User talk:S Marshall

Archives:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞

In the close at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#RFC on WikiProject Banner shell redesign, you noted "The new version should remain in use but should be de-coloured for the time being, unless and until we reach consensus on fully accessible colour choices":

1. Does this mean we should start a new RfC specifically on the colored bubbles thing?
2. Many of whom who had extreme reservations about colored bubbles got it removed by CSS, those who didn't must be well approving or neutral on the colored bubbles. Further, its already been 55 days since the beginning of RfC, and ≈57/58 since color change. So, considering that its been there for so long, is it necessary to de-color them now and wait for approval, rather than retain and wait for rejection in a specific RfC?

Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! It doesn't necessarily mean that you have to have a new RfC. Only do that if you can't reach a talk page agreement on what to do. I don't think there's community consensus to implement the coloured bubbles, so in that respect we restore the previous status quo -- which is, no coloured bubbles -- for the time being. Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 21:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the clarification. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for sticking your neck out on my contentious request! I appreciate the time and effort.

You raised some excellent points which none of us in the discussion had considered. I'm not yet decided on whether it's worth trying to get consensus now in light of those policies in a new discussion, but will consider it over the next couple of days. Riposte97 (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome!—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to second this opinion, and don't want it to come off as post-closure boosterism of the outcome I supported. This was not a simple analysis, procedurally or policy-wise, and had to take into account a lot of counter-balancing project priorities and points of broad community consensus. Even if you had threaded that needle by coming down slightly on the other side of this complicated issue, I think I would still have felt the summary of the dispute itself effectively and accurately described the perspectives and the important issues. Whatever happens next, I think you were a best-case scenario for this closure. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I feel appreciated.  :)—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall, I would like to echo the remarks of the others. While I do think that substantively the discussion should have gone the other way, your analysis was fair, thorough, and transparent. It takes a brave person to insert himself into a discussion like this and you did an excellent job of considering the entire discussion rather than just bean counting the poll and even insertintg policy considerations that were not addressed. Thanks for your work :)

  -- Lenny Marks (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recent close. Since you directed part of your close to my good faith effort to find a consensus where you wrote A user has tried to extend this discussion, and I'm afraid that's not how RfCs work. Let me simply point out what WP:RFC actually says...

• An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.
• Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action.

It's difficult to argue that an 18-13 vote is apparent that a consensus won't be reached if there's additional comment. In fact, there were eight comments after I extended the RFC. I agree that Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, and RfCs are expensive which is why getting a consensus on this question is useful because there's been about 15 infobox RFCs over the last 14 months. Almost all of those discussions ended in consensus with wider input than just the infobox regulars.

I'm not going to challenge the close because it's close enough to be closed in either direction, but I would ask for you to remove the comment directed towards my good faith effort to find a long term consensus since it's a perfectly reasonable way to find consensus per WP:RFC. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Nemov, and thanks for visiting my talk page. I'm sorry to tell you that it's quite apparent that consensus won't be reached. All the best—S Marshall T/C 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am going to challenge this close. First, a vote came in on the day you closed, one vote the day prior, four votes the day before that, and one vote the day before that. So daily voting the four days prior to your close. That's not the time to close. I don't know what the basis is for your statement that this is the right time to close it, you didn't explain why you'd close an active RfC that was still getting daily votes.

  Also, you didn't weight votes, and I think some should be down weighted for lacking any policy base rationale. You don't seem to summarize or address any arguments that anyone made in the RfC.

  Also, what's the numeric count? Seems like a majority in favor?

  You just state "no consensus" and then give the onus argument -- kind of like a vote, not a summary.

  For these reasons I think you should revert the close. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Seemed a fair and good close. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I await Levivich's close challenge with interest.  :)—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to re-open RFC Levivich (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings, S Marshall. Thanks for the work you evidently put in a clearly difficult task. Infoboxes, for some still unclear reason, raise tempers quite a lot in Wikipedia. I don't know how many "wars" we had in Wikipedia thus far but the war on infoboxes has a prominent place in the list. Anyway, a question: In your closing, you did not refer at all to the numerical result (if I did not make one of my usual mistakes, the suggestions ran 19-13 in favor of an infobox.) Doesn't that constitute a fair basis for assessing consensus? Both sides offered strongly built arguments, although the discussion often derailed onto the general usefulness of infoboxes, so the quality of suggestions is there. Thanks in advance for any response. -The Gnome (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I make it 18-13 (are you counting Dronebogus twice?). Normally I would give extra weight to some arguments and less to others by relevance to our policies or guidelines, but no policy or guideline applies to infobox decisions, so this is a straight up vote. We don't exactly have guidelines for what consensus is in a straight up vote, but RFA's a straight up vote, and we say "consensus" at RfA is about 65% support.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The figure of "65%" is what I was looking for. I wonder how it came to be. Was there after an RfC of some kind, a limited discussion among administrators, or something else? I do not disagree with the figure, to be clear. (Still, 18-13 means 58% , which is rather close to the threshold.) -The Gnome (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was set at 65% in Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. Before that, the pass threshold was 70%.—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

story · music

Hevenu shalom aleichem is my story today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Brian's essay? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes indeed! I read it at the time. I've long followed the infobox wars, although I don't recall ever taking a position about them.—S Marshall T/C 14:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My position is that infobox wars don't really exist. You may have seen that I met the disputes for Samuel Barber in 2012, In the discussion, I argued against an infobox as redundant, and was won for intentional redundancy, serving different kinds of readers for better accessibility, without taking away anything, by the line

