User talk:S Marshall/Archive23
![]() | This 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 ∞ |
Question re: Politics in the British isles
- Hi; I don't want to take up more space at the AfD, so I hope you don't mind if we continue a brief discussion here. You noted that you didn't think the content was worth much; I'd be interested in hearing what sort of content you *would* find useful; i.e. do you think there is any content on bilateral/multilateral politics/international relations in the british isles which would not be fully captured (or belong) in Anglo-Irish relations or other bilateral articles, like Ireland-Isle of Man relations and Ireland-Scotland relations (a new proposed article)? --KarlB (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- From my point of view, "The British Isles" is a geographical term. I've probably been clear enough that I have absolutely zero patience with the Irish nationalists who object to that name and want to change it by renaming Wikipedia articles. I have considerable contempt for the views that administrator BHG has repeated about a million times in that AfD.
There are various political entities that occupy the British Isles. All of them have considerable historical justification for either hating the English, or hating the British, and I can fully understand the movements desiring independence in Ireland, Scotland and Wales (and even Cornwall). But the fact is that there are only two sovereign nations in the British Isles, and the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom is lopsided because the ROI has slightly less than half the population of London, its economy has crashed and burned, and it's presently in hock to the UK by €8 billion (counting only direct, recent bailout loans).
I accept that there are authors who've written about political relationships between the political entities of the British Isles and political entities outside it, but I do not see that as a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. WP:N is a guideline that admits of occasional exceptions, and I see this as one of them: the fact that there are sources doesn't automatically mean there should be an article.
I accept that there are articles about the politics of other geographic groupings, but I see that as carrying zero weight (WP:OCE).
So the answer to your question is, I do not think there is any content concerning political relationships in the British Isles that could not be covered in other articles.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I suppose we may have to agree to disagree. I think sovereignty is not the sole determinant of politics or international relations. I also agree that the Dublin-London axis is dominant and has been for some time, but with the creation of the British-Irish Council, many people have been writing and talking about multilateralism in the isles and a re-thinking of relationships; and for me one of the interesting things is, this multilateral approach is desired for *different* reasons - certain elements in Northern Ireland pushed for the council for one reason; others have supported the council for different reasons (see some NI rationale here, and description of their reasoning for an all-isles approach: [1]. Anyway, thanks again for your reasoned input to this discussion.--KarlB (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Politics in the British Isles
I'd like you give input to a thread I've opened on "Politics in the British Isles". If the article is to exist then we may as well make a fist of improving it. Unfortunately, I think that means, like you said in the AfD, blowing it up and starting again. I've proposed an outline for re-starting the article on a firmer and more reasonable footing. I'd appreciate it if you could contribute to putting a good shape on it. --RA (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Attack
The fact that an administrator is British does not make him WP:INVOLVED and it's not a personal attack to say so. This subject is closed.
|
---|
I'm not taken with this, which I perceive to be an unprovoked and undeserved personal attack. I have never made any anti-British remarks. Never mind "extreme" ones. I replied there. Please strike your comment. Tensions are needlessly heightened over this article and all the pursuing XfDs and DVRs. But please don't put petrol on the flames by accusing people of showing anti-British sentiment without good reason. --RA (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, we're going to agree about improving the article and I think we're going to be able to work together on that. I don't think we're ever going to agree about whether an administrator's nationality is relevant to a debate close. On re-reading I do just wonder whether it might have helped if I'd been clearer about who I was replying to; I think something I meant for BrownHairedGirl might have come across as aimed at you.—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
|
Rough consensus
I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_June_24 and rather than clutter up that discussion, I thought I'd directly address this with you since it's more about you than the discussion. I'm afraid you either misunderstand or reject Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Specifically, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS.
It explicitly states that "Administrators must use their best judgment" and that administrators should "disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith" and "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."
If it appears that participants in that discussion don't understand what a WP:RS is, then BWilkins correctly disregarded or discounted their comments about those sources which is 100% in line with the guideline.
That discussion is not the place to disagree with the guideline, which it appears you are doing there. That should either happen on the guideline's talk page or an RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- With respect, Toddst1, I invite you to re-read what I said.—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think Tarc and I are saying the same thing. He commented on your statement atWikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_June_24.
