Jump to content

User talk:S Marshall/Archive31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:S Marshall

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 14 April 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Electronic cigarette. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.. You previously made this change. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 23#Removal. Now you have made a similar change months later and you made this revert. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • No, QuackGuru. One revert is not edit-warring. I fully understand why you want to put warning templates on my talk page, and so will any neutral administrator who reviews your behaviour. Please do not put inappropriate warnings on my talk page again.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
S Marshall, I'm afraid others might disagree with you about 1-Revert being edit warring. Please see here.[1]. Apologies for butting-in - it was just so timely in what is going on over there.DrChrissy (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No, DrChrissy. My actions on that page do not constitute and have never constituted edit warring. QuackGuru's warning on my talk page is massively inappropriate and what it shows is that he's learned nothing from the lectures and censure he received at the Arbcom page. He's already returning to his characteristic pettifogging, controlling behaviour, and he really does not understand that he's drinking in the last chance saloon on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
S Marshall, you may have misinterpreted my posting. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I do not believe for one nano-second that a single reversion should be considered as edit warring. Even 2 reverts is usually fine; we have a well established 3RR rule. I was simply highlighting what is currently going on at Arbcom - that I am probably about to receive a topic ban for edit warring, and the evidence for this is a single revert.DrChrissy (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Editor_conduct_in_e-cigs_articles and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears QG has tried to make my request his own. I opened the section and did not include you in it S Marshall. It was simply my request to add evidence to the case about him. AlbinoFerret 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

According to this I put my request on the wrong page. It cannot be sorted out at the request for clarification page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry!

I forgot how long you had been around. Nonetheless: [4] and [5]. Note in particular the top talk pages:

SM
202 Talk:Electronic cigarette
26 Talk:Syed Ahmed
J
583 Talk:Catholic Church
192 Talk:Muhammad/images
184 Talk:Electronic cigarette
128 Talk:Medieval art
128 Talk:Humanism
- and so on. Read some of those & you might see where I'm coming from. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, I realise you've been active in contentious areas of the encyclopaedia for a long time. In fact you began this process quite high in my esteem because I recall seeing you (if not quite meeting you) at the British Museum GLAM thing and your sterling efforts the last time our edits overlapped, which was on Holy Thorn Reliquary in 2010. This means that I'm confident that you have a British sense of humour and an advanced understanding of sarcasm, which affects how I respond to you.  ;)

    Personally I've spent a lot of my editing time in quiet backwaters of the encyclopaedia building articles about rural England and its history, which aren't contentious as long as you steer clear of the wars that involved America. I've spent a lot of my Wikipedia time at Deletion Review, which taught me a lot about the flaws and foibles of our admin corps... and I've closed about seventy RfCs, including some right corkers which taught me a lot about how we solve content disputes.—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I will point out, that the amount of posting in relation to other pages has been used as evidence against editors in this topic area. AlbinoFerret 00:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
It only shows you care about something, and that is a dangerous crime to some. I just dont want to see editors who make sense attacked. Yes I can detect sarcasm also. AlbinoFerret 02:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well it's heads you're an SPA, tails you have a battleground mentality! I'd forgotten about HTR. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
We should all watch out, there seems to be an editor walking around with a footgun. AlbinoFerret 23:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

AE

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Topic regarding electronic cigarettes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use. Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#S Marshall. Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration request withdrawn

The request for arbitration has been withdrawn by its filer, QuackGuru. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved

I feel bad that you had to justify your uninvolvement in your recent close. I apologize if my behavior in that RFC lead to that at all. There is one caveat to this conversation that was not answered in your close that I would like to see if it's possible to address. While a source can be provided, pending the end of page protection, that Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by 136 states [6], but does acknowledging this recognition create a false balance per WP:GEVAL of the NPOV policy?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • No need to apologise. The I-P topic area is fraught, and I certainly don't hold you responsible for the fact that it's fraught. I would have been careful to show I was uninvolved even if you had never posted in that debate.

    I feel that that source is reliable, appropriate, and NPOV for a statement to the effect that the Vatican feels that areas of the State of Palestine are unlawfully occupied by Israel. By itself, I don't feel that that source is sufficient to say that the State of Palestine is occupied by Israel in Wikipedia's voice -- I think you'd need more. Hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C 16:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks then.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you please comment on the page what exactly your closure of the RFC was? Apparently there seems to be some confusion. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
With pleasure, I'll go there directly.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, not sure if you're following but one thing that might be undue, is if you look at the main page, under PAST occupations, Iceland has split territories, in quite a similar fashion to what we are discussing. I would be OK with that. The West Bank was claimed by Jordan from 67-88, and from 88-onwards was claimed by the PA, etc. but until 88, there was no Palestinian state and certainly nothing recognized by anyone. I think that if not splitting up the table cell into two in such a way like was done with iceland and all the others in similar situations is indeed undue weight or bias. I don't necessarily know the correct term, but it would seem a bit off when other territories are split into two to show exactly what happened but not this one. Thanks! Sir Joseph (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm following, and hoping that the two of you will be able to work it out without too much fur flying. If it looks like my intervention can help resolve the dispute then I'll come back and intervene, and if not I'll refer it to the appropriate places as necessary. From a cursory look the split you suggest doesn't seem unreasonable to me and I'm curious to read Serialjoepsycho's response.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested in implementing the consensus. The split has nothing to do with the consensus. If you want to create a split and leave one blank I say what ever. Have at it. If you want to include the West Bank, go get a consensus. There's an RFC and other means of dispute resolution to do this. I do not support this. Jordans claim to Palestine gained very little recognition and they later renounced that claim. Sounds more like we are trying to make a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Certainly seems undue. I've very interested in discussing how to implement the consensus. This has not been the discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
We're talking about the West Bank, I don't follow. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks more like you were canvassing an uninvolved user into the discussion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you both, and I'm sorry that I didn't address this point more thoroughly in my original RFC close. I'm happy to answer any further questions that directly concern that RFC.—S Marshall T/C 17:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a review or secondary source

