User talk:S Marshall/Archive21

SuperKombat

Thanks for your comments on the DRV. I've got nothing but respect for HJ, and I acknowledge the wisdom in yours and Rich's words. Can you explain why these pages weren't G4'd right away? The first three clearly meet the criteria. BusterD (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the talk page note. I always watch deletion reviews, so it's not necessary, but I'm always grateful for the courtesy! All the best—S Marshall T/C 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Your confidence will not be shattered. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Redrawing the CNGS layout (underground structures: CNGS layout.jpg)

First attempt

Hi,

Thanks for the offer. This is used mainly in the article OPERA neutrino anomaly, and to a lesser extent in CNGS (Cern Neutrinos to Gran Sasso). I redrew two pictures in that article (Figs 3 and 5), and probably will redo Fig 4 as well. I think, from the article-point-of-view, Fig 1. is meant to capture the structures producing the proton beam at CERN (which, in turn, produces neutrinos), and their connection to other CERN experiments/equipment such as the Large Hadron Collider (also in the news quite a bit). The dimensions of the tunnel help one visualize the space where the neutrinos are born.Ajoykt (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Ajoykt. I'll do Fig 1, then. All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• You can now see my first attempt on the right. What revisions does it need?—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks great - captures the essence of the diagram without the copyrighted effects. You can add the heights marked in the figure - 55m and 140m - to give a sense of the tunnel space. Other than that, it looks good to go. In theory, Fig 1 is still on WikiCommons, but is delete-tagged and I don't think it will survive. Thanks again. Ajoykt (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put an approximate scale on the bottom right. Will you add it to the relevant articles, if you think it's ready, please? All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Linked it. Ajoykt (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note

it might interest you that before you aadopt Radvo he seems to have a stalker as evident by this message. Its the same troll thats been stalking me for a week. Pass a Method talk 23:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

sV

On further reflection, I must apologize for my "death's door" comment, I didn't mean it the way it came out, so I've redacted it. Dreadstar ☥ 06:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• That was a graceful apology and spoken like a gentleman!—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agriculture in the United Kingdom

The article Agriculture in the United Kingdom you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some changes or clarifications which need to be addressed. If these are fixed within fifteen days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Agriculture in the United Kingdom for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jezhotwells: I think that's by the fastest, most thorough, best thought out and most helpful review I've ever received. It's amazing how you don't see things til someone else points them out... I'll take a close look at what I can do within the 15 days although it may not be fixable in that timescale.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Freemasons and bot

Since you asked about this, this may be of use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumb twiddling‎

Please do not close AfDs with only two participants. The appropriate action would have been to relist for further discussion. Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's no minimum number of participants for AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 02:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I know that. I also know standard practice, and I know you didn't follow it. Rklawton (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can haz link?

Could you give me a link to the main RfC on VnT? I searched for "RfC" in about 10 archives and can't find it. I think it may be on a sub-page? B^e——C_ritical 18:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  It's in archive 53, here:- Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 53#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence.

  All the best—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (: B^e——C_ritical 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant on ANI

Hi, since you ask at the top of your talk page not to use a template, I'll just write a message instead of {{ANI-notice}}, just letting you know that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alpha_Quadrant is open for discussion, since I saw you were involved with the user before, thanks! Taric25 (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

re: requests for "evidence"

This does keep coming up, doesn't it. It's almost as much a "mantra" with the nay-sayers as VNT itself.

