User talk:S Marshall/Archive11

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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 ∞

Hi!! in [1]; you advised to "Write a sourced draft of the article.... to bring it back here for discussion ...." Ok but where to obtain the deleted draft ????!! --Rirunmot 15:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks

• Hi Rirunmot. I will arrange for a copy of the deleted draft to be given to you shortly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey S Marshall, thanks for the constructive input on the Euclid Farnham deletion review. I have little hope that it will be overturned and am, I must admit, feeling a little regretful that I even nominated it as such, I did not realize the strength of people's feelings against legitimate canvassing (Friendly Notice). I find it annoying that people would try to discount inputs based on that connection even if the input has substantial argument (this seems to be what most are saying should be done), when in fact its not a vote and the XfD is there to elicit reasoned WP supported arguments or changes to the page. If a small amount of Friendly Notice canvassing produced such (i.e. good WP guideline based reasons for change, or changes to the article itself) would not WP be better for it? Would not the decision to ignore those arguments and delete an article suitable for inclusion be wrong? Maybe I should post this on the deletion review :/ Mickmaguire (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. Hi from a fellow Brit (ex-pat but originally from Bedford)

• Hi, Mickmaguire. This needs a longer answer than I have time for right now—it calls for an explanation, not just an answer—so I will have to come back and reply a little later today.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• ...Okay, lots of things to say in response to this.

  1) Please don't worry about the canvassing any more. I understand how it happened, and nobody thinks there was any bad faith involved; it's just down to inexperience and everyone's been new. It can't be erased, but it can be fixed.

  2) All deletions can be overturned. "Deletion" is actually the wrong word for what happens on Wikipedia, because actually the content's still "there" on the servers. A "deletion" just means that the content has been hidden from non-admins, and it can be reversed at any time. There's no rush and no deadline. (Very occasionally, there are kinds of content that are really removed, or at least, hidden from everyone including admins. This is called "oversight". It's what's done when someone posts something really harmful -- for example, if someone decided to create a list of child abusers and posted the name, home address and cellphone number of someone he didn't like in it, oversight is what we'd use. But it's really rare and all the things we'd call "deletion" can be reversed.)

  3) Evidence is what wins debates. If you can show reliable sources for your article, then you can win the debate. Even if the material had been deleted a dozen times, new evidence will still win, if the sources are reliable. One decent source is worth a thousand opinions.

  4) Everyone's lost a debate on Wikipedia. I lose loads. There's no shame in losing a debate. Just come back to it when you have sources.

  5) Wikipedian processes are byzantine and kafkaesque. There's no helping it, sorry. Jimbo Wales once said (paraphrased), "Wikipedia's like a sausage. You might like the taste but you really wouldn't want to know how it's made."

  6) Don't feel the need to reply a lot to debates. You don't need to refute every single point, particularly if it's a dumb one (dumb things are best ignored on Wikipedia).

  And finally, fight the battles you can win. If you search diligently and you can't find good sources, then write a different article instead. Hope this helps—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all that - I wouldn't claim to be new per se, having created and edited countless pages over the past few years, but I'll admit I've not been involved much in Wikipedia policing / debates. I had grown tired of it and stopped contributing as other priorities took over. I wont get into why I created Euclid's page in the first place. I think (as I said) he's on the edge and shoudl be included but it will be hard slog to track down the references as all others will be largely paper - not sure I have time for that. But what I have learned is that some will not take your actions in good faith and that WP Guidelines are just that - they are not rules, so even if you are within them people can ignore that. I still don't (and probably never will) agree that what I did was incorrect as per the guidelines - and if that was the case it seems to me that makes the way the original AfD was handled as being incorrect. Now am I really sure the article should not have been deleted? I'm on the fence, but tend to agree with you that it needed more. Unfortunately, it dint have much of a chance. I understand what you mean about having it in my user space and how others can contribute there - trouble is its only going to get contributed to by those I invite when its there. For now, assuming the deletion stands I think I'll be letting it go. If by some miracle it doesn't stand then I'll likely end up trying to add to it. Thanks again Mickmaguire (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you to review? You seem not to have counted votes, which shows that there was a decent consensus to delete in the first place, even before the out-of-policy votes are disregarded. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, your arguments go against the deletion guidelines, which state:

Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions.

