This is S Marshall's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
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 ∞ |
In the close at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#RFC on WikiProject Banner shell redesign, you noted "The new version should remain in use but should be de-coloured for the time being, unless and until we reach consensus on fully accessible colour choices":
Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 17:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Cheers for sticking your neck out on my contentious request! I appreciate the time and effort.
You raised some excellent points which none of us in the discussion had considered. I'm not yet decided on whether it's worth trying to get consensus now in light of those policies in a new discussion, but will consider it over the next couple of days. Riposte97 ( talk) 02:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent close. Since you directed part of your close to my good faith effort to find a consensus where you wrote A user has tried to extend this discussion, and I'm afraid that's not how RfCs work.
Let me simply point out what
WP:RFC actually says...
An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.
Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action.
It's difficult to argue that an 18-13 vote is apparent that a consensus won't be reached if there's additional comment. In fact, there were eight comments after I extended the RFC. I agree that Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, and RfCs are expensive
which is why getting a consensus on this question is useful because there's been about 15 infobox RFCs over the last 14 months. Almost all of those discussions ended in consensus with wider input than just the infobox regulars.
I'm not going to challenge the close because it's close enough to be closed in either direction, but I would ask for you to remove the comment directed towards my good faith effort to find a long term consensus since it's a perfectly reasonable way to find consensus per WP:RFC. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
story · music |
---|
Hevenu shalom aleichem is my story today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Did you read Brian's essay? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For your consistently calm, reasoned, and insightful takes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
story · music |
---|
Another cheerful story, parts of my life, - just sad that one of the players is already dead. I remember having picked him up at the airport and entertained for the evening, - we took turns for the week. Actually he probably entertained me more than I him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I hope this became clearer after the fact ? Donepezil licensing is mentioned earlier under general management, and then its off-label use (unlicensed) is listed later under each symptom. I can't think of a way to combine those into the same section, since one is general, the other by symptom. I'm sorry if you are having to learn about its use for someone you care about, and hope you found the article helpful. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, do you have an opinion on the question I raised at Talk:Rupperswil murder case#Parole or not. Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is an expert on Swiss criminal law. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@
S Marshall: Hi there and merry Christmas! I'm just messaging as, quite a while ago now, you were party to the discussion about the COI editor
Richard D. Gill who was reported on ANI for advocacy in trying to portray
Lucy Letby as wrongfully convicted:
[1]. As you absolutely correctly said at the time: Richard, the way we determine whether someone is guilty is in court. Lucy Letby is guilty of the most unimaginably horrific crimes and we know that's true because a jury has reached a verdict after an evidence-based trial. We can and should say so in Wikipedia's voice. I can see that you have doubts, but Wikipedia is not a place to contradict the verdict of the court as reported in mainstream media.
But now some editors want to replace the first line that says "British serial killer and former neonatal nurse" to "is a British former neonatal nurse, convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others". So basically, they want to get rid of her being called a serial killer, on various grounds including "I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer". But surely, the place we decide where someone is guilty of a crime is in court, and having been convicted it is perfectly reasonable to describe her as a murderer in Wikivoice? I might understand it more if there were massive and consistent doubts about her conviction, but there isn't any any such wider doubts.
