Jump to content

User talk:S Marshall/Archive26

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 00:08, 14 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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

Quick question:

Where were you when the pictures for Xbox One and Playstation 4 were replaced with much crappier pictures because free? PantherLeapord (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Fighting battles I had some chance of winning. Which is what I ought to be doing now; I should know that Wikipedians' bloody-minded attitude to fair use content isn't a problem I can solve.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Favour

Based on the comments at the DRV re the Pogroms article I have rewritten and expanded it in my userspace, I am hoping if you have some time you could look it over and offer any advice before I think about moving it to mainspace. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, Darkness Shines. I recommend waiting until the deletion review is closed before doing anything at all. If the closer agrees that it's acceptable to have a userspace version or incubated version of the article, then I'll be willing to help form a consensus on what to do with the content.

    I do not think it's a good idea to re-create that article with that title. I do think we will be able to use the sources, and the content with a little re-writing, in some other way, but I think we will need to do it in a way that other editors agree is acceptable.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Well I can guess which way the DRV is going to go . Do you not think this a notable topic which requires an article then? I thought it a neutral choice as at the deletion discussion of the template Anti-Muslim pogroms in India a few editors suggested a rename it to the new title for the article. Can you suggest a title perhaps? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Err, well, I have two answers. If I was King of Wikipedia, then yes, I would certainly include an article about anti-Muslim violence in India, and I would use the sources you've got to help build it. But I'm afraid I'm not. I think we have to work with other editors, and I think that means talking to them and coming to a policy-based agreement with them about this content. I think we need to do this before, during, and after, we go through the process of adding an appropriately-phrased version of this content to the mainspace. I'm very willing to help, to mediate, and to seek an agreement that will let us do that. I advise against unilaterally restoring this material to the mainspace without talking to other editors first.—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I also asked Regents Park to look it over, I will ask a few of the editors who voted delete to look it over as well, thanks for your advice. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to User:Darkness Shines/Anti-Muslim violence in India so that the previous history will not be in the article when moved to mainspace. I suspect if any trace of the pogroms article was in the history it would cause a few arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

List of ethnic slurs

Hi. Please stop adding unreferenced material to this article. Read the warning at the top of the G entry before you do so again, and have a source. If you continue to repeat the additions I will report it as slow-motion edit warring. Read the warning below. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}}

Apparently you have been referring to the fact that Gora was voted delete and then merged into this list. Unfortunately that doesn't mean it can be added to the list without a reference. If you want the material retained you'll have to find such a reference and add it with the restoral. AfD votes don't override policies like WP:RS or the integrity of other articles. This is a courtesy, if you revert again without a source it will go straight to AN3. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll refer this to the AfD closer and see what he thinks.—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't there a ref from the previous article? (I mean a good, reliable one, of course). μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual editor

Notice: S Marshall is temporarily unable to edit productively owing to visual editor-induced trauma. He has now worked out how to turn the bloody thing off, and is convalescing with the aid of the Glenlivet. Hangover permitting, S Marshall will return to participating in the project tomorrow.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Lavie

I've accepted your generous offer (here) to review my proposed new Lisa Lavie article (posted here). The reasons for any changes you suggest, are of equal importance to the changes themselves. I applaud you for your somewhat rare attitude of cooperative collaboration. RCraig09 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A little help to conclude

Hi, we need to discuss objections here or here, or conclude/vote here, thanks. --Krauss (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for this. You may be interested to see this. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My RfA

I should have thanked you for your support sooner. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar for you!!!

The Rosetta Barnstar
For all of your translations from French and German! Ensignricky (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Why, thank you!—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Burning Ears

I mentioned you when defending myself from a complaint at AN from Erpert. [1]. Spartaz Humbug! 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel

Hi. How did you learn about the sanctions against User:Folken de Fanel on fr.wiki and it.wiki ([3], [4])? Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi, Flatscan. Quite a long time ago I was reading an AfD in which Folken de Fanel expressed his views about fictional subjects, and these views caused me to raise an eyebrow. I looked at his userpage and saw his native language was French. This led me to wonder why he was so vocal on en.wiki, and I went to fr.wiki to find out; I mentally filed the information for future reference. The it.wiki ban I only know about because of a now-removed edit by Colonel Warden. All the best—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I knew that you translated German, but I wasn't aware that you also translate French. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. That is exactly how I found out about his French ban while preparing the RFC/U. The Italian ban was discovered after further research on his French ban. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

"Unlike Claritas, FdF doesn't have a history of bad faith."

Might I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel? I suspect that might cause you to revise your impression of the latter editor you mention. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi mate. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, but I simply can't call that "a history of bad faith". It's evidence of a non-mainstream view on what should be included in the encyclopaedia and it's certainly a history of conflict with other editors, but I would distinguish that from the history of socking that Claritas has.—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I would have thought so too, but the difference between the two is that Claritas has, as far as I know, restricted his activities to a single Wikipedia project. You don't get the full picture on FdF until you see him blocked on other wikis for essentially the same behavior. He maintains that none of that matters, and would prefer it to be viewed as if every single Wikipedia project were unconnected. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, you're the former arb and you obviously have far more experience of difficult users than I do. Where I think we agree is that if either of us was Emperor of Wikipedia, FdF would no longer be involved in deletion or content removal concerning fictional subjects. But we disagree on whether FdF is actually in bad faith. He doesn't get it, and (supported by Reyk who usually has better judgment) FdF thinks the problem isn't him but with those he labels "inclusionists", and he appears to see his RFC/U as a licence to carry on doing what he's doing, and he thinks he's right; and also his rush to make friends with Claritas shows that he chooses his allies depending on which side they're on. All of these issues are big red flags that say FdF's involvement with en.wiki's dispute resolution processes is far from over. But I don't see how any of these things are bad faith.