That is precisely the deletion arguments. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well. I certainly haven't "counted votes", because that isn't how consensus is determined on Wikipedia. As for the rest of it, I have replied on the DRV (which I shall watch, and you may assume that any response you post there, I will see).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a userbox and category for "WPedians who patrol CfD". ? There's good precedent for that. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not a bad idea. But on principle let's see that Xdamr's close is overturned first. Do you know how to make userboxes? If not, I spose I can learn.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

copy and paste from one you like DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

How bout:

User:S Marshall/box

You like?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have probably missed something: I've never participated to a CfD, but may I be briefed on what is the perceived problem with those? I am curious to understand what's going on. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 14:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Cyclopia, and thanks for your enquiry. I welcome the chance to discuss this matter.

  I perceive the following problems with CfD:

  1) Deletion decisions against consensus, or those which simply disregard the discussion that preceded them, abound. CfD is a small part of the project's deletion process that occupies a disproportionate amount of DRV time for its importance. I believe the admins who implement CfD are generally good-faith users but their understanding of consensus appears to be at odds with the understanding of consensus we have at DRV.

  2) Reversing a deletion at CfD is not simple. At AfD, if an article has been deleted, then reviving it is simply a question of a few mouse clicks; but the only way to reverse a CfD decision is to find the bot that implemented it, track down the diffs of category removal, and reverse each one. In the case of a large category, a deletion could actually be rather hard to reverse.

  3) I find that the criteria used for CfD are either intelligible to me or objective in nature--but rarely both.

  4) Categories cannot include references, which means that any category related to living people is technically in violation of our BLP policies.

  I do not know how to solve these things. They need discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Understood, thanks. I don't get the point 3 very much -is there a deletion policy for categories different from the standard one? where? --Cyclopia^talk 21:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• In theory, most of the specialist category deletion criteria are at WP:OCAT. But rather than taking those rules at face value, I would recommend reviewing the actual CFD pages to see how those arguments are applied in practice.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Good, thanks a lot. --Cyclopia^talk 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I have had an account in the past, but I doubt you'd recognise it, your account had <50 edits when I stopped using it (It's not blocked or under any sanction, nor ever had been). I simply went on an extended break for a variety of personal reasons, when I was ready to dip my toe back in the water I decided not to commit anywhere near as much time to wikipedia. Therefore it seemed easier to (a) not use or link to the older account (b) not commit to a new account either.

My IP has switched a few times, usually when I go on holiday and my cable modem is disconnected for a week or two, and at least one of the previous ones have been checkusered on some theory I might be person X, didn't come back positive.

