User talk:S Marshall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that:

The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Deletion review[edit]

Thanks for the comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 4; you've convinced me. I've left a question for you at that page. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


Re your edit[1], one might go further by changing "make it clear that you have a concern" to "mention" or "consider mentioning". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


User:S Marshall/List of beverages/soft drinks. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What have you been smoking (and can you share)?[edit]

Re: your edit summary for this edit at WP:V... uncontroversial? At WP:V !!? Note to Admins... I strongly suspect that the real User:S Marshall has been kidnapped and is now being impersonated by his evil twin ... the real S Marshall would know that nothing is ever uncontrovercial at WP:V.  :>) (actually, I somewhat like the edit...) Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we're evolving into a fun group that understand each other (including our differences) and can refine wp:ver. Either way, I want some too!/ can you share?  :-) North8000 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? [2] You cannot change BLP policy wording on WP:V unless such a change has been made at the core policy page and this would need a good deal of community discussion. --Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not changing it, Amadscientist, I'm restoring the stable version.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You are edit warring. This is core policy. It must refelct the policy page. You are at 3RR.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not game 3RR to force through an undiscussed change to a core policy. WP:V is a core policy and "please" is the stable wording. I have asked on the talk page whether a neutral editor could step in and restore order.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Do not make accusation of gaming the system. I also note that your edit summary fails to note that I came to your talkpage to discuss this. Again, you must achieve a community wide consensus at the policy page.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no duty on me to get a community-wide consensus. The onus is on you because it is you who are trying to change what the policy says. That word "please" has been in there for months. The policy talk page is the correct place to gain consensus for the change you wish to make, not my talk page.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent dustup at wp:ver[edit]

I'm afraid I really didn't understand the situation, especially that there are two totally unrelated sentences involved. In hindsight, any previous feedback I gave related only to the first of the involved sentences. I think that I have split them for clarity and feedback at the end of the section that was discussing this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Your contributions were very helpful: thank you. That page is always fraught!—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding reaching consensus on this issue, on the BLP sentence (opinions on the BURDEN sentence are a little more mixed) it's looking like going in favour of the change to the 'should' wording - in fact it appears that those still active in the discussion unanimously support it. As the strongest opponent of this change, do you want to say any more? Do you still strongly oppose it? CarrieVS (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm waiting to see who else weighs in, Carrie; the discussion has had quite enough input from me. I'm hoping that we will achieve genuine discussion, rather than opinion statements in the emphatic declarative which is what we have now. I don't think there has been enough debate from enough different editors for us to say what the consensus is.—S Marshall T/C 18:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry to bother you. TBH I think I'm a bit out of my depth. At least things have cooled down now, and most editors are adding to their position that they don't think it's a terribly big deal, but everyone seems to be trying to progress by organising responses into a list, and for the BLP sentence at least, one side of the debate has gone AWOL. But most of the people involved are far more experienced than me and I don't want to go against their ideas of how to proceed. I think I might just weigh out and leave it alone. CarrieVS (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You're not bothering me! I don't want you to feel that you're unwelcome to post on my talk page or on WT:V. Neither is true: you're very welcome in both places. I think we'll go through a phase where the usual suspects (Blueboar, Tryptofish and North8000) convert it from a mass of points and responses into a structured, coherent discussion of the issues. Then we'll see where we are and what arguments have been presented. I don't think this will go to a full RFC—a local consensus will suffice.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I did try and do that - summarise the arguments presented as well as counting heads, but it kind of got ignored. Probably I did it badly. Thanks for the explanation. CarrieVS (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


