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 ∞ |
If I still have some talkpage stalkers who're interested in policies and guidelines, then your attention is respectfully drawn to User:S Marshall/Essay where I'm working on some thoughts about how to apply (and how not to apply) WP:V.— S Marshall T/ C 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
{{ ds/alert}}
Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 02:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Be careful of WP:ASPERSIONS and don't attack/comment on people based on their supposed nationality/race. [1] It is frankly embarrassing to see someone like you who resorts to such cheap shots even after editing for more than 15 years. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 02:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
{{ uw-npa1}} ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I've issued a partial block preventing you from editing WilliamJE's user page and talk page. Editing of any subpage belonging to WilliamJE will be seen as disruptive editing, and a very dim view will be taken. Mjroots ( talk) 06:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I had always assumed that my judgement was degrading and had no idea at least one regular at drv valued my contribution. You don’t know how much that means to me. To be clear by comments are in no way aimed at you. Spartaz Humbug! 14:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for closing the Move Review and relisting " Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia". However, the article remains at its new title ("Racism in Ethiopia") rather than its original title ("Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia"). Shouldn't the old title be restored until the conclusion of the RM? Walrasiad ( talk) 18:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack on HMS Invincible
I don't think the comments about bad faith and puffery were directed at the Article Rescue Squadron. It was more borne of frustration with the actions of one individual. Personally I've always supported their efforts. W C M email 15:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
PS my thanks for a thoughtful close. Regards,
W
C
M
email
15:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear S Marshall,
Thank you for participating in the recent
discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a
summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name
here.
--
Barkeep49 &
KevinL (aka L235)
21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am curious as to why you struck the !vote of Commander Waterford here? I'm aware of the WP:SOCKSTRIKE essay but that doesn't apply here as CW wasn't socking or evading a ban at the time and was still a member of the community. I don't see how subsequently getting indeffed invalidates their vote. P-K3 ( talk) 23:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm writing regarding your recent close that I had requested on the closure requests noticeboard. I appreciate that you took the time to write the close and that you read through the discussion in its full detail. You certainly put a lot of thought into it, and you have provided a well-written rationale for the close.
I am, however, a bit concerned regarding the use of comments added by a sockpuppet in that rationale. I agree that academic sources are, indeed, academic sources, though I'm not sure that we should be treating the edits as usable. I fully concede that the letter of the WP:EVADE policy does not speak explicitly on this. When I struck the edits, I chose not to revert them because the discussion wouldn't make sense in the absence of the text being there; the text was there more or less to provide context for the closer regarding what the non-socks were doing. In a procedural sense, it feels really weird to strike the comments of block-evading socks and to also consider the comments as having been made. I understand the desire to incorporate all the sources, though it doesn't seem to proceed from the spirit of the policy to consider these edits if they could have simply been reverted without any other reason. Ultimately, this is probably something that should be clarified in a policy or guideline somewhere, though I feel a bit uneasy about the way the edits were handled.
Additionally, regarding the factual basis, the LSE source I added seems to actually be a publication of the "Residential Landlords Association", which would probably render it WP:SPS (unless the RLA has a robust fact-checking or peer-review process) and would significantly degrade its weight. I'm wondering if you would be willing to provide a bit more in detail regarding how you weighted the sources in terms of the rent regulation article, in particualar, and if this information (or my comment above) would change your weighting.
Again, thank you for the time to make the close. It was a bit of a nasty discussion to wade through and I appreciate your assistance.
— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Residential Landlords Association, and the authors are (or were) full professors at two of the most respected universities in the UK. It was written "at the request of" the Residential Landlords Association (RLA), and the RLA retain the copyright, but it is branded with the LSE logo. I am unable to agree with you that it's self-published, but you might make a very credible case that it is WP:SPONSORED. But consider---I feel that if it were a biased source in favour of the RLA, then surely it would say that rent controls are an unambiguously bad idea---wouldn't it? The fact that it doesn't say this is intriguing, and in my view, enhances its credibility.This source is key, because it is clearly the best source for the non-US perspective on rent controls which was available to me from the discussion, and strongly informed my close of that part of the discussion that wasn't particular to the USA. I really don't think I've misinterpreted that source or given it the wrong amount of weight, but if I have, then my close should be reverted.Hope this helps and all the best— S Marshall T/ C 09:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I appealed to the administrator who deleted the page, but he objected to the restoration of the article. Can you add it here.
Trend.az says that the person is from the TOP-10 comedians of Azerbaijan. es-wiki, de-wiki, az-wiki, film-1, film-2, film-3, film-4, film-5, The Azerbaijani actor received the main role of a crime comedy.-- Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) ( talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You recreated a page that had been deleted as non-notable, and I'm renominating it for deletion.