One suggestion to make your life less frustrating... create a userpage outlining a whole bunch of examples of situations where people have misinterpreted VNT. Then, every time someone repeats the "show me examples" mantra, you wont have to go through the process of dredging up examples again and again. You can just say "sure, [here] you go" and point them to that page. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of ARS list DRV

No offense, but you completely misjudged the discussion. Seven of the votes endorsing were from people who voted keep in the MfD. Five who hadn't voted in that MfD were members of the Wikiproject whose page was up for deletion. Two others are non-members who have made repeated comments in support of the list before the discussion. Look at Aaron Brenneman's comment on all those endorse votes as well and how nearly all of them did not even address the issue at hand. It should be noted that Aaron actually supported the list in an ANI discussion so his support for re-opening certainly means something. Even one of the people who voted keep stepped in to say it should be re-opened. There were five votes, two of them from admins, clearly in favor of relisting on top of my own. The last time we had a deletion discussion involving a tool used by ARS a few weeks back it got 89 votes, but this got shut down after just 14 votes. WP:SNOW does not mean "flooded by partisan votes" but that there is not any genuine contention. In fact, two separate ANI discussions support that it was very much a genuine contention. One of the people voting for a relist said he did not even see that the discussion was going on and would have voted deleted had he known about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, I'm afraid that I didn't misjudge the discussion at all. I'm well aware of who is and is not in the ARS. I'm afraid you never stood the least chance of success with that nomination. I waited until there were enough !votes to prove that to you before snow closing. That was an appropriate close and I will not be changing my mind. If you wish to appeal against it, the best venue is probably WP:AN/I, although I advise you to consider dropping it and leaving the ARS alone instead.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I was a bit snippy with you there, but this situation has left me incredibly frustrated. If you know who is in ARS then surely you should understand there was a clear conflict of interest on their part in not wanting the deletion discussion to be open more than a few hours. Given that most of them didn't even give a policy-based reason just makes it even worse. Also WP:NAC lists criteria for appropriate closures and this would not qualify:

“ Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants. ”

It wasn't a full listing period, and there was clearly contentious debate among the participants.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure about who is in the ARS: I'm not. Nor am I a big fan of a few who are. Now that's out of the way, I must admit I was tempted, for a few seconds, to go for reopening. But really, do you think there would have been any other result? If so, I think you're wrong. Please try and wait a while before renominating any of this stuff, and remember that there are ways of taking up the problems you may have with individual editors other than mounting a full-scale assault on the edges of projects to which they subscribe.
Continuing to do this until you get the result you want is vexatious. pablo 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

One way or the other, this was not an appropriate non-admin closure. I think Marshall should re-open this and allow an admin to decide the appropriate course of action.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Admins aren't superusers. They do not have a monopoly on divining consensus. There are certainly children and drug users among our admin corps, and the wisdom of Solomon is not one of the tools they get on winning the fucked up popularity contest that is RFA. I will not re-open the discussion, so you need to take it to AN/I or give up.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I was hoping we could just talk it out, but here you go.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

S Marshall,

Please do not close DRV discussions as a non admin, and please be more cautious in your use of WP:SNOW.

As DRV is seen by many as a final forum of appeal, and nominators are often so emotional that they struggle with demeanour, and with reference to fair process, I think every good faith nomination should be given formalistic respect in the right to a final close by an experienced, respected, uninvolved administrator. NAC closes deny this formal respect, suggesting to the nominator that any other editor may revert close their appeal. Whether the nominator’s perspective is mistaken is not the point. Also, there is certainly no need for NAC closes, with DRV not backlogged, and frequent participation by many admins.

If you wish to close DRVs, you have the adminship option open to you. You bailed last time with a harsh self-reference about temperament. I thought that was unfortunate, but if you are not prepared to trust your temperament in the face of belligerency, then you certainly shouldn’t put yourself in the position of closing an emotive discussion, let alone early.

It is not just that admins are supposedly vetted for greater experience or wisdom, or for temperament or whatever. Admins in their admin actions are held to a higher standard. I’m not talking about admin recall, but my observation that any time an admin does something questionable, which is complained about in any venue, then, whether or not they respond graciously, they tend not to continue to do the same thing. My observation about ordinary editors who are complained about is that more often, the complaint proves inflammatory.

Adminship aside, this was a poor SNOW close. The measure of a poor SNOW close is the resumption of debate on the same matter elsewhere. These discussions are not just about getting the right answer. The process of welcoming participation from all, and giving participants the chance to learn, is very important. SNOW exists to tidily put away pointless discussions. This was not a pointless discussion. The third and second last registered !votes were contrary to the prevailing opinions. Curtailing a contended discussion is not the way to calm things.

