User talk:S Marshall

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)

• • Earlier this year you deleted "Their role in tobacco harm reduction as a substitute for tobacco products is unclear."[2]
  • Now you deleted "Their usefulness in tobacco harm reduction is unclear"[3] again. This edit is also a revert. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 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)

• Yup. It's been used as evidence against me, too. I have nearly a thousand edits to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, which apparently makes me a dangerous obsessive.—S Marshall T/C 01:50, 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)

• Please do not edit my talk page again.—S Marshall T/C 00:20, 29 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'm afraid I've got to go out. but you're welcome to do that.—S Marshall T/C 14:58, 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

• Spoken like a gentleman. Of course I fully accept your apology; I'm on the receiving end of worse here every day... All the best—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"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)

• Thanks for those kind words.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 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)

• Sure you can. If you post that you've withdrawn it, then I will close the discussion under WP:SNOW.—S Marshall T/C 00:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Done AlbinoFerret 01:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• All sorted. I think you were wise not to continue with that.—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 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)

• I meant them, and I'm delighted to see you've returned to editing. All the best—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 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)

• I fail to see an insult.—S Marshall T/C 11:17, 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)

• I'm sorry, you're entirely correct. I have self-reverted.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 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)

• A new source could very well affect my view, subject to seeing it. I'm responsive to new evidence. Merry Christmas—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 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)

• Hi BlackJack. I've had a look but I can't seem to identify the publisher of the source? All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 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)

Mystery Wolff

I have lifted the topic ban on Mystery Wolff following a review of my topic ban and have decided to rescind the ban and replace it with a final warning to avoid personalising disputes. MWs cinduct did improve after his short break and he did not personalise any further commentary. Unfortunately, it appears that I misread some of their datestamps and banned for conduct that took place before their short break. Given this improvement, I would appreciate it if you could also cut them some slack and step back from your comment that you are not prepared to work with them. I feel that they deserve a further chance to prove they can work collaboratively and will be monitoring but they need a level field to work on if this improved conduct is to continue. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Spartaz, even with Mystery Wolff topic-banned, I've found that proposing improvements to that article is turning into a game of bring me a rock. If you're going to rescind his topic ban then I think it'll be simplest all around if I just do something else with my volunteering time. No hard feelings and Merry Christmas—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope that your not seriously thinking of leaving the articles. Sadly IMHO the reason they are in the shape they are in is because the problems encountered in getting any meaningful change implemented. So the editors just give up. It may not be a conscious plan to do so, but the effect is still the same. Some may not be ready for the changes you want to make, and the end product might not be perfect, but any change is probably for the best. I know of a few good editors that have given up, I hope your name isnt added to that list. AlbinoFerret 04:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, AlbinoFerret: but I can't get anything done. I've tried. Four months of solid wrangling in front of Arbcom, and QG's behaviour doesn't change in the slightest. Then he finally gets topic-banned, and then within a week we've got a fresh obstructionist editor who is (quite rightly) entitled to a fresh assumption of good faith. On Wikipedia obstructionism always works, because "no consensus" means "stick to the status quo". Look at the amount of effort I've put in to trying to fix that smoking cessation paragraph without any result at all. And now there's an obstructionist editor active on the page again; so QG's language throughout the whole thing is unfixable and his bizarre prejudices are going to carry right on getting through to everyone who reads it. It's a whole lorryload of bullshit, but Spartaz can't fix that for me and he certainly can't topic ban another editor just because I'm getting frustrated.

  There's plenty of other stuff that needs fixing on Wikipedia, some of which are things that I personally can do. I've unwatched the page and I don't intend to edit it again, although you could do me a favour by dropping me a note in the event of MW getting topic-banned again...—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be easier if the focal point of his input wasnt leaving....... Please give it a few weeks in the new year. Try a diffrent section, heck try a different Sub article, they can all use help.AlbinoFerret 13:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a pity, Marshall, understandable but quite a pity. (Someone who walked away a while ago.)--TMCk (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well you walked away for a short bit, and now he is gone for at least 6 months. AlbinoFerret 21:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

... and hence the article is editable again. Until the next one.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEEPER

Hi, I was a bit confused this was the first time I have heard of DEEPER, I was under the impression that DEEPER is a place to contest the close to a higher level, but I think the section actually prevents me from doing so, are you against the topic , I was under the impression you supported it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I sort of do, and then again, I sort of don't. I do think there's scope for an article about involuntary sexual abstinence based on Tokyogirl79's text. I'm sure that editors don't want an article called Involuntary Celibacy, which is a term that comes with a load of baggage. Merry Christmas—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think overturning is the start this topic needs, if we can get the content which was written by Toykogirl on the mainspace then we can determine what the best title is. I am asking you to reconsider inputting a vote. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've said it three times, and linked the long discussions that led me to this conclusion. I'm confident that what I said will be taken into account. None of our regular DRV closers ever do it by counting up the words in bold; they all read the arguments and weigh them.—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

DRV 2015_Climate_Conference.svg

Hello,

I think you may possibly have mixed me up with a someone else at this DRV. My only point has been that there is no established consensus about this issue - I have not advocated for one position or the other.