  {{Infobox person}} also has that parameter, and could be used here. Unless, of course, someone wishes to argue that Barber was not a person... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the dispute qualifies as a battle ;)

  I just returned from vacation, relaxed, and uploaded a few images of a recent trip to Aachen (click on "songs"). Nice to meet you. I talked to WhatamIdoing about the topic, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you're both welcome to my talk page! I've been to Aachen, forty years ago, but it's not one of the parts of Germany I know well. I use language like "infobox wars" because I adore hyperbole, but to be fair, I do know that it wasn't much more than a spree killing.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You give me an idea: others using war metaphers might also not mean them? - I smiled reading the exchange with WhatamIdoing, ending on the quote "Consensus does not mean that stupidity and ignorance be given equal weight to common sense and knowledge." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I proudly remember having sung in an oratorio premiere seven years ago OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I often wish I could sing, but I have some vocal fold damage and lifelong issues from a septoplasty that didn't go right. Even my speech is a nasal rasp.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I try to imagine ... tough! - In yesterday's opera, there were all kinds of sounds, the prelude a Toccata of car horns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  More, if you like: today I have three items on the Main page, almost too much of a good thing! Bach's amazing cantata with the unusual scale, first performed 300 years ago OTD, the nun for the prostitutes, and Schumann's wedding gift for Clara. Also first day of vacation pics uploaded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I began another day of vacation pics, with the deepest blue of the sea ;) - we celebrate the birthday of a friend who wrote quite a book about the compositions of a man who will turn 300 soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! It's so nice to get cheerful messages sometimes.  :)—S Marshall T/C 16:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  here's another --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I took a look at the AN thread (really don't have time for such things, normally), and was delighted by your post of a week ago, "Is there a better way to manage the conflict? - Well, not really, no.", only then to say how it could be yes: "Never revert anyone, but proceed directly to the talk page; speak your mind mildly and politely; say it once and then move on." It would take as little as that to manage the "conflict" if it really is one. Perhaps tell some people, beginning with yourself ;) - Did you know that I invented "1 comment max in a discussion"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  another set of cheerful pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  User Talk:Gerda Arendt#Mozart Requiem --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your consistently calm, reasoned, and insightful takes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December songs

story · music

Another cheerful story, parts of my life, - just sad that one of the players is already dead. I remember having picked him up at the airport and entertained for the evening, - we took turns for the week. Actually he probably entertained me more than I him. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'm sorry to hear that.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm taking care of the articles of those who recently died, DYK? (... at least those who spoke German, made classical music, were women.) Those I've known in person are the hardest, but also those where I really try to do my best. Such as the father of today's subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. He died before I even started the memorial list, but I added him today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pics up to 3 December (with my shadow in one of them), and a story about Beethoven in memory of his birth. When the arb who wrote the infoboxes case installed the community consensus - in 2015! - I hoped these infobox wars were over, really. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this became clearer after the fact ? Donepezil licensing is mentioned earlier under general management, and then its off-label use (unlicensed) is listed later under each symptom. I can't think of a way to combine those into the same section, since one is general, the other by symptom. I'm sorry if you are having to learn about its use for someone you care about, and hope you found the article helpful. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! No, it's okay -- I don't have a friend or relative with the condition. I was familiar with Dementia with Lewy Bodies from a professional standpoint (in adult social work, doing safeguarding, before I retired) and today I looked it up on Wikipedia. I typed things on the talk page before I'd finished reading the article, and I ought to know better.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whew :) I also chuckled at your comment about sfns, since I *hated* them for years, but after using them on this article, I was sold ... way way easier after all! I did the switch over during the FAC, and found it much easier to specify exactly where in the source the content can be found. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, do you have an opinion on the question I raised at Talk:Rupperswil murder case#Parole or not. Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is an expert on Swiss criminal law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I replied there. Merry Christmas, Jo-Jo!—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Same to you. And replied. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: Hi there and merry Christmas! I'm just messaging as, quite a while ago now, you were party to the discussion about the COI editor Richard D. Gill who was reported on ANI for advocacy in trying to portray Lucy Letby as wrongfully convicted: [1]. As you absolutely correctly said at the time: Richard, the way we determine whether someone is guilty is in court. Lucy Letby is guilty of the most unimaginably horrific crimes and we know that's true because a jury has reached a verdict after an evidence-based trial. We can and should say so in Wikipedia's voice. I can see that you have doubts, but Wikipedia is not a place to contradict the verdict of the court as reported in mainstream media.

But now some editors want to replace the first line that says "British serial killer and former neonatal nurse" to "is a British former neonatal nurse, convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others". So basically, they want to get rid of her being called a serial killer, on various grounds including "I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer". But surely, the place we decide where someone is guilty of a crime is in court, and having been convicted it is perfectly reasonable to describe her as a murderer in Wikivoice? I might understand it more if there were massive and consistent doubts about her conviction, but there isn't any any such wider doubts.

