User talk:S Marshall/Archive44

Fowler et al. drama

Am I correct that you were planning, for a little while, to write a Request for Arbitration, but then came to the conclusion (along with the other editors who are bystanders to the quarrel) that Arbitration Enforcement can handle it, and that you are now waiting or expecting that either a party or an admin will write it up at AE? I had thought, for a while, that maybe the community would impose an interaction ban, but it now appears that the community is justifiably tired of it and wants it handled by the editors who have signed up for the ugly work of resolving ugly cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevention_of_Genocide_Act_of_1988_(2nd_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.

Hi S Marshall, since you had previously put up this article up for deletion based on your good understanding of Wiki policies and notability criteria and familiarity with the topic, I'm giving this notice to let you know I've done the same now. Your contribution to the discussion would be appreciated. Thank you!

Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That MRV closure

(Taking a note from your "swearing is allowed here"...) Holy fucking shit! That has got to be the most honoring, respectful, and praiseful thing I've ever seen! You do me much honor, sir! I hope the community indeed takes a turn and changes to accept more bold actions like I took, but I feel sure it won't. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Well deserved. Please don't stop helping in that topic area: we need you.
    I agree with what you say. The community won't accept bold actions like that because it prevents some editors' views from affecting the decisions we make. People need to feel their ideas are respected and taken into account, even when they're on the losing side of a discussion. MeatballWiki has a useful page about this, which I recommend to anyone closing anything on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 00:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Since I was involved in the MRV, I would not be expected to close the RM, especially since I seem to be one of the few who appreciated the interesting details of UtherSRG's bold closure. I wonder how you plan to expose the RM to uninvolved editors who would facilitate the closure? Perhaps the previous RM template should be used to formally reopen the request as previously relisted and presently backlogged? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 14:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
      WP:CR is probably a good place to advertise its needing a new closer that is uninvolved. (And thanks for the support, Paine!) - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure! Just entered the RM into WP:CR. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Civilty

Hello S Marshall, Raydann has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 08:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topics procedure adopted

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Charles III accession date, in Oceania

Howdy. Since you did ask to be contacted if there were possible questions about the Charles III accession RFC, you closed. A discussion has developed. -- GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Highways in England and Wales for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Highways in England and Wales is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highways in England and Wales 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.

Rschen7754 06:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Missing word?

Missing "look", perhaps, in this post at WP:VPP? Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Procedural notification

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick message of thanks

Hi! I know I'm a little late to be noticing this, but I just wanted to thank you for closing the MRV discussion on "Hindu terrorism". It was a complicated MRV about a complicated RM, and I think you did an admirable job at summarizing the prevailing mood of the discussion and suggesting a productive way forward. Being the RM closer at the center of an MRV was a good learning experience for me, but it was also a stressful one, and knowing that the MRV is finally closed takes a weight off of my shoulders. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Use our own words

Thanks for editing Wikipedia:Use our own words. I think it was useful to point out the cases when we need to exactly use other's words, and I've also added a case where a fairly direct paraphrase would be desired. I've shifted that exceptions section up a bit.

The point of the essay really was I was sick of people citing WP:STICKTOSOURCES when fighting language wars. As though it was perfectly ok to use a thesaurus and your own words when writing articles, and to copyedit to your heart's content without even glancing at the sources .... unless you happened to step on a language war landmine. So the fact that Rlevse had a major issue with copyright and plagiarism is beside the point and I think that footnote isn't useful or relevant.

Btw, I was involved in the discovery that Rlevse was socking as PumpkinSky and HalfGig (mainly on Commons) so I'd rather an essay started by me didn't contain something that might be considered a personal attack on them. -- Colin°Talk 15:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  • OK. I don't object to your edits in any way at all, but I'm mildly surprised that quoting the guy could be considered a personal attack on him?—S Marshall T/C 20:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
    Well the "prolific content-writer ... after learning that there are rules against plagiarism and copyright violations and he'd been breaking them for several years" reads like he's really stupid and abundantly reckless about, you know, basic stuff. Which, em, he was, and admits as such at the end of the quote. -- Colin°Talk 06:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    His words are positively oozing with shame, and I wanted to show the emotion in them. In the wake of Rlevse's behaviour I personally added copyright advice to WP:V. Honestly, I needed this essay a few years ago in my dealings with Mr QuackGuru, who had behaviours like challenging individual words because they weren't in the sources, and I was hoping in future to be able to use the essay as a stick for beating idiots with. Errr, for "idiots" read "well-intentioned people with whom I collegially disagree".—S Marshall T/C 09:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
    Well perhaps you are feeling more generous towards Rlevse than I am. I'm at more of a "don't believe a single word he said" kinda position. Anyway...
    So I came to this STICKTOSOURCES frustration dealing mostly with language conservatism. I'm not sure what the issue on the QuackGuru link you sent was. Levelledout seems to think QuackGuru is insisting we can only use a word from the source, but I'm not quite seeing QuackGuru saying that explicitly, just that it fails V and is in his opinion OR. There's a communication problem in that exchange. Maybe that's not the clearest example.
    So what's the motivation behind the problem editors you've faced. Is it people being too rigid about taking facts they've read and writing them in wikivoice? I've certainly seen how students doing these wiki assignments plainly don't understand their subject well enough to have confidence rephrasing it. For example, if the source text could be interpreted in a couple of ways, but if you were subject-knowledgeable, then you'd know which way the author meant, and could rephrase it. But without that knowledge, you daren't touch a word. -- Colin°Talk 10:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That's an incisive question, and you're helping me to clarify my own thoughts here.
    I honestly don't know what motivates other editors. I do think that when an editor says "The word X failed verification", they're understanding WP:V wrong. This is the first point that I'd make in an essay called STICKTOSOURCES: I think that verifiability applies at the level of thoughts and ideas, not at the level of individual words.
    The best sources on most subjects tend to be scholarly--so they're written by scholars for other scholars, and they use scholarly language. But we're in the business of writing for the general public. So we have to translate the recondite disquisition in the sources into words of one syllable. We ought to be reducing the Flesch-Kincaid score. For example, I absolutely adore our article on Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. It's hilarious to me. It's so scrupulously based on medical sources, in medical language, that it would be unintelligible to most people living with the condition! I'd advocate replacing it wholesale with simple:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, if I didn't treasure the en.wiki version for its sheer obliviousness. Almost all our medical articles have this problem. Anyway, this takes me to the second point I'd make in an essay called STICKTOSOURCES: I think that while our articles should mean what the best sources mean, they certainly don't have to say what the sources say. We should be using our editorial skills to summarize scholarly sources for a general audience.
    Is that helpful? I mean it to be, but I don't know if it is.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Thank you for raising that point in the ANI thread; I've felt it for a while but wasn't comfortable raising it myself. BilledMammal (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about being succinct in deletion discussion

