User talk:S Marshall/Archive23

Question re: Politics in the British isles

 * Hi; I don't want to take up more space at the AfD, so I hope you don't mind if we continue a brief discussion here. You noted that you didn't think the content was worth much; I'd be interested in hearing what sort of content you *would* find useful; i.e. do you think there is any content on bilateral/multilateral politics/international relations in the british isles which would not be fully captured (or belong) in Anglo-Irish relations or other bilateral articles, like Ireland-Isle of Man relations and Ireland-Scotland relations (a new proposed article)? --KarlB (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * From my point of view, "The British Isles" is a geographical term. I've probably been clear enough that I have absolutely zero patience with the Irish nationalists who object to that name and want to change it by renaming Wikipedia articles.  I have considerable contempt for the views that administrator BHG has repeated about a million times in that AfD. There are various political entities that occupy the British Isles.  All of them have considerable historical justification for either hating the English, or hating the British, and I can fully understand the movements desiring independence in Ireland, Scotland and Wales (and even Cornwall).  But the fact is that there are only two sovereign nations in the British Isles, and the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom is lopsided because the ROI has slightly less than half the population of London, its economy has crashed and burned, and it's presently in hock to the UK by €8 billion (counting only direct, recent bailout loans). I accept that there are authors who've written about political relationships between the political entities of the British Isles and political entities outside it, but I do not see that as a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia.  WP:N is a guideline that admits of occasional exceptions, and I see this as one of them: the fact that there are sources doesn't automatically mean there should be an article. I accept that there are articles about the politics of other geographic groupings, but I see that as carrying zero weight (WP:OCE). So the answer to your question is, I do not think there is any content concerning political relationships in the British Isles that could not be covered in other articles.— S Marshall  T/C 10:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I suppose we may have to agree to disagree. I think sovereignty is not the sole determinant of politics or international relations. I also agree that the Dublin-London axis is dominant and has been for some time, but with the creation of the British-Irish Council, many people have been writing and talking about multilateralism in the isles and a re-thinking of relationships; and for me one of the interesting things is, this multilateral approach is desired for *different* reasons - certain elements in Northern Ireland pushed for the council for one reason; others have supported the council for different reasons (see some NI rationale here, and description of their reasoning for an all-isles approach: . Anyway, thanks again for your reasoned input to this discussion.--KarlB (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles
I'd like you give input to a thread I've opened on "Politics in the British Isles". If the article is to exist then we may as well make a fist of improving it. Unfortunately, I think that means, like you said in the AfD, blowing it up and starting again. I've proposed an outline for re-starting the article on a firmer and more reasonable footing. I'd appreciate it if you could contribute to putting a good shape on it. -- RA (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Attack
I'm not taken with this, which I perceive to be an unprovoked and undeserved personal attack. I have never made any anti-British remarks. Never mind "extreme" ones. I replied there. Please strike your comment.