What I also think is quite improper is that the whole debate was started when the already blocked Richard Gill apparently appeared again(!) to evade his block and suggest the whole intro be changed to claim she is just an "alleged" killer: [2] - EXACTLY the same wording he'd suspiciously been asking for on his own Twitter account!: [3]. So basically a blocked advocacy editor has got some people persuaded that we shouldn't call her a killer. It really just smacks of pro-Letby editorialising to not allow her to be referred to as a killer, surely that is the norm on Wikipedia, to refer to serial killers like Fred West, Steve Wright, Peter Sutcliffe and John Duffy and David Mulcahy as serial killers? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, welcome to my talk page, and Merry Christmas! There's no need to ping me here, because I get a notification when you post here automatically. I'll consider that discussion and contribute to it shortly.—S Marshall T/C 14:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi there. Thanks for your message on the RfC. Thanks also for pointing out the IP editor's canvassing on your page. I have been expecting this IP to turn up but see that he has become a little more savvy than just socking at the RfC. The IP editor is banned sock puppet User:MeltingDistrict. I also see they have been canvassing other votes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banned editor canvassing for an RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except I’m not a puppet or been intentionally canvassing at all. Need I remind you that you literally said that the mysterious ‘Flamingjune1990’ that just curiously posted Richard Gill’s exact words was perfectly allowed to edit since it was probably just a Twitter follower of Gill - a banned editor? You said that that’s fine! Yet you presumably will think it’s unacceptable for me to be here as a Twitter follower of the banned Melting District? How can you justify these double standards? 213.31.104.198 (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you are a twitter follower of the sockpuppet MeltingDistrict? Is that why you posted here? (From an IP range they have used before, incidentally). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hello S Marshall: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Marshall. I come to ask you to reconsider some wording you used in your close of Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Status_of_G5. Specifically, you seem to think the RfC is around ArbCom powers. While that was certainly discussed in the RfC, I think it misstates the policy issue at hand and does not accurately represent the consensus reached (even while your topline summary is, undoubtedly, correct). Namely WP:ARBECR is applied by both ArbCom and and the community. You do not address the community aspect at all and on the ArbCom aspect and it is not clear to me, under WP:ARBPOL and WP:CONEXEMPT that the community could have ruled ArbCom can't allow deletion under ARBECR. But it most definitely could have ruled that it did not apply to community general sanctions. So it's nice the community is OK with ArbCom exercising that power - regardless of whether it could have overruled ArbCom or not - but does nothing to clarify what happens under community authorized general sanctions which is what the RfC question focused on. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, you're correct. I've amended this close.—S Marshall T/C 18:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! And in rereading my message it was more aggressive than I needed it to be. Apologies for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job at the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel RfC close. I looked at it the other day and came to the same conclusion as you, but didn't want to deal with the inevitable deluge of complaints and appeals that would follow. So I applaud your willingness to wade into that! Chetsford (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I pride myself on writing clear closes, but this was better than I've done. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Marshall! Re your comment here, my understanding is that the general standard used in close reviews is whether the close should be endorsed as a "reasonable summation of the discussion" or overturned as an unreasonable reading, not whether participants would have personally closed the discussion exactly as the closer did. In this case, it doesn't really matter, as the practical outcome between no consensus and a weak consensus for the status quo is basically the same. But in the future, I think it'd be good for us to get in the habit of !voting based on the "reasonable reading" standard, since a world in which everyone uses the "how I would've done it" standard is one in which AN basically becomes an opportunity for anyone who dislikes a close to ask a different parent about it, consuming a lot of editorial resources. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll clarify.—S Marshall T/C 17:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, noting that I copied an edit summary of yours that I found funny. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 12:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Haha, I've always liked that one! Feel free to steal it shamelessly.—S Marshall T/C 17:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I really appreciate your closure at the Battle of Bakhmut RfC. I really liked your argument about future historians/interim decisions and suggestion to talk about both scopes in different articles (which do indeed kinda exist). However, I found your conclusion about the consensus on the result of the battle (which was a secondary topic/not essence of the RfC) a bit questionable. I would like to know your thoughts on some of the arguments I list below and would like to know how we should proceed then:

1. If this battle was to be considered a "pyrrhic Russian victory" based on the total casualties and devastation, shouldn't all victories/captures of cities in the war since 2023 be considered "pyrrhic" too (the quick and swift phase of the war is long over)? Wouldn't it set a bad precedent?
2. Isn't labeling the defender's objective as to "only attrite the attacker" too euphemistic? I believe this kind of argument always favors the defeated side. When the defender knows it won't be able to hold the city, it's too easy and convenient for it to then claim it only wanted to attrite the other. Well, in the battle, both sides managed to inflict heavy losses on the other, but Russia at least had the symbolic prize of capturing a major city (something Ukraine only attempted with Tokmak in the counteroffensive).
3. Isn't it questionable to say that Ukraine achieved it's objective to attrite the attacker when it did not actually help them in the counteroffensive? One could argue, as the US did, that investing that much on a mostly destroyed Bakhmut was detrimental to the counteroffensive which already started with a low stock of ammunition and manpower. Considering the current state of the war (disappointing counteroffensive, decrease in foreign aid, etc), I genuinely believe that if Russia's casualties were too great, it could have afforded to, while, on the other hand, Ukraine couldn't have (like the Germans vs the Soviets in WWII). Thus, in this sense, they would have played into Russia's hands.
4. Finally, to the best of my knowledge, it seems that a clear majority of sources admit the battle was mostly a win/victory for Russia. Although, the review of sources in the RfC wasn't really focused on determining this (if focused on determining if the battle was over and mostly used the "Russian victory" articles as examples that it was over), it did give a rough indication. So, shouldn't those randomly sampled sources be more adequate for such value judgement given they mostly fall under WP:NEWSORG?

