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 ∞ |
It took this long for me to realize you came back. I wish we could get you for an admin, but it's lovely to see you helping out again. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
I know you always appreciate reading good closes based on sound evidence and policy, but here is an awesome one by administrator SilkTork that rationally considered all the arguments, weighing them appropriately against various encyclopedia inclusion policies, and the like. So, if you have time, head on over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett. Definitely one of the best closes I've read, only slightly besting administrator Jo-Jo Eumerus' no consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo-Ann Roberts (2nd nomination). As administrator Serial Number 54129 said on SilkTork's talkpage, SilkTork should get a Closer Barnstar (which we seem not to have and arguably should). I concurred with that assessment, though would also give Jo-Jo Eumerus a Closer Barnstar for her close of the aforementioned Jo-Ann Roberts discussion as well.
Gripping stuff.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
00:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
importScript('User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js');including the final semicolon. When you've done that, the usernames and talk pages of people who're currently admins will be highlighted in blue (as long as you're using the monobook skin, that is). Hope this helps— S Marshall T/ C 01:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thuringwethil. Since you had some involvement with the Thuringwethil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ― Susmuffin Talk 07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
After 4 days listing for speedy, no admin seems to be willing to speedy delete by X2. I've removed the tag. The 2 simplest directions to go is either AfD or fixing the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I've found User talk:S Marshall/Post-RFA archive, so I suspect the answer is, no, but should you ever change your mind, I'd be happy to nominate you. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you posted on Sandstein's talk page and I'd be in favour of a SNG/GNG RfC, but the Walkiewycz case is an exceptionally unusual one, so I think the wording of any RfC should reflect this. I'm wondering what wording you would consider proposing for an RfC? Also pinging @ Nfitz:, who also participated on Sandstein's talk page. SportingFlyer T· C 19:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Mariah Carey's birthdate is 27 March 1970: reliable source. Tank Man really ought to be called Tank Man incident because that's what the sources are about: it's not a biography.— S Marshall T/ C 14:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Sweet Brown Snail by
Jason Rhoades and
Paul McCarthy
|
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year.
Wishing you a happy holiday! ThatMontrealIP ( talk) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |
I read you comments on NSPORTS with interest. I wonder, though, whether a disagreement with NSPORTS is not better lodged at NSPORTS - rather than to ignore its application. Further, in the discussion at hand, the application of GNG is at issue as well. Isn't that your real problem? Because GNG means a person who hits a ball or hits another person or who acts in a movie .. and gets GNG coverage .. meets GNG. While a professor who has not met those or other standards does not get an article. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:EDF0:C247:AB22:C089 ( talk) 19:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
An important factor in my view there is that neither NSPORTS nor the GNG are "policy". They're guidelines and they literally say at the top of the page that they're best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
. There's room for editorial judgment in their application, and I'm using that room here.—
S Marshall
T/
C
00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion closers need to respect several consensuses. There's the local consensus at the AfD, and the much larger consensuses about notability. And even stronger than those, are the actual policies — most relevantly in this case, reliability of sourcing and biographies of living people. The process of closing a discussion involves weighing those things against one another, and it also involves some editorial judgment, which is why discussions can't be closed by bots.
Spartaz' use of editorial judgment was justified here because sports fans have collectively decided on their own notability criteria that are very far outside Wikipedian norms. The problem is particularly egregious when it comes to team sports. This is why Category:English physicists contains 280 people while Category:English footballers contains 21,588 people. Category:English businesspeople contains 1,360 people while Category:English cricketers contains 12,572 people. Category:English painters contains 67 people while Category:English rugby union players contains 1,837 people. In reality, my homeland is far more important for its science, its art and its business than its sporting performance! But you wouldn't know that from looking at Wikipedia because our coverage is so ridiculously skewed in favour of sports.
