User talk:S Marshall/Archive18

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

Marie-Laure Augry

Marie-Laure Augry has no references and so is up for deletion. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination)

Hi S Marshall. You participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 13#Ch interpreter. Originally closed as "[n]o consensus = no change to the status quo", the DRV close has been amended by the closer to relist. If you would like to participate in the AfD, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch interpreter (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Lisa Head

Hi can you check the DYK nomination for Lisa Head as there is still a problem with it. Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth

Hello. Back in 2008, you contributed to a deletion discussion for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. R. Sidarth. I believe he is still non-notable and have renominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lisa Head

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the clarity

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie) was closed by the time I logged in, and was no doubt a difficult close. For myself, the article hovered slighty over the pointed edge of being just notable enough for Wikipedia, while for some others it does not quite make the cut. A no consensus was perhaps the best call, and I expect that after clarification of guideline elsewhere, it might return to AFD in a few months. At the very least, and in the interim, our having turned a very sorry stub into a somehwat better sourced and encyclopedic article serves the projects and its readers. I hope we can work together to clarify those guidelines that are sometimes seen as grey, as I found your input quite helpful. Thanks, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm, SilkTork's close was the right call ("no consensus") but the supplementary wording was seriously erroneous. WP:NF is one of those crappy specific notability guidelines that purport to overrule the GNG. SilkTork is clearly of the mistaken view that it can, and his close mainly consists of his own analysis of the sources. I think it should have been a "keep".

    I don't edit specific notability guidelines, it's not worth it. My position is that they don't get to overrule the GNG, so they can always safely be ignored.—S Marshall T/C 19:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete

In this AFD you say which per our more recent custom and practice isn't quite the same as "keep". What is the difference, is this perhaps a way to !vote for a no consensus close?

In the past I always viewed the phrase "do not delete" as an indication of sock/meatpuppetry from people who don't even take the time to learn AFD conventions as was first demonstrated in this AFD from 2005 and in numerous SPA-heavy AFDs since then. (I even spoofed it once in an Apr 1st AFD). Other SPA !votes often seen are retain and oppose (are they opposing the existence of the article or it's deletion?) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • What I was trying to say was that I would support a keep, a merge, or a redirect but I would oppose deletion. The "recent custom and practice" is the increasing tendency to mandate a merge or a redirect as part of an AfD close; in other words, I think AfD is heading towards being "articles for discussion". I think outcomes are tending to be less binary and more nuanced, and have more force.

    I don't know if I've explained that clearly, please come back to me if I need to find better phrasing!—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"System bus model" is a plausible search term?

Hello. At WP:Articles for deletion/System bus model (2nd nomination), you said that "System bus model" is a plausible search term, yet you offer no reason as to why. Just so that I am clear on the issue, what makes it a plausible search term other than the fact that two textbooks mention the term and discuss it briefly? Is there any reason for me to believe that this term is different from the myriad of unaccepted, non-standard terms coined to discuss a thing of questionable notability (and "correctness") in relatively obscure books? Regards, Rilak (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Hi, Rilak. My position is that if something appears in a reliable source--such as a textbook!--then a user might turn to Wikipedia for an explanation. I'm not saying that it's notable, and for the avoidance of doubt my position is that it isn't notable and it doesn't deserve its own article. What I'm saying is that it's plausible that someone might search for it.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit problem

Please be careful to review edits made by AWB as this edit left the infobox issuing an error. There should be duplicate wikilinks from the infobox in the text it is only duplicates in the text that should be removed. Keith D (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airrow A-8S Stealth

I have relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airrow A-8S Stealth as I thought that there is a disagreement (slight, though) as to whether they are worth keeping or merging in an unreferenced state. I have written my rationale at the AfD page as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Dungeons & Dragons simulacrums , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. zorblek (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Derek Paxton

Hi there!

Thanks for helping on the Derek Paxton article. I'll admit I'm new to BLPs and creating articles, so please bear with me. Anyway, you removed some forum citations as per WP:SPS. I have some queries about it! As one of them is a citation about the number of posts in said forum, doesn't that qualify it as being one of those sources on themselves the guideline talks about? The other two do reference text within a post, so I'll try to find alternatives, but that one seems fine. Just curious if I'm getting confused!