Best regards. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Alexiscoutinho. When I read your many contributions to that RfC, I observed that you were keen to describe the battle as a Russian victory. I saw little evidence of others' thoughts about who won, and the only editor who really engaged with you on that point -- User:Mzajac -- disputed whether Russia could really be called the winner. I think that his objection is fair, so I specifically dealt with the question in my close.
  When I read the sources in that debate, I saw that Russia's objective was to take the territory. To the extent that Ukraine's objective was reported at all, it was to pin down Russian forces and inflict casualties.
  I think that there's no consensus about who won. You're welcome to try to reach a consensus about it on the talk page, and a consensus that Russia won would negate that part of my close. But I think that until that consensus is reached, it's best not to claim a Russian victory.—S Marshall T/C 20:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  👌 Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for recent improvements. If you have thoughts about name and scope please could you comment at Talk:Forestry in the United Kingdom#Name and scope of the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! For clarification's sake: Is there a consensus to implement the proposed sentence, or simply a consensus to mention the Accords in some way? The question on the surface was about the sentence but I think what was truly agreed upon was to mention the Accords. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In my close, I wrote:

  The community's decision is to support the principle of mentioning the Abraham Accords, not to endorse the specific wording given in the RfC question. That wording can still be edited in the normal way.

  Hope this clarifies!—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just checking. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 17:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Copying over from the discussion that was opened at the article talk page - How do you justify that most people did not support the proposed wording in the RFC? Especially considering:

1. The RFC question literally asked "Should the Israel subsection of the foreign policy subsection be updated to include the bolded sentence below?" - this is the explicit proposal which started garnering Supports
2. No alternative wording was sufficiently discussed in the course of the discussion; in the absence of such an alternative, why would we not use the wording originally proposed?

It seems wrong to me to try and read into the Support votes and deduce for ourselves that they didn't all support the wording as proposed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well, first, I can't just allow myself to get dragged onto Talk:Donald Trump to discuss a close, because I'm one of not-very-many RfC closers who have both (1) the stomach to deal with American politics and (2) no involvement with that page. Every edit I make to that page limits my ability to close RfCs there later. So I won't willingly post there at all and when I'm forced to post, I have to be extremely terse and clear, and focused only on the close, so that I can still make those closes in future without anyone being able to claim that I've violated our principle of involvement.

Second, on the substantive point you raise, I disagree. It certainly is the closer's job to read the !votes and come to understand what the contributor was saying. We ask people to say more than just "Support" or "Oppose", because we want to read their thoughts and reasons as well as their opinions. When I was reading those thoughts and reasons, as well as the words in bold, I understood that editors were supporting the principle of mentioning those accords. They weren't supporting the specific words.

If this doesn't satisfy you then you're welcome to bring my close to the community for review. The correct place to do that is the administrator's noticeboard.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think any other wording would be equally as valid as the one proposed in the RFC? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's for the editors active on that talk page to decide what wording to use.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the lengthy discussion on that one specific wording bears no weight in discussions moving forward? The wording proposed in the RFC may be discarded by whichever editors continue to bother to show up? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the arguments drifted away from 'let's include this specific wording' to 'let's include a mention of the Accords'. IMO you're missing the broader reality of the RfC; the fact that the RfC question was never formally changed to reflect the change in topic doesn't mean that we should blindly go along with the original topic.

AN is an option if you truly believe that the close is faulty. Otherwise there's no real point in discussing this. It's relatively clear to me that Marshall isn't going to amend the close. Cessaune [talk] 22:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

arguments drifted away from 'let's include this specific wording' to 'let's include a mention of the Accords' - sure, the discussion meandered, as discussions tend to do. Though I don't yet know why we would use some hypothetical alternate wording, with no preference given to the wording that just got consensus. I'm not asking them to amend the close. I'm asking them to clarify their reasoning for (apparently) discounting the wording of the RFC as-proposed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished explaining now.—S Marshall T/C 22:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I salute your closing of the RfC about the Abraham Accords in Trump's biography. I only just found out about it because I did not have, until today, the heart to look back at it. Not only did it restore a modicum, if not a significant amount, of sanity in Wikipedian affairs but, on a personal note, prevented me from temporarily turning my back to the project. (I know of a few fellow editors who find this volte face of mine a tragedy but it's alright. ) The previous closing was atrocious, in terms of employing policy, consideration of suggestions, or common sense. And that's entirely irrespective about how I feel about the man Trump himself. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to close the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Removal of Quillette quote, but would you agree that your rationale –– i.e. about who is "right" rather than what the consensus is –– looks a bit like a supervote? As Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome reminds us: Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. (My emphasis added of course.)

