User talk:S Marshall/Archive42

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 ∞

		The Closer's Barnstar
		For your well-done closure at Talk:Race and crime. ––FormalDude talk 02:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've waited a few days to bring this up, hoping that one of the editors at bee hummingbird would add the dinosaur fact back on the page somewhere. But nobody has. Probably because if it is allowed in the article at all it would then again be lead worthy. So, please reconsider your close of the discussion which states that consensus exists to remove the fact from the lead. Because what exists are lots of editors saying in various words that they don't like it, that it gives them the willies, and that Wikipedia's readers will catch the vapors and faint right away after reading that the bee hummingbird, bless its soul, is not only the smallest bird but is the smallest known dinosaur. All of the objections to including that fact in the lead were refuted not once but several times, in several different ways. Not one objection holds up, at least I don't see one. Since consensus is not a show of hands but keeping agreements as to how Wikipedia does business behind the curtains, some of those agreements were brought up during the discussion. And, not surprisingly, nobody had a point not countered by what I'd describe as common sense mixed with a dash of wonder and seasoning and a jolly (oh, wait, I've digressed, thinking about Christmas). The fact that the bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur exists on several Wikipedia pages, and highlights a couple of them, but it can't be allowed on its own page. This is a quandary. Please read the discussion again with an eye for why editors don't want it on the page (and again, wouldn't a section on the page, which should be perfectly fine, also be worth a sentence or sentence-portion summary in the lead?, hence the quandary) because there really isn't a good unrefuted reason presented in the discussion. May I ask where do you see one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Did you know that the Kitti's hog-nosed bat is the world's smallest mammal, the Paedocypris progenetica the smallest fish, or the Paedophryne amauensis the smallest vertebrate? I didn't, until I just read it in their leads. Precedent worthy? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Randy. It's agreed, and well-sourced, that birds are dinosaurs and the bee hummingbird is the world's smallest dinosaur. But editors don't want to say that in the lede, and the fact that they don't invokes WP:ONUS. Because WP:ONUS is policy, my hands are absolutely tied here. There must be consensus for inclusion or else the disputed fact gets removed -- even though it's sourced and accurate. Sorry. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, and the best of Christmas season to you. Consensus is reached "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" according to WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and in that discussion I may have been the only editor using any of those. Everyone else was using "I don't like it" reasoning that, oddly enough, readers would be shocked, shocked Ize tell ya, and confused beyond belief that the bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur. I'd think my reasoning during the discussion satisfies ONUS and tips towards keeping the lead as it was when the discussion started, including the dinosaur fact which was already in the lead and used when the bee hummingbird descriptor was the featured picture on the main page and is still used in its featured picture on the birds portal. Nobody really gave a policy or common sense reason to remove it, so common sense would fall on keeping it where it was when the discussion started. Aside from that, does your close preclude, allow, or remain neutral about including the dinosaur information in a small separate section on the page, or in the first paragraph after the lead. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Seasonal cheer to you too! The RfC question was very clearly and specifically about whether the disputed information belonged in the lede, and that's why I phrased my close as I did. The community has yet to decide whether the disputed information can be put elsewhere. This means that you may put the disputed information in the article somewhere other than the lede, unless and until the community decides otherwise.
  Taking my closer hat off and giving you my personal opinion, I suggest being cautious here and giving the disputed information low prominence when you add it back in. If editors think you're trying to do an end-run around the previous RfC they may be apt to get a little testy. I think it's best to be respectful, patient and discreet here.—S Marshall T/C 13:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, probably good advice. Maybe I'll bring it up after New Year's, although "The community" has yet to give a good reason why it shouldn't be in the lead. As my dear mum used to say "Dinosaurs of a feather flock together". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a great conversation you cut short here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Rent_control:_%22on_consensus_among_economists%22 What improvements in the articles did you achieve by cutting off such a conversation? 83.37.61.228 (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merry Christmas, Pedrote112. Sorry that conversation didn't work out as you hoped. I hope that doesn't make you too unhappy.—S Marshall T/C 00:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Marshall, Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Thank you especially for having taken the time to create the closure review at WP:AN regarding WP:RFA2021/P#8B. Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

