User talk:S Marshall/Archive4

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.

Amicaveritas

Unblocked. Looking at it again, the addition is sourced, but ... yes, not as simple as it looks. Black Kite 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oversight requests

Please do not leave requests of for usage of the Oversight tool on public messageboards such as the incidents noticeboard. For more info on how to correctly make Oversight requests, see Wikipedia:Oversight. Thank you. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 01:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

When did I do this?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- This post that I removed. Posting a link to get something oversighted will increase the visibility of the offending edit before it is removed. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  - I did not request oversight, Deskana. Another editor made that suggestion, but I was totally uninvolved in the oversight request.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    - My point is, if you see information which needs hiding, please don't post it on the Administrators Noticeboard and make it more visibile to more people. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      - I didn't feel it needed hiding.
        Before posting on AN/I, I looked at WP:OS and checked the three grounds for oversight quite carefully. I felt that none of them applied to this case. Ground 2 is the closest, but it requires intervention from either Wikipedia's counsel or the subject of the insulting messages, and neither had made any input.
        Therefore, once I had decided that oversight was not justified on policy grounds, I acted to bring the matter to the attention of the administrator community.
        And that's all I did. I'm not involved in any of this drama and I don't want to be. And I certainly shan't bother raising concerns about disruptive editors in future.
        Now that I've explained myself, you should desist from admonishing me on my talk page about this incident.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice Please

Thanks again for your assistance earlier. I hope that I am now handling this correctly and appropriately. I'm still trying to discuss with the opposing editors although they seem set on quoting policy. I have elaborated in the forum you pointed me to as to my concerns. If you would be able to take a moment to review my posts and confirm, refute comment or advise on this I would be grateful. I'm a bit perplexed as to why my edits have been so vehemently opposed. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks. Amicaveritas (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amicaveritas!

No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong at all, but I can see how all this drama has arisen.

Wikipedians see a lot of vandalistic behaviour, and we're highly sensitive to certain behaviour patterns—particularly, reverting or removing content that other people have added in good faith, without discussing the matter first. Most people who exhibit this behaviour pattern are genuine vandals and they (rightly) receive very short shrift on Wikipedia.

However, in this case you were exhibiting this behaviour for a very good reason, which is that someone close to you was the target of an unfavourable biography of a living person, and that was making you understandably unhappy.

I feel that your situation warranted a very different response to the one you actually received. And in fairness, the administrators involved (notably Black Kite) were quick to respond when I raised this as a genuine concern.

I think the problem here was exacerbated from some relatively new users taking it upon themselves to hit you with a very large number of warning templates. This was done without taking into account the biographies of living persons issues, and your explanations were unfairly disregarded.

I'm sorry this happened. In defence of the other editors concerned, I will say that these warning templates are usually added using automated tools. The process is designed to let a small number of anti-vandal editors (commonly called "recent changes patrollers") cope with a large quantity of vandalism, so you often get a very substantial number of edits per minute from the recent changes patrolling community. The process is usually fairer and more effective than it was in your case.

I also feel that Black Kite and Gwen Gale, the two administrators who have posted on your talk page, are likely to have a great deal of sympathy for the recent changes patrollers who dealt with you in their usual anti-vandal fashion.

Since the content is now protected, and you seem to be happy with the version presently supplied, you can return to discussing the matter in the collegial fashion that's appropriate for a collaborative website such as Wikipedia. I honestly believe that if you continue down the discussion-based road you're presently following, all will now be well. The golden rules are: Keep calm; assume that other editors with whom you may disagree are nevertheless posting in good faith; be civil at all times; and if in dispute, seek help from a third party rather than attempting to confront another editor yourself.

