User talk:S Marshall/Archive32

Mystery Wolff

I have lifted the topic ban on Mystery Wolff following a review of my topic ban and have decided to rescind the ban and replace it with a final warning to avoid personalising disputes. MWs cinduct did improve after his short break and he did not personalise any further commentary. Unfortunately, it appears that I misread some of their datestamps and banned for conduct that took place before their short break. Given this improvement, I would appreciate it if you could also cut them some slack and step back from your comment that you are not prepared to work with them. I feel that they deserve a further chance to prove they can work collaboratively and will be monitoring but they need a level field to work on if this improved conduct is to continue. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Spartaz, even with Mystery Wolff topic-banned, I've found that proposing improvements to that article is turning into a game of bring me a rock. If you're going to rescind his topic ban then I think it'll be simplest all around if I just do something else with my volunteering time. No hard feelings and Merry Christmas—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I hope that your not seriously thinking of leaving the articles. Sadly IMHO the reason they are in the shape they are in is because the problems encountered in getting any meaningful change implemented. So the editors just give up. It may not be a conscious plan to do so, but the effect is still the same. Some may not be ready for the changes you want to make, and the end product might not be perfect, but any change is probably for the best. I know of a few good editors that have given up, I hope your name isnt added to that list. AlbinoFerret 04:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, AlbinoFerret: but I can't get anything done. I've tried. Four months of solid wrangling in front of Arbcom, and QG's behaviour doesn't change in the slightest. Then he finally gets topic-banned, and then within a week we've got a fresh obstructionist editor who is (quite rightly) entitled to a fresh assumption of good faith. On Wikipedia obstructionism always works, because "no consensus" means "stick to the status quo". Look at the amount of effort I've put in to trying to fix that smoking cessation paragraph without any result at all. And now there's an obstructionist editor active on the page again; so QG's language throughout the whole thing is unfixable and his bizarre prejudices are going to carry right on getting through to everyone who reads it. It's a whole lorryload of bullshit, but Spartaz can't fix that for me and he certainly can't topic ban another editor just because I'm getting frustrated.

  There's plenty of other stuff that needs fixing on Wikipedia, some of which are things that I personally can do. I've unwatched the page and I don't intend to edit it again, although you could do me a favour by dropping me a note in the event of MW getting topic-banned again...—S Marshall T/C 08:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be easier if the focal point of his input wasnt leaving....... Please give it a few weeks in the new year. Try a diffrent section, heck try a different Sub article, they can all use help.AlbinoFerret 13:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a pity, Marshall, understandable but quite a pity. (Someone who walked away a while ago.)--TMCk (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Well you walked away for a short bit, and now he is gone for at least 6 months. AlbinoFerret 21:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

... and hence the article is editable again. Until the next one.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:DEEPER

Hi, I was a bit confused this was the first time I have heard of DEEPER, I was under the impression that DEEPER is a place to contest the close to a higher level, but I think the section actually prevents me from doing so, are you against the topic , I was under the impression you supported it. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• I sort of do, and then again, I sort of don't. I do think there's scope for an article about involuntary sexual abstinence based on Tokyogirl79's text. I'm sure that editors don't want an article called Involuntary Celibacy, which is a term that comes with a load of baggage. Merry Christmas—S Marshall T/C 17:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think overturning is the start this topic needs, if we can get the content which was written by Toykogirl on the mainspace then we can determine what the best title is. I am asking you to reconsider inputting a vote. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I've said it three times, and linked the long discussions that led me to this conclusion. I'm confident that what I said will be taken into account. None of our regular DRV closers ever do it by counting up the words in bold; they all read the arguments and weigh them.—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

DRV 2015_Climate_Conference.svg

Hello,

I think you may possibly have mixed me up with a someone else at this DRV. My only point has been that there is no established consensus about this issue - I have not advocated for one position or the other.

If pressed for an opinion on this question (which is NOT what the DRV is about) I would say that the analogue for "low resolution" in an SVG file is "low complexity", and that an SVG apparently containing every single beam in the Eiffel Tower as part of a logo is excessively high in complexity, and contrary to NFCC#3b.

I wonder if you would consider altering your comment which named me? (Although I liked the "ingenious" part!)