Greetings S Marshall. I have seen you around, many times, and I've always been impressed with your manner and clue. I have especially come to appreciate you having collaborated on matters of RfA reform, and now, the implementation of XRV. I believe that your contributions and editing history are sufficient, upon review, to foster the community trust and support needed for your candidacy to succeed. I am confident that a number of respected administrators would be willing to nominate you, and I'd certainly be glad to give my own, unreserved, support. Nevertheless, I have reviewed RfA 1 and 2, and do understand if you've sworn the process off entirely. I guess it mostly depends on you, and whether your interested in becoming an admin or not. Either way, you are an administrator without tools and Wikipedia benefits because you are here. With sincere and best regards.--John Cline (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your kind words. I am unwilling to submit to the RFA process, and I think would be a poor candidate. I've spoken a lot of truth to power over the years and not everyone shares your high opinion of me. Besides, if I had access to the block button, I would rapidly and decisively use it to make Wikipedia a better place, and the community probably wouldn't approve.—S Marshall T/C 10:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I regret to see you are still unwilling, but I'm not surprised. I do however respectfully continue to disagree that you'd be a poor candidate: your combination of integrity, empathy, and ability to cut through complexity with a clear explanation of a well-founded position on the issues would be attractive to many in an admin candidate. (I also trust your knowledge of the blocking policy.) Yngvadottir (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still ought to be an admin. Frowny face.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I and many potential voters beg to differ :-) But so what? Even if I were still one, you'd still be a good addition to the admin corps. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Late to the party, but i agree with John Cline's assessment (and Ygnvadottir's); i think an RfA in your name would probably be rough, but i also think that you would be a strong admin ~ for what it's worth. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I know it's unlikely. I'd be enthusiastic to support, though. (The quote paraphasable as "don't get drawn into an argument about nothing and quit in disgust" has carried me through a lot.) Vaticidalprophet 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, you don't have one of the two main criteria which are "got in back when it was easy" or "has no high visibility history" such as the candidate that had 99% support until Arbcom banned them. And we have worked together (when of course, you were right  :-) ) and worked in opposition (when, of course, you were wrong :-) ) Your wisdom surpasses at least 90% of current admins. I'd be honored to nominate and / or support you. OK? In in the nomination I'd appropriately rename "RFA" to "is willing to serve if approved" OK? North8000 (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with LindsayH's assessment. You'd not have an easy RfA, but that is far from the same thing as being a weak candidate. I'm guessing you might be surprised at the number of people who you think would oppose you who hold their fire, and sometimes there is value in having your enemies break cover and declare themselves. I can absolutely sympathise with you not liking the idea of putting your name forward, but I'd like to encourage you to consider doing so again anyway. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• ITT: A bunch of people who should be admins, saying they shouldn't be admins^[Humor] casualdejekyll 18:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since that discussion is overlong, I'd rather not weigh in there, but I was struck by the conjunction of two remarks you made in your exchange with Cbl62:

1. "Yes, I do believe that it's wildly disproportionate to have 261 articles about physicists and 23,226 articles about footballers."
2. "Yes, the GNG should govern the notability of every topic and particularly every biography of a living person, and yes, I have for years advocated that the GNG should trump SNGs in all cases."