Unless I'm missing something here, everyone who supported redirecting wanted to redirect it to Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority, at least that's what Staberinde explicitly said, Japinderum and Fut.Perf.'s clear impaction. In part because Japinderum said "content is minimal and already present at the other article" and Fut.Perf said "There is clearly not enough content for two distinct articles here". What other article then the PNA one might they be talking about? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Also no one ever suggested any target other the the PNA one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm very, very cautious about closing anything that relates to Palestine because it's a subject area where feelings run high. The way I understood Future Perfect at Sunrise's comment was that he feels all the related content ought to end up somewhere else, e.g. in Coat of arms of Palestine. That seems logical to me and I didn't want to preclude that outcome, so I preferred to leave discussion open. If I'm wrong, all it means is the discussion will be short!—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Sunrise said "Redirect (and then consider whatever page move might be appropriate for the target page, e.g. to Coat of arms of Palestine)". Coat of arms of Palestine is a redirect, not an article. I don't think he was talking about redirecting to (and then possibly moving) anything other then the authority article. Closing as redirect would not prejudice against moving the authority article.
Scene Sunrise's and Japinderum's redirect votes that could be interpreted as ambiguous, how about I ask them if their vote meant redirect to the authority article, or an ambiguous redirect, and if they meant "Redirect to Coat of arms of the Palestinian National Authority", then we can simply redirect the state article to the authority article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I have no objection to that at all. Perhaps you could ask them to post their answers on the article talk page so that the record of the consensus is easy to find? I'll copy this discussion there now.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New Page Patrol[edit]

Given the all German sources, could you possibly do a new page patrol on [[3]] re BLP, puffery etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Done. Thanks for drawing my attention to that, it was an interesting topic.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Count[edit]

Hi, I updated the link to the edit counter on your page as the one you had no longer works.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding SchuminWeb, and previously suspended by motion, has now closed. The original temporary injuction has been enacted:

[...] Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months [...] the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 05:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Brilliant Idea Barnstar Hires.png The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
"carcasses are destroyed rather than eaten", loved the way you've phrased it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


I saw your recent RFA comment, where you mentioned something about you thought someone should work on a Good article. (This question has nothing to do with that RFA, that just prompted it.) But I also remember a comment by you in another discussion about being somewhat skeptical of the value of the Pedia's "audited" content: "good," "featured" whatnot. I can't quite remember your comment but it was pithy, (something about useless, shinny whatnot). Am I misremembering? What are your views on good featured etc, if you would not mind sharing? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Gosh, Alan, that's quite a big question. Thanks for asking it.

    In that RFA, I opposed an otherwise-well-qualified candidate on the grounds of lack of collaborative content contributions. I was satisfied this was a good candidate in every other respect, and in the light of my own rather bruising RFA experiences, I felt that I should give clear, simple and objective criteria that the user could meet to gain my support in future. I wanted to see evidence of working with others to build a more substantial article. The audited content process does force users to engage in discussion with others about article content, because there's a formal review process.

    But that doesn't mean I have a high opinion of Wikipedia's audited content. I've engaged in the GA process to an extent, and what I found is that GA depends on who reviews it. My article on Forestry in the United Kingdom is a GA because the reviewer was nice about it (and actually participated in improving the article); that process was extremely easy. My article on History of Hertfordshire passed GA after the reviewer got bored with reviewing it. My article on Agriculture in the United Kingdom has failed GA twice, even though it's noticeably superior to both of the preceding articles; I have been unwilling to jump through the hoops the reviewers have set out for me in those cases.

    FA is a clique. Whether your material passes FA is down to obsessive focus on the manual of style, the exact position of the references and images etc., and your standing in the clique. I have never met anyone auditing at GA or FA who checked the references or even understood the subject they were reviewing to any great extent, and it's been my experience that in practice, Wikipedia's audited content processes are almost entirely about writing style and formatting. I'm confident that there will be GAs and FAs that include copyright issues and close paraphrasing, unintentional bias owing to reliance on free online sources as oppose to proper books, serious errors of omission or even flagrant inaccuracy. These things are rarely checked.

    Of course, someone with an abundance of GAs and FAs to their name may very well have researched each one carefully and thoroughly and written it properly. I'm sure that's true of users like Nev1 and Malleus Fatuorum and Ironholds, since I've read content they've written in fields that I know about. But the facts that (a) their articles are strongly-sourced and complete, and (b) many have passed the GA and FA process, are largely unrelated to each other.