Tensions are needlessly heightened over this article and all the pursuing XfDs and DVRs. But please don't put petrol on the flames by accusing people of showing anti-British sentiment without good reason. -- RA (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have chosen to upbraid a British administrator for daring to close an AfD related to the British Isles Naming Dispute. With all due respect, that's very clearly anti-British sentiment.  I find it hard to assume good faith as regards yourself and BHG because you have assumed bad faith of SpinningSpark.  This conflict is totally peculiar considering that we all feel the article should be deleted, but I'm afraid it exists purely because of your own words, which I see you have not chosen to strike even though you wish me to strike mine.— S Marshall  T/C 17:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK:
 * As far as I am concerned the issue is unrelated to the British Isles naming dispute;
 * With respect to that "dispute", there is nothing in the (passing) literature on it that relates it to xenophobia generally or Anglophobia in particular;
 * I do assume good faith in SpinningSpark. WP:INVOLVED does not relate to good faith.
 * SpinningSpark is to be commended for taking so much time looking at the discussion. And I am planning to write something to that effect on to the DRV discussion shortly. But any British or Irish editors is "involved" (broadly construed) in a discussion crouched heavily in a conflict between British and Irish POVs.
 * As I wrote, in credit to SpinningSpark, he acknowledged this when he wrote, "I also apologise for being British - I had not realised that this could be an issue when I began this close and have made every effort not to allow my nationality to sway my judgement." I'm sure he did. But a way to be sure that no admins British or Irish nationality may sway their judgement would have been for an admin not from the archipelago close the discussion.
 * Saying that is neither anti-British nor anti-Irish. -- RA (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the issue should not concern the so-called British Isles naming dispute, I think that it has been made to. User:BrownHairedGirl brought it up with this edit where she threatened WP:GS/BI.  (Her edit there contained the word "tendentious", a word which is only ever used by Wikipedians who want another Wikipedian to be blocked.) In the AfD, User:Sandstein said: A "delete" closure of this discussion was appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 30, and the result of the review discussion was to relist this deletion discussion. I ask all who have already participated in the debate above, especially those who have done so at great length, to refrain from continuing to do so, so as to allow others to offer their opinion.  You edited the AfD a total of 162 times, and to my amazement I see that you managed an average of less than three hours between each edit you made to the AfD between 25 May and 14 June.  (Karl.brown edited it 84 times, IRWolfie edited it 24 times, BrownHairedGirl edited it 23 times, and SilverSeren did so 21 times.  Personally I made three edits to it.) This issue clearly matters a very great deal to you.  I suggest that you take a step back and a deep breath, and devote a little thought to whether you might need to regain your sense of proportion.  I've already explained to you that WP:INVOLVED is about when a user performs an administrative action concerning a dispute with which they have a history.  With all due respect, irrespective of what spin you try to put on it, WP:INVOLVED certainly does not concern the nationality of an AfD closer.  It's inappropriate to imply that no administrator of British nationality may close an Ireland-related AfD, and it's diagnostic of your extremely close concern about this issue that you appear to be unable to see how unfair you are being to SpinningSpark by suggesting he shouldn't have closed. I can see you think that this is about me attacking you.  I respectfully invite you to seek a third opinion about that, because I'm really not.— S Marshall  T/C 18:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * With regard to WP:GS/BI. I also brought it up. However, it is a side issue and the title of the page is not something that bothers me.
 * Now, about who attacked who, you wrote, "It's inappropriate to imply that no administrator of British nationality may close an Ireland-related AfD,..." Except I didn't imply that — or at the very least didn't mean to. To be clear, what I wrote was, "...in an AfD involving POVs over British and/or Irish politics, a British or Irish administrator should have the good sense to recuse themselves..." Not solely British. Also Irish. And not matters to do with Ireland, but matters involving conflict over supposedly "British" and supposedly "Irish" POVs.
 * Even if you don't agree with that (which is an reasoning I'm making based on common sense, not suspicion or racial hatred) to describe it as "anti-British sentiment", never mind "extreme" anti-British sentiment, is unreasonable and unfair. Logically, if it was anti-British sentiment, it would involve anti-Irish sentiment also since I'm saying neither nationality should close matter that involve conflict between the supposed POVs of both (even if only to avoid the accusation of bias). I would have said the same thing if an Irish editor closed it as "delete".
 * Anyway, I've said my piece. And I can't make you scratch it. I hope we can collaborate on improving the article, since I think that's matter we will continue to agree on. Good night.
 * BTW I know I'm contributing a lot of hot air there, and that I need to pull back. It will work itself out in time. Thanks.
 * -- RA (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're going to agree about improving the article and I think we're going to be able to work together on that. I don't think we're ever going to agree about whether an administrator's nationality is relevant to a debate close. On re-reading I do just wonder whether it might have helped if I'd been clearer about who I was replying to; I think something I meant for BrownHairedGirl might have come across as aimed at you.— S Marshall T/C 21:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If your comment was aimed at me, then I find it as inappropriate as RA did.
 * In this case, we had a discussion where perspectives divided very much along national lines, with British editors mostly favouring one POV and Irish editors mostly favouring another. Your accusation of "how extreme the anti-British sentiment gets among Irish nationalist wikipedians" is obnoxiously patronising and grossly offensive as well as misplaced.
 * You chose conflate the rejection of a British POV with a dislike of British people. That is either intentionally provocative, or downright stupid. It reminds me of discussions with less intelligent Americans in which someone says that they wish America would stop bombing other parts of the world, and the Americans reply "why do you hate us?".
 * Shame on you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had quite enough spin and bombast from you two. Would you both please desist from posting on my talk page.— S Marshall  T/C 16:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You chose to make a very hostile accusation against other editors, and should have not have been surprised that you were asked to retract it. It's a great pity that you haven't been prepared to reconsider it, and that you response is another bogus allegation, this time of "spin and bombast".
 * Anyway, you have made it very clear that your outburst was not (as I hoped) a momentary lapse, and that this is how you wish to conduct yourself. So I won't post here again about this. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Rough consensus
I saw your comments on Deletion_review/Log/2012_June_24 and rather than clutter up that discussion, I thought I'd directly address this with you since it's more about you than the discussion. I'm afraid you either misunderstand or reject Deletion guidelines for administrators. Specifically, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS.

