Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by S Marshall (talk | contribs) at 18:54, 15 February 2012 (Remark). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Since this is my talk page, I archive it to suit me; this means archives may be reorganised to group material by content instead of by date.

Archives:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ∞

Nomination of List of Bohemian F.C. players for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Bohemian F.C. players is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Bohemian F.C. players until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 14:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Threshold and verifiability

Hi. Re "The other part of the problem is the implication that it's acceptable to add untrue material to the encyclopaedia. That implication needs qualifying and defining." - I think the source of that problem is "The threshold" in the statement, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability". This statement can be misinterpreted to mean that verifiability is a sufficient condition for inclusion, without considering requirements from other policies and guidelines, and without consideration of whether or not material would improve the article. I think this would be helped by simply adding the word "first", i.e. "The first threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability". Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've always preferred "A criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability".—S Marshall T/C 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"A criterion..." is correct. However, I think some people may not like it because it doesn't include the characteristic that "verifiability" is the primary criterion. On the other hand, using "The first threshold..." suggests that "verifiability" is the primary criterion, that there are other criteria to satisfy, and thus "verifiability" is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• OMG, I did not realize the intense debates which are trying to claim Misplaced Pages should be oblivious to the truth, including substituting any other synonym when the word "true" or "truth" describes the actual concerns in WP. The implications for Misplaced Pages could be devastating: imagine someone ready to write a "truthiness" tool to quickly estimate the "truth level" of an article based on sources, plus common-sense phrases which imply self-promotion or falsehood versus true or objective text, then consider the death of that tool when they read "...not truth" in WP:V. Imagine people trying to find the "true authors" of text which might be plagiarized, but then they read WP:V and think why bother. The oblivion is not just for any random concept, but for "truth" -- long considered the heart of scientific advancement ("objective truth" in Google). I am a pro-active person, and I seek to avoid roadblocks, rather then dismantle them. At this point, I suggest to just help people find true information (avoid false) to add to articles. Meanwhile, it might be possible to dismantle the not-truth roadblock in WP, by continual efforts to reach more concerned editors. However, I will continue to explain the importance of getting true information into Misplaced Pages, such as reading any expert writings (or blogs), and then finding WP:RS sources which confirm those expert opinions. Many experts know the inside truth, but known sources do not cover the information in that manner. Also, I have an essay, "WP:TRUTHFUL" which begins to explain the importance of true information in WP. Thanks again for taking all the extra time to discuss problems with the phrase "not truth". -Wikid77 (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No plagiarism/arse licking intended

Mr Marshall, I did try to read as much of the commentary about the first sentence of verifiability, but I confess my eyes glazed over half-way through the page (read from last post to earlier ones). I honestly didn't see your von Daeniken comment and came up with it only to avoid quoting a Jim Wales analogy about flat earth theory (to avoid the Jim Wales adoration society status).

I make no apologies about being nerdy in considering philosophical implications, but I see your point about the stick with which to beat the nutcases. I was hoping, though, to make the point that this stick exists without resort to 'not truth'. That is, however, a matter for judgement which I don't intend to make.

Appealing to your greater insight into that debate, would you care to venture a brief explanation as to why the bloody hell such an apparently trivial change has become a matter of such intractable controversy? Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 13:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

• I believe it's become an intractable controversy because editors fundamentally disagree about what the purpose of the policy is. I think that SlimVirgin, WhatamIdoing, Blueboar, and all the others want to keep their "not truth" because they edit contentious articles and they find that phrase helps them to win content disputes when dealing with inexperienced or bad faith editors who want to advance a point of view. They're either oblivious to the negative consequences of the phrase, or else understand that there are negative consequences but see these as an acceptable price to pay.