    In short, I feel that Wikipedia's audited content processes are the triumph of form over function, of wikimarkup and manual of style adherence over good research, aimed at accumulating shiny badges to adorn one's userpage. I do that too, of course—my own userpage is a testament to my vanity—but that doesn't stop me being cynical about it.

    Audited content is good evidence of collaboration skills for RFA, though.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

  • In fact, screw it. I'll tell you what I really wanted to say in that RFA.

    I wanted to say that Wikipedia has far too many people who run about deleting material that they would never have been capable of producing themselves. The project's awash with the kind of idiot who can quote every notability-related rule in detail but has no understanding of what notability is for; who can recognise the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources but has no clue when it's appropriate to use each; who show, in short, rule-knowledge without judgment. These people should not be let loose with the delete button. In my view nobody should have access to the delete button until they've written an article that they're passionate about, poured their heart and their soul into it, and then found it gone because an American teenager during a spree of making four edits a minute has found a rule that it violates and stuck a speedy deletion tag on it. And then jumped through all the hoops to get their article restored, and found themselves defending it at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Thanks for your thoughtfulness. (As to your first post, I generally agree, I think. I'll have to reflect on your second). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, S Marshall. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyphonism.
Message added 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yutsi  Talk/  Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey S Marshall...[edit]

There's something in regards to a response that you stated on BDD's RfA that I wanted to talk/ask to you about. However, it has NOTHING to do with the RfA itself, but rather the "request" you asked the general audience. Well, by doing some research, I think I found out what you were talking about ... and wow, I believe I understand. Would you be all right if I discussed this with you over email, or no? (Given the possible sensitivity of the subject matter, it would be best to converse about it over email, if conversing occurs at all.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • You're very welcome to email me!—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

K Rutherford-Davis[edit]

Thanks for adding the attribution in place of "Historians" in the History of Hertfordshire. What do we know about Mr Rutherford-Davis? He appears only to have two published papers, one of which is a partial family history. I'm afraid I'm not THAT convinced that Hertfordshire is particularly over-populated with abandoned villages either (or it's poor soil). I'm not about to change anything, but this paragraph does seem difficult to support. Best.... Plingsby (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Hertfordshire's soil is generally heavy clay. It's largely classified as Grade III, with a little Grade II in the north of the county (particularly around Hitchin). There's no Grade I soil in the whole of the county. Compared to the rest of the usually very fertile island of Great Britain, Hertfordshire's soil is mediocre to poor.

    K Rutherford Davis is the author of five books: list. I wouldn't take his unsupported word for it, but the abandoned villages are also discussed in Rook 1984 (pp 44-46). All the best—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Merger discussion[edit]

Hi, during the Michael Brutsch AfD discussion I saw a number of users talk about merging or restructuring the article into another one, so I am opening up a discussion of such a merge here, if you are interested in participating. Thanks! Breadblade (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi![edit]

Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deva a cast of sri lanka[edit]

Facepalm3.svg Facepalm Thanks for reverting my premature close; I made an error, because Dewa (cast) is still open. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy wording[edit]

I guess I can get the Editors>You reversion for simplicity, but aren't the bulleted examples kinda helpful? Ranze (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes, now you mention it I don't object to those. I'll restore that.—S Marshall T/C 19:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk[edit]

Hello, user user:Magneto616 are trying to add personal opinions that clearly had no consensus by some time in this article. Maybe a administrative action needs to be taken? Reiftyr (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, Reiftyr and thanks for your support with this article. I don't approve of Magneto616's edits and I hope he stops what he's doing, but I don't think he's broken any rules yet. All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Quick question:[edit]

Where were you when the pictures for Xbox One and Playstation 4 were replaced with much crappier pictures because free? PantherLeapord (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Fighting battles I had some chance of winning. Which is what I ought to be doing now; I should know that Wikipedians' bloody-minded attitude to fair use content isn't a problem I can solve.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


Based on the comments at the DRV re the Pogroms article I have rewritten and expanded it in my userspace, I am hoping if you have some time you could look it over and offer any advice before I think about moving it to mainspace. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, Darkness Shines. I recommend waiting until the deletion review is closed before doing anything at all. If the closer agrees that it's acceptable to have a userspace version or incubated version of the article, then I'll be willing to help form a consensus on what to do with the content.