I can imagine de-weighting arguments for exclude on the basis that, as you state, Talk pages are unindexed and don't draw attention to sites mentioned on them if that were in fact something that exclude voters had argued. But I do not see any such arguments. Instead it seems that you are introducing a novel rationale for inclusion there, which balances out the reasons for exclusion which you acknowledge. If you'd like me to clarify my own argument, or unpack what I think others are arguing, I'd be happy to do so.

You also state Quillette's article is relevant and slightly amusing, and there should be a pointer to it from this talk page, which seems to me like another argument based on your own view rather than an assessment of the consensus of others.

As a final note, I will say that I don't quite understand the advice you give about including the Quillette article in its own separate header. It seems to me that with the contention this conversation has created, any closing instructions which are not 100% clear just invite Round 2 of an endless squabble. I would certainly expect to be reverted if I tried to carry this out myself.

Please understand that I very much welcome your collaboration in this discussion. And I'm only posting here to invite a conversation with you –– possibly some reflection on the wording of your close and the instructions that are tied to it –– rather than directly requesting you to revert. But if you'd prefer to simply revert and leave this close to someone else, I would understand that too.

Thanks again for giving this your attention. Generalrelative (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Generalrelative, and thanks for visiting my talk page.
  When I'm closing an RfC with two options, my first question is: are those options mutually exclusive? Where there's a way that addresses the concerns that both sides expressed, that's clearly better than declaring victory for one side or the other. In this case I could see one. What's your objection to it?—S Marshall T/C 22:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with that principle! And I'm sure that in most cases it works well. To restate (hopefully more clearly):

  1) Your close appears to be based on your own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate rather than an evaluation of what the discussants determined themselves. This is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome. Note that it says this in a couple other ways as well, including: The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate.

  See also where it says If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. In my view when one looks at "which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" the consensus for exclusion is quite clear.

  2) Your instructions (Editors are at liberty to remove it from {{Press}} and pop it in somewhere else near the top of the page, perhaps wrapped in {{small}}, and perhaps adding whatever context is appropriate, at editorial discretion.) do not appear to me to be clear enough to be actionable without getting us bogged down in a second acrimonious debate. After all, it was our differing understandings of what "common sense" dictated which got us into this mess to begin with. Given how deeply people care about a) templates and b) getting the race & intelligence topic area right, we really do need a clearer outcome.

  Another way to put this: the choices really are (as I see it) mutually exclusive. People arguing for inclusion did so largely because they cared, on principle, about the {{Press}} header being used in the way they deemed correct, while those arguing for exclusion did so largely on the basis that it is inappropriate to include this piece in the header at all. So an outcome that calls for it to be placed in some alternative but unspecified place in the header really addresses few-to-none of the concerns raised in the discussion.

  Does this make sense? Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It does make sense, yes, although I dissent on both your points. I'll address them in the order that you raise them.

  1) Yes, I like to think of myself as very familiar with the information page you're quoting. A supervote is where I decide based on my own view of the debate. My own view aligns with MastCell's, and if I'd supervoted, I would have said that we should remove the article from {{Press}} without putting it anywhere else. My position is that looking for a compromise that addresses both sides' concerns isn't supervoting.

  2) Sometimes RfC closes can't be implemented for various reasons, and one of them is conflict between editors about how to implement them. I suggest that we'd need to try it and read the objections people raise before we knew whether that was going to happen in this case. I shouldn't specify exactly how to do it, because the people who edit the article usually know best, and closing an RfC doesn't make me Article Manager.

  Hope this helps!—S Marshall T/C 23:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate this reply, and it's nice to know we both agree with MastCell's perspective. But as I stated above, I don't think you've addressed either side's concerns. And I guess I'd like to posit that there is more than one way to supervote, that imposing a "compromise" that no one in the discussion asked for, when consensus in one direction was reasonably clear –– even if it's in the interest of a higher principle such as "seek compromise when possible" –– is just as much a violation of the instructions for closing discussions as putting your finger on the scales for your preferred content. After all, the language of those instructions is crystal clear: you were just meant to evaluate the consensus of the discussants, not decide the issue as you see fit.

