User talk:S Marshall/Archive25

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Case that: The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Discuss this

Deletion review
Thanks for the comments at Deletion review/Log/2013 January 4; you've convinced me. I've left a question for you at that page. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Re your edit, one might go further by changing "make it clear that you have a concern" to "mention" or "consider mentioning". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Userfied
User:S Marshall/List of beverages/soft drinks. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What have you been smoking (and can you share)?
Re: your edit summary for this edit at WP:V... uncontroversial? At WP:V !!? Note to Admins... I strongly suspect that the real User:S Marshall has been kidnapped and is now being impersonated by his evil twin ... the real S Marshall would know that nothing is ever uncontrovercial at WP:V. :>) (actually, I somewhat like the edit...) Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we're evolving into a fun group that understand each other (including our differences) and can refine wp:ver. Either way, I want some too!/ can you share?   :-)  North8000 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You cannot change BLP policy wording on WP:V unless such a change has been made at the core policy page and this would need a good deal of community discussion. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing it, Amadscientist, I'm restoring the stable version.— S Marshall T/C 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring. This is core policy. It must refelct the policy page. You are at 3RR.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not game 3RR to force through an undiscussed change to a core policy. WP:V is a core policy and "please" is the stable wording.  I have asked on the talk page whether a neutral editor could step in and restore order.— S Marshall  T/C 00:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not make accusation of gaming the system. I also note that your edit summary fails to note that I came to your talkpage to discuss this. Again, you must achieve a community wide consensus at the policy page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no duty on me to get a community-wide consensus. The onus is on you because it is you who are trying to change what the policy says.  That word "please" has been in there for months.  The policy talk page is the correct place to gain consensus for the change you wish to make, not my talk page.— S Marshall  T/C 00:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent dustup at wp:ver
I'm afraid I really didn't understand the situation, especially that there are two totally unrelated sentences involved. In hindsight, any previous feedback I gave related only to the first of the involved sentences. I think that I have split them for clarity and feedback at the end of the section that was discussing this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your contributions were very helpful: thank you. That page is always fraught!— S Marshall  T/C 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding reaching consensus on this issue, on the BLP sentence (opinions on the BURDEN sentence are a little more mixed) it's looking like going in favour of the change to the 'should' wording - in fact it appears that those still active in the discussion unanimously support it. As the strongest opponent of this change, do you want to say any more? Do you still strongly oppose it? CarrieVS (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting to see who else weighs in, Carrie; the discussion has had quite enough input from me. I'm hoping that we will achieve genuine discussion, rather than opinion statements in the emphatic declarative which is what we have now.  I don't think there has been enough debate from enough different editors for us to say what the consensus is.— S Marshall  T/C 18:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok. Sorry to bother you. TBH I think I'm a bit out of my depth. At least things have cooled down now, and most editors are adding to their position that they don't think it's a terribly big deal, but everyone seems to be trying to progress by organising responses into a list, and for the BLP sentence at least, one side of the debate has gone AWOL. But most of the people involved are far more experienced than me and I don't want to go against their ideas of how to proceed. I think I might just weigh out and leave it alone. CarrieVS (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're not bothering me! I don't want you to feel that you're unwelcome to post on my talk page or on WT:V.  Neither is true: you're very welcome in both places.  I think we'll go through a phase where the usual suspects (Blueboar, Tryptofish and North8000) convert it from a mass of points and responses into a structured, coherent discussion of the issues.  Then we'll see where we are and what arguments have been presented.  I don't think this will go to a full RFC—a local consensus will suffice.— S Marshall  T/C 19:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did try and do that - summarise the arguments presented as well as counting heads, but it kind of got ignored. Probably I did it badly. Thanks for the explanation. CarrieVS (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AFD
Unless I'm missing something here, everyone who supported redirecting wanted to redirect it to Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority, at least that's what Staberinde explicitly said, Japinderum and Fut.Perf.'s clear impaction. In part because Japinderum said "content is minimal and already present at the other article" and Fut.Perf said "There is clearly not enough content for two distinct articles here". What other article then the PNA one might they be talking about? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Also no one ever suggested any target other the the PNA one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very, very cautious about closing anything that relates to Palestine because it's a subject area where feelings run high. The way I understood Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment was that he feels all the related content ought to end up somewhere else, e.g. in Coat of arms of Palestine.  That seems logical to me and I didn't want to preclude that outcome, so I preferred to leave discussion open.  If I'm wrong, all it means is the discussion will be short!— S Marshall  T/C 15:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sunrise said "Redirect (and then consider whatever page move might be appropriate for the target page, e.g. to Coat of arms of Palestine)". Coat of arms of Palestine is a redirect, not an article. I don't think he was talking about redirecting to (and then possibly moving) anything other then the authority article. Closing as redirect would not prejudice against moving the authority article.