Experience of editing as an IP isn't actually that bad, some overzealous vandalism patrol people occassionally revert, but I've seen that happen plenty to named accounts also. Some people find it frustrating that they can't work out who "I really am", which since I'm not editing under any other guise they never will. The real problem with an IP is that people seldom engage much, since they've no way of knowing if it's the same person twice, but as above to a degree not getting too involved is part of the point for me. Maybe some day I'll start afresh or go back to my original account, but for now I'm happy pottering around sticking my nose in as and when I feel --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• I should be clear that I wasn't accusing you of sockpuppetry of any kind. On examining your contributions I think it's unnecessary to assume good faith; I think we can treat you as a good faith account on the basis of the actual evidence.  :) I seem to have been wrong in my guess at who you are, and I shall cease to wonder, since it makes little difference. And thanks for dropping by.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I didn't think you were accusing sockpuppetry, I wouldn't have replied if I had. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, S Marshall. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online Shipping Charges.
Message added 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Article appears to be multiple independently-targeted copy-paste copyvios. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't FAR it now; I want to see how the AFD plays out first. If it gets kept at AFD, then we can FAR it. My main concern is whether or not it merits an article at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fraid I'm ahead of you, mate. Sorry.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Could you speedy close it or something? I don't think we should have FAR and AFD up on the same article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I can do, but please could you explain the logic to me first? FAR and AFD are, as Sandywossname correctly says, entirely separate matters.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would think that dubious notability is a higher concern than whether or not it's FA quality, even if they are different matters. It could easily get deleted via AFD in as little as seven days, and if it does, the FAR would then have to be prematurely closed. Also, with both going at the same time, we might get the infinite loop of "Keep, it's at FAR, let them determine"/"Close the FAR, it's at AFD, let them determine." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your edited answer makes sense, so I'll put it on hold.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Crap, you two are sure creating a bunch of work for me :) S Marshall, TPH's request does not make sense; the article does need a FAR review. What should be speedily closed is the AFD. My suggestion would be reinstate the FAR: YMMV :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think the "infinite loop" is a good argument, as I've seen it happen before. Everyone expects everyone else to do their work, and we end up in a deadlock. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I think TPH is making sense, SandyGeorgia. It is a fair point that the FAR nomination could be prejudicial to the AfD, and there is no urgency about the FAR.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Fine :) I'm just a bit frustrated about some of the unnecessary trails TPH has been blazing in the last few days ... this isn't the first time I've had to fix the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Let's not blame TPH for what I did.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• No problem :) But there was no problem with what you did, either :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, you can go ahead and reopen the FAR now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm really dizzy :) Did you re-add the FAR template to the article talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop it! Stop being faster than me, this minute.  ;)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I gotta be good for something (speed :) ! Can you follow to make sure TPM completes the AFD templating on article talk? I have no idea how that's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

TPH is faster than me at that. You two... really, it's like dealing with two bolts of lightning. It's your poor girlfriends I feel sorry for.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

<ahem> ... allllll my boyfriends can keep up with me :) I hope you saw TPM's latest on the FAR; that may help you understand why he has me tearing my hair out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ewps, you appear to have caught me out in an unwarranted assumption.  :) I apologise unreservedly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL ! OK, unwatching here now :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I just say I disagree with your archiving of my suggestion mere hours after I posted it? I'm sorry about the "dogpile" (I was the one who posted to the user's talk page originally--if others followed from there, I didn't mean for it). But my concern still exists that it's not clear from the policy page that hangon tags are not simply to be removed. I think the discussion deserves being played out. There doesn't seem to be consensus on the issue, so the "Resolved" tag is inappropriate at this early stage. Let it go a day or two, would you? Thanks, Robert K S (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry my action cut short the discussion, but it was leading to borderline harassment of TPH, and discussions about Wikipedia policy aren't important enough to make a real life person miserable about. May I suggest you raise it again, without the diffs, in a day or two? Cheers—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As to the "borderline harassment" issue, I've responded to you about that on TenPoundHammer's talk page. Your suggestion is noted, and thanks. While the issues of TPH and the issue of the proposed minor policy amendment are separate issues, I thought the example (the diff) would be appropriate, because it addresses the motivation. (No one would be expected to support a policy amendment that wasn't being made an issue by a long-time editor, and one who is regularly nominated for adminship at that.) Robert K S (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's leave TPH's talk page alone for a bit. The man will either get the message or not; and if not, there are avenues to take it further where I will support you wholeheartedly. I have no problem with discussion but I dislike drama.

      I do think my archiving of the discussion was appropriate in the circumstances, but I'm also quite capable of being wrong, so if any uninvolved editor thinks I was wrong, they are welcome to revert me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

      • Agreed (to your first sentence), cheers, thanks. Robert K S (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I also take issue with your wording. I have had arguments with TPH about speediness before and had the impression that a single voice does not get through. So I genuinely thought offering a third take might clarify not least the difference between the speedy call and the removal of a hangon tag. and even said that if I had realized the connection with the DRV fully I might have refrained. Closing myself the CSD talk thread would have been useful, but calling that a dog pile goes too far. So please reconsider your phrasing. --Tikiwont (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's certainly not short of users who have had discussions with TPH about speediness.  :)

  That particular talk page thread was out of proportion to the incident, and it was not appropriate in dealing with a good-faith user. But I will retract the word "dogpile" at your request.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Well it may look out of proportion but still we talk about two uninvolved parties commenting only and yes we are good faith contributors, too. Not sure why labeling them 'at my request' leaves me somewhat unsatisfied, but maybe I simply think you (or I) should have closed the CSD thread with a neutral message (user has been advise accordingly) while you are of course free to express your opinion at TPH's message as you see fit. And no, that is not a request this time. --Tikiwont (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

As the subject of the Article, I have committed to stay away unless invited to comment. Naturally, I have an interest in following the discussion. I admire the wisdom of your wording, but one part screams out to me, inviting a response. The intent is to be sure everybody is on the same page.