You stated "Unreliable medical source", my arse.[7], but the study is not a WP:MEDRS review or WP:SECONDARY source.[8] QuackGuru (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

re. archiving

If you don't mind, could you un-archive and simply collapse the thread? One would need to read it when starting a new discussion "based on the wording that was being developed" :) Thanks, --TMCk (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I just tried and failed. Guess the collapse tag that is already there is the problem, somehow? So I'll have to return the burden back to you (again), but of course feel free to ignore. It's not that important (to me) and even less to you I assume.--TMCk (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Your friendly neighbourhood talk page stalker has fixed it. AlbinoFerret 19:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Just saw it. Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Ditto! All the best—S Marshall T/C 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry for the snark ... I hope you accept my apology. I thought you were lazy and not reading the biography, I wasn't aware you couldn't access it. Being snarky is only fun if it is deserved, and it wasn't deserved here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC) I transcribed it for you here

"a little less of the imperative and the emphatic declarative"

S Marshall, as someone with a lot of experience at DRV, I thought you would be interested to know that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard does not know our well-established AfD procedures. Moreover, anyone who suggests that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome needs to do some more reading; nowhere in either WP:Deletion policy or WP:Editing policy is such a preference for the preservation of article history (as opposed to article content -- not the same thing) actually stated. The Guide to Deletion recognizes the distinction recognizes the distinction between history and content, and the validity of an !vote to delete the history, and has done so for over 10 years. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Like so much at DRV this isn't simple, and needs context. It is true (and I don't recall denying) that "delete and redirect" has been technically within the rules for some years. Indeed, DRV has endorsed it, on a very small number of occasions (and often with some reluctance). I haven't checked but I think I'm probably safe to say that we've overturned it more often than we've endorsed it. Historically we haven't liked that outcome at DRV. Several of us feel that restoring histories does very little harm to the project and it gives content creators important confidence that their work will be attributed to them ---- and DRV doesn't (or shouldn't) just blindly enforce rules. When it's at its best, it sightedly aims to raise standards.

    DRV is very averse to purging an article's history and then re-introducing similar content without attributing the original authors. We definitely don't like it when the similar content represents a close paraphrase of the original work, and Cunard is rightly scrupulous about this. Defining what is, and is not, a close paraphrase is a specialist area of copyright law and non-experts would be wise to take a very cautious view on it.

    There's other context here too, about personalities. I like to think I get on well with both Cunard and Spartaz, and I'm sometimes uncomfortable because my two friends have an unfortunate tendency to clash with each other on occasion. Cunard works diligently to source content, scrupulously follows procedure, and his appearance in any deletion discussion usually heralds the appearance of a long list of carefully-cited sources to consider. He is not often found in the "delete" camp (and when he is, it means the content is urgently and desperately in need of removal). Spartaz, on the other hand, often steps up to do the heavy lifting and take out the trash. He's frequently to be found closing long, nuanced discussions where there are a lot of different factors to weigh. He is concise to the point of terseness, willing to remove problem content (and problem editors), and has little patience with needless words. This sometimes means there's friction between them and the encyclopaedia needs them both... and when Spartaz and Cunard disagree, I've observed that they're usually both coming from a defensible position. DRVs between those two editors are the art of finding the third way.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh, you're probably reacting to redirecting in preference to deletion isn't a "novel interpretation", it's policy, aren't you?—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the Stampede RfC close!

I just noticed the close you did last week. The RfC template sorta disappeared, and the discussion petered out (long before I did). I had never initiated an RfC, so I didn't know what a close looked like, or if there was a close if there was clearly no consensus. (I've been editing off & on since 2009, and I still feel like a noob sometimes.)

I want to thank you, most of all for reading that novel we all spent a month writing (especially me). Your closing comments were very thoughtful too. It seemed clear early on that the case I advocated would not win consensus, so no arguments there. But I appreciate your validation of both sides. I was surprised at how strongly some people opposed it - not that they opposed it, but the edge in some of the comments. (I think that goes back to the article's talk page. I think we all toned things down for the RfC on W2W.) But like a skilled diplomat you found quite a bit of merit to both sides. I am very happy with that. We are on the record, and the way you closed it left the door open for us to revisit the issue some time in the future, if things change.

