User talk:S Marshall/Archive27

Request for opposition opinion
Hello! I've put together an essay at Unopposed AFD discussion. It's in early stages, but I think you might want to write up a quick little "opposition" section to it. Such comments would be welcome.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation. I will contemplate this for a little while and may weigh in in due course.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 16:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

deletion of opednews
I'm no expert at wikipedia, though I've made a number of edits. Last July, you played a role in the deletion of the opednews page. That's why I'm contacting you.

I am the publisher of the website, (not the wikipedia page) and the deletion came as somewhat of a surprise to me.

I believe that Opednews meets wikipedia's criteria. To put together a response to the deletion I worked with the team of four managing editors and five senior editors to assemble documentation about the site, including supporting links to websites that wikipedia accepts as supporting notability.

I also have audio recordings of members of congress talking positively about their respect for Opednews. They are published as parts of podcasts of interviews published on Opednews and elsewhere. Senator Sanders site mentions me and opednews, though they spell it wrong, op-ed news, here.

Here is a portion of the documentation we put together:

OEN was mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 26, 2008.

OEN was mentioned in the New York Times, May 26, 2009.

OEN was mentioned in the Washington Post Feb. 8, 2011.

OEN was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune (spelled Op-Ed News) Sept. 5, 2012.

OEN was mentioned in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct 7, 2011

There is much more information, but these are certainly mentions, by the publications' writers of the site.

Can you provide any guidance on how to proceed to appeal the deletion so the page can be re-instated?

thanks so much for your consideration and any advice you can offer rob kall
 * Hi Rob I'm certainly very willing to begin a further appeal on your behalf. I don't know whether it would succeed.  I used to understand Wikipedia's notability criteria, which used to be a simple and objective test.  The rules have changed in some way that I find mysterious and confusing, and things that would have been acceptable a few years ago are sometimes getting deleted now.  But, if you do want to go ahead with no guarantee of success, then I'll happily follow the process: just drop me another note to say so.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi S Marshall. Could you elaborate for me on how you perceive changes in the notability rules?  (I was active at the middle stages of writing of WP:N, and I haven't felt there's been a change in the rules so much as a tightening of interpretation, and a lack of tolerance for allowing for the possibility that good sources with coverage exist but just haven't been found.  I suspect that this lack of tolerance is due to Wikipedia no longer rapidly adding articles.  Looking at Rob's message, I spot the notability badword "mentioned".  A "mention" is not "significant coverage").   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point: the definition of "significant coverage" has moved. Notability used to be a simple case of counting the reliable sources: two sources or more = article, one source or fewer = no separate article.  Notability in the past used to be a way of detecting and removing marketing spam.  But now I find editors talking about notability as if it was a serious and important encyclopaedic concept rather than an artifact of Wikipedia's need to defend itself against marketers.  It's become an extremely big deal, with endless quibbling in smoke-filled rooms over what's a "passing mention" and what's "significant coverage" in a way that, in my view, completely misses the point. Basically, "notable" used to mean "not marketing spam", and now it means "a worthy subject about which we have decided to let you write an article".  It's become all self-important.— S Marshall  T/C 11:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I agree with your observation.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks S Marshall and SmokeyJoe. Like I said, I'm no expert at Wikipedia, so, perhaps "mentioned' is the wrong word. Is "cited" better? Also, some writers for the site, including me, have been on TV, introduced as writers or editors, as experts. Does that also count towards notability? And opednews is one of the sites google news has credentialed for indexing as a news site. Does that count towards notability? We've been indexed by them for over ten years. Also, would endorsements from notable people help in pursuing the deletion appeal-- like from members of congress or other wikipedia notables? Further, if you do a google search for LIBERAL NEWS or PROGRESSIVE OPINION opednews usually comes up as the first non-paid result. You can't buy that kind organic search engine position. Having over 5000 links in, as Alexa shows, makes it happen. Does that help? Robkall (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if it will. I've begun the appeal on this page for you, so let's move discussion to there.— S Marshall T/C 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am pleased to see this work out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Regular editing
In considering WP:USEBYOTHERS, WP:RSOPINION and WP:SOFIXIT, and even with one editor's thoughts that a political blog cannot possibly be notable because it is both political and liberal blog, something need not itself catch headlines if it as a political website is used by and quoted in multiple reliable sources. Impatience with slow improvement is no reason to ignore folks stating a topic is improvable (WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT), and specially as AFD is not a bludgeon to force cleanup, so I performed some.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Michael! All the best— S Marshall  T/C 15:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Najat Vallaud-Belkacem
Re your reverts, according to WP:BLPLEAD: "Generally the guidelines for lead sections specify what should be in the first section. For example, exact birth and death dates are certainly important to the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range can be sufficient to provide context in some cases. Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability; they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets" Her city and country of birth do not contribute towards her notability. Therefore, it does not belong in the lead. Thank you for your attention. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 14:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, another rule. Just what Wikipedia needed. Look, when I wrote that text more than five years ago, WP:BLPLEAD looked like this.  I didn't realise I needed to watchlist Manual of Style subpages to stop people dreaming up unilateral, one-size-fits-all, and completely unnecessary rules, and I don't have the time and patience to fight them all anyway.  But as far as my contributions are concerned, I wasn't consulted about this rule, I disagree with it and I resist it.— S Marshall  T/C 18:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I have not repeated the removal. Perhaps you should consult WP:CON, WP:LIKE, and WP:POINT whilst you are in a "resistive" mode. ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame! 02:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