What I also think is quite improper is that the whole debate was started when the already blocked Richard Gill apparently appeared again(!) to evade his block and suggest the whole intro be changed to claim she is just an "alleged" killer: [2] - EXACTLY the same wording he'd suspiciously been asking for on his own Twitter account!: [3]. So basically a blocked advocacy editor has got some people persuaded that we shouldn't call her a killer. It really just smacks of pro-Letby editorialising to not allow her to be referred to as a killer, surely that is the norm on Wikipedia, to refer to serial killers like Fred West, Steve Wright, Peter Sutcliffe and John Duffy and David Mulcahy as serial killers? 213.31.104.198 ( talk) 10:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy
New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall. I come to ask you to reconsider some wording you used in your close of Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Status_of_G5. Specifically, you seem to think the RfC is around ArbCom powers. While that was certainly discussed in the RfC, I think it misstates the policy issue at hand and does not accurately represent the consensus reached (even while your topline summary is, undoubtedly, correct). Namely WP:ARBECR is applied by both ArbCom and and the community. You do not address the community aspect at all and on the ArbCom aspect and it is not clear to me, under WP:ARBPOL and WP:CONEXEMPT that the community could have ruled ArbCom can't allow deletion under ARBECR. But it most definitely could have ruled that it did not apply to community general sanctions. So it's nice the community is OK with ArbCom exercising that power - regardless of whether it could have overruled ArbCom or not - but does nothing to clarify what happens under community authorized general sanctions which is what the RfC question focused on. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Nice job at the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel RfC close. I looked at it the other day and came to the same conclusion as you, but didn't want to deal with the inevitable deluge of complaints and appeals that would follow. So I applaud your willingness to wade into that! Chetsford ( talk) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall! Re your comment here, my understanding is that the general standard used in close reviews is whether the close should be endorsed as a "reasonable summation of the discussion" or overturned as an unreasonable reading, not whether participants would have personally closed the discussion exactly as the closer did. In this case, it doesn't really matter, as the practical outcome between no consensus and a weak consensus for the status quo is basically the same. But in the future, I think it'd be good for us to get in the habit of !voting based on the "reasonable reading" standard, since a world in which everyone uses the "how I would've done it" standard is one in which AN basically becomes an opportunity for anyone who dislikes a close to ask a different parent about it, consuming a lot of editorial resources. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, noting that I copied an edit summary of yours that I found funny. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( main talk) 12:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I really appreciate your closure at the Battle of Bakhmut RfC. I really liked your argument about future historians/interim decisions and suggestion to talk about both scopes in different articles (which do indeed kinda exist). However, I found your conclusion about the consensus on the result of the battle (which was a secondary topic/not essence of the RfC) a bit questionable. I would like to know your thoughts on some of the arguments I list below and would like to know how we should proceed then:
Best regards. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for recent improvements. If you have thoughts about name and scope please could you comment at Talk:Forestry in the United Kingdom#Name and scope of the article? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello! For clarification's sake: Is there a consensus to implement the proposed sentence, or simply a consensus to mention the Accords in some way? The question on the surface was about the sentence but I think what was truly agreed upon was to mention the Accords. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hope this clarifies!— S Marshall T/ C 17:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)The community's decision is to support the principle of mentioning the Abraham Accords, not to endorse the specific wording given in the RfC question. That wording can still be edited in the normal way.
arguments drifted away from 'let's include this specific wording' to 'let's include a mention of the Accords'- sure, the discussion meandered, as discussions tend to do. Though I don't yet know why we would use some hypothetical alternate wording, with no preference given to the wording that just got consensus. I'm not asking them to amend the close. I'm asking them to clarify their reasoning for (apparently) discounting the wording of the RFC as-proposed. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 22:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to close the discussion at
Talk:Race and intelligence#Removal of Quillette quote, but would you agree that your rationale –– i.e. about who is "right" rather than what the consensus is –– looks a bit like a supervote? As
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome reminds us: Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate.
(My emphasis added of course.)
I can imagine de-weighting arguments for exclude on the basis that, as you state, Talk pages are unindexed and don't draw attention to sites mentioned on them
if that were in fact something that exclude voters had argued. But I do not see any such arguments. Instead it seems that you are introducing a novel rationale for inclusion there, which balances out the reasons for exclusion which you acknowledge. If you'd like me to clarify my own argument, or unpack what I think others are arguing, I'd be happy to do so.
You also state Quillette's article is relevant and slightly amusing, and there should be a pointer to it from this talk page,
which seems to me like another argument based on your own view rather than an assessment of the consensus of others.
As a final note, I will say that I don't quite understand the advice you give about including the Quillette article in its own separate header. It seems to me that with the contention this conversation has created, any closing instructions which are not 100% clear just invite Round 2 of an endless squabble. I would certainly expect to be reverted if I tried to carry this out myself.
Please understand that I very much welcome your collaboration in this discussion. And I'm only posting here to invite a conversation with you –– possibly some reflection on the wording of your close and the instructions that are tied to it –– rather than directly requesting you to revert. But if you'd prefer to simply revert and leave this close to someone else, I would understand that too.