I will keep an eye on this situation for several days to come, and if I feel I can intervene to help keep the article factual, neutral and verifiable, I will certainly do so. You're also welcome to post here again if you would like support from me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thank you. I won't say I'm happy with the current version, but I am certainly happier and will proceed with discussions on the changes to date any futher changes. Amicaveritas (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Huge personal thank you for your understanding, assistance, guidance, support and help in this matter! If I can ever return the favour - please let me know. I've now added some links to the discussion page which I hope will be useful in the rewrite. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Amicaveritas. I've replied on the relevant talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant job on the article!! Well written balanced and cited. Thank you! Amicaveritas (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

List of African dinosaurs

Hello, S Marshall;

I'm impressed with your work, and I'm withdrawing the deletion nomination. There's one little thing I'd like to recommend, since you're still in the process of setting up these list articles: genus names should be italicized. If you don't get to it, I'll do it, but I thought I'd mention it since it's easier to do earlier in the process. Thank you! J. Spencer (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, J Spencer, and you're (obviously) correct about the italicisation. I'll do it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in: what an incredibly cool list! Drmies (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

possibly

I and probably others would like to be able to email you. there's no sacrifice of privacy in enabling the email feature, since it doesnt reveal you email address unless you reply. And you can always use a throw-away account for the purpose. Or you can probably figure out mine at my university. DGG (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

your most recent ponderings...

Eh...you still think so after I had to double back on that recent AfD nomination? My dear S Marshall, I am very honored, but can I think on it some? Thanks--Drmies (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've always thought of you as an excellent candidate. Why don't I nominate you, and you become one, and then you tell me how it is? You're so much more active on the policy side than I am, esp. at AfD, and with that journal-essay... Think about it, will you? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- You know what I like here? Turning red links into blue links--Kronos Quartet Performs Alfred Schnittke: The Complete String Quartets. Now look at Kronos Quartet discography and you'll see how much work there still is for me! Drmies (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, please don't nominate me for adminship! Like you, I'm having too much fun editing at the moment. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's the thing, isn't it? Do admins still have fun (editing is fun, for me)? Or are they occupied 24/7 with matters of policy and WP:AN/I? Guys like Uncle G seem to do both--but one gets the impression that they are full-time Wikipedians, and I have a job and a dog and a bunch of other dependents. I assume you have a day job, or a night job maybe--or don't the Brits work at all anymore? ;) Drmies (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm a local government employee. Every weekday morning, I go to what I laughingly call "work" and then sit around drinking coffee, eating biscuits, taking lunch breaks, and when all other work avoidance strategies have failed, holding meetings. ;)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha, so for you adminship is just adding to your workday! Biscuits, eh? Not our nice, fluffy, Southern biscuits, I imagine. I've been watching Prime Suspect so I've seen lots of British government employees at work--no wonder you need African dinosaurs to brighten up your day. And I'm happily, cheerfully grading papers and making exams... Drmies (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I feel so much better now that I've cleaned up one section of the biscuit article. Perhaps, after a long day of meetings, you'll want to make some beaten biscuits--you'll soon learn why. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Now there's a subject dear to my heart. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

LinguistAtLarge has just done me the great favor of granting me rollback. Now I have to make sure I don't click that link accidentally! I think you, more than me, would benefit from that tool also, no? Drmies (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I was actually the person who nominated Linguist for adminship.

Thing is, I don't do much in the way of vandal-fighting, so I'm not sure how much I'd use it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

BS?

File:Tanuki pottery statue.jpg

Proud Tanuki carries flask of sake and oversized bollocks

Ha, you learn something new every day, such as I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death and Adjustment Hypotheses (2nd nomination)--the bullshit test! Thanks! And there's a picture of the Tanuki there... Oh, I finally got to use my rollback tool while perusing "Recent changes." Very handy, and addictive. Take care! Drmies (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...

I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

While I'm not the one who took out your closure, I'd suggest you might reread your closing statement. Does it really say what you want it to say?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's what the debaters are actually saying, yes. And I'm convinced the discussion needs to be closed, since it will not reach a positive resolution.