It explicitly states that "Administrators must use their best judgment" and that administrators should "disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith" and "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."

If it appears that participants in that discussion don't understand what a WP:RS is, then BWilkins correctly disregarded or discounted their comments about those sources which is 100% in line with the guideline.

That discussion is not the place to disagree with the guideline, which it appears you are doing there. That should either happen on the guideline's talk page or an RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, Toddst1, I invite you to re-read what I said.— S Marshall T/C 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Tarc and I are saying the same thing. He commented on your statement atDeletion_review/Log/2012_June_24.
 * Sorry if I came across crappy above. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC - final call for alterations
Hello again S Marshall. This is to let you know that I have made a final call for alterations to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion
Hello, it's been a while. Hope you are well. Could I request your opinion on my post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:QR_code relating QR Usage and a new patent please? Amicaveritas (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Amicaveritas, welcome back. It's been a while since the Syed Ahmed controversy!  Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm afraid I don't know anything about QR codes and I don't feel able to add anything useful to that discussion.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 23:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

EB
About this, read this (if you didn't already) (specifically my first comment there, ha). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice
Hello, I have seen you are involved in RfC in that verifiability talk page. Someone has offered me to open an RfC regarding Is simple logic a SYNTH ? In summary, in my last post there I concluded that:
 * "expecting that after researchers have determined that 40mL alcohol can cause a hangover, the researchers will continue to publish papers about each drink that include alcohol, and state if it too cause a hangover. That just don't make any sense, and thus that WP:SYNTH interpretation doesn't make sense either."

In relation to verifiability, I think that simple logic is verifiable, and claiming otherwise is nonsense.

Do you think that I should open an RfC? --Nenpog (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Nenpog No, I don't think it's necessary to open a RFC. Policy is that trivial calculations do not constitute a synthesis (see WP:CALC).  So for example, if I have a source that says UK wheat yields are about 3 tons per acre, and I want to say in my article that wheat yields are 7 tons per hectare, then I can do that. If editors are challenging whether your calculations are accurate or appropriate, then I think that editors active in WikiProject Mathematics would have the best understanding of how far WP:CALC may be stretched in practice. I would suggest seeking third party advice on their talk page (which is here). Hope this helps and all the best— S Marshall  T/C 13:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue here is simple logic like
 * source-A:X->Y and
 * source-B:Y->Z, and the simple logic
 * conclusion-C:X->Y->Z or in short
 * conclusion-C:X->Z.
 * In the example:
 * source-A:XDrink->'40% alcohol by volume', and
 * source-B:'Ingestion Of 40mL alcohol'->hangover,
 * conclusion-C:'Ingestion of 100mL XDrink'->hangover.
 * and I said that not accepting that conclusion-C, is like expecting researchers to produce new paper about every drink that include alcohol, which is not how researchers work. --Nenpog (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is now at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sure it was unintentional...
but I found your "oppose" listed in the "support" section of this RFA. With respects, I have moved it to the "oppose" section.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just went back to pick up the diff and saw you did it intentionaly. Okay... but I thought it might mess up the counting tool if in the wrong section.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Secretly, I'm not really opposing... ;-)— S Marshall T/C 01:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, and I am not really trying to insult you! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Badgers? Fascinating. I'd love to see one. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see more badgers that aren't dead. :-(— S Marshall  T/C 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you, S Marshall. Of course, we're not in the business of social activism (ahem) but publishing that article might educate some people into better behavior. That makes me an old-fashioned leftie, I suppose. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a leftie, I just disapprove of killing wildlife when there's an alternative...— S Marshall T/C 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