  I'll give some thought to next steps, that is, whether to proceed to a formal closure review at AN (on the basis that I don't think this closure was a reasonable summation of the discussion) or to let the matter drop. If someone can figure out a way to actualize your instructions which is amenable to both sides, that would certainly help. But I am one of those people who edit the article frequently, and I can't see it. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uninvolved with this discussion (I only found this page because of the Trump RfC), but I have to point out that the statement that Talk pages are unindexed is incorrect. Article talk pages are generally indexed: see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing and this VPR discussion about deindexing them, which resulted in no consensus. This can easily be verified by googling the talk page title with quotes. Malerisch (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Fucken nice close at the latest Donald Trump RfC. Honestly since nothing here is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr Trump, and since it'll all shake out in the long term, it must take a bit of patience not to close with something like "Not This Shit Again" lol, instead you took the time and thought to make a fine, transparent, and well described close. Good on you mate. Herostratus (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I just read the close and came here to say something similar. Also a wise move, in my opinion, not to mandate a specific wording. When you get too many mandated-by-RfC wordings in an article, you either get an odd disjointed article full of sentences that don't really fit next to each other, or you have deal with edit warring and bureaucratic BS when well-intentioned copyeditors come along and try to fix those sentences. ~Awilley (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you both. I feel appreciated.  :)—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Recommend you keep an eye on the Rene Levesque page. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your close. While I would not question the ultimate result, I am concerned with the commentary after "consensus for Option D", which would appear to indicate that you may not be familiar with MOS:MIL on infoboxes. It gives specific guidance regarding the result parameter and gives voice to the template documentation regarding the infobox result. It has been cited in the discussion and some less direct mentions. In a nutshell, the result is generally discussed in a section on the aftermath (often called aftermath). In that, prose will present various views as reflected in sources. A closure for option D - Russian victory - see §Aftermath means that this is literally what is placed in the infobox without further qualification, in accordance with the guidance. The only latitude is in the actual name of the section in the body of the article that the reader is directed to for a discussion about the result - ie the appropriate section is usually called Aftermath but may sometimes be given a different name. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Cinderella157, and thanks for visiting my talk page. The Manual of Style doesn't overrule RFC consensus. It's a guideline which editors are free to reach a consensus to disregard in specific cases. Personally I close a lot of RFCs so I constantly deal with infobox-related arguments. Infoboxes want simple one-word summaries and things are often so much more complicated. So it is here.
  In my personal view, the fact that Ukraine is still in this war at all is a victory for them. I remember the pundits giving Ukraine no more than a few weeks to survive, back in Feb 22. Russia taking a few cities, two years later, at a remarkable cost in casualties, is far from a resounding win. If I were Ruling Tyrant of Wikipedia you wouldn't be able to populate the results parameter of a battle infobox until the war is over and a proper history has been published.
  But until I'm appointed to that position, we'll just have to go with the consensus and that one was loud and clear.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We may not be understanding each other. The RfC question was Should the info box eventually say ... with six options given. The close states: ... they reach a consensus for Option D. Consequently, the consensus is telling us to populate the result parameter accordingly - ie Russian victory - see §Aftermath. This is perfectly in accordance with the guidance given at MOS:MIL and the template documentation, where the aftermath section would explain the nuance attached to calling it a Russian victory. There is no disagreement with the guidance in this instance. I am unclear though, as to the point being made that then follows in the close text, since it appears to be arguing against the consensus and the discussion, and that the result parameter should say something else? Consequently, the additional commentary appears to confuse, rather than clarify matters. As an aside, I am curious as to whether you have read the appropriate part of MOS:MIL and the templates documentation regarding the result parameter. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cinderella157, I have read these documents several times, having closed many discussions related to military history infoboxes in the past. I may not have quite the reverence for the Manual of Style that you display. I see that guideline as applying in the vast majority of cases, but in knotty cases where the community has found it difficult to agree, consensus can suspend the guideline in the interests of clarity and accuracy.—S Marshall T/C 09:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings! What is the reason for us to state "loud and clear" consensus given reasonable arguments presented, for example, by Cinderella157 - Talk:Battle of Bakhmut#c-Cinderella157-20240220021100-Survey , and given that the consensus is not a vote. I reviewed sources analyzing the results and there clearly is no consensus regarding "Russian victory", and if we give preference to warstudies-sources, there is a lean towards "hollow" victory, or they even use "operational / strategic failure" which I also presented as an argument during the discussion and elsewhere [4] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the "Aftermath" section has been significantly reduced during the past weeks [5] , and the analyses of the outcome have been moved from it for some reason. Compare its current state with Battle of Bakhmut - Wikipedia ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, Manyareasexpert, and welcome to my talk page.  :) Also, a hearty welcome to Wikipedia's RfC process.

  On the facts, I entirely agree with you. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been amazingly unsuccessful. In this battle and in many others, it's become a gruesomely bloody slog in which Putin exchanges extremely large numbers of Russian casualties for towns and cities of dubious strategic importance. Ukraine's strategy is to preserve their own troops, falling back where necessary, while inflicting as many casualties as possible. They're succeeding in this, and it's my personal view the battle is a rare case where both sides achieved their strategic objectives.

  Wikipedians don't agree. Many Wikipedians measure victory or defeat solely by which side held the disputed territory at the end of the battle. One hopes those Wikipedians never command troops.

  Unfortunately, it's not my personal opinion that prevails. It's the "consensus", which is vaguely and unhelpfully described at WP:DETCON. In practice, in this case, "consensus" means "what the clear majority of responsible Wikipedians think," and they think Option D. Given the opinions and arguments before me, no other close of that discussion was possible.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for sticking your neck out and closing the RfC. I think your objectivity, in spite of clear personal arguably partisan views (which I share by the way) is admirable, and I wish some other editors could put the pursuit of truth above their own personal wishful thinking.

Even the most partisan of western journalists, in the most trusted sources, group Bakhmut and Avdiivka together, when talking about Russian "victory":

• The BBC: "Ukrainian forces have withdrawn from the eastern town of Avdiivka in Russia's biggest victory since the fall of Bakhmut in May last year"^[1]
• Reuters: "The Ukrainian withdrawal from Avdiivka paves the way for Russia's biggest victory since the May 2023 capture of Bakhmut"^[2]
• The Guardian: "biggest gain since May last year"^[3]

Of course, if I was engaged in the conversation directly myself, I would be told that I'm cherry picking, and suffer personal attack as a new editor. Perhaps this expression of opinion will be attacked as being WP:SOAPBOX. Still, the point stands that there is consensus amongst reputable journalists writing in the most trusted sources, as well as amongst editors who are committed to upholding truth as a higher ideal than allowing their desire for a different reality to warp their judgement.