Thanks again for giving this your attention. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
own views about what action or outcome is most appropriaterather than an evaluation of what the discussants determined themselves. This is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome. Note that it says this in a couple other ways as well, including:
The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate.See also where it says
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.In my view when one looks at "which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" the consensus for exclusion is quite clear.2) Your instructions (
Editors are at liberty to remove it from {{Press}} and pop it in somewhere else near the top of the page, perhaps wrapped in {{small}}, and perhaps adding whatever context is appropriate, at editorial discretion.) do not appear to me to be clear enough to be actionable without getting us bogged down in a second acrimonious debate. After all, it was our differing understandings of what "common sense" dictated which got us into this mess to begin with. Given how deeply people care about a) templates and b) getting the race & intelligence topic area right, we really do need a clearer outcome.Another way to put this: the choices really are (as I see it) mutually exclusive. People arguing for inclusion did so largely because they cared, on principle, about the {{ Press}} header being used in the way they deemed correct, while those arguing for exclusion did so largely on the basis that it is inappropriate to include this piece in the header at all. So an outcome that calls for it to be placed in some alternative but unspecified place in the header really addresses few-to-none of the concerns raised in the discussion.Does this make sense? Generalrelative ( talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
decide the issueas you see fit.I'll give some thought to next steps, that is, whether to proceed to a formal closure review at AN (on the basis that I don't think this closure was
a reasonable summation of the discussion) or to let the matter drop. If someone can figure out a way to actualize your instructions which is amenable to both sides, that would certainly help. But I am one of those people who edit the article frequently, and I can't see it. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 00:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk pages are unindexedis incorrect. Article talk pages are generally indexed: see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing and this VPR discussion about deindexing them, which resulted in no consensus. This can easily be verified by googling the talk page title with quotes. Malerisch ( talk) 04:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Fucken nice close at the latest Donald Trump RfC. Honestly since nothing here is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr Trump, and since it'll all shake out in the long term, it must take a bit of patience not to close with something like "Not This Shit Again" lol, instead you took the time and thought to make a fine, transparent, and well described close. Good on you mate. Herostratus ( talk) 18:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
Howdy. Recommend you keep an eye on the Rene Levesque page. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your close. While I would not question the ultimate result, I am concerned with the commentary after "consensus for Option D", which would appear to indicate that you may not be familiar with MOS:MIL on infoboxes. It gives specific guidance regarding the result parameter and gives voice to the template documentation regarding the infobox result. It has been cited in the discussion and some less direct mentions. In a nutshell, the result is generally discussed in a section on the aftermath (often called aftermath). In that, prose will present various views as reflected in sources. A closure for option D - Russian victory - see §Aftermath means that this is literally what is placed in the infobox without further qualification, in accordance with the guidance. The only latitude is in the actual name of the section in the body of the article that the reader is directed to for a discussion about the result - ie the appropriate section is usually called Aftermath but may sometimes be given a different name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the info box eventually say ...with six options given. The close states:
... they reach a consensus for Option D.Consequently, the consensus is telling us to populate the result parameter accordingly - ie Russian victory - see §Aftermath. This is perfectly in accordance with the guidance given at MOS:MIL and the template documentation, where the aftermath section would explain the nuance attached to calling it a Russian victory. There is no disagreement with the guidance in this instance. I am unclear though, as to the point being made that then follows in the close text, since it appears to be arguing against the consensus and the discussion, and that the result parameter should say something else? Consequently, the additional commentary appears to confuse, rather than clarify matters. As an aside, I am curious as to whether you have read the appropriate part of MOS:MIL and the templates documentation regarding the result parameter. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for sticking your neck out and closing the RfC. I think your objectivity, in spite of clear personal arguably partisan views (which I share by the way) is admirable, and I wish some other editors could put the pursuit of truth above their own personal wishful thinking.
Even the most partisan of western journalists, in the most trusted sources, group Bakhmut and Avdiivka together, when talking about Russian "victory":
Of course, if I was engaged in the conversation directly myself, I would be told that I'm cherry picking, and suffer personal attack as a new editor. Perhaps this expression of opinion will be attacked as being WP:SOAPBOX. Still, the point stands that there is consensus amongst reputable journalists writing in the most trusted sources, as well as amongst editors who are committed to upholding truth as a higher ideal than allowing their desire for a different reality to warp their judgement.
