User talk:S Marshall/Archive39

Hello S Marshall, first of all, thank you for your help and concern about the safe area of the Wikipedia information, I am writing you about the moved page Talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) to Draft talk: Daniel Horvath (actor) the page has been created many years ago in order to maintain the work of the international actor that has been performed in many series and films worldwide, therefore we have Spanish, Russian and Catalan Wikipedia pages because of the appearance of the actor in different countries and speaking languages, please let me know what would you like me to do to have the page from your point of you being litigable and approved by you, also it would be very helpful if you can help me with it by giving me your advice. Here is his management agency in London with his previous films and series http://www.diamondmanagement.co.uk/daniel-horvath^[1] I really want to have the best page I can do for this actor because I love his work and really think he deserves to have it with your help I am sure I will do a great job. Looking forward to hearing back from you.--Anonimoushh (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, Daniel. I suggest you try submitting your draft for review by clicking the blue button on it; a user from AfD will either move it back to mainspace, or else give you some advice on how to improve it. Alternatively, you could try asking the Article Rescue Squadron for advice here. Hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher) Anonimoushh, your phrase from your point of you being litigable leads me to suggest that you read the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Whilst your statement isn't a legal threat, as a Wikipedia editor you should be aware of this policy, and be careful to follow it. I've also left a note about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline on your talk page for your information. Happy editing! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Draftifying old unmaintained content translation tool articles being discussed now? I haven't forgotten. Pinging @Bradv. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• The discussion was archived without result, and isn't currently taking place anywhere. I intend to resume my old workflow and indeed I have started to.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  Well then, it looks like we'll need to go back to AN and talk about this some more. – bradv🍁 13:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  It's tiring to be asked to stop work yet again while the community fails to decide what to do. It would certainly help me feel a bit better about this if either of you actually helped to work through the backlog, rather than focusing on making rules about how others should do it.—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  For example, you could usefully deal with the de-prodding noted below? Make the required edits to the article, educate the contributor, enquire about the possibility of a COI? I don't wish to deal with it.—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  I want to get all this stuff categorized by source language, at which point User:Bradv suggested {{Cleanup translation}}, which can take a language parameter. Should have been bold I guess. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Actually before doing 1000+ edits I probably need some sort of.. not-objection, you know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Planning to add Template:Cleanup translation to 1000+ pages — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi S Marshall, Thank you for your suggestions about this article. I tried to improve he text of this page as suggested by you. I hope it's good now. Please let me know if there is any other improvement I may do. Thank you very much Paolippe (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Paolippe (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick reminder for you and any talk-page stalkers: Please don't change the initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) when replying. In a discussion, do Y this best practice:

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
** Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]]

or Y this acceptable practice:

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
*: Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]] 

but N don't do this (switch type from bullet list to description list):

* Support.  I like this idea.  [[User:Example]] 
:* Question:  What do you like about it?  [[User:Example 2]] 

Changing the initial (leftmost) list markers makes bad HTML and noise for people who are using screen readers. The rightmost one is the marker that you get to choose. The first ones should match the previous line's markers exactly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure where you will come out on this, but you may care about . I'm a little hot about it, but maybe I'm overreacting (it's been a long week). Hobit (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, mate! I certainly do care about it. In response to that incident, I've amended WP:NAC to clarify that the "sysop unilaterally overturning" clause only applies to deletion debates. I've also opined at considerable length on WT:RFC. I don't want to edit the arbcom case because I think this is about RFC closes rather than about Guy.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks like this article was worth submitting for review. Saw you moved it to a live page, thanks! Metromemo (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

An unregistered user left a message on my talk page about an issue they had trying to add a logo to this page. I checked it out myself and see that Checkmarx.com is blacklisted. Not all that surprising given the history of the page. However, adding the logo to the page seems like a reasonable request. Is the blacklist something that should have been removed with the page lock? Or if those are unrelated, is there a workaround for adding a logo? Seems if the page could be published, a logo would be allowed. Reaching out to you since you had been the one to publish the page. Thanks, Metromemo (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd give very long odds that the IP user on your talk page represents the company and wants to add their logo for promotional reasons. I'm disinclined to get involved and if I were you I'd consider directing them to the Teahouse for advice. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Great point and great advice. Appreciate the input! Metromemo (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