Having said that, I might do better to walk away from the keyboard for five minutes and then re-close it. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Walking away for five minutes is always a good strategy. One I employ often. :)

I can't say I agree with your conclusion. I'd say right now there's nothing close to a consensus, but there are a whole lot of unanswered questions. However, your closing statement comes off as either a result of frustration or an attempt to offend anyone who didn't immediately and enthusiastically agree with you. I'll go with the frustration hypothesis, and a friendly recommendation of having a cup of tea, a nice walk in the sunshine, and a rewrite or removal of the statement. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the revised version won't give offence.

I do find the objection "but it'll be hard for the poor nominator!" very irritating and annoying, and I take great exception to Kww and Dreamguy's remarks (in particular). But there are too many influential Wikipedians opposed to a sensible distribution of the burden of proof; it'll never pass.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that the revised version is better, but I think that it omits nuances in the discussion. Please consider reopening the discussion. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reopening the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:N

I have started a thread on the talk page of WP:N regarding your recent revision of that guideline. It is at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Is merger required in every deletion with some reliable sourced information? I am concerned that many articles would be less encyclopedic, and would give undue weight, if every referenced trivial factoid had to be included in the related article when the factoid article got deleted. Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for advising me, I'll reply there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thank you Thank you again for the barnstar! Ikip (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ikip (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: "Suggestion. Userfy all of the bilateral relations articles created by Plumoyr to a subpage of the Bilateral Relations Task Force, now. Then allow the AfDs to proceed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)"

Do you know an admin willing to do this? Ikip (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't, I'm afraid; but I think it's not that unreasonable to ask.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems Again

Dear Mr Marshalll - Webhamster has again added defamatory content to the article on Syed Ahmed - against the concensus of opinion. Please would you remove this content and prevent him from editing? Thanks Amicaveritas (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Amicaveritas. I'm not in a position to revert this content because the article has been protected by an administrator. I've just left a message with her.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article has now been protected without the disputed content, which I hope will allay your concerns.

I recommend being very careful not to get into a disagreement with Gwen Gale. Know your admins. :) Gwen Gale responds well to politely-worded requests, but she doesn't respond well at all when faced with strident demands in the emphatic declarative. My advice would be to stay off her talk page completely for the time being and to respond very mildly to her on yours.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you.

I was somewhat confused by her initial reaction - I thought I had once again fairly raised, fair comments (which were not new) regarding an editor which ignored her comments and previous actions.

I guess I should have phrased my request more carefully.

Amicaveritas (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

She won't take sides in a content dispute. That wouldn't be proper behaviour from an admin in this matter, because she has protected the page. Thereafter she has to be staunchly neutral.

She can, and will, challenge all sides on any errors of policy or wikiquette they might commit, but she will not make a decision on content. That's for us, the ordinary editors, to sort out between ourselves on the article's talk page.

It's very important, at this stage, that you be more courteous, more civil, calmer, and more rational than anyone you might find yourself disagreeing with. I'd also recommend using fewer words than they do.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not respond to WebHamster's accusations of bad faith. This is important.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Noted and understood. Thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Happy Wiki-birthday! Our files show that you have been a Wikipedian for Three Glorious Years today! I hope your next three are just as exciting, more exciting, or less exciting, as you would prefer. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 23:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Quadell.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tina Guo

I got to work on that article, but gave up after a couple of tries. I did leave you a note at the AfD--feel free to discard, now that I have realized the profound truth of your remark. *sigh* Drmies (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol! You're a braver man than I. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, I think it's done. I could cut more, haha, and I'm not so convinced of notability anymore...BTW, that's a really yummy-looking kitten up there. If you don't want it... Drmies (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

ARS?