This is why I don't feel that Spartaz' close was wrong, although I do think his rather passive-aggressive response to the DRV nomination was unfortunate.— S Marshall T/ C 12:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Wow. You HAVE been at this for quite a while. kudos. I know your position on the current readability RfC, and I fear that my edits of the lead are causing you angst (I really don't want to) but what I don't know and would love to, is how you feel about those edits I've made? I've just done a few and will settle back a bit until I hear your opinion, if I may. Thanks, it does appear that you are busy here. Jd4x4 ( talk) 17:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Are we editing the same wiki? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think you need to amend at least two statements which may lead you to tweaking others: “we have good sources for the name” is simply wrong. We have six poor sources: 3 where the publishers have refactored her birth name out; 2 which also include “Agnes”, a fictional name promoted mainly by Wikipedia making this sourced questionable at best; and one primary SPS listing only her name with no other confirmation. The other problem may have been missed but you thank the ip’s, the main one was just blocked for sockpuppetry, and may have a COI on the RFC itself. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 00:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I really cannot understand your closure rationale on that.
You state that there is a clear consensus, but there are many !votes that say nothing but "me too". Not one of the comments supporting the moratorium makes any attempt to claim that the current title is correct, they are uniquely concerned with ease of life on the talk page rather than the impression and information given to the reader of Wikipedia as a project that seeks to be accurate.
In the two discussions that immediately follow that moratorium discussion I invited people to state why they think the current title is justified, and there was no meaningful take up of that challenge, while several people who have not been part of the moratorium discussion have used the section Pandemics are named for the disease, not the virus to support a move (and therefore to not approve of a prohibition on moves): Gtoffoletto, ViperSnake151, Magna19, TedEdwards. So that would make a !vote of 14 to 11.
So what do you consider to be the balance of weight of the arguments put forward in this discussion according to which you have declared a resolution? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely did not decide that the current title is right. This decision is important, and we should, in due course, reach the correct conclusion to it. However, the consensus is that the sheer number of page move requests that have been put forward about this matter is not sustainable. The problem is that some editors are so passionate about it that they are exhausting the community's capacity to respond. The decision should be made on the strength of the arguments, not by overwhelming editors with the sheer number of posts. In other words, I have not made any kind of decision about the article title. I have merely documented a consensus that the discussions about the article title should stop for the time being.
I understand the frustration you feel when an editor makes a point that you assess as wrong, and you reply with a courteous and well-thought-out refutation. I am afraid that if they don't respond, then I am required give their view full weight as they originally wrote it. The alternative -- i.e., if editors' views were given less weight when they didn't respond -- would be an encyclopaedia where the last person to reply wins. We couldn't possibly make meaningful decisions in that environment.
If you feel that my assessment of the consensus there is wrong, please do let me know and I will open a close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard.— S Marshall T/ C 18:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus... the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. The predominant number were pro-moratorium. I recognize that you think I was mistaken, and I will be very happy to begin a close review if you indicate that you would like one.— S Marshall T/ C 22:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall, in your close of the RfC about the German appeal for Julian Assange, you wrote that there is no consensus. Option 1 was to include two sentences about the appeal, Option 2 was to not mention the appeal at all, while Option 3 was to include a briefer mention of the appeal. In other words, Options 1 and 3 were for inclusion in some form, Option 2 was to completely leave out the material.
Looking through the comments, I count 12 votes for Option 1, 12 votes for Option 2 and 7 votes for Option 3 (I counted votes like "3 or 2" to be 0.5 for each). That means there were 19 votes for inclusion in some form, 12 against inclusion in any form. You didn't write any evaluation of the strength of the different arguments, but from a numerical point of view, there's a clear vote for inclusion of at least one sentence about the appeal. I obviously think that the arguments given for inclusion are strong (as I said in my comment, virtually every major German-language news outlet covered the appeal, some with multiple articles), and that some of the arguments against were incredibly flippant and dismissive (because they feel that what Germans have to say about the subject of Assange is irrelevant, or out of animosity towards the person of Assange). But that aside, the numbers were clearly in favor of inclusion of at least one sentence.
Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I should begin by saying that I'm a fluent German speaker, a frequent visitor to Germany, and a lover of currywurst. I'm very familiar with the sources. I agree that there's nothing marginal about them: on the contrary, they are highly reliable. I view the German-language press in general as superior to the English-language press in accuracy and veracity.
The principal argument for inclusion is that, on Wikipedia, there's a basic presumption to include information that's verifiable and reliably-sourced, and this information meets that presumption. This is an excellent argument that's squarely grounded in policy at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia. It receives additional, implied support from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for adding citations, which allows editors to remove unsourced information, but contains no provision for removing information that's directly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source.
The principal argument for exclusion, on the other hand, is the concern that to include either of those paragraphs as written would be contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. This is also an excellent argument that's squarely grounded in policy, and so I was unable to give greater weight to one argument than another.
I hope this is a satisfactory explanation but I do accept that it may not be. If you are still unsatisfied after reading it, then please say so and I will be delighted to begin an RfC close review in which independent, experienced editors will decide whether I was right.
All the best— S Marshall T/ C 11:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what this close means Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_Article_readability
As I have no idea what version 1 and version 2 are.
This dif for version#1 shows the fixing of a reference [1]
Yes I am good with fixing that reference. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not delighted to learn that you want another RfC on this text, but considering we're in a global medical emergency I can understand that you were distracted. Please restore the consensus lead before you draft the RfC, and please allow it to remain undisturbed for the duration of the RfC. It's OK for you to remove the duplicated text in the Use section.— S Marshall T/ C 23:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Greetings S. Marshall! Thank you very much for your closing statement at Talk:List of the oldest living people#RfC: List world's oldest 50 people or 100? Perhaps counter-intuitively, there is little chance that the current virus pandemic would accelerate the deaths of our very oldest brethren: people who have lived past 110 years must have some of the strongest immune systems of all humanity!
While you're looking at the topic area, could you possibly assess consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing, which has been open for two months? — JFG talk 14:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PediaPress. This is to advise you that the article is up for AfD once again. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You stated:
On the basis of this discussion, I find that the only close available to me is no consensus. A "no consensus" outcome on Wikipedia always means that the status quo ante continues to apply: in other words, the proposed edits should not be made.
That is the end of my formal close. However, I'm conscious that without more, it would be an extremely unhelpful close. Editors have gone to RfC because they can't agree, and "no consensus" does nothing to resolve the underlying disagreement. Therefore, in an attempt to move forwards, I would like to add some suggestions about the kinds of changes that I think might be able to gain consensus here at a future RfC.
Edits 1 and 4: Maybe these could be combined. Try something like:
The Chinese state-owned CGTN's position is that the NED and CIA worked in tandem against governments. The New York Times' position is that evidence for this is lacking; the CGTN disagrees.Edit 2: I don't understand the objection to
Most NGOs sanctioned by China do not have offices on the mainland. I also don't see why it needs clarification.Edit 3: I don't see why it's needful to use in-text attribution to the New York Times when it's cited as a reference at the end of the sentence.
Edits 5 and 6: Maybe we could discuss adding these as footnotes, rather than in the body text. See WP:REFNEST for how this might look.
I do hope this helps.— S Marshall T/ C 18:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There are several issues with your close:
In fact, your rejection of everything outright (like the opposing votes), without going to every point individually (which most opposing votes ignored; it was only responded to by one), is indication of not much finesse. Because most of the opposing votes rest solely on the UNDUE premise, but it does not even apply to most of the edits. I wish you to re-analyse your closure (especially the two points above, that beyond UNDUE), or a closure review could be taken. -- Cold Season ( talk) 02:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the RfC on Religion in Albania. Your closure says that " there is no actual consensus in favour of either position. Therefore the status quo ante continues to apply, and the outcome of this RfC". The dispute started after an editor removed the census pic from the lede [2], so the status quo ante can not be the version without the census pic in the lede. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 12:23, 10 June 2020 (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 ∞ |
It took this long for me to realize you came back. I wish we could get you for an admin, but it's lovely to see you helping out again. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall,
I know you always appreciate reading good closes based on sound evidence and policy, but here is an awesome one by administrator SilkTork that rationally considered all the arguments, weighing them appropriately against various encyclopedia inclusion policies, and the like. So, if you have time, head on over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erica C. Barnett. Definitely one of the best closes I've read, only slightly besting administrator Jo-Jo Eumerus' no consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo-Ann Roberts (2nd nomination). As administrator Serial Number 54129 said on SilkTork's talkpage, SilkTork should get a Closer Barnstar (which we seem not to have and arguably should). I concurred with that assessment, though would also give Jo-Jo Eumerus a Closer Barnstar for her close of the aforementioned Jo-Ann Roberts discussion as well.