On his talk page, Kevin clearly says, ¨I made a deliberate choice to ignore any canvassing that had gone on, and base my close on the strength of the arguments alone.¨ It seems to me things that should be obvious are just not seen. Admittedly, I do have some bias, but try to be as close to an NPOV as possible. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• S, I am now confused on the role of a closer. You say, ¨Kevin's job as closer was to evaluate the debate rather than the article.¨

I just do not understand how a closer can give any weight to any individual !vote on the article without knowing the framework and context with which to make a closing decision. I would expect part of a closer´s job description requires he/she be totally familiar with the version for the current AfD, but also taking into consideration the changes it has undergone with so many Editors editing since it´s creation. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi DoDaCanaDa

  The problem with requiring the closer to know the article in detail is that tends to make them evaluate the article rather than the debate; they then come to close the debate with preconceptions. Generally, the procedure taken by the admins whose closures are most rarely overturned seems to be to read the debate first, form an initial opinion based purely on the strength of the arguments, and then go and read the article once, paying particular attention to any matter on which the debate focused (so if there was a lot of mention of the sources, for example, the closer should at least look to see what they were). The closer should then check the article's history, just to make sure they can see a good version of the article (rather than one which has been altered in some way by a bad faith user just prior to the close), and then re-read the debate.

  99% of the time, having done these things, the closer will be sure what the correct course is. I think that in this unusual case, there was still genuine doubt, and if I were closing it I would have gone on to read all the references cited in the article and examine the contribution history of the debate participants.

  As I have said, I would have closed that debate as "no consensus", but it was very very close to a "delete" and I see either outcome as within the closer's discretion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, S, for this explanation. It does enlighten me somewhat as to the process. Just one more question, please. What is the status of a request for deletion review? Is opinion reserved to the more seasoned, experienced Administrators? I ask this because being able to view Wikipedia Article Traffic Statistics for articles and User pages, since this has been up for AfD and review, many dozens of Wikipedians have viewed the relevant pages in a sudden great spike, but so few offer any opinion? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• There are no places on Wikipedia where opinion is reserved to administrators. None at all; "administrator" is a title reserved for certain people who the community has entrusted with certain extra privileges, but no extra weight is given to their opinions, anywhere. Anyone may comment on a Deletion Review, and indeed there are certain IP addresses who do so. If their arguments are strong, grounded in policy and precedent, thoughtful, or based on a careful analysis of the sources, then they will be well-received and carry appropriate weight.

  It's true that Deletion Review is taken quite seriously. It is the "highest court in the land" for content disputes, and decisions taken there are virtually beyond appeal. (Only ArbCom, which is the parallel "highest court in the land" but for conduct disputes, would have the authority to overturn Deletion Review, and they have never done so; nor do I think it likely that they ever would, except in the very unlikely event of abuse on the part of the closer.)

  Because of these factors, Deletion Review tends to be viewed from a respectful distance. There are occasional exceptions where a great deal of the community will take part, such as this one, but that only seems to happen where the matters raised are of general interest to much of the community and/or would set an important precedent for future discussions.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks again. You have answered all I need to know for now. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I may be interpreting the comments in the wrong way. Up to the latest comment, I was believing Endorse was in support of Hobit´s initial argument to reverse the closure decision. I am now thinking endorse supports Kevin´s initial decision. Would you clarify, please? Also, is the procedure the same, i.e. another Administrator weighs all the discussion and decides? Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• "Endorse" is shorthand for "endorse the closure". In this case, it means supporting Kevin's decision.