Cheers,

Thparkth (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. Happy new year!—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! I haven't given up on this year yet :) Thparkth (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing political correctness

Hi, thankyou for your thoughtful closure of the RfC on PC, you MAY have closed the wrong RfC though, the one you closed was withdrawn by the proposer and a modified one introduced here. Whether you feel able/whether it is proper for you to close the second (which has now run for over 30 days), I leave to your judgement.

I have lived (briefly, several times) in Cambs and also had friends there (many years ago). What I remember most about the winters, is the biting cold wind blowing relentlessly! Hope that wind doesn't spoil your New Year. Best wishes for 2016 (blimey is it that already!). Pincrete (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Pincrete and happy new year!

  I closed that particular discussion because it was one of the oldest unclosed discussions listed on WP:ANRFC, and I'm trying to help bring the backlog under control. I'd prefer not to close two separate discussions on the same page in rapid succession, if I can avoid it; I think it would be better to have fresh eyes on the subject. All the best, S—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Manitonquat

Thanks for all your help with the DRV on Manitonquat. FYI I have re-created the page Manitonquat (along the lines of my previous edit of Dec 15-sh (see screenshot posted above). Hope that's alright. Will improve presently with citations & references mentioned here. ALERT: "Rubbish Computer" has instantly responded by listing this page for speedy deletion (with reference to previous deletion debate, but not, apparently to this DRV.) I have posted to him about this DRV. Hope further confusion can be avoided. Horse Dancing (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, I just want to touch base with you on a statement that you are trusting that sources say what they say in the article. While most things may be close it may be eye opening to look at the sources and see what they actually say. The sources that I have access to revealed a big problem. You may want to look at the history of this blanked page User:AlbinoFerret/sandbox/evidence to see the problem. Its not that the source may not say exactly word for word what is in the article. Its that the words were often cherry picked leaving the real summery of the section it was taken out of out of for the WP edit. This includes leaving out mitigating factors or contradictions later in the paragraph that the cherry picking was done in. Any real rewrite needs to look at the sources themselves. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Section links in edit summaries

Cheers. If I may ask you a favor: when you reply to talk page discussions, please do not erase section headings from the default edit summary. I'm kinda following the Talk:Electronic cigarette developments from the sidelines, and when you reply e.g. like this, I have no idea in which thread/section I need to look to see the context, so I have to search for keywords from your reply on the page. Thanks. No such user (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mystery Wolff AE appeal

Hi It looks like Mystery Wolff has appealed the ban he received. I only found out about it because I watch AE. He has made a statement that includes you, without informing you of the discussion. The section can be found here. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, AF. I'm pretty sure that appeal will fail without my intervention, but it's moot while Jytdog is active anyway as I don't have the patience to deal with them. The topic area attracts that breed of editors like flies to shit.—S Marshall T/C 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted you to be aware of it since he mentioned you and didnt give you notice, and I agree the appeal isnt likely to pass. I will point out that in the end the section is still better than what it was. Sometimes we cant get the perfect result we want but as long as there is improvement, imho its worth doing. Just pick another section and move forward. Sometimes the hardest changes are the first ones. AlbinoFerret 13:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Drained by e-cigs

Just saw your message that you've left e-cigarettes. Many thanks for all your help. Hope you get back your energy reserves for other projects soon. SPACKlick (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you SPACKlick.—S Marshall T/C 20:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Lorenzo Iorio

Hello. I am writing to you about the deleted page of Lorenzo Iorio. As I already stated in several places, I am a relative of Iorio, and I did not find correct the actions by an editor who continuously abuses of his permissions and refutes any form of confrontation about that page, I asked a Deletion Review, and he suddenly and arbitrarily closed it. Could you, please, help me? Thank you. 79.35.72.141 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sure. I have begun a discussion here in which location uninvolved people will review JzG's block. JzG will presumably take the opportunity to explain himself.—S Marshall T/C 22:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP should request an unblock at their blocked account, rather than evading the block. The IP should also stop trying to use Wikipedia as a weapon in a real-world dispute, which is the source of the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

About the closure at Political Correctness

Hello, I realized after talking at the talk page after the objection that it may have come off as objection about the closure and not the closure's explanation. I didn't intend to object to the closure itself, sorry about that. I also didn't object to your participation, as long as we could talk about the first's closure explanation first and expand upon it. Since very few if any have shown interest at interpreting the talk page and the discussion other than you, I'd still be very much interested in hearing your opinion again. I'm sorry if I came off as off-putting. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Help with wargames foundry?