Gripping stuff.
Cheers,
--
Doug Mehus
T·
C
00:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
importScript('User:Amalthea/userhighlighter.js');including the final semicolon. When you've done that, the usernames and talk pages of people who're currently admins will be highlighted in blue (as long as you're using the monobook skin, that is). Hope this helps— S Marshall T/ C 01:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thuringwethil. Since you had some involvement with the Thuringwethil redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ― Susmuffin Talk 07:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
After 4 days listing for speedy, no admin seems to be willing to speedy delete by X2. I've removed the tag. The 2 simplest directions to go is either AfD or fixing the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I've found User talk:S Marshall/Post-RFA archive, so I suspect the answer is, no, but should you ever change your mind, I'd be happy to nominate you. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you posted on Sandstein's talk page and I'd be in favour of a SNG/GNG RfC, but the Walkiewycz case is an exceptionally unusual one, so I think the wording of any RfC should reflect this. I'm wondering what wording you would consider proposing for an RfC? Also pinging @ Nfitz:, who also participated on Sandstein's talk page. SportingFlyer T· C 19:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Mariah Carey's birthdate is 27 March 1970: reliable source. Tank Man really ought to be called Tank Man incident because that's what the sources are about: it's not a biography.— S Marshall T/ C 14:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Sweet Brown Snail by
Jason Rhoades and
Paul McCarthy
|
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thank you for all your edits and contributions this year.
Wishing you a happy holiday! ThatMontrealIP ( talk) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ |
I read you comments on NSPORTS with interest. I wonder, though, whether a disagreement with NSPORTS is not better lodged at NSPORTS - rather than to ignore its application. Further, in the discussion at hand, the application of GNG is at issue as well. Isn't that your real problem? Because GNG means a person who hits a ball or hits another person or who acts in a movie .. and gets GNG coverage .. meets GNG. While a professor who has not met those or other standards does not get an article. -- 2604:2000:E010:1100:EDF0:C247:AB22:C089 ( talk) 19:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
An important factor in my view there is that neither NSPORTS nor the GNG are "policy". They're guidelines and they literally say at the top of the page that they're best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
. There's room for editorial judgment in their application, and I'm using that room here.—
S Marshall
T/
C
00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion closers need to respect several consensuses. There's the local consensus at the AfD, and the much larger consensuses about notability. And even stronger than those, are the actual policies — most relevantly in this case, reliability of sourcing and biographies of living people. The process of closing a discussion involves weighing those things against one another, and it also involves some editorial judgment, which is why discussions can't be closed by bots.
Spartaz' use of editorial judgment was justified here because sports fans have collectively decided on their own notability criteria that are very far outside Wikipedian norms. The problem is particularly egregious when it comes to team sports. This is why Category:English physicists contains 280 people while Category:English footballers contains 21,588 people. Category:English businesspeople contains 1,360 people while Category:English cricketers contains 12,572 people. Category:English painters contains 67 people while Category:English rugby union players contains 1,837 people. In reality, my homeland is far more important for its science, its art and its business than its sporting performance! But you wouldn't know that from looking at Wikipedia because our coverage is so ridiculously skewed in favour of sports.