To make this abundantly clear: I do not celebrate any Russian victory, nor do I support Russia in any way. However, I again applaud your intervention in closing the RfC, as a victory for truth, in the context of "what the clear majority of responsible Wikipedians think" as you said in another comment. ManicGrant ( talk) 09:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
References
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your immense effort in closing discussions, thank you S Marshall. You are valued. starship .paint ( RUN) 13:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
Would this your closing cover both pages Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War? I understand this is basically the same war. Thank you. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I saw your close at the Tim Hunt RFC, and while I think 99% of it is good I have one quibble with it. Namely: why answer WCM's objection separately? They brought it up both before and during the RFC and it never received much support. The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that WP:PROPORTION isn't terribly relevant here because there's quite a lot of sources about the controversy, enough for this whole long thing over at online shaming.
I don't think this is a huge deal since nobody was advocating for a controversy section that was literally longer than the rest of the article. But I would like to be able to expand that section significantly without worrying about an RFC "consensus" composed of one editor. Loki ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Sir can't it be just allowed to create an article for Priyanka Choudhary and then listing it to AFD? Please? Because we have done everything we could and made an ideal wiki page article for Ms. Choudhary. You would have already noticed that our draft has much better coverage than the present article of Isha Malviya and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia. So please allow us to create a new article then please nominate it for deletion. We promise that we will accept whatever result comes out in the AFD? 117.209.242.154 ( talk) 05:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
As per your commentary elsewhere, I feel welcomed to say fucking hello. 166.196.61.95 ( talk) 05:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't SmokeyJoe who noted that the nominator for Derek was a sockpuppeteer. I noted that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for saying "I'm envisaging a happy world" in a discussion related to infoboxes, - it's so refreshing! Rather than searching for guidance in closing RfCs, perhaps it might be worthwhile to investigate the years 2016 to 2018, in which - to my knowledge - we didn't have any. That was a happy world ;) - Bach music for Easter! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (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 until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey I was pretty frustrated to see NoonIcarus, who has been a long-term frustration on articles related to Latin American politics seeming to be escaping sanction, again, via textwall arguments nobody wanted to read. In that heated state I misinterpreted your actions and let my emotions get the better of me. I retracted the comment some time ago at the arbcom request but I did also feel it'd be appropriate to say sorry to you for that. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places)? - I was undecided so show three versions ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Today I see Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
birthday music to listen to today (see my talk) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:17, 23 April 2024 (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/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/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 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm still short of time and can't provide "evidence", but I wanted to discuss
this here where you said "Of the FV diffs, diffs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 happened because WMrapids didn't."
I don't think this is accurate.
Below, I'll go through each real quick:
"point[ing] to a place that directly supports what I've written", especially since I have the newspaper, author, URL, title and date in my citation.
"no mention of children"was inaccurate in the ANI.
If you can provide some feedback on how in my citations for 3, 5, 7 and 8 didn't "point to a place that directly supports what I've written"
, I'd be appreciative. Also, if there were any concerns about NoonIcarus and
access to sources, we had
a discussion about that twice with them. So if source access were truly the issue, I'd be more understanding, but that just isn't the case.
Sorry to blow up your talk page, but I didn't have the time to throw all of this into a full "evidence" section and wanted to have some clarification. Thanks, -- WMrapids ( talk) 12:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
"reportó que había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno" ("he reported that there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen."). Like I said in the ANI, NoonIcarus can use web archives well when they want to, but they didn't want to do it in this case. Thanks, WMrapids ( talk) 06:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
This is S Marshall's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
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 ∞ |
In the close at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#RFC on WikiProject Banner shell redesign, you noted "The new version should remain in use but should be de-coloured for the time being, unless and until we reach consensus on fully accessible colour choices":
Thanks! — CX Zoom[he/him] ( let's talk • { C• X}) 17:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Cheers for sticking your neck out on my contentious request! I appreciate the time and effort.
You raised some excellent points which none of us in the discussion had considered. I'm not yet decided on whether it's worth trying to get consensus now in light of those policies in a new discussion, but will consider it over the next couple of days. Riposte97 ( talk) 02:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent close. Since you directed part of your close to my good faith effort to find a consensus where you wrote A user has tried to extend this discussion, and I'm afraid that's not how RfCs work.