Thanks again, NikNaks talk - gallery 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • On re-reading that, I see that you're right, NikNaks93. That particular reference was appropriate for the claim being made, and I would have no objection to it being reinserted. Normally we'd avoid discussing user-submitted content on forums or blogs at all, but a quarter of a million posts strikes me as genuinely remarkable and noteworthy in its own right.—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank-you! I'll re-add that one later. NikNaks talk - gallery 08:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

N-able Technologies

Hello, S Marshall. N-able Technologies was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. It clearly asserts significance and has sources. It was, however deleted as "spam" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N-able Technologies. The current article is clearly an improvement over the predecessor, so I would think it best to not delete it. I've been told however that I cannot leave a G4 be without going through deletion review. To say it was tagged as A7 rather than G4 is splitting hairs. You have more DRV experience than i, so ask, "what now"? Can the totally new article stand? Thanks Dlohcierekim 21:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm sure it can. There's no possibility of a G4 unless the new article is "substantially identical" to the old one; and there's no possibility of an A7 where there's a clear assertion of notability. I don't think DRV would be interested in this article. If a user wishes to AfD it, of course, they can.—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.! Dlohcierekim 21:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Charles de La Verpillière move

Hi there - I saw you'd moved the Charles de La Verpillière article to Charles de la Verpillière, lower-casing the 'L' - I don't know, but are you sure that's the correct capitalisation? Just that the official entry on Assemblee Nationale, and his entry on Nos Deputes use the upper case version --Saalstin (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9

The contents of User:Timeshift9 several weeks before it was deleted can still be viewed at the Yahoo! cache on 9 May 2011. I note that by the time it was nominated on 21 May 2011 by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) it had been expanded significantly by Timeshift9; some of the added content violated BLP, and I believe all additions violated WP:SOAP. Cunard (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm. I'm really not thrilled about that page being deleted, Cunard. I can see and sympathise with the BLP argument, but I'd temper that a bit by saying that whatever Wikipedia policy might say, I personally find such statements much less unacceptable when their targets are national-level politicians who're famous for their parliamentary rough-and-tumble.

    I also think that prolific and longstanding content contributors have earned the right for their userspace to be treated with a little respect, particularly when they're engaging in good faith discussion about how to remove any content that's causing concern, as Timeshift9 was. And yes, it does annoy me that participants who've never created a page in their whole life—of whom there are several in that debate—get an equal voice with editors like Timeshift9.

    Bearing in mind that BLP really was violated, I think that T. Canens was within his rights to close that discussion as "delete", but I also think it was quite a harsh decision, and it makes me sad to think that we've lost an excellent content contributor because of it. I really can't bring myself to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • True, but I think the BLP policy should be equally enforced on all BLPs to prevent libel. Writing a political blog on Wikipedia, as Timeshift9 did on his user page, violates WP:SOAP. The political acrimony on Timeshift9's blog was divisive. People who had opposing opinions might have started their own political blogs on their user pages, and the resulting political verbal sparring would not be conducive to working together on those political articles.

    You wrote at the DRV: "[M]any of those calling for the deletion of Timeshift9's userpage are hardly productive content contributors." I agree that content contributors should have more of a say in discussions than people who never create content. However, I believe that all editors—those who contribute content and those who do not—are equally bounded by Wikipedia policy. SOAP is policy to dissuade people from using Wikipedia for divisive political bickering. That Timeshift9 posted BLP and SOAP violations that had to be deleted is unfortunate. What is more unfortunate is his leaving Wikipedia. His numerous content contributions and his sharp sense of humor will be missed. When his user page was nominated for deletion, I read it for the first time and found that I enjoyed reading his insightful commentary; however, I supported deletion because I believe that politics should be kept off Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  • You make good points, as you so often do. The only one I'd really take issue with is the last one:- contrary to your final phrase, I think that Wikipedia should cover politics, just as it covers religion and abortion and so many other controversial subjects. Wikipedia attracts, and should attract, editors who're interested in politics (and who therefore have opinions about politics, as well as knowledge of the subject). The encyclopaedia must be strictly NPOV at all times, but by tradition there's latitude to blow off a little steam in userspace, and there's an extent to which that's a helpful tradition: if an editor has a bias, it's as well for their bias to be disclosed on their userpage. Timeshift9's problem is not the fact that he kept political content in userspace, but the extent and the vehemence of it.

    I find DRVs about userspace rather difficult. In other spaces, it's right that DRV focuses on encyclopaedic content (while supplying FairProcess to good faith users, where that isn't to the detriment of the encyclopaedia). But to me, userspace-related DRVs, although they're still technically content disputes, often have the air of a conduct dispute about them. And they smack uncomfortably of the desire to silence another person—to censor them in the one place where they're permitted a little self-expression.

    I find myself distinctly unimpressed that people like Tarc (total page creations: 7, plus 19 redirects), Johnuniq (total page creations: 1 redirect) and Shot info (total page creations: zero) expect to be taken seriously in a debate among people who're here to build an encyclopaedia. (Of course, this does not diminish the honest pro-deletion viewpoints provided by serious content writers such as yourself, Orangemike, Newyorkbrad, Sjakkalle, etc.)