- Sorry if I came across crappy above. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Verifiability RfC - final call for alterations
Hello again S Marshall. This is to let you know that I have made a final call for alterations to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar from North8000
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I know we have a long way to go, but with the RFC launched, this can't wait forever. For your immense efforts to improve wp:verifiability. Through your persistence and brilliant and direct writings, you have been one of the primary driving forces for improvement of this policy. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC) |
Your opinion
Hello, it's been a while. Hope you are well. Could I request your opinion on my post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:QR_code relating QR Usage and a new patent please? Amicaveritas (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Amicaveritas, welcome back. It's been a while since the Syed Ahmed controversy! Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm afraid I don't know anything about QR codes and I don't feel able to add anything useful to that discussion. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
EB
About this, read this (if you didn't already) (specifically my first comment there, ha). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Advice
Hello, I have seen you are involved in RfC in that verifiability talk page. Someone has offered me to open an RfC regarding Is simple logic a SYNTH ? In summary, in my last post there I concluded that:
- "expecting that after researchers have determined that 40mL alcohol can cause a hangover, the researchers will continue to publish papers about each drink that include alcohol, and state if it too cause a hangover. That just don't make any sense, and thus that WP:SYNTH interpretation doesn't make sense either."
In relation to verifiability, I think that simple logic is verifiable, and claiming otherwise is nonsense.
Do you think that I should open an RfC? --Nenpog (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Nenpog
No, I don't think it's necessary to open a RFC. Policy is that trivial calculations do not constitute a synthesis (see WP:CALC). So for example, if I have a source that says UK wheat yields are about 3 tons per acre, and I want to say in my article that wheat yields are 7 tons per hectare, then I can do that.
If editors are challenging whether your calculations are accurate or appropriate, then I think that editors active in WikiProject Mathematics would have the best understanding of how far WP:CALC may be stretched in practice. I would suggest seeking third party advice on their talk page (which is here).
Hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- The issue here is simple logic like
- source-A:X->Y and
- source-B:Y->Z, and the simple logic
- conclusion-C:X->Y->Z or in short
- conclusion-C:X->Z.
- In the example:
- source-A:XDrink->'40% alcohol by volume', and
- source-B:'Ingestion Of 40mL alcohol'->hangover,
- conclusion-C:'Ingestion of 100mL XDrink'->hangover.
- and I said that not accepting that conclusion-C, is like expecting researchers to produce new paper about every drink that include alcohol, which is not how researchers work. --Nenpog (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- The issue here is simple logic like
This is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am sure it was unintentional...
but I found your "oppose" listed in the "support" section of this RFA. With respects, I have moved it to the "oppose" section. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just went back to pick up the diff and saw you did it intentionaly. Okay... but I thought it might mess up the counting tool if in the wrong section. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Secretly, I'm not really opposing... ;-)—S Marshall T/C 01:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ha, and I am not really trying to insult you! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Badgers? Fascinating. I'd love to see one. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Secretly, I'm not really opposing... ;-)—S Marshall T/C 01:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'd love to see more badgers that aren't dead. :-(—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you, S Marshall. Of course, we're not in the business of social activism (ahem) but publishing that article might educate some people into better behavior. That makes me an old-fashioned leftie, I suppose. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really a leftie, I just disapprove of killing wildlife when there's an alternative...—S Marshall T/C 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I hear you, S Marshall. Of course, we're not in the business of social activism (ahem) but publishing that article might educate some people into better behavior. That makes me an old-fashioned leftie, I suppose. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
hi S Marshall
That is one absolutely outstanding userpage, fabulously observant. Penyulap ☏ 09:15, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)
- Why, thank you!—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
DRV bot proposal
Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Badger culling in the United Kingdom
![]() | On 25 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Badger culling in the United Kingdom, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that bovine tuberculosis costing £100 million per annum is leading to badger culling in the United Kingdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Badger culling in the United Kingdom. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Randomness
Hello!
Just a fork-topic from the AfD of List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes. What should we call as "uncontroversial"? For example, suppose a film's story matches with another of the film or play or book, is it uncontroversial to state this in the article even if the actual film doesn't acknowledge it? This is a factual material verifiable through primary sources. Would we require a reference for verifying it? (And lets keep this discussion out of BLP's scope. We will get in it if needed. No rush! Reply at your convenience. I might also not reply instantly to you.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, Animeshkulkarni, and thanks for your enquiry. Since you're posting to my talk page what you'll get is my personal opinion and not an official answer in any way. I'm interested in verifiability and I was heavily-involved in drafting the current version of WP:V, but I'm not an authority figure of any kind.
What's uncontroversial? I made an edit that I regard as clearly uncontroversial yesterday, here. The lifespan of a European badger is about 15 years in the wild. I didn't need to add a source for that statement, because it is not (in the words of WP:V) "challenged or likely to be challenged". It's verifiable, but unverified. An editor could remove the statement on the grounds that there's no source for it, but to do so would show poor editorial judgment. A lazy editor might tag it with {{fact}} instead, but in fact any reasonably good editor who had some reason to be concerned about that sentence would google it, find the evidence, and add the source.
