User talk:S Marshall/Archive20

Nomination of List of Bohemian F.C. players for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Bohemian F.C. players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Bohemian F.C. players until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 14:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Threshold and verifiability
Hi. Re "The other part of the problem is the implication that it's acceptable to add untrue material to the encyclopaedia. That implication needs qualifying and defining." - I think the source of that problem is "The threshold" in the statement, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". This statement can be misinterpreted to mean that verifiability is a sufficient condition for inclusion, without considering requirements from other policies and guidelines, and without consideration of whether or not material would improve the article. I think this would be helped by simply adding the word "first", i.e. "The first threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always preferred "A criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability".— S Marshall T/C 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "A criterion..." is correct. However, I think some people may not like it because it doesn't include the characteristic that "verifiability" is the primary criterion. On the other hand, using  "The first threshold..."  suggests that "verifiability" is the primary criterion, that there are other criteria to satisfy, and thus "verifiability" is not  a sufficient condition for inclusion. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OMG, I did not realize the intense debates which are trying to claim Wikipedia should be oblivious to the truth, including substituting any other synonym when the word "true" or "truth" describes the actual concerns in WP. The implications for Wikipedia could be devastating: imagine someone ready to write a "truthiness" tool to quickly estimate the "truth level" of an article based on sources, plus common-sense phrases which imply self-promotion or falsehood versus true or objective text, then consider the death of that tool when they read "...not truth" in WP:V. Imagine people trying to find the "true authors" of text which might be plagiarized, but then they read WP:V and think why bother. The oblivion is not just for any random concept, but for "truth" -- long considered the heart of scientific advancement ("objective truth" in Google). I am a pro-active person, and I seek to avoid roadblocks, rather then dismantle them. At this point, I suggest to just help people find true information (avoid false) to add to articles. Meanwhile, it might be possible to dismantle the not-truth roadblock in WP, by continual efforts to reach more concerned editors. However, I will continue to explain the importance of getting true information into Wikipedia, such as reading any expert writings (or blogs), and then finding WP:RS sources which confirm those expert opinions. Many experts know the inside truth, but known sources do not cover the information in that manner. Also, I have an essay, "WP:TRUTHFUL" which begins to explain the importance of true information in WP. Thanks again for taking all the extra time to discuss problems with the phrase "not truth". -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No plagiarism/arse licking intended
Mr Marshall, I did try to read as much of the commentary about the first sentence of verifiability, but I confess my eyes glazed over half-way through the page (read from last post to earlier ones). I honestly didn't see your von Daeniken comment and came up with it only to avoid quoting a Jim Wales analogy about flat earth theory (to avoid the Jim Wales adoration society status).

I make no apologies about being nerdy in considering philosophical implications, but I see your point about the stick with which to beat the nutcases. I was hoping, though, to make the point that this stick exists without resort to 'not truth'. That is, however, a matter for judgement which I don't intend to make.