[1] → watch who you're calling an ARSe ;) MuZemike 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The best thing you can do is probably just make another edit right away and add in the summary "Oops, meant to say "assess"! Previous summary accidentally truncated" or whatever gets across that the previous summary was an error. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've looked carefully to try to understand that, KC, and I can't help thinking you might have misunderstood what's happened?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Adminship, redux

I asked you a few months ago to consider accepting a nomination for adminship, and I lamented—at some length—that you declined. Your continued quality participation, especially at DRV, where you consistently demonstrate the two qualities that most suit one to adminship, viz., an ability to appreciate consensus and an understanding of adminship as ministerial, leads me to hold even more firmly to the views I expressed then, and I am compelled to ask whether you might reconsider. Thanks, Joe 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support your being a candidate. I have found you to be a very collegial editor who doesn't get flustered. I am confident you would administrate respectfully, civilly, and with good judgement. Plus, it's a big increase in pay and benefits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly, I just came by to see if you and an interest in being an admin (really). And as CoM mentions, I hear you get a 20% raise. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, thank you. I'm honoured by your good opinion of me.

I'm not certain I have the temparament for adminship (and by temparament, I mean patience); I view the bullshit involved in the current RFA process with considerable trepidation; and I'm also not certain what use I would have for the tools, given that I'm mainly active at AfD and DRV, and I prefer to !vote than to close.

Having said that, one doesn't lightly disregard a simultaneous approach from three respected editors asking one to step up to the plate. And if nobody who takes my view volunteers for adminship, then all we'll have are admins who view that role as a judge of the consensus rather than a clerk to it, which I think is immensely destructive.

I suppose I feel obliged to stand, though it would in some ways be a relief to fail. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Failure is not set in stone. I, too, think you in fact have the patience needed for adminship actually. Anyone who can participate in many AFDs and not once (as far as I have seen) stopped being restrained and commenting only one contributions and never on contributors can be considered to have that patience. ;-) You have a good clue of deletion processes and behave yourself like an admin more often than not. And remember, adminship is no big deal, so not "achieving" it is nothing that will change anything at all. So good luck if you decide to run! :-) Regards So Why 18:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the consensus appears to be that I should stand. :)

Fair enough, nominate me. I have enough grey hairs that a few more won't matter.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on a nomination tonight, but if anyone has something ready or would prefer to go sooner, he/she should, of course, feel free. Joe 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

After the drama my last nominee caused (albeit for other reasons), I do not think I should nominate anyone for a while. It might influence people and that would not be a good thing. So Why 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd happy to be a co-nom, but I'm not sure if that would help or hurt, so I'll step back unless asked otherwise. Good luck! Hobit (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Hobit as conom. Hobit, I don't know why you think it might hurt. Have you been getting into trouble??? I think you'll make a fine nominator, and you will after all be the nom and not the nominee, so I don't see a problem even if you've been involved in some scuffle. I'm sure S Marshall's solid contributions will be judged on their merits. I think he deserves a pair of handsome and well coiffed noms. (I would do it myself, but I have stumbled into a small amount of controversy every now and again, and I don't want Marshall to get any Mud on his tailored shirts and pressed pants... And then I also have, at times, been unable to resist the temptation to make a highly inappropriate joke or two, and I'm not sure my Yank brand of humor is fully understood by my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the pond.) But I'll be rooting for you. Good luck and have fun! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dropped you an e-mail. Joe 05:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear all: Grow some balls! ;)

If you think I should be an admin then stand as co-nom, regardless of your history, because "history" is what it is. Everyone's made mistakes at some time or other, and I must say that I view all of you now as respected editors in good standing.

I agreed to do this because several people asked me to on the same day and I was expecting several nominators accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy to do it! I've started on writing it (still not saved). Before I do, I need to know if you've edited under any other name previous to S Marshall so I can take that into account in the nom too. Hobit (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it is unlikely I'll get this done until Friday late afternoon unless I find a few minutes at work today (don't get home until 10pm tonight). If someone else wants to start the process that's fine, I can just copy what I write over to the page they create. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No rush, I'm frankly grateful for the stay of execution...