hi S Marshall
That is one absolutely outstanding userpage, fabulously observant. Penyulap  ☏  09:15, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)
 * Why, thank you!— S Marshall T/C 09:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DRV bot proposal
Can you take a look at WT:DRV? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Badger culling in the United Kingdom
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Randomness
Hello! Just a fork-topic from the AfD of List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes. What should we call as "uncontroversial"? For example, suppose a film's story matches with another of the film or play or book, is it uncontroversial to state this in the article even if the actual film doesn't acknowledge it? This is a factual material verifiable through primary sources. Would we require a reference for verifying it? (And lets keep this discussion out of BLP's scope. We will get in it if needed. No rush! Reply at your convenience. I might also not reply instantly to you.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Animeshkulkarni, and thanks for your enquiry. Since you're posting to my talk page what you'll get is my personal opinion and not an official answer in any way.  I'm interested in verifiability and I was heavily-involved in drafting the current version of WP:V, but I'm not an authority figure of any kind. What's uncontroversial?  I made an edit that I regard as clearly uncontroversial yesterday, here.  The lifespan of a European badger is about 15 years in the wild.  I didn't need to add a source for that statement, because it is not (in the words of WP:V) "challenged or likely to be challenged".  It's verifiable, but unverified.  An editor could remove the statement on the grounds that there's no source for it, but to do so would show poor editorial judgment.  A lazy editor might tag it with fact instead, but in fact any reasonably good editor who had some reason to be concerned about that sentence would google it, find the evidence, and add the source. I'm also responsible for writing Margot Kalinke, a biography of a German politician who was important in women's rights.  For the last three years since I wrote it, it's had an "unreferenced" tag sitting on the top of it because I didn't bother to supply any sources.  Did I need to?  Apparently not; nobody has challenged its content, and I don't think anybody is likely to challenge it.  Everything I wrote there is verifiable, but not currently verified. What are the characteristics of an "uncontroversial" edit?  There are five:
 * Accurate
 * Non-promotional
 * Non-defamational
 * Copyright-compliant
 * Unchallenged
 * That last characteristic is very important. The moment someone actually challenges an edit, such as by tagging its contents with fact, then it needs a source.  No ifs, buts, nor maybes. But it's not good editorial judgment to go around challenging edits at random.  It's good practice only to challenge content that you're concerned about for some reason, and when you do do that, to focus on biographies of living people, high-traffic articles, or the contributions of editors who are known or suspected of problematic edits.— S Marshall  T/C 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh i totally forgot about this. I didn't mean it this long when i said "might also not reply instantly". I went on a short wikibreak and then this dialogue never crossed my mind. Sorry for all this delay. Good lengthy answer. Thanks for that. So you say that some information on Wikipedia can stay unreferenced as long as it is non-defamatory or copyvio or non-promotional or factually wrong. And i agree with this. The first 4 points you mentioned can be followed by the editor who introduces such statement in the article. The last 5th point of "unchallenged" is not dependent on the writer. In case something is challenged by some editor, say for no good reason, what should be done? I ask this because i mostly edit India-related articles and Indians have not been good at documenting information. I am talking of statements that satisfy our first 4 points. Example: I am writing an article on a small village in some rural area with say 80-100 population. (That's a tiny village per Indian standards). In it i write; "There is a temple of PQR goddess and people worship her. She is considered as an incarnation of goddess XYZ." Now this subject being not-so-famous, i have no online as well as offline sources to prove this. And for me its unlikely to be challenged too. But somehow some editor challenges it. What next? We can ofcourse keep it there with a cn/fact tag. But this editor doesn't like that option and wants to simply delete it. His reasoning is that if it is unrecorded for now why should Wikipedia write it? We can write it here if someone reliable writes it first somewhere else. But what is happening here is that though it is satisfying our 4 points, the information is being lost because someone challenged it. You didn't specifically answer for my previous example. Would you challenge that statement and demand it's removal? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Afd
I have replied to your comment. I had already replied to this allegation once here so I am pointing it. Now on the AFD Can we please concentrate on the Subject. regards-- D Big X ray  19:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the yet another excellent demonstration of WP:AOBF -- D Big X ray  20:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And the truth shall make you cross. :-) Seriously: when one editor nominates 30+ articles for deletion in the space of a month, and all of them were created by one other editor, then what we have is a potential conduct dispute.  I asked if you were on a crusade.  You've denied it; your position appears to be that it's a complete coincidence.  Let's leave it there and hope it doesn't finish up on AN/I (which is a place I don't enjoy posting).— S Marshall  T/C 21:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agriculture in the United Kingdom
Hello S Marshall. Did you know that a red link for Fishing in the United Kingdom already exists in the Agriculture in the United Kingdom section? I'm not one to fixate on rules but I don't think that red links belong in the See also section. Also I believe that too many red links starts being an eyesore to the reader. Slight Smile  14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation
Regardless of its outcome, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to participate in the DRV on Margo Rey. I appreciate it. Best regards... Vertium '' When all is said and done 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Note
Hi, I think you should check up on both the Huxley Institute and Orthomolecular Medicine which you have mentioned here: Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_25. This will give you an idea on just how fringe both groups are. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Also in Regard to Hawkins
One editor has taken it upon himself to remove published works from the author based on what appears to be an misinterpretation of policy regarding authors who are both independently published and who also publish works through their own publishing company. Is there someway to get a consensus and clarification on this policy or someone who might have a third-party input on the policy as it is being used to delete the author's works? Discussion is also on the article talk. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Geo Swan, DBigXray, and AFDs
I have created a list of AFDs created by DBigXray for analysis here. I hope it supports your position.--v/r - TP 18:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)