Appealing to your greater insight into that debate, would you care to venture a brief explanation as to why the bloody hell such an apparently trivial change has become a matter of such intractable controversy? Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  13:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it's become an intractable controversy because editors fundamentally disagree about what the purpose of the policy is. I think that SlimVirgin, WhatamIdoing, Blueboar, and all the others want to keep their "not truth" because they edit contentious articles and they find that phrase helps them to win content disputes when dealing with inexperienced or bad faith editors who want to advance a point of view. They're either oblivious to the negative consequences of the phrase, or else understand that there are negative consequences but see these as an acceptable price to pay. Fundamentally, the opposers have a good faith belief in what they're writing. I think their debating tactics have not always been as clean as their motives, but I do understand very clearly where they're coming from.— S Marshall T/C 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2
Hi S Marshall. Do you have access to any publications that will be helpful at Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2? I've rewritten the article at User:Mrwalis/Key Industries but am uncertain that it will pass another AfD. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very industrious of you, Cunard, and you've gone up even further in my esteem! I'm afraid I don't have access to any relevant publications for a Canadian industry but I will certainly try to help you improve it.— S Marshall  T/C 07:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words. If you could copyedit or proofread User:Mrwalis/Key Industries and User:Amyabaker/Noddle (see Deletion review/Log/2011 September 3) for me, I'd be grateful. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the improvements you made to Noddle. By the way, you might be interested in Administrators' noticeboard, where I've proposed that a triumvirate of admins (which you discussed with Mkativerata at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9) close Talk:China. Cunard (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alex Day for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The DRV at 9/9
I'm getting a tiny bit annoyed at the mud being freely slung by User:Cerejota in the deletion review for Murder of Adrianne Reynolds. Am I being dense? Obtuse? I feel some anger from that user, and I'm not sure it's well-founded or well-placed. Further, it's totally against AGF. I mean, if something is being wrongly tracked, we have ANI, WT:AfD, SPI, any number of forums. Since we're already in an appropriate forum, I'm wondering why that user can't say exactly what is meant. Just casting aspersions is getting us nowhere. Do you have a sense? BusterD (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I have a sense that he's about twelve years old.— S Marshall T/C 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would answer a lot of questions, including the user raising autopatrol experience as an issue. In every field, being painted with a brush, fairly or otherwise, has a consequence. In the US, used to be accusing someone of communist membership was enough to derail one's whole life. Then it was accusations of being gay. Or being a sexual predator. Mere accusation carried undue weight, and put the accused in an awkward position of defense. In this arena, being accused of being a paid editor is the new communist. I've got some big problems with someone casually throwing around such mud, even a youngster (especially the unconsequenced youngster). Hence my defensiveness. BusterD (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the editor has proven your point. BusterD (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)'
 * If you have an issue with me, common decency says you address it with me. But I am just 12...--Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 06:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA because lets solve it...
Hello, S Marshall. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cerejota If you reply, please place a talkback in my talk page if I do not reply soon. 07:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA ending
I'd suggest just letting Cerejota have the last word and letting the thread die. Gerardw (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Cerejota feels puzzled that the community hasn't supported him in this. I think that in the past, he's learned to take charge of simple situations.  He's learned to do what he thinks is right, and he's learned to expect support and praise from the community for doing it.  It's left him with a lot of confidence in his own judgment and an exaggerated idea of his own competence, which he's more recently started to exercise in much more complicated situations—those where it's necessary to recognise that there are shades of grey and the other side may have a valid point of view.  I don't think he really groks the subtleties of what he's done at WT:V or DRV at all. I've tried to leave him a graceful way to back out, but to be honest, I think Cerejota feels entitled to an outcome that doesn't place the blame squarely on him.  He wants to think that what I've said is not justified, and he might seek that outcome elsewhere, since the WQA's given him very little satisfaction.  I do think there's a pretty fair chance that I'll find myself at a RFC/U. I would agree that it would be wise to let the thread die, but equally, where he asks me a question there, it behoves me to answer.— S Marshall  T/C 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly haven't read the entire history of past interactions, but certainly from what I've seen at WQA, it would be a very short RFC/U. I agree that it's polite to answer questions that are primarily requests for information, but when the focus of the question seems to be to score rhetorical points, or are repetitive or argumentative, I personally feel justified in ignoring them. My experience has shown that providing an answer is more likely to result in another question than a resolution. Please note that this is all just suggestion mean to be helpful, you can certainly continue to participate in the WQA if you wish. Gerardw (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm certainly grateful for your advice and support. :)  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on a BLP matter
