User talk:S Marshall/Archive8

AFD
I really think that your comment at the Taitz nomination is incredibly unhelpful and misrepresents the situation - a situation I went to some lengths to describe. The previous nomination was taken to DRV, and the consensus at DRV was to relist. That didn't happen, in any meaningful sense, until I relisted. My nomination is therefore IMPLEMENTING the consensus of DRV, so if you want to talk about consensus, you really ought to notice that fact. Respectfully, I think you should recognize this and modify your comment at the AFD. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to be difficult, btw, and apologize if it sounded that way, I'm just quite frustrated by the situation. As user:David_Levy's comment at the AFD demonstrates, Clemens' intransigence in refusnig to correct his error has turned a simple mistake into utter and needless carnage. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't feel you're being difficult, Simon. I prefer people who'll stand up for their point of view to the other sort, to be honest.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

medieval metal
Ha, thanks! But who knows...maybe they just didn't record it, or on a technology that we can no longer access. What if the entirety of human knowledge were on Zip disks? It would all be lost for good. How are you doing? Working on anything exciting? (I'll be glad to send you a copy of the Travers CD (on a 5¼-inch DD, of course)--my three-year old and I have already been dancing to it, and when I say "Boom Boom" she says "Out Go the Lights.") Drmies (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about medieval metal, but rock music was popular in the Stone Age :-) Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Hertfordshire
Wow, that's an impressive piece of work! Bazj (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  07:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, with regards to the peer review, are you intending to take the article to FAC at some point down the line or just looking for general comments to improve the article? Nev1 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether FAC is achievable for it in the near future, to be honest. What do you think?  I'd settle for a GA.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think from first impressions you can usually guess what standard an article is. My first impressions of the history of Hertfordshire article are that it's a good length (so probably covers the main points), well sourced (should pass referencing criteria), but has a lot of short paragraphs (perhaps a problem with prose and flow, or maybe a little more detail is required in places). So, on appearances alone, I think it would have a good chance at GAN but I'm not sure about FAC. I'll try to take a close look tomorrow and give some constructive criticism at the peer review. Nev1 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, fair comment. It's choppy. That's down to my inexperience with big articles, I think.  I kept seeing the warning that says "this page is too long for some browsers" and it was scaring me, so I kept the paragraphs I added later quite short in an attempt to keep the character count down. How much more can I get away with adding?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well although it's 48kb that includes coding and references. It's only got 27kb of actual prose (a little under 5,000 words) and well developed articles can easily be longer than this. Greater Manchester for example is 120kb overall with 47kb/7,500words of prose (it's a dissimilar article, but the point is good articles are allowed to be long). If you think there's important detail, feel free to add it; it's easier to trim unnecessary detail that to go searching for more after the fact.
 * I've never seen a warning to the effect that an article is too long for some browsers, but once an article reaches 32kb a message does appear above the editing box to the effect that you may want to split the article. For an article such as this, it's ok to ignore the notice. Nev1 (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the article starts at the early Middle Ages. If you're going on history as opposed to prehistory, the article should start with the Roman period. Then, if you choose to omit prehistory, it should be explained in the lead. For a prehistory section, I'm not especially familiar with Hertfordshire, but I know that it has at least on Iron Age hill fort, that of Credenhill. Nev1 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's piles of Roman and pre-Roman history in Hertfordshire. But this is a history of the shire—not a history of the land.  It begins when Hertfordshire was founded.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to begin when the area now called Hertfordshire was first populated. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have the resources to write that, and—in the fullness of time—the will to write it as well. (It helps that I know the County Archaeologist; I work within shouting distance of Hertfordshire County Council's Historic Environment department and they've been generous with their library for this project.) However, it can't possibly fall within the scope of this article.  