User talk:S Marshall/Archive35

Alert - Mention
Seems you mentioned me, according to my alert notifications, here. May I be of assistance? Darknipples (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I'm sorry -- I don't think I did, and if I did that then it was a mistake and I didn't mean to. I was trying to ping DESiegel.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 21:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Impressive close
You put a lot of effort into this. Thank you. Casprings (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC on including Russian influence into the election
This whole paragraph in the lead of the Election 2016 article is asinine, IMO. The government provided zero evidence that Russia influenced anything in this election. The report even had a disclaimer on it that they could not guarantee anything at all within the report. They have ZERO evidence to back up their claims. All the sources in the paragraph (shown below) are from biased newspapers (like the NYT and WP) that are anti-trump. How is this Wikipedia quality content? There should be sources from all political sides to make it fair. 2602:306:396F:22D0:E196:CF88:7F5:5260 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.[4] A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."[5] Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."[6]


 * Our article doesn't say that Putin helped Trump win, and I've gone to quite a bit of trouble to make sure nothing I've said or done gives any excuses for any of your American liberals to say or hint that. But I think the idea that "there should be sources from all political sides to make it fair" is way, way wrong.  If the evidence says 2+2=4 and Breitbart.com say 2+2=6, would you expect us to compromise on 2+2=5? Wikipedia doesn't take the average of the news sources.  It takes the news sources that are based on evidence and have a reputation for telling the truth.  US right wing news has a richly-deserved reputation for peddling alternative facts and Wikipedia will never take them seriously until we can trust them to tell the truth.  And the truth is that the US intelligence community does believe that Putin tried to fiddle the election.— S Marshall  T/C 17:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Your claim that "US right wing news has a richly-deserved reputation for peddling alternative facts" is not a fact; that is just your opinion. In just as many cases the left wing news peddles 'alternative facts', but you seem to be too political to see that your own political bias is showing here. Have you really taken the time to read all opinions from all political sides to gain an accurate understanding of the situation? It doesn't seem like you have to me from the way you are talking.

The house intelligence community has stated there is no evidence for Russia hacking the DNC; they even asked the Department of justice for evidence and they refused to present it. The intelligence community report that you refer to had a disclaimer that their report could not back up their own claims and I quote: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."

So why aren't these included in the article? I guess this isn't included because the left wing news that you say is so credible hasn't mentioned this. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity Report

The following report provided this disclaimer: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."


 * Well, I'm not infallible. Quite possible that I was wrong. I'll arrange for my close to be reviewed by other editors.— S Marshall T/C 21:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thankyou. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I've started a review here. All the best— S Marshall  T/C 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC closure at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest
Could you send me an email through Special:EmailUser so I can get a discussion thread set up for this closure? Thanks, Tazerdadog (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Me and Catflap
Hey! Thank you for closing that. Would you mind removing the interaction ban from WP:RESTRICT?