your Brannigan AfD close
With all due respect, since when does two votes for redirect, one vote for redirect or delete, and one vote for keep constitute a consensus for AfD purposes? The nominator of that AfD massively misrepresented the sourcing in the article, and, contrary to your claim, none of the people who voted for delete or redirect mentioned the 7 sources in the article, which "Lady Lotus" misrepresented as only "1 reliable source." If people said, "I saw the sources and they're not enough," that would be one thing, but it appears at least a couple people voted based only on the nominator's bogus claim of "1 source." - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not the numbers of votes that matter. I've re-examined the debate and re-considered my close, and I do still think it was right  but if you would like someone independent to review what I said, then that can certainly happen.  :-)  The quickest and simplest way is to ask any uninvolved administrator to take a look at it.  If they disagree with me, they're welcome to overturn me and re-close.  Alternatively, if you'd like a more formal review you could take it to WP:DRV, which will give you a much fuller discussion but takes longer.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 21:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR on OpEdNews
Just so you're aware, you're at 3 reverts. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. I can't revert you again so the next time you try to take an axe to the article's content, we'll go directly to dispute resolution.— S Marshall  T/C 14:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on DRV
Your comment added [here], which you've put in a folded section. The heading you gave "...thinks the delete !votes don't carry much weight", doesn't seem to tie up with the comment itself. Unless I'm somehow misreading it. You might want to fix that. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much!— S Marshall T/C 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The deletion review discussion
I ask that you review the discussion at User_talk:Ricky81682 so you can further evaluate the situation. Please feel free to comment at Template_talk:Geographic_reference as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi!
Dear S Marshall, what do you think of Limiting case (philosophy of science) having three paragraphs now? Now other user is questioning the whole idea because he/she imagines that it is a "rare and strange" term. Thanks! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Incivility in closing AfDs
That was unnecessary. We had a list that didn't work for Wikipedia, we discussed alternatives, and we worked towards a conclusion that kept everyone happy and wasn't a straight "keep" or "delete". Rude comments from the closer because we actually worked at a consensus conclusion were completely unnecessary. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed my close and the only thing that I think might have been uncivil was my second edit summary? I should perhaps have been clearer... the reason I used that was because the first time I tried to close it, I'd used  S Marshall  T/C 08:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA
I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

