User talk:S Marshall/Archive10

Care to refactor?

Hey S, I assume you're being bought and sold by the pro-French anti-Croatian translators guild--but do you care to have another look this? The source says "en stage à l’université d’Avignon"... Drmies (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• (reads his French dictionary) ... okay, so apparently I suck at French.  :) Time for me to eat my words, pass the ketchup?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, just erase this and no one will ever know. Hey, did you hear about this? (I'm sure you have, it's probably on your way to the pub.) A plus tard, Drmies (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I didn't hear about it; Dorset's a couple of hundred miles from my pub. Interesting read, thanks!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yikes. Times were rough back then I'd say. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkheader

Hi. I noticed that you are adding talkheader in newpages like you did here. Talkheader is not supposed to be in all talk pages but only in pages that discussions may transform it to a forum. I think the article about Alexander Zeitlin in not that case. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments.....

As an American I agree...[[1]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed about vetting

That may need some tweaking; I can see a lot of candidates not wanting to have a public discussion before their RfA. Maybe it could be a way of asking for private (email) comments, and the candidate could make any of them public and ask for comments if they want to? Not sure. The main thing we would need would be criteria so we could tell whether it was working or not.

On WT:RFA#Wrapping up, moving on, I'm sorry to disagree on all points, and I hope I'm not being obnoxious. Do you see any merit in my positions? I think it's possible that, all things considered, the time savings for admins could be small, but you'd have to factor in time that admins spent coaching, or participating at PERM, for it not to be a considerable time savings, and even then, the extra communication would be worth the time I think ... is that what you were thinking, that this would create extra time sinks for admins that we don't have now? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• On admin reform, I wonder if what we need is something to separate the duties of an admin from the concept of an "award". If there were some tools and some pat on the back we could give to the prolific content contributors, then maybe we could separate the whole content contributions/award aspect of adminship from the basic ability to judge consensus and use the tools responsibly. At the moment the two concepts are confused in people's minds.

• • We have a very flat heirarchy, so those rare times when someone does manage to get a community endorsement of some kind, they're likely to feel some pride. That seems okay to me, as long as they never imply that their status gives them a leg up in some argument.

As for wrapping up, moving on, you're very welcome to disagree with me, particularly if I'm wrong.  :) I much prefer people who're prepared to speak their mind and defend their corner to the meek ones, to be frank; and I do realise I'm not infallible.

• • Thanks much, I hope we can work this out so everyone is happy.

But in terms of CSD, I want to retain the aspect of a trusted user taking responsibility for the deletion. If you had to be elected to be a CSD tagger, I fear that would lead to admins taking less care over the matter.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree, that's something we'll need to watch for, some admins might coast because they think they can. Reviewing their deleted contribs should answer that question. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)

Since you participated in the deletion discussion of Bullshido.net in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination), you may be interested in my renomination of the article for deletion. If you would like to participate in that debate, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

oil on troubled waters

I loved your view on the Anobody RfC. It might be challenging to achieve concensus for a substational change to AfD, but maybe we could get a little essay promoted that emphasises the importance of good manners and of cooperating in harmony with those holding opposing views. Please edit the draft essay as much as you like if you think the idea has legs: AfD is not a war zone

Adelaide Anne Procter

Hi, S Marshall. A while back you were kind enough to peer review this article; it is now at FAC, and, if you have the time to spare, I was wondering if you would care to comment. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination), which was closed as "no consensus", you may be interested in a subsequent DRV. Since I disagreed with the close, I contacted the closing admin, who responded, "To be honest, Cunard, I would tend to agree with you, but I am not sure if the balance of things heads to delete rather than no consensus. Listing it at DRV might be a good option here; I won't endorse or oppose the close and will allow the DRV community to decide it. Therefore, I have listed this article at DRV; if you would like to participate, please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 2#Bullshido.net. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Improper Deletion of article: MMA HEAT

Please reconsider deletion of the MMA_HEAT article. MMA H.E.A.T. has appeared in independent and reliable newspapers: i.e. Sports Illustrated's Joss Gross has cited MMA H.E.A.T. and Karyn Bryant as an authority on the female perspective of MMA on radio interviews. MMA H.E.A.T. has been on HDNet's television program "MMA Worldwide," epsidode "Nor Cal MMA" originally airing 9/25/2009. MMA H.E.A.T.'s video news updates appear throughout the highly respected MMA site, http://www.promma.info. In addition, Pro MMA's Cage Divas recently approached MMA H.E.A.T. to have it's co-founder, Karyn Bryant, as a guest on their show: http://prommainfo.podbean.com/2009/09/15/cagedivas-episode-2-featuring-keri-anne-taylor-and-karyn-bryant. MMA H.E.A.T. has also provided video content to M-1 Global, MMA Payout, MMA Jacked and Frank Shamrock. To address the concerns posted by user 82.7.40.7, iBN Sports is an independent corporation and entity. They provide coverage for a large number of sports and approached MMA H.E.A.T. to provide coverage of mixed martial arts. Despite iBN Sports and MMA H.E.A.T.'s joint efforts, the two are independent of each other. http://www.ibnsports.com/inthenews.aspx?article=xml/pressrel/bryant.xml and http://www.ibnsports.com/prArticle.aspx?article=14 should be considered as third party, reliable sources discussing MMA H.E.A.T. Eckinc (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Gerbilling