It is paradoxical, as you said, but the more times my name appears on that thread page, the easier it is for trolls and others to drag it through the mud. Now being able to respond that the ban was repealed is certainly helpful, but no longer having it logged on the "Placed by the Wikipedia community" section of RESTRICT would be even better.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Edited 02:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. All sorted.— S Marshall  T/C 01:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I'm missing something but looks like the AN consensus was to remove the IBAN, but the restriction you took out of the log is for the topic ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sincerely sorry for my idiocy on that point.— S Marshall T/C 02:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed it myself before noticing this. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. I'll be over here in the corner facing the wall with this dunce cap on my head.— S Marshall  T/C 02:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh, minor issue only. Thanks for resolving the AN thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The close at WT:COI
Pinging User:Primefac so I only write this once: Thanks for your consideration. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First, there are two typos. "COIN" is the COI Noticeboard.  You refer to "COIN editors" and a "COIN task force" and I believe you meant "COI" in both places.
 * Second, the focus of the discussions was paid editors (paid advocates, to be more precise - people who are paid to edit WP for somebody or some entity); paid editing is a subset of COI. I think your close referring to "COI" is too broad on that point.
 * Third I don't think that an RfC in which only 34 people !voted, and which took place on a talk page separate from the policy, is a valid justification for amending a policy as important as WP:HA. This was discussed in the comments to that concrete propsoal and elsewhere in the broad RfC.  A good recommendation would be to repeat that RfC at WT:HA and publicize it widely. (I am happy to see the result, of course.  But things we do here need to be strongly supported)  Please consider changing that part of the close.
 * Fixed issues 1 and 2 (changed COIN → paid-COI). As for point three - a 5:1 support may change slightly if more widely shared, but I doubt it would shift enough to make it a not-consensus issue. The RFC was widely shared, and I think the sheer scale of the proposal turned a few people off from !voting. I'm not convinced (at this point in time) that we need to unmake that outcome. Primefac (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with Primefac on all points.— S Marshall T/C 18:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Have a look in
…at the Cristina Vee article, where I have pretty much tried to toe the line you describe, for avoiding twitter.com as a source—and when using it, only doing so as a personal corroboration of a third-party published source, and failing that, marking its use with tags. See what you think; in general, the entertainment articles are very poor vis-a-vis sourcing, and the main fellow editing there does a pretty good job, even though slipping in tweets more often than I would like (See for instance, the Edit history there, for my edits and reversions, to send messages he would actually see, while he was working.) Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

"Sufficient" in wp:ver
Having worked with you in the past, I know that you are one of the most brilliant policy people in Wikipedia. If you look at the various logical "layers" involved (some of which I just detailed at wp:ver) IMHO you might not agree with your reversion. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's very kind of you. :)  I'll reply there.— S Marshall  T/C 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes agree, sometimes not
In case you have not noticed, I am currently at AN agreeing with your points, even though I am currently at V Talk disagreeing. It really has nothing to do with it being you making the points. As for the disagreement at V, I don't rule out that we are just are mistaken about each others points but given the vast (and I mean like I wish I had a bigger word than vast) amount of things in the world that are verifiable, I just can't buy into your arguments. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All right; what is there that's verifiable, and should be removed if added to an article, but can't be removed under another policy such as WP:NOT, WP:COPYVIO or WP:BLP?— S Marshall T/C 20:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

