date 991, which you changed, comes out of that Cambridge book --I suspect the idea is that he betrayed, in 991, a plot laid for 992. Thoughts? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle puts the event at AD992?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but there's dating issues, signaled at Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle. I'm going to leave it be and maybe find some other authoritative source. Later, Drmies (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

SMARSHALLISRIGHT
This should probably be userfied. No? THF (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. It started out as a joke and then I used the space for a more serious essay.  I'll do that.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  10:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Youngest novelist
Nancy Yi Fan. By the way that AfD is a hoot, you should check it out if you haven't been back. 72.70.2.74 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings A-D
Hi. :) I took this one to our friendly neighborhood lawyer. If, as it seems, the chart is not a direct reproduction, he does not believe it is a copyright problem for Wikipedia. I compared the chart to the downloadable Excel chart. I can't see the others. The Excel chart includes information not in that source, so Mike is of the opinion that it should be clear, ala Feist. Before closing the copyright listing, I just wanted to check with you to see if you know if any of those other charts are direct duplication or if, like the Excel chart, there are differences. Any clarification you can provide would be welcome. I'm watching here for response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi MRG, and thanks for your response. I listed it there procedurally because other users were concerned about copyright.  I'm always happy to take what you say about it at face value. :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. It's been a complicated one to be sure. When I'm not sure about something, I usually ask around before bothering Mike; he's sort of a "court of last resort" for me. :) But on this one, nobody seems to have had really strong feelings either way. So, unless somebody shows that it duplicates a chart altogether, it looks like we're clear. The AfD may resume. :) (I'll make appropriate notes.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Another magazine/journal up at AfD
What do you make of this one, Articles for deletion/Quest magazine? Drmies (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up!— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas Chan
Like to request for your advise on what would be needed to provide justification for overturning deletion of article as this is the first article deletion appeal I am doing and would appreciate advise on what to do. Thanks. Ncknight (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_14#Nicholas_Chan
 * Hiya. I'm afraid I think it's unlikely the deletion will be overturned at this review, because the article was deleted after due process and no new information has come to light since then.  What I would do if I were you is ask for the article to be userfied to preserve the work you've done on it so far.
 * Userfication wouldn't normally be refused. It will come with a couple of conditions, but they're not onerous to someone who's working on a good faith article.  (They're only there to prevent abuse of Wikipedia.)
 * Once the article's been userfied, you're then looking for a sign that something's changed -- perhaps if Mr Chan was interviewed by a newspaper, or received some other form of coverage from a reputable, independent source. When something like that happens, bring it back to DRV, indicate where the new information is to be found, and expect the deletion to be overturned.
 * The reason Wikipedia has these rather bureaucratic rules is because otherwise people would use Wikipedia to promote themselves. It's a constant challenge we face: people use a Wikipedia article to try to become notable.  But Wikipedia has to work the other way around -- first you become notable, then you get a Wikipedia article.  If we didn't have that rule, the whole site would be drowning in spam.  I'm sorry that good faith articles sometimes get wiped out as a result of that process, and I hope you can see why it is.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the need to have notable sources; the original article did have reference to notable sites but as mentioned in the DRV, it appeared that the deletion request was personally motivated. I have performed research in the Singapore National Library archives to find mewspaper, TV, radio and internet sources which have been updated for the DRV for the Nicholas Chan article. Appreciate your review, thank you! Ncknight (talk) 06:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