It has to be separate.  We're talking about another dozen centuries of material on top of the dozen I've already covered; and I'm told I need to expand the existing article, which is huge as it is. The article I've written is the History of Hertfordshire, and that's what it's about.  I'll tell you about the Catuvellauni, Beech Bottom Dyke, Verlamion, the Roman conquest, Verulamium, Saint Alban the first British martyr, the Anglo-Saxon migration, the establishment of the Kingdom of Mercia and the Kingdom of Essex, and the Norse invasion of England in a separate article!— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ←(later) What I can do, though, is add a very quick summary to the start of this article. And it would probably benefit from that, so good suggestion.  I'll do it.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. The readable prose size is now 4832 words.  (I omitted Credenhill on the grounds that it's in Herefordshire, not Hertfordshire.)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think adding a summary of the history of the area before the county was formed as you have done is a good idea is a good idea. I would be interested in knowing what the title of the article encompassing the history of the area in prehistory and "the Catuvellauni, Beech Bottom Dyke, Verlamion, the Roman conquest, Verulamium, Saint Alban the first British martyr, the Anglo-Saxon migration, the establishment of the Kingdom of Mercia and the Kingdom of Essex, and the Norse invasion of England".
 * Anyway, I've finished the review. The bottom line is, I think the article could be expanded quite a bit, but that the article would stand a good chance of passing a GA review. I've made some changes that you should check over to check I haven't changed any meaning or introduced inaccuracies. I've tried to explain my changes in the edit summaries, but if anything's unclear don't hesitate to ask.
 * If you reply here, there'll be no need to leave a talkback message on my talk page as I've got this on my watchlist. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I was thinking of calling it "Early History of Hertfordshire". :)  But baby steps, one thing at a time, etc. Thank you very much indeed for all your patience and hard work with this article.  A barnstar is coming your way shortly.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen
Mr. Marshall, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Given your attention to other Hohenzollern-related articles, please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! --Caponer (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Could you please consider undoing the closure and making a note of the canvassed contributions so that the closing administrator can discount them? That would be more productive than repeating the procedure a few days hence.(Please also consider that, per WP:DPR, "close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator.") Thanks,  Sandstein   20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that was in the least bit close or ambiguous, but I'll very happily ask an admin to review what's happened there. I think the best way forward is to start an AfD unpolluted by canvassing in a day or so.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. I believe you assessed the problem correctly, but the problem with a re-nom, as I see it, would be that if the same people show up again to voice the same opinion, it would be a bit more difficult to argue that their comments should be discounted as being canvassed (especially if any re-canvassing occurs off-wiki).  Sandstein   20:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see which users contribute to the fresh AfD. If there's a substantial overlap between the two from users who do not habitually contribute to AfD, then I think there'll be a case to put to the closing admin, but we're not there yet. Annoyingly, I shall probably have to recuse, despite my strong feeling that the said article should be kept.  So you'll have gained at !vote.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, good reasoning trumps canvassing in my opinion. You should feel free to add your opinion in either a reopened or restarted AfD, but for reasons of transparancy you should of course make mention of the above notification. Cheers, Amalthea  21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcana
Greetings again. Can you tell me what the Wikipedia globe with a mop and red bar across it means? I have tried looking it up but get only copyright information for the image. Torontonian1 (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's usually used on a userpage to indicate the said user is a sysop—but the red bar is unusual. Where did  you see it?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mighty Boosh images
You're aware that the whole point of WP:NFC is that it sets out best practice for characters which do not have their own articles? Jheald (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. Section 6 of that is what informed my !vote.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