CXT nuke next steps
Hey, progress on CXT nuke, pretty cool. Please see new sections WP:AN#X2-nuke countdown period and WP:AN/CXT/Pages to review#Countdown period: April 22 – May 6 and change as appropriate. Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good Lord. And I'm busy today. OK will review later. :)— S Marshall T/C 09:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Who to close the RFC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
Seems that the discussion is getting lengthier: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. I thought about requesting closure at WP:AN instead of WP:ANRFC if you think more than one closer is needed. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for visiting my talk page. I do think several closers would be a good idea. All the best — S Marshall T/C 11:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It's nice to work with you again, even if we are on opposite sides of this particular issue
It's nice to work with you again, even if we are on opposite sides of this particular issue. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm sure we'll return to agreeing with one another shortly.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 19:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ta, re g11 user notif
Hey, Thanks for placing the db-spam-notice regarding Eva Kiedroňová at the creator user's TP; it was on my agenda but I had to go out for a bit, and you beat me to it. Thanks again. And hang in there, we'll get there! Mathglot (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability
Stuart, I'm not quite sure I understand your objection in this edit and I'm trying to understand it. Let me tell you how I see V. It's a eligibility qualification, much like having to be 35 years of age to be a member of a particular private club. If you're not 35 yet, you can't be a member; if you're 35 or older then you can be, though being 35 doesn't guarantee that you will be accepted into membership. Now, if someone were to say "being 35 is not a reason for membership" would that be wrong merely because 35 year olds are more includable than those who are not 35 years old? And even if being 35 is not otherwise relevant to becoming a member? (And please don't think that I'm trying to mock or make fun of you by using your words, I am genuinely trying to figure out what you mean.) Are you suggesting that being verifiable gives information more includability than mere qualification for inclusion? If so, then your objection to the assertion that some editors are claiming that some people are taking the position that verifiability should guarantee inclusion confuses me. I can see how one might argue that being verifiable might give a step up over mere qualification, but less than a guarantee, but I'm not sure that's what your're saying. I'm confused and would like to understand. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, and thanks for visiting my talk page. Your club analogy is a useful one.  If the purpose of the club is merely to include a few like-minded people who're over the age of 35 (such young whippersnappers that they are), then being 35 is merely a precondition.  Nothing more.  But if the purpose of the club is to include all the people over 35 who meet certain other criteria -- say, all the men over the age of 35 worth more than £250,000 -- then being 35 is more than a precondition, isn't it?  At that point, being over 35 is a positive argument in favour of trying to find a way to get them to join.  It's not a guarantee that they can join, because they might be female, or financially disadvantaged by low pay or debt or child support payments, but it's a persuasive factor. In my view the purpose of Wikipedia is to educate and inform the public, which means that in my view we need to be a repository of verifiable, reliably-sourced information on every given encyclopaedic topic (provided that meets all the other preconditions such as being presented from a neutral point of view, giving each view its due weight, in original prose, yadda yadda yadda).  So in my view the mere fact that something is attributed to a reliable source is a positive argument for including it.  Not a decisive argument, of course, but a positive one.— S Marshall  T/C 22:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that a good tweak of the analogy is if it's a "good people over 35" club ("good people" analogous to "good for the article"). When the "good person?" debate occurs about someone who is already confirmed as over 35, should "over 35" carry weight in the "good person?" discussion?  North8000  (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an interesting and, likely, productive path to explore. "Good" is a value judgment.  Two people could be "good" but one could be better than the other.  Would we also agree that some information is more verifiable than other information?— S Marshall  T/C 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Before I toss it out to the whole group at V-talk, I'd like y'alls opinion about this possible replacement for the entire section:


 * ==Verifiability is elegibility==


 * Information which is verifiable is elegible to be included in Wikipedia; information which is not verifiable is not eligible to be included or retained in Wikipedia. Whether information which is verifiable, and thus elegible to be included, can be or should be actually included in Wikipedia is not determined by this policy, but is instead determined by other policies, guidelines, and practices, most notably NPOV, NOR, BLP, CONS, and COPYRIGHT. Whose responsibility it is to prove verifiability and when and how verifiable material must actually be verified through citations are controlled by other sections of this policy, most notably BURDEN. [Shortcuts to be expanded and linked, of course]

Does this balance everyone's interests? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work, I'd support it as a compromise to settle it. In the undisputed area, I really like including "article development practices" under "determined by...", thus giving that aspect additional prominence. If you want to create something that brings it to the finish line, you should deal with the sentence in the lead.  North8000  (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hope this helps— S Marshall T/C 16:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Simplified:-


 * How about these modifications to the simplified version: "Only verifiable information may be kept in Wikipedia. Even if information is verifiable, this does not mean it must be included or kept. Information that is verifiable may still be excluded or removed because of other policies and guidelines, or excluded by consensus."? I don't like "kept" alone because it suggests that it only applies to information which has already been introduced. Stuart, might I suggest that the simplified version doesn't support your position as well as the verbose version due to the positive statement that verifiable material is eligible for inclusion in the longer version? North, what do you think (and I'm not sure what you mean about article development practices)? Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm content with your amendments. I feel that anyone who can read the proposed text and not get that verifiable information is eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia is probably not competent to edit.  Like you, I wonder what "article development practices" are.— S Marshall  T/C 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not married to the term "article development practices" but what I meant was normal editorial practices and editorial decision making, including inclusion / exclusion discussions that are not just about exclusions based on policy. I hate to list just a few items out of hundreds, but factors in such discussions could include relevance, degree of relevance, the principles of policies and guidelines even where they do not clearly exclude material, or even to leave out verifiable material that is clearly in error.