I'm also responsible for writing Margot Kalinke, a biography of a German politician who was important in women's rights. For the last three years since I wrote it, it's had an "unreferenced" tag sitting on the top of it because I didn't bother to supply any sources. Did I need to? Apparently not; nobody has challenged its content, and I don't think anybody is likely to challenge it. Everything I wrote there is verifiable, but not currently verified.
What are the characteristics of an "uncontroversial" edit? There are five:
- Accurate
- Non-promotional
- Non-defamational
- Copyright-compliant
- Unchallenged
- That last characteristic is very important. The moment someone actually challenges an edit, such as by tagging its contents with {{fact}}, then it needs a source. No ifs, buts, nor maybes.
But it's not good editorial judgment to go around challenging edits at random. It's good practice only to challenge content that you're concerned about for some reason, and when you do do that, to focus on biographies of living people, high-traffic articles, or the contributions of editors who are known or suspected of problematic edits.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh i totally forgot about this. I didn't mean it this long when i said "might also not reply instantly". I went on a short wikibreak and then this dialogue never crossed my mind. Sorry for all this delay.
Good lengthy answer. Thanks for that. So you say that some information on Wikipedia can stay unreferenced as long as it is non-defamatory or copyvio or non-promotional or factually wrong. And i agree with this. The first 4 points you mentioned can be followed by the editor who introduces such statement in the article. The last 5th point of "unchallenged" is not dependent on the writer. In case something is challenged by some editor, say for no good reason, what should be done? I ask this because i mostly edit India-related articles and Indians have not been good at documenting information. I am talking of statements that satisfy our first 4 points. Example: I am writing an article on a small village in some rural area with say 80-100 population. (That's a tiny village per Indian standards). In it i write; "There is a temple of PQR goddess and people worship her. She is considered as an incarnation of goddess XYZ." Now this subject being not-so-famous, i have no online as well as offline sources to prove this. And for me its unlikely to be challenged too. But somehow some editor challenges it. What next? We can ofcourse keep it there with a cn/fact tag. But this editor doesn't like that option and wants to simply delete it. His reasoning is that if it is unrecorded for now why should Wikipedia write it? We can write it here if someone reliable writes it first somewhere else. But what is happening here is that though it is satisfying our 4 points, the information is being lost because someone challenged it.
You didn't specifically answer for my previous example. Would you challenge that statement and demand it's removal? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh i totally forgot about this. I didn't mean it this long when i said "might also not reply instantly". I went on a short wikibreak and then this dialogue never crossed my mind. Sorry for all this delay.
Afd
I have replied to your comment. I had already replied to this allegation once here so I am pointing it. Now on the AFD Can we please concentrate on the Subject. regards--DBigXray 19:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the yet another excellent demonstration of WP:AOBF --DBigXray 20:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- And the truth shall make you cross. :-)
Seriously: when one editor nominates 30+ articles for deletion in the space of a month, and all of them were created by one other editor, then what we have is a potential conduct dispute. I asked if you were on a crusade. You've denied it; your position appears to be that it's a complete coincidence. Let's leave it there and hope it doesn't finish up on AN/I (which is a place I don't enjoy posting).—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- And the truth shall make you cross. :-)
Agriculture in the United Kingdom
Hello S Marshall. Did you know that a red link for Fishing in the United Kingdom already exists in the Agriculture in the United Kingdom#Other livestock section? I'm not one to fixate on rules but I don't think that red links belong in the See also section. Also I believe that too many red links starts being an eyesore to the reader. SlightSmile 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation
Regardless of its outcome, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to participate in the DRV on Margo Rey. I appreciate it. Best regards... Vertium When all is said and done 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Note
Hi, I think you should check up on both the Huxley Institute and Orthomolecular Medicine which you have mentioned here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_25#David_R._Hawkins. This will give you an idea on just how fringe both groups are. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Also in Regard to Hawkins
One editor has taken it upon himself to remove published works from the author based on what appears to be an misinterpretation of policy regarding authors who are both independently published and who also publish works through their own publishing company. Is there someway to get a consensus and clarification on this policy or someone who might have a third-party input on the policy as it is being used to delete the author's works? Discussion is also on the article talk. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Geo Swan, DBigXray, and AFDs
I have created a list of AFDs created by DBigXray for analysis here. I hope it supports your position.--v/r - TP 18:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)