I have nominated Gerbilling, an article that you created or had an interest in, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbilling (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins and tenure

Hello. I don't want to write this on the already contentious RfA of Kww, especially since I didn't give him a ringing endorsement myself. In any case, my comment has nothing to do with Kww in particular and nothing to do with me trying to make you change your vote on this RfA. I am worried about the shrinking admin corps and your thoughts about admins and tenure are shared by many. In fact it's undeniable that removing the sysop bit is very difficult. On the other hand, this is only problematic in the case of stubborn, abusive admins and in many if not most cases, admins who've been asked to change have actually adjusted. In Kww's case, the opposition makes the case that he's already both stubborn and abusive so it's probably not the best example. But as a general rule, I don't think the lack of good desysop mechanisms should really be a deal-breaker. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review and AfD discussions

Hi. It is refreshing to read your comment in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_17#Flotilla_DeBarge. Unfortunately when I tried (naively) to bring the matter on AN/I not so much time ago, about another deletion discussion [2], it was dismissed basically without any discussion. Since when, when I find AfDs/articles discussed on WR, at least I leave a note indicating that the thing is discussed externally -just for the sake of openness. It seems difficult to solve, because a lot of admins are on WR, but I'm happy to know I'm not the only one worried with this state of things. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination)

Hi! As someone who contributed to Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich and/or the deletion review of that AFD, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Articles for deletion/Jonathan Gleich (2nd nomination).

Note: this is going out to all registered editors with talk pages who commented on either page, not just to those on the Delete/Endorse or Keep/Overturn side.

Thank you. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds of silence...

The lack of response to your 2nd point in the Kari Ferrell DrV speaks pretty loudly. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There's at least one...

.. example of DRV endorsing a "no consensus default to delete" close. See Wizardman's close of Ginger Jolie which went to DRV here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I knew about that one. I think Eluchil's closing rationale actually supports my case rather than Jennavecia's.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that too. I'm a bit conflicted on the whole issue, and I'm still trying to clarify my thoughts enough to chime in at DELPRO. I favor OPTOUT for semi-notable people, but that's been thoroughly rejected. I think I'm inclined to be opposed to a default to delete as being too blunt an instrument when precision is required, but... Well, no need to rush to opine, so I'll keep thinking. Take care. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm with you that I like the "optout" option for anyone who doesn't have an article in a paper encyclopaedia.

I don't like the idea of strengthening the BLP provisions in any other respect (a view that cost me my RFA).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was quite disappointed by the outcome of your Rfa. I have a slightly different opinion of the determining factor though. If you're truly bored some time, let me know. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not truly bored, but I am very much interested to see what you think should be the determining factor.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your last talkback. I will drop you an email presently. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks a bunch for the barnstar! Joe Chill (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Richly-deserved.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of giant animals in fiction

Hi, I don't dispute the consensus to keep this, but I am concerned about the NAC because I feel that that by doing so you aren't giving my argument fair weight, as NACs should only be done with near unanimous consent to keep the article. Also I'm concerned about your editorialising with your closing statement. Is there a way that you could relook this, for the sake of due process? ThemFromSpace 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I prefer always to give a closure rationale of some kind, and I view this as an integral part of the closer's role. I certainly don't see it as "editorialising". However, non-admin closures are always subject to review by an administrator, and accordingly I have dropped a note on WP:AN/I asking for an uninvolved admin to review it. Cordially,—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, that was awfully nice to do. You could have talked it over with me, but ANI is a decent place to post it as well. ThemFromSpace 00:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't get the subtle clue from my comment [3], please continue to think about it. I think you'd go an OK job as one. MuZemike 04:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, MuZemike. You're not the only one to encourage me to stand again, and I may indeed do so in future. Not overenthusiastic about that particular ordeal right now, though.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your non-admin closure

Thanks for closing the AFD on the attack piece "Fag enabler". I was trying to close it as part of the cleanup of the speedy deletion when you beat me to the punch. Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• A pleasure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)