User talk:S Marshall/Archive17

RfC draft: Merge, redirect at AfD

I started a draft at User:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge, redirect at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Looks perfectly neutrally-worded to me.—S Marshall T/C 09:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Good, thanks for looking it over. Do you have an opinion on running the draft by Jclemens (previous proposer) or Mkativerata (comments at DRV) before posting? I think they both watch WT:Articles for deletion, so notifications should be unnecessary. I'm leaning toward listing on WP:Centralized discussion, do you have a preference? Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that asking others about a page, elsewhere to the page, so as to reduce necessary attribution of the page, is contrary to the spirit we embrace, of providing attribution.

If I were to provide non-trivial input

eg

Point 1 "Should be immediately followed by speedy keep, with discussion referred to the article's Talk page."

The meaning of this is unclear. Does it mean that a redirect argument is invalid if not followed as per this rule? Does it mean that discussion about the redirection is not allowed on the AfD page?

Point 2 "Must be refuted – proven false – before a delete outcome is possible."

Proof is only for mathematics or alcohol. What about the practice of ignoring bad ideas? What if an overwhleming majority establish a consensus differing to an early redirect opinion?

and if this input stears future development, shouldn't I be attributed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well now, that opens a can of worms. "Ignoring bad ideas" is an issue. Surely if an idea's bad, it would be dissected and refuted in the debate, so that the person proposing the idea will learn. If an idea seems to be accepted in the debate, then in what circumstances is it appropriate for the closer to ignore it? Surely only where the idea directly conflicts with policy.

  Incidentally, I've used "refuted" again above, and a point I'll be making during the RfC is that Wikipedians know perfectly well what I mean by "refuted". Using it to mean "formal logical proof" is a red herring. I'll also be saying that I think there are two questions being conflated here. The first question is, "Is deletion the last resort, requiring all alternatives to be exhausted before it's appropriate? Or is a majority opinion sufficient to delete material?" and the second question is, "How much weight do we give to arguments that attract support from one side but are ignored by the other?"—S Marshall T/C 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: ignoring bad ideas. If an idea is weird, unsupported by any other, and not convincing, then it is normal practice for it to be ignored. We don't nail shut the coffin on failed ideas, instead we pick the best and run with them. Insisting that every suggestion requires refuting is to empower trolls.

"Proof" is an impossible standard, and the word has no place here. I suggest it be dropped. I think "refuted" is too strong as a requirement. Expecting every plausible suggestion to be refuted or accepted is to ask too much of the participants. I think that "not supported" is a sufficient test for the rejection of an idea.

I do not think it is reasonable to ask that all "alternatives to be exhausted". Exhasuting all alternatives can be exhausting. I think it sufficient to require that all "alternatives are considered". "Majority" is another word that we would do better to not use. Unqualified and unquantified, it confuses people. Quantified, it turns contedned debates in to numbers games. There is a subtle but important distinction between a "majority opinion" and a "consensus opinion". It involves weighing strengths of arguments, and fuzzy logic.

An argument that has attracted diverse supporters and has been otherwise ignored is one that cannot be ignored. By ignoring a supported position, you are silently accepting it as valid. An alternative interpretation is that the position has been lost in the noise, or is not so obvious, and you would do well to directly challenge the opposers with the position succinctly re-posed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• So let's say "effectively countered" rather than "refuted", and "all alternatives to be considered" rather than "exhausted". I agree that if an idea is broached, attracts support, and is not countered, then the closer should not ignore it (and that was actually my point, in the discussion that gave rise to this).—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  If an idea is broached, attracts support, and is not countered, then the closer should not ignore it. In those terms, I don't see how someone can reasonably disagree. Perhaps the idea contradicts policy? In this case, it more important to educate than to close the discussion. Perhaps the closer felt entitled to counter and to close in one go? We call this a supervote, and don't approve. (From what discussion did this rise?) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I copied this discussion to User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge, redirect at AfD#Feedback and replied to some points there. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Chicago malls

I don't know; it seems like most of them have sufficient standalone notability. Most of the mall articles on Wikipedia are in sorry shape, but the Tribune and the Sun-Times alone have given page after page of coverage to even the small, dead Deerbrook mall in Deerfield. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD/1100AD

Thank you for your comments on the AfD, as I saw you were interested in the article, I was wondering if you could possibly look at the references I posted and seeing if they are valid? Thank you much. -Feildmaster (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Translation request

Would you be up for translating this article from German Wikipedia? Silverseren^C 19:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'll certainly help, but in view of the length of the article, that's a fair-sized task; is there a way of dividing it up between several editors?—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know German myself, so I would be little help beyond using Google Translate and making assumptions on the formation of sentences therein. But, of course other editors can be involved. I presume that you are friends with a few other De-En translators that could be convinced to help out? Silverseren^C 20:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Er, well, my friend Drmies speaks German but he's been reluctant to help translate articles from the German wikipedia in the past. His view is that de.wiki's articles are insufficiently supported by inline citations, and he has ethical objections to using them on en.wiki. Apart from that I don't have much to do with other German speakers.

