User talk:S Marshall/Archive22

NASA
Your comments on WT:Verifiability are used at Talk:Cold_fusion --POVbrigand (talk) 08:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you help?
I have unresolved concerns about what happened with that unfortunate IP editor :o( I have threads on Jehochman's talk (my latest contribution), Tide Rolls' talk (latest), and Elen's talk (ditto), to see if there's any way we can undo some of the hurt this guy can be feeling.

The IP editor was:
 * 1) Accused of socking
 * 2) Accused of racism
 * 3) Dragged over to AN/I
 * 4) Dragged over to SPI
 * 5) Blocked for 48 hours

He has now not edited since 28 February, his last contributions having been to the SPI page.

Sadly, this whole string of events began with the suspicion of socking. I'm sure, absolutely sure, that there was no way you could possibly have anticipated what would happen here in terms of escalation and misunderstandings, but would you feel it at all possible to go over to his talk page with something along the lines of "sorry this situation escalated so badly from my misunderstanding; this really wasn't my intention", or something similar? Having been through the mill myself back in December, when I very nearly quit editing altogether, I think it's likely that this guy is feeling badly misunderstood, badly misjudged, and very upset. That isn't what any of us wanted. Can you help? Pesky (talk ) 10:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course! On it now.— S Marshall  T/C 11:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I've been feeling cringingly guilty for not having been in the right place at the right time earlier!  Pesky  (talk ) 13:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Cousens
Hi, I don't mean to badger you about the Deletion Review, I just wanted to ask you a question. You said you were on the fence and could be persuaded. I want to know if there are any particular points or objections on which your stance hinges, and if there are any changes to either the DRV discussion or the article itself that would allow you to change your opinion. I've put in a lot of time to create what I intended to be a neutral, balanced article, and don't want to miss any opportunity to resolve issues that would prevent its creation. I hope you take this as an effort to improve the discussion and the draft, not as chasing you around trying to get your !vote. Cheers, Ocaasit 15:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied there. All the best— S Marshall  T/C 17:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of François Asselineau for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article François Asselineau 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/François Asselineau 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.--Lawren00 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Simon Wicks 2012.jpg
This image has been restored. Nevertheless, it is relisted for FFD discussion. You discussed it in Deletion review/Log/2012 March 6, so you may be interested to improve the consensus results. --George Ho (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

information vs. material
Hi,

I know I have another issue with your desire to return truth to WP:V after clarifying/removing "not truth"; but meanwhile, I wonder if I can convince you to pull back from the "information" word. Do you agree that for the context of WP:V, the set "information" is larger than the set "material"? Information seems to include style of writing, word count per paragraph, and interrelationships between sources. It seems to be a higher bar than "material", but without a value to the project. What is the purpose of opening this line of argument? What is wrong with "material"? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Unscintillating... I don't see that "information" is a larger set than "material" at all, but equally I have no objection to using an alternative word. I'll devote some thought to the matter.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 07:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If they are the same sets, then why are we changing the word? Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you seem to want it changed, and I don't object to changing it. I don't wish to be needlessly obstructive.— S Marshall  T/C 23:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"...true and false should never determine Wikipedia content"
The sentence in Draft 8 reads,

I'm puzzled that you support this draft. This seems to be a major change, toward the view that only if a reliable source says that something is untrue, can we discuss the issue of it being untrue. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to wrangle about drafts at all. but the idiocy of this process is that I have to. Editors have voted to produce 4 drafts which means arguing about pointless, trivial little details of those drafts, such as this one.  I just want to get to the RFC stage where we've finally agreed to discuss the principle of ousting VNT from the policy in a draft-free environment.— S Marshall  T/C 23:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be seeing something I don't know about. Best I can tell, we are going to bring about eight drafts to an RfC, along with which we will have a normal college-dorm bull session without metrics.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation compromise drafts
Hello S Marshall, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:V mediation step five
Hello S Marshall, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mobikade
I was waiting for you to chime in on this. While it's true that I could have edited my closing statement to allow a speedy renomination, I decided to let the DRV run its course because I wanted some more opinions on this. We're always telling "keep" !voters that AFD is not a !vote and deriding them for making WP:ATA arguments so it's only fair that the same standards be applied to those advocating deletion. It should take more then simply creating a nomination page and tagging the article to get an article deleted, it's reasonable to expect someone who wants an article deleted to actually make an argument based on one of the relevant inclusion guidelines. That being said, our guidelines and policies are "descriptive" so if enough editors want to use Alexa rankings as a criteria for inclusion for websites I would have no problem with that but it will take more then one !vote in one AFD. "AFD is not a vote" should apply to everyone, not just the article rescue squadron. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said, Ron. :)  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 08:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