The generic template:
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovio (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
— kwami ( talk) 07:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and review of this article, particularly your closing comments. Much appreciated and understandable. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 10:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello dear S Marshall. I would like to place an article Pantural from the Draft page to the Main page, but my proposal is rejected without a good reason. Tural Safarov is a famous Azerbaijani actor and film director. Can you add it here. -- Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) ( talk) 16:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Stuart, hope you are well. Hoping for a sanity check on my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Does it make sense? Does it wildly violate any policies or procedures? It felt a little IARy and I haven't played a whole lot in this space, so just wanted a second opinion. Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 02:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I have lived abroad in a number of countries. I remember the first time I did so. On my return to London after an absence of a number of years I bumped into an acquaintance in Bermondsey. He say "All wight? I ain't seen you awound". "Yes", says I, "I've been away", and he replies knowingly "Oooh!". In Bermondsey as I discovered later "Away" is an euphemism for prison (or a foreign trip to avoid prison). I have been AFK, but not for nefarious reasons, so please excuse the tardy reply.
@ Daniel I think it was a good close moving it to Draft:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex -- PBS ( talk) 14:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. As you can see (here [2] and here [3]), the dispute you closed ( [4]) has not had the expected effect (an improvement of the articles). On the contrary, what was achieved was to close down a debate and perpetuate a claim that has no consensus among wikipedia editors and is of dubious verifiability (some references are published by ultra-liberal or extreme right-wing think tanks, and others are simply general economics books --i.e. domain-general, non-specific to the topic--). In the end, unfortunately, what we have is an assertion whose wording has not improved, which is supported by sources that do not refer to it, for which there is no consensus, and for which the debate has been closed. The custodians of these articles, who have a clear ideological bias, must be rubbing their hands together. Congratulations. 2A02:C7F:2828:8000:7C8F:2804:5617:489F ( talk) 14:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Interesting situation - The article was deleted as an advertising G11. I ask you to seriously consider this article from various angles, you need to deeply immerse yourself in the subject under discussion. If some points in significance are controversial or unclear, they should be discussed (If the article contains advertisements, nonsense, orissa - they should be erased. However, this is not a reason to delete the article as a whole. Can you add it here.
Draft:Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan is pretty lousy, but it won't be speedied as spam! Cryptic, I hope you'll put your Azeri knowledge and love of pomegranates to use here. Drmies ( talk) 01:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
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 ∞ |
If I still have some talkpage stalkers who're interested in policies and guidelines, then your attention is respectfully drawn to User:S Marshall/Essay where I'm working on some thoughts about how to apply (and how not to apply) WP:V.— S Marshall T/ C 13:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
{{ ds/alert}}
Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 02:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Be careful of WP:ASPERSIONS and don't attack/comment on people based on their supposed nationality/race. [1] It is frankly embarrassing to see someone like you who resorts to such cheap shots even after editing for more than 15 years. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 02:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
{{ uw-npa1}} ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I've issued a partial block preventing you from editing WilliamJE's user page and talk page. Editing of any subpage belonging to WilliamJE will be seen as disruptive editing, and a very dim view will be taken. Mjroots ( talk) 06:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I had always assumed that my judgement was degrading and had no idea at least one regular at drv valued my contribution. You don’t know how much that means to me. To be clear by comments are in no way aimed at you. Spartaz Humbug! 14:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for closing the Move Review and relisting " Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia". However, the article remains at its new title ("Racism in Ethiopia") rather than its original title ("Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia"). Shouldn't the old title be restored until the conclusion of the RM? Walrasiad ( talk) 18:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack on HMS Invincible
I don't think the comments about bad faith and puffery were directed at the Article Rescue Squadron. It was more borne of frustration with the actions of one individual. Personally I've always supported their efforts. W C M email 15:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
PS my thanks for a thoughtful close. Regards,
W
C
M
email
15:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Dear S Marshall,
Thank you for participating in the recent
discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a
summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name
here.
--
Barkeep49 &
KevinL (aka L235)
21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I am curious as to why you struck the !vote of Commander Waterford here? I'm aware of the WP:SOCKSTRIKE essay but that doesn't apply here as CW wasn't socking or evading a ban at the time and was still a member of the community. I don't see how subsequently getting indeffed invalidates their vote. P-K3 ( talk) 23:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm writing regarding your recent close that I had requested on the closure requests noticeboard. I appreciate that you took the time to write the close and that you read through the discussion in its full detail. You certainly put a lot of thought into it, and you have provided a well-written rationale for the close.