 * Scene Sunrise's and Japinderum's redirect votes that could be interpreted as ambiguous, how about I ask them if their vote meant redirect to the authority article, or an ambiguous redirect, and if they meant "Redirect to Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority", then we can simply redirect the state article to the authority article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to that at all. Perhaps you could ask them to post their answers on the article talk page so that the record of the consensus is easy to find?  I'll copy this discussion there now.— S Marshall  T/C 19:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New Page Patrol
Given the all German sources, could you possibly do a new page patrol on [] re BLP, puffery etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for drawing my attention to that, it was an interesting topic.— S Marshall  T/C 18:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Count
Hi, I updated the link to the edit counter on your page as the one you had no longer works.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 21:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks!— S Marshall T/C 00:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb closed
An arbitration case regarding SchuminWeb, and previously suspended by motion, has now closed. The original temporary injuction has been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  05:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Why, thank you!— S Marshall T/C 16:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So brilliantly matter of fact. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

"Audited"
I saw your recent RFA comment, where you mentioned something about you thought someone should work on a Good article. (This question has nothing to do with that RFA, that just prompted it.) But I also remember a comment by you in another discussion about being somewhat skeptical of the value of the Pedia's "audited" content: "good," "featured" whatnot. I can't quite remember your comment but it was pithy, (something about useless, shinny whatnot). Am I misremembering? What are your views on good featured etc, if you would not mind sharing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gosh, Alan, that's quite a big question. Thanks for asking it. In that RFA, I opposed an otherwise-well-qualified candidate on the grounds of lack of collaborative content contributions.  I was satisfied this was a good candidate in every other respect, and in the light of my own rather bruising RFA experiences, I felt that I should give clear, simple and objective criteria that the user could meet to gain my support in future.  I wanted to see evidence of working with others to build a more substantial article.  The audited content process does force users to engage in discussion with others about article content, because there's a formal review process.  But that doesn't mean I have a high opinion of Wikipedia's audited content.  I've engaged in the GA process to an extent, and what I found is that GA depends on who reviews it.  My article on Forestry in the United Kingdom is a GA because the reviewer was nice about it (and actually participated in improving the article); that process was extremely easy.  My article on History of Hertfordshire passed GA after the reviewer got bored with reviewing it.  My article on Agriculture in the United Kingdom has failed GA twice, even though it's noticeably superior to both of the preceding articles; I have been unwilling to jump through the hoops the reviewers have set out for me in those cases.  FA is a clique.  Whether your material passes FA is down to obsessive focus on the manual of style, the exact position of the references and images etc., and your standing in the clique.  I have never met anyone auditing at GA or FA who checked the references or even understood the subject they were reviewing to any great extent, and it's been my experience that in practice, Wikipedia's audited content processes are almost entirely about writing style and formatting.  I'm confident that there will be GAs and FAs that include copyright issues and close paraphrasing, unintentional bias owing to reliance on free online sources as oppose to proper books, serious errors of omission or even flagrant inaccuracy.  These things are rarely checked.  Of course, someone with an abundance of GAs and FAs to their name may very well have researched each one carefully and thoroughly and written it properly.  I'm sure that's true of users like Nev1 and Malleus Fatuorum and Ironholds, since I've read content they've written in fields that I know about.  But the facts that (a) their articles are strongly-sourced and complete, and (b) many have passed the GA and FA process, are largely unrelated to each other.  