RFA
I wish to make a standing offer to renominate you for RFA now or at any future time you feel ready. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Stifle, that's bloody decent of you. I hold you in very high esteem and your good opinion means a lot to me. Next time I go through that process, I don't intend to fail, so I think it best if I wait another month or two.  But I shall certainly take you up on that offer, with thanks.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your note on Aervanath's talk page and thought I'd let you know my unsolicited thoughts: I'd very much support another RfA from you. I don't always agree with you when we meet at DRV or on deletion policy pages; but I do always find your opinions sensible and well-reasoned - ultimately, I think you'd make good use of admin tools and certainly have the policy knowledge to do so effectively. I'd agree that waiting a month or two is sensible - three months or so seems to be the necessary period to avoid too many auto-opposes based on "last RfA was too recent". In any case, best of luck when you do run and do let me know if you need another co-nom - though it sounds like you may have enough already! Thanks ~ mazca  talk 10:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mazca.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Awarding a Psi
I have tried to give these out when users have gone above and beyond the call to get it right in the face of "it" being gotten very much wrong by all else around. Unfortunately, the DRV looks to be making like the Titanic, but I appreciate your getting involved. :) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Simon. Ironically, the only hope for that DRV is the "weight of argument".— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What is particularly ironic is that if it was closed as overturn right now on the "weight of the arguments," all the people who have !voted to endorse would be up in arms, criticizing the close decision as totally wrong, even though by their logic that is the correct result. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much, Ikip!— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Beeblebrox 2 RFA
You have duplicate votes on the RFA. Please fix the one that you don't want by putting a colon after the # symbol. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DRV Darklore Manor
Thanks for clarifying a bit in Deletion_review. It was a bit of a confusing one; I wasn't sure if DRV was the correct venue. Could you please advise further - would it be appropriate to start a further AfD immediately, or is there some suggested time to wait? Or, am I thinking about it too much - should I just revert the change-back-from-a-redirect, as that was the outcome of the AfD? Cheers,   Chzz  ►  19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Chzz. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't revert a change per WP:BRD, and I think the right place to discuss the matter is the article's talk page. Cheers— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm disappointed about this; I have followed due process with AfD and DRV, giving reasoned policy-based arguments; the article, however, remains in place, and I worry that if I do revert to the redirect I will come under further attack. In the DRV it was suggested that we could "try AfD again after a reasonable time" - I don't know what that timescale would be. In short - I do not want to risk my reputation battling these 'fans', so I suppose, despite my earlier efforts, I'll just forget it. That means this non-encyclopaedic unsourced non-notable material will remain - a pity, but I've done what I could. This sort of thing really puts me off Wikipedia.  Chzz  ►  09:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd give it another month or six weeks before AfD. However, I don't think it's a terrible disaster that this album has coverage on Wikipedia. The basic purpose of notability is to get rid of marketing spam, not content created in good faith; and I don't think it's a crime to be a fan, or to edit articles about your favourite band on Wikipedia, or to want those articles that you've worked on to be kept.  The worst thing that can happen is that someone's created an article that only about three people will ever look at. If this were a BLP, I would be taking a much more serious view of the matter, of course.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the article Darklore Manor encyclopaedic, neutral? Is it spam?
 * "ghostly narrations that invite the listener to "embark on a musical journey "
 * "something to scare kids on Halloween and a place for daring teenagers to hang out."
 * "has inspired others to create haunted houses"


 * How about the related articles, such as Nox Arcana
 * "Nox Arcana's music is melodic and moody"
 * "a renowned gothic-fantasy artist"


 * What is your opinion on edits such as this being reverted here?


 * This sort of material is damaging to the project, for several reasons; it reduces the overall credibility of the 'facts' we present, and it puts off users who work hard to add referenced, encyclopaedic material.


