This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
References
Are you possibly interested in becoming an admin? It seems these days there is a constant complaining about not having enough admins. I haven't really done a background check on you, but I know you've been editing for a while now. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 00:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You'd be great at it and I'd support you but I dread seeing you in that broken RFA process. North8000 ( talk) 20:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
ref=harv
is a default setting which means use author[n]/last[n] and the year if given.
I fixed the link between the citations in Mental capacity in England and Wales with this edit. To go through each one in turn:
{{
sfnRef}}
and assigning it to ref=. So in this case | ref = {{sfnRef|Department for Constitutional Affairs|2007}}
. I added single double quotes to the short citation simply to make it italic as per usual for titles.{{sfn|Williams|Boyle|Jepson|Swift|Williamson|Heslop|2012|p=152}}
to {{sfn|Williams|Boyle|Jepson|Swift|2012|p=152}}
Just have to know that by default "ref=harv" only includes the first four last names (or read the friendly manual's gotya).I cheat because I have importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
in my common.js file this show up any disconnects between the short and long citations with what if anything they are using to for the link. see
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.
-- PBS ( talk) 09:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, in case anyone was curious I've recently enjoyed the delights of a major hardware failure in my laptop. As a result, I went without my data for a while (it took me a few weeks to get around to purchasing a new machine and restoring my data from backup). During that time I've been experiencing the internet without being logged into my Wikipedia account, and I didn't miss it ---- so I'm logging out again. I did pop back to vote in the Arbcom elections (or more accurately to vote against some of the more ridiculous candidates).— S Marshall T/ C 22:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I excavated on Structure 14 at the Ness of Brodgar in 2016 and 2017 and your photo for 14 in the Ness of Brodgar article is of Structure 8, not 14!
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small>
: —
S Marshall
T/
Cto
—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small>
: —
S Marshall
T/
CI would recommend nonbreaking spaces, changing it to:
—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small>
: —
S Marshall
T/
C— Anomalocaris ( talk) 06:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
So nice to see a glimpse of you! I hope that your absence, but occasional check-ins means you are enjoying life. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
Hello, S Marshall. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I happened across your username in an old discussion I was reviewing and was disappointed to realize you're not around much anymore. You should come back. Wikipedia is worse off without your participation. 28bytes ( talk) 02:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully think that
this closure hatnote was a mistake. It's functionally a closure and you did comment in the discussion. I am troubled by the disregard of community consensus at Deletion Review to overturn the deletion. Could Arbcom weigh in and say something different? Sure. But sometimes there are constitutional crises and they are not always bad things.
IronGargoyle (
talk) 16:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you planning to write up Marshall's challenge as an essay at all? If not, may I do so? I feel that (slightly generalised) it would be a useful thing to refer to in other contexts as well. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall, before creating more walls of text in this discussion, I wanted to ask you about your close in the related RfC. I am confused about how much the style guidelines and these RfCs were about galleries of notable people. The subject of the initial RfC was specifically about notable people in galleries. I asked Sandstein about it on their talk page, but they do not remember if their close was referring to notable people or all people. I understand that the same rationale used to exclude notables can be used to exclude anyone, but I feel like a starting point would be to understand the intention of the actual RfCs. Thank you for any interpretation you can give which could help the discussion. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kolya Butternut. The RFC that I closed three years ago referred to large groups of people -- such as French people or Jews or Lesbians. All such groups would be notable but individual people belonging to them might not be. All the best — S Marshall T/ C 22:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
articles about large groups of people should not be illustrated by a photomontage (or gallery) of images of notable group members,
articles about large groups of people should not be illustrated by a photomontage (or gallery) of images of any group members?
Just wanted to notice you here for the deprod of the article. I have added 3 refs that don't seem trivial from the translation and it would benefit an AfD. Will try to come back to this one after I finish working on the mess that was Big Buck Hunter (hopefully looks much better now). Regards, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 22:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You tagged Alex Alfieri for speedy deletion under X2. I don't think this shows the poort text quality cited as justifying X2 deletions. I have therefore declined the speedy, but nominated the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Alfieri for community discussion. This note is to inform you in case you wish to express a view in the discussion. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Your assertion that I view the RFC process as adversarial is correct (perhaps its an Israel-Palestine thing, I don't know, I have in 10 years never been actively involved in one until now). I will view future RFCs in that manner although I will not in future include summaries for the closer. That it has gone as far as an RFC makes it adversarial, if it were not there would not have been any need for an RFC in the first place but having had the misfortune to run into an editor who IS (was) actually adversarial, RFC or no RFC, it was inevitable. I am not seeking to alter your POV merely to suggest that you are mistaken in this instance. Thanks for listening. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
I'm new here, so I apologize for any confusion. The article Petar Kichashki was nominated for speedy deletion by you due to being a page created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016. I take it that this is because of the subpar grammar and syntax in the article caused by the CTT. I've since tried to clean it up, so would it be okay to remove the notice from the page?