This is why I don't feel that Spartaz' close was wrong, although I do think his rather passive-aggressive response to the DRV nomination was unfortunate.— S Marshall T/ C 12:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Wow. You HAVE been at this for quite a while. kudos. I know your position on the current readability RfC, and I fear that my edits of the lead are causing you angst (I really don't want to) but what I don't know and would love to, is how you feel about those edits I've made? I've just done a few and will settle back a bit until I hear your opinion, if I may. Thanks, it does appear that you are busy here. Jd4x4 ( talk) 17:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry. Are we editing the same wiki? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think you need to amend at least two statements which may lead you to tweaking others: “we have good sources for the name” is simply wrong. We have six poor sources: 3 where the publishers have refactored her birth name out; 2 which also include “Agnes”, a fictional name promoted mainly by Wikipedia making this sourced questionable at best; and one primary SPS listing only her name with no other confirmation. The other problem may have been missed but you thank the ip’s, the main one was just blocked for sockpuppetry, and may have a COI on the RFC itself. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 00:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I really cannot understand your closure rationale on that.
You state that there is a clear consensus, but there are many !votes that say nothing but "me too". Not one of the comments supporting the moratorium makes any attempt to claim that the current title is correct, they are uniquely concerned with ease of life on the talk page rather than the impression and information given to the reader of Wikipedia as a project that seeks to be accurate.
In the two discussions that immediately follow that moratorium discussion I invited people to state why they think the current title is justified, and there was no meaningful take up of that challenge, while several people who have not been part of the moratorium discussion have used the section Pandemics are named for the disease, not the virus to support a move (and therefore to not approve of a prohibition on moves): Gtoffoletto, ViperSnake151, Magna19, TedEdwards. So that would make a !vote of 14 to 11.
So what do you consider to be the balance of weight of the arguments put forward in this discussion according to which you have declared a resolution? Kevin McE ( talk) 18:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
I absolutely did not decide that the current title is right. This decision is important, and we should, in due course, reach the correct conclusion to it. However, the consensus is that the sheer number of page move requests that have been put forward about this matter is not sustainable. The problem is that some editors are so passionate about it that they are exhausting the community's capacity to respond. The decision should be made on the strength of the arguments, not by overwhelming editors with the sheer number of posts. In other words, I have not made any kind of decision about the article title. I have merely documented a consensus that the discussions about the article title should stop for the time being.
I understand the frustration you feel when an editor makes a point that you assess as wrong, and you reply with a courteous and well-thought-out refutation. I am afraid that if they don't respond, then I am required give their view full weight as they originally wrote it. The alternative -- i.e., if editors' views were given less weight when they didn't respond -- would be an encyclopaedia where the last person to reply wins. We couldn't possibly make meaningful decisions in that environment.
If you feel that my assessment of the consensus there is wrong, please do let me know and I will open a close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard.— S Marshall T/ C 18:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus... the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. The predominant number were pro-moratorium. I recognize that you think I was mistaken, and I will be very happy to begin a close review if you indicate that you would like one.— S Marshall T/ C 22:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall, in your close of the RfC about the German appeal for Julian Assange, you wrote that there is no consensus. Option 1 was to include two sentences about the appeal, Option 2 was to not mention the appeal at all, while Option 3 was to include a briefer mention of the appeal. In other words, Options 1 and 3 were for inclusion in some form, Option 2 was to completely leave out the material.
Looking through the comments, I count 12 votes for Option 1, 12 votes for Option 2 and 7 votes for Option 3 (I counted votes like "3 or 2" to be 0.5 for each). That means there were 19 votes for inclusion in some form, 12 against inclusion in any form. You didn't write any evaluation of the strength of the different arguments, but from a numerical point of view, there's a clear vote for inclusion of at least one sentence about the appeal. I obviously think that the arguments given for inclusion are strong (as I said in my comment, virtually every major German-language news outlet covered the appeal, some with multiple articles), and that some of the arguments against were incredibly flippant and dismissive (because they feel that what Germans have to say about the subject of Assange is irrelevant, or out of animosity towards the person of Assange). But that aside, the numbers were clearly in favor of inclusion of at least one sentence.
