User talk:S Marshall/Archive30

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia
You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Campus rape
The arguments made against had nothing really to do with BLP or the scope of the article (both arguments were made). The editors wanted to limit examples of where men are harmed by activism or policy. I was not "skittishness" in the typical sense of the word. It was POV.Mattnad (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Kargil war
Request for comment on an RFC going at the talk page of Kargil war here, would be right to have neutral third party view as you have already done for Battle of Chawinda Shrikanthv (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but there's more trouble on the horizon
Hi, I just wanted to thank you for the conclusion you came to at Talk:Poland. This was something that I have been trying to change for a very long time and my efforts were repeatedly thwarted by all sorts of rule-breakers who kept getting away with edit warring and POV-pushing. The sad thing is that the Poland article has already been changed to say that the country is in Central Europe. In fact, it was done by one of the aforementioned rule-breakers; he is actually one of the worst vandals and is extremely determined to revert any such changes (you'll see if you check out his contributions, which most recently are related almost exclusively to this problem).

I reported him once to see if I could finally get him banned, but after waiting for weeks they rejected it because the report was placed in the wrong category or something like that. To me that is kinda ridiculous and it's sweeping issues under the carpet. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia bureaucracy and I already got myself suspended once when I lost patience with these people, but you seem like a reasonable guy and on top of that you are clearly a veteran of Wikipedia and quite influential. I would really appreciate it if you could do something about Powertranz (or at least report him to the right people as I have no idea anymore). Regardless, I would like to once again thank you for settling the dispute at the talk page with a rational conclusion. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Samotny Wędrowiec, and thanks for coming to my talk page. I appreciate your telling me about the edit as well.  I'll give the editor concerned a few more minutes in case he wants to explain himself (either on my talk page or on the article one).  If he doesn't, then I will treat that as a challenge to the legitimacy of my close and I'll begin an RfC closure review on myself.  Please don't revert him for the time being.— S Marshall  T/C 18:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (later) Well, no explanation has appeared, so I have begun an RfC close review here. Please feel free to participate if you wish.— S Marshall  T/C 18:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Ahh, sorry, I edited it back to say Eastern Europe before reading your reply. I will check the link you posted here and join in. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I do appreciate your asking for other opinions. Even if the end result is mostly a rehashing out of the initial arguments. Ability to accept, and even ask for, criticism, is invaluable in an admin. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Opinion requested
Hi, it's been a few years. I hope you are well. Can you assist please? I have someone edit warring me on:Mobile payment I posted on the talk page back in 2013 - but took a wiki-break. I am currently looking at improving this article. The leading companies in the space of QR payments and their associated IP would seem to me to be a very relevant addition to the article. Would you be willing to look at the talk page and help find a constructive way forward? Thanks & Regards, Amicaveritas (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Amicaveritas, and thanks for your message. I do recall our previous conversations and it's nice to hear from you again.  At first glance, what occurs to me is that the content you're trying to add may belong better in our article on QR code rather than mobile payment?— S Marshall  T/C 17:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

AFD
Hello. I am sorry to bother you, but I would be grateful for your opinion and advice on a number of matters, and I am not sure who else to ask. IIRC, some time ago we had a discussion on the talk page of WP:V where you told me that WP:BEFORE is not a policy or guideline because an RfC proposing that it be upgraded to a guideline failed (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 55, last item). Would I be correct in thinking that the other contents of Articles for deletion, including particularly WP:AFDFORMAT are also neither policy nor guideline, having not gone through or failed the proposal process? If I am correct in thinking that AFDFORMAT is not a policy or guideline, what should I do about a user who continues to baldly assert that it is a guideline, after I explained why, as far as I can see, it isn't one, requests that I refrain from editing his user talk page (meaning that there is no point in me trying to reason with him), and continues to express an intention to use ANI to enforce compliance with his own interpretation of AFDFORMAT on grounds that it is (so he alleges) a guideline? James500 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi James500 You do not need to put any bold text in your !votes at AfD. Personally, I would say about half of my AfD !votes don't contain any bold text.  If an editor threatens to take you to AN/I on this point, I would suggest that you politely tell them to go right ahead.  You have nothing to fear. I hope this helps and all the best— S Marshall  T/C 17:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i also frequently don't bold my comments as NOTAVOTE applies and closers should read my comment not count up the bolting. I'm happy to offer some advice to your misinformed editor if you think it would help Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers Spartaz. Do accept that offer, James500, because Spartaz will be better placed to help you than I am.  I've just opened up an Arbcom case, God help me.— S Marshall  T/C 19:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette
Leaving an edit summary as you did here and here... May I suggest you reread WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? Ping me with &#123;&#123;u&#124;Jim1138&#125;&#125; and sign "&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;" or message me on my talk page. 23:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would it be a personal attack to wonder whether English is someone's native language?— S Marshall T/C 17:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom Case
Do you know where I can go to get advice on the stages of an arbcom thing, I've not actually been through a full one before. I was extremely tempted to fill my 500 words at this stage with a diatribe but I don't think anything else truly needs saying so I don't know if I should acknowledge there or whatever.