    I do not think it's a good idea to re-create that article with that title. I do think we will be able to use the sources, and the content with a little re-writing, in some other way, but I think we will need to do it in a way that other editors agree is acceptable.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I can guess which way the DRV is going to go Face-smile.svg. Do you not think this a notable topic which requires an article then? I thought it a neutral choice as at the deletion discussion of the template Anti-Muslim pogroms in India a few editors suggested a rename it to the new title for the article. Can you suggest a title perhaps? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Err, well, I have two answers. If I was King of Wikipedia, then yes, I would certainly include an article about anti-Muslim violence in India, and I would use the sources you've got to help build it. But I'm afraid I'm not. I think we have to work with other editors, and I think that means talking to them and coming to a policy-based agreement with them about this content. I think we need to do this before, during, and after, we go through the process of adding an appropriately-phrased version of this content to the mainspace. I'm very willing to help, to mediate, and to seek an agreement that will let us do that. I advise against unilaterally restoring this material to the mainspace without talking to other editors first.—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I also asked Regents Park to look it over, I will ask a few of the editors who voted delete to look it over as well, thanks for your advice. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to User:Darkness Shines/Anti-Muslim violence in India so that the previous history will not be in the article when moved to mainspace. I suspect if any trace of the pogroms article was in the history it would cause a few arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs[edit]

Hi. Please stop adding unreferenced material to this article. Read the warning at the top of the G entry before you do so again, and have a source. If you continue to repeat the additions I will report it as slow-motion edit warring. Read the warning below. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


Apparently you have been referring to the fact that Gora was voted delete and then merged into this list. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it can be added to the list without a reference. If you want the material retained you'll have to find such a reference and add it with the restoral. AfD votes don't override policies like WP:RS or the integrity of other articles. This is a courtesy, if you revert again without a source it will go straight to AN3. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll refer this to the AfD closer and see what he thinks.—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there a ref from the previous article? (I mean a good, reliable one, of course). μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual editor[edit]

Notice: S Marshall is temporarily unable to edit productively owing to visual editor-induced trauma. He has now worked out how to turn the bloody thing off, and is convalescing with the aid of the Glenlivet. Hangover permitting, S Marshall will return to participating in the project tomorrow.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Lavie[edit]

I've accepted your generous offer (here) to review my proposed new Lisa Lavie article (posted here). The reasons for any changes you suggest, are of equal importance to the changes themselves. I applaud you for your somewhat rare attitude of cooperative collaboration. RCraig09 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A little help to conclude[edit]

Hi, we need to discuss objections here or here, or conclude/vote here, thanks. --Krauss (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but I can't help because I find the whole discussion incomprehensible. Hope you reach a conclusion successfully. All the best—S Marshall T/C 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


... for this. You may be interested to see this. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

I should have thanked you for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar for you!!![edit]

Rosetta Barnstar.png The Rosetta Barnstar
For all of your translations from French and German! Ensignricky (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you!—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Burning Ears[edit]

I mentioned you when defending myself from a complaint at AN from Erpert. [4]. Spartaz Humbug! 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I split the discussion at AN.[5] Revert if you think it was the wrong approach. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel[edit]

Hi. How did you learn about the sanctions against User:Folken de Fanel on and ([6], [7])? Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, Flatscan. Quite a long time ago I was reading an AfD in which Folken de Fanel expressed his views about fictional subjects, and these views caused me to raise an eyebrow. I looked at his userpage and saw his native language was French. This led me to wonder why he was so vocal on, and I went to to find out; I mentally filed the information for future reference. The ban I only know about because of a now-removed edit by Colonel Warden. All the best—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I knew that you translated German, but I wasn't aware that you also translate French. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. That is exactly how I found out about his French ban while preparing the RFC/U. The Italian ban was discovered after further research on his French ban. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"Unlike Claritas, FdF doesn't have a history of bad faith."[edit]