Hi, Was hoping you might have access to sources on this company. I'm guessing back in the day there would have been coverage in the General or some such. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate, and thanks for quite an interesting research project there! I enjoyed looking into this. As you've correctly deduced, I have an extensive digitised magazine archive from those days.

  From my researches, the 1976 date from the article is a complete red herring. Bryan Ansell's corporation in those days seems to have been Asgard Miniatures of 15 Furlong Avenue, Arnold, Nottingham who do not have an article even though it would be easy to source one (start with White Dwarf Magazine, Issue 2, page 7). They were just up the road from Citadel Miniatures who at the time were based in a former folk museum in Newark. Citadel started selling Asgard miniatures in the second half of 1980. At the 1980 Games Day awards for Best Figures Manufacturer, Citadel took first prize, Ral Partha second, and Asgard third, but nothing about Wargames Foundry.

  I gave up on 1976-77 and skipped on to 1983 which was the other date given. Searching this date is much harder because there are many more sources and Wargames Foundry is a name made of two common search terms, and Bryan Ansell's name is unhelpful because he released the first edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle that year and the name reveals a storm of Citadel Miniatures/WHFB announcements but not much else. However, having drilled down a long way into those searches, I'm confident that there are no hits for a corporation called Wargames Foundry in connection with Bryan Ansell, Asgard Miniatures or Citadel Miniatures. I also went through a bunch of Citadel advertisements from that time and they didn't mention Wargames Foundry.

  I'm confident the corporation existed at that time but they did no advertising to the general public. Probably they took orders from Citadel and fulfilled them, but I don't think they were a public-facing outfit at all, and I wasn't able to find anyone who paid any attention to them. Sorry—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. And as I'm sure you noticed, I screwed up the link, it should have been [1]. I'm finding a lot on line about the company, but not a thing from a RS. Apparently they have/had a reputation for being very high in quality and very expensive. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Political_correctness#Generally_or_primarily_or_something_else

I see a consensus of sorts for "often"--but it's hard to see the forest for the trees. If you agree (I don't know if you were leaning that way, and there's been a few comments supporting "often" since your offer to close), we can close this thing. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  I hadn't actually assessed the debate. I offered to close it but wanted to be sure my offer would be acceptable to the parties before I took the time to do all that reading. The reaction I got rather put me off, to be honest, so I didn't go back. Please do feel free to close it if you're so inclined. All the best—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanctions against editor?

I am currently involved in a debate with QuackGuru regarding chiropractic articles after the ongoing AfD, QG intends on merging. Are you aware of what specific sanctions are against the editor in this field? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  I'm afraid I haven't been following QuackGuru of late. I'm under the impression that he's in the last chance saloon and edging towards the door, because he can't understand people who disagree with him and his only way of dealing with them is to try to control them. If you're having trouble with him I would advise you to proceed immediately to ArbCom. They're incredibly slow but at least they'll deal with him. Complaints in any other venue are ineffective.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, where would I go to see what the sanctions are against him. I am not sure he is allow to be participating in the AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Re. sanctions: Among others, see here for alternative medicine related restrictions.--TMCk (talk)

A couple of lists were produced the last time QG was taken to Arbcom. For example, see: a listing of his block log and a listing of his restrictions at Alt Med 75.152.109.249 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD

Hello there! I just happened to be viewing the AfD for Elizabeth Koch and noticed you closed it as a consensus to keep. I'm a little curious how you arrived at that conclusion, since it was a 5 - 5 vote. Shouldn't it be relisted? Just curious. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

A comment that I think very many people overlooked on the nomination is that almost all the sources about an "Elizabeth Koch" are not about the same one as the publisher. So just one profile of her, doesn't seem to establish notability. DaltonCastle (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  It seemed very simple to me. You raised two objections to this article in your nomination: firstly, notability, and secondly, the risk that the article might be vandalised. I'm afraid the second objection holds no water and the contributors rightly focused on notability. There are a number of very weak "keep" arguments in the debate, such as the ones asserting that the article subject is notable without actually linking any sources, or the ones vaguely pointing at google searches. There are only two strong "keep" arguments in the whole debate ---- the one very pithily summarised by Hullaballoo, which may be short but I saw as significant, and Cunard's rather more verbose contribution in which he directly linked of the Wall Street Journal source ---- but those two strong arguments are humdingers.

