User talk:S Marshall/Archive9

Thank you so much
Thank you for giving me a new page patrollers barnstar. If you ever want to look at it, I've put it here. Again, thanks a lot, I appreciate it. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

merges
I am not going to be able to have much time for this.  DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing and AFD listings
If you're interested, could I ask you to consider commenting on this? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I do not, on first glance, see an irregularity of any kind, though.  Please could you elaborate a little?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't an irregularity as such (although anarchangel's subsequent response is irregular - I get the feeilng that he thinks that he and I are having two completely different conversations; that's not the point, though). I'm just interested in getting some comments on the idea that listing deletion discussions in specifically-focussed lists could raise a CANVAS issue. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a can of worms, all right. My immediate reaction is that in order to show a WP:CANVASS issue, it would first be necessary to establish that the specifically-focussed list would be likely to !vote or think in a way likely to prejudice the discussion in one direction or another. And even the action of trying to establish that could run foul of a behavioural guideline. Personally, I agree that there are some groups of users whose involvement could be seen as prejudicial to AfD.  For example, the article rescue squadron have been accused of block-!voting to retain unencyclopaedic material; and those who make those accusations are often, themselves, part of an identifiable block who do little else but !vote to remove content.  I think such associations of editors are an inevitable byproduct of the system, given human nature. I do not yet see that the specific group involved in this case is so narrowly-focussed as to represent a block-!vote, and if that allegation were made in open forum, I would reply by asking for evidence.  But I would not dismiss it out of hand, because there may be a case to answer.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  02:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not going after this particular discussion or this particular group - this is just one iteration of a broader phenomenon, and it's the broader issue I'm interested in. I will think on this some more and try to think of some more examples to broaden it (if any spring to your mind - either particular nominations where ARS jumped in en masse, or just other lists that seem quite narrowly-focused, please let me know) with a view toward maybe posting this as an essay. Careful wording is needed, for the reasons you mention. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination
As you can see at Template_talk:Did_you_know, I cut out a bit. Is it too late to add the image? Bearian (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bearian. I don't think it's too late to add the image; go ahead!  Cheers— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Vanessa Hall-Smith
On the same day when you closed this as withdrawn by nominator, the subject requested to info-en-q@wikipedia.org to take it down (copy in my mailbox). Shouldn't the case be relisted or what's the correct course of action? The case, imo, fits the "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion AND there is no rough consensus" clause of deletion policy. NVO (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, under the circumstances I would recommend starting a fresh AfD. I shall !vote "delete" in this one because of the subject's wishes.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * done, Articles for deletion/Vanessa Hall-Smith (2nd nomination). NVO (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

redirects and merges
Are you aware that the opinion you gave in the schools in roumania deletion review can upset the practical balance of every merged article closing in  Wikipedia? What's the use of arguing merge and redirect during a AfD is what is said has no effect? If "Tone's closure established that this article should be a bluelink, and any remaining decision does not require administrative tools and is not a matter for an admin." why do we include that in our closings at all? Essentially, this forces a second debate on each disputed article. I don't have a solution for this, but it will need longer discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, DGG, my starting point is that I should be able to turn a redirect into an article if I want to. In other words, I think that if the redirect has been established as a result of an AfD, then I should be able to boldly reverse that decision on the basis of my editorial judgment.  And I think I should not need to jump through hoops like fresh AfDs or fresh DRVs in order to do that, which seems to me like process for process' sake. "Merge", "redirect" and "keep" all have exactly the same practical effect: they decide that an article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia and leave the rest of it up to the editors.  And I think that's quite right.  AfD decisions should not be binding over the future evolution of a page.