I understand as the proposer of the Arbitration it may be inappropriate for you to give me advice but if you could point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.

SPACKlick (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At this stage, just say to Arbcom that you're aware of the request and say whether you think they should take the case or not. I would advise against writing lots of words unless and until there's an open case.— S Marshall  T/C 11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom case "Editor conduct in e-cigs articles" has now been opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 18, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles/Evidence
Hi, S Marshall. It's not usual to use the evidence talkpage as a draft space. If I were you, I'd move it to a sandbox of your own. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Hmm. Thanks for your advice.  The reason I'm using the talk page is to offer others the chance to discuss what I'm saying.— S Marshall  T/C 22:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you use the workshop for that. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC).
 * I thought that was for remedies, sigh. Okay.  The workshop talk page?— S Marshall  T/C 22:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the workshop. It's for making proposals (findings of fact, remedies, enforcement, you name it) — if you're ready to. You may want to check out an existing workshop page or two to see how that usually works. Well.. having said that, I realise that how it usually works is the workshops become full of crap and tendentious proposals, which overwhelm the useful input, if any. Take a look at this one, perhaps, it should be easier to get your head round than the "mature" (=bloated) workshops. Welcome to Byzantium. I still believe more in working on your evidence in your own space. You could always ping the people you'd like comments from. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC).
 * Well, what I'm really doing is telling my story. Are you familiar with real world mediation (the alternative to litigation, I mean)?  I think it's a good system.  Each person begins by telling their story, and what we all find from that exercise is the places where we disagree and the reasons why.  What I'm trying to do doesn't seem to fit the templates in the workshop page, to me.  Maybe I should be in my userspace.  But I've now attracted a reply/rebuttal in the first place I posted... seems rude now to suddenly move what I'm doing.— S Marshall  T/C 22:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments - I've trimmed my evidence to 498 without significant cuts. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

GTAV closure review
(here) Wanted to make sure I was interpreting your stance correctly—you endorse the overturn but think it should be "overturn to no consensus" and not "overturn to merge"? Because I think it was interpreted as the latter – czar   09:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My position is that the best close would have been "no consensus" but there's no point overturning a "keep" to a "no consensus" it makes very little difference in practice.  I can't see a consensus to merge in that discussion.— S Marshall  T/C 11:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

DRV comment
Hi, I think you made a small mistake in this comment: DGG has not commented on this DRV :-) Perhaps you meant somebody else? --Randykitty (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant WilyD, apologies.— S Marshall T/C 19:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Will weigh in on policy debate
Thanks for taking up the issue regarding the interpretation of calculations in the "no original research" policy. Your examples are right along the lines of how I circumscribe the problem. I am just letting you know that I will be weighing in again eventually, I just have been swamped.

I am actually feeling good that it has struck a chord, because I do think there is something important to clarify here and the fact that there is so much discussion validates that, anyway.

LaurentianShield (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 4, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 18:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision posted
A proposed decision has been posted in the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 12:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see the retirement end
I have read the pages of the arbcom case and a lot of the talk page sections of the articles. What I see is an objective editor that sees both sides of issues. Something we need more of, not less. AlbinoFerret 14:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)