I'm rather confident that deprecation of the SNGs so that the GNG applied uniformly would have a far worse effect on the chance of articles about physicists surviving AfD than it would on our articles about footballers. I'm quite certain that the relaxation of the curious conjunction of criteria that GNG requires in NPROF allows quality, verifiable articles to be written on subjects that do not satisfy GNG. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Charles. My position is that we should not host a mainspace biography of a living person unless that biography has two independent, high quality, reasonably in-depth sources. Think of me as a GNG fundamentalist, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I've been on DRV often enough to be aware of your position. It's the juxtaposition with regret at the ratio of physicists to footballers that provoked my post. Perhaps a thought experiment makes the point clearer: suppose we waved a magic wand and not only were SNGs to fall by the wayside but an army of faery Wikipedians went through all our bios and conducted AfDs on all GNG-unworthy cases. At the end of the process, we have 11,000 footballer articles and 80 articles about physicists. Are you happy that Wikipedia conforms closer to your preferred policy or regretful that the disproportion has become even wilder? — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be pleased but not delighted. If I ever become Ruling Tyrant of Wikipedia, what we'd have is consolidated articles. Manchester United footballers, NASA physicists, Heidelberg University Faculty of Chemistry and Earth Sciences, etc. The individual bios would be transcluded, for ease of moving them when they change team/employer.—S Marshall T/C 17:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an intriguing idea, but I think the people concerned would break out of the box. There are sportspeople who go on to have distinguished (or notorious) careers in other fields—especially Olympians, where our inclusion criteria are IMO even more unbalanced than for footy, since we exclude top-flight footy players from many countries that don't yet have huge corporate investment in the teams—and professors who also do other noteworthy things. In any case the huge imbalance in press coverage would bloat the articles with details about sportspeople of recent decades that we don't have for the vast majority of professors until they die (such as the entirety of their personal lives) and that we have for vanishingly few sports greats of past eras. Your position on notability is undoubtedly better thought out than mine, but it seems to me that the problem from an encyclopedic point of view is our use of coverage in reliable sources as a proxy for notability. We're between a rock and a hard place: ultimately all press coverage and all but a tiny minority of books (many of them self-published) is sensationalistic to the extent that it's published to sell, but the alternative is to make value judgements about who or what is worthy of coverage (as we see with our bias against inclusion of alternative medicine, minority religious and spiritual beliefs, popular novelists of past eras, internet-famous people, and porn, and the battles over schools, roads and railroads, and of course the minefield of businesses and business executives, while certain categories of articles, smartphone and game console models and books to name two non-person categories, get an almost automatic pass). Leaving aside the science-based reasoning for WP:FRINGE as out of place here since the issue here is notability, we tie ourselves in knots and do the reader a disservice over whether we should cover notorious people—which amounts to a moral judgement—or whether we should cover people where we "don't have enough material to write a proper biography", which amounts to a values-based judgement on whether a person is important enough to override the concern that press or sports drafts database coverage doesn't exist for where they were born and raised, and is uncomfortably adjacent to the bias in published coverage that leads us to have a separate (and often dispensed with) "Personal life" section for men and dating/marriage history interwoven with the career for women. This leads me to disagree with you on the merits of using only GNG, even for people alone, because both the vagaries of archiving, especially online, and our understandable tendency to tighten the requirements for reliable sources would mean we'd lose a large number of notable topics and we'd be left with a hugely RECENTIST encyclopedia; and to take the unpopular position of opposing higher standards for inclusion of BLPs, because we'd wind up just reflecting the biases of the common denominator of editors. In view of our encyclopedic mission, while like all of us I have a personal list of biographical and other categories I'd like to radically prune, I think it's more important to include as many topics as possible for the readers' sake, especially topics that many—or disproportionately powerful—editors don't like or don't think are important—and re: BLPs, our efforts should focus on neutral presentation, if necessary via extreme brevity with many refs (the accusation of refbombing has always struck me as bizarre and counterproductive, given that we aim both to show where all information is drawn from and how widely the matter has been covered). Anyway ... this has been your morning/afternoon/evening dose of gratuitous pondering. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fascinating. I've thought several times that we could hypothetically make a rule which says that people who are reliable sources are always notable. Still hesitant about the idea and haven't finished thinking it through.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katrin Ebner-Steiner