Let me simply point out what
WP:RFC actually says...
An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be.
Conversely, whenever additional comments are still wanted after 30 days, someone should delay Legobot's automatic action.
It's difficult to argue that an 18-13 vote is apparent that a consensus won't be reached if there's additional comment. In fact, there were eight comments after I extended the RFC. I agree that Volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, and RfCs are expensive
which is why getting a consensus on this question is useful because there's been about 15 infobox RFCs over the last 14 months. Almost all of those discussions ended in consensus with wider input than just the infobox regulars.
I'm not going to challenge the close because it's close enough to be closed in either direction, but I would ask for you to remove the comment directed towards my good faith effort to find a long term consensus since it's a perfectly reasonable way to find consensus per WP:RFC. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 12:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
story · music |
---|
Hevenu shalom aleichem is my story today. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Did you read Brian's essay? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
For your consistently calm, reasoned, and insightful takes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:56, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
story · music |
---|
Another cheerful story, parts of my life, - just sad that one of the players is already dead. I remember having picked him up at the airport and entertained for the evening, - we took turns for the week. Actually he probably entertained me more than I him. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I hope this became clearer after the fact ? Donepezil licensing is mentioned earlier under general management, and then its off-label use (unlicensed) is listed later under each symptom. I can't think of a way to combine those into the same section, since one is general, the other by symptom. I'm sorry if you are having to learn about its use for someone you care about, and hope you found the article helpful. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, do you have an opinion on the question I raised at Talk:Rupperswil murder case#Parole or not. Unfortunately I don't know anyone who is an expert on Swiss criminal law. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@
S Marshall: Hi there and merry Christmas! I'm just messaging as, quite a while ago now, you were party to the discussion about the COI editor
Richard D. Gill who was reported on ANI for advocacy in trying to portray
Lucy Letby as wrongfully convicted:
[1]. As you absolutely correctly said at the time: Richard, the way we determine whether someone is guilty is in court. Lucy Letby is guilty of the most unimaginably horrific crimes and we know that's true because a jury has reached a verdict after an evidence-based trial. We can and should say so in Wikipedia's voice. I can see that you have doubts, but Wikipedia is not a place to contradict the verdict of the court as reported in mainstream media.
But now some editors want to replace the first line that says "British serial killer and former neonatal nurse" to "is a British former neonatal nurse, convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others". So basically, they want to get rid of her being called a serial killer, on various grounds including "I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer". But surely, the place we decide where someone is guilty of a crime is in court, and having been convicted it is perfectly reasonable to describe her as a murderer in Wikivoice? I might understand it more if there were massive and consistent doubts about her conviction, but there isn't any any such wider doubts.
What I also think is quite improper is that the whole debate was started when the already blocked Richard Gill apparently appeared again(!) to evade his block and suggest the whole intro be changed to claim she is just an "alleged" killer: [2] - EXACTLY the same wording he'd suspiciously been asking for on his own Twitter account!: [3]. So basically a blocked advocacy editor has got some people persuaded that we shouldn't call her a killer. It really just smacks of pro-Letby editorialising to not allow her to be referred to as a killer, surely that is the norm on Wikipedia, to refer to serial killers like Fred West, Steve Wright, Peter Sutcliffe and John Duffy and David Mulcahy as serial killers? 213.31.104.198 ( talk) 10:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy
New Year!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{
subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall. I come to ask you to reconsider some wording you used in your close of Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#RfC:_Status_of_G5. Specifically, you seem to think the RfC is around ArbCom powers. While that was certainly discussed in the RfC, I think it misstates the policy issue at hand and does not accurately represent the consensus reached (even while your topline summary is, undoubtedly, correct). Namely WP:ARBECR is applied by both ArbCom and and the community. You do not address the community aspect at all and on the ArbCom aspect and it is not clear to me, under WP:ARBPOL and WP:CONEXEMPT that the community could have ruled ArbCom can't allow deletion under ARBECR. But it most definitely could have ruled that it did not apply to community general sanctions. So it's nice the community is OK with ArbCom exercising that power - regardless of whether it could have overruled ArbCom or not - but does nothing to clarify what happens under community authorized general sanctions which is what the RfC question focused on. