User talk:S Marshall

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

Compulsory purchase, etc[edit]

Good on you regarding the redlinks. Williams JE is a prolific editor, but sometimes gets fixated on having to remove certain things, without thinking about how people use the enyclopedia, because there's some (non-binding) rule - totally support what you're saying. Wikidea 07:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I'm not sure that being capable of suspecting POV pushing, or of willingly exploiting BURDEN to (temporarily) change the POV of an article, should count as "seeing the best in people", but I'll accept the compliment anyway.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It was fully meant. I've found that you talk a lot of sense, and even though we're differing on one point here, I think your position is arguable and I'm enjoying the many ingenious arguments you raise to defend it.—S Marshall T/C 12:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you still planning to do this?[edit]

Or did you already do something about it and I just missed it? I'm referring to your statements in this discussion: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the prompt. I would still like to do this, yes. I haven't yet. If someone else starts it I would like to contribute to their efforts.—S Marshall T/C 07:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Popular press[edit]

We do not typically use the popular press for medical content. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

  • But in this case the research paper cites the popular press as its source. Do you think this question is best solved at WP:RSN?—S Marshall T/C 07:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

this comment is going over the top. You have been getting increasingly frustrated and its showing. You cannot strike an edit note but please don't accuse me of "scaremongering". If you keep going it is going to lead to an AE. Please stay cool. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

  • You are scaremongering, though. You could take offence and go to AE, or you could stop scaremongering. I don't really mind which. Although I'm less superficially civil than you are, I don't think I have much to fear from AE.—S Marshall T/C 01:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
If you are talking about the statement that the risks are unknown, that is not controversial and not scaremongering. If you are talking about the blowing up thing, you'll notice that I haven't said anything about the content; only about the sourcing. I have nothing to do with that content. Even if I did, the accusation of bad-faith "scaremongering" is there, and you just repeated it. Please don't attack other editors that way - please back away from that and don't double down. Again, I urge you to calm down; that comment and its unchangeable edit note were unwise, and if you continue ramping up it is not going to end well. Please throttle down; nobody needs the drama. . Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If your position isn't about the content, then the reason why you're opposing me at every turn must be because of a personal grievance. At RSN you're persistently, repeatedly, questioning my "authority" to challenge the reliability of a source, which is a weird misinterpretation of our sourcing rules. And now, you're coming to my talk page saying I've accused you of "bad-faith scaremongering", which is false ---- I said you were scaremongering and displaying poor editorial judgment, but I have not accused you of bad faith ---- and asking me "please to back away", as if I had crossed some kind of behavioural line. This is moonshine, and I expect that your reason for coming here today has been to set up some diffs you can use in future ArbCom proceedings. Please do not edit my talk page again.—S Marshall T/C 03:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar[edit]

Ah, crap, wait. Wait! The guy said no templates. Back it up. *beep* *beep* :p -- Kendrick7talk 05:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC) doesn't actually know what the back up truck sound is like in the UK

Quick and easy[edit]

In that dispute, here's what the restoring editor said about sourcing it:

"And, as I noted above, a lot of us are too busy to immediately source the easily verifiable content we restored. There's also the fact that sourcing some content can take an hour or more. In the Child grooming article case, not only was I busy, it was not a quick sourcing matter when it came to sourcing all of that."[1]

You therefore might want to reconsider assertions like this that it was quick and easy to find reliable sources that fully verify the information in that particular example.

I think the whole "quick and easy" thing is a red herring – because neither CHALLENGE nor BURDEN care whether it's quick or easy – but if you're going to push that idea, then you'd be better off with an example in which the editor hasn't publicly said that sourcing was not quick. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, WAID, and thanks for your message.