If pressed for an opinion on this question (which is NOT what the DRV is about) I would say that the analogue for "low resolution" in an SVG file is "low complexity", and that an SVG apparently containing every single beam in the Eiffel Tower as part of a logo is excessively high in complexity, and contrary to NFCC#3b.

I wonder if you would consider altering your comment which named me? (Although I liked the "ingenious" part!)

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. Happy new year!—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! I haven't given up on this year yet :) Thparkth (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing political correctness

Hi, thankyou for your thoughtful closure of the RfC on PC, you MAY have closed the wrong RfC though, the one you closed was withdrawn by the proposer and a modified one introduced here. Whether you feel able/whether it is proper for you to close the second (which has now run for over 30 days), I leave to your judgement.

I have lived (briefly, several times) in Cambs and also had friends there (many years ago). What I remember most about the winters, is the biting cold wind blowing relentlessly! Hope that wind doesn't spoil your New Year. Best wishes for 2016 (blimey is it that already!). Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Pincrete and happy new year!

  I closed that particular discussion because it was one of the oldest unclosed discussions listed on WP:ANRFC, and I'm trying to help bring the backlog under control. I'd prefer not to close two separate discussions on the same page in rapid succession, if I can avoid it; I think it would be better to have fresh eyes on the subject. All the best, S—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Manitonquat

Thanks for all your help with the DRV on Manitonquat. FYI I have re-created the page Manitonquat (along the lines of my previous edit of Dec 15-sh (see screenshot posted above). Hope that's alright. Will improve presently with citations & references mentioned here. ALERT: "Rubbish Computer" has instantly responded by listing this page for speedy deletion (with reference to previous deletion debate, but not, apparently to this DRV.) I have posted to him about this DRV. Hope further confusion can be avoided. Horse Dancing (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I just want to touch base with you on a statement that you are trusting that sources say what they say in the article. While most things may be close it may be eye opening to look at the sources and see what they actually say. The sources that I have access to revealed a big problem. You may want to look at the history of this blanked page User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/evidence to see the problem. Its not that the source may not say exactly word for word what is in the article. Its that the words were often cherry picked leaving the real summery of the section it was taken out of out of for the WP edit. This includes leaving out mitigating factors or contradictions later in the paragraph that the cherry picking was done in. Any real rewrite needs to look at the sources themselves. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Section links in edit summaries

Cheers. If I may ask you a favor: when you reply to talk page discussions, please do not erase section headings from the default edit summary. I'm kinda following the Talk:Electronic cigarette developments from the sidelines, and when you reply e.g. like this, I have no idea in which thread/section I need to look to see the context, so I have to search for keywords from your reply on the page. Thanks. No such user (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff AE appeal

Hi It looks like Mystery Wolff has appealed the ban he received. I only found out about it because I watch AE. He has made a statement that includes you, without informing you of the discussion. The section can be found here. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, AF. I'm pretty sure that appeal will fail without my intervention, but it's moot while Jytdog is active anyway as I don't have the patience to deal with them. The topic area attracts that breed of editors like flies to shit.—S Marshall T/C 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted you to be aware of it since he mentioned you and didnt give you notice, and I agree the appeal isnt likely to pass. I will point out that in the end the section is still better than what it was. Sometimes we cant get the perfect result we want but as long as there is improvement, imho its worth doing. Just pick another section and move forward. Sometimes the hardest changes are the first ones. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Drained by e-cigs

Just saw your message that you've left e-cigarettes. Many thanks for all your help. Hope you get back your energy reserves for other projects soon. SPACKlick (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you SPACKlick.—S Marshall T/C 20:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Lorenzo Iorio

Hello. I am writing to you about the deleted page of Lorenzo Iorio. As I already stated in several places, I am a relative of Iorio, and I did not find correct the actions by an editor who continuously abuses of his permissions and refutes any form of confrontation about that page, I asked a Deletion Review, and he suddenly and arbitrarily closed it. Could you, please, help me? Thank you. 79.35.72.141 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sure. I have begun a discussion here in which location uninvolved people will review JzG's block. JzG will presumably take the opportunity to explain himself.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP should request an unblock at their blocked account, rather than evading the block. The IP should also stop trying to use Wikipedia as a weapon in a real-world dispute, which is the source of the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

About the closure at Political Correctness

Hello, I realized after talking at the talk page after the objection that it may have come off as objection about the closure and not the closure's explanation. I didn't intend to object to the closure itself, sorry about that. I also didn't object to your participation, as long as we could talk about the first's closure explanation first and expand upon it. Since very few if any have shown interest at interpreting the talk page and the discussion other than you, I'd still be very much interested in hearing your opinion again. I'm sorry if I came off as off-putting. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Help with wargames foundry?

