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 ∞ |
Hi S Marshall, I noticed you draftified Draft:Jalal Jalal Shokouhi, an article which was created in 2016 and whose author is no longer active. You referenced a consensus decision about this, but I don't think I'm familiar with the context. Who is planning to work on this article? If it's just going to languish in draftspace for six months and then be deleted as a G13, wouldn't an AfD be more appropriate? Thanks. – bradv 🍁 17:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles". Thank you. – bradv 🍁 13:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall, first of all, thank you for your help and concern about the safe area of the Wikipedia information, I am writing you about the moved page Talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) to Draft talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) the page has been created many years ago in order to maintain the work of the international actor that has been performed in many series and films worldwide, therefore we have Spanish, Russian and Catalan Wikipedia pages because of the appearance of the actor in different countries and speaking languages, please let me know what would you like me to do to have the page from your point of you being litigable and approved by you, also it would be very helpful if you can help me with it by giving me your advice. Here is his management agency in London with his previous films and series http://www.diamondmanagement.co.uk/daniel-horvath [1] I really want to have the best page I can do for this actor because I love his work and really think he deserves to have it with your help I am sure I will do a great job. Looking forward to hearing back from you.-- Anonimoushh ( talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
from your point of you being litigableleads me to suggest that you read the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Whilst your statement isn't a legal threat, as a Wikipedia editor you should be aware of this policy, and be careful to follow it. I've also left a note about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline on your talk page for your information. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, S Marshall , It's founding editor from infodrips.com, I found you the most experienced or probably established editor on wikipedia in my views after reviewing your contributions, I need your support to resolve WP:COI for a website infodrips that was blacklisted by user Beetstra , Hope that you will be interested for the help, Thanks. Aaqib Ahmad Talk 13:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply sir, Would you please refer someone, It will be helpful for me. Thanks Aaqib Ahmad Talk 14:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest Cryptic, Yeah, no doubt on the blacklisting and it's justified, but there is a considerable point which is that, I didn't ignored the warnings intentionally, It happened because that time I was not registered user, therefore, I had not recieved the warnings properly that is now I'm receiving in my notification bell, And I already apologised my unaware editings with the user Beetstra. You can also have a look on my editings after being a registered user, That doesn't violated the terms. And the most important thing is that, website it self doesn't violating wikipedia terms. Hope that you got the case properly. Thanks. Aaqib Ahmad Talk 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Where is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles being discussed now? I haven't forgotten. Pinging @ Bradv. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 04:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall, Thank you for your suggestions about this article. I tried to improve he text of this page as suggested by you. I hope it's good now. Please let me know if there is any other improvement I may do. Thank you very much Paolippe (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Paolippe ( talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Quick reminder for you and any talk-page stalkers: Please don't change the initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) when replying. In a discussion, do this best practice:
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]] ** Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
or this acceptable practice:
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]] *: Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
but don't do this (switch type from bullet list to description list):
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]] :* Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
Changing the initial (leftmost) list markers makes bad HTML and noise for people who are using screen readers. The rightmost one is the marker that you get to choose. The first ones should match the previous line's markers exactly. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure where you will come out on this, but you may care about [1]. I'm a little hot about it, but maybe I'm overreacting (it's been a long week). Hobit ( talk) 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like this article was worth submitting for review. Saw you moved it to a live page, thanks! Metromemo ( talk) 15:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd give very long odds that the IP user on your talk page represents the company and wants to add their logo for promotional reasons. I'm disinclined to get involved and if I were you I'd consider directing them to the Teahouse for advice. All the best— S Marshall T/ C 23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
If a page from User:S Marshall/sandbox has been merged into another article, can it just be removed from the list? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
hi. are you an admin? how you closed this.. did you read all messages?which guideline or policy did you use to decide that?-- Mojtaba2361 ( talk) 11:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you know I had tagged nearly everything from User:S Marshall/sandbox. Now I just noticed you check and remove items from the list without removing the tag I added.
I did not anticipate that and am not sure how to deal with that. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 12:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I refer to the 3,613 articles discussed at WP:AN/CXT and the consensus that the same may be speedily draftified (despite Bradv's wish to change that consensus it still exists). The original list of 3,613 articles is kept at WP:AN/CXT/PTR and my sandbox contains the ones that haven't been checked yet. I'm now realising that what I'm doing is only tangentially related to what you're doing. — S Marshall T/ C 11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
So, what I'm doing is cleaning up a mess made by the WMF when they enabled the content translation tool and encouraged users to drop raw machine translations into the mainspace. They stopped doing that in summer 2016 leaving a specific, defined, identifiable set of problem articles which I am now working through. The list of unchecked articles is in my sandbox and I'm removing them when done. I have about a thousand left to work through so at this rate I should be finished in early 2023. Thank you for your help, even though I am confused about what exactly you are doing.