As at least one person thinks that the NAC SNOW close was too soon, I think the best thing for you to do is to revert the close and contribute as an ordinary participant. When another admin recloses essentially identically, you can take that as a strong vote of confidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• SmokeyJoe, I hold you in high esteem and it pains me to disagree with you, but I do. I utterly disagree with you on whether adminship is necessary to close a DRV. Adminship consists of passing through a ritual hazing process-cum-fucked up popularity contest in which your friends support you and your enemies go through your edits with a fine tooth comb looking for insults to make and old issues to stir up. Children and known drug users pass through it. There are admins who are known to make administrative decisions while drunk. The concept that admins are "held to a higher standard" is laughable: there are practically no ways to hold admins to account, unless they're so extremely stupid as to fall foul of ArbCom. Editors do need to get over this impression that administrators are superusers who're vested with extra trust as well as extra tools. They are not. Editors make judgment calls. Admins are the janitors who clean up afterwards.

  It's not that I don't trust my temparament or judgment; I'm not a modest man, and I have immense confidence in both. The reason I killed my second RFA was because I figured out that I'm unwilling to submit to the intense bullshit of the RFA process and the constant low-level bullshit thereafter. But I was willing to put up with the bullshit involved in making this close. (And I don't mean bullshit from you: you're always most welcome to visit my talk page.)

  As I'm sure you know, I agree with you about 99% of early XFD closes. I've said, many times and in no uncertain terms: it's appropriate make one of these "IAR speedies" if and only if you can show a pressing reason why editors shouldn't be allowed to have their say. And now I've performed an IAR speedy. I've ignored all sorts of rules, it being to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so.

  I am confident that this is one of the rare cases where an "IAR speedy" is appropriate. It is now more damaging for TDA to continue to have his say than for the drama to end so that the business of ARS reform to proceed in an orderly fashion.—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I’m sorry to have caused pain. The adminship and DRV closing has been bubbling along for some time, and I thought I’d put my position down for you today.

There may be some admin embarrassments, but I prefer to note that the vast majority carry themselves well. I do think that they hold themselves to a high standard, in the main. As for TDA, I think he is just becoming more shrill the more he feels shut down.

If I haven’t convinced you of my views, it is not the end of a friendship. If you continue to close DRVs, well, I’ll just tell myself that you’re a de facto admin. But I don’t want to see lots of others trying it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have to say that I agree with SmokeyJoe that non-admins shouldn't close DRVs because of the importance of demonstrating perfect review for those affected by a deletion. I do however agree wholeheartedly with your close, it was the right outcome and I would have done it myself... oh wait, I'm not an admin, so I left it... I know this rule is excluding to long term drv contributors such as yourself and Hobit but as the final court of appeal we should do things by the book at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't agree at all, I'm afraid, Spartaz. NOTBURO. Also, IAR has always been policy. Adminship isn't a promotion and it doesn't give you any exceptional powers to divine consensus.—S Marshall T/C 14:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Um, yes it does actually otherwise everyone would be allowed to close AFDs and delete stuff... Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Everyone is allowed to close AfDs. Deleting stuff is restricted, but deciding what the consensus was, is something any good faith user can do. That's always been policy.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As the AN/I thread was closed before I got to it, I just want to point this out: You cannot snow close something that has differing points of view. At least 5 people were indicating it should have been relisted. That doesn't remotely qualify describing as a SNOW close.--Crossmr (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• With respect, I think you misunderstand what the snowball clause means. It doesn't mean "unanimity". It means "the outcome is so certain that there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell it'll go any other way." I certainly can snow close something that has differing points of view, and that's why I actually did so and was resoundingly endorsed on AN/I.

