User talk:S Marshall/Archive16

This is an archive of past discussions with User:S Marshall. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You seem to be the only reasonable person on the internet.

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your maturity, rationality, and fair contribution to the DRV for Emily Schooley. That was a fight that never should have happened given the circumstances, and I am disappointed to see that the original author has been discouraged entirely from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Admittedly, I am struggling with the same, but also want to contribute a more logical argument for overturning the deletion with solid facts as to why she is notable. I will also take your advice and stop commenting on that particular discussion. ;)

I am trying to rebuild the article, using reliable sources that show notability. Do you know if Wired.com falls under WP:RS? That site covered the 140 movie, which several additional references credit her as "starring" in. Am hoping that that, in conjunction with a couple of her other films, her listing as guests on several convention websites, and whatever newspaper coverage of her I find ill be enough to sway the masses.

Again, thanks for being a voice of reason - it seems that the few people who are able to look past the heated flame war are able to find facts that support her being notable, as well as seeing why so many people lept to her defense when she was attacked. Bytemeh (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Bytemeh. :) I know it'll be hard for you to see this at the moment but I'll ask you to take it on faith that the other contributors to that DRV are also reasonable people... they're just reasonable people who disagree with us.
From your point of view there's good news and bad news. The good news is that very little content is ever really deleted from Wikipedia. The mediawiki software stores everything that's ever done in it. When something's "deleted", all that really happens is that it's hidden from most users. Un-deleting it is simply a matter of clicking a button, and that's easier to achieve than you might think after all this epically long wrangling and controversy. All you need to achieve that is the help of an admin who agrees it should be un-deleted.
(Some things can be really and truly removed for ever, but this isn't called "deletion" on Wikipedia. It's called "oversight", and it's what they do when someone does something really egregious—e.g. if someone goes to a famous actress's article and posts her home telephone number on it. Emily's article does not fall into this category and will not be oversighted.)
The bad news is that unless some truly excellent sources appear, that DRV will end in an "endorse" and the article will be removed from the mainspace. This is partly because of the notability issue but the real reason is the behaviour of people on the "keep" side during the AfD... Wikipedians have learned that where there are sockpuppet accounts used and legal threats employed, then we're dealing with someone we can't talk to, and we can't allow such tactics to intimidate us or there would be no point in us having content guidelines at all. Besides, we all know that nobody can issue legal action against individual Wikipedians, for what we say in discussion; it's simply impractical. Legal threats that we take seriously go to the Wikimedia Foundation via email.
So given that the conduct of other people on the "keep" side has killed this article for the purposes of this discussion, what can you do? Only provide sources.
We're looking for in-depth coverage in reliable sources here. In a perfect world there would be a review of one of Emily's performances in a local newspaper. And I don't mean a review of the film or play or whatever it is—I mean a review of Emily's performance within that film or play. If you can find one of those, it's a killer argument that'll attract serious support for keeping the material.
What won't cut any ice at all is any user-submitted content. That means most blogs, most messageboards, IMDB, most youtube videos (except in very exceptional circumstances), or Wikipedia itself. (Yes, that means that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.) Another thing that won't cut any ice is material from someone with an interest; you're looking for independent professionals, ideally critics or academics, who talk about Emily herself.
It may be that there's no such material available, in which case that isn't the end of the story. It just means waiting until appropriate material comes into existence. For all I know, Emily might be reviewed in a Toronto paper next week, next month or next year, which will likely suffice for her to have an article again.
What I'm saying is, "deletion" isn't final at all. Accept that it might well happen, but don't stop looking for sources and there's no reason to give up.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful for sure. What is perhaps most frustrating is that the actions of the user who submitted Ms. Schooley's article for deletion, Deepsix66, have been entirely overlooked in all of this and most users' willingness to so overlook such. I strongly suspect that he is what started most of the comments from the SPAs - I know that the circumstances around his RFD were suspicious at best, and then he continued to make antagonizing comments in many of his posts. I took the time to submit him to Wikiquette, at the very least, and it appears someone else started an SPI.

I highly doubt it would happen for a plethora of reasons, but what I see as most fair would be for either her article to be reinstated, or for the Frozen North/Flip's Twisted World articles to be deleted.Bytemeh (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for agreement that the behaviour of various accounts on the "delete" side of the argument was inappropriate and unacceptable, then I'll happily give it. While I have no input to give on Deepsix66, I do feel that the conduct on the "delete" side in general was beyond the pale.