 * Doesn't "excluded by consensus" cover such discussions adequately?— S Marshall T/C 21:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be close enough, albeit not ideal. "Consensus for exclusion" sets a higher bar (sort of a super-majority) for exclusion but I don't want to mire this down.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While waiting for North's response to that question, I'd just like to comment that I simply cannot describe how much I enjoy working with editors who, even if I don't entirely (or at all) agree with them, are open to ideas and suggestions, avoid all personal attacks, and simply want to make things better. Humility, often in damned short supply here, goes a long way to making this a better place. I often wish, and now is one of those times, that we had the chance to sit around a table with a pint and/or a cuppa (I have gout so I can no longer drink beer, damn it, damn it to Hell) and work these things out. It would probably only take minutes, not hours and days, and we'd have a great time in the process. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do I have y'alls consent to take the simplified version, with my changes, to the V talk page and represent it as our mutual draft? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, sorry to but in here, but I can't think I would ever support losing ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But ONUS is already part of the policy. Are you saying that you cannot support any changes to the policy which don't repeal ONUS? Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Alan's worried that we might be trying to repeal ONUS by the back door. That's not what we're doing here, although you will, at a later stage, see me trying to look for ways to make it less of a free gift for POV warriors who want to remove truths they don't like from articles about their favourite product, nation, religion or therapeutic method.— S Marshall T/C 22:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were proposing to replace the WP:ONUS paragaph, which is the subject of the current discussion at V. This is a new section entirely? Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We were proposing that, but we were closely focused on "verifiability is not a reason for inclusion" so we had a bit of tunnel vision on the first part of the paragraph. I don't think anyone ever intended to repeal ONUS with this edit, although I can see now I look why that's a concern.  Imagine TM's draft finishes with "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."— S Marshall  T/C 22:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If The ONUS sentence is retained then that kind of obviates my reason for "rushing" in here. I have not really spent the time you all have on this, but the ONUS sentence seems to conflict, with the other consensus clause in your proposal. (And SMarhall think of subjects that have 700 page books written on them, not to mention all the ancillary literature. You do have to cut drastically to make an article, it's one of the hardest editing tasks there is). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree on the difficulty, and importance, of making cuts. For years, I've been trying to reduce the number of statistics in Electronic cigarette, against a revolving tag-team of editors from the medcabal who think I'm doing it to promote the bloody things.  ("But it's verifiable!")  At some point you do have to remove some text or else what you're producing isn't a precis.   But.  There are other situations this applies to.  What's shaped my thinking on this is having tried to deal with editors who want to sanitise articles about their favourite product, political stance, nation, religion or alternative therapy, such as the Indians who want to remove "Pakistani victory" from Battle of Chawinda, or the conservatives who want to remove well-sourced descriptors like "Islamophobe" or "Anti-semite" from articles about certain weird bigots, or the lunatics who want to remove "pseudoscientific" from articles about Intelligent Design.  WP:ONUS is very far from ideal for dealing with these people and we need to be smarter about how we write policy.— S Marshall  T/C 23:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

TransporterMan. cool with me, but let's state very clearly what it / the change is, and support it as is.  North8000  (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted a proposal to be posted to V-talk here a couple of minutes ago and then self-reverted it after reading the proposed text again. Two things:
 * I'm concerned that the third sentence, "Information that is verifiable may still be excluded or removed because of other policies and guidelines, or by consensus" suggests that verifiable information can be excluded or removed only if other policies require it. My original longer version dealt with this by using the phrase "can be or should be". Could that sentence read, "Whether information that is verifiable will be included, excluded, or removed is determined by other policies and guidelines and consensus."
 * Since no one has commented on the title I proposed "Verifiability as eligibility" I presume everyone is okay with it.
 * I'd like to remove "kept" from the first sentence. I just missed it when I first modified Stuart's short version.