  However, I did not close in accordance with the numbers, and if you are not confident with my close then I will be very happy to start a deletion review in which the close will be scrutinised by experienced and previously uninvolved contributors. Please say if you would like me to do this.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. Yes, I would like to start a review. I'm not even arguing the second point any more, about the potential for vandalism. Its entirely about notability, especially considering that almost everyone who voted to Keep overlooked that all but one reliable source on the internet about Elizabeth Koch is about a different Elizabeth Koch than the article subject. Thanks. DaltonCastle (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't be dramatic

No one can just "remove anything" w/o responsibility. If it's sourced well, no they cannot just remove it. And if it's unsourced but easily sourced, then they have to deal with the humiliation of a 2-second job. And if they persistently do it, then they can be sanctioned under a host of behavioral guidelines. We don't need additional instructions to do what we already do. And we certainly don't need to create "laws" that are simply going to be Wiki-lawyered to death.--v/r - TP 22:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sure they can. Sysops will vocally defend their absolute entitlement to remove content they don't understand. This editor's actually wandered into an article about child protection and cut a paragraph on the basis that it could be OR but they haven't bothered to check, and instead of providing him with the support and direction he needs, you're standing there shielding him. And you're clearly comfortable with that.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what the background of this dispute is and I don't really care. You can't seriously be considering changing a policy over one single dispute. And if this policy change hinges on one dispute, then that's where you're wrong in this whole issue and it's asinine that we'd even have this conversation. If you have a larger issue that you're trying to adjust with a policy change, one of our highest directives on this project, then I suggest you point it out. Because my objection is about a policy change. Your content dispute should happen on the article talk page. Changing a policy to win a content dispute violates WP:POINT.--v/r - TP 23:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah, well if you haven't read the background then I can understand you more clearly. I wrongly assumed you'd followed WhatamIdoing's link. No; this is not just about one dispute. It's the latest instalment of a very old and long-running argument, which is one of the several reasons why I've made about a thousand edits to WT:V over the years.

      However, I'm particularly passionate about this particular dispute, because (1) I'm a local government employee with experience in social work and the youth offending team so I have a heightened awareness of the importance of protecting children; and (2) the edit we're actually talking about was made to our article on child grooming. This is the kind of article that vulnerable children might read, and trust, because children don't necessarily understand Wikipedia and I think it's really important to get those right. If he'd done that in one of our umpteen trillion articles about individual TV episodes, then I wouldn't be anywhere near so exercised about it.

      Anyway, I'm strongly of the view that when an edit touches on child protection I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut about "wikilawyering": we need to act.—S Marshall T/C 00:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

      • I really don't think there is any subject we should act without thinking on. That kind of thinking is what excuses radical extremist reactions that extend past reasonable behavior even in the name of a commendable cause. Regardless, I'm of the opinions that certain articles should have a legal disclaimer on them and perhaps this is one of them. Read my user page, you'll see that I'm definitely afraid of the runaway extremist of any kind of advocacy. The urge and call to protect victims tends to have no limits and justifies just about any behavior and that scares me. But this is all a side issue. The main issue is that the change you're asking for isn't based in as firm soil as you're making it out to be. Even if we agree that WP:PRESERVE is a policy and is required, what we'd disagree on is that WP:PRESERVE requires that an editor search for a source. It is strongly recommended with the "should" language, but not required. Either that'd need to be changed or WP:V shouldn't. I'm not sure why you'd take the nuclear option to win this content dispute, though. Why can't you use our normal processes to build a consensus for the content you wish to keep? It looks like Flyer22 sourced the material, so the problem is solved w/o changing WP:V. I just don't see why you jumped to WP:V with such a passionate plea for a change and reacted so emotionally at the opposition. That doesn't make sense even in the context of this article dispute. What was the reason for the dispute leaving the article talk page and spilling onto WP:V where you became very irate that a change you wanted to make, that would impact the 5 million articles on the encyclopedia all because of a dispute over 1, was opposed? Does that seem reasonable to you?--v/r - TP 01:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
        • TParis, I'm not trying to win a content dispute. That's long since been solved. A user went to child grooming and removed a paragraph about the sexual predator's motives. And he edit-warred to keep that paragraph out. Which is creepy. I was unaware of this; I didn't have the article on my watchlist and had never edited it. However, I have a history of saying that this was the kind of behaviour WP:BURDEN enables and another user had seen me say this, so he pinged me and I sourced the paragraph with my next edit (but unfortunately that was several hours later, and Flyer had taken a while to get around to pinging me, so the paragraph was out of the article for about two days). All sorted, dispute solved, albeit much too slowly.