To make this abundantly clear: I do not celebrate any Russian victory, nor do I support Russia in any way. However, I again applaud your intervention in closing the RfC, as a victory for truth, in the context of "what the clear majority of responsible Wikipedians think" as you said in another comment. ManicGrant (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for those kind words, ManicGrant.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your immense effort in closing discussions, thank you S Marshall. You are valued. starship.paint (RUN) 13:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this your closing cover both pages Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War? I understand this is basically the same war. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, My very best wishes, and a warm welcome to my talk page!
  Strictly speaking, my close only covers the one specific discussion it relates to, but if someone wants to deviate from it on a closely-related page, I would suggest you ask them to read it and explain how and why they differ.—S Marshall T/C 14:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw your close at the Tim Hunt RFC, and while I think 99% of it is good I have one quibble with it. Namely: why answer WCM's objection separately? They brought it up both before and during the RFC and it never received much support. The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that WP:PROPORTION isn't terribly relevant here because there's quite a lot of sources about the controversy, enough for this whole long thing over at online shaming.

I don't think this is a huge deal since nobody was advocating for a controversy section that was literally longer than the rest of the article. But I would like to be able to expand that section significantly without worrying about an RFC "consensus" composed of one editor. Loki (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusion stems from your refusal to listen to dissenting opinions, convinced right is on your side and there are WP:GREATWRONGS to right. The edit you're proposing may have "consensus" amongst its proponents but that local consensus can't trump our WP:BLP policies. WP:PROPORTION is very relevant, you should have listened to Thomas instead of driving a productive and valuable editor from Wikipedia. It is a huge deal and if you continue not to get it, I fear this will ultimately end at arbcom. WCM_email 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would honestly love for you to escalate this because you, like Thomas, are obviously on the wrong side of a clear consensus, and yet you insist on following everyone you disagree with all over Wikipedia to try to harangue us into agreeing with you. Loki (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that I'm not very good at dealing with user conduct disputes, and I'm not particularly interested in them. I can see there's an ongoing argument between the two of you, and I'm not the right person to resolve it. I suggest that you take that part of it to a place that deals with user conduct.

LokiTheLiar, you are, indisputably, right to say that Wee Curry Monster is on the wrong side of a clear consensus. (I don't think you're right that it's only WCM.)

But as a closer, I'm bound by the founding principles, the second pillar, and core content policy. In Wikipedia's hierarchy of rules, these cannot be overruled by any talk page consensus however strong. If it was a thousand editors vs one, they can't be overruled. I've just re-read my close to make sure, and I'm absolutely confident that I've applied those rules correctly.

But, LokiTheLiar, you don't have to take my word for it! This close and any other RfC close can be reviewed by the community to make sure they're appropriate. If you'd like to start a close review, then the correct place for it is the administrator's noticeboard, and a review there will attract attention from people who're competent to resolve user conduct disputes as well.

I hope this helps and fully explains my position. All the best—S Marshall T/C 17:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have never disputed that none of those can be overruled by a talk page consensus. However, talk page consensus gets to determine how they're applied, and WCM's argument is not merely that they exist but that they imply this controversy should be given minimal WP:WEIGHT. I don't think that's true: weight and WP:NPOV are determined by the sources, and there are quite a lot of sources about this controversy.

I don't think there are as many sources as there are for his research, though I haven't checked precisely, but certainly there are enough for a fairly lengthy section in the article even if the article wasn't expanded. Loki (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I saw, there were more (scholarly) sources about this controversy than about his scientific contribution. That may seem unfair, but that's the World we live in. Bon courage (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir can't it be just allowed to create an article for Priyanka Choudhary and then listing it to AFD? Please? Because we have done everything we could and made an ideal wiki page article for Ms. Choudhary. You would have already noticed that our draft has much better coverage than the present article of Isha Malviya and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia. So please allow us to create a new article then please nominate it for deletion. We promise that we will accept whatever result comes out in the AFD? 117.209.242.154 (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid the community doesn't want an article about Ms Chaudhary.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir/Ma'am what should we do to convince the community? If we wanted we could have easily created an article since the topic is not salted. But we waited patiently for DRV because we knew there was some kind of past issues with her article. Can you please help us Sir/Ma'am? 117.246.157.19 (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, because I can see that you really care about this, but the community doesn't want to be convinced. We won't host an article about her. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. Thank you 117.246.157.19 (talk) 10:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per your commentary elsewhere, I feel welcomed to say fucking hello. 166.196.61.95 (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome to my talk page, where you can swear as much as you like!—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't SmokeyJoe who noted that the nominator for Derek was a sockpuppeteer. I noted that. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sincere apologies! Fixed.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for saying "I'm envisaging a happy world" in a discussion related to infoboxes, - it's so refreshing! Rather than searching for guidance in closing RfCs, perhaps it might be worthwhile to investigate the years 2016 to 2018, in which - to my knowledge - we didn't have any. That was a happy world ;) - Bach music for Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I was pretty frustrated to see NoonIcarus, who has been a long-term frustration on articles related to Latin American politics seeming to be escaping sanction, again, via textwall arguments nobody wanted to read. In that heated state I misinterpreted your actions and let my emotions get the better of me. I retracted the comment some time ago at the arbcom request but I did also feel it'd be appropriate to say sorry to you for that. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a gentlemanly thing to do. I fully accept your apology and hereby forget the whole thing.—S Marshall T/C 14:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places)? - I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today I see Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Many thanks for your last input in the case. Don't forget your signature! --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting any of my precious 1,000 words on a signature.  :) I'm typing in a section with my name on it, so there's no possibility of confusion.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I understand, it makes sense. Best wishes! --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Marshall, we'd prefer to keep the evidence, but you're granted an extension of 500 words. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