 * I won't rant on; I will drop the whole thing now. Mostly because I've had enough of personal comments  and being 'stalked'    (or, of course, this could be purely coincidental). I just wanted to clarify why I see it as a problem. Stick duly dropped. Thanks for your time.   Chzz  ►  12:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's encyclopaedic or neutral; but neither do I think it's spam. I think it's a laudatory fanboy piece.  I don't doubt that the authors think they're being descriptive about it, and helpfully providing information, but that's the effect they achieve. Having said that, I think it's not a productive use of time to try to delete it.  AfD is expensive, in terms of number of stored revisions and in terms of editor time; but prod is cheap, and many of these fanboy articles are undefended against prod, so I think the cost-effective way to cure Wikipedia of fanboyism is to prod a dozen, or a hundred, such articles rather than focus on a single one. Also, many excellent Wikipedians began with such articles.  The editor who writes Nox Arcana today may write Judith Jesch tomorrow, if not discouraged by our processes. So while I have a great deal of sympathy for your view, I agree with you that it's time to move on.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You make good points, and I do try to consider the bigger picture. I agree with you about AfD being an expensive process, and there are many problems with it. I think that it often goes like this; a) the vast majority of people who !vote are either 1. Admins/wannabe-admins, or 2. the article creator/editor  -   rather than it being the general population of Wikipedians. b)   Category (2) rant and rave c) Category (1) then cannot be bothered to read through all the dross to evaluate policy arguments and vote d) admin comes along, sees pages of 'keep' with no policy-based reasoning e) it's kept;  the users who actually bothered to spend time checking it per policy / google etc wasted their time; they feel disillusioned, and are reluctant to bother in the future.
 * Oh well; I have to give up on it - either WP:FUCK, or leave. I've been having that debate with myself for quite a while now. Thanks for your thoughts; I'm going to go edit something. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawl
How to withdraw the article Dil Jan Khan from a deletion review? --LineofWisdom (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is say that you wish to withdraw the nomination. An administrator will close it.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I deserve an opportunity to respond to someone who incorrectly says my comments are not valid
Can you explain why why you removed this comment []? Blackbirdz (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not remove it. I hatted it; you can still see your comment if you click "show" in the bar beneath.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

can you help with my request about Arthur Rubin's control happy undoing of the Kent Hovind artical
I know that there is one impression I got from reading Wikipedia's article on this man...hate. I just met this guy and think his heart is in the right place regardless of his mistakes, and I wanted to make a couple small objective contributions so that the article was fair, but ended up being labeled "bias" Please help, I see that you are just in your protections, and efforts to quench strife. Thank you. Quinn
 * Thanks for your message. I see other editors are already helping you at Editor Assistance, and all I can really do is agree with them.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Great find!
I decided to give it a try, and it worked! I figured I'd take a shot in the dark and look at White Dwarf's review of the Monster Manual, and lo and behold I got a quick blurb for the poor persucted mimic and several other creatures! :) I'm going to have a look at their review of the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II to see what other creatures I can add a quick independent reference to. :) BOZ (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which issue was that in, Boz?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  00:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WD #8 - going way back for that one! ;) BOZ (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Annoyingly, I don't have that issue on paper. (I've got a near-complete set starting at issue 20.)  I do have the CD somewhere... I'll have to dig it out and take a look, now.  :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Steel (album) Deletion review
Good sir, am I allowed to make a statement or answer questions raised on the deletion review I submitted? I am unclear of the protocol here and do not wish to step out of bounds. We are currently attempting to foster better relations with Wikipedia and put up an objective series of entries rather than the propagandistic spam that was repeatedly posted on your site a year ago. Respectfully, --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome indeed to participate in the debate, particularly if someone asks a question you can answer. My advice is to keep your comments short, to the point, and relatively few in number, but you can post as much as you like.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but it looks like the article(s) are about to get railroaded. Nick-D posted urging summary deletion, and apparently immediately locked the page so no response could be made in defense of the article, other than by admins. So I'm wondering if it is going to get a fair hearing at all.

He stated, "The article made no claims to any notability (it had no sources, claim that the album had been released by a major label, etc)" - beg pardon, but there are numerous sources in the main article. And none of the other bands considered steampunk (Abney Park, Vernian Process, Unextraordinary Gentelmen, etc.) are carried by major labels yet they have pages, so I fail to see what that has to do with it. And if being on Jay Leno, being mentioned by MTV as a significant example of the genre, being mentioned by Wired magazine, et. al., aren't claims to any notability then I fail to see what criteria of notability said mod would ever find acceptable. Certainly Dr. Steel has had more public notability than a lot of other bands that currently have accepted pages on Wikipedia.