With those changes, the posting to V-talk would be as follows (without the box):

Is that okay? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. IMO it would be good to describe it as a compromise to resolve this. That is how I support it.  So all have to live with something that is not exactly what they individually want, or not the exact way that they would say it. Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that "compromise" can be a dangerous word. We're supposed to work by consensus to come up with the best possible version — which is, in fact, what I think that we've done here — not by compromise to come up with the lowest mutually acceptable common denominator. In most situations here I'm not sure there's a practical difference, but some folks are hung up on semantics and unless you feel strongly about it, I think that it best not to trigger that concern. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I somehow be neutral? I have not really lived with it and mulled it yet (sometimes I'm slow-working) but please feel free to propose it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep. I'll add a neutral section and move your name there. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree to this.— S Marshall T/C 17:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Not hurrying you, but can we get your final approval or modifications so we can get this posted to V-talk before the closing discussion goes too far? Your note about "compromise", above, causes me to not want to go forward until I get your okay. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support it. Sorry I wasn't clear on that in my  16:59 post.  Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Posted at V-talk. Here we go... Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Question
. After reading our proposal for the n-hundredth time I suddenly became concerned about the sentence which reads, "Whether information that is verifiable will be included, excluded, or removed is determined by other policies and guidelines and consensus." Does "determined by other policies" contradict BURDEN on removal of uncited information, or open a gap for someone to argue that? Right now people can challenge and eventually remove or simply remove uncited information so long as they (perhaps, it's not clear that it's mandatory) state a mere concern that it may not be verifiable. Once uncited information is removed then it cannot be restored without a citation. Discussion at V has made it very clear that it is not the obligation of the removing party to seek a reliable source before removing the uncited information, though that is a better practice. Here's the argument that I'm concerned about:
 * Presume for purposes of this discussion that information XYZ is, in fact, verifiable, but just for purposes of this discussion, that the reliable source which supports it isn't easily found.
 * Editor A: I challenge information XYZ because I have a concern that it is not verifiable.
 * Editor B: It is verifiable.
 * Editor A: What's the citation?
 * Crickets for several days.
 * Editor A removes XYZ.
 * Editor B reverts with the edit summary, "Improper removal of verifiable information."
 * Editor A replies, BURDEN says that uncited information which has been challenged cannot be restored without a citation.
 * Editor B replies, but BURDEN is in V and V also says, "Whether information that is verifiable will be ... removed is determined by other policies and guidelines and consensus." That means that BURDEN doesn't apply to the removal of this information because this information was verifiable, so you didn't have the right to remove it in the first place. You had the right to challenge it, but not remove it.
 * Editor A replies, I looked for a RS but couldn't find one.
 * Editor B replies, That doesn't make any difference, it's verifiable. I added XYZ and had a RS for it, but didn't include it because I didn't think that it would be challenged. I can't remember now what that source was or where I found it, but I know it exists. Therefore it's verifiable and cannot be removed

What do you think? Is that a legitimate concern? I'm sorry, but I think I may need to pull my support for the third sentence. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that it is safe several times over: Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) "Verifiable" means "in compliance with this policy", including it's execution procedures such as Burden
 * 2) Even if #1 wasn't true, I think that it would be an incredibly weak position to assert that something is verifiable without providing a source, even when challenged.
 * 3) Even if #1 and #2 didn't exist, the sentence in question does not define or affect the definition of verifiable, it is just discussing the case where it HAS been met, and says that even in that case inclusion is still subject to other constraints.


 * Wouldn't hurt to think about ways to clarify the point, though. No good faith editor who's read it attentively could possibly misunderstand -- but I think we need to write with an eye on the possibility that the wording will be quoted out of context by bad faith editors looking to advance a position.— S Marshall  T/C 20:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One idea would be "inclusion is still subject to....."  North8000  (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. What do you think, Stuart? Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, me too.— S Marshall T/C 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
I am not sure what is going on here, but an editor RexxS has been attacking me and is now attempting a topic ban, I have not violated any 3RR, I've also showed his personal attacks on me which he initiated, what should I do here? Valoem  talk   contrib  18:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to do anything further. Allow DGG to handle it.— S Marshall  T/C 18:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations in German?
Haven't seen you on the project much, you must be burnt out. Anyway, this is part of my recent activities at WP:CXT/PTR/BL, and guess what, your name turned up on the list of proofreaders from German, so you get an invitation just like everybody else. So, here's your two articles, if you want to verify them:


 * Tibet Center Institute (#179)
 * Tolino (#2285)

There are some instructions that go with this normally, but you didn't want templates on the page, so if you want to read them, please look at Template:x2 review help. But then, I guess you know better than anybody what to do.