Might I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel? I suspect that might cause you to revise your impression of the latter editor you mention. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi mate. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, but I simply can't call that "a history of bad faith". It's evidence of a non-mainstream view on what should be included in the encyclopaedia and it's certainly a history of conflict with other editors, but I would distinguish that from the history of socking that Claritas has.—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I would have thought so too, but the difference between the two is that Claritas has, as far as I know, restricted his activities to a single Wikipedia project. You don't get the full picture on FdF until you see him blocked on other wikis for essentially the same behavior. He maintains that none of that matters, and would prefer it to be viewed as if every single Wikipedia project were unconnected. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, you're the former arb and you obviously have far more experience of difficult users than I do. Where I think we agree is that if either of us was Emperor of Wikipedia, FdF would no longer be involved in deletion or content removal concerning fictional subjects. But we disagree on whether FdF is actually in bad faith. He doesn't get it, and (supported by Reyk who usually has better judgment) FdF thinks the problem isn't him but with those he labels "inclusionists", and he appears to see his RFC/U as a licence to carry on doing what he's doing, and he thinks he's right; and also his rush to make friends with Claritas shows that he chooses his allies depending on which side they're on. All of these issues are big red flags that say FdF's involvement with's dispute resolution processes is far from over. But I don't see how any of these things are bad faith.

        In this, what really disappoints me is the community's failure to tackle Claritas, a leopard whose spots haven't changed one bit.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nathaniel Raymond Deletion Review[edit]

S Marshall, I think part of the reason for the decision to Snow Keep the Nathaniel Raymond Afd was the unreasonableness of the two roommates who advocated deletion. Everyone who disagreed with them was accused of being a sockpuppet, and no matter how much evidence of Raymond's notability was presented, they said that it was insignificant. No evidence was presented that Raymond failed to meet WP:BLP, and this whole thing appears to be some sort of personal or professional vendetta against Raymond, rather than a legitimate notability question. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I think it's important to separate user conduct issues from the outcome of an AfD which is a content decision. If one or two "keep" voters had been unreasonable, would that justify a snow deletion? I don't think so at all. And for the same reason, if one or two "delete" voters are unreasonable, that doesn't justify a snow keep. If we do allow user conduct issues to affect an AfD outcome, we're creating yet another incentive to sockpuppetry. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of WP:SNOW as I think that its vague and self-contradictory. However, I'm curious if you believe that there are any cases when Snow Keep is applicable? On the other hand,the speedy keep guideline is more straight-forward, and one clause allows a speedy keep when "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption." DavidinNJ (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure. Snow closes are appropriate when the outcome is so obvious that nobody would object to a snow closure. If someone does object, then it's no hassle for anyone concerned to let the snowstorm continue until the full discussion time has elapsed.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure that such a case actually exists. If a person AfDs an article, they are inherently going to be opposed to a snow keep decision. A person could AfD Queen Elizabeth II or Barack Obama, everyone could vote keep except that nominator, and yet it would be inappropriate to snow keep because the nominator of the AfD objects. At this point, I don't really care if the Nathaniel Raymond AfD is relisted or not. The article will be kept either way. I just think that the concept of snow keep is inherently contradictory to Wikipedia's policies. DavidinNJ (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


Nannadeem (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Nannadeem submits his thankfulness in respect of your precious attention to Ape is a Punished Man. Respected Marshall, am ready to change the title of article and welcome suggestion. With personal salute, thanks Nannadeem (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz![edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz![edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC on PC2[edit]

You might want to check out [8]. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Hobit. I have, of course, opposed, but I'm sure they're going to keep asking the question until Flagged Revisions is fully enabled across the encyclopaedia. This place is changing, and not for the better.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Tomas Deletion Review[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your comment on this. Just to let you know that I've replied to you on the deletion review page. RomanSpa (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Beethoven's liver[edit]