Thanks, ShinyDialga777 ( talk) 14:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the content creator tool is that it produces machine translated text. Prior to 27 July 2016, this tool encouraged editors to use it to translate articles into languages they did not speak. Unfortunately, machine translations can misrepresent or even invert the meaning of the source text. Therefore the consensus is that these articles need checking by a human editor with dual fluency, i.e. someone who speaks both the source and target language. Where the article is a biography of a living person, and where no human editor is willing to take responsibility for the accuracy of the translation, I'm afraid we can't really keep it around on Wikipedia. But if you are a fluent Bulgarian speaker and you are content to say that our article means the same as the original, then please do feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag! All the best, and welcome again— S Marshall T/ C 15:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you also undelete Talk:Islamic Education Institute of Texas? Thanks, Nfitz ( talk) 16:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
I have closed a few RfD discussions, and the closest one I closed was this discussion for How a bill becomes a law. I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on my closing, whether you thought it was reasonable and/or accurate, and any thoughts you might have.
Here's a bit of my thought process on how I arrived at my decision.
It was a close discussion, yes, and perhaps one better left to an administrator; however, I did not simply count "!votes" as my understanding is that's not how consensus works. If counting "!votes," including the nominator's, four were favouring delete and four were favouring retargeting. Note that editor Black Falcon also favoured retargeting to How a Bill Becomes a Law, an episode of the NBC TV series Parks and Recreation, which is also a possible redirect target, as their second choice to deletion. Still, because there was consensus that this was a likely search term for the process by which legislation becomes a law and because Black Falcon also noted we could add a hatnote to Bill (law)#Enactment and after, effectively he or she was in favour of the same thing. Similarly, I also considered the relative strength of Thryduulf's argument in terms of how people search and how the search engine associates Wikipedia's articles with relevancy.
Granted, it maybe wasn't a strong consensus in favour of retargeting, but nonetheless, there was still a consensus, it seemed to me.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C 14:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
References
Are you possibly interested in becoming an admin? It seems these days there is a constant complaining about not having enough admins. I haven't really done a background check on you, but I know you've been editing for a while now. — JudeccaXIII ( talk) 00:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You'd be great at it and I'd support you but I dread seeing you in that broken RFA process. North8000 ( talk) 20:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
ref=harv
is a default setting which means use author[n]/last[n] and the year if given.
I fixed the link between the citations in Mental capacity in England and Wales with this edit. To go through each one in turn:
{{
sfnRef}}
and assigning it to ref=. So in this case | ref = {{sfnRef|Department for Constitutional Affairs|2007}}
. I added single double quotes to the short citation simply to make it italic as per usual for titles.{{sfn|Williams|Boyle|Jepson|Swift|Williamson|Heslop|2012|p=152}}
to {{sfn|Williams|Boyle|Jepson|Swift|2012|p=152}}
Just have to know that by default "ref=harv" only includes the first four last names (or read the friendly manual's gotya).I cheat because I have importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js');
in my common.js file this show up any disconnects between the short and long citations with what if anything they are using to for the link. see
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.
-- PBS ( talk) 09:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, in case anyone was curious I've recently enjoyed the delights of a major hardware failure in my laptop. As a result, I went without my data for a while (it took me a few weeks to get around to purchasing a new machine and restoring my data from backup). During that time I've been experiencing the internet without being logged into my Wikipedia account, and I didn't miss it ---- so I'm logging out again. I did pop back to vote in the Arbcom elections (or more accurately to vote against some of the more ridiculous candidates).— S Marshall T/ C 22:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I excavated on Structure 14 at the Ness of Brodgar in 2016 and 2017 and your photo for 14 in the Ness of Brodgar article is of Structure 8, not 14!
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font>
tags, which are causing
Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small>
: —
S Marshall
T/
Cto
—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small>
: —
S Marshall
T/
CI would recommend nonbreaking spaces, changing it to:
—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small>
: —
S Marshall
T/
C— Anomalocaris ( talk) 06:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
So nice to see a glimpse of you! I hope that your absence, but occasional check-ins means you are enjoying life. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{ subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{ subst:Kittynap}}
Hello, S Marshall. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I happened across your username in an old discussion I was reviewing and was disappointed to realize you're not around much anymore. You should come back. Wikipedia is worse off without your participation. 28bytes ( talk) 02:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I respectfully think that
this closure hatnote was a mistake. It's functionally a closure and you did comment in the discussion. I am troubled by the disregard of community consensus at Deletion Review to overturn the deletion. Could Arbcom weigh in and say something different? Sure. But sometimes there are constitutional crises and they are not always bad things.