The DRV is a content dispute. It is and should be separate from any conduct disputes. However, when the DRV is settled I will personally raise a discussion about conduct in the AfD. When I do that, I would advise you not to participate.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, again. That would be most excellent. I didn't bother jumping into the original AfD because it was made pretty clear pretty quickly that I would be overlooked as I am clearly an SPA (*weg*) no matter what I presented. I think behaviour on either side would not have been nearly so 'lively' had it not been for how the RFD originated. Ah well, what's done is done, and can only be undone by the right admin, no? ;)

Again, thanks for being reasonable and fair - I'm normally all for a lively debate, and am happy to be met with opposing viewpoints, but considering that harassment of Ms. Schooley by the folks at Frozen North has allegedly been ongoing since the summer, it irks me to see Wikipedia used as a tool for furthering it. In the meantime, I continue to dig for articles like what you suggested. Bytemeh (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right to think the "SPA" label is an attack on your credibility. It's easily refuted, though, just by doing some useful content work—perhaps adding sources to some of our existing articles about the Toronto arts scene, for example?

I can see that there's a dispute between Emily Schooley and Frozen North, but most Wikipedians won't be interested. The situation where an outside dispute spills over onto Wikipedia is quite familiar to us and our attitude is summed up in WP:BATTLEGROUND. In other words, what Wikipedians are interested in is whether Emily meets our rules for an article. These rules are as objective and evidence-based as we can possibly make them.

What Wikipedians will be interested in is situations where, because of some external dispute, users employ unpleasant tricks to try to influence the debate. That kind of conduct deserves sanctions, but it's a matter to consider when the content dispute is settled.—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For future reference for you, once the debate is done. [1] [2]. Also, apparently you're a non-entity in this as well, as "nobody" voted to overturn. Sigh. Thanks again for being helpful - I've had a couple of accounts over the years (but don't like people knowing about my past as an anime kiddie. We all have skeletons that dance!) Bytemeh (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I know you really didn't go anywhere but I haven't seen you in WP space much lately so welcome back. As for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqua Data Studio, you're probably right but I didn't see any harm in letting 71.172.113.130 have his say. Also, sorry about what happened at your second RFA, it had a damn good chance of passing. I did learn something from it though and decided to stay the hell out of the "oppose" section during mine. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ron, long time no speak. :) I'm not sorry about my second (and final) RFA—the outcome was right for me and right for Wikipedia—but I am pleased to see yours passed. Cordially—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody was more surprised then I was. I completely expected to have my ass handed to me. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sandrine Salerno

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 5 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sandrine Salerno, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Erika Forster-Vannini

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On 5 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erika Forster-Vannini, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agriculture in the United Kingdom

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I see that you have reverted all of my edits to the lead of Agriculture in the United Kingdom. I appreciate that you have made very significant contributions to that article and respect your views but do feel that the lead could be improved. In particular I think that it is overly negative and impressionistic. For example, the opening sentence 'Agriculture in the United Kingdom is an industry in gradual decline' is sweeping and negative and does not actually specify in which way the industry is in decline.

I propose that an opening sentence such as 'Agriculture in the United Kingdom is intensive, highly mechanised and contributes a small and gradually shrinking proportion of the country's economic output.' is more netural, specific and less POV. I would be grateful to hear your thoughts. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's better if I copy this discussion to the article's talk page and reply there.—S Marshall T/C 15:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I'll look there.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NAC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbulence modeling

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Generally, it's best that NACs be only clear keep results for discussions which have run their full course, not speedy keeps or highly contested cases. In this case, the nominator had not advanced a position incompatible with deletion—if an article is to be redirected without merge, it still can be deleted first. I'm not going to reverse your closure here, as it looked like the article was headed toward a keep result anyway, but please be cautious closing, especially using that criterion. Generally, articles should be "speedily kept" in only cases where clearly no one favors removal of some type, not on hypertechnical grounds.

I certainly hope you don't think this means I'm trying to get after you—like I said, it looks like the article was readily heading toward being kept anyway, so in the end I don't think any harm was done. Just some advice for if you'd like to be involved in AfD, and we sure can always use another pair of hands there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been non-admin closing AfDs for years, Seraphimblade. :) But I must admit, this is the first time someone's ever come to my talk page to tell me they don't object to my closure.—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there'd be cases in which I would object. If there weren't already a lot of very persuasive keep arguments, I'd probably have reversed. Arguing that a redirect should be there later is not an argument against deletion now—only a merge requires history preservation, and even that can be done other ways. Also, there are those who will take a speedy keep as rather a "slap in the face", so if a nom isn't clearly disruptive, I generally just tend to leave it run. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  - I'm not a big fan of "delete, then redirect" outcomes, particularly in this case. It fails to preserve attribution in the case of consensus changing back again, and thus directly violates the GFDL, and before we multi-licenced to the CC-BY-SA it was potentially very problematic. Where any content dates from before the switch--as content in turbulence modelling certainly does--delete, then a redirect seems particularly unreasonable because the original contributor licenced his work only under the GFDL. What it means is that delete, then redirect is irreversible except by an admin, and I'm not thrilled by that prospect at all; the absolute last thing we need is yet another routine maintenance task that only the anointed few can perform.
    I'd advise you to be very respectful of article histories that date from before multi-licencing, and generally not to use "delete, then redirect" as an outcome except in cases of copyvio or BLP violations. Even in that case revision delete is the better bet.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    - Could you expand on this? Yes, the history must be restored with the content. WP:Requests for undeletion should be available for non-controversial cases. Where did the non-admin restorer procure the deleted content in the first place? Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      - This is a hypothetical case; basically, "delete then redirect" is irreversible except by an admin. What I'm saying is that if that's your intention, then protect the redirect. There's no justification for hiding the history.—S Marshall T/C 08:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That looks like an acceptable WP:Speedy keep to me – part of the reason for criterion 1 is to dissuade nominators who propose mergers at AfD accidentally. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines‎