BINGO
Found your comment here interesting as I've always wondered the same thing about porn actors. Are the biographical details provided about them in porn mags and such the same as the "storylines" in professional wrestling? To take this idea to a ridiculous extreme one might claim that many pornbios are not actually BLPs because they describe "fictional characters", or perhaps "metafictional characters". Not to worry because I would never seriously suggest that but it's something to think about. After all we do have separate articles on Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert (character). (does the latter really need the BLP tag :)) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I must admit that the biographies of porn actors on Wikipedia annoy the living hell out of me, Ron, and it's because PORNBIO sets the bar for inclusion ridiculously low, so we have unexpandable two-sentence "articles" with shitty sources. What's the point of having a BLP policy when we do that?— S Marshall  T/C 07:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree too. The subject-specific guidelines are prone to giving too much weight to primary source indicators (eg awards) of whether the subject is notable.  Primary source indicators are useful in helping contributors work towards comprehensiveness, but where they allow whole classes of not-generally-notable subjects to claim wikipedia-notability, it indicates that the primary source indicators are poor indicators.  In other words, the "awards" are commonplace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing final drafts
Hello S Marshall. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you! —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Redemption
Hi S Marshall. I'm new here and was looking for help from an experienced user. I discovered an article for a subject which I was about to suggest for creation on Wikipedia, until I found an incubated version in the search results. You appeared to be one of the users who made an edit so that's why I'm writing you. The article appeared to be placed in the incubator because there was some kind of quality standards it was lacking or lack of citation. I went ahead and picked up where the others left off and fixed up the article and basically gave it reliability, with some tips from another Wikipedian. So what happens now? Can you or someone registered move it to the "main space"? I was hoping you could help change the status or ask someone who does so my contributions aren't in vein. Anyway, thank you in advance, Ray. Here is the article--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Common_Dead
 * Hi, Ray. I'm not exactly an expert on heavy metal or indeed music of any kind, and I don't really know how to evaluate whether that article meets Wikipedia's content standards for metal bands.  The best way to attract attention from editors knowledgeable in this field will be to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, so I suggest that.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, then! I appreciate your help. Thank you. Ray 24.201.20.167 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Jekejeke Prolog Delete
Hi,

I just learned that there are around 1000 administrators for wikipedia. Maybe you can help me with speed delete of Jekejeke_Prolog. I am the sole editor. See talk page of the article some reasons. Or maybe you can recommend me an administrator.

Best Regards

Janburse (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, sorry for bothering. Jan Burse (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols". Thank you. --Neuroticguru (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the !vote
I have a barnstar ready for you if you want, but I'm afraid it may be too template-y. So, just a heartfelt thanks from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding the recent RFA, sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you'd done to deserve the demotion from editor to janitor, but you seemed to want it so I supported... ;-)— S Marshall T/C 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, if I ever want a promotion I just need to ride the bull *wink* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability mediation - choosing the RfC structure
Hi S Marshall. This is just to let you know that I started a discussion at the verifiability mediation that's aimed at settling the drafts/questions issue. Your input would be highly appreciated, as always. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see you got there before me. Thanks for the comment! — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

UFC 145
The NAC that I vacated was this one. Arbitrarily0 is an admin so I could not have overturned them summarily even if I wanted to :) T. Canens (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Crap! Oops.  :-)— S Marshall  T/C 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles
I've replied to your reply to Karl with some background info. -- RA (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)