  Yes, the procedure is that an uninvolved administrator weighs the discussion and decides, but there are relatively few admins who feel competent to close DRVs. The most frequent closer at the moment is User:IronGargoyle, who enjoys the community's trust and whose decisions are very rarely challenged.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• S, obviously you´ve been there and done that. I understand you cannot speak for the closing Administrator, but how could this comment by Nomoskedasticity be interpreted? ¨Endorse, with some misgivings. To the extent that this was no consensus, I would be very concerned about closing as delete,¨ even though he !voted delete in the AfD. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reading Nomoskedasticity's comment in full and in context, I would say that he sees no consensus in the debate, and were it not for concerns about canvassing, he would be recommending an "overturn to no consensus" (which means keeping the article). However, he then goes on to say that the canvassing concerns mean that some of the comments in the debate can and perhaps should be disregarded, and he thinks that exercising the closer's discretion to disregard some of those comments tips the debate over into "delete" territory. Nomoskedasticity's comment is more nuanced than that, and it references other recent events as well, but not in a way that I think will have a strong influence on this particular debate.

  I would say that Nomoskedasticity and I are broadly of one mind about this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• In my own defense. I have to plead Mea Culpa in canvassing, although I was not aware that´s what I was doing. I thought of it more as a permissible ¨friendly notice¨ if you look at my wording sent to three keep and 3 delete editors from previous AfDs. I did appreciate you pointing out the Afd was the 2nd nom by the same person, and if you look on Kevin´s talk page, that nom in the past was anything but NPOV in how he edited the article. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• S, a question, please, this being my 1st time experience of a DrV? If DrV is Wikipedia´s equivelent to the Supreme Court, is there a roster of Administrators who are elected or appointed to this special position, knowing the great responsibility they have in identifying the issues and adjudicating on them? Are the different articles assigned to the Adiministrators in some random way, or do they pick what they want to investigate? Thanks. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't quite work that way. Wikipedian culture is a strange thing, and it wholly rejects the ideas of specialism or expertise. Anyone, administrator or not, may participate in a DRV, and if they offer a view that is thoughtful and well-grounded in policy, it will be fully taken into account. In theory any administrator may close a DRV.

  In practice, though, only an experienced and respected administrator would normally do so.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you S, but I understand any editor can offer an opinion. I was under the impression the closing Editor has the difficult task to assess and qualify the opinions of all the other editors volunteering an opinion as to whether they do or not conform to consensus established WP? I can see that is a great responsibility for any Editor.

I see DrV is a beehive of activity with many Editors offering opinions and comments on most of the articles, and 3 days passed between the last opinion and the one before that on this DvR. Admittedly, I have a bias, but I do try to be as close to a NPOV as humanly possible, which is one of the highest principles requiring adherence in dealing with a BLP. It seems to me most of the opinions posted at the Supreme Court/DrV did not do any research as would be expected at this level beyond the AfD. My questions were concerned about how the closing Administrator weighs all the opinions of the other Editors. If the Administrator does as you outlined above, I am confident he will come to a good and proper decision. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, I should think the closer will be obedient to the consensus and endorse the decision. But that does not mean that Ray Cormier can never have an article on Wikipedia. What it means is that Kevin's particular deletion decision will in this instance be endorsed.

  If I were you I would ask for a "userfied" copy of the article, and add to it any extra sources you can find. Then bring it back and show me, and if the draft is sufficiently well-sourced, I will personally bring the article back before DRV on your behalf with the recommendation that it be moved into the mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• This BLP was here for two years before I found it. My only concern was that it accurately reflect the numerous independent news sources in existence. How could that be done if the sources were not online? I really admired Steve Smith when he argued in the past just because all the references are pre-internet, and not as easy to locate, they are no less valid. The nom who started this process edited this BLP using only the headers without knowing the content and totally re-wrote the entire article that slandered the subject, no if, doubts or buts, and totally opposite to anything that could be considered NPOV, and that is not in the closing Administrator´s pervue? Reading between the lines of your comment above, Wikipedia is become a shadow of it´s former self. It has become more politics than NPOV.