American politicians
Please don't add Category:American politicians directly to people who are already in a subcategory for the particular state and/or office that their career was specifically associated with. That category is supposed to be as close as possible to being completely empty of individual articles. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Sir, I just wanted to take the time to thank you once again for your help in the discussion on the article The Motley Moose. I know you are a busy person and can't spent all day editing Wikipedia articles of course, heh, but for you to take the time to add your voice- and especially to take all the events of that discussion under advisement before making a decision- really speaks to your character, and I wanted to make sure you knew I appreciated it. Thank you! Ks64q2 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And to follow up on your most recent comment, you're absolutely right; I will take your advice. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And a third follow up, I had deleted my response to that user, and then he decided he needed to resubmit the page for speedy deletion. Sigh. Things are never easy around here, it seems. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I come to you again, sir; I suppose you've become my de facto role model here on Wikipedia. I could use your help after all, sir. As I'm sure you've noticed, it seems now things are getting completely out of hand. You've noted "Sloane" and "Bali Ultimate"'s behavior in pouring through other pages I've done, as well as of user "PeterJukes", and I noticed they also went through and completely trashed the main page of The Motley Moose, obstensibly to make it "better" though they removed several of the citations even some of the deletion-voting people found notable- take a look at the history for the references. This is getting completely out of hand. It seems to have escape any semblance of people working for the better of Wikipedia, and it's getting hard for me to stay cool. I created and saved this page, or tried to, in it's first incarnation through my work at WP:BLOG, and I just don't have any clue why there are so many people bound and determined to see it gone, when I've got a backlog of 200+ blog articles I never saw them help us get worked through. For Christ's sake, the entire WP:BLOG backlog could have been done with the amount of time and energy spent on this project- but I asked some of the people to actually contribute, but they declined; apparently, this is a better use of their time. Sir, I truly am ardently defending the Moose article because I worked hard on it, and because I believe it would be a fine example of a Wikipedia article, a contribution to our further effort here- but if I knew it was going to generate so much controversy, I certainly would have rethought this! If you know a way to get ahold of an admin to perhaps figure out a way to mediate all of this, I don't know. Certainly, there must be a better way than this. Any suggestions you can give me on this would be great. Thanks. Ks64q2 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ks64q2. It's easy to get hold of an admin on Wikipedia.  :)  It won't be long before someone reads your remarks and responds.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see we're already at Wikiquette Alert stage. I've struck the admin help request accordingly.  Neon White appears to be handling the matter.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

my typo
Caught my boo-boo and corrected it even as you were writing. Sorry my friend.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh good, no problem then. :)— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When I felt this might be brewing, I sent him a civility barnstar, to thank him for (then) remaining calm, and in the hopes that it would reinforce cintinued civility. What do you think about getting him adopted? A little peer guidence?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support that, if he chooses to remain a wikipedian after all this drama.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another typo?? How did you know I meant impugned rather than impruned?? (chuckle) Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Disgraceful! I never make typos.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  01:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My bad. In just a quck glance as I was flitting back and forth, I saw this and immediately thought it was you. Looking back it was Bongomatic... a very decent editor with whom I have bumped heads occasionally.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He corrects typos on your talk page? *boggles*— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  01:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone does something to keep me from seeming an uneducated or unschooled twit, I am always grateful.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Motley Moose
I have undone your last edit there, because there was no good reason to move your opinion to the bottom, outside the chronological order. No new arguments have been introduced since mine or other people's comments either, but I don't move my comment to the bottom or top or anywhere else. You are free to uncollapse your comment if you prefer it that way, but apart from that there is no reason at all to change the order of the discussion. Fram (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I made that edit was to avoid the need for me to make a further comment on what is already a well-discussed matter. I was trying to cut down on spam, basically.  I collapsed my comment myself, and I wish others would do likewise when they have a lot to say; I don't want to un-collapse it.
 * Since you feel there was "no good reason" for me to make that edit, I'll simply add a further comment.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied there, since I completely fail to see the point of your comment. It adds absolutely nothing, no new arguments, no new opinion. Fram (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's about par for the course, for that AfD, then. :)
 * I won't reply to your response that adds nothing to the arguments, to my response that adds nothing to the arguments.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  11:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, this is slightly awkward and perhaps a case of reverse-canvassing, but would you mind posting that collapsed !keep (or a new version thereof) on the talk page? I've just posted a new references breakdown there (which captures the whole reason I nominated the entry in the first place.) That summary of yours is the most succinct counter-point, which I think captures the !keep side almost in its entirety. Having the two side-by-side could be considered a kindness to anyone new to that monster AfD. 9Nak (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem at all.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Translations
Hi! I see you're translating a number of pages from the German Wikipedia. Thanks a lot! That's a very useful contribution. Just one little thing: in order to give credit (under GFDL) to the Wikipedian contributors to the German article you're translating from, please put a note in the article itself and/or in the edit summaries while you translate, stating where the material is from and giving a link to the original article. I've done that here for the Christine Hohmann-Dennhardt, which I ran into on New Page Patrol. Thanks! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, mate. :)  — You'll see I put the source on the talk page, which is what the GNU documentation tells me to do.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Lucille
Hi, This is in response to the earlier comments that you have made.Thank you for the valuable feedback. >"I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold." As per your suggestion ,I have rewritten the article and added sources. Could you please take a look at it and give me your suggestions. Appreciate your help. Amarhindustani (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)