          Then WhatamIdoing started a discussion on WT:V (which I also watch) with a clear explanation of what had happened and the reasons for her concern about this, which I'm afraid you haven't read, and I expressed the view that editors need to take personal responsibility for their edits to the mainspace and if they're editing an article in a topic area they're unfamiliar with, take a few minutes to google before they remove plausible content from the mainspace. What I got was users, including yourself, springing to the defence of anyone's right to remove whatever they like, and I'm seething about it because I've been saying this kind of thing was going to happen for years.—S Marshall T/C 07:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

          • There's no reason to be upset over it. Are editors going to remove content? Yes. We get a lot of crap and a ton of hearsay on the project. That requirement that it be sourced keeps editors from adding "truth" to Wikipedia. It's a scary thing when "common sense", myths, "truths", and other types of misinformation get spread on Wikipedia because people believe it to be true. Requiring something to be sourced ensures that the origin of our content is legitimate.--v/r - TP 08:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You're touching on the biggest problem with our policies. On Wikipedia 1% of the articles take 99% of the community's attention. These are the fringe topics, pseudoscience and quackery and cryptozoology where yes, we absolutely do have a major problem with a continual siege from the true believers and the snake oil salesmen who want to add crap and hearsay to our coverage. WP:V and all our other policies emerged against the background of editors dealing with these topics, and they were written in response to these problems. The point of our policies is to give heavy artillery to the skeptics. That's a worthwhile thing and I fully accept it. Check WP:V out on an article blaming utility of some kind and you'll find that I'm one of the primary authors of the policy in its present form. You do not need to explain its reasoning to me.

That biggest problem I mentioned is that our policies are written for these hard cases, and hard cases make bad law. With 99% of the encyclopaedia no, we do not have a problem with people adding crap and hearsay, because the crap and hearsay is easily removed. When we get to a non-fringe, non-pseudoscience topic where our existing coverage (typically written under different and less stringent rules) is worthwhile and valuable, our policies and guidelines are not fit for purpose.

I've got a very long history of saying WP:BURDEN needs to be reined in in the interests of the 99% of the encyclopaedia which is uncontroversial, non-fringe, and worthwhile as written. There might be a special clause allowing WP:BURDEN absolutism to apply to those articles that keep showing up at AN/I, but throughout the other parts of the encyclopaedia, whenever someone's editing directly in the mainspace, sysops need to hold them responsible for their edits.—S Marshall T/C 13:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You certainly make a good point, I'll keep that in mind.--v/r - TP 19:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

S Marshall, thanks for your comments on this matter. I'm confused by the following, though: "Another user had seen me say this, so he pinged me and I sourced the paragraph with my next edit (but unfortunately that was several hours later, and Flyer had taken a while to get around to pinging me, so the paragraph was out of the article for about two days). All sorted, dispute solved, albeit much too slowly."

You probably weren't aware, but I'm female. And I pinged you. I pinged you after I had sourced the content and lectured the editor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• My sincerest apologies!—S Marshall T/C 06:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. And thanks again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For excellent work, steely resolve, and good humour at the Elizabeth Koch AFD and DRV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why, thank you.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:Seealso

Reads- The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page).

There is also this talk page discussion[2] from December 2015 concerning an editor who was continually putting Seealso redlinks into law articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't care what the manual of style says in this or any other respect. Please take this to the article talk page.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I know its a few days old now but thanks for your help in the deletion review. I appreciate how you handled it and that you would call a review of yourself. I thought that was admin-worthy. Hope this doesn't come across wrong, but that led me to look you up on Requests for Adminship. Saw what happened years ago. Sad, I think you would have been a great admin. Too many have hotheads, tempers, biases, etc. If you reconsider I would gladly endorse you. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)