    I did not know Flyer22 had had any difficulty. I never did, and in this respect I think she is wrong. For me, the removed content was quick and easy to source and I spent literally a couple of minutes on it. To be fair, I have some professional knowledge of this subject, having been based in a youth offending team for some years and having previous experience in drug strategy, children's social work and educational psychology, so when the search results popped up I immediately focused on the NSPCC source as the one that was most likely to be reliable. Another person might have had to go through a more laborious process of assessing and comparing the sources. But I think the idea that it might have taken an hour or more to source that content is exaggerated or mistaken. You would not have needed an hour or more to check that point, and I rather doubt if Flyer22 would have either.—S Marshall T/C 20:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't have removed the material without checking for sources first, because most of it sounds plausible to me. However, I can see why the other editor might have been concerned about it. Here's one of the paragraphs that was removed in April:

Child grooming is an activity done to gain the child's trust as well as the trust of those responsible for the child's well-being. Additionally, a trusting relationship with the family means the child's parents are less likely to believe potential accusations. [citation needed]

So, what do you think? Is it possible for someone to engage in child grooming without trying to make the parents and other caregivers trust him, too? If so, then that's factually wrong. I notice that this first sentence did not survive to the current version of the article; it has been modified in ways that indicate the original was, indeed, factually wrong.

That paragraph had been tagged, by a different editor, as needing a citation back in January, so this is hardly some out-of-the-blue blanking.

So tell me again: Why are we using an example of information that was factually wrong and unverifiable, and tagged as needing a citation for a couple of months, as proof that it would have been quick and easy to PRESERVE that error? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes, it's possible to groom a child who has corporate parents (oh my God that's a redlink? ---- looked after children... child looked after... wow, we do seem to have some gaps to fill in this topic area). Okay, it's possible to groom a child who's in the custody of a local authority or orphanage which doesn't select a child's companions and supervisors on the basis of trust at all. It's also possible to groom a child by trying to persuade them to run away from home. These are relatively rare outliers. The purpose of child grooming is trying to get the child to do as you ask and the parents to leave you alone with the child, and it is basically about trust, and it most commonly involves getting trust from everyone who controls access to the child. If someone's removed the word "trust" from the definition of child grooming then I think they've made an extremely poor editorial decision that needs to be reversed. I'm not going to do the reversing. I hear quite enough about child protection in my day job, and it's the kind of topic area where I don't trust myself not to make angry posts in allcaps.—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
So I was passing by and I saw this interesting red link. I started Corporate parent, but it seems like it should be a disambig. Maybe you can take it from there and stub properly? Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 going around blanking articles[edit]

After Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 64#Preserving a burden, see that the editor has taken to doing things like this, this and this.

Any thoughts? Also pinging Piotrus and Materialscientist, who took issue with such blanking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor also has it wrong about primary sources. Needs to better comprehend WP:Primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Flyer, it's probably a lot easier for both of our stress levels, if you concern yourself a little less with my edits. There is plenty of cool things to focus on here, it doesn't have to be my edits. Last time I got moaned at, it just resulted in hours of repetitive and non-constructive crap. It's just annoying, I have no desire to interact with you, so please go play with someone else. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Nah. Your edits are my concern when you are messing up articles, as you've been doing for months now. When I see that, I am likely to do something about it. First step was bringing it here to S Marshall since he's tried to talk sense into you before and often has a more diplomatic tone than me. I'm sure you can guess what the other steps will be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
And here, you failed to do your WP:Before job. Luckily, as seen here and here, Arxiloxos came in to save the day. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
what-fucking-ever dude. I know you want your "other steps" to sound kinda scary, but it just made me smirk a little. I shall try to avoid the trolling and also avoid getting sucked into some attention seeking drama. Have an awesome day Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur that blanking is not a good approach. There are deletion processes for that. Spacecowboy420, those three diffs above are basically stealthy deletion, and that is not far from the v-word. Please do not blank articles in such fashion. If you want them gone, Template:Prod is not difficult to use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm merely deleting unsourced content. If someone wants to add content to an article, they should provide sources. If they are too lazy to provide sources, it gets removed. I guess I dislike poorly sourced content, unsourced content and lazy editors, as much as some others dislike content being removed. If an article ends up blank because none of it was sourced, the blame lies with the lazy editor who didn't provide a source. I would like to add, that if the content is notable and someone restores it, with suitable sources, I would not go back and remove it again. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, all. I'm interested in the question of when it is and isn't appropriate to remove content in principle, but I'd rather not get involved at this level of detail if you don't mind. I wish you the best of luck in resolving your differences at a more appropriate venue. Happy editing!—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Wise move. We have a finite amount of time to spend on Wikipedia, this doesn't seem to be leading anywhere constructive. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's constructive. And so will the WP:ANI thread I'll soon be starting on you about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