If a page from User:S Marshall/sandbox has been merged into another article, can it just be removed from the list? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Sure. Please don't forget the {{translated}} template.—S Marshall T/C 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It was too much bother to add those one by one btw, though for merges it'll still have to be done by hand.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • In cases where the original article is barely more than a list or I don't recognize the contents in the merged article, I'm skipping the {{Translated page}} addition. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • If you see eswiki editors removing tags you'll know you can take them off the list: es:Wikipedia:Café/Archivo/Noticias/Actual#Ayuda solicitada para verificar traducciones del español. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• Do you know how the original list was compiled, ie how do you get a list of articles tagged with "contenttranslation"? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• There's a script. Of course, articles translated after 27 July 2016 are outside the scope of this project. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks! I was asking because eswiki might want to start something similar. (not sure if they're serious though) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

hi. are you an admin? how you closed this.. did you read all messages?which guideline or policy did you use to decide that?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

the admin who deleted my article last sentences was here for drafting..he was one of 3 Afd commentors! the article meet wp:SNG and wp:GNG.your action wasn't correct. do you have access for seeing history of articles? this topic needs that for deciding--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't decide anything. The community decided to endorse the deletion, and it did so by a colossal majority.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

that was not true and not wp:CON. in these case you must read the topic and discussions then close something.please change your action and let one admin do that (Because of the sensitivity of the issue).it's not a simple topic.many others see that earlier than you but no action was done.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I assure you that that close was well within my competence, lol.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You had to look at the arguments, not just the number of votes.I will follow that in wp:AN--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

A listing on the administrator's noticeboard has absolutely no prospect whatsoever of changing the outcome, because administrators do not make binding content decisions. Nevertheless, you're welcome to take it there if you wish.—S Marshall T/C 14:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel you've invented several requirements for a trial where none of those were supported, or even discussed in the RFC. I would ask that you undo the closure and let BAG review this. Or at least leave the details of the trial to BAG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Second User:Headbomb this is BAG territory. Anyway I don't see anyone championing CBD. It's either gonna be a simple self-regulating structure within existing systems (BAG) or it's not going to work. Leave the details to BAG. -- GreenC 05:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thirding this. Putting you own "proposals" in the closure wasn't helpful, considering that most of the points are of dubious technical feasibility. While the discussion gives the BAG an idea on what the community opinion is regarding cosmetic bots, it hardly needed a formal closure. Note that there has already been one largely cosmetic BRFA which was approved much before the CBD discussion was closed. – SD0001 (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally did think formal closure would be helpful, given these things are usually controversial, but I don't think technical requirements should be prescribed (unless closer is BAG/botop), simply because it's hard for other groups to match arguments to technical feasibility. MonkBot is approved under the deprecated params exemption to COSMETICBOT. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I was fairly clear about distinguishing the consensus from my suggestions for implementing it. I definitely do not think the community decided to have CBD but leave it to the BAG to decide the technical details. In the circumstances you should probably decide what's technically feasible and then set up a second RFC with each option listed for community approval or rejection.—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It is hard, nay impossible, to come up with a standardised set of guidelines or a checklist for this task along those lines, even ignoring the fact that another RfC takes another month. Every point is way too dependent on what kind of task it is, who is operating it, what it's doing, what it's targeting, etc. At an edit rate of 12 edits / minute, that's only 17,280 edits per day, once per month. Handing out random page lists is a sure-fire way to make this a useless task. It is infeasible for even one bot to guarantee only one edit to an article, for technical reasons mentioned (tasks often do not communicate with each other). For MonkBot, which is editing half of the encyclopaedia's articles, it's important for randomisation, and hence its BRFA mentions it, but many CBD tasks will probably be targeted to a certain scope, so their randomisation will be different. There's also no reason to think approved cosmetic tasks will malfunction and cause BLP violations, certainly no more than any other task, so excluding it from BLPs also defeats the purpose unnecessarily, but sure perhaps some tasks will need to stay away from certain categories. These are all things that cannot be written up into a single guideline and put forth into another RfC, it's just not feasible to write about them in the abstract, which is why they need to be considered per-BRFA. My reading of the discussion was not that the community consensus supported a trial only (only a couple of comments - valereee, nosebagbear - mentioned that), or that they wanted another RfC to try create an unattainable guideline. Such a close kills this proposal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think that at that discussion, the community approved the use of cosmetic bots and delegated the hows and whys to the BAG, and I will not re-close the discussion to say that. Would you like me to begin an RfC close review on the AN?—S Marshall T/C 12:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  Not yet, I think it's appropriate the others above have a chance to see your response and consider first. If a close review is required I think it's best it be started by someone who actually disagrees with the close, with their perspective why, rather than a self-referral. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The community approved a trial and a general exploration of more edits from cosmetic bots / a cosmetic bot day. The details of this are very complex, as outlined by ProcrastinatingReader. So again, I ask that you undo the close and let BAG handle thing, or leave the details of the trial to the BAG. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've answered that already.—S Marshall T/C 15:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No one will volunteer to develop software under those difficult and arcane conditions. You can stick by your close but no one is going to make a cosmetic bot. It will roll off into the archives and be forgotten by January. The close should have been done by someone familiar with enwiki bot processes and software development. -- GreenC 22:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @S Marshall: 6 editors responding to the RfC at Talk:Kiki Camarena supported inclusion of the text, including in the lead, while 3 editors opposed it. That means editors supported inclusion of the text by a 2:1 margin. Among outside editors coming to the page for comment — that's the point of an RfC — 5 editors supported inclusion, and 1 opposed: a 5:1 margin. Editors supporting inclusion point out that WP:SECONDARY and tertiary WP:RS treat the allegations "extremely seriously", and also point out that arguments opposing inclusion are based almost entirely on WP:OR. Because your close so wholly disregards both the policy-based arguments and the overwhelming majority of editors responding to the RfC, I'm going to challenge your close at WP:AN, per policy. I'm informing you here first, as you've requested. -Darouet (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• I stand by that close, and I join issue with you on every point you raise. I will welcome community scrutiny on the AN, and I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved. Merry Christmas.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @S Marshall: I've challenged your close at AN here . -Darouet (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey @S Marshall: - sorry to be causing you drama at the New Year. I read over your user page, and — I've spent many years of my life spending a ton of time with professional historians — I feel like we'd get along, despite this one disagreement. I sincerely wish you a Happy New Year and great editing in 2021! -Darouet (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Sir, you recently opened a Deletion Review about an AfD that I commented on^[1]. You claimed that my account was "suspicious" since I had not edited Wikipedia for many years. You made no attempt to contact me first, or even after making this allegation. You accused the accounts you listed (including mine) as being possible sockpuppets or meatpuppets without any evidence (since no such evidence exists, at least where my account is concerned). Your actions were uncivil, unprofessional, disruptive, and completely against everything that Wikipedia claims to stand for. I cannot assume good faith, because there was not even a shred of good faith involved in your actions, nor from your subsequent comments on that page does there appear even a shred of doubt or reconsideration. I can only hope that this was a moment of poor judgement, especially as you appear to be a professional off-Wiki, which makes your conduct all the more egregious. Your actions are very similar to the reasons why I stopped editing Wikipedia so many years ago (which apparently makes me suspicious). I do not know whether you will delete this comment, or ignore it, but I hope, possibly with undue optimism, that this might be a learning experience where you may step back and reconsider accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being suspicious and accusing them of malfeasance. Perhaps instead of dismissing everyone else, you could consider reading their comments and consider that they might have a different point of view.