Hello S Marshall. I generally like and agree with your views on inclusion of information and BLP concerns. If you could, I'd like to read your opinion on whether we should respect the wishes of a subject and her representatives to not include a basic personal fact (date of birth). Please see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and Talk:Xenia Tchoumitcheva. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13
Hi S Marshall. As an uninvolved DRV regular, would you take a look here? I Cunard (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for consulting me, Cunard. I've replied there.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 22:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot request
Hi S Marshall, we've had some further discussion at Bot_requests - please let us know your thoughts on what the links should be changed to. Thanks, Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 11:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery
Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing rugby club deletions
Hi. I thank you for taking on closing deletion discusions, but I do not understand your reasoning for closing the following three Articles for deletion/Clondalkin RFC Articles for deletion/Balbriggan RFC Articles for deletion/Dublin City University RFC as keep. The reason given Nobody apart from the nominator thinks this material should be deleted seems a bit flawed to me as only two other people commented and there keeps were purely procedural (i.e they did not determine themselves whether the articles met WP:GNG. Another editor admin relisted them earlier and it seems a bit strange to close them after only a couple of hours of after this relisting. AIR corn (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aircorn. Alpha Quadrant is not an admin, and I do not agree with his decision to relist in this case or others (such as Articles for deletion/Zachary Stone).  When a discussion has been listed for the full seven days, has attracted commentary from uninvolved editors, and there's a unanimous keep apart from the nominator, then relisting is not appropriate.  The fact that the "keep" !votes were procedural does not mean that they were not grounded in policy!  In this case, the keep !voters were correctly pointing out that the nomination failed WP:BEFORE, in that it did not appear possible that Gnevin could have carried out a thorough search for sources for each occasion in his AfD nomination spree.  And the basis for the nomination was shaky in any case.  I do not regard WikiProject Rugby union/Notability as having much weight, because recent discussions have established that specific notability guidelines (which are mostly not guidelines, being for the most part correctly described as essays) may be disregarded in favour of the GNG.— S Marshall  T/C 12:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just assumed Alpha was a admin. He closed some similar discussions earlier as keep so you may want to look check those. I watch rugby related deletions and was working through the recent additions. User:Gnevin added quite a few at once (the reason for the procedurals) and it was taking me a while to check them out. I never got to the ones you closed, so personally I don't know if they were worth keeping or not. I just found it a bit strange that they were closed after being re-listed. I actually wish that so many weren't added at once, but Gnevin did have a point about some. Ah well it saves me a bit of time searching for sources at least. Thank you for explaining your reasoning better. BTW even though I was party to the WikiProject Rugby union/Notability guidelines (which these all met anyway) I agree that they should not overshadow GNG or consensus. AIR corn (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Alpha Quadrant
Owing to Alpha Quadrant's belief that I'm out to "harass" him, I can't get through to him that early closures should not be done unless there are good reasons to do so. You have frequently talked about providing a FairProcess at XfDs. Perhaps you'll be able to explain it better. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And I just found this on User talk:Phoenix B 1of3, with whom he has not interacted. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Cunard. I have done my best!  Regards— S Marshall  T/C 11:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for kind comment here! I am optimistic that your words will be more effective than mine. Cunard (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't end well. :(— S Marshall  T/C 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These were an interesting, yet unsurprising, series of edits. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was watching. I must say that there no longer appears to be anything productive that I can do in this case.  I do think Alpha Quadrant is editing in good faith and, with a little more experience and a few more rough corners worn smooth, may well become a valuable contributor.— S Marshall  T/C 23:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attempt. I agree that Alpha Quadrant has the potential to become a valuable contributor, but only if he engages in discussion and acknowledges his errors. I also believe that he is editing in good faith. However, if he doesn't change his AfD closing behavior after my detailed explanation about the contentious history behind early closures, I can only conclude that he is editing in bad faith. Cunard (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * People learn best from reflection on personal experience. I'm sure Alpha Quadrant will be more careful in how he handles these matters in future, and I'm hopeful that Spartaz will also have the opportunity to engage in some productive reflection.— S Marshall  T/C 23:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While Spartaz could have been less blunt, I think the gist of his advice is valid. Cunard (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. The right advice, but presented rather too heavy-handedly.— S Marshall  T/C 00:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Diff and diff: Now there are accusations of personal attacks and stalking. A marked difference from the discussion I had with a week ago regarding his early closure. You were correct above when you wrote that your involvement would no longer be productive. I should have followed your lead and withdrawn from the discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