Hello,

What are your thoughts about the closing of the DRV here. Personally, I feel the closing editor didn't take the time to keenly go through the discussion because if they did this would lead somewhere different. TushiTalk To Me 04:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi, thanks for visiting my talk page. I still don't agree with most of the other editors in that case. But I can't function here without accepting that in Wikipedia discussions, not everything goes my way. If you're not happy with the close then your first port of call should usually be the closer's talk page; he's a reasonable human being and will listen to you. All the best—S Marshall T/C 09:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but at times the decisions are quite warped. TushiTalk To Me 06:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more[edit]

"We need to amend WP:BURDEN to make editors accept some kind of responsibility if they remove easily-verified content from important articles?"- I found this discussion and what you said (quoted above) through a search, and I couldn't agree with you more mate. See my contributions, where I've had a tiff with an editor saying "I will revert on sight any unreferenced info" [in London bus articles], and carrying it out (see their contributions). Admittedly, I forgot to provide a source (well, it was one edit to the infobox), but that sort of statement is the type that deters people from Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for the support and the well wishes! All the best—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

D-day, coming soon to a theater near you[edit]

Enjoy--TMCk (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A pint for you[edit]

TransporterMan has given you a pint. Every time I think that you and I are butting heads over policy issues, I read what you've written more carefully and discover that we're either saying the same thing or that the distance between our opinions is extremely small. Our tone and inertial direction can be different, but at the end of the day we're saying the same thing, or close to it. Cheers! and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Transporterman! I'm sorry for the delayed reply which was due to my holiday in the Orkney Islands. All the best—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Chartered Surveyor[edit]

I notice that you've partially reversed the merge on Chartered Surveyor and Chartered surveyors in the United Kingdom, and I can understand your reasons why; there should be enough material in the world for two separate pages. The main reason for my bold merge was that the proposal had been open for more than 3 years without objections, that the generic Chartered Surveyor was almost entirely UK content anyway (no-one seem to be interested in adding more Commonwealth-country material). Note that stale merges may be boldly done, and that reversing a merge requires a consensus (see WP:MERGE), which I don't think that you had. Having said that, if you are going to reverse the merge, please finish the job, as there is currently duplicated content on the two pages. Any ideas as to how Chartered Surveyor can be expanded? Klbrain (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi mate, and thanks for visiting my talk page.

    The confusion here is because I watchlist articles that I start, or make major contributions to, but not articles that I've only tweaked in a minor way. In strict point of fact, I removed the "merge" tag from CSITUK about three years ago. I would have removed it from the general CS article if I'd known about it, but I simply didn't; I don't monitor that article at all. I'm not sure that in the circumstances that's really a "stale merge", is it? (Happy to be corrected on this as I'm not up on the exact procedural protocol for merges.)

    I'm confident that CSITUK is the appropriate place for the content I wrote. I used UK sources exclusively and that's the scope I always had in mind for the article as I was producing it. As for the general CS article ---- it does need to cover the UK, and it's up to editors there whether they build that by trimming down the content I wrote for CSITUK (which they are of course welcome to adapt and reuse) or by starting again from scratch. I have no objections to either procedure.

