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 ∞

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For exceptional guidance towards a less-experienced Wikipedia editor, and for becoming a de-factor mentor; you have my eternal thanks! Ks64q2 ( talk) 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you, Ks64q2.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Noticing your listing of Linguistatlarge's nomination, per the standard procedure, you might want to remove the listing from the main RFA page. Nominations are normally not listed until the candidate has formally accepted the nomination and has completed answering the questions. Someguy1221 ( talk) 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, would you elaborate your nomination comment? That is too short to introduce the candidate.-- Caspian blue 22:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a salesman or a politician.  :-) Succinct is good.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Please could someone who understands image permissions look at the image on the German wikipedia on de:Esther von Kirchbach and, if appropriate, put it on the Wikimedia Commons site so that it appears in the article I've just translated here?

I notice the other commemorative stamps from the Women in German history series are all already on Wikimedia Commons, so I wonder if there's some specific reason why this one isn't. Thanks!

Hi, apologies for the delayed response; I'm not an expert in image copyright, but I'll see if I can poke someone who is, and ask them to look in here. I'll 'tn' the helpme whilst doing that, hope this is OK. --  Chzz   ►  15:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Chzz!— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: some kind users from German Wikipedia are now helping to answer, and should respond here soon. --  Chzz   ►  16:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've been told that, "in Germany there is no fair Use. So if an image is copyrighted you are not allowed to copy it". In this case, it should be OK to move the image to commons, as it's PD, with the appropriate template - which is this one.

I hope this answers; if I can assist further, please let me know (on my talk page). --  Chzz   ►  16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I agree it's fiddly to move to commons - as are most things to do with images and permissions. I've got myself a unified login, so what I now do is, upload all images to commons, unless it's a 'fair use' (in which case you can't). --  Chzz   ►  18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey,

What's your line of thinking RE Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tea party (protest)? Ottre 16:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiya

I think we're looking at a "keep" outcome of some kind, and the only question to decide is which flavour of "keep" is most appropriate.

I feel happier with a "merge" than an outright "keep" because I think this is essentially about the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan. I don't think it's possible or helpful to separate this from the plan itself; I think there's a risk of POV-forking by separating the two issues (though nobody's POV-forking at the moment).— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodeo in the United States is just one of several actions taken by Montanabw to interfere with Buttermilk1950, all appearing to stem from ownership on Montanabw's part. Would you endorse an RFC/User about Montanabw's behavior? -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Before I answer that, has this been to mediation, WQA, and/or obtained a third opinion?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To cope with Montanabw's ownership, I took Chaps to formal mediation, but I don't think mediation is useful for user conduct problems as such. WQA is not for user conduct problems of long standing. I don't know anything about 3rd opinions. I do know Montanabw has been warned many times about ownership. An old example is here. -- Una Smith ( talk) 02:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, those links took me to a great deal more information. I agree that Montanabw seems to have a history of being quite passionate about things, and I found the diff you posted on Jenuk1985's talk page particularly surprising. Having said that, I can sympathise with the feelings of a user who has worked hard on certain material and then comes back to find radical alterations have been made.

I'm not involved in this, and I really don't want to be. I've had no interactions with Montanabw or Buttermilk. But I'm prepared to comment at a RFC/User on the remarks made in that AfD.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 08:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The views of uninvolved parties are important. I have filed an AN/I re Montanabw's latest remarks on Talk:Rodeo, telling Buttermilk1950 to "go play" elsewhere. -- Una Smith ( talk) 04:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll go and look.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 07:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed in the AfD discussion on the Show-Me Institute article, you raised a question concerning the article on the group's co-founder, Rex Sinquefield. I believe that same question should apply to the article on the group's vice president, Jason Hannasch, which is why I have nominated the article on Hannasch for deletion. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this matter on the relevant AfD discussion page. -- TommyBoy ( talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up!— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory, shouldn't there be a mention on Talk:List of wars between democracies that it survived an AfD? Kingturtle ( talk) 14:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought about that but actually I don't know if it did "survive" AfD. My reading of the AfD was that we agreed to keep the article provided it had a different name and different content, which is a bit far from "surviving". I also didn't want to make a remark that might prejudice TreasuryTag's ability to raise a future AfD against the article.