What happened to the article on Beethoven's liver, wot I wrote? I know it was a bit pointy but the result of the AfD was to merge it into Death of Beethoven. Nothing that was in that article has in fact been merged, so poor old Dr Madden and the Journal of Alcohol and Alcoholism (I dunno who gets copies of that, if I don't, who does?) poor old Dr. Madden is again forgotten. I know it was agreed to merge but it was agreed to MERGE, I don't see any history at all of my good faith contributions. I don't mind the consensus being to merge, but where is the history, what happened? I can look up the AfD etc but since you created so it seems from the history Beethoven's liver just this month, am I losing it totally or did someone erase the history or what?

I created it in a sense not in bad faith but it was a bit pointy and deliberately so, to show another editor (an Esperanto fanatic) at AfD that it is not difficult to make a stub and reference it and so on, if you actually put a little thought into it. (Which that fanatic doesn't, just puts Esperanto into any article that seems vaguely related to anything.) So I know, as the AfD shows, that it was a bit WP:POINTY, but the point was in good faith, to do a bit of research and homework and reference things and then say about them. The reason I started it is that the Esperantist was inserting into Languages of the European Union that it is an offically recognised language in Hungary. It's not. The only official language in Hungary is Hungarian. But it is always hard to prove a negative. Esperanto is taught in undergraduate degree courses for two or three months to show that you can understand how languages work-- because Hungarian is Finno-Ugric and not related to any other European language, well Finnish a tiny bit and Estonian a little but very very distant, it isn't like a Spaniard understands an Italian or a Portuguese, they are very far apart. So what he was putting in was nonsense. But that is a battle for another day, I suppose. I kept taking it out, he kept putting it back, and I gave up. I would prefer Wikipedia to be right rather than wrong in the little things I know something about, it is not as if I go around correcting baseball scores which I know nothing about.

-Si Trew (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Yep. What happened was that the DRV participants, in their wisdom, decided to delete the history. Some might see that as pointlessly destructive. I couldn't possibly comment.—S Marshall T/C 10:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you have some interest in composers. I wonder if you'd like to offer some GA or pre-GA comments at Talk:Chopin? (If you reply here, please WP:ECHO me - thanks!). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I've been meaning to leave this for you for a while. Your contributions at WP:DRV have always impressed me and yours is often a welcome dissenting opinion. I might not always agree with your take on things but I find myself regularly swayed, at least from my initial knee-jerk opinion, by your thoughtful commentary. Keep up the great work. Stalwart111 05:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Why, thank you!—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for opposition opinion[edit]

Hello! I've put together an essay at Wikipedia:Unopposed AFD discussion. It's in early stages, but I think you might want to write up a quick little "opposition" section to it. Such comments would be welcome.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the invitation. I will contemplate this for a little while and may weigh in in due course. All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

deletion of opednews[edit]

I'm no expert at wikipedia, though I've made a number of edits. Last July, you played a role in the deletion of the opednews page. That's why I'm contacting you.

I am the publisher of the website, (not the wikipedia page) and the deletion came as somewhat of a surprise to me.

I believe that Opednews meets wikipedia's criteria. To put together a response to the deletion I worked with the team of four managing editors and five senior editors to assemble documentation about the site, including supporting links to websites that wikipedia accepts as supporting notability.

I also have audio recordings of members of congress talking positively about their respect for Opednews. They are published as parts of podcasts of interviews published on Opednews and elsewhere. Senator Sanders site mentions me and opednews, though they spell it wrong, op-ed news, here.

Here is a portion of the documentation we put together:

OEN was mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 26, 2008.

OEN was mentioned in the New York Times, May 26, 2009.

OEN was mentioned in the Washington Post Feb. 8, 2011.

OEN was mentioned in the Chicago Tribune (spelled Op-Ed News) Sept. 5, 2012.

OEN was mentioned in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct 7, 2011

There is much more information, but these are certainly mentions, by the publications' writers of the site.