But thank you, you have reminded me of why I stopped editing Wikipedia. Hyperion35 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome back after your seven year editing break. Yes, I found your account's behaviour suspicious, together with the behaviour of many other accounts in that AFD. I hope that venting on my talk page helped you feel better about it; but I'm afraid I still have my suspicions. The history of that article is full of ducks for UPE.—S Marshall T/C 03:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't really care much about the history of the article. I explained on the AfD page why it should be kept, including an argument for why it meets two separate prongs of WPNMOTO (and it only needs to meet one). Several others made good arguments as well. I found that article while reading about the W Series and its inaugural season, every other driver in that season has a page, as well as many of the drivers who entered the initial tryouts but didn't make the cut. I say this not as an argument for notability, but to point out that it seems far more likely that she has a page, and that people are working on her page, for the same reasons that they are working on pages for everyone else who competes in the same series. You seem to believe that there is some sort of shadowy conspiracy here (WAnon? Formulanon?) rather than a bunch of editors who enjoy motorsports, and who are excited about the possibility of more women competing.

From an outside perspective, you're coming across as cross between Inspector Javert and a conspiracy theorist, and I hope that's not your intent. But it is a problem, because you seem to have made up your mind, and anyone who suggests a different idea, you conveniently dismiss as "suspicious". If you think I'm a sockpuppet, go ahead and ask for an investigation, but I'm just a government healthcare worker with an interest in formula racing when I'm not dealing with, y'know, this death plague. Nothing more, nothing less. But if you're gonna throw around accusations, stop whining and follow through, put up or shut up. Right now you're just using "I have suspicions" as a shortcut to avoid critical thinking. I have to clean up the mess from people who act that way in my day job, and I have no real patience for it. Hyperion35 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you with this, but some people are reading things () into your absence in a conversation related to a RFC you closed sometime ago on the GOP talk page. We may need your guidance. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to us.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. I added a timestamp to your closing statement at Talk:Peppermint (entertainer). I figured you mistakenly typed ~~~ instead of ~~~~. I also added {{nac}} following the timestamp. Feel free to revert either if you intentionally left them out. Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think your non-admin closure of the RfC at Proud Boys makes sense. Not regarding there being no consensus on the RfC, but there being a status quo ante that we're reverting to at all. The label was added less than a month before the discussion/RfC above, without discussion and without citations: . There was then some brief discussion on the matter without any clear consensus (I'm counting 2 editors in favour and 2 editors against in the extremely minimal discussion that ensued).

This isn't a case of a status quo ante being returned to, this is new content that is being disputed for which there was never a clear consensus to include in the first place. The WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include content to establish consensus for its inclusion, not on those who wish to remove disputed content.

I'm happy enough to just drop a message here first if this is a simple enough matter, but if you still agree with your closure I guess WP:AN would be a better place for this. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think I closed that correctly, and I'll be very happy for my close to be reviewed on AN.—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)