Do you feel I should make that mention? Frankly, I'd be glad of any guidance.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(later) I've taken a stab at it, but I remain very open to guidance on this.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the article gives the wrong name to the RICS four times - it is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors not Institute, this article covers only one very small aspect of what chartered surveyors do in the UK. It describes what a valuer does but makes no mention of Chartered Surveyors working in any of the following specialised fields all of whom are chartered surveyors:

• Building Surveying - surveyors who examine the condition of buildings
• Quantity Surveying - surveyors specialising in construction cost estimating and management
• Mineral Surveying - surveyors specialising in mining
• Geomatics (Land Surveying) - surveyors specialising in the measurement of land and making of maps
• General Practice - Surveyors specialising in the sale, purchase, management and valuation of buildings - amongst which valuers are usually included
• Rural Practice - surveyors specialising in farming and rural businesses
• Auctioneering - surveyors specialising in auctions
• Project Management - surveyors specialising in construction management
• Party Wall Surveying - surveyors specialising in the negotiation and settlement of agreements between property owners who share a common boundary
• and others - see the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors article

I recommend that the relevant sections of the article is merged into the Real Estate Valuation article. -- DavidCane ( talk) 14:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my booboo on what RICS stands for, and thanks as well for taking the time to write me a detailed message instead of simply sticking a bunch of vague templates on the article. It's nice to find that.

I agree there's a great deal more to cover before it becomes a complete treatment of what chartered surveyors do. In fairness, I only began the article yesterday, and there is no deadline for perfecting it.

Real estate appraisal is an international perspective on a specialist aspect of what chartered surveyors do, and if I merged a reasonably complete treatment of the profession of chartered surveyor in the UK into it, then I think Real estate appraisal would be (a) much too long and (b) have a disproportionate emphasis on Great Britain.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're planning on expanding the article. I suggest that you change the introduction section to indicate the range of activities that Chartered Surveyors carry out and put in headings for these so that it is clear the article has more work to follow. However, as all chartered surveyors are, by definition, members of the RICS, the most appropriate place for a detailed explanation would seem to be at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors article. Also bear in mind that the there are already articles for Chartered Surveyor and Quantity surveyor.-- DavidCane ( talk) 17:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

And indeed I did that this morning.

Those other articles are at a different level of abstraction. By analogy, Wikipedia quite properly has articles for Society of Automotive Engineers, Automotive design and Automotive industry (as well as Road transport, Automobile, and right down to BMW 7 series.)— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your taking time to start this entry. I am the one who wrote the UK sections in Real estate appraisal and I am not even British and have never visited the UK! (I am an Israeli). Indeed, I was perplexed that such an esteemed profession as that of UK chartered surveyors had not produced any contributors to Wikipedia articles on the subject of their profession, especially valuers.

I hope you and others continue expanding the entry. I am curious to know more, mostly about valuers. May I ask you some questions -- and also Mr Cane if he is reading this: are valuers always considered 'General Practice Surveyors'? Do they not sport an RICS faculty of their own? What of commercial property valuers? How are the different practice areas ranked in terms of prestige? Also, how does one become a surveyor in any specific practice area? Am I right to surmise that post-graduate courses, such as those of The College of Estate Management, are generalised, and that the professionalisation into different practice areas only begins during future surveyors' training periods?

Who are the majority of project managers in the UK? Are they QSs, building surveyors, or civil engineers? Finally, do land surveyors not object that the original term for their profession now denotes a far wider field of building and land related activities? (or has this long since been forgotten?) Tkeu ( talk) 20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks, Tkeu.—Estate agents often value property in the UK, but they aren't liable for their valuations. Chartered surveyors are liable, hence mortgage companies insist on using them. Estate agents have a professional body called the NAEA, though not all agents are members. In my experience project managers are generally main contracting firms, but they tend to rely on advice from surveyors and accountants. The specific employee of the main contractor who is managing the project may be but is not always a QS.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, S Marshall. Tkeu ( talk) 03:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Girls Media. NOINDEX is disabled by the devs in the articlespace, so adding it to an article does nothing. Just a heads up. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Damn. Thanks, MBisanz—looks like the only antidote to promotional articles is to nowiki out the links.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you participated in a deletion review for the article Sheree Silver not to long ago, and I've been asking the participants if they're interested in commenting because the article recently went to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination). If you get a chance, feel free. Spring12 ( talk) 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't go much for thankspam, but I just wanted to drop in and give you a big and belated thanks for nominating me for adminship. I will do my best to use the tools in a trustworthy manner. Be sure to troutslap me if you see any inappropriate actions on my part. Thanks again, —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  15:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I can think of nobody more deserving of the tools.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nico McLane

For what it's worth, there's a class="xfd-closed" class in the HTML generated by {{ subst:afd top}}, that can be used, by modifying one's chosen style sheet, to collapse closed discussions. There's no need for extra manual collapse markup. Uncle G ( talk) 18:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's helpful. Thank you.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You might take a look at this: Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools#vfd NavBar. —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  22:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Linguist, but either that script doesn't work or else I'm too stupid to make it work.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 07:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to wish everyone a happy easter too! Goldblattster ( talk) 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome S Marshall!

Thank you for voting.

If you wish, you may retain the following receipt as evidence of your vote:

SPID:       1573
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
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=UX/N
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----

Thanks for clearing it up, I'll stick to tagging as vandalism then. Cheers! Nicktfx ( talk) 22:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, - down load ׀ sign! 01:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my RFA was closed today with a final tally of 75 ½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns. Special thanks go to Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)