    I'm afraid I have no knowledge of chartered surveying outside the UK and I don't have any relevant sources on my bookshelves, so I don't feel competent to advise you about that article.

    All the best—S Marshall T/C 06:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)[edit]

Thank you for your thoughtful RfC close of Talk:Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)#RfC: Should ID's status as a pseudoscience be mentioned in the lede? However, I note you never addressed the compromise solution mentioned several times of mentioning it in the lead, but not in the lead sentence. What was your opinion about that? StAnselm (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi StAnselm and thanks for visiting my talk page. I'll re-read the discussion and then respond substantively. All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there was a consensus to include the disputed phrase in the lead. I don't think there was a consensus about where, exactly, it should appear in the lead. My edit to the page restored the pre-RfC wording version, but there's no consensus basis for insisting that the disputed phrase stays in that exact place. Also, my view as an editor rather than as a RfC closer is that the first sentence as it now reads is a bit cumbrous and inelegant, and I think there are good grounds to rephrase it for rhythm and flow. All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

re: gregory's influence on barrow[edit]

Concision dans le style, précision dans la pensée, décision dans la vie.—Victor Hugo

hello,

just wondering about the RfC & closure because the sources used to support the claim Isaac Newton was influenced by Barrow (which seems to be pretty obvious) are similar to those used to support the claim Barrow was influenced by gregory.

i understand that when there is a controversial RfC (as was the case in Talk:Isaac Barrow), you are forced to go with consensus; however looking at the verdicts given, it does not clearly suggest that you remove the insertion.

  • as far i can see, there is one in favour, one opposed, a few abstains and comments, and another stating that it should be removed from the infobox and included in the body of the text.
  • i only read the final comments right now, and if i had inserted my own support (which was fair), then the vote would have been in my favour.

my question is what is wrong with the sources used to support the claim? they are good enough and on par with what was used to support the claim isaac newton was influenced by barrow. is it possible you could consult the sources in the infobox and reach a conclusion independent from RfC?

some people are not going to like my attitude, and that's okay. but that doesn't mean they can gather in numbers to override the weakness of their rebuttal.

while it is my fault for not attending to my own RfC, i feel that the evidence provided, and also my "late vote" should be sufficient to change your mind (if you are unwilling to consult the sources i've provided).

it is important that you understand the "method of tangents" that is often mentioned in the sources is of primary importance to explaining the fundamental theorem of calculus (see Riemannian Geometry).

going to "re-post" the important comments that you may have overlooked:

  1. Here is some secondary analysis showing the impact of Gregory's work. Secondary analysis such as [2] (page 4, footnote 11) also refers to the quote I've used, but builds on it slightly more by also mentioning Gottfried Leibniz' praise of Gregory's work. So we can see that the work of Gregory impressed both Leibniz and Barrow. To suggest such esteemed scholars (of almost 400 years ago) use phrases like "the most learned man" or "elegant theorem by Gregory" (quite the compliments) without being influenced by them (where such influence is in the form of using their work, at the very least) is unreasonable.
  2. Here is a letter by a prominent publishing intermediary (between Gregory, Barrow, and Newton) John Collins addressed to Gregory [3] While the letter itself is somewhat mundane (he met Sir Isaac, had dinner, Sir Isaac said Opticks was going to continue where Reverend Barrow left off, and that Collins needn't ask about Sir Isaac's publishing commitments because Reverend Barrow said the Lucasian chair had such requirements already), it establishes that, while communication was slow at the time, Collins was clearly acting as a facilitator. Thus, the work of Gregory clearly had an influence on Barrow given that the publisher was writing about their progress to the former.
  3. Here is another secondary source, The Historical Development of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus And Its Implication in Teaching:

    Apparently, Fermat reduced a problem of rectification by connecting tangents and the question of quadratures. Surprisingly, for all his deft use of infinitesimals in a variety of areas, he still failed to recognize this critical relation, denying himself the honored title of “true inventor of the calculus” (Boyer, 1959). The man first overtly aware of generality of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus was James Gregory in 1668, exerting a significant influence on Isaac Barrow’s work.