  The thing about unanimity is, this is Wikipedia; there's always a minority who disagree. Mostly it's desirable to let them have their say until consensus is reached. Occasionally it isn't, and the snowball clause is there so that when necessary, the minority can be steamrollered. But you'd better be pretty sure before using it. In this case I was.—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, you might try and snow close something with a lone ranger there, but when you get more than a couple, it's hard to claim snow when it's not a vote. Even if 1000 people endorsed it, if their arguments were weak, it wouldn't matter. That's how consensus is supposed to work right? As someone pointed out most of the people weren't actually addressing the actual discussion itself. That invalidates any attempt at a snow close at all unless you'd like to say majority is consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth

I have tempundeleted this, mainly to let you see it - there is a lot of Seymour-related material there, I don't know how much is new or well-sourced, but this new author could perhaps be encouraged to contribute to expanding existing articles. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, JohnCD.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Good afternoon, Mr. Marshall. As a new author/editor, you can probably understand my confusion and frustration with the process of article submission/publishing/deletion, etc. I see that you and another participant have given the article a little heretofore absent positive reinforcement by at least acknowledging that it has some historical merit, and by recommending incubation. I'm completely ignorant as to what incubation status entails, although it sounds like a positive step, and would appreciate a quick plain-English summary if possible. Obviously, it may need significant improvement and rewrites, new title, reclassification etc. I welcome all positive input, and greatly appreciate your efforts here.

• • Secondly, as an expert on Hertfordshire, I'd love to hear any comments on the article's accuracy. The 1st Earl of Hertford (1st creation) was Edward the Protector, 1st Duke of Somerset, in 1537 when John Sawbo was 2 about years old. He was stripped of the title when executed in 1552, and it wasn't passed on. He had 2 sons, also named Edward. The first Edward was the 1st son of 1st wife Katherine Fillol, but he was repudiated due to a scandal surrounding his (Somerset's) father, Sir John. Somerset's second son Edward, with Anne Stanhope, was later named 1st Earl of Hertford (2nd creation) during John of Sawbridgeworth's adulthood, and after having spent considerable time in the Tower and also under house arrest for marrying Jane Grey.

• • By the way, I just re-visited the Deletion Review page and saw that both yours, and Smokey Joes contributions no longer appear. I'm not sure why it has suddenly changed. Pablocombiano (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi, Pablocombiano. I'm sorry that your introduction to Wikipedia's processes has been so kafkaesque. "Incubation" means that the article will no longer be published in Wikipedia's mainspace, but it will be parked in a workspace used by editors rather than readers. My general intention will be to move its content into some of the articles we already have, so that much or all of it will be recycled into Wikipedia's mainspace once this has been done. Basically, I think you've done worthwhile work there that Wikipedia ought to publish, but not quite in the form of a separate article. You will of course be very welcome to help with this process if you wish, but there's no obligation on you.

      You asked about the article's accuracy, and to the best of my knowledge it looks pretty good, although personally I might place the emphasis differently.

      The deletion review page changes every day, as new sections are added at the top and old sections fall off the bottom. The discussion certainly does still exist and all the comments are attached. There's a direct link to it here; this link will form a permanent record of the discussion.

      I strongly suspect that at the end of the deletion review, the closer will say something like Deletion endorsed. This will be the formal, technical result but it does not mean the article has not been "incubated" as I described: in fact, I am fairly confident that incubation will happen and we will then be able to work on the material in our own time.

      Does that answer all your questions? You're very welcome to ask me if you have others.—S Marshall T/C 17:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

      • First, thanks for improving my vocabulary. Kafkaesque - "marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity: Kafkaesque bureaucracies", is a very good description of the apparent politics circulating behind the scenes at Wikipedia. Secondly, yes, you answered the question perfectly, but it's a major disappointment, if I do, in fact understand correctly. Obviously, my goal here with this article is to have an on-line point of reference for anyone wishing to research the ancestry of John Sawbo. The information which I've compiled apparently doesn't exist anywhere else, which is why I can understand people jumping to the conclusion that it's original research. I'm just trying to take advantage of Wiki's own definition of what constitutes OR, as it is in fact just a compilation of historical facts, and therefore the facts aren't new, but the resulting conclusion may well be. I do agree that it fits the definition of synthesis, and after reviewing the most recent comments, it appears that the article's content will be distorted as its being mined so that the original purpose will be completely lost. Do you have any suggestions as to where on-line this could be posted in its entirety, where it also might actually be found in a search and therefore useful? The current existing information available on-line, when a search is performed by a genealogist is so utterly inaccurate, that someone, if not an encyclopedia, should make available this new synthesized data so that a correct conclusion has a fair chance to be drawn. I imagine that you've got several balls in the air, but to the extent possible, I'd love to discuss this further if you don't mind. Please drop me an e-mail when you have time.

