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 ∞ |
I really think that your comment at the Taitz nomination is incredibly unhelpful and misrepresents the situation - a situation I went to some lengths to describe. The previous nomination was taken to DRV, and the consensus at DRV was to relist. That didn't happen, in any meaningful sense, until I relisted. My nomination is therefore IMPLEMENTING the consensus of DRV, so if you want to talk about consensus, you really ought to notice that fact. Respectfully, I think you should recognize this and modify your comment at the AFD.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha, thanks! But who knows...maybe they just didn't record it, or on a technology that we can no longer access. What if the entirety of human knowledge were on Zip disks? It would all be lost for good.
How are you doing? Working on anything exciting? (I'll be glad to send you a copy of the Travers CD (on a 5¼-inch DD, of course)--my three-year old and I have already been dancing to it, and when I say "Boom Boom" she says "Out Go the Lights.") Drmies ( talk) 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's an impressive piece of work! Bazj ( talk) 05:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, with regards to the peer review, are you intending to take the article to FAC at some point down the line or just looking for general comments to improve the article? Nev1 ( talk) 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That's down to my inexperience with big articles, I think. I kept seeing the warning that says "this page is too long for some browsers" and it was scaring me, so I kept the paragraphs I added later quite short in an attempt to keep the character count down.
How much more can I get away with adding?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
However, it can't possibly fall within the scope of this article. It has to be separate. We're talking about another dozen centuries of material on top of the dozen I've already covered; and I'm told I need to expand the existing article, which is huge as it is.
The article I've written is the History of Hertfordshire, and that's what it's about. I'll tell you about the Catuvellauni, Beech Bottom Dyke, Verlamion, the Roman conquest, Verulamium, Saint Alban the first British martyr, the Anglo-Saxon migration, the establishment of the Kingdom of Mercia and the Kingdom of Essex, and the Norse invasion of England in a separate article!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for all your patience and hard work with this article. A barnstar is coming your way shortly.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Marshall, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Given your attention to other Hohenzollern-related articles, please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer ( talk) 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the best way forward is to start an AfD unpolluted by canvassing in a day or so.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Annoyingly, I shall probably have to recuse, despite my strong feeling that the said article should be kept. So you'll have gained at !vote.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings again. Can you tell me what the Wikipedia globe with a mop and red bar across it means? I have tried looking it up but get only copyright information for the image. Torontonian1 ( talk) 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're aware that the whole point of WP:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles is that it sets out best practice for characters which do not have their own articles? Jheald ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish to make a standing offer to renominate you for RFA now or at any future time you feel ready. Stifle ( talk) 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Next time I go through that process, I don't intend to fail, so I think it best if I wait another month or two. But I shall certainly take you up on that offer, with thanks.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to give these out when users have gone above and beyond the call to get it right in the face of "it" being gotten very much wrong by all else around. Unfortunately, the DRV looks to be making like the Titanic, but I appreciate your getting involved. :) - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded to S Marshall for his suggestions about making WP:Before a guideline. On behalf of wikipedians everywhere, thank you. Ikip ( talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC) |
You have duplicate votes on the RFA. Please fix the one that you don't want by putting a colon after the # symbol. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying a bit in Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Darklore_Manor_.28closed.29. It was a bit of a confusing one; I wasn't sure if DRV was the correct venue. Could you please advise further - would it be appropriate to start a further AfD immediately, or is there some suggested time to wait? Or, am I thinking about it too much - should I just revert the change-back-from-a-redirect, as that was the outcome of the AfD? Cheers, Chzz ► 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Cheers— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
However, I don't think it's a terrible disaster that this album has coverage on Wikipedia. The basic purpose of notability is to get rid of marketing spam, not content created in good faith; and I don't think it's a crime to be a fan, or to edit articles about your favourite band on Wikipedia, or to want those articles that you've worked on to be kept. The worst thing that can happen is that someone's created an article that only about three people will ever look at.
If this were a BLP, I would be taking a much more serious view of the matter, of course.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, I think it's not a productive use of time to try to delete it. AfD is expensive, in terms of number of stored revisions and in terms of editor time; but prod is cheap, and many of these fanboy articles are undefended against prod, so I think the cost-effective way to cure Wikipedia of fanboyism is to prod a dozen, or a hundred, such articles rather than focus on a single one.
Also, many excellent Wikipedians began with such articles. The editor who writes Nox Arcana today may write Judith Jesch tomorrow, if not discouraged by our processes.