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would an "oppose" along the lines of "thanks for volunteering, but..." have been sufficient, or was there some reason to emphatically oppose the candidacy of a 16-year-old with "absolutely not"? When adults are mean to kids, that shows a lack of maturity, judgment, and discretion by the adult, and it's not good for the website. Levivich 14:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, right, 16 is a child in the US. It's true that I'm normally kinder to RfA candidates than that and I generally advocate a respectful culture at RfA. My objections to that particular candidate are pretty strong though.—S Marshall T/C 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:S Marshall/RfC close log. Somehow you got away with closing all those stressful discussions, and are still around to tell the tale! Whenever I happen to look at WP:AN/RFC I turn the page quickly and go work on something else. Your experience might suggest that more people should draw attention to difficult things they have handled. Thanks for your work. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why, thank you. It's nice to be noticed.—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning! Or afternoon, or evening, depending on your location. I owe you an apology for my comment on this AfD discussion. The way I reacted to your response to another users !vote was out of line and I sincerely apologize! Clearly I wasn't assuming good faith in this regard. There's been a pretty heated debate recently about NFL players in particular, and what criteria they should be held against when it comes to GNG and NSPORTS, and for whatever reason I read your response to one of the comments as sarcastic, which obviously it wasn't. Sorry again, and I'll do my best to avoid that in the future! SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 13:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No hard feelings at all. To be fair I do feel it's unfair that sportspeople are exempt from all our normal notability rules, and my annoyance at the pro-sports double standards on Wikipedia may have come across there.—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to me to be of too great an age for a PROD, but I have not dePRODed it on that basis, nor at all. While the thing she advocates is distasteful are we sure that is a reason for deletion? I doubt it would be deleted at AfD. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Timtrent and thanks for contacting me. I'm not aware of any age limits on PROD. My reasons for PRODding that article are (1) It's an insufficiently sourced biography of a living person; and (2) It's promotional from the first revision. My distaste for shock therapy is incidental.—S Marshall T/C 17:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no actual limits, it's just my interpretation, formed over the years. To me the older an article the more 'deserving' it is of a full AfD. That is in part because the creating editor may be long gone, so PROD almost nukes it by accident when it might have been improved or deleted more... finally.

  I mentioned distaste because it was possible to interpret your rationale as not liking the underlying "thing". Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If one is going to assume another editor is "entirely mistaken", then make sure you are entirely correct before making such an assertion. I do not know the level of expertise you have in the topic area of Irish toponymy or whether you have simply a fleeting fancy with it, however I have quite a high and respected level of expertise in the field and have contributed to written publications on local townlands. By all means become involved in discussions but tagging an article for deletion based on an entirely mistaken whim is not the way to conduct things. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If going to provide a closing statement make sure that it is also entirely correct please. Farms being bigger than townlands? The average size of a townland in Northern Ireland is 357 acres. The average size of an individual farm in Northern Ireland is around 35 acres. Whilst some townlands such as Acre McCricket are exceptionally small (4 acres), some are huge such as Slievedoo (4551 acres). The average in England for a farm is suppossedly 213 acres meaning the average townland in Northern Ireland is bigger than the average England farm. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said that townlands are often smaller than individual farms, and they are.—S Marshall T/C 13:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Part I of this Note will provide a brief discussion of doping regulations prior to the 1999 formation of WADA. Part II will highlight some of the changes that WADA has made to the fight against doping. Part III will detail the recent case of Kicker Vencill, an American swimmer who tested positive for a steroid precursor in 2003. Part IV will use the Vencill case to discuss the inadequacies of current testing. Part V will provide a discussion of WADA's strict liability standard in light of the Vencill case. Finally, Part VI will present suggestions for improvement to the system. While doping is clearly an international problem, this Note will use examples and events from the United States.

— Foschi, Jessica K. (2006). "A Constant Battle: The Evolving Challenges in the International Fight Against Doping in Sport". Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law. 16 (2): 457–486.

• Kicker Vencill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of doping cases in sport (V)
• World Anti-Doping Agency#World Anti-Doping Code

Sometimes it really does appear as though if something isn't a statistic to dump from a database, a mention in a film or a television program, or a news report to desperately shoe-horn into a biography, it doesn't get written about. The words "strict liability" do not even occur in our WADA article. (They're on page 9 of the 2017 Cambridge University Press guide to the Code.)

Uncle G (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's certainly ironic!
  Thanks for visiting my talk page, Uncle G. If you have time I'd like to solicit your view on writing Wikipedia articles that concern people who commit suicide. There's a long, rambling conversation about it above, under the heading "Disapproving tone", in which we fail horribly to converge on a coherent set of principles.—S Marshall T/C 10:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a couple of minor suggestions after a quick perusal of User:S Marshall/Essay3. You might do well to mention the fallacy of correlation implying causation. And if you are going to define your own terms you can mention that you aren't doing so in a vacuum.

    It is commonly believed that suicide is a normal response to an abnormal situation. Scientists know that the opposite is true: suicide is an abnormal reaction to a normal situation.^[1]

    — van Heeringen, Kees (2018). "Introduction". The Neuroscience of Suicidal Behavior. Cambridge Fundamentals of Neuroscience in Psychology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107148949.