Can you provide any guidance on how to proceed to appeal the deletion so the page can be re-instated?

thanks so much for your consideration and any advice you can offer rob kall

  • Hi Rob

    I'm certainly very willing to begin a further appeal on your behalf. I don't know whether it would succeed. I used to understand Wikipedia's notability criteria, which used to be a simple and objective test. The rules have changed in some way that I find mysterious and confusing, and things that would have been acceptable a few years ago are sometimes getting deleted now. But, if you do want to go ahead with no guarantee of success, then I'll happily follow the process: just drop me another note to say so. All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi S Marshall. Could you elaborate for me on how you perceive changes in the notability rules? (I was active at the middle stages of writing of WP:N, and I haven't felt there's been a change in the rules so much as a tightening of interpretation, and a lack of tolerance for allowing for the possibility that good sources with coverage exist but just haven't been found. I suspect that this lack of tolerance is due to Wikipedia no longer rapidly adding articles. Looking at Rob's message, I spot the notability badword "mentioned". A "mention" is not "significant coverage"). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the point: the definition of "significant coverage" has moved. Notability used to be a simple case of counting the reliable sources: two sources or more = article, one source or fewer = no separate article. Notability in the past used to be a way of detecting and removing marketing spam. But now I find editors talking about notability as if it was a serious and important encyclopaedic concept rather than an artifact of Wikipedia's need to defend itself against marketers. It's become an extremely big deal, with endless quibbling in smoke-filled rooms over what's a "passing mention" and what's "significant coverage" in a way that, in my view, completely misses the point.

    Basically, "notable" used to mean "not marketing spam", and now it means "a worthy subject about which we have decided to let you write an article". It's become all self-important.—S Marshall T/C 11:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Yes, I agree with your observation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks S Marshall and SmokeyJoe.

    Like I said, I'm no expert at Wikipedia, so, perhaps "mentioned' is the wrong word. Is "cited" better? Also, some writers for the site, including me, have been on TV, introduced as writers or editors, as experts. Does that also count towards notability? And opednews is one of the sites google news has credentialed for indexing as a news site. Does that count towards notability? We've been indexed by them for over ten years. Also, would endorsements from notable people help in pursuing the deletion appeal-- like from members of congress or other wikipedia notables? Further, if you do a google search for LIBERAL NEWS or PROGRESSIVE OPINION opednews usually comes up as the first non-paid result. You can't buy that kind organic search engine position. Having over 5000 links in, as Alexa shows, makes it happen. Does that help? Robkall (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Let's see if it will. I've begun the appeal on this page for you, so let's move discussion to there.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am pleased to see this work out. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A soft touch can go a long way[edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Perhaps I should wait to award this until the conflict is resolved, but however it turns out, I feel this was very tactfully handled by you, in how you recognized the contributions and perspectives of the two entrenched editors while urging things forward toward a more stable solution, a recommendation which seems to have been taken to heart by the involved editors. Wikipedia needs more bridge-building of this nature and so I hereby award you this Barnstar of Diplomacy. Snow (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Regular editing[edit]

In considering WP:USEBYOTHERS, WP:RSOPINION and WP:SOFIXIT, and even with one editor's thoughts that a political blog cannot possibly be notable because it is both political and liberal blog, something need not itself catch headlines if it as a political website is used by and quoted in multiple reliable sources. Impatience with slow improvement is no reason to ignore folks stating a topic is improvable (WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT), and specially as AFD is not a bludgeon to force cleanup, so I performed some. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you Michael! All the best—S Marshall T/C 15:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Najat Vallaud-Belkacem[edit]

Re your reverts, according to WP:BLPLEAD: "Generally the guidelines for lead sections specify what should be in the first section. For example, exact birth and death dates are certainly important to the person being described, but if they are also mentioned in the body, the vital year range can be sufficient to provide context in some cases. Birth and death places should be mentioned in the body if known, and in the lead if they are relevant to the person's notability; they should not be mentioned within the opening brackets" Her city and country of birth do not contribute towards her notability. Therefore, it does not belong in the lead. Thank you for your attention. Regards, -- Ohc ¡digame! 14:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Brilliant, another rule. Just what Wikipedia needed.