        In this, what really disappoints me is the community's failure to tackle Claritas, a leopard whose spots haven't changed one bit.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nathaniel Raymond Deletion Review

S Marshall, I think part of the reason for the decision to Snow Keep the Nathaniel Raymond Afd was the unreasonableness of the two roommates who advocated deletion. Everyone who disagreed with them was accused of being a sockpuppet, and no matter how much evidence of Raymond's notability was presented, they said that it was insignificant. No evidence was presented that Raymond failed to meet WP:BLP, and this whole thing appears to be some sort of personal or professional vendetta against Raymond, rather than a legitimate notability question. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

  • I think it's important to separate user conduct issues from the outcome of an AfD which is a content decision. If one or two "keep" voters had been unreasonable, would that justify a snow deletion? I don't think so at all. And for the same reason, if one or two "delete" voters are unreasonable, that doesn't justify a snow keep. If we do allow user conduct issues to affect an AfD outcome, we're creating yet another incentive to sockpuppetry. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of WP:SNOW as I think that its vague and self-contradictory. However, I'm curious if you believe that there are any cases when Snow Keep is applicable? On the other hand,the speedy keep guideline is more straight-forward, and one clause allows a speedy keep when "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption." DavidinNJ (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure. Snow closes are appropriate when the outcome is so obvious that nobody would object to a snow closure. If someone does object, then it's no hassle for anyone concerned to let the snowstorm continue until the full discussion time has elapsed.—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure that such a case actually exists. If a person AfDs an article, they are inherently going to be opposed to a snow keep decision. A person could AfD Queen Elizabeth II or Barack Obama, everyone could vote keep except that nominator, and yet it would be inappropriate to snow keep because the nominator of the AfD objects. At this point, I don't really care if the Nathaniel Raymond AfD is relisted or not. The article will be kept either way. I just think that the concept of snow keep is inherently contradictory to Wikipedia's policies. DavidinNJ (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Gratitude

Nannadeem (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Nannadeem submits his thankfulness in respect of your precious attention to Ape is a Punished Man. Respected Marshall, am ready to change the title of article and welcome suggestion. With personal salute, thanks Nannadeem (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 11#Futz!. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC on PC2

You might want to check out [5]. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Hobit. I have, of course, opposed, but I'm sure they're going to keep asking the question until Flagged Revisions is fully enabled across the encyclopaedia. This place is changing, and not for the better.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Tomas Deletion Review

Hi. Thanks for your comment on this. Just to let you know that I've replied to you on the deletion review page. RomanSpa (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Beethoven's liver

What happened to the article on Beethoven's liver, wot I wrote? I know it was a bit pointy but the result of the AfD was to merge it into Death of Beethoven. Nothing that was in that article has in fact been merged, so poor old Dr Madden and the Journal of Alcohol and Alcoholism (I dunno who gets copies of that, if I don't, who does?) poor old Dr. Madden is again forgotten. I know it was agreed to merge but it was agreed to MERGE, I don't see any history at all of my good faith contributions. I don't mind the consensus being to merge, but where is the history, what happened? I can look up the AfD etc but since you created so it seems from the history Beethoven's liver just this month, am I losing it totally or did someone erase the history or what?

I created it in a sense not in bad faith but it was a bit pointy and deliberately so, to show another editor (an Esperanto fanatic) at AfD that it is not difficult to make a stub and reference it and so on, if you actually put a little thought into it. (Which that fanatic doesn't, just puts Esperanto into any article that seems vaguely related to anything.) So I know, as the AfD shows, that it was a bit WP:POINTY, but the point was in good faith, to do a bit of research and homework and reference things and then say about them. The reason I started it is that the Esperantist was inserting into Languages of the European Union that it is an offically recognised language in Hungary. It's not. The only official language in Hungary is Hungarian. But it is always hard to prove a negative. Esperanto is taught in undergraduate degree courses for two or three months to show that you can understand how languages work-- because Hungarian is Finno-Ugric and not related to any other European language, well Finnish a tiny bit and Estonian a little but very very distant, it isn't like a Spaniard understands an Italian or a Portuguese, they are very far apart. So what he was putting in was nonsense. But that is a battle for another day, I suppose. I kept taking it out, he kept putting it back, and I gave up. I would prefer Wikipedia to be right rather than wrong in the little things I know something about, it is not as if I go around correcting baseball scores which I know nothing about.

-Si Trew (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Yep. What happened was that the DRV participants, in their wisdom, decided to delete the history. Some might see that as pointlessly destructive. I couldn't possibly comment.—S Marshall T/C 10:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Chopin

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you have some interest in composers. I wonder if you'd like to offer some GA or pre-GA comments at Talk:Chopin? (If you reply here, please WP:ECHO me - thanks!). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I've been meaning to leave this for you for a while. Your contributions at WP:DRV have always impressed me and yours is often a welcome dissenting opinion. I might not always agree with your take on things but I find myself regularly swayed, at least from my initial knee-jerk opinion, by your thoughtful commentary. Keep up the great work. Stalwart111 05:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S_Marshall/Archive26&oldid=1082582087"