About your recent DRV comments
About the DRV you commented on here, that editor is a problem. I think he has something of a problem understanding English, yet he is spending most of his time on "administrative" tasks such as AFDs, prods, tagging images, etc., for which he doesn't understand the policies and procedures and for which he is usually unable to present coherent comments. Which amounts to disruption. Check his talk page for some of my criticism, and to see how widespread the problem areas are. I've asked him repeatedly (both on his talk page and in some e-mails back and forth) to refrain from any of that and stick to normal article editing and participation in discussions others have started until he has some more practice and better comprehension. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at his talk page and contribution history, and see if you have any input as to how this problem can be addressed. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Postdlf. At first glance my reaction is, gosh, that looks like a bit of a knotty one; Dunning–Kruger effect looks relevant.  I will read some more, and do some thinking, to see if I can come up with a helpful strategy.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, what I can see is someone who would like to help contribute to Wikipedia. His language skills appear to be an issue which prevents him from doing much with articles, so he's focused on the supporting structure--the machinery of AfD, DRV etc. and particularly maintenance-type tasks which, at face value, don't require much use of language.  Unfortunately, a lack of language skills means he's failed to grok the policies and also makes his decisions hard to discuss or understand.  Easily stated, but how can it be corrected? Ideally this editor would be persuaded to work with images or templates rather than the discussion process, but to divert him into that it will be necessary to open a meaningful channel of communication with him.  Can we ascertain what his native language might be, and ask an editor from the appropriate Wikiproject to intervene?  I would guess the subject editor is east Asian.— S Marshall  T/C 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he's Chinese American. The language issue is only part of it, because he understands me telling him "you don't understand policy" but he doesn't believe it (take a look at my talk page and one of his DRVs; he seemed almost to be gloating that one of his AFDs was closed as "delete", as if that vindicates him on everything).  So I don't know if just having someone tell him in Chinese that "you don't understand policy" is going to be enough.  Images and templates have also been a problem (tagging with "no permission" image clearly identified as non-free; listing templates used for copyright investigation because he was unable to figure out that they are used and for what; tagging section of article with notability template because he didn't think the section was notable).  Across the board, he's jumping to deletion nominations and tagging on matters that he doesn't understand rather than asking questions first; instead it often seems as if he's treating the deletion process as a talk page (particularly with his AFD nominations, often he says "I'll vote later").  You'd think someone would find a talk page easier to deal with than listing something at Templates for discussion.  Which in a way makes me wonder whether we have the selective comprehension of a troll, but I'll assume good faith for now.  postdlf (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We might be dealing with someone who understands an East Asian wikipedia and is accustomed to a different wiki culture. Maybe on zh.wiki they nominate things for AfD and then !vote keep; I wouldn't know.  I do think we won't be able to make an informed judgment about this editor until we've put him in touch with an editor with whom he shares a language; if he's Chinese, then I would think User:Timotheus Canens is the man to talk to (mature, wise, diplomatic, and native language Chinese). Of course, it might go the other way.  You'll be aware that it's said that AGF isn't a suicide pact, and the possibility of a WP:COMPETENCE-related sanctions will no doubt have occurred to you.— S Marshall  T/C 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All true. I think you have the best idea for now about how to deal with this.  postdlf (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a note on T. Canens' talk page directing his attention to this.— S Marshall T/C 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, he doesn't have many edits on zhwiki, and those edits used an English edit summary. I'll have to think about this. Not quite sure how this one is best handled. T. Canens (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could it be a dialect or variant such as wuu.wiki? (My ignorance of east asian tongues is shocking.)— S Marshall  T/C 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * His home Wikipedia would appear to be English. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Deletion review/Log/2011 November 7
It seemed wise to revert your recent edit here, per WP:BLP concerns. I think it probably needs to be reworded in a way that doesn't actually make outright claims of criminality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Never, ever remove any of my discussion comments again. Clear?— S Marshall  T/C 17:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP applies to talk pages too, and as such, editors can (actually should) remove comments which violate this in such questionable ways. If you have a problem with my actions, then raise it at the appropriate noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
I was going to post "Bloody hell, not again", but it would come across as if I was mad at you, while I am actually frustrated with my own problems in signing things correctly. I somehow lose a tilde way too often. Thanks for correcting my sig here! Fram (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but it was a very small thing. :)  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 13:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dispute Resolution
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)