This language-recruitment side issue thing has been fun, it's too bad I didn't come up with this ages ago, but unfortunately I learned late about the CXT/PTR project quite late in its trajectory. We should maybe do a post-mortem after it's all over, as this is one of those, "if I knew then what I know now" cases; would be much more efficient and easy. But, I feel like now we have this language-assessment infrastructure thing, at least a first cut at it, we could harness it for other language-related projects. It's getting way more efficient as I gain experience with it, and refine the procedures. For example, this evening I'm sending out 48 invitations to German speakers with two articles each (you're the only one not getting a templated invitation).

Anyway, it's been a fun project, wish I'd heard about it earlier, and hope we collaborate on other projects, language-related or otherwise, in the future. Mathglot (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey
S Marshall, please do me a favor and file the paperwork for the Light2021 thread I just closed--I hear the kids screaming downstairs, and they matter a bit more. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All sorted, I think. Cheers for stepping up! All the best— S Marshall  T/C 20:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All that effort and hand-wringing about whether a block was appropriate, and then kaboom: suddenly it's obviously and totally appropriate. Thank you to Fram, and  I hope Cunard can enjoy a long respite from hostile behaviour.— S Marshall  T/C 16:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, S Marshall, for starting Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive961;, for closing the thread with a nuanced outcome that gave Light2021 a last chance; and , for ending the disruption after the disruption continued following that last chance. I will certainly enjoy the respite from the hostility. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cunard, I hope you were satisfied with that close; I would have blocked for any further incivility at you--but they preempted that themselves in what may be record time... Drmies (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , I was satisfied with your difficult but excellent close. Thank you for spending your valuable, limited time reading and assessing that contentious discussion. Your conclusion that "they are on notice for their AfD participation, which is frequently deemed incompetent or otherwise disruptive, and may be blocked for that by any uninvolved administrator" accurately summarized the community consensus, warning Light2021 that this was Light2021's last chance to stop behaving disruptively at AfD. I am also grateful for the one-way interaction ban to stop Light2021's repeated hostility against me. I found Light2021 to be even more hostile toward like this comment here where he falsely accused Tim of being a paid editor. Had those attacks continued, a block or a second one-way interaction ban would have been needed. But now that he's continued his AfD disruption and been blocked, that is no longer be necessary. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