I'm still short of time and can't provide "evidence", but I wanted to discuss this here where you said "Of the FV diffs, diffs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 happened because WMrapids didn't." I don't think this is accurate.

Below, I'll go through each real quick:

• 2: Yes, this one I genuinely goofed on. This was the "/article/article/" issue which I have no idea how that happened, especially since all of the other data transferred correctly, so I had no suspicion that there was an issue to the link. I saw your recommendation to check links before I place them, so I'll do my best to remember this for future practice.
• 3: I provided the title, date and the newspaper (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a German newspaper of record) in my citation. After someone suggested in the ANI that I should provide quotes, I now know I should due this, especially with controversial topics.
• 5: Of the unlinked citations, this one seems very clear. It is information provided by Oxford Analytica, the article title, the date and the quote itself. NoonIcarus still marked this as "failed verification".
• 7: This was mainly about the interpretation of shakedown, not about "point[ing] to a place that directly supports what I've written", especially since I have the newspaper, author, URL, title and date in my citation.
• 8: I didn't create the citation for this. I used an archive tool to show that NoonIcarus' edit summary stating "no mention of children" was inaccurate in the ANI.

If you can provide some feedback on how in my citations for 3, 5, 7 and 8 didn't "point to a place that directly supports what I've written", I'd be appreciative. Also, if there were any concerns about NoonIcarus and access to sources, we had a discussion about that twice with them. So if source access were truly the issue, I'd be more understanding, but that just isn't the case.

Sorry to blow up your talk page, but I didn't have the time to throw all of this into a full "evidence" section and wanted to have some clarification. Thanks, --WMrapids (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to be sorry about asking for guidance. You're very welcome to do so. As it happens I'm a fluent German speaker and a frequent visitor to Germany, and I'm very familiar with German-language sources. (My problem with Venezuelan politics is that I don't speak a word of Spanish.)

  With 3 and 5, when you're citing a print newspaper or journal, minimum acceptable precision is date and page number. The quote also definitely helps. We'd expect an experienced Wikipedian to give the headline and author as well, and possibly the column number. Without that information the citation doesn't verify the claim. With 7, "shakedown" doesn't necessarily mean "rob" so the citation doesn't verify the claim, and with 8, the source doesn't mention children so the citation doesn't verify the claim.

  For the policy that underlies this, see WP:FULLCITE. That's part of verifiability, which is one of our three "core content policies". (The others are WP:NOR and WP:NOT.) Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw your other concern and wanted to further clarify that I have been aware of including pages for citations and I usually do. For example, with one citation I placed for New York Amsterdam News (which NoonIcarus marked as "failed verification"), I clearly noted that page 18 was being cited so that others could find such information. Sometimes in the databases I access, a page number isn't present. This was the case for 3 (see: Generation 2007. (2019, Apr 01). Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/generation-2007/docview/2200481818/se-2) and 5 (see: VENEZUELA: Talks may produce splits but ease tensions. (2014, Apr 11). OxResearch Daily Brief Service Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/wire-feeds/venezuela-talks-may-produce-splits-ease-tensions/docview/1514817525/se-2). I included all of the information that I had available besides the direct quote. The way I create citations is also strange; I usually create them in source mode, switch to visual editing and then copy the source and paste it where applicable. After looking around at creating citations in visual mode, I noticed that there is a "Content deliverer (i.e. Database)" slot that is only for journals, but not for newspapers, websites or books. Maybe that is something we can improve on to help with identifying sources?

  As for 8, the archived article does mention children; "reportó que había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno" ("he reported that there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen."). Like I said in the ANI, NoonIcarus can use web archives well when they want to, but they didn't want to do it in this case. Thanks, WMrapids (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As your process is to switch editing modes partway through the process I don't have any advice to offer. :( I do know that a citation to a newspaper edition without a page number is inadequate.

I see a lot of the same problems with NoonIcarus' behaviour that you do. As I said right at the top of my first statement at Arbcom, I do side with you on the actual issues. I think you're really working hard to improve our coverage in that topic area. (I also genuinely believe that NoonIcarus is a good faith editor who's frustrated and overwhelmed with work.)

I believe that AN/I was unjust and it got to the wrong outcome, and I only have 1,000 words to prove that to Arbcom. That's why my Arbcom contributions are very focused on problems with citations. I'm trying to be clear that I don't blame you for them, but it's a thing I hope you work on.—S Marshall T/C 07:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]