Thanks, - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I should begin by saying that I'm a fluent German speaker, a frequent visitor to Germany, and a lover of currywurst. I'm very familiar with the sources. I agree that there's nothing marginal about them: on the contrary, they are highly reliable. I view the German-language press in general as superior to the English-language press in accuracy and veracity.
The principal argument for inclusion is that, on Wikipedia, there's a basic presumption to include information that's verifiable and reliably-sourced, and this information meets that presumption. This is an excellent argument that's squarely grounded in policy at Wikipedia:Editing policy#Adding information to Wikipedia. It receives additional, implied support from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for adding citations, which allows editors to remove unsourced information, but contains no provision for removing information that's directly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source.
The principal argument for exclusion, on the other hand, is the concern that to include either of those paragraphs as written would be contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. This is also an excellent argument that's squarely grounded in policy, and so I was unable to give greater weight to one argument than another.
I hope this is a satisfactory explanation but I do accept that it may not be. If you are still unsatisfied after reading it, then please say so and I will be delighted to begin an RfC close review in which independent, experienced editors will decide whether I was right.
All the best— S Marshall T/ C 11:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what this close means Talk:Electronic_cigarette#RfC:_Article_readability
As I have no idea what version 1 and version 2 are.
This dif for version#1 shows the fixing of a reference [1]
Yes I am good with fixing that reference. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not delighted to learn that you want another RfC on this text, but considering we're in a global medical emergency I can understand that you were distracted. Please restore the consensus lead before you draft the RfC, and please allow it to remain undisturbed for the duration of the RfC. It's OK for you to remove the duplicated text in the Use section.— S Marshall T/ C 23:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Greetings S. Marshall! Thank you very much for your closing statement at Talk:List of the oldest living people#RfC: List world's oldest 50 people or 100? Perhaps counter-intuitively, there is little chance that the current virus pandemic would accelerate the deaths of our very oldest brethren: people who have lived past 110 years must have some of the strongest immune systems of all humanity!
While you're looking at the topic area, could you possibly assess consensus at Talk:List of the verified oldest people#RfC on sourcing, which has been open for two months? — JFG talk 14:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PediaPress. This is to advise you that the article is up for AfD once again. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You stated:
On the basis of this discussion, I find that the only close available to me is no consensus. A "no consensus" outcome on Wikipedia always means that the status quo ante continues to apply: in other words, the proposed edits should not be made.
That is the end of my formal close. However, I'm conscious that without more, it would be an extremely unhelpful close. Editors have gone to RfC because they can't agree, and "no consensus" does nothing to resolve the underlying disagreement. Therefore, in an attempt to move forwards, I would like to add some suggestions about the kinds of changes that I think might be able to gain consensus here at a future RfC.
Edits 1 and 4: Maybe these could be combined. Try something like:
The Chinese state-owned CGTN's position is that the NED and CIA worked in tandem against governments. The New York Times' position is that evidence for this is lacking; the CGTN disagrees.Edit 2: I don't understand the objection to
Most NGOs sanctioned by China do not have offices on the mainland. I also don't see why it needs clarification.Edit 3: I don't see why it's needful to use in-text attribution to the New York Times when it's cited as a reference at the end of the sentence.
Edits 5 and 6: Maybe we could discuss adding these as footnotes, rather than in the body text. See WP:REFNEST for how this might look.
I do hope this helps.— S Marshall T/ C 18:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There are several issues with your close:
In fact, your rejection of everything outright (like the opposing votes), without going to every point individually (which most opposing votes ignored; it was only responded to by one), is indication of not much finesse. Because most of the opposing votes rest solely on the UNDUE premise, but it does not even apply to most of the edits. I wish you to re-analyse your closure (especially the two points above, that beyond UNDUE), or a closure review could be taken. -- Cold Season ( talk) 02:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the RfC on Religion in Albania. Your closure says that " there is no actual consensus in favour of either position. Therefore the status quo ante continues to apply, and the outcome of this RfC". The dispute started after an editor removed the census pic from the lede [2], so the status quo ante can not be the version without the census pic in the lede. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 12:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)