User talk:S Marshall/Archive22

Hi,

I know I have another issue with your desire to return truth to WP:V after clarifying/removing "not truth"; but meanwhile, I wonder if I can convince you to pull back from the "information" word.  Do you agree that for the context of WP:V, the set "information" is larger than the set "material"?  Information seems to include style of writing, word count per paragraph, and interrelationships between sources.  It seems to be a higher bar than "material", but without a value to the project.  What is the purpose of opening this line of argument?  What is wrong with "material"?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Unscintillating... I don't see that "information" is a larger set than "material" at all, but equally I have no objection to using an alternative word. I'll devote some thought to the matter. All the best—S Marshall T/C 07:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If they are the same sets, then why are we changing the word?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Because you seem to want it changed, and I don't object to changing it. I don't wish to be needlessly obstructive.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello S Marshall, this is just to let you know that to help find compromise drafts at the verifiability mediation, I would like each mediation participant to submit at least one draft at one work group that includes the best of all the previously submitted drafts of that work group. This will probably make more sense if you look at this section on the mediation page, but if anything is still unclear, just let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello S Marshall, this is another update about the verifiability mediation. We have now started step five, in which we will work towards deciding a final draft for each work group. I would like you to submit a statement about this - have a look at the mediation page to see the details of what you should include. The deadline for this step is 10.00 am on Friday 6th April (UTC), and unlike the other steps I am going to be strict about it. If you don't leave a statement by the deadline, then you won't be able to participate in steps six or seven. If you think you are going to be late turning in your statement, please let me know as soon as possible - I can't promise anything, but it will be much easier to work out alternative arrangements now than it would be after the deadline has passed. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was waiting for you to chime in on this. While it's true that I could have edited my closing statement to allow a speedy renomination, I decided to let the DRV run its course because I wanted some more opinions on this. We're always telling "keep" !voters that AFD is not a !vote and deriding them for making WP:ATA arguments so it's only fair that the same standards be applied to those advocating deletion. It should take more then simply creating a nomination page and tagging the article to get an article deleted, it's reasonable to expect someone who wants an article deleted to actually make an argument based on one of the relevant inclusion guidelines. That being said, our guidelines and policies are "descriptive" so if enough editors want to use Alexa rankings as a criteria for inclusion for websites I would have no problem with that but it will take more then one !vote in one AFD. "AFD is not a vote" should apply to everyone, not just the article rescue squadron. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well said, Ron.  :) All the best—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Found your comment here interesting as I've always wondered the same thing about porn actors. Are the biographical details provided about them in porn mags and such the same as the "storylines" in professional wrestling? To take this idea to a ridiculous extreme one might claim that many pornbios are not actually BLPs because they describe "fictional characters", or perhaps "metafictional characters". Not to worry because I would never seriously suggest that but it's something to think about. After all we do have separate articles on Stephen Colbert and Stephen Colbert (character). (does the latter really need the BLP tag :)) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I must admit that the biographies of porn actors on Wikipedia annoy the living hell out of me, Ron, and it's because PORNBIO sets the bar for inclusion ridiculously low, so we have unexpandable two-sentence "articles" with shitty sources. What's the point of having a BLP policy when we do that?—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree too. The subject-specific guidelines are prone to giving too much weight to primary source indicators (eg awards) of whether the subject is notable. Primary source indicators are useful in helping contributors work towards comprehensiveness, but where they allow whole classes of not-generally-notable subjects to claim wikipedia-notability, it indicates that the primary source indicators are poor indicators. In other words, the "awards" are commonplace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello S Marshall. This is a note to let you know about a discussion I have just started at the verifiability mediation. It is aimed at making a final decision about the drafts we use in step 6, so that we can move on to drafting the RfC text in step 7. If possible, I would like everyone to comment over at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Final drafts proposal. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall. I'm new here and was looking for help from an experienced user. I discovered an article for a subject which I was about to suggest for creation on Wikipedia, until I found an incubated version in the search results. You appeared to be one of the users who made an edit so that's why I'm writing you. The article appeared to be placed in the incubator because there was some kind of quality standards it was lacking or lack of citation. I went ahead and picked up where the others left off and fixed up the article and basically gave it reliability, with some tips from another Wikipedian. So what happens now? Can you or someone registered move it to the "main space"? I was hoping you could help change the status or ask someone who does so my contributions aren't in vein. Anyway, thank you in advance, Ray. Here is the article--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Common_Dead

• Hi, Ray. I'm not exactly an expert on heavy metal or indeed music of any kind, and I don't really know how to evaluate whether that article meets Wikipedia's content standards for metal bands. The best way to attract attention from editors knowledgeable in this field will be to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, so I suggest that. All the best—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then! I appreciate your help. Thank you. Ray 24.201.20.167 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I just learned that there are around 1000 administrators for wikipedia. Maybe you can help me with speed delete of Jekejeke_Prolog. I am the sole editor. See talk page of the article some reasons. Or maybe you can recommend me an administrator.

Best Regards

Janburse (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved, sorry for bothering. Jan Burse (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols". Thank you. --Neuroticguru (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a barnstar ready for you if you want, but I'm afraid it may be too template-y. So, just a heartfelt thanks from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the recent RFA, sorry. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what you'd done to deserve the demotion from editor to janitor, but you seemed to want it so I supported... ;-)—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, if I ever want a promotion I just need to ride the bull *wink* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall. This is just to let you know that I started a discussion at the verifiability mediation that's aimed at settling the drafts/questions issue. Your input would be highly appreciated, as always. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I see you got there before me. Thanks for the comment! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The NAC that I vacated was this one. Arbitrarily0 is an admin so I could not have overturned them summarily even if I wanted to :) T. Canens (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Crap! Oops.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to your reply to Karl with some background info. --RA (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)