    Again, I can see your side of it very clearly, but I find the whole matter troubling and not at all black-and-white.—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

  • When I wrote "politics should be kept off Wikipedia", I did not mean political coverage in articles. I meant political debate by Wikipedia users. I agree that users' political biases can be closed on their user page, such as through userboxes and links to personal websites. However, I find it problematic when user pages begin to resemble political blogs. A possible negative is that new users who happen upon user page blogs may incorrectly assume that the articles do not have to follow NPOV. They may not distinguish between the relaxed standards of userspace and the strict ones of mainspace.

    It is difficult to draw the line in these cases, but Timeshift's user page issues were exacerbated by the BLP violations, so in the end, I supported deletion.

    As to the users you mention above, I am not familiar with how much content work they do. However, it's possible that they contribute to content in other ways. For example, I took Middlesex (novel) and have a nice day to GA but did not create them. The main reason I edit Wikipedia is to contribute content. I hope they've done more content work; otherwise, I don't understand why they edit Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  • (sorry about the cri de coeur, hope if you don't mind if i butt in) Wikipedia is political: we have an admin class and user class. you don't see many users deleting user pages. there are those who edit, and those who tell others how to edit. (i wish it weren't more and more true) i don't see the problem with user pages, more likely is that readers would look at who wrote an article, went to the user page, and wondered about pov pushing. save the deletion tools for the obvious cases, not the gray, good faith ones, and better a declared COI (pov) than not? i also don't see the problem with BLP versus all the other backlogs. is it inanimate objects can't sue, so we care less about accuracy in their articles? the unreferenced list, delisted good list are not going to get the same attention. it did spotlight the failure to provide implementation of the references policy. you can make policy to improve quality all you want, without a plan it is nothing.
  • it was refreshing and rare, to see a discussion of the consequences of an action, marshall. all too often, it's only about the rules, and this feels bad, cobble together some rules to get a penumbra: rule implementation, problem solving, rather than analysis, and problem avoidance. and you saw, "less drama when they leave". the problem with admins who don't edit in article space is that they don't eat their own cooking, so don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions. they camp on an issue, feel like their finger is in the dike, and they use drama to drive decisions. "there are also signals that more experienced editors and administrators are becoming discouraged due to an increase in hostile behavior."[1] i don't see it changing until there is some leadership, with admin coaching and training, no sign of that.Slowking4 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • ─────────────────────────Hi, Slowking, and welcome. In their defence, all of the participants in that DRV who are administrators are also serious content writers, with many pages created and much work done on article space. The editors I named are not administrators. Neither do they create much content. They seem to participate by voting and expressing opinions rather than by actually writing content, and I do find them hard to understand—but people like Tarc hardly constitute a "ruling class".

    In this case, the matter is far from black and white. A majority of good faith content contributors also felt the page should be deleted. The question is whether the majority was the same thing as the consensus; I accept that in this case, it's arguable that it was. So although I don't feel comfortable saying "endorse", equally, I don't feel comfortable saying "overturn". That's not something I would often say with regard to T. Canens, who is a very fair man and rather likeable. I have taken issue with T. Canens' closes in the past but I won't do so lightly.—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  • i agree, i'm conflicted too, and i'm not talking about folks on that page. i'm sure there's a lot of productive work in policy space, it just seems to me like a diversion of effort. there's a lot of arguing over line calls, rather than working on ground strokes. we're going to have cranky productive editors, and we have to find a way to accomodate them, other than goodbye. the fact that we haven't is my thesis for the plateau, and limit of growth. Slowking4 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DrV discussion

Hi, Just swinging by as I already wrote too much at the Gundam DrV. Don't know that there is anything to really discuss, but I am curious how you'd suggest we deal with "cruft" issues (like the 100s of Gundam pages). I personally don't see the massive number of pages as a problem other that it is likely the fact that a better job can be done with a smaller number of better-written pages. But I don't see AfD as the way forward on that, it generally needs to be at the project level. Further, I suppose I get frustrated when good material gets deleted for not meeting WP:N, but some of those same voices who speak so loudly about needing good sourcing and "ILIKEIT" turn around and support the deletion of a very well sourced topic (we rarely have special issues of magaizines dedicated to a topic we are deleting...) In any case, thanks for the kind words.

Also, just wanted to say that I've been very pleased that the "rational middle" in AfDs/DrVs has been gaining ground (you, Tim, A Stop at). It's nice (and darn important) to have a predictable and fair process (even if the outcomes aren't always what _I_ would choose). Hobit (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Heh, I'm certain that there are those who see me not as part of any "rational middle" but as a blatant inclusionist!