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please excuse my jumping in here. I had noticed S Marshall's comments at WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 2 and was considering starting a discussion somewhere when I saw this existing section. I have been contemplating keep variants for quite some time. There is wide consensus that the primary function of AfD is keep page history versus delete and that mergers and redirects can be performed/reversed without AfDs. However, both editor support and process documentation are split over treating keep variants as somewhat or fully interchangeable or distinct. Please see examples in the essay WP:AfD and mergers and perhaps the discussions linked from its talk page. My opinion on the weight of AfD closures, which I believe has some support: If the closing statement is an evaluation of consensus (not an independent editor action), it should be respected as consensus, with weight appropriate to the venue and participation (and age per WP:Consensus can change). Overriding the decision usually requires another discussion to end with a consensus as described in WP:N3D. I think that BOLDly redirecting keep as separate article or restoring redirect closes should be discouraged – rather than using BRD when a dispute is already known, why not jump directly to Discuss? Flatscan (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because while I recognise the above concern and understand the reasons for it, bold-revert-discuss is better than discuss-discuss-discuss. This is an old and long-established Wikipedian principle with which I wholeheartedly agree, because it is a more pro-active, more dynamic process.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. My impression – I have not done an extensive survey, but I have seen several examples – is that BRRR(D) occurs, usually with terse edit summaries like "no consensus for this" or "rv, see AfD". I intend to start a discussion on the general topic of keep variants eventually, probably at WT:Articles for deletion. Would you like a notification? Flatscan (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes please, Flatscan. I should like to participate in that discussion.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I continue to see it differently: I judge by the effect on the reader,. Keep means to keep the text of the article in mainspace. Merge is a form of keep. Redirect is a form of delete. The history remains accessible, which is of some value. There will still be ambiguity: there have been closes: Delete and redirect, which are clearly a delete, for the purpose is to lose the history. There are closes with specific types of merges suggested as merge a minimal amount, or merge the entire article.  But there is a real problem regarding viewing AfD as consensus: the participation is too low. and with viewing it as the admins judgement: we all have a  different judgments.  I'm not saying I have a solution for this. That's why I worded this as an open question. The actual focus on articles is because having an article is regarded as a sign of real-world significance by the outside world, not merely whether it fits into what we internally want to do with Wikipedia.  We may deplore that, but we can't affect it. Should we adjust our policies to the way the world uses us? Well, it depends on whether one thinks of this as a game or as an attempt to build something of real value.    DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think "redirect" is a form of "keep", because (1) the title remains a bluelink in the mainspace, and (2) the history remains visible—which means, crucially, that it can be restored by an interested editor (rather than an admin) once the deletionists have gone away consensus has changed. I think AfD and DRV are flawed processes, and their decisions are often bad. They should be as easy to reverse as possible.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Timewave_zero
Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero, an RfC has been opened on whether this article should be replaced with Redirect. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim DRV
Very small typo, very big (from my perspective) change in meaning. I wrote that a content dispute shouldn't be addressed as a deletion discussion, meaning (or intending to mean) that since both "sides" agree that an acceptable article on the subject could be written, the should be addressed by ordinary editing, not going to AFD. You quoted that my comment as at a deletion discussion, a much broader claim that I, like you, disagree with. No a big deal, of course, but one of those things I like to keep straight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!
Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A NobodyMy talk 05:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
You commented at Articles for deletion/The U. There appears to be a need for a third opinion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities if you have a mind for it. Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Uncle G. I still feel "The U" should be a redirect, and I have expressed that opinion at AfD; this means that I could not be a neutral party for the purposes of dispute resolution, so I shall recuse.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. But note that this is a request for a third opinion, not mediation.  You clearly have an opinion about this matter.  I thought that it might be useful to weigh in with it.  (I've contacted some other editors who have other opinions on the same matter.)  As things stand, it's just the two of them, back and forth and back and forth.  They're back at AN/I with yet another thread (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) right now, and it's still just the two of them, back and forth again.  It might help just to, literally, have a third opinion on the content in dispute expressed in the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinion duly inserted. Let's see if it will help.  :)— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  07:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hedi Enghelberg
I am Hedi Enghelberg and I want to understand your statement about the article: Hedi Enghelberg ''how do you know me and my work? present your creditials in the literrary world. you have any academic or university diplomas you have any published books or articles? you have received any literary award? you have any pier-reviews of your work?'' do you have contributed with your work for this World to be a better place?> Why you have post my article for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enghelberg (talk • contribs) 14:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, Hedi. I do not know you or your work. However, I believe that Wikipedia policy requires that the article about you should be removed for the moment. In answer to your questions:
 * 1) I have a university degree.