William Tomicki
Are you suggesting that there is a means to re-create this article without it being subject to immediate attack and speedy deletion? I've never seen it. The history of deletion is an immediate prejudice. And as you said, its harsh. I've come on a little too strong in these arguments, so I piss people off. But I don't think an article that has merit, that has hope, should get the gallows. Trackinfo (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with any of that. I'd advise creating a draft in your userspace and then bringing the userspace draft to DRV.  DRV will consider it on its merits and (maybe, if DRV likes it) move it into mainspace.  The good thing about that is that if it happens, there will be a consensus supporting the article's re-creation which will make it immune to immediate speedy deletion.  Some genius will probably AfD it at that point though, and AfD's always been a crap shoot.— S Marshall  T/C 07:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Rotlink
Since it's tough to follow the RFC's mess: The most likely case is that someone wanted to do good, but got frustrated, Rotlink is clearly a long term Wikipedia user and their activity predates Archive.is - Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot is a good read as well. Oh, and Rotlink is still clearly present on Wikipedia, but you'd need an ArbCom case with a substantial amount of checkusering of now stale data to connect it all. Kww stopped the flow, but Rotlink was the source of a lot of hassle and Archive.is has been advocating for months for Wikipedia to use a paid service, a different service or make their own. Wikipedia costs them money, makes more hassle and does nothing to "promote them" - RFC can go either way, but Wikipedia always has had issues with archivers. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rotlink did a legal grey zone by using proxies to continue ban evading a site he was blocked from - but he did not operate a botnet. It was a single human with a single PC, that did block evasion like all of our other block evaders. Refresh IP or proxy through one to bypass block.
 * Rotlink's instant Archival and Wikipedia edits via a script (Momento) was public since 2011 prior to Archive.is's existence and not even built for Archive.is - its just another tool like AutoWikiBrowser in a sense.
 * Archive.is does not have ads, so they have no advertising revenue. So no value in that sense.
 * Rotlink was not operated by Archive.is, but I am not sure of SEO consultants doing something on their own. Lexein's email was quiet on it. Your guess is as good as mine here.
 * Hmmmmmm. Thank you.  I wonder why  has so consistently alleged that Rotlink used compromised computers.  Up until now I've been taking his assertions at face value.  I feel that whether or not any given web company hosts ads now, if they're a commercial outfit they'll probably start to do so next week, next month or next year depending on when the site owner sells their business or wants to make more money from it, so I do think advertising revenue is relevant here.— S Marshall  T/C 16:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the pattern of IPs leads to no other conclusion. Proxies found on home PCs are generally the result of malware, not some generous home user that has opened up his machine for use by random strangers. The question of whether Rotlink specifically compromised the machines himself or simply used a list of anonymous proxies that included compromised machines isn't of great importance.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps to you, but Rotlink's actions were wrong. Regardless of whether or not it was personally authorized or compromised computers - he was still block evading. I'm not supporting Rotlink or saying Rotlink is innocent. Just that Archive.is was not operating Rotlink. Rotlink was an experienced Wikipedian already by Archive.is's founding - consultant, friend, whatever. The advocacy for specific pages for Google rankings (mixed in with junk) is concerning me. Archive.is has not run ads for 2 years already - but that's a community issue and one that is very valid. By itself, independent of the Rotlink issue, I think its maybe a 50/50 chance Archive.is is fine. Certainly not my ideal choice, but that's why the grok archiver was provided - so we don't NEED archive.is anymore and won't be helpless against 404s and failures of Archive.org and Webcite. Separating the Rotlink and Archive.is questions would result in a fair RFC, but I'm not certain its necessary to change the end result. Though I'd like it to be... since I believe in fairness. Rotlink's act was universally bad, and its worst than what I thought it was, you probably wouldn't even need an RFC to kill those additions with the evidence and circumstances behind it. But Rotlink is still here on Wikipedia - and was long prior to that account's creation. CU's won't go fishing, but I suspect as much. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I struggle to believe that Rotlink and archive.is are totally independent of each other. I don't have that much AGF in me.— S Marshall  T/C 20:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ... even if we discount User:Rotlink's September 2012 claim to be the owner of archive.is.— S Marshall T/C 22:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The great Zoransky hoax
I suspect the books were the work of someone who (like me) speaks German as a second language: "Die Familie hat eine lange und bemerkenswerte Geschichte in den Bereichen Bildung, Technik, Mathematik, Medizin, Physik, Wissenschaft und Retail Management..." (Lord only knows how one translates "retail management", but I'm sure the correct word both looks and sounds like a freight train taking up slack.) Choess (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Retail-Management is good German, actually.— S Marshall T/C 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh. I would have held out for "Einzelhandelsleitung", but the introgression of English into German proceeds apace, I suppose. Choess (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be "Einzelhandelskaufmann" or if its a leading position "Leitender Angestellter im Einzelhandel". However, I fairly enjoyed the detective work around proofing the Zoransky articles a hoax. This one was truly big! I mean: so many sockpuppets, so many articles, in different languages on Wikipedia, with hoax back-up literature to be found on Google-Books and Amazon ... someone really made an efford to create that one. It might be worth to save all them articles and the discussions for later. As for the German in those books: it was terrible to look at! As for the discussion: I'd rather have it open for a bit longer. I'd like more people to get involved in this and share the fun! Its also proof how the community cross-checks the articles and of their thorough work. LagondaDK (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

voice actors

 * You stated: I would have voted in favour of removing the words "voice actors" on the basis that they're already included within "actors".
 * Many people refuse to accept voice actors as being the same as actors, that what started this whole mess, and there many previous arguments which caused it to be added to begin with.  D r e a m Focus  16:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
for support, - you mentioned forgiving, nothing Wikipedia does often, that's my experience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC and Talk:Jacob Barnett
Hi S Marshall. Thank you for your detailed, excellently explained closes at WP:ANRFC! You participated in the DRV at Deletion review/Log/2014 July 4. As an experienced editor, would you take a look at Jacob Barnett and Talk:Jacob Barnett to see if the article complies with BLP and NPOV? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

's behaviour
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

RFA
Hello S Marshall, I hope you don't mind but I've partially struck your comment on the RFA as now I support the editor I assumed it would simply be confusing to leave it as it was,

Just thought I should tell you, If you would prefer to unstrike I don't mind,

Thanks, Regards, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)