  Okay, I'll do some work on it and see if anyone else pitches in and helps in response to the header note.  :)—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can contact some other translators to help out. Silverseren^C 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Bsherr#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somastate

As a DRV regular, would you provide a third opinion at User talk:Bsherr#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somastate? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• With pleasure. I'll review the discussion now.—S Marshall T/C 03:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for the third opinion. I have replied there. I will initiate a WT:DRV discussion if we cannot find a solution to this issue. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Westbrook Technologies

Hi. I have finally edited the article on Westbrook. You can find it on my user page from when it was userfied. Please let me know if the edits I have made are better, if they make the article closer to being published, and any tips you might have for how to make it better. I tried to fix the language to make it more encyclopedic. Odonnetp (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Odonnetp. The tone of the article has definitely improved. If you can find more sources, it would be nice to say how big the company is, i.e. how many employees, what its global revenue is, and which stock exchanges its stock is traded on. (See, for example, ABB Group for a model of what I think a basic article about a company should look like.) Evidence that the company is large and profitable will certainly help to address any doubts users might have. I would be much happier about having an article in its current form than the previous one!

  It would also help to focus more on the company and less on the product, if possible. But my personal view is that I think that after a little more development, we may want to consider moving that content into the mainspace.

  I don't know whether other editors will agree with me!—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I just posted on Odonnetp's talk p., saying essentially just the same thing. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nemerle

Thanks for that comment -- it was nice to read after all the grief I've gotten the past couple of days. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• I hope the closer listens to me. :)—S Marshall T/C 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

wp:adminshop

Hello, I am slightly offended at what I perceive to be an accusation of bad faith. I should care to inform you that such claims are not to be made lightly, clearly as linked you should not make claims without evidence to the contrary. cheers and I hope you have the chance to reevaluate your position. riffic (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• While I don't mean for you to be slightly offended, if the DRV nominator is allowed to keep appealing that decision ad infinitum, there is a risk that he will achieve his aim through sheer persistence. We've discussed it enough and the previously-established consensus should stand.—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Marie-Suzanne Roslin

I was wondering why you created a second version of this, when you knew that Marie-Suzanne Giroust already existed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• I wrote it based on a redlink at WikiProject Women's History. Then after I'd uploaded the article, I saw that someone had already created the article on the basis of her maiden name rather than her married name. I looked at the two versions and wondered which should redirect to the other. I decided that the maiden name version appeared to be unmaintained and lacked footnotes, so on the basis of verifiability it should be the married name that was used. This has been overtaken by subsequent edits and the current version at the maiden name, into which my translation of the French version has been merged, is satisfactory, so I've left it alone since.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• The best thing in future is to redirect any new title to the article that exists already, then if you think the new title is better, begin a Requested move discussion on the talk page of the old title. But we can't host two biographies of the same person. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I do understand that we can't have duplicates. That's why I redirected one to the other. Marie-Suzanne Roslin, the married name, is probably the better title for the article, in accordance with the way it's done on the French Wikipedia, but I really can't be bothered to argue that point so I'll leave it as it is. Thanks for the benefit of your opinion.—S Marshall T/C 01:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

But you didn't redirect it (I did that). You created a second biography about the same person, [1] and it's not just a matter of opinion that we shouldn't do this. See Wikipedia:Content forking. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're confused about what I said. Please read it again. When I said "I redirected", I did this. I then preserved attribution for the previous article in an edit summary, in accordance with our rule on this. Do you understand now?—S Marshall T/C 02:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The point is that you left the project with two biographies about the same person. When you're creating an article, the best thing is to do a search for the title. That will show you whether it already exists, even if the other article is called something else—so long as the name you have in mind is used as an alternative name in the existing article, which it was in this case. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As a result of my actions, we had duplicate articles for a grand total of four minutes. I created the article, spotted my mistake and removed the duplication within that time. (Marie-Suzanne Roslin created at 11:02 GMT, then Marie-Suzanne Giroust redirected at 11:06 GMT). Subsequently, as a result of User:Aciram's edit here, which I did not notice, we had duplicate articles for a couple of days. (Aciram also merged my translation into Marie-Suzanne Giroust without attribution.) User:Aciram's talk page is here, if you would like to discuss duplicate articles with him or her.—S Marshall T/C 02:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The case of Mr A.