He went on to say, "...and the past campaign of deliberate spamming (which, according to the above post, is continuing, albeit in a more subtle form) is a good reason to shoot these articles on sight." Granted, there was a 'past campaign' of deliberate spamming. Nostra culpa. However, the campaign was halted about a year ago, and they even had "cleanup crews" going through Wikipedia to find and eliminate any references that were put in, a sort of anti-spam campaign. This is a fresh effort, being worked on in coordination with Doctor Steel himself (rather than some fan-based spam effort), and we are more than willing to work with Wikipedia at this point to tailor the article and make it acceptable, just as his peer's pages are accepted now. However it now pretty much looks as if no amount of tailoring will ever be enough? --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Nevermind, Skier Dude unlocked it again to allow me to make my case. Thanks. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As demonstrated by my log, I didn't 'lock' this page. I merely endorsed the deletion. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Drmies, long time no type. :)  I reckon medieval metal is a bit of a non-starter.  I've got a friend who has a lyre, and let me tell you, even Eddie Van Halen would struggle to get a decent solo going on one of those. I've just finished my epic History of Hertfordshire, and my new friend Nev1 here is helping me by pointing out all my mistakes.  Fingers crossed that between him and me, we might get it to GA status... While I'm typing, Drmies, I've found a featured article on the German Wikipedia that doesn't have an English equivalent.  Now, I know you speak German, so I'm thinking maybe you and I could collaborate on translating it some time, and score a quick win on a featured article!— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know the problem with German scholarship? In the books, the footnotes contain entire bibliographies and other books, in the Wikipedia articles, there's nothing. That article looks real nice and I don't mind giving it a go, but I am not that comfortable translating without in-line references (this may sound weird, and it would take me some time to explain, but it's an ethical matter). OK, bath-time trouble, gotta go. Thanks for your note! Drmies (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your kind offer of help. I'm genuinely honoured. I find much about Wikipedia mystifying and doubt that I can even devise proper questions. But I have enjoyed doing my single entry and am in the process of doing a second. I plan to specialize for now on Ontario art subjects. P.S. I suspect that you and I share an admiration for Professor Dawkins. Torontonian1 (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly a fan of The Selfish Gene. Dawkins is a brilliant evolutionary biologist, and I rather wish he'd spend more time talking about evolutionary biology and less time complaining about whether other people choose to believe in God. I enjoyed The God Delusion as much as most atheists would, but I think it's based on a very weird premise ("helping people to escape their faith", indeed) and I can't help thinking it makes atheists look like intolerant, smug, self-satisfied loons. I don't think most forms of religion do any harm and it certainly doesn't hurt me if other people want to believe in God.  I do have a major problem with certain extremist Christian viewpoints, such as that of Fred Phelps, but what he believes is a horrible perversion of the simple faith most Christians have. If you're interested in atheist literature, I'd recommend Daniel Dennett's books over Dawkins' any day!— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Process vs. discussion
You know, that's a really good point. I don't ever intent a process call (AfD, whatever) to terminate discussion, just the process once it's reached its conclusion. With AfD's, however, there seems to be no particularly good way to advocate that the discussion continue even if the issue is settled. Perhaps AfD's should be transcluded onto the talk page of the affected article as a continuation point for future discussion? Idle thoughts, I suppose. And yes, I do always listen to DGG. Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, JClemens, and thanks for your note. (I'm theoretically on Wikibreak, and packing my bags on my way to Poitiers for a family holiday that starts tomorrow; but being a sad Wikiholic, I've logged on again for the dreaded "just one more edit".) I think the discussion can have value even after the issue is settled, and I think any closure of the discussion (even moving it to the article's talk page) tends to disrupt it.  I think it better not to snow close things while people are still talking.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry to feed your addiction. Enjoy your holiday, and I'll muse on this idea in the meantime. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

not correct
Keeps said "Oh my God (no pun intended), a user who manages to self-identify as an atheist without throwing in userboxes that ridicule others' beliefs." very relevant. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While that's true, my talk page is the wrong place to discuss it; Keepscases' !votes at RFA are controversial, and they have led to a discussion on AN/I about whether he should be topic-banned from RFA. My position is that he should not, and that discussions about his !votes belong on higher-visibility pages than my talk page!— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  09:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I placed it both places... here first as a courtesy so you wouldn't feel I was attacking you; there later for public consumption. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)