I regret that you're pinging people who aren't helping with the cleanup. Unless they intend to do actual work on this backlog I would prefer that they not make rules about how I should do it. — S Marshall T/ C 22:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Because AfD is a colossal time-sink and I shall not spend my volunteering time on it. The alternative to draftification is for S Marshall to stop working on this completely and overwrite his sandbox with something less urgent but more fun.— S Marshall T/ C 23:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I feel you've invented several requirements for a trial where none of those were supported, or even discussed in the RFC. I would ask that you undo the closure and let BAG review this. Or at least leave the details of the trial to BAG. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Second User:Headbomb this is BAG territory. Anyway I don't see anyone championing CBD. It's either gonna be a simple self-regulating structure within existing systems (BAG) or it's not going to work. Leave the details to BAG. -- Green C 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thirding this. Putting you own "proposals" in the closure wasn't helpful, considering that most of the points are of dubious technical feasibility. While the discussion gives the BAG an idea on what the community opinion is regarding cosmetic bots, it hardly needed a formal closure. Note that there has already been one largely cosmetic BRFA which was approved much before the CBD discussion was closed. – SD0001 ( talk) 06:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Wug· a·po·des 21:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @
S Marshall: 6 editors responding to the RfC at
Talk:Kiki Camarena supported inclusion of the text, including in the lead, while 3 editors opposed it. That means editors supported inclusion of the text by a 2:1 margin. Among outside editors coming to the page for comment — that's the point of an RfC — 5 editors supported inclusion, and 1 opposed: a 5:1 margin. Editors supporting inclusion point out that
WP:SECONDARY and tertiary
WP:RS treat the allegations "extremely seriously"
, and also point out that arguments opposing inclusion are based almost entirely on
WP:OR. Because your close so wholly disregards both the policy-based arguments and the overwhelming majority of editors responding to the RfC, I'm going to challenge your close at
WP:AN, per policy. I'm informing you here first, as you've requested. -
Darouet (
talk)
16:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Sir, you recently opened a Deletion Review about an AfD that I commented on [1]. You claimed that my account was "suspicious" since I had not edited Wikipedia for many years. You made no attempt to contact me first, or even after making this allegation. You accused the accounts you listed (including mine) as being possible sockpuppets or meatpuppets without any evidence (since no such evidence exists, at least where my account is concerned). Your actions were uncivil, unprofessional, disruptive, and completely against everything that Wikipedia claims to stand for. I cannot assume good faith, because there was not even a shred of good faith involved in your actions, nor from your subsequent comments on that page does there appear even a shred of doubt or reconsideration. I can only hope that this was a moment of poor judgement, especially as you appear to be a professional off-Wiki, which makes your conduct all the more egregious. Your actions are very similar to the reasons why I stopped editing Wikipedia so many years ago (which apparently makes me suspicious). I do not know whether you will delete this comment, or ignore it, but I hope, possibly with undue optimism, that this might be a learning experience where you may step back and reconsider accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being suspicious and accusing them of malfeasance. Perhaps instead of dismissing everyone else, you could consider reading their comments and consider that they might have a different point of view.
But thank you, you have reminded me of why I stopped editing Wikipedia. Hyperion35 ( talk) 02:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this, but some people are reading things ( [3]) into your absence in a conversation related to a RFC you closed sometime ago on the GOP talk page. We may need your guidance. Thanks. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 19:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. I added a timestamp to your closing statement at Talk:Peppermint (entertainer). I figured you mistakenly typed ~~~ instead of ~~~~. I also added {{ nac}} following the timestamp. Feel free to revert either if you intentionally left them out. Thanks. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think your non-admin closure of the RfC at Proud Boys makes sense. Not regarding there being no consensus on the RfC, but there being a status quo ante that we're reverting to at all. The label was added less than a month before the discussion/RfC above, without discussion and without citations: [4]. There was then some brief discussion on the matter [5] without any clear consensus (I'm counting 2 editors in favour and 2 editors against in the extremely minimal discussion that ensued).
This isn't a case of a status quo ante being returned to, this is new content that is being disputed for which there was never a clear consensus to include in the first place. The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include content to establish consensus for its inclusion, not on those who wish to remove disputed content.
