User talk:S Marshall/Archive19

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 ∞

I was reading the discussion Category:16th Century Palestian Rabbis deletion, and thought you could help me understand some deletions resulting from this one. The discussion here didn't really seem conclusive to me, but the bot came along and deleted two of the categories discussed (i.e., Active Canadian... and Active United States....) within this discussion of the Active United Kingdom discussion. Does this seem correct to you? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi! At first glance, the deletion doesn't seem unreasonable to me given the discussion upon which it was based. All the best—S Marshall T/C 15:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is happening all over again: Debresser removes the category so the page will be deleted before the rfc/drv has ended. [1] & [2]. Please stop him or take the appropriate action. Chesdovi (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter, I don't think. If the DRV is closed as "overturn" then we'll just have to go through Debresser's contributions reversing him, but I have a feeling we would have had to have done that anyway.—S Marshall T/C 20:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit on WP:V. It preserved what I was trying to do while still addressing your concerns. That's the way to do it. :) Gigs (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

In the discussion you say I'm a published author who has been peer reviewed, and I know about a dozen other published authors who've been peer reviewed. We can't possibly have articles about every single such person. My personal opinion on this issue is that the fact that a neutral editor elects to write an article on a subject is in itself an indication of "notability" because that editor has "taken note of" the subject and elected to write an article about it. That's one of the reasons that I'm so concerned about COI and AUTO creations. One can't take note of one's self. In an ideal wiki world we should be able to have a verifiable NPOV article about every peer reviewed author that someone chooses to write about. However, it's not an ideal wiki world so that should only be the first indication of notability and not in itself sufficient for inclusion. This is especially true for BLPs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Ron, and thanks for your note. I understand and, to an extent, sympathise with, the argument that the fact that a neutral editor writes an article is in itself evidence of notability; ideally it would be so, particularly in the academic world. I would love to work on an academic variant of Wikipedia where every professor has an article and every doctoral thesis is a reliable source. But I agree with you that in the real wikiworld, we don't want BLPs on every single published author.—S Marshall T/C 14:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I might actually write an essay on this subject so I'll give two more exceptions to this concept. "Paid editing" and the "mass creation of stubs". The former for similar reasons to COI editing ie "you can't pay someone to take note of a subject" and the later for this reason. An editor noticing something significant about a certain Episcopal church in Atlanta, doing some research, and writing a sourced verifiable NPOV article is notability. even if it technically doesn't meet WP:ORG. An editor deciding that every Episcopal church in Atlanta deserves an article and mass creating stubs is not notability and violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If I'm not mistaken, most of the bilateral relations articles were mass created and we both know what a mess that was. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
    • For paid editing, I'd say that the whole question of COI editing is with Arbcom at the moment. Personally I'm confident that Cirt wasn't paid to edit anything, but it's something that Arbcom members are talking about clarifying via RFCs. For the mass creation of stubs, an excellent essay inspired by that bilateral relations business already exists at WP:KITTENS. I'd certainly be interested in collaborating with you on the first part of your essay, though!—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You recently opined here; this note is to advise you that this section has been closed in lieu of discussing each situation below the linked section individually. –xeno^talk 16:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I really like your comment in the Deletion Review for Jeff Boss, which is clearer and more concise that what I usually say in the circumstance. I know you won't mind if I'll add some version of it it to my repertoire DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Why thank you, DGG. Of course I don't mind! All the best—S Marshall T/C 17:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keeps are discouraged at AfD - see WP:NotEarly. The reasons for closing an AfD early as a keep are shown at Wikipedia:Speedy keep, and this AfD does not meet the criteria there. It sometimes happens that an AfD gets an initial reaction to either keep or delete, and sometimes that may change as others join in. Because it sometimes happens that those closely involved in an article will immediately rush to !vote "keep" when an article is listed, we do keep an AfD open for seven days to allow time for considered responses and to gain a broad consensus. You may note that all but two of the !voters are regular contributors to the article (it's worth checking contribution history when doing a close for various reasons - such as sometimes accounts are created merely for !voting in an AfD). I accept that the end result may well be the same, however, I feel it appropriate that the AfD is allowed to run its course. As I also feel it appropriate to approach you first, rather than overturn your closure. I appreciate your concern to head off personal attacks, however, that is not a valid reason to close an AfD; rather, if there are personal comments, a reminder should be given to participants to remain civil. The AfD was listed in good faith with genuine concerns regarding the make up of the list; that it is a) a WP:CONTENTFORK of Member states of the United Nations and b) it contains WP:OR. I may not have presented my concerns as clearly as I could, but the concerns are certainly valid, and a robust discussion of them would be appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• No problem. Put your snowshoes on.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I have got the impression that this article is very contentious yet heavily supported and entrenched, so this may be a very one-sided AfD; however, that is no reason not to raise valid concerns. We raise the question and then let consensus take its course. I have always accepted consensus, even when I have disagreed with it, because I firmly believe in the collegiate approach of Wikipedia. I also support Wikipedia's structure which encourages concerns to be raised and aired rather than shouted down. Wikipedia may not be perfect, but it's an admirable model of an open community. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

One has to admire your bravado. --88.109.60.234 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• That discussion was just the spur I needed to write some content. :-)—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize this is a template, but because it is my name that is under discussion, and I want to remain neutral when requesting comments, this seemed like the best way to go. Apologies if this is somewhat alienating. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

{{talkback}} ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 22:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making me smile today: I loved this edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

:) quotation appreciated. No need to attribute. DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• It encapsulated my thought perfectly.  :) All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have responded to your point, which I think was a valid one. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note (just found it...). Can't find anything at AN/I, though. Peridon (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think it got archived from AN/I before you had a chance to respond there... —S Marshall T/C 21:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Found it now. As he's been found to be banned, I'm not going to lose any sleep. But I will be watching for some sorts of edit in future... Peridon (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In the ISO 15924 DRV you reverted my edit that collapsed three parts [3]. They were more specific collapses than the single earlier one [4]. I don't feel the need to revert at all. But could you expand on why these parts should stay visible at all? IMO they were irrelevant to the new situation (templates are restored for now), and they did not contribute to the discussion. Added to this is the confusing situation that DRV does not easy allow for multiple pages in a single discussion, as is at hand here. So improving overview could help to centralize central issues. -DePiep (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Please don't collapse discussions that aren't finished.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Could have been the es then. I understand that "discussion" can mean a somehow completed subthread, as I am used to encounter at a discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, this time for another editor: your es could have been more clear. Not everyone is supposed to understand encoded, or simplified empty, talk. -DePiep (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your support at the Afd on Palestinian rabbis. Chesdovi (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A brief wikibreak for S Marshall; I'm very angry and disappointed with a recent event and I need time to recover my temper. Back in a few hours, or a few days.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I can very well understand why you were angry. I got embroiled with "not truth" many years ago so now I take no part in this at all. Not even to look up the diffs. It is good that you are back. Often on reading your remarks in deletion discussions I find myself thinking "Oh yes, that's what I think too"! Thincat (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello S Marshall,

This is an invitation to revisit Talk:WP:V#Machine translation. Your views on the current proposal and recent comments would be appreciated, whatever they may be.

Many thanks. Rubywine . talk 16:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The article List of Bohemian F.C. players has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unreferenced and only consists of two players

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GiantSnowman 19:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to thank you for spending time, recently, to debate the phrase "not truth" and I am ready to join in finding a solution. Your posted messages led me to the discussion. See:

• WT:Verifiability/First_sentence#Note_how_truth_is_relative,_not_Yoda-speak

Perhaps this is the time to actually remove the phrase "not truth" and have some more-realistic wording in that policy page. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)