    Suicidal behaviour is neither a normal response to the levels of stress experienced by most people, nor a standard consequence of major mental disorders^[2]

    — Rihmer, Zoltán; Rutz, Wolfgang (2021). "Early detection and management of suicidal patients in primary care". In Wasserman, Danuta (ed.). Oxford Textbook of Suicidology and Suicide Prevention (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/med/9780198834441.003.0052. ISBN 9780198834441.

    DHHS also provided a list of practices to avoid, […] Many media reports do not take the time to describe the complex relationship between bullying and suicide, and instead portray bullying as the sole cause of suicide. This may normalize suicide as a response to bullying, which could lead to suicide contagion in the wake of such reporting.^[3]

    — Bliss, Whitney; Pflum, Samantha; Sciacca, Laura; Goldblum, Peter (2014). "Bullying, Suicide, and the Media". In Goldblum, Peter; Espelage, Dorothy L.; Chu, Joyce; Bongar, Bruce (eds.). Youth Suicide and Bullying: Challenges and Strategies for Prevention and Intervention. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199950713.

Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you had called me a liar during the original deletion discussion, I would have addressed it, probably with the level of detail I have added to the DR discussion. I therefore request that you review the sources in my DR comments, which were in the article during the AfD, and consider striking your comments [1] about The "keep" side, i.e. they lied as well as your assertion We have no source for any biographical information about her whatsoever. If the AfD gets relisted, I would be happy to continue to discuss WP:BLP1E and the need to satisfy all of the criteria to support a deletion, but in the meantime, I would appreciate your attention to this. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I've been following your ardency in this topic, and I just don't get it. I mean, I disagree with your interpretation of the facts, but I don't see you as someone who is in the habit of picking a hill to die on. Why this topic? I can guarantee you that the damage done to Ms. Foschi by the associated publicity is a) almost entirely in the past, and b) not dependent on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm stuck on the fact that this really is a case of BLP1E and it really is policy to delete it. I agree with everything Uncle G wrote and his criticisms of the keep side are in my view obviously correct; so I'm trying to help others to see what is iny view staring them in the face. I do need to drop it though. When some idiot rolls along, counts the words in bold and declares a victory for the keep side I'll just have to roll my eyes and bite my tongue.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I always try and focus on the reasoning behind the policy, rather than the letter of the policy itself. I'm not unsympathetic to your position--but I think the underlying rationale would be 10 times stronger were Ms. Foschi, say, 22 instead of 42 (ish; dunno if she's had her birthday this year, and I don't think Wikipedia needs to know). It's kinda like how in the opening scene of the Veronica Mars movie, Jamie Lee Curtis' character is interviewing Mars about the sex tape that was released in Season 3 (10 years prior, in the fictional timeline) where she is very matter-of-fact about what happened and how it's behind her now. While the original event that traumatized Foschi as a teen is unmistakable, the action of someone who then goes to law school and publishes a journal article about the topic, regardless if WIALPI is arguably met, are not the actions of someone who is continually victimized by the publicity. That's the then-reality behind the Star Wars Kid precedent, which drove a lot of the policy thoughts in the late 2000's. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ms Foschi isn't too old to need protecting from the entirely false accusations. She's a professional in a job that requires trust. Have you seen the unbelievably pathetic sources they're using to try to pretend she's notable for anything else? I would welcome your review of them.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which accusations would those be? The ones multiple decades old? The article as I read it basically says it appears to have been an adulteration of urine sample or beverage. And yes, I did review the article and its sources, which is why I have declined to offer an opinion: I truly can see both sides of this. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue

By the way, I had never mentioned that my legal training and experience informed my view on the significance of the event as well as Foschi's substantial and well-documented role (and thus not WP:BLP1E due to #3), but I had perceived the complexity, duration, and novel nature of the proceedings, although articulating that without having the time or focus to fully analyze all of the sources during the wide-ranging discussions was a challenge. And then there is all of the reporting about her swimming career (undermining WP:BLP1E#1), as well as reporting and coverage later on that indicates she did not remain low-profile (undermining WP:BLP1E#2). Anyway, the Jessica Foschi article has been revised and hopefully addresses the concerns you raised. Beccaynr (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