    I think that the >350 pages relating to Gundam on Wikipedia are totally out of proportion to the importance of the subject. I believe that the list in question is not notable. A list of weapons on Gundam suits might, arguably, be notable. But surely not a list of weapons on Gundam SEED mobile suits: it's too granular, and it cuts up the material into pieces that are too tiny.

    I also think—well, I realise that this is totally contrary to policy, but I believe that there are times when you have to use AfD as cleanup. A proposal to merge that list via a talk page or a project page would attract editors who're interested in Gundam, and it would lead to the result that preserves the content. I've encountered this myself: I totally despair of sexuality in Star Trek. Good God, we're supposed to be an encyclopaedia. But there are at least two active and well-attended pressure groups—err, I mean Wikiprojects, of course—devoted to keeping it.

    I don't believe it's possible to leaven the loaf completely. The fact is that Wikipedia has massive overcoverage of things that interest Wikipedians (which is to say, male left-leaning atheist American nerds aged 12 to 30, a disproportionately high number of whom are gay). In some things that are of genuine academic interest, such as Military History, this has a lot to recommend it; I'm very proud of Wikipedia's military history coverage which I think is, by and large, excellent. But I cringe inside when I realise we have >350 articles about bloody Gundam. I don't know what the answer is, but I am sure that Wikipedia doesn't need that list.—S Marshall T/C 07:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-nom of an article previously subject to deletion review

If you wish, you may participate here, but please consider what evidence (or lack of evidence) that the participants bring. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Early course

Thanks for your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikos Tatasopoulos. So as not to be on the wrong side of your view, I wonder if you could indicate here how early might appropriately count as "early course", relative to a relisting of that AfD, which as you note did not attract ample editor input. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Please could you leave it a week or so before renominating? All the best—S Marshall T/C 01:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


Facepalm I don't think she's going to "reply properly soon".—S Marshall T/C 19:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please stop messing around with the page. The polls for the first sentence began in April. There's no reason at all to move that to the end of the page as though it's recent. Your entire involvement in that page has been disturbing and is becoming increasingly so, so please quit it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I find your own involvement in the page generally obstructive, and your controlling behaviour throughout the page is very annoying. You are not the umpire, the referee, or any kind of authority figure on WT:V; you are a participant in it, and not a helpful one either. You are the single primary opponent of virtually any fix to its flawed content. I accept that WP:V generally reads as you want it to, and that you think it is clear and well-written. My position is entirely otherwise.

    On this specific matter Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says that the most recently-started heading should be at the bottom. Your action in demoting the most recently-started heading to a subheading, so that you could place it in limbo halfway up the page, is another instance of unhelpful behaviour on your part. It is not necessary to keep all the first-sentence discussion together, and particularly considering the wide-ranging nature of the discussion and the many headings users have started about it, separation of the separate discussions is very much in order.

    Since you object to me re-ordering the page, kindly do it yourself, in any way you like provided the most recently-started heading, being "not truth" is a Figure of speech", is at the bottom of the page.—S Marshall T/C 07:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved with V and NOR since 2004, so my involvement there spans a lot of issues. You've been editing it since September 2009, and increasingly it seems you're there to revert or disagree with just about anything I say, simply because I said it. I'm sorry if I'm seeing that wrongly, but that's what it looks like. What I suggest is that we put our differences to one side, assume good faith of each other, and make an effort to work together on the page. Is that something you'd be willing to try? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 07:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm very willing to assume good faith and attempt to work together. It's a concern to me that my good faith position is opposed to yours on a fair few issues. Where I'm coming from is:-

    1. I think the policy repeats itself too much; and

    2. I think the grammar and language choice are unnecessarily complex, and should generally be simplified and improved; and it wouldn't hurt to say "please" either; and

    3. I think the phrase "verifiability, not truth", while it's a pithy soundbite, doesn't reflect our behaviour in practice on contentious articles; and

    4. I think the duties WP:V can place on translators are quite onerous, and the present phrasing gives an advantage to ignorant monoglots in content disputes, because monoglots can demand virtually at will that the multilingual editor does quite a lot of work.

    Truth is that my ideal version of WP:V would contain most of the ideas in the current version but the phrasing would be very different. Since you're generally happy with the policy as it is (and indeed you're the author quite substantial portions of this policy), you enjoy a "first mover advantage" on it. This is exacerbated by the position you often seem to take, whereby you claim that a phrase you added a long time ago and apparently without discussion of any kind at all, is now unchangeable except by a full RFC, and I'm afraid that I'm never going to be thrilled with that line of argument.

    In short, while I'm quite willing to assume that you're motivated by what you genuinely think is best for Wikipedia, I think that the fact that our positions are opposed on many things will remain a source of conflict on WT:V.—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, just a brief note to say I'll reply properly soon. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.