Hi, Was hoping you might have access to sources on this company. I'm guessing back in the day there would have been coverage in the General or some such. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate, and thanks for quite an interesting research project there! I enjoyed looking into this. As you've correctly deduced, I have an extensive digitised magazine archive from those days.

  From my researches, the 1976 date from the article is a complete red herring. Bryan Ansell's corporation in those days seems to have been Asgard Miniatures of 15 Furlong Avenue, Arnold, Nottingham who do not have an article even though it would be easy to source one (start with White Dwarf Magazine, Issue 2, page 7). They were just up the road from Citadel Miniatures who at the time were based in a former folk museum in Newark. Citadel started selling Asgard miniatures in the second half of 1980. At the 1980 Games Day awards for Best Figures Manufacturer, Citadel took first prize, Ral Partha second, and Asgard third, but nothing about Wargames Foundry.

  I gave up on 1976-77 and skipped on to 1983 which was the other date given. Searching this date is much harder because there are many more sources and Wargames Foundry is a name made of two common search terms, and Bryan Ansell's name is unhelpful because he released the first edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle that year and the name reveals a storm of Citadel Miniatures/WHFB announcements but not much else. However, having drilled down a long way into those searches, I'm confident that there are no hits for a corporation called Wargames Foundry in connection with Bryan Ansell, Asgard Miniatures or Citadel Miniatures. I also went through a bunch of Citadel advertisements from that time and they didn't mention Wargames Foundry.

  I'm confident the corporation existed at that time but they did no advertising to the general public. Probably they took orders from Citadel and fulfilled them, but I don't think they were a public-facing outfit at all, and I wasn't able to find anyone who paid any attention to them. Sorry—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. And as I'm sure you noticed, I screwed up the link, it should have been [12]. I'm finding a lot on line about the company, but not a thing from a RS. Apparently they have/had a reputation for being very high in quality and very expensive. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Political_correctness#Generally_or_primarily_or_something_else

I see a consensus of sorts for "often"--but it's hard to see the forest for the trees. If you agree (I don't know if you were leaning that way, and there's been a few comments supporting "often" since your offer to close), we can close this thing. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  I hadn't actually assessed the debate. I offered to close it but wanted to be sure my offer would be acceptable to the parties before I took the time to do all that reading. The reaction I got rather put me off, to be honest, so I didn't go back. Please do feel free to close it if you're so inclined. All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions against editor?

I am currently involved in a debate with QuackGuru regarding chiropractic articles after the ongoing AfD, QG intends on merging. Are you aware of what specific sanctions are against the editor in this field? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  I'm afraid I haven't been following QuackGuru of late. I'm under the impression that he's in the last chance saloon and edging towards the door, because he can't understand people who disagree with him and his only way of dealing with them is to try to control them. If you're having trouble with him I would advise you to proceed immediately to ArbCom. They're incredibly slow but at least they'll deal with him. Complaints in any other venue are ineffective.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, where would I go to see what the sanctions are against him. I am not sure he is allow to be participating in the AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Re. sanctions: Among others, see here for alternative medicine related restrictions.--TMCk (talk)

A couple of lists were produced the last time QG was taken to Arbcom. For example, see: a listing of his block log and a listing of his restrictions at Alt Med 75.152.109.249 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Hello there! I just happened to be viewing the AfD for Elizabeth Koch and noticed you closed it as a consensus to keep. I'm a little curious how you arrived at that conclusion, since it was a 5 - 5 vote. Shouldn't it be relisted? Just curious. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A comment that I think very many people overlooked on the nomination is that almost all the sources about an "Elizabeth Koch" are not about the same one as the publisher. So just one profile of her, doesn't seem to establish notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  It seemed very simple to me. You raised two objections to this article in your nomination: firstly, notability, and secondly, the risk that the article might be vandalised. I'm afraid the second objection holds no water and the contributors rightly focused on notability. There are a number of very weak "keep" arguments in the debate, such as the ones asserting that the article subject is notable without actually linking any sources, or the ones vaguely pointing at google searches. There are only two strong "keep" arguments in the whole debate ---- the one very pithily summarised by Hullaballoo, which may be short but I saw as significant, and Cunard's rather more verbose contribution in which he directly linked of the Wall Street Journal source ---- but those two strong arguments are humdingers.

  However, I did not close in accordance with the numbers, and if you are not confident with my close then I will be very happy to start a deletion review in which the close will be scrutinised by experienced and previously uninvolved contributors. Please say if you would like me to do this.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)