  4. Here's some more evidence, where italicised text is conveying the words of the source

    In the summer of 1670 GREGORIE discovered a second, much more powerful method of tangents, which has to be viewed against the background of ISAAC BARROW'S 1670 Lectiones Geometricae. In July 1670 GREGORIE received from JOHN COLLINS a copy of BARROW'S book fresh from the printer, On September 5 he wrote back:
    "I have read over Mr Barrow's Lectures with much pleasure and attention, wherein I find him to have infinitely transcended all that ewer [sic] wrote before him. I have discovered from Barrow his method of drawing tangents together with some of my own, a general geometrical method, without calculation, of drawing tangents to all curves, and comprehending not only Barrow's particular methods, but also his general analytical method in the end of the 10th lecture. My method contains not above 12 propositions."(page 102)

    - James Gregory[1]

    Apart from the pieces of evidence produced above, other considerations support the reconstruction of GREGORIE'S techniques offered here. As we have seen, no calculus techniques are needed to explain GREGORIE'S series expansions. This is consistent with GREGORIE'S admiration for BARROW'S Lectiones Geometricae and with the content of the mathematical notes exchanged between GREGORIE and BARROW. (page 136)[1]

  5. Another (feingold, same citation used for Barrow's influence on Newton)

    Barrow's heavy "borrowings" include his restatement of "Gregory's generalization of Wren's proof of a construction for the tangent at a general point on a cyclid arc," as well as his appropriation of Gregory's "rectifying transformation," the basis of the Scot's involutio and evolutio method. Even barrow's most famous achievement--the proof for the inverse nature of differentiation and integration--was now reinterpreted as a "neat amendment of Gregory's generalization of Neil's rectification method." - Mordechai Feingold[2]

    • If you dig further into that cited passage, you will find references to DT Whiteside[3] who argues this line of thinking. However, again, we are not discussing priority of the fundamental theorem, nor are we discussing originality. What we are discussing is whether it is reasonable to infer that Gregory's work influenced Barrow, and given the in-depth analyses of these scholars (admittedly focusing on originality and priority for the fundamental theorem of calculus), it is hard to argue against, at the very least, the idea that Gregory's work did influence Isaac Barrow.

again i apologise for inundating you with text, but all of it is important to the argument being made, and is also of sufficient rigour. given that i was absent for the vote (my fault), and the evidence provided (compared to the lack of it when you compare the "other side), i cannot see how this decision can stand. i am hopeful you understand my point of view. thanks 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC) thanks. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
--
below this line are new sources that i've found that i feel may help your decision.

  1. These lectures, says Dr Ward, being sent to the learned Mr. James Gregorie, professor of mathematics at St. Andrew's, and perused by him, he gives the following character of author in a letter to Mr John Collins:

    "Mr. Barrow in his Optics showeth himself a most subtil geometer, so that I think him superior to any that ever I looked on. I long exeedingly to see his geometrical lectures, especially because I have some notions on that same subject by mee. I entreat you to send them to mee presently, as they come from the presse, for I esteem the author more than yee can easilie imagine."[4]

  2. "I have read over both Mr Barrows bookes of Lectures, with much pleasure and attention, wherein I fin him to have infinitel transcended all that ever writt before him, I have discovered from his method of drawing Tangents, togeather with some of my owne, a generall Geometricall method without Calculation of drawing tangents to all Curves, comprehending not only Mr Barrows particular methods but also his generall Analyticall method in the end of the 10th Lecture, my method contains not above 12 Propositions.” So Gregory learned from Barrow but had additional methods of his own. The differentiation of rational powers in Gregory precedes the Barrow book, a book that does not contain the differentiation of a sum or difference, in spite of some exaggerated twentieth-century claims on this issue. More on this in the next section."[5][6]

in fact, in light of these new additions, can we also add Isaac Barrow as an influence to James Gregory? the words of the latter would support it.