What is "Vacate close"? Is it a real motion, or one we use when we love the closer but disagree with him/her? Atsme 📞📧 03:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an, err, innovative word choice designed to express a non-standard thought. :)  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 16:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it - maybe it should be made an option when requesting a review. I surely would have opted for it instead. Atsme 📞📧 17:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Clinton-Lynch meeting
Would you mind looking at your iVote again because that article has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton emails. It usually helps when you read the article before you vote. The article is about Bill Clinton meeting AG Lynch on the tarmac, and the email exchanges that provide evidence of collusion between the Dept. of Justice and MSM - WaPo and NYTimes - and FBI Director Comey's testimony after that meeting when he changed the terminology from investigation to a matter. Of course, some in MSM are not reporting it the way they should be because, oh well...they're parties to the collusion. Atsme 📞📧 02:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Atsme, and thanks for visiting my talk page. I'm deeply confused.  I read an article that was, with all due respect, very plainly indeed all about the ongoing smear campaign relating to Hillary Clinton's emails.  Is there some other article of which I'm unaware?
 * I find all this quite similar to the ongoing smear campaign relating to Donald Trump's connections with Russia, and neither of those subjects deserves more than one article.— S Marshall T/C 16:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, my direction isn't about the politics rather it's about the DOJ's collusion with MSM - I guess there is some political undertow - but not my focus for this article. I think it's of concern to everyone because if MSM is allowing the DOJ to write their articles via Talking Points instead of investigative reporting, we're all in a world of hurt. A couple of editors are trying to make it about that which may be why they deleted large chunks of text from the article. The only political association is what led to the meeting and the political parties involved, but the emails are between the DOJ and MSM. I haven't gotten far enough with the article to gather implications per "uninvolved MSM" - it appears my detractors from the Taylor article (to say that guy is not liked is a serious understatement) went over to the newly created article in retaliation for my calling an RfC at Taylor. Atsme 📞📧 16:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Atsme, I'm still really confused. What's a MSM, please?  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 17:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem - Main Stream Media. Of course they're allegations at this stage of the game but unless somebody has reverted my edit yet again at the article, read the sample emails and if you have time, go to the source which lists most of them. ABC News, The Washington Post, and NYTimes are a few names that come to mind. Some in the media were looking/waiting/wanting the DOJ to approve their story before they published. Wow. We have our own version of state-owned media in the US, and we bitch about Russia? 🤣 Atsme 📞📧 18:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So, forgive me --- are you saying the problem is that the mainstream sources aren't willing to publish the truth?— S Marshall T/C 18:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe in this case, it was about burying it and not publishing anything but the DOJ talking points. The sources explain it quite well, Marshall. I don't want to inject any OR here...I'm going strictly on what Judicial Watch and the American Center for Law and Justice have stated along with other sources. More information is being uncovered, but as long as there are editors edit warring with me over what is and isn't included, I can't do anything. I've just been threatened with a TB by an admin who has demonstrated bias toward me more than once. It's censorship by intimidation, I guess. Atsme 📞📧 20:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll say to anyone who asks that your behaviour is invariably civil and collegial to a fault, and I can see no grounds to topic ban you from anything. I disagree with you on the substance of much of what you've said.  I live in a country where we do have state-owned media, which is the BBC, and I see it as among the most neutral and reliable sources in the world  while in my country, the corporately-owned media are much less reliable and we have politically POV press owned by Rupert Murdoch that if they do ever tell the truth, it was an accident.  I think Fox News and Breitbart.com are no more reliable than Pravda.  I don't think Hillary Clinton is fit to manage an ice cream parlour and she belongs behind bars.  But I'd rather she had her fingers on the nuclear trigger than Trump.  I know that you differ from me, and I'm quite content to engage with you on these things, because I know from past experience and my own observations that you'll dispute the substance of the argument without personalising it.  This is Wikipedia.  You're allowed to adopt any position, even very extreme fringe positions if you had a mind, providing you can remain collegial about it and you can.  In this encyclopaedia that won't even ban Quackguru, to topic-ban you would be a bizarre and uncalled-for decision.  If you need me to say this, in any venue, ping me.  :)— S Marshall  T/C 21:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you how much that means to me, Marshall. I've always felt the same about you. I believe it's filed under "productivity". 😉 Thank you!! Atsme 📞📧 22:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a quickie update - I changed my iVote and supported the merge. In retrospect, (and because of the disruption caused by the AfD and the contentious editing that followed) I realized what went wrong, and how the original context of the article became conflated with the meeting itself instead of focusing on the 400+ documents the DOJ turned over which contained all of the DOJ and MSM email exchanges. I'll probably do a fresh start creation after all the dust settles. Atsme 📞📧 00:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That verfickte auto-translate mess
I happened to be looking at AN and you were mispinged here. Making sure you're aware of that discussion. I now have a huge task hanging over my head for the foreseeable future, but in this instance maybe it's as well if I don't comment. Apologies if you knew and had similar thoughts. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Moin Yngvadottir, thanks for pinging me.  As there are now so many people who know better than me what to do with autotranslated articles, I've decided to let them get on with it.  I've unwatched the pages and I'm taking no further interest.  But can I do anything to help you with your huge task?— S Marshall  T/C 16:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)