So while I have a great deal of sympathy for your view, I agree with you that it's time to move on.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How to withdraw the article Dil Jan Khan from a deletion review? -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why why you removed this comment [ [6]]? Blackbirdz ( talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I know that there is one impression I got from reading Wikipedia's article on this man...hate. I just met this guy and think his heart is in the right place regardless of his mistakes, and I wanted to make a couple small objective contributions so that the article was fair, but ended up being labeled "bias" Please help, I see that you are just in your protections, and efforts to quench strife. Thank you. Quinn
I decided to give it a try, and it worked! I figured I'd take a shot in the dark and look at White Dwarf's review of the Monster Manual, and lo and behold I got a quick blurb for the poor persucted mimic and several other creatures! :) I'm going to have a look at their review of the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II to see what other creatures I can add a quick independent reference to. :) BOZ ( talk) 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Good sir, am I allowed to make a statement or answer questions raised on the deletion review I submitted? I am unclear of the protocol here and do not wish to step out of bounds.
We are currently attempting to foster better relations with Wikipedia and put up an objective series of entries rather than the propagandistic spam that was repeatedly posted on your site a year ago.
Respectfully, --
Jonnybgoode44 (
talk) 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but it looks like the article(s) are about to get railroaded. Nick-D posted urging summary deletion, and apparently immediately locked the page so no response could be made in defense of the article, other than by admins. So I'm wondering if it is going to get a fair hearing at all.
He stated, "The article made no claims to any notability (it had no sources, claim that the album had been released by a major label, etc)" - beg pardon, but there are numerous sources in the main article. And none of the other bands considered steampunk (Abney Park, Vernian Process, Unextraordinary Gentelmen, etc.) are carried by major labels yet they have pages, so I fail to see what that has to do with it. And if being on Jay Leno, being mentioned by MTV as a significant example of the genre, being mentioned by Wired magazine, et. al., aren't claims to any notability then I fail to see what criteria of notability said mod would ever find acceptable. Certainly Dr. Steel has had more public notability than a lot of other bands that currently have accepted pages on Wikipedia.
He went on to say, "...and the past campaign of deliberate spamming (which, according to the above post, is continuing, albeit in a more subtle form) is a good reason to shoot these articles on sight." Granted, there was a 'past campaign' of deliberate spamming. Nostra culpa. However, the campaign was halted about a year ago, and they even had "cleanup crews" going through Wikipedia to find and eliminate any references that were put in, a sort of anti-spam campaign. This is a fresh effort, being worked on in coordination with Doctor Steel himself (rather than some fan-based spam effort), and we are more than willing to work with Wikipedia at this point to tailor the article and make it acceptable, just as his peer's pages are accepted now. However it now pretty much looks as if no amount of tailoring will ever be enough? -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit: Nevermind, Skier Dude unlocked it again to allow me to make my case. Thanks. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 02:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just finished my epic History of Hertfordshire, and my new friend Nev1 here is helping me by pointing out all my mistakes. Fingers crossed that between him and me, we might get it to GA status...
While I'm typing, Drmies, I've found a featured article on the German Wikipedia that doesn't have an English equivalent. Now, I know you speak German, so I'm thinking maybe you and I could collaborate on translating it some time, and score a quick win on a featured article!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind offer of help. I'm genuinely honoured. I find much about Wikipedia mystifying and doubt that I can even devise proper questions. But I have enjoyed doing my single entry and am in the process of doing a second. I plan to specialize for now on Ontario art subjects. P.S. I suspect that you and I share an admiration for Professor Dawkins. Torontonian1 ( talk) 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed The God Delusion as much as most atheists would, but I think it's based on a very weird premise ("helping people to escape their faith", indeed) and I can't help thinking it makes atheists look like intolerant, smug, self-satisfied loons.
I don't think most forms of religion do any harm and it certainly doesn't hurt me if other people want to believe in God. I do have a major problem with certain extremist Christian viewpoints, such as that of Fred Phelps, but what he believes is a horrible perversion of the simple faith most Christians have.
If you're interested in atheist literature, I'd recommend Daniel Dennett's books over Dawkins' any day!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, that's a really good point. I don't ever intent a process call (AfD, whatever) to terminate discussion, just the process once it's reached its conclusion. With AfD's, however, there seems to be no particularly good way to advocate that the discussion continue even if the issue is settled. Perhaps AfD's should be transcluded onto the talk page of the affected article as a continuation point for future discussion? Idle thoughts, I suppose. And yes, I do always listen to DGG. Jclemens ( talk) 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the discussion can have value even after the issue is settled, and I think any closure of the discussion (even moving it to the article's talk page) tends to disrupt it. I think it better not to snow close things while people are still talking.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Keeps said "Oh my God (no pun intended), a user who manages to self-identify as an atheist without throwing in userboxes that ridicule others' beliefs." very relevant. Ling.Nut ( talk) 09:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
I really think that your comment at the Taitz nomination is incredibly unhelpful and misrepresents the situation - a situation I went to some lengths to describe. The previous nomination was taken to DRV, and the consensus at DRV was to relist. That didn't happen, in any meaningful sense, until I relisted. My nomination is therefore IMPLEMENTING the consensus of DRV, so if you want to talk about consensus, you really ought to notice that fact. Respectfully, I think you should recognize this and modify your comment at the AFD.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 22:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha, thanks! But who knows...maybe they just didn't record it, or on a technology that we can no longer access. What if the entirety of human knowledge were on Zip disks? It would all be lost for good.