174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Malet, Antoni (1993). "James Gregorie on tangents and the "Taylor" rule for series expansions". Archive for History of Exact Sciences. Springer. 46 (2): 97–137. 
  2. ^ Feingold, Mordechai (1993). "Newton, Leibniz, and Barrow Too: An Attempt at a Reinterpretation" (PDF). Isis (journal). University of Chicago Press on behalf of History of Science Society. 84: 310-338. (page 332)
  3. ^ Whiteside, Derek Thomas (1961). "Patterns of Mathematical Thought in the later Seventeenth Century" (PDF). Archive for History of Exact Sciences. Springer. 1 (3): 179–388. doi:10.1007/BF00327940. 
  4. ^ Hughes, Reverend T. S. (1830). The Works of Dr Isaac Barrow with some account of his life. A. J. Valpy. p. 55. 
  5. ^ Gonzalez-Velasco, Enrique A. (2011). Journey through Mathematics, Creative Episodes in Its History. Springer. 
  6. ^ Gonzalez-Velasco 2011, p. 264
  • Please note this edit. For the time being the correct place for further discussion on this matter is on the administrator's noticeboard which is here. All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux/Sandbox16[edit]

So what's the MO over there? Tag, flag, cross out the ones that are ok? I'll take a look on some of the portuguese/spanish ones Acer (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes please mate! All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_August_2[edit]

Hi, Should probably have pinged you in the discussion, but could you let me know your thoughts on my response to your comment (ideally in that discussion)[4]? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Tyrome Tripoli deletion review[edit]

Mr. Marshall Thank you very much for your contribution to the Tyrome Tripoli debate, if you could just add the overturn vote as your comment reads, thanks againMasterknighted (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi mate, it's okay: I don't need to. The closer won't be interested in the words in bold, but in the arguments. You can take it to the bank that anyone who closes a deletion review will read my comment carefully, understand it in context, and give it the appropriate weight. I often don't bother putting a word in bold at all.—S Marshall T/C 16:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That execrable translation tool and the unending list[edit]

I'll be good and resume focussing on the task. I apologise for having escaped into article creation over the past 10 days ... I don't know whether you noticed the section I added at the bottom of AN/CXT? A large group of articles could probably be speedied.

Elinruby has been forgetting to make the entry at WP:PNT when she tags a rough translation. I cleaned up one, and I have been avoiding reporting them to PNT because they already have enough to deal with. But if you decide to tag the ones she tagged as rough translations for deletion, please spare Joseph Dirand, he's notable and has enough refs for me to rewrite. I've also made a note to myself to look at Rune Vikeby and Dalby Stone.

Please add swear words of your choice. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'll go with "santorum".  :)

    I'm grateful for anything you do, and the absolute last thing I want is for you to stop creating articles ---- this backlog can't be allowed to suck all the joy out of Wikipedia. All the best—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 27 and "I'm always doing this"[edit]

The auto-signing on {{DRV top}} has always driven me nuts, too. The dash it puts before it meant that I couldn't even work around it by training myself to not sign manually, since it would still look wrong. At least you can omit it now with the undocumented |sig=no parameter. —Cryptic 14:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oh, that's a useful tip! Thanks very much.  :) All the best—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Aw, I missed it.[edit]

I was on hiatus in May and missed John Bambenek's annual trip to DRV. Never mind, someone was around to remind everyone of old times, and it was you. Well done :-) Guy (Help!) 17:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I see you've been looking into ancient history. What brought that on? :)—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Butterfly mind, I guess. I was thinking of the gentler days of yore, when vanity spamming was seen as more of a gentleman's game on both sides of the fence. Guy (Help!) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We've become chillingly efficient at dealing with it.  :\—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)