I just wanted you to know that I realize that was a very time-consuming undertaking, and I very much appreciate your closing comments. Thank you! Dcs002 (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Your idea for Vape shop

I am thinking the article is going to be a keep. But at this point there is really nothing I can do, like withdraw to stop the deletion discussion, because there has been a substantial discussion. I think your idea has merit and is a good solution to an article that really shouldnt exist imho with whats there. Moving the economics stuff to it would be a good fit. I guess we will just have to wait for the deletion discussion to close before bringing up the discussion of moving on the talk page. AlbinoFerret 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Done AlbinoFerret 01:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
One of the things I have learned over the last year is not to continue to argue when it looks like its for nothing. You gave a reasonable alternative. If something good comes out of it all the better, and it may in this case. AlbinoFerret 01:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff at AE

I have opened a section on Mystery wolff at WP:AE here is a link [9] since you have been involved in the discussions I felt it was appropriate to notify you. AlbinoFerret 18:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the mention

Thanks for the mention and kind words at WP:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30 (diff). Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Civility

Insulting other editors such as you did here [10] is not appropriate Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • And, Doc James, I rather think you've misunderstood the discussion you're intervening in. You reverted saying that "sources are allowed to contradict each other", which is absolutely true. What's not appropriate is to put sentences that directly contradict each other, one after the other, in an encyclopaedia article, without explaining the contradictions. When dealing with contradictory sources you need to write in such a way that the reader will understand the controversy. This is something that QuackGuru's defective text manifestly fails to do, which is why the tags you and your buddies are removing are appropriate in context. Removing them without fixing the problem is silly.

    Worse: by removing tags from appropriately-tagged content, you mislead readers into thinking that Wikipedia is more reliable than it is. Wikipedia is dangerous to read when it has lots of academic-style little references on assertions made in a seemingly scholarly style. Tags remind readers who writes Wikipedia. If I had my way the disclaimer that's linked from every page would be in big flashing red text as well.

    So I'm not advocating letting your side win because I think you're right. I think you're 100% wrong; I just think that given the outcome of so many recent discussions it's my turn to make a concession.—S Marshall T/C 11:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The doc is probably referring to the wookie comment. This is not really a personal attack. Its slang for "let those more powerful than you win because it isnt worth a fight". [11] AlbinoFerret 13:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. A lack of humor does not make this an insult.--TMCk (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Gilbert Levy

You removed my prod from Gilbert Lévy, citing a DRV, but that DRV is about a different article on a different person—without the acute accent—which was created by a sockpuppet of indeffed User:Alex LevyOne (see Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne or, if it has been archived, the bottom entry in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne/Archive). Gilbert Levy has now been reverted to being a redirect to Gilbert Lévy, and the sock blocked, as a result of the SPI. I suppose I can't legitimately revert your deprodding, but perhaps you will do so. Otherwise, I'll just take it to AfD. Deor (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No problem. My aged eyes can barely see diacritics anymore. Deor (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Notifying of the archival of an amendment request

Hi _S_Marshall, this is a notification that an amendment request pertaining to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Editor conduct in e-cigs articles has been archived with no action. You can now find it here. For the arbitration committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera

Good morning. Your AfD nomination states: "Biography of a living person about which next to nothing is known: we have an initial and a surname, and the fact that he played in a certain cricket match. Previously deleted at AfD here, previous deletion review is here. This article has been re-created with new text and one additional source. In view of the very recent history I feel it's appropriate to discuss this at AfD". Although I as creator of the new version obviously want it to be retained, I think your nomination comment is fair enough, though I have serious problems with two of your "supporters" (assuming they do support you because they actually contradict you).

I think it is only fair to advise you (sorry if you are already aware) that there is a real possibility of additional information being introduced, including the player's full name. This is currently subject to verification by the subject expert who is on holiday until tonight, so it may be a few more days before the information is confirmed. Can you please give some thought as to how you would view the article if we do get the guy's full name and perhaps his date of birth, his bowling action, etc.? I already have an assurance, still unconfirmed of course, that the two S. Pereras are different people; this is one thing that some people in the original AfD got really hung up on for whatever reason. The matter is being discussed at WT:CRIC for now.

If my contact does come back with confirmed data, I will let you know. Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you, too. Jack | talk page 12:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I have just received a reply from my contact in the ACS who has confirmed that the player is called Suresh Perera and that he was an off break bowler born in 1970. I am surprised to learn that he IS after all "two players" because he played for two clubs either side of a seven-year break. We had two articles and the other two sources both have dual entries for him. I've updated the article with the new information and included an explanation about the dual sourcing elsewhere (this has happened before, I should point out, and it is because the two websites rely almost entirely on scorecard data). The article should be moved to Suresh Perera (cricketer, born 1970 as there is another Suresh Perera, who played in Tests for Sri Lanka, but I will not move it while there is an AfD ongoing. Could you please take a look and see what you think? Thanks again. Jack | talk page 17:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, don't worry about that as I will be using newspaper sources instead. The ACS is the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians. Please see the AfD for a fuller explanation. Thanks. Jack | talk page 08:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S_Marshall/Archive31&oldid=1149837485"