Steve Smith has all the original references in his possession that were land mailed to him and look what he was able to draw from them for a start. I wish 100 hundred Editors asked I send them the same now uploaded files. I offered in the talk so often with no takers. We will just have to wait and see. I appreciate your last thoughts. As I said in another talk, if the article is finally deleted, it in no way invalidates the trail established in the public record. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• No deletion is final. Just as the decision to "keep" at the first AfD was not final, so a decision to "endorse" at this DRV is not the end of the process.

  It's also important to understand that "deletion" is a misnomer. When an article is deleted, the content is in fact still there--merely hidden from non-administrators. (This is done specifically so as to make sure that deletions can be reversed if they are wrong.)

  Occasionally it's necessary to remove content in a totally final, irrecoverable way, but this is not called deletion; the process is called "oversight", and is only for use in very extreme cases (as, for example, if someone were to create an article called "Lindsay Lohan's home telephone number" that actually listed the number...)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Well we won´t know until the closing Administrator decides. If he uses the process you articulated, and he believes in WP:Bold, it may not turn out as you suppose. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• While much has been said about Administrator discretion, as I read the comments on the DvR, there is no real consensus here either. It seems split 50-50 in the sense that four opinions Endorse without qualification, based solely on ¨Administrator Discretion.¨ Hobit, who launched the DvR, obviously calls for overturning Kevin´s delete decision. Three other Endorse opinions make it perfectly clear if they were the closer, they would have gone with no consensus. Does the Administrator have the discretion to consider this? Also, there is clear evidence by his own words on his talk page, Kevin may not have made his decision concerning this AfD without extreme bias. There is no doubt the Subject the Subject is concerned with is very controversial. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• It has happened as you supposed. While the AfD closer had great latitude and discretion, at Wikipedia´s Supreme Court there was no discretion, no rational for a decision, and no experience necessary to tally up Endorse without going beyond the word. What a sham! DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving this. Just a small side issue, I notice that Dangerous & severe personality disorder simply redirected to Severe personality disorder. As nothing in Wikipedia links to Dangerous & severe personality disorder and it isnt a very likely search term, are you happy to delete Dangerous & severe personality disorder? --Penbat (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've redirected it back to Personality disorder for the moment. I'm unsure what the purpose of that redirect might have been, but redirects are cheap. If you feel strongly about the matter it should probably be considered at WP:RFD, but personally I wouldn't bother.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I've noticed your comment at the above AfD. I'd like to make clear that I put the article at AfD because it appears to be a duplicate/POV Fork of Arayot, and not because of whether the content was notable - the latter matter I have no dispute over.

Would you be able to revise your comment in light of this, or if you understood this in the first place would you be able to make that clearer in your comment?

Many thanks. Newman Luke (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(Please don't reply on my talk page - I've got some complicated work-related things that need doing, so I won't be able to answer anything posted to my talk page for at least the next fortnight, and there's a bit of a backlog already.)

I've proposed editing and merging One Bid, Showcase Showdown and The Showcase into the respective sections of The Price Is Right (U.S. game show). Please feel free to comment here. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there.

I've recently posted on WP:HERTS and User:Simply South's talk page about the possibility of bringing the project back to life, and if so how we would go about this and what we would do. I was wondering if you would be interested in getting involved? I think we have a small but dedicated and diverse group of editors, including editors with interests in geography, sports, transport, mills, politics, music and history. If we could bring these talents together I reckon we could produce some fantastic work on some of the project's key areas, such as Hertfordshire, History of Hertfordshire, and the county's larger settlements.

Personally I believe the key to successfully bringing together the efforts of editors with interest in anything remotely Herts related will be to maintain at least a semi-active talk page at WT:HERTS, so feel free to give any thoughts you have there. Also, don't be afraid to be bold if you feel something to do with the project can be changed for the better.