I'm happy enough to just drop a message here first if this is a simple enough matter, but if you still agree with your closure I guess WP:AN would be a better place for this. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 17:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 05:11, 7 April 2021 (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 ∞ |
Hi S Marshall, I noticed you draftified Draft:Jalal Jalal Shokouhi, an article which was created in 2016 and whose author is no longer active. You referenced a consensus decision about this, but I don't think I'm familiar with the context. Who is planning to work on this article? If it's just going to languish in draftspace for six months and then be deleted as a G13, wouldn't an AfD be more appropriate? Thanks. – bradv 🍁 17:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles". Thank you. – bradv 🍁 13:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello S Marshall, first of all, thank you for your help and concern about the safe area of the Wikipedia information, I am writing you about the moved page Talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) to Draft talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) the page has been created many years ago in order to maintain the work of the international actor that has been performed in many series and films worldwide, therefore we have Spanish, Russian and Catalan Wikipedia pages because of the appearance of the actor in different countries and speaking languages, please let me know what would you like me to do to have the page from your point of you being litigable and approved by you, also it would be very helpful if you can help me with it by giving me your advice. Here is his management agency in London with his previous films and series http://www.diamondmanagement.co.uk/daniel-horvath [1] I really want to have the best page I can do for this actor because I love his work and really think he deserves to have it with your help I am sure I will do a great job. Looking forward to hearing back from you.-- Anonimoushh ( talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
from your point of you being litigableleads me to suggest that you read the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Whilst your statement isn't a legal threat, as a Wikipedia editor you should be aware of this policy, and be careful to follow it. I've also left a note about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline on your talk page for your information. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, S Marshall , It's founding editor from infodrips.com, I found you the most experienced or probably established editor on wikipedia in my views after reviewing your contributions, I need your support to resolve WP:COI for a website infodrips that was blacklisted by user Beetstra , Hope that you will be interested for the help, Thanks. Aaqib Ahmad Talk 13:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply sir, Would you please refer someone, It will be helpful for me. Thanks Aaqib Ahmad Talk 14:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest Cryptic, Yeah, no doubt on the blacklisting and it's justified, but there is a considerable point which is that, I didn't ignored the warnings intentionally, It happened because that time I was not registered user, therefore, I had not recieved the warnings properly that is now I'm receiving in my notification bell, And I already apologised my unaware editings with the user Beetstra. You can also have a look on my editings after being a registered user, That doesn't violated the terms. And the most important thing is that, website it self doesn't violating wikipedia terms. Hope that you got the case properly. Thanks. Aaqib Ahmad Talk 15:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Where is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles being discussed now? I haven't forgotten. Pinging @ Bradv. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 04:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall, Thank you for your suggestions about this article. I tried to improve he text of this page as suggested by you. I hope it's good now. Please let me know if there is any other improvement I may do. Thank you very much Paolippe (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC) Paolippe ( talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Quick reminder for you and any talk-page stalkers: Please don't change the initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) when replying. In a discussion, do this best practice:
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]] ** Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
or this acceptable practice:
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]] *: Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
but don't do this (switch type from bullet list to description list):
* Support. I like this idea. [[User:Example]] :* Question: What do you like about it? [[User:Example 2]]
Changing the initial (leftmost) list markers makes bad HTML and noise for people who are using screen readers. The rightmost one is the marker that you get to choose. The first ones should match the previous line's markers exactly. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure where you will come out on this, but you may care about [1]. I'm a little hot about it, but maybe I'm overreacting (it's been a long week). Hobit ( talk) 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like this article was worth submitting for review. Saw you moved it to a live page, thanks! Metromemo ( talk) 15:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd give very long odds that the IP user on your talk page represents the company and wants to add their logo for promotional reasons. I'm disinclined to get involved and if I were you I'd consider directing them to the Teahouse for advice. All the best— S Marshall T/ C 23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
If a page from User:S Marshall/sandbox has been merged into another article, can it just be removed from the list? — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
hi. are you an admin? how you closed this.. did you read all messages?which guideline or policy did you use to decide that?-- Mojtaba2361 ( talk) 11:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you know I had tagged nearly everything from User:S Marshall/sandbox. Now I just noticed you check and remove items from the list without removing the tag I added.
I did not anticipate that and am not sure how to deal with that. — Alexis Jazz ( talk or ping me) 12:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I refer to the 3,613 articles discussed at WP:AN/CXT and the consensus that the same may be speedily draftified (despite Bradv's wish to change that consensus it still exists). The original list of 3,613 articles is kept at WP:AN/CXT/PTR and my sandbox contains the ones that haven't been checked yet. I'm now realising that what I'm doing is only tangentially related to what you're doing. — S Marshall T/ C 11:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
So, what I'm doing is cleaning up a mess made by the WMF when they enabled the content translation tool and encouraged users to drop raw machine translations into the mainspace. They stopped doing that in summer 2016 leaving a specific, defined, identifiable set of problem articles which I am now working through. The list of unchecked articles is in my sandbox and I'm removing them when done. I have about a thousand left to work through so at this rate I should be finished in early 2023. Thank you for your help, even though I am confused about what exactly you are doing.