How are you doing? Working on anything exciting? (I'll be glad to send you a copy of the Travers CD (on a 5¼-inch DD, of course)--my three-year old and I have already been dancing to it, and when I say "Boom Boom" she says "Out Go the Lights.") Drmies ( talk) 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's an impressive piece of work! Bazj ( talk) 05:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, with regards to the peer review, are you intending to take the article to FAC at some point down the line or just looking for general comments to improve the article? Nev1 ( talk) 01:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That's down to my inexperience with big articles, I think. I kept seeing the warning that says "this page is too long for some browsers" and it was scaring me, so I kept the paragraphs I added later quite short in an attempt to keep the character count down.
How much more can I get away with adding?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 02:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
However, it can't possibly fall within the scope of this article. It has to be separate. We're talking about another dozen centuries of material on top of the dozen I've already covered; and I'm told I need to expand the existing article, which is huge as it is.
The article I've written is the History of Hertfordshire, and that's what it's about. I'll tell you about the Catuvellauni, Beech Bottom Dyke, Verlamion, the Roman conquest, Verulamium, Saint Alban the first British martyr, the Anglo-Saxon migration, the establishment of the Kingdom of Mercia and the Kingdom of Essex, and the Norse invasion of England in a separate article!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much indeed for all your patience and hard work with this article. A barnstar is coming your way shortly.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Marshall, an article I recently created, Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, has been nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. Given your attention to other Hohenzollern-related articles, please take the time to weigh in and stop its deletion. Thanks again for all your wonderful contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer ( talk) 13:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the best way forward is to start an AfD unpolluted by canvassing in a day or so.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Annoyingly, I shall probably have to recuse, despite my strong feeling that the said article should be kept. So you'll have gained at !vote.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Greetings again. Can you tell me what the Wikipedia globe with a mop and red bar across it means? I have tried looking it up but get only copyright information for the image. Torontonian1 ( talk) 13:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You're aware that the whole point of WP:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles is that it sets out best practice for characters which do not have their own articles? Jheald ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I wish to make a standing offer to renominate you for RFA now or at any future time you feel ready. Stifle ( talk) 08:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Next time I go through that process, I don't intend to fail, so I think it best if I wait another month or two. But I shall certainly take you up on that offer, with thanks.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 08:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to give these out when users have gone above and beyond the call to get it right in the face of "it" being gotten very much wrong by all else around. Unfortunately, the DRV looks to be making like the Titanic, but I appreciate your getting involved. :) - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Barnstar | ||
This barnstar is awarded to S Marshall for his suggestions about making WP:Before a guideline. On behalf of wikipedians everywhere, thank you. Ikip ( talk) 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC) |
You have duplicate votes on the RFA. Please fix the one that you don't want by putting a colon after the # symbol. Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 01:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying a bit in Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Darklore_Manor_.28closed.29. It was a bit of a confusing one; I wasn't sure if DRV was the correct venue. Could you please advise further - would it be appropriate to start a further AfD immediately, or is there some suggested time to wait? Or, am I thinking about it too much - should I just revert the change-back-from-a-redirect, as that was the outcome of the AfD? Cheers, Chzz ► 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Cheers— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 19:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
However, I don't think it's a terrible disaster that this album has coverage on Wikipedia. The basic purpose of notability is to get rid of marketing spam, not content created in good faith; and I don't think it's a crime to be a fan, or to edit articles about your favourite band on Wikipedia, or to want those articles that you've worked on to be kept. The worst thing that can happen is that someone's created an article that only about three people will ever look at.
If this were a BLP, I would be taking a much more serious view of the matter, of course.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Having said that, I think it's not a productive use of time to try to delete it. AfD is expensive, in terms of number of stored revisions and in terms of editor time; but prod is cheap, and many of these fanboy articles are undefended against prod, so I think the cost-effective way to cure Wikipedia of fanboyism is to prod a dozen, or a hundred, such articles rather than focus on a single one.
Also, many excellent Wikipedians began with such articles. The editor who writes Nox Arcana today may write Judith Jesch tomorrow, if not discouraged by our processes.