 * 2) I have published and edited both books and articles, though outside Wikipedia, none are on scholarly topics.
 * 3) Apart from within a narrow and specialist field of interest, I have not received any notable literary awards.
 * 4) I have not received an academic peer-review in the sense you mean.
 * 5) As a Wikipedia editor, I do contribute my work for this world to be a better place. I did not nominate the article about you for deletion. I did recommend that it should be deleted, and I explained my reasoning in the debate.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You close of Articles for deletion/Eurasian Adam
I just wanted to let you know that you did an excellent job on your closing summary. You made it very clear what was decided, what was still in play, and what were the appropriate venues to continue the discussion. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, RoySmith.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  15:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)
Since you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Forestry
Nice article, but do you see my point? To say "Up to 90m" is meaningless in the context. Does it mean in the UK or the US? It suggests that specimens in the UK reach that height, which is – to date – very far from the truth. They might not get anywhere near that; who knows what diseases they might get, how they will respond to climate change etc? And if you put up to 90m under S. giganteum, why not put up to 110m under S. sempervirens (a taller tree), or similar under A. grandis, A. procera, P. menziesii, P. sitchensis, all v tall trees? Or bluegums? Or oaks? And why not put "up to 8m dbh" under S. giganteum? It might be interesting to note that the Yanks were put out with our naming it Wellingtonia and called it Washingtonia. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Hertfordshire
I just saw that the article passed GA, congratulations :-) Nev1 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Nev1. :)  Onwards and upwards...— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  06:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Congratulations! Drmies (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Afd:Zenisha Moktan
I am very sorry for late reply. The voting has already closed but artist/model has significant presence in mainstream Nepali media to have an article in wikipedia. Just skimming through the discussion, I found that the article has been referenced and facts like the artist being Miss Tamang and an entertainer has already been stated, so I dont think I need to state them again. Most of the Nepali media is not very active online esp in English, so it might be hard to find online sources to reference. This might have been the case here. Despite the deletion, I think the article should stay. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the two cited articles in Nepali is from Himal Media, a noted South Asian media based in Nepal. The cited page is about Miss Nepal competition and one of its lines states "फेशन, मोडलिङ र कला क्षेत्रमा सेलिब्रेटी कै पहिचान बनाउँदै गरेका उषा रजक, निशा अधिकारी र जेनिशा मोक्तान प्रतिस्पर्धी बनेका छन्।" which translates as "Celebrities in the field of fashion, modeling and arts (actors) namely Usha Rajak, Nisha Adhikari and Zenisha Moktan have become participants (in Miss Nepal contest)." Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Eukesh I think we'll need to create an article from scratch for Zenisha Moktan. Cheers— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  06:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Defective AfDs
They make it hard don't they. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They certainly do!— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  13:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE
This is a separate discussion from the merits of your change to WP:V, so I'll bring it up here: your invocation of WP:SILENCE was patently ridiculous.
 * 22:25, 16 September 2009 You make a change to WP:V.
 * 22:29, 16 September 2009 I revert.
 * 22:31, 16 September 2009 You open a talk page discussion.
 * 22:42, 16 September 2009 I explain my objections.
 * 22:48, 16 September 2009 You make a rebuttal.
 * 23:45, 16 September 2009 You invoke WP:SILENCE.

At what point and for how long was I silent? Am I required to comment on every discussion every fifteen minutes in order to not be seen as consenting to changes that I have already specifically objected to?&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You should always make sure you reply to me within one minute of my post! :)— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)