    Look, when I wrote that text more than five years ago, WP:BLPLEAD looked like this. I didn't realise I needed to watchlist Manual of Style subpages to stop people dreaming up unilateral, one-size-fits-all, and completely unnecessary rules, and I don't have the time and patience to fight them all anyway. But as far as my contributions are concerned, I wasn't consulted about this rule, I disagree with it and I resist it.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

    • As you may have noticed, I have not repeated the removal. Perhaps you should consult WP:CON, WP:LIKE, and WP:POINT whilst you are in a "resistive" mode. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

your Brannigan AfD close[edit]

With all due respect, since when does two votes for redirect, one vote for redirect or delete, and one vote for keep constitute a consensus for AfD purposes? The nominator of that AfD massively misrepresented the sourcing in the article, and, contrary to your claim, none of the people who voted for delete or redirect mentioned the 7 sources in the article, which "Lady Lotus" misrepresented as only "1 reliable source." If people said, "I saw the sources and they're not enough," that would be one thing, but it appears at least a couple people voted based only on the nominator's bogus claim of "1 source." - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

  • It's not the numbers of votes that matter. I've re-examined the debate and re-considered my close, and I do still think it was right ---- but if you would like someone independent to review what I said, then that can certainly happen.  :-) The quickest and simplest way is to ask any uninvolved administrator to take a look at it. If they disagree with me, they're welcome to overturn me and re-close. Alternatively, if you'd like a more formal review you could take it to WP:DRV, which will give you a much fuller discussion but takes longer. All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR on OpEdNews[edit]

Just so you're aware, you're at 3 reverts. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Yup. I can't revert you again so the next time you try to take an axe to the article's content, we'll go directly to dispute resolution.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on DRV[edit]

Your comment added [here], which you've put in a folded section. The heading you gave "...thinks the delete !votes don't carry much weight", doesn't seem to tie up with the comment itself. Unless I'm somehow misreading it. You might want to fix that. -- (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much!—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The deletion review discussion[edit]

I ask that you review the discussion at User_talk:Ricky81682#Template:GR so you can further evaluate the situation. Please feel free to comment at Template_talk:Geographic_reference#rfc_5B71C8A as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


Dear S Marshall, what do you think of Limiting case (philosophy of science) having three paragraphs now? Now other user is questioning the whole idea because he/she imagines that it is a "rare and strange" term. Thanks! --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Incivility in closing AfDs[edit]

That was unnecessary. We had a list that didn't work for Wikipedia, we discussed alternatives, and we worked towards a conclusion that kept everyone happy and wasn't a straight "keep" or "delete". Rude comments from the closer because we actually worked at a consensus conclusion were completely unnecessary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I've reviewed my close and the only thing that I think might have been uncivil was my second edit summary? I should perhaps have been clearer... the reason I used that was because the first time I tried to close it, I'd used [[ instead of {{ which turned the whole thing into a horrible mess. I ought to have known better, so I corrected myself with the edit summary "God, what a fail". It was directed at me! I do apologise for any offence I might have inadvertently caused.—S Marshall T/C 08:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA[edit]

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

William Tomicki[edit]

Are you suggesting that there is a means to re-create this article without it being subject to immediate attack and speedy deletion? I've never seen it. The history of deletion is an immediate prejudice. And as you said, its harsh. I've come on a little too strong in these arguments, so I piss people off. But I don't think an article that has merit, that has hope, should get the gallows. Trackinfo (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't disagree with any of that. I'd advise creating a draft in your userspace and then bringing the userspace draft to DRV. DRV will consider it on its merits and (maybe, if DRV likes it) move it into mainspace. The good thing about that is that if it happens, there will be a consensus supporting the article's re-creation which will make it immune to immediate speedy deletion. Some genius will probably AfD it at that point though, and AfD's always been a crap shoot.—S Marshall T/C 07:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)