I am, however, a bit concerned regarding the use of comments added by a sockpuppet in that rationale. I agree that academic sources are, indeed, academic sources, though I'm not sure that we should be treating the edits as usable. I fully concede that the letter of the WP:EVADE policy does not speak explicitly on this. When I struck the edits, I chose not to revert them because the discussion wouldn't make sense in the absence of the text being there; the text was there more or less to provide context for the closer regarding what the non-socks were doing. In a procedural sense, it feels really weird to strike the comments of block-evading socks and to also consider the comments as having been made. I understand the desire to incorporate all the sources, though it doesn't seem to proceed from the spirit of the policy to consider these edits if they could have simply been reverted without any other reason. Ultimately, this is probably something that should be clarified in a policy or guideline somewhere, though I feel a bit uneasy about the way the edits were handled.
Additionally, regarding the factual basis, the LSE source I added seems to actually be a publication of the "Residential Landlords Association", which would probably render it WP:SPS (unless the RLA has a robust fact-checking or peer-review process) and would significantly degrade its weight. I'm wondering if you would be willing to provide a bit more in detail regarding how you weighted the sources in terms of the rent regulation article, in particualar, and if this information (or my comment above) would change your weighting.
Again, thank you for the time to make the close. It was a bit of a nasty discussion to wade through and I appreciate your assistance.
— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 03:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Residential Landlords Association, and the authors are (or were) full professors at two of the most respected universities in the UK. It was written "at the request of" the Residential Landlords Association (RLA), and the RLA retain the copyright, but it is branded with the LSE logo. I am unable to agree with you that it's self-published, but you might make a very credible case that it is WP:SPONSORED. But consider---I feel that if it were a biased source in favour of the RLA, then surely it would say that rent controls are an unambiguously bad idea---wouldn't it? The fact that it doesn't say this is intriguing, and in my view, enhances its credibility.This source is key, because it is clearly the best source for the non-US perspective on rent controls which was available to me from the discussion, and strongly informed my close of that part of the discussion that wasn't particular to the USA. I really don't think I've misinterpreted that source or given it the wrong amount of weight, but if I have, then my close should be reverted.Hope this helps and all the best— S Marshall T/ C 09:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I appealed to the administrator who deleted the page, but he objected to the restoration of the article. Can you add it here.
Trend.az says that the person is from the TOP-10 comedians of Azerbaijan. es-wiki, de-wiki, az-wiki, film-1, film-2, film-3, film-4, film-5, The Azerbaijani actor received the main role of a crime comedy.-- Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) ( talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You recreated a page that had been deleted as non-notable, and I'm renominating it for deletion.
The generic template:
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovio (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
— kwami ( talk) 07:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and review of this article, particularly your closing comments. Much appreciated and understandable. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 10:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello dear S Marshall. I would like to place an article Pantural from the Draft page to the Main page, but my proposal is rejected without a good reason. Tural Safarov is a famous Azerbaijani actor and film director. Can you add it here. -- Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) ( talk) 16:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Stuart, hope you are well. Hoping for a sanity check on my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green cape dress of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Does it make sense? Does it wildly violate any policies or procedures? It felt a little IARy and I haven't played a whole lot in this space, so just wanted a second opinion. Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 02:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I have lived abroad in a number of countries. I remember the first time I did so. On my return to London after an absence of a number of years I bumped into an acquaintance in Bermondsey. He say "All wight? I ain't seen you awound". "Yes", says I, "I've been away", and he replies knowingly "Oooh!". In Bermondsey as I discovered later "Away" is an euphemism for prison (or a foreign trip to avoid prison). I have been AFK, but not for nefarious reasons, so please excuse the tardy reply.
@ Daniel I think it was a good close moving it to Draft:Fashion of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex -- PBS ( talk) 14:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. As you can see (here [2] and here [3]), the dispute you closed ( [4]) has not had the expected effect (an improvement of the articles). On the contrary, what was achieved was to close down a debate and perpetuate a claim that has no consensus among wikipedia editors and is of dubious verifiability (some references are published by ultra-liberal or extreme right-wing think tanks, and others are simply general economics books --i.e. domain-general, non-specific to the topic--). In the end, unfortunately, what we have is an assertion whose wording has not improved, which is supported by sources that do not refer to it, for which there is no consensus, and for which the debate has been closed. The custodians of these articles, who have a clear ideological bias, must be rubbing their hands together. Congratulations. 2A02:C7F:2828:8000:7C8F:2804:5617:489F ( talk) 14:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Interesting situation - The article was deleted as an advertising G11. I ask you to seriously consider this article from various angles, you need to deeply immerse yourself in the subject under discussion. If some points in significance are controversial or unclear, they should be discussed (If the article contains advertisements, nonsense, orissa - they should be erased. However, this is not a reason to delete the article as a whole. Can you add it here.
Draft:Pomegranate Producers and Exporters Association of Azerbaijan is pretty lousy, but it won't be speedied as spam! Cryptic, I hope you'll put your Azeri knowledge and love of pomegranates to use here. Drmies ( talk) 01:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)