In short, I feel that Wikipedia's audited content processes are the triumph of form over function, of wikimarkup and manual of style adherence over good research, aimed at accumulating shiny badges to adorn one's userpage.  I do that too, of course—my own userpage is a testament to my vanity—but that doesn't stop me being cynical about it.  Audited content is good evidence of collaboration skills for RFA, though.— S Marshall  T/C 21:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, screw it. I'll tell you what I really wanted to say in that RFA. I wanted to say that Wikipedia has far too many people who run about deleting material that they would never have been capable of producing themselves.  The project's awash with the kind of idiot who can quote every notability-related rule in detail but has no understanding of what notability is for; who can recognise the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources but has no clue when it's appropriate to use each; who show, in short, rule-knowledge without judgment.  These people should not be let loose with the delete button.  In my view nobody should have access to the delete button until they've written an article that they're passionate about, poured their heart and their soul into it, and then found it gone because an American teenager during a spree of making four edits a minute has found a rule that it violates and stuck a speedy deletion tag on it.  And then jumped through all the hoops to get their article restored, and found themselves defending it at AfD.— S Marshall  T/C 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, Thanks for your thoughtfulness. (As to your first post, I generally agree, I think. I'll have to reflect on your second). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey S Marshall...
There's something in regards to a response that you stated on BDD's RfA that I wanted to talk/ask to you about. However, it has NOTHING to do with the RfA itself, but rather the "request" you asked the general audience. Well, by doing some research, I think I found out what you were talking about ... and wow, I believe I understand. Would you be all right if I discussed this with you over email, or no? (Given the possible sensitivity of the subject matter, it would be best to converse about it over email, if conversing occurs at all.) Steel1943  (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome to email me!— S Marshall T/C 09:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

K Rutherford-Davis
Thanks for adding the attribution in place of "Historians" in the History of Hertfordshire. What do we know about Mr Rutherford-Davis? He appears only to have two published papers, one of which is a partial family history. I'm afraid I'm not THAT convinced that Hertfordshire is particularly over-populated with abandoned villages either (or it's poor soil). I'm not about to change anything, but this paragraph does seem difficult to support. Best.... Plingsby (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hertfordshire's soil is generally heavy clay. It's largely classified as Grade III, with a little Grade II in the north of the county (particularly around Hitchin).  There's no Grade I soil in the whole of the county.  Compared to the rest of the usually very fertile island of Great Britain, Hertfordshire's soil is mediocre to poor. K Rutherford Davis is the author of five books: list.  I wouldn't take his unsupported word for it, but the abandoned villages are also discussed in Rook 1984 (pp 44-46).  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 18:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Hi, during the Michael Brutsch AfD discussion I saw a number of users talk about merging or restructuring the article into another one, so I am opening up a discussion of such a merge here, if you are interested in participating. Thanks! Breadblade (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi!
Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Deva a cast of sri lanka
Thanks for reverting my premature close; I made an error, because Dewa (cast) is still open. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy wording
I guess I can get the Editors>You reversion for simplicity, but aren't the bulleted examples kinda helpful? Ranze (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, now you mention it I don't object to those. I'll restore that.— S Marshall  T/C 19:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk
Hello, user user:Magneto616 are trying to add personal opinions that clearly had no consensus by some time in this article. Maybe a administrative action needs to be taken? Reiftyr (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Reiftyr and thanks for your support with this article. I don't approve of Magneto616's edits and I hope he stops what he's doing, but I don't think he's broken any rules yet.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 00:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)