(the above was a generic message)

Also, I just wanted to take this chance to say that if you need any help with History of Hertfordshire I'm more than happy to chip in (and hopefully we can recruit a couple of extra pairs of eyes from the project as well). History isn't my strongest point but feel free to ask if there's anything you feel you need help with. I've got the peer review on my watchlist too, so once we get a bit of external feedback I'll be happy to chip in. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi WFCforLife

  For the moment I'll focus on History of Hertfordshire, but in principle I'm more than happy to participate. User:PeterSymonds and User:Bazj both seem well worth contacting to me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm sure you acted in good faith, but this edit [2] of yours is in error. Please read the appropriate guideline. Names beginning Mc, Mac etc. should always be sorted as though spelled Mac. Thanks. Philip Trueman (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Philip, where did that guideline come from? Robert K S (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's standard practice in the world of book indexing etc. If you have such a thing, take a look a BT telephone directory. Best wishes. Philip Trueman (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, ten thousand edits and I'm still learning the basics.  :\ —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"However, I want to pose one other key question: which reliable sources discuss this, and what name do they give to the subject?" Sorry for the belated response to this question.

The answer is that in reliable sources in English its often scattered about in various places - bits under incest, others under marriage laws, more still under priest, spadone, mamzer, minority, or mishk'vei ishah (since the latter is about anal sex/related acts, the victorians regarded it as 'unspeakable' and so, unfortunately, you won't find much about it in sources written before the mid 20th century).

In Hebrew-speaking Judaism, in English language texts, its under Arayot, or Gilui Arayot. For example - [3] (though this isn't a reliable source) - has it under the heading "unethical sex/gilui arayot". Bar-Ilan University, in English, refers to it as Gilui Arayot [4].

If you want to look at google hits:

• 952 hits for "forbidden relationships" judaism -wikipedia [5]
• 23,500 hits for Arayot -wikipedia [6]

Though google hit counts are no reliable indicator, of course, the large difference in the order of magnitude should be some hint. Newman Luke (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See also: User talk:Penbat#Edit summaries and User talk:Alamanth#Concerns about content

Hi User:Alamanth is whizzing round irrationally butchering various psychology articles and without any prior discussion. Can you help ? --Penbat (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Penbat.

  Alamanth appears to be attempting to edit in good faith, as are you; we have a content dispute here. I am not knowledgeable about psychology and I cannot decide which of you has the right of it.

  I advise you both to seek dispute resolution.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • This edit has a summary which, in my opinion, is out of line--as do a dozen other recent edits by Penbat. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that User:Alamanth is a sock puppet of the permanently banned ex Wikipedia administrator User:Zeraeph. It is suspicious that User:Alamanth is a new Wikipedia user yet seems expert on Wikipedia procedures. Also she has homed in on me in particular. User:Zeraeph also used to single me out in a similar way and also had the same particular interest in psychology Wikipedia articles. User:Alamanth was doing radical surgery without any prior discussion such as redirecting the content of whole article. There is no reason to round on my work - about 30% of all psychology Wikipedia articles dont have a single citation and deviate far more to Wiki rules than any of my work. --Penbat (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To prevent confusion, I'll reiterate what I said at User talk:Penbat: I never gave indication as to my gender (and do not wish to). Please do not use gendered pronouns for me, or assign other attributes to me; thanks. Alamanth (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll respond on your talk page; let's try and keep the discussion a bit more central. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

To prevent confusion, I'll reiterate what I said at User talk:Penbat: I am not (and, until today, had never heard of) User:Zeraeph, and I would gladly cooperate in any investigation, as I have nothing to hide. Alamanth (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• However you decide to proceed, I wish you well, but my talk page is not the right place for further discussion of this issue and I should be very obliged if you would take the matter elsewhere.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly; please forgive the disruption. Alamanth (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for messing up your talk page, S. BTW, how are you doing? Drmies (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Drmies, I'm doing great.  :) You?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Very well, thanks. About to start writing a book, if I can ever put the 'pedia down! Drmies (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ooo, fascinating! A book on your academic field? A novel?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

When you're tagging uncategorized pages, could you please use {{uncat}} rather than simply adding Category:Uncategorized pages as a category? The template is necessary for dating purposes, and because the category itself is hidden, it doesn't get removed when articles do get categorized. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Okay!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)