I've had only this username, prior to which I have no more than a couple of hundred edits as an IP address (dating back to 2004). Another family member edits from my IP address, but she is a separate person with her own opinions. For the curious, it's User:Witt E Pseudonym.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I coconom? I'm all for S Marshall having some hardcore tools. But slap me gently with them, please. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Just make sure Doc includes articles that you've actually worked on as your best contributions (talk about having some balls!!!). :) And if he gets to be conom, I want to be a conom too! What does it mean to be a conom? Do I have to actually help write up the nom statement or is it okay if I just take credit if things go well? I'd like to be a silent partner who takes a large share of the profits without doing any work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You helped talk me into this, so help the others nominate! You lazy person, you. :P—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Trout

Man, that was harsh. Hey, if you got a moment, check out Taslima Nasrin--it's a mess, and I need all the help I can get. The article history may suggest why: a couple of really adamant IPs who are not well-schooled in WP policy are at work here. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On it. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, leave me something, will you? Nice work. Thanks. Let's keep at it and make it an FA. ;) (That won't happen--I don't believe it'll ever be stable enough.) BTW, there's a note on the talk page about earlier versions--there may actually be some truth to that comment. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How about it?

Voila: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/S_Marshall. Please come on, come all, and participate, or co-nom, or co-co-nom. I'll say more on the RfA but the toolserver seems to be down. S Marshall, I am notoriously sloppy--if I have misrepresented you or your contributions, please correct me before we go live. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Joe or another editor have something they were working up? I think some editors prefer to work the nom up in a sandbox and to put it up only once it's finished...

Anyway, I tweaked your nom so it is less personalized and more general, per the expectation of it being a multi-nom candidacy. Please revert if I have erred and I will initiate an edit war and a thorough templating of any policy violations I can find that may or may not apply. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's the list of article he's worked on? I thought you were an expert now on that kind of thing Doc. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the toolserver was down, so I couldn't easily do that. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[EC] It looks like CoM was thinking of doing one set of text and have us all sign it. I was thinking of going the more traditional way and have each of us write stuff. I'd lean a bit toward tradition as RfAs seem to get thrown off by the smallest things, but I'm fine with merging stuff into one big nom. I've added my nom to the article without undoing what CoM did. I can merge my comments in if that's the way we choose to go. Hobit (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Any way you guys want to do it is fine with me. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a list of his contributions on his user page. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And here it is for your convenience.

Articles I've written: Chartered surveyors in the United Kingdom | HIP 56948 | Level bomber | Youth Inclusion Support Panel

—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Let's do it Hobit's way. There are times to deviate from custom and practice, but this isn't one of them!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's the list of articles you simply copied from the online Britannica? Oh yeah, I remember you worked on dinosaurs. That's fun. Listen, whichever way Hobit's way is is fine with me. What I wrote was really only a draft; not a word needs to remain in it, except for the "S Marshall for Admin" part. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the discussion, I believe Hobit is endorsing the approach you had begun Drmies. I will revert my changes. Feel free to take them under advisment as far as wording and the elimination of errant, unnecessary, and provocative semi-colons. Of course this method implies I should write something myself, which I stringently object to. But I'll have a cookie and see if I feel any better about it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>Oops. I couldn't revert myself. Some vandal added a bunch "to" "for" and "of"s. I'm tempted to just sign below Doc's comments with "I approve of this message", but I agree with Marsh that abiding by the typical standards and protocols is probably best. In fact, I think you guys (and gals?) have it under control. I'm going to stand down and see if I can't be of some "assistance" once things really get cooking. :) Good luck! ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't revert your changes--they were fine. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (ssh, incognito)