Hi! Sorry to bother on you talk page, but I do not want to disrupt the disrupt the DRV page for the following comment.

I refer to your "Overturn and relist with a semi-protected AfD" opinion and would like to comment: that would preclude me from contributing to the page....but I reckon most IP interventions on that page were disruptive, and for the sake of the AfD page, maybe it is indeed the best solution. So, so be it if it is what you decide.

BTW, I did not "vote" on the page, I only gave information and analysis, but just between you and me, if that page had been normal, I would probably hesitate between a very weak keep and a weak delete (but probably on the delete side because the directorate Asselineau headed never appeared in the newspapers after its creation and was dissolved 2 years after his creation). But the real issue with the article is that it was created only to promote an unknown political party (one newspaper referrence to that party when it was created 4 years ago!), that consequently, more than half of the article is not sourced, and that if somebody tries to trim down the article to what is actually sourced, there will be an edit war (see what happened on the AfD).

By the way, I am not French and don't even live in France, if that can matter ;-) Sorry if this intervention bothered you, I just wanted to make a quick statement as an IP (but not as a delegate of IP's in general :-)) 217.136.76.230 (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, just to inform you that I decided to create an account. Sipahoc (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Plop, Sipahoc, et bienvenu. Comment ça va?—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Hey, your french isn't too rusted ! although, a minor point, I would say "Bienvenue" with an "e", probably because it should be considered as a short version of "je te souhaite la bienvenue". But you could alternatively write "tu es/sois le bienvenu"  :-) Sipahoc (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, about Mr Asselineau, we understand from the article (no source) that he became member of the RPF in 1999. Started working in the cabinet of Pasqua in 2000, then was elected in 2001. The interesting part is: he is appointed as head of the délégation in October 2004 by a UMP minister, and becomes UMP in December 2004, then the délégation is dissolved somewhere mid 2006 by a UMP minister and...Mr. A leaves the UMP in November. Not a very high level of politics, is it  ;-)

Of course, this analysis cannot be in the article, if it is kept, as it would be an original research. But this is what you get when there is no source. The events surrounding Mr A were so uninteresting that no-one ever made this evident analysis of the party movement of Mr A. That would make him controversial and notable  ;-) Sipahoc (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

International Bolshevik Tendency

If you don't mind, can you refer to me using my current username instead of my previous one? Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry! Noted.  :)—S Marshall T/C 02:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I moved a post of yours

See here. Hopefully I've done the right thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you!—S Marshall T/C 20:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

CANVAS problem at AfD

If an ongoing AfD is infected with a serious canvassing problem, is there anything that can or should be done while the nomination is still on motion, or should I let it play out and raise it as an issue at DRV after the close? It seems like it'd be better to avoid wasting people's time at DRV, but I don't know what venue/remedy would be appropriate.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest that you express your concerns during the AfD in the hope that the closer will notice and take account of the canvassing (insofar as this is possible). If you can, put links to show where the canvassing is taking place, and mark any suspected single-purpose accounts with the {{spa}} tag. It's been my experience that where there's serious canvassing problems, then no matter which way the AfD is decided, DRV is often the next port of call for the disappointed side, so I do rather expect to see this at a later stage. All the best—S Marshall T/C 14:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I observe that your concern is about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Writer (song). Yes, I would think that there ought to be a List of Ellie Goulding songs and those songs should be merged to it. I don't think a "delete" outcome would be correct because a merge is a viable option and there's WP:ATD to consider.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback|Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 17#Villa Giulia (Palermo)}} In other words, I replied to your post. Been a bit and not sure if you have the page on watch, so letting you know. =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. Thanks for your reply -- the DRV seems concluded, but there are ways I can help you with translation. I'm afraid Italian isn't one of my languages but I can read German, and there is a version on de.wiki. Do you need more input?—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one who will probably be fleshing out the article (I'm now forced to occupy myself again with defending why Nail Yakupov should exist after this deletion review was, in my opinion, mishandled); I merely provided the information, and (Still waiting for reaction from King of Heart and Chzz on the Yakupov bit, so I'll do a little editing on this now.) Anyone participating is welcome to contact me should they need an opinion. I was not aware of a German version, so if you are good at translating German feel free to contribute your translation (I won't use Google). I have read the Google translation of the Italian version and I think it's good enough to get what was being said in that version of the article. Even without that, we can source a lot of stuff to the single source that the Italian version uses, as well. I think it will turn out to be a fine article. CycloneGU (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Slight edit to the above. I'm going to fiddle around in the original author's userspace. CycloneGU (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Still fiddling. How's it look so far? Feel free to put a German translation on the talk page, if you'd like. CycloneGU (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Colchester}}