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Nice job at the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel RfC close. I looked at it the other day and came to the same conclusion as you, but didn't want to deal with the inevitable deluge of complaints and appeals that would follow. So I applaud your willingness to wade into that! Chetsford ( talk) 01:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi S Marshall! Re your comment here, my understanding is that the general standard used in close reviews is whether the close should be endorsed as a "reasonable summation of the discussion" or overturned as an unreasonable reading, not whether participants would have personally closed the discussion exactly as the closer did. In this case, it doesn't really matter, as the practical outcome between no consensus and a weak consensus for the status quo is basically the same. But in the future, I think it'd be good for us to get in the habit of !voting based on the "reasonable reading" standard, since a world in which everyone uses the "how I would've done it" standard is one in which AN basically becomes an opportunity for anyone who dislikes a close to ask a different parent about it, consuming a lot of editorial resources. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Greetings, noting that I copied an edit summary of yours that I found funny. JoJo Eumerus mobile ( main talk) 12:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. I really appreciate your closure at the Battle of Bakhmut RfC. I really liked your argument about future historians/interim decisions and suggestion to talk about both scopes in different articles (which do indeed kinda exist). However, I found your conclusion about the consensus on the result of the battle (which was a secondary topic/not essence of the RfC) a bit questionable. I would like to know your thoughts on some of the arguments I list below and would like to know how we should proceed then:
Best regards. Alexis Coutinho ( talk) 19:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for recent improvements. If you have thoughts about name and scope please could you comment at Talk:Forestry in the United Kingdom#Name and scope of the article? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello! For clarification's sake: Is there a consensus to implement the proposed sentence, or simply a consensus to mention the Accords in some way? The question on the surface was about the sentence but I think what was truly agreed upon was to mention the Accords. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 15:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hope this clarifies!— S Marshall T/ C 17:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)The community's decision is to support the principle of mentioning the Abraham Accords, not to endorse the specific wording given in the RfC question. That wording can still be edited in the normal way.
arguments drifted away from 'let's include this specific wording' to 'let's include a mention of the Accords'- sure, the discussion meandered, as discussions tend to do. Though I don't yet know why we would use some hypothetical alternate wording, with no preference given to the wording that just got consensus. I'm not asking them to amend the close. I'm asking them to clarify their reasoning for (apparently) discounting the wording of the RFC as-proposed. PhotogenicScientist ( talk) 22:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to close the discussion at
Talk:Race and intelligence#Removal of Quillette quote, but would you agree that your rationale –– i.e. about who is "right" rather than what the consensus is –– looks a bit like a supervote? As
Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome reminds us: Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate.
(My emphasis added of course.)
I can imagine de-weighting arguments for exclude on the basis that, as you state, Talk pages are unindexed and don't draw attention to sites mentioned on them
if that were in fact something that exclude voters had argued. But I do not see any such arguments. Instead it seems that you are introducing a novel rationale for inclusion there, which balances out the reasons for exclusion which you acknowledge. If you'd like me to clarify my own argument, or unpack what I think others are arguing, I'd be happy to do so.
You also state Quillette's article is relevant and slightly amusing, and there should be a pointer to it from this talk page,
which seems to me like another argument based on your own view rather than an assessment of the consensus of others.
As a final note, I will say that I don't quite understand the advice you give about including the Quillette article in its own separate header. It seems to me that with the contention this conversation has created, any closing instructions which are not 100% clear just invite Round 2 of an endless squabble. I would certainly expect to be reverted if I tried to carry this out myself.
Please understand that I very much welcome your collaboration in this discussion. And I'm only posting here to invite a conversation with you –– possibly some reflection on the wording of your close and the instructions that are tied to it –– rather than directly requesting you to revert. But if you'd prefer to simply revert and leave this close to someone else, I would understand that too.