So that was my first RfC. My apologies in advance if I structured it poorly or carried it out incorrectly. Thank you very much for "closing" it. I just had one follow-up question. You mentioned at the end of your comments that, "In the discussion below, despite some articulate and well-argued dissent, the community reaches a weak consensus that what's called for here is guidance rather than regulation. Editors are invited to discuss how to phrase an appropriate edit to MOS:ACCESS that would explain the benefits of leaving a white line after headings for visually impaired people, and also the drawbacks for small-screen users. When the phrasing is agreed, the appropriate edit may be made." My question is regards to where we should now carry on further comment or conversation? And what exactly we are now to discuss for a new consensus. I just don't want to offend anyone further or to push "my side" inadvertently (as I was accused of doing from time to time by some editors). Much thanks again, sorry if I am asking you to re-articulate something you have already stated. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 14:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, and thanks for visiting my talk page! I wasn't prescriptive about where the further discussion should happen, because it's best if you the involved editors decide, but if I was doing it, then the venue I would select is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Open the discussion with a link to the closed RfC (you could copy/paste the permanent link to it from the very bottom entry in User:S Marshall/RfC close log if you wanted), and put a pointer to the new discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style so people who contributed to the RfC know that there's a further chat going on. You don't need to start a further RfC about it, just a regular conversation.
  I understand you when you say you don't want to offend anyone but you'll find that many Wikipedians are thin-skinned and they'll sometimes take offence for very little reason. That was a polite, collegial and well-conducted debate, by RfC standards! I don't see any examples in that discussion where you behaved inappropriately or did anything wrong. Hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C 15:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very kindly for those words. I will see if I can kickstart a conversation then about this and bring closure to something I've been hoping to have as a suggestion (or option) at the very least for some time. That said, I will admit that I had not considered the point you raised about small screens and editors from countries where they might edit from a phone. I personally only ever edit from my computer, and so having an extra space (even just one) ender neath headings, makes it much easier for me to read. Thanks again. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Lastly, I did just now take a stab at what you suggested in the access talk pages. See here, and if you think I worded anything poorly or anything of the sort, I will make changes accordingly. Much thanks again. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I hope that goes smoothly! It was in fact not me who raised the issue of accessbility on small screens. That came from several editors, most clearly expressed by MB, Compassionate727 and Amakuru. I did give their concerns additional weight because I understood it as a systemic bias issue. But with my closer hat on I'm not allowed to introduce new thoughts, I'm only meant to summarize what the community has already said.—S Marshall T/C 17:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 22:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've proposed a change on the talk page and got no response. I suggest you make a tentative change to the guidance with "See talk" as your edit summary.—S Marshall T/C 11:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call the "back end" or "when using source editor or visual editor"? What I am asking is...this is only for editors really, since this would not make any change for readers of articles etc. and so I am just thinking of how to officially word this "on the backend" in my lay speak. Then I'll take it from there. Thanks! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 12:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd say "the source editor" with a pipelink to Help:Wikitext.—S Marshall T/C 12:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for your help. I just submitted my edit on this, trying to keep balance of all parties interested and your closing comments in mind. Feel free to copy edit it for readability or anything. Hope I didn't eff it up too badly. But hey, BRD right!? ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 13:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that you appear to have breached 3RR on M1 Group. I noticed your warning on Kajouz's talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's problematic because I can't see any evidence that Kajouz is aware of talk pages at all, including his own. I think his motive is to correct error and he may have good grounds, for all I know. I don't really want him blocked at this stage if we can get him to talk to us.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for closing the discussion. But could I ask you to add an entry to WP:RSP reflecting the close? Thanks, nableezy - 02:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I did say in my close that I'd leave that to others... I'd like to spend my volunteering time clearing out old closure requests if that's OK?—S Marshall T/C 08:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is ok, nobody is obligated to do anything here, but it just makes it so somebody has to interpret your close to distill it in to an RSP entry. Ill ask on that talk page though. nableezy - 16:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming in to try to be reasonable just about at the time that I decided that it wasn't being useful to try to resolve that dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see that you've tried really hard with that one.—S Marshall T/C 14:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]