IronGargoyle (
talk) 16:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you planning to write up Marshall's challenge as an essay at all? If not, may I do so? I feel that (slightly generalised) it would be a useful thing to refer to in other contexts as well. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall, before creating more walls of text in this discussion, I wanted to ask you about your close in the related RfC. I am confused about how much the style guidelines and these RfCs were about galleries of notable people. The subject of the initial RfC was specifically about notable people in galleries. I asked Sandstein about it on their talk page, but they do not remember if their close was referring to notable people or all people. I understand that the same rationale used to exclude notables can be used to exclude anyone, but I feel like a starting point would be to understand the intention of the actual RfCs. Thank you for any interpretation you can give which could help the discussion. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kolya Butternut. The RFC that I closed three years ago referred to large groups of people -- such as French people or Jews or Lesbians. All such groups would be notable but individual people belonging to them might not be. All the best — S Marshall T/ C 22:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
articles about large groups of people should not be illustrated by a photomontage (or gallery) of images of notable group members,
articles about large groups of people should not be illustrated by a photomontage (or gallery) of images of any group members?
Just wanted to notice you here for the deprod of the article. I have added 3 refs that don't seem trivial from the translation and it would benefit an AfD. Will try to come back to this one after I finish working on the mess that was Big Buck Hunter (hopefully looks much better now). Regards, Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 22:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You tagged Alex Alfieri for speedy deletion under X2. I don't think this shows the poort text quality cited as justifying X2 deletions. I have therefore declined the speedy, but nominated the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Alfieri for community discussion. This note is to inform you in case you wish to express a view in the discussion. DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 00:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Your assertion that I view the RFC process as adversarial is correct (perhaps its an Israel-Palestine thing, I don't know, I have in 10 years never been actively involved in one until now). I will view future RFCs in that manner although I will not in future include summaries for the closer. That it has gone as far as an RFC makes it adversarial, if it were not there would not have been any need for an RFC in the first place but having had the misfortune to run into an editor who IS (was) actually adversarial, RFC or no RFC, it was inevitable. I am not seeking to alter your POV merely to suggest that you are mistaken in this instance. Thanks for listening. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
I'm new here, so I apologize for any confusion. The article Petar Kichashki was nominated for speedy deletion by you due to being a page created by the content translation tool prior to 27 July 2016. I take it that this is because of the subpar grammar and syntax in the article caused by the CTT. I've since tried to clean it up, so would it be okay to remove the notice from the page?
Thanks, ShinyDialga777 ( talk) 14:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the content creator tool is that it produces machine translated text. Prior to 27 July 2016, this tool encouraged editors to use it to translate articles into languages they did not speak. Unfortunately, machine translations can misrepresent or even invert the meaning of the source text. Therefore the consensus is that these articles need checking by a human editor with dual fluency, i.e. someone who speaks both the source and target language. Where the article is a biography of a living person, and where no human editor is willing to take responsibility for the accuracy of the translation, I'm afraid we can't really keep it around on Wikipedia. But if you are a fluent Bulgarian speaker and you are content to say that our article means the same as the original, then please do feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag! All the best, and welcome again— S Marshall T/ C 15:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Can you also undelete Talk:Islamic Education Institute of Texas? Thanks, Nfitz ( talk) 16:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
I have closed a few RfD discussions, and the closest one I closed was this discussion for How a bill becomes a law. I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have on my closing, whether you thought it was reasonable and/or accurate, and any thoughts you might have.
Here's a bit of my thought process on how I arrived at my decision.
It was a close discussion, yes, and perhaps one better left to an administrator; however, I did not simply count "!votes" as my understanding is that's not how consensus works. If counting "!votes," including the nominator's, four were favouring delete and four were favouring retargeting. Note that editor Black Falcon also favoured retargeting to How a Bill Becomes a Law, an episode of the NBC TV series Parks and Recreation, which is also a possible redirect target, as their second choice to deletion. Still, because there was consensus that this was a likely search term for the process by which legislation becomes a law and because Black Falcon also noted we could add a hatnote to Bill (law)#Enactment and after, effectively he or she was in favour of the same thing. Similarly, I also considered the relative strength of Thryduulf's argument in terms of how people search and how the search engine associates Wikipedia's articles with relevancy.
Granted, it maybe wasn't a strong consensus in favour of retargeting, but nonetheless, there was still a consensus, it seemed to me.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C 14:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)