Thanks again for giving this your attention. Generalrelative ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
own views about what action or outcome is most appropriaterather than an evaluation of what the discussants determined themselves. This is expressly forbidden by Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome. Note that it says this in a couple other ways as well, including:
The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate.See also where it says
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.In my view when one looks at "which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" the consensus for exclusion is quite clear.2) Your instructions (
Editors are at liberty to remove it from {{Press}} and pop it in somewhere else near the top of the page, perhaps wrapped in {{small}}, and perhaps adding whatever context is appropriate, at editorial discretion.) do not appear to me to be clear enough to be actionable without getting us bogged down in a second acrimonious debate. After all, it was our differing understandings of what "common sense" dictated which got us into this mess to begin with. Given how deeply people care about a) templates and b) getting the race & intelligence topic area right, we really do need a clearer outcome.Another way to put this: the choices really are (as I see it) mutually exclusive. People arguing for inclusion did so largely because they cared, on principle, about the {{ Press}} header being used in the way they deemed correct, while those arguing for exclusion did so largely on the basis that it is inappropriate to include this piece in the header at all. So an outcome that calls for it to be placed in some alternative but unspecified place in the header really addresses few-to-none of the concerns raised in the discussion.Does this make sense? Generalrelative ( talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
decide the issueas you see fit.I'll give some thought to next steps, that is, whether to proceed to a formal closure review at AN (on the basis that I don't think this closure was
a reasonable summation of the discussion) or to let the matter drop. If someone can figure out a way to actualize your instructions which is amenable to both sides, that would certainly help. But I am one of those people who edit the article frequently, and I can't see it. Cheers, Generalrelative ( talk) 00:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk pages are unindexedis incorrect. Article talk pages are generally indexed: see Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing and this VPR discussion about deindexing them, which resulted in no consensus. This can easily be verified by googling the talk page title with quotes. Malerisch ( talk) 04:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Fucken nice close at the latest Donald Trump RfC. Honestly since nothing here is going to change anyone's opinion of Mr Trump, and since it'll all shake out in the long term, it must take a bit of patience not to close with something like "Not This Shit Again" lol, instead you took the time and thought to make a fine, transparent, and well described close. Good on you mate. Herostratus ( talk) 18:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
Howdy. Recommend you keep an eye on the Rene Levesque page. GoodDay ( talk) 21:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your close. While I would not question the ultimate result, I am concerned with the commentary after "consensus for Option D", which would appear to indicate that you may not be familiar with MOS:MIL on infoboxes. It gives specific guidance regarding the result parameter and gives voice to the template documentation regarding the infobox result. It has been cited in the discussion and some less direct mentions. In a nutshell, the result is generally discussed in a section on the aftermath (often called aftermath). In that, prose will present various views as reflected in sources. A closure for option D - Russian victory - see §Aftermath means that this is literally what is placed in the infobox without further qualification, in accordance with the guidance. The only latitude is in the actual name of the section in the body of the article that the reader is directed to for a discussion about the result - ie the appropriate section is usually called Aftermath but may sometimes be given a different name. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Should the info box eventually say ...with six options given. The close states:
... they reach a consensus for Option D.Consequently, the consensus is telling us to populate the result parameter accordingly - ie Russian victory - see §Aftermath. This is perfectly in accordance with the guidance given at MOS:MIL and the template documentation, where the aftermath section would explain the nuance attached to calling it a Russian victory. There is no disagreement with the guidance in this instance. I am unclear though, as to the point being made that then follows in the close text, since it appears to be arguing against the consensus and the discussion, and that the result parameter should say something else? Consequently, the additional commentary appears to confuse, rather than clarify matters. As an aside, I am curious as to whether you have read the appropriate part of MOS:MIL and the templates documentation regarding the result parameter. Cinderella157 ( talk) 01:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for sticking your neck out and closing the RfC. I think your objectivity, in spite of clear personal arguably partisan views (which I share by the way) is admirable, and I wish some other editors could put the pursuit of truth above their own personal wishful thinking.
Even the most partisan of western journalists, in the most trusted sources, group Bakhmut and Avdiivka together, when talking about Russian "victory":
Of course, if I was engaged in the conversation directly myself, I would be told that I'm cherry picking, and suffer personal attack as a new editor. Perhaps this expression of opinion will be attacked as being WP:SOAPBOX. Still, the point stands that there is consensus amongst reputable journalists writing in the most trusted sources, as well as amongst editors who are committed to upholding truth as a higher ideal than allowing their desire for a different reality to warp their judgement.