Okie. Let's see Joe's co-nom (and maybe SoWhy will want to as well).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to offer it but it would take some days before I have the time to check your contribs thoroughly enough to write a sound nomination (I will probably be busy the next few days), so I don't think you should make your request dependent on my nomination. Regards So Why 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No rush to transclude; WP:TIND certainly applies here. I'd rather wait til I've got all the nominations I can. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Marshal, what do you think are your best contributions and in what areas of the encyclopedia do you intend to use your tools? I know you will be asked this later, but I ask because I think it might help shape the direction of the noms? I don't see an enormous amount of new article creation, so I think the focus needs to be on the areas where you do most of your work and will contribute as an admin. I know everywhere I've seen your work, you do a great job, and I'm too self-absorbed to pay attention to what others are up to most of the time. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My best contributions are in the field of deletion, and more than half my edits are deletion-related. That's the only place where I would use admin tools. (I translate as well, but I don't need admin tools for that.)

I think the best single contribution was effecting a change to DRV policy: "no consensus" at DRV no longer automatically defaults to "endorse". Diff: [2] I also effected a change to DRV procedure, in that it now runs for 7 days rather than 5. Diff: [3].

I also rescued Level bomber from deletion, which didn't seem all that fantastic an achievement to me, but for some reason it earned me two barnstars.

In terms of the new articles I've created, the one I'm proudest of is Catherine Bréchignac; I think it's ludicrous that we had all kinds of articles on individual episodes of obscure TV shows but we didn't have a biography of the director of Europe's largest scientific body until I translated it!

I also translated the biography of Cécile Duflot, who's leader of the French Green party, Günter Mittag who's arguably the central figure of East German economics, and two members of the German supreme court: Christine Hohmann-Dennhardt and Evelyn Haas.

I'm not sure about the bits of the nomination saying I'm "always" collegial, either. I like to think I usually am, but honesty forces me to admit that I'm occasionally sharp with people, and in fact I once slung a bureaucrat off my talk page with a flea in her ear... diff: [4].

Hope this helps!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Pfff, that's nothing. That's collegial enough. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) (ssh, incognito)

PS: Although I don't often have the patience for dispute resolution, I can do it. I'm occasionally active at WP:EAR, and it was there that I came across the matter of User:Amicaveritas and the biography of Syed Ahmed. It was fairly sensitive, and I like to think my intervention there persuaded User:Mendaliv to assume good faith in his treatment of Amicaveritas and cease to bite the newbie (diff: [5]), Black Kite to unblock the user (diff: [6]), and restored the article to a WP:BLP-compliant state (see Talk:Syed Ahmed throughout). I think User:Gwen Gale would be best placed to give you an independent view of the incident.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

So, it happens that I’m an idiot (not a revelation, I regret to say). I was waiting today on a reply to an e-mail I sent our good man about 24 hours ago, and I didn’t undertake to hop by in the meanwhile. I found just a moment ago, though, that he’d replied many hours ago but was consigned by Outlook to a folder I don’t usually check; I missed, then, all of this discussion and held off on creating the RfA. I must say that I’ve no doubt that the three nominators have done as well as or better than I might have (as, surely, will SoWhy) and that I don’t know that I can add anything that won’t be duplicative, to no one’s benefit (the presence of what are supposed to be too many nominations has, one will recall, disrupted past RfAs) and so if no one minds I will yield to the others and reserve my support for my !vote, which I will endeavor, lest I should be a total failure, to make of the beat-the-nom variety. :) Joe 06:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to make room for your nom statement, and stand prefectly ready and willing to remove mine. Already I've had to rein in a "humorous" bit that inspired an objection on the part of a fellow editor. And I'm confident your nom statement will be far more erudite, if not as engaging (funny?) as mine. It's no trouble at all, and I'm perfectly happy to eat popcorn, cheer, yell and throw things from the sidelines. Being a part of these things seems, inevitably, to turn into a rather dramatic affair anyway, and I prefer my drama to be on the stage. As all the world's a stage, I think it best to be where the lighting isn't so poor as at RfA. Just say the word. And then tell me what word it was that I needed to watch out for. Also, Drmies and I are sometimes on friendly terms, so maybe a more diverse group of noms would be to better effect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, S Marshall already accepted? I was about to stand down. Now I'm in this until the end? Lord have mercy. My chair doesn't even have handles or a seatbelt. Pray for me.