Userfied per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 19. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

This block has no support whatsoever. Overturned and finished with.—S Marshall T/C 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring over that sodding tag., as you did at WP:VT. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC) For the benefit of anyone else who reviews this, Elen's confused. It's not WP:VT and I'm not involved with Wikiproject Vermont. Her remarks relate to an edit to WP:V. You've GOT to be kidding, who put you up to this rubbish? Elen, I object to this strongly. You're not being fair. I've never been blocked in my whole life and I'm deeply disappointed to lose that clean track record over what's clearly not my error of judgment. Firstly, there's the basic fact that one revert does not constitute edit-warring. It's the normal BRD cycle. Second, this block is clearly punitive and not preventive (or it would be if there was anything to punish). Third, I prompted you at least twice to reinstall the semi-protection, but it was an IP address that added the contested edit. If I'd been willing to stoop to the same tactic I'd have logged out to revert—except, of course, that one revert is not edit warring. Since it was your error that necessitated the revert in the first place, will you kindly unblock me at once.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC) I didn't block anybody when I protected the page, even though several people were clearly edit warring. I did warn that if it started up again after the block expired, I would block anyone involved. It is clear it's a continuation of the previous edit war, not part of a new BRD cycle. If (when) I find out that the IP is a logged out editor involved in the previous activity, I'll block them as well. I will leave your unblock request up for review by other admins, who may unblock if they disagree with me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Where did you make that threat anyway, Elen? Your first edit to my talk page in your whole damn life was when you stuck up a block notice!—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I've got to say, I'm with S Marshall on this one. None of the edits in the prior 24 hours were regarding the tag, besides one IP edit. His single revert isn't enough to constitute a war, but rather in response to a bad faith removal of the tag. The biggest problem I have with the block though was it happened over 24 hours after the event, looking like a punitive block to me (the IP was not sanctioned). I won't press the unblock button just yet, to see if anyone else comments, but I did want to make my thoughts clear. WormTT · (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Aye, I also believe that this block is bad. Max Semenik (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_please. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Diff, for record purposes.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I also cleared the 2 autoblocks, S Marshall. I didn't know if you had tried to edit outside this page yet, but they were still in place. Feel free to revert this note, just wanted to let you know. Syrthiss (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Syrthiss. I was wondering what I'd done wrong!—S Marshall T/C 15:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thought for the day

Today (28th February 2012) is my 41st birthday. I don't feel any older or wiser than I used to be, but I've noticed that other people are getting younger and stupider.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not unusual to loose patience with a continuous supply of presumptive and precocious newcomers. Are you familiar with http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/TheSeptemberThatNeverEnded ?

On the other hand, although you may not notice without a conscious effort to reflect from an external reference point, it is possible you are becoming a grumpy old man. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Haha, it's more than possible that I'm becoming a grumpy old man.  ;-)—S Marshall T/C 07:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I still honestly don't know what you did to fix this mess. (Accursed substitution) But I thank you for that. Achowat (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, S Marshall!

And thank you for the opening statement. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you Dogbiscuit from Wikipedia Review?

Aren't you Dogbiscuit from Wikipedia Review? Why are you trying to have Wikimedia UK's charity status removed? Will Sanderson.

• No, I'm not active on the Wikipedia Review and I'm not trying to do anything to Wikimedia UK.—S Marshall T/C 20:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)