I regret that you're pinging people who aren't helping with the cleanup. Unless they intend to do actual work on this backlog I would prefer that they not make rules about how I should do it. — S Marshall T/ C 22:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Because AfD is a colossal time-sink and I shall not spend my volunteering time on it. The alternative to draftification is for S Marshall to stop working on this completely and overwrite his sandbox with something less urgent but more fun.— S Marshall T/ C 23:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I feel you've invented several requirements for a trial where none of those were supported, or even discussed in the RFC. I would ask that you undo the closure and let BAG review this. Or at least leave the details of the trial to BAG. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Second User:Headbomb this is BAG territory. Anyway I don't see anyone championing CBD. It's either gonna be a simple self-regulating structure within existing systems (BAG) or it's not going to work. Leave the details to BAG. -- Green C 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thirding this. Putting you own "proposals" in the closure wasn't helpful, considering that most of the points are of dubious technical feasibility. While the discussion gives the BAG an idea on what the community opinion is regarding cosmetic bots, it hardly needed a formal closure. Note that there has already been one largely cosmetic BRFA which was approved much before the CBD discussion was closed. – SD0001 ( talk) 06:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Wug· a·po·des 21:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @
S Marshall: 6 editors responding to the RfC at
Talk:Kiki Camarena supported inclusion of the text, including in the lead, while 3 editors opposed it. That means editors supported inclusion of the text by a 2:1 margin. Among outside editors coming to the page for comment — that's the point of an RfC — 5 editors supported inclusion, and 1 opposed: a 5:1 margin. Editors supporting inclusion point out that
WP:SECONDARY and tertiary
WP:RS treat the allegations "extremely seriously"
, and also point out that arguments opposing inclusion are based almost entirely on
WP:OR. Because your close so wholly disregards both the policy-based arguments and the overwhelming majority of editors responding to the RfC, I'm going to challenge your close at
WP:AN, per policy. I'm informing you here first, as you've requested. -
Darouet (
talk)
16:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Sir, you recently opened a Deletion Review about an AfD that I commented on [1]. You claimed that my account was "suspicious" since I had not edited Wikipedia for many years. You made no attempt to contact me first, or even after making this allegation. You accused the accounts you listed (including mine) as being possible sockpuppets or meatpuppets without any evidence (since no such evidence exists, at least where my account is concerned). Your actions were uncivil, unprofessional, disruptive, and completely against everything that Wikipedia claims to stand for. I cannot assume good faith, because there was not even a shred of good faith involved in your actions, nor from your subsequent comments on that page does there appear even a shred of doubt or reconsideration. I can only hope that this was a moment of poor judgement, especially as you appear to be a professional off-Wiki, which makes your conduct all the more egregious. Your actions are very similar to the reasons why I stopped editing Wikipedia so many years ago (which apparently makes me suspicious). I do not know whether you will delete this comment, or ignore it, but I hope, possibly with undue optimism, that this might be a learning experience where you may step back and reconsider accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being suspicious and accusing them of malfeasance. Perhaps instead of dismissing everyone else, you could consider reading their comments and consider that they might have a different point of view.
But thank you, you have reminded me of why I stopped editing Wikipedia. Hyperion35 ( talk) 02:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you with this, but some people are reading things ( [3]) into your absence in a conversation related to a RFC you closed sometime ago on the GOP talk page. We may need your guidance. Thanks. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 19:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Greetings. I added a timestamp to your closing statement at Talk:Peppermint (entertainer). I figured you mistakenly typed ~~~ instead of ~~~~. I also added {{ nac}} following the timestamp. Feel free to revert either if you intentionally left them out. Thanks. -- Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 20:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think your non-admin closure of the RfC at Proud Boys makes sense. Not regarding there being no consensus on the RfC, but there being a status quo ante that we're reverting to at all. The label was added less than a month before the discussion/RfC above, without discussion and without citations: [4]. There was then some brief discussion on the matter [5] without any clear consensus (I'm counting 2 editors in favour and 2 editors against in the extremely minimal discussion that ensued).
This isn't a case of a status quo ante being returned to, this is new content that is being disputed for which there was never a clear consensus to include in the first place. The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include content to establish consensus for its inclusion, not on those who wish to remove disputed content.
I'm happy enough to just drop a message here first if this is a simple enough matter, but if you still agree with your closure I guess WP:AN would be a better place for this. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 17:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 05:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)