So while I have a great deal of sympathy for your view, I agree with you that it's time to move on.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 12:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How to withdraw the article Dil Jan Khan from a deletion review? -- LineofWisdom ( talk) 12:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why why you removed this comment [ [6]]? Blackbirdz ( talk) 14:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I know that there is one impression I got from reading Wikipedia's article on this man...hate. I just met this guy and think his heart is in the right place regardless of his mistakes, and I wanted to make a couple small objective contributions so that the article was fair, but ended up being labeled "bias" Please help, I see that you are just in your protections, and efforts to quench strife. Thank you. Quinn
I decided to give it a try, and it worked! I figured I'd take a shot in the dark and look at White Dwarf's review of the Monster Manual, and lo and behold I got a quick blurb for the poor persucted mimic and several other creatures! :) I'm going to have a look at their review of the Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II to see what other creatures I can add a quick independent reference to. :) BOZ ( talk) 00:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Good sir, am I allowed to make a statement or answer questions raised on the deletion review I submitted? I am unclear of the protocol here and do not wish to step out of bounds.
We are currently attempting to foster better relations with Wikipedia and put up an objective series of entries rather than the propagandistic spam that was repeatedly posted on your site a year ago.
Respectfully, --
Jonnybgoode44 (
talk) 18:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Beg pardon, but it looks like the article(s) are about to get railroaded. Nick-D posted urging summary deletion, and apparently immediately locked the page so no response could be made in defense of the article, other than by admins. So I'm wondering if it is going to get a fair hearing at all.
He stated, "The article made no claims to any notability (it had no sources, claim that the album had been released by a major label, etc)" - beg pardon, but there are numerous sources in the main article. And none of the other bands considered steampunk (Abney Park, Vernian Process, Unextraordinary Gentelmen, etc.) are carried by major labels yet they have pages, so I fail to see what that has to do with it. And if being on Jay Leno, being mentioned by MTV as a significant example of the genre, being mentioned by Wired magazine, et. al., aren't claims to any notability then I fail to see what criteria of notability said mod would ever find acceptable. Certainly Dr. Steel has had more public notability than a lot of other bands that currently have accepted pages on Wikipedia.
He went on to say, "...and the past campaign of deliberate spamming (which, according to the above post, is continuing, albeit in a more subtle form) is a good reason to shoot these articles on sight." Granted, there was a 'past campaign' of deliberate spamming. Nostra culpa. However, the campaign was halted about a year ago, and they even had "cleanup crews" going through Wikipedia to find and eliminate any references that were put in, a sort of anti-spam campaign. This is a fresh effort, being worked on in coordination with Doctor Steel himself (rather than some fan-based spam effort), and we are more than willing to work with Wikipedia at this point to tailor the article and make it acceptable, just as his peer's pages are accepted now. However it now pretty much looks as if no amount of tailoring will ever be enough? -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Edit: Nevermind, Skier Dude unlocked it again to allow me to make my case. Thanks. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 02:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I've just finished my epic History of Hertfordshire, and my new friend Nev1 here is helping me by pointing out all my mistakes. Fingers crossed that between him and me, we might get it to GA status...
While I'm typing, Drmies, I've found a featured article on the German Wikipedia that doesn't have an English equivalent. Now, I know you speak German, so I'm thinking maybe you and I could collaborate on translating it some time, and score a quick win on a featured article!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind offer of help. I'm genuinely honoured. I find much about Wikipedia mystifying and doubt that I can even devise proper questions. But I have enjoyed doing my single entry and am in the process of doing a second. I plan to specialize for now on Ontario art subjects. P.S. I suspect that you and I share an admiration for Professor Dawkins. Torontonian1 ( talk) 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I enjoyed The God Delusion as much as most atheists would, but I think it's based on a very weird premise ("helping people to escape their faith", indeed) and I can't help thinking it makes atheists look like intolerant, smug, self-satisfied loons.
I don't think most forms of religion do any harm and it certainly doesn't hurt me if other people want to believe in God. I do have a major problem with certain extremist Christian viewpoints, such as that of Fred Phelps, but what he believes is a horrible perversion of the simple faith most Christians have.
If you're interested in atheist literature, I'd recommend Daniel Dennett's books over Dawkins' any day!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You know, that's a really good point. I don't ever intent a process call (AfD, whatever) to terminate discussion, just the process once it's reached its conclusion. With AfD's, however, there seems to be no particularly good way to advocate that the discussion continue even if the issue is settled. Perhaps AfD's should be transcluded onto the talk page of the affected article as a continuation point for future discussion? Idle thoughts, I suppose. And yes, I do always listen to DGG. Jclemens ( talk) 22:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the discussion can have value even after the issue is settled, and I think any closure of the discussion (even moving it to the article's talk page) tends to disrupt it. I think it better not to snow close things while people are still talking.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Keeps said "Oh my God (no pun intended), a user who manages to self-identify as an atheist without throwing in userboxes that ridicule others' beliefs." very relevant. Ling.Nut ( talk) 09:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)