Villa Giulia (Palermo) German Translation?

The Nail Yakupov thing sorted itself out, so I'm back to looking at the userfied item again.

I saw your note on the talk page saying the de.wiki version was...well, nothing new and useful. However, I see no note on the German one. Have you taken a look at it yet? CycloneGU (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• De.wiki is short for "Deutsche Wikipedia" and it means the German language one. The abbreviation for the Dutch Wikipedia is nl.wiki. I'm afraid I don't speak Dutch--so what it means is, I've looked at the German wikipedia and I can't usefully look at the Dutch one. Sorry—S Marshall T/C 08:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. My bad, I got that mixed up. =) CycloneGU (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A year later

I was just re-reading my RfA, and I can't really help but wonder: do you still think I'm likely a sockpuppet of some old user? T. Canens (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• No.  :) But I certainly thought it was possible at the time—I'd supported User:Law's RFA, you see, in what was a very profound error of judgment.—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

closed AFD discussion today

Hi Marshall,

Thanks for your comments in AFD discussion about Ch. I have some questions that I am not clear about wiki policy and appreciate your help in advance.

I read the closer's comment about non-consensus status. I understand the conclusion of no consensus is about whether Harry cheng's and his colleagues's articles can be treated as reliable sources.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that any author of six independent references I listed separately has worked with or has co-authored with Harry Cheng before. The two articles written by the authors who have worked with Harry Cheng mentioned in the first AFD has been moved out from the list already. There are no evidence or coverage about any other authors's relationship with Harry Cheng in the first AFD and second AFD. The issue raised in the first AFD about Tom Hubber and Glassborow, Francis have been covered in the second AFD already.

There is no proof that any author of six independent references had worked or published paper with Harry Cheng before. As I pointed out near the close of second AFD that I don't believe Msnicki will be able to find any evidence to back up his point as well. However, it looks that it doesn't matter. The false statement made by him throughout the discussion such as "All of the sources were investigated at the AfD, and they're colleagues who've worked together" were treated as the fact through the two AFD talks.

I know people are busy and might not have time to read and verify everything and many people probably voted based on such a false statement.

Also, one of the six references listed was added by me in the DRV talk as new source in the recent AFD talk. It is a complete new and reliable source and there is no proof that the authors of the new reference have any association with Harry Cheng. However, there is no discussion about it and got ignored. The false statement such as "There are no new sources" made by Msnicki in the end was blindly treated as a truth again.

Why the six independent references are disregarded in the end? Didn't I make myself clear enough? or is the number of voting in consensus more important than the truth in wiki? thanks. Chuser (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that I don't understand the decision in that case either, Chuser. I felt that I had systematically hunted down and shot every single one of the AfD nominator's arguments during the debate, and I only started ignoring them after I had countered them. (Msnicki's refusal to accept that he was beaten is characteristic of AfD nominators, who tend to be emotionally invested in the outcome by the end of a DRV, so he repeated his arguments several times; that's okay, because I only have to overcome each one once.)

  T. Canens is normally a highly accurate DRV closer, and I'm surprised and taken aback by his decision in this case. You may wish to ask him to explain himself on his talk page, because I'm afraid that I cannot.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• OK. I just asked the question in T. Canens's talk page for clarification. Thanks. Chuser (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• You know that I'd be perfectly willing to take another long, hard look at the discussion if you ask, right? Anyway, you are right that the close wasn't really my finest moment. T. Canens (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I was sure you would. I knew I was going to be away for a couple of days (until today, in fact), and I had planned to discuss it with you today if nobody else had done so in the meantime; events have overtaken me.  :)—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Head for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Head is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Head until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BigDom (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)