I appreciated your comments on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_June_12#Incels.is. Having just walked away from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Farid_Alizade exhausted by walls of text and a deluge of extremely weak sources (and I'm not the only one to have given up), I agree completely. I wonder if there should be some sort of contribution-limit to AfD discussions? Though maybe it would just lead to more sock- and meat-puppetry. At the moment, a certain sort of persistent, just-polite-enough editor can get anything kept by creating walls of text, and wearing everyone down. It's not healthy. Elemimele (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Some people are just heavily invested in a topic (e.g. the incels.is IP, who clearly cares a lot about this outcome -- likely because he wants a Wikipedia article to drive traffic to his site, rather than because he thinks this article benefits Wikipedia, which it doesn't). Those people often feel compelled to reply to everyone. It's not usually a deliberate tactic to undermine consensus; it's usually just about someone who feels like they have a personal stake. Good closers know how to deal with that. I wouldn't want to put a hard limit on AfD discussions because that would affect some good faith contributors who have long but productive discussions at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
    That's a fair point, and I've seen some AfD's turn into a very constructive debate about how to improve an article, with extensive to-and-fro finding references and debating better wording. Thank you for the reassurance about closers (not an easy job!). I am trying to learn to make my point and walk away from AfDs. Elemimele (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Outlook festival

Hello S Marshall. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Outlook festival, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This page was initially deleted in 2009, and there is evidence that events since then have been included in the article. I would recommend renominating the article at WP:AFD. Thank you. BangJan1999 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add to the Wikipedia Deletion review (The main reason: because there is no consensus on the AFD)

Hello! Dear S Marshall, since the admin who deleted the article earlier (Extraordinary Writ) did not respond on the discussion page, I feel compelled to ask you, please do not hesitate to address this issue.

I, as a Wikipedia user with the username "90AA123", am reaching out to you with a request. I am in need of your assistance regarding the restoration of an article with the title "Farid Alizade - Name of the deleted article" that was previously present on Wikipedia. This article is of significant importance and provides valuable information for the users. Myself and other contributors aim to restore the article by adding updated and valuable sources. Your expertise and experience in the subject matter would be highly appreciated and beneficial for our efforts. Additionally, please take into consideration the following additional valuable sources:

1. https://apnews.com/press-release/ein-presswire-newsmatics/azerbaijan-91e2be60e93329e60feef2d333f58048 | AP News link of an additional valuable source

2. https://www.guetsel.de/content/70486/2023-07-14-08-34-18-eine-einzigartige-und-aufregende-alternative-zu-den-olympischen-spielen-turan-spiele.html (guetsel.de)

https://medium.com/@janemarche/discover-the-rich-heritage-of-eurasian-peoples-through-the-turan-games-created-by-farid-alizade-ca7f85350ac

3. https://www.fox16.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/643894702/the-revolution-of-alpagut-martial-arts-on-the-international-stage/ FOX

4. https://www.thecanadianreporter.com/article/643894702-the-revolution-of-alpagut-martial-arts-on-the-international-stage

5. https://afvnews.ca/2023/07/10/the-revolution-of-alpagut-martial-arts-on-the-international-stage/

These sources serve as valuable references to verify the accuracy of the article's content and to enrich it with more relevant information. I kindly request you to review our appeal and consider adding the deleted article to the Wikipedia Deletion review page. We believe that a discussion there will allow us to present our case and potentially reinstate the article for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. Thank you, and best regards, Jasulan.T TT me 22:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Request

Greetings, S Marshall, as you are an experienced closer, would you be willing and able to close Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 157#Multi-part proposal for content on E. Jean Carroll v. Trump and fulfil Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_157#Multi-part_proposal_for_content_on_E._Jean_Carroll_v._Trump? Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 15:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Georgian Aviation University

Hi, Stuart. I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Georgian Aviation University, because there are significant differences from the version deleted at AfD. However, I don't see any evidence of notability, so taking it to a second AfD discussion would seem reasonable, if you are inclined to do so. JBW (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)