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

When you closed the AFD today, you missed removing the templates and adding the notices to West Angelas mine‎ and Marandoo mine‎. I took the liberty to do those two for you. Just wanted to let you know, since the AFD was a little troubled and I therefore better do things by the book! Thanks by the way for closing it early, didn't like having those templates on the articles or even see my efforts wasted. Keep well, Calistemon (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Articles for deletion/Rio Tinto Mines, I think WP:Speedy keep criteria 2 ("unquestionably ... disruption") and 3 ("The nominator is banned") are better fits for a nominator blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Where we all agree is that it's good that I closed it. :) Thanks for visiting my talk page. Cheers—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Goldsea

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hello S Marshall. I am not familiar with Wikipedia procedures, so I'm not sure whether we are waiting for the discussion to run its full course or whether it is time to assume the Goldsea entry will be userfied to you. In any event I wanted to thank you for your willingness to work with me in resurrecting the Goldsea entry. Let me known when the time comes what I can do to help.

Hiya, we'll wait for the discussion to be closed before doing anything else, but I believe that userfication is a likely outcome.—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that the outcome was as you had predicted. Thanks for your help, and I'll look forward to hear from you!AA Patrol (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll rewrite it a bit and then message you back. :)—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should respond on my own talk space or yours. I read your rewrite. It is quite short, but at least every statement is backed up by a source. It also gives credit to the sheer frequency with which Goldsea is used as a resource (which makes it a bit ironic, I guess). I agree with you that it's probably best to start with an unassailable core and go from there! I don't want to hold its rightful entry up by anything I might add because that too would have to wait on my being able to find more objective sources. Anyway, S Marshall, I'm glad to have had this encounter so I know there are constructive Wikipedists like you as well as those who are overeager with the pruning shears!AA Patrol (talk) 00:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel like that. Personally, I would be happier developing this article a bit more before I pop it back into the mainspace. I'll give the matter some thought. Cheers—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(later) Didn't need much thought; I see that DGG had already found more references to support my assertion of notability, and he'd posted them in the DRV. With the extra two references I was happy to move the article back into the mainspace. So now Wikipedia has an article on goldsea again... I'll put it on my watchlist so as to keep an eye on it.—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The entry reads well and authoritatively, thanks to you and DGG. I too will try to add something to it once I come up with some significant new sources. I'll be reading you around these pages!AA Patrol (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A question...

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Do you really see THIS as indicative of my being "opposed to the deletion of, err, virtually anything"? It seems to me that I favor deletion quite often. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope I've been entirely clear, Michael, that I like you and I admire and respect your contributions to this encyclopaedia. I've absolutely no wish to pick a fight with you about this, just to respond to what I see as an entrenched issue between good faith users that often rears its head at AfD.
What I was trying to say is that I think you'll sometimes come out and try to salvage things that I don't think are reasonably salvageable, and that you sometimes seem to get personally invested in rescuing a certain piece of material. I've also tried to be very clear that I think others show this tendency much more strongly than you do.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well... considering the battle mentality that often rises at AFD, I'm a tad sensitive I suppose, as someone who strives to improve content and sourcing, when specifically referred to being "opposed to the deletion of, err, virtually anything", as I believe my "voting" record shows that to be an inaccurate representation, and my being quite willing to delete lots of stuff. And yes, I will argue for a keep... but only when I feel a keep is merited. And I keep my arguments as soundly grounded in policy and guideline as possible... and my AFD "votes, whether for delete or keep, are born out by consensus some 98% or the time. I am not as militaristic as some ARS members, far preferring to be seen as a moderate and not rabid inclusionist... and as I am not Don Quixote, I avoid the lost causes. But if you can look at my AFD discussion for the last 10 months and still believe I am "opposed to the deletion of, err, virtually anything", so be it. No fight. No conflict. Just my puzzlement... and respects and friendship back at you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your wording in AfD discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You recently voted in an AfD discussion on the article Green Home. Since your vote, I have significantly rewritten the article. In light of this, I would ask that you reconfigure the wording in your vote to be more relevant to the current state of the article, whether that means changing your vote or not. Thank you for your time. Silver seren^C 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Anushka Wirasinha

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why do you doubt the links?? They are RELIABLE and MAINSTREAM Sri Lanka newspapers that have carried articles and interviews about the author.

Some of them are Sri Lanka newspapers, but other links in the deleted article are to flickr.com and google user content, which are clearly inappropriate.—S Marshall T/C 02:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)