And I like S Marshall's acceptance by the way. Practically begging them to oppose. Show no mercy, I say! Give him the tools. Good stuff. This ought to be fun! Ahahaha :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>The RfA does not yet appear to be live. So I give my persmission and full support to Joe, or anyone else who wants to be a nom, to replace my comments with theirs. You are welcome to note in the edit summary that it is with permission. Joe was the one who originally suggested nomming (this time anyway) and I think a broad range of editors would be a benefit in the process. Alternatively, just let me know, and if I'm around, I will do it myself. I hope everyone has a terrific weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, really, I've no need to add my own co-nom, although I appreciate most sincerely your magnanimity. It seems to me that once SoWhy has appended his statement, the candidate will be able to transclude whenever he should like. Cheers, Joe 06:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should get it started now as I think Joe and SoWhy will not be doing co-noms. Whenever you're ready, feel free to kick it off (or I can if you prefer for some reason.)Hobit (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I was grateful for the stay of execution...
Okay, I'll transclude shortly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And... we're live. This is not a drill!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA

i added a question. Dloh cierekim 13:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I answered it. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple things about your RfA candidacy make me laugh. One is that your humble and self-effacing comments are so foreign to the rest of us in Wikiland, they are creating some confusion and consternation. And the second is the way you've phrased your "I've always focused on deletion, and I intend to remain very focused on it: specifically, deletion of articles" comment. :) What a fun way to describe an interest in participating in the AfD process. It's bound to give some people pause and I had considered suggesting a clarification, but I like it the way it's written. Hopefully editors will understand you're not actually focused on deleting things, but the process? :) Great stuff. This should be fun. I hope you don't mind if I stand well behind the rest of you... "I've got your back...". ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

RFA and my question

Just letting you know that I supported despite your answer. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The reason why I don't believe that AFD closes, by admins or otherwise, should be open to being "unclosed" by anyone is because it's common practice that nobody who takes a position in a discussion (or is interested in a particular outcome) should be involved in the closing, or reopening, of that discussion. This is not just AFDs either. Silk Tork took some heat for closing the discussion on extending AFD to 7 days because he supported the proposal. IMHO anybody who would be precluded from closing an AFD should also not be reopening it. Ideally, it should be admins who make the decision to reverse a NAC but I will concede that a non-involved non-admin could reverse a completely backwards close or even an involved one if the closure was obviously disruptive such as an article's "creator" speedy closing the AFD. However, anything close to a "valid" close should either go to DRV or the disagreeing editor could ask a non-involved admin to review the close. (or even politely ask the closer to reopen it, I've done that twice) However, like I said that's just my opinion.

One more thing, you should reconsider your "no template" policy. Any good admin should be open to {{trout}} slapping and typing out an ascii art trout would be a pain in the ass :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't think WP:NAC is appropriate for any closure that an editor would revert. If it's contentious enough to revert, then it's contentious enough that an admin should close the discussion. But I agree with you when you say "let's agree to disagree". :)

On the {{trout}} issue, I'm afraid that if the RFA is successful, then I will be an uppity admin and nobody will be allowed to trout me. I shall insist on being slapped with a salmon.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we compromise here? I don't think we have the budget for salmon, but (at least in the Netherlands) there is an "in-between" fish, more affordable, that in Dutch was called "salmon trout." So far, so good, S Marshall. Fortunately no one has yet discovered that you used to run drugs for a cartel or that you danced in a nightclub a la...Henry LaFarge, was it? in A Shot in the Dark? Ssshh, I'm not telling. Oh, I should ask you at your RfA about the proper use of citation templates. Later! Drmies (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)