To make this abundantly clear: I do not celebrate any Russian victory, nor do I support Russia in any way. However, I again applaud your intervention in closing the RfC, as a victory for truth, in the context of "what the clear majority of responsible Wikipedians think" as you said in another comment. ManicGrant ( talk) 09:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
References
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
For your immense effort in closing discussions, thank you S Marshall. You are valued. starship .paint ( RUN) 13:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) |
Would this your closing cover both pages Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War? I understand this is basically the same war. Thank you. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I saw your close at the Tim Hunt RFC, and while I think 99% of it is good I have one quibble with it. Namely: why answer WCM's objection separately? They brought it up both before and during the RFC and it never received much support. The view of myself, and I assume a lot of participants, is that WP:PROPORTION isn't terribly relevant here because there's quite a lot of sources about the controversy, enough for this whole long thing over at online shaming.
I don't think this is a huge deal since nobody was advocating for a controversy section that was literally longer than the rest of the article. But I would like to be able to expand that section significantly without worrying about an RFC "consensus" composed of one editor. Loki ( talk) 15:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Sir can't it be just allowed to create an article for Priyanka Choudhary and then listing it to AFD? Please? Because we have done everything we could and made an ideal wiki page article for Ms. Choudhary. You would have already noticed that our draft has much better coverage than the present article of Isha Malviya and Nimrit Kaur Ahluwalia. So please allow us to create a new article then please nominate it for deletion. We promise that we will accept whatever result comes out in the AFD? 117.209.242.154 ( talk) 05:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
As per your commentary elsewhere, I feel welcomed to say fucking hello. 166.196.61.95 ( talk) 05:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It wasn't SmokeyJoe who noted that the nominator for Derek was a sockpuppeteer. I noted that. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for saying "I'm envisaging a happy world" in a discussion related to infoboxes, - it's so refreshing! Rather than searching for guidance in closing RfCs, perhaps it might be worthwhile to investigate the years 2016 to 2018, in which - to my knowledge - we didn't have any. That was a happy world ;) - Bach music for Easter! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (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 until the discussion has finished.IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hey I was pretty frustrated to see NoonIcarus, who has been a long-term frustration on articles related to Latin American politics seeming to be escaping sanction, again, via textwall arguments nobody wanted to read. In that heated state I misinterpreted your actions and let my emotions get the better of me. I retracted the comment some time ago at the arbcom request but I did also feel it'd be appropriate to say sorry to you for that. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
story · music · places |
---|
I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed), and I also made it my story. How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (look up places)? - I was undecided so show three versions ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Today I see Marian Anderson as my top story (by NBC, 1939), and below (on my talk) three people with raised arms, - and the place is the cherry blossom in Frauenstein. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
plum tree blossom for Kalevi Kiviniemi in the snow - see my talk -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
birthday music to listen to today (see my talk) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:17, 23 April 2024 (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/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/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 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm still short of time and can't provide "evidence", but I wanted to discuss
this here where you said "Of the FV diffs, diffs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 happened because WMrapids didn't."
I don't think this is accurate.
Below, I'll go through each real quick:
"point[ing] to a place that directly supports what I've written", especially since I have the newspaper, author, URL, title and date in my citation.
"no mention of children"was inaccurate in the ANI.
If you can provide some feedback on how in my citations for 3, 5, 7 and 8 didn't "point to a place that directly supports what I've written"
, I'd be appreciative. Also, if there were any concerns about NoonIcarus and
access to sources, we had
a discussion about that twice with them. So if source access were truly the issue, I'd be more understanding, but that just isn't the case.
Sorry to blow up your talk page, but I didn't have the time to throw all of this into a full "evidence" section and wanted to have some clarification. Thanks, -- WMrapids ( talk) 12:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
"reportó que había 89 niños dentro de la sede, de los cuales 3 necesitaron asistencia con oxígeno" ("he reported that there were 89 children inside the headquarters, of which 3 needed assistance with oxygen."). Like I said in the ANI, NoonIcarus can use web archives well when they want to, but they didn't want to do it in this case. Thanks, WMrapids ( talk) 06:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)