  Fundamentally, the opposers have a good faith belief in what they're writing. I think their debating tactics have not always been as clean as their motives, but I do understand very clearly where they're coming from.—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries

Hi S Marshall. Do you have access to any publications that will be helpful at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 2#Key industries? I've rewritten the article at User:Mrwalis/Key Industries but am uncertain that it will pass another AfD. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

• That's very industrious of you, Cunard, and you've gone up even further in my esteem! I'm afraid I don't have access to any relevant publications for a Canadian industry but I will certainly try to help you improve it.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words. If you could copyedit or proofread User:Mrwalis/Key Industries and User:Amyabaker/Noddle (see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 3#User:Amyabaker/Noddle) for me, I'd be grateful. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the improvements you made to Noddle. By the way, you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC on the primary topic of China, where I've proposed that a triumvirate of admins (which you discussed with Mkativerata at User talk:Mkativerata/Archive9#Triumvirate) close Talk:China#Requested move August 2011. Cunard (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Alex Day for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Day is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alex Day (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The DRV at 9/9

I'm getting a tiny bit annoyed at the mud being freely slung by User:Cerejota in the deletion review for Murder of Adrianne Reynolds. Am I being dense? Obtuse? I feel some anger from that user, and I'm not sure it's well-founded or well-placed. Further, it's totally against AGF. I mean, if something is being wrongly tracked, we have ANI, WT:AfD, SPI, any number of forums. Since we're already in an appropriate forum, I'm wondering why that user can't say exactly what is meant. Just casting aspersions is getting us nowhere. Do you have a sense? BusterD (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly, I have a sense that he's about twelve years old.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• That would answer a lot of questions, including the user raising autopatrol experience as an issue. In every field, being painted with a brush, fairly or otherwise, has a consequence. In the US, used to be accusing someone of communist membership was enough to derail one's whole life. Then it was accusations of being gay. Or being a sexual predator. Mere accusation carried undue weight, and put the accused in an awkward position of defense. In this arena, being accused of being a paid editor is the new communist. I've got some big problems with someone casually throwing around such mud, even a youngster (especially the unconsequenced youngster). Hence my defensiveness. BusterD (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the editor has proven your point. BusterD (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)'

If you have an issue with me, common decency says you address it with me. But I am just 12...--Cerejota  06:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA because lets solve it...

Hello, S Marshall. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Cerejota  07:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA ending

I'd suggest just letting Cerejota have the last word and letting the thread die. Gerardw (talk) 10:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think Cerejota feels puzzled that the community hasn't supported him in this. I think that in the past, he's learned to take charge of simple situations. He's learned to do what he thinks is right, and he's learned to expect support and praise from the community for doing it. It's left him with a lot of confidence in his own judgment and an exaggerated idea of his own competence, which he's more recently started to exercise in much more complicated situations—those where it's necessary to recognise that there are shades of grey and the other side may have a valid point of view. I don't think he really groks the subtleties of what he's done at WT:V or DRV at all.

  I've tried to leave him a graceful way to back out, but to be honest, I think Cerejota feels entitled to an outcome that doesn't place the blame squarely on him. He wants to think that what I've said is not justified, and he might seek that outcome elsewhere, since the WQA's given him very little satisfaction. I do think there's a pretty fair chance that I'll find myself at a RFC/U.

  I would agree that it would be wise to let the thread die, but equally, where he asks me a question there, it behoves me to answer.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly haven't read the entire history of past interactions, but certainly from what I've seen at WQA, it would be a very short RFC/U. I agree that it's polite to answer questions that are primarily requests for information, but when the focus of the question seems to be to score rhetorical points, or are repetitive or argumentative, I personally feel justified in ignoring them. My experience has shown that providing an answer is more likely to result in another question than a resolution. Please note that this is all just suggestion mean to be helpful, you can certainly continue to participate in the WQA if you wish. Gerardw (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly grateful for your advice and support.  :) All the best—S Marshall T/C 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion on a BLP matter

Hello S Marshall. I generally like and agree with your views on inclusion of information and BLP concerns. If you could, I'd like to read your opinion on whether we should respect the wishes of a subject and her representatives to not include a basic personal fact (date of birth). Please see Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Xenia_Tchoumitcheva and Talk:Xenia Tchoumitcheva. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 13

Hi S Marshall. As an uninvolved DRV regular, would you take a look here? I Cunard (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for consulting me, Cunard. I've replied there. All the best—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bot request

Hi S Marshall, we've had some further discussion at Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#Red_link_fixer - please let us know your thoughts on what the links should be changed to. Thanks, Hard Boiled Eggs 11:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystery

Please solve this mystery if you can...

On September 23rd, traffic to Portal:James Bond doubled, and has stayed at the new level since then. I can't figure out what happened.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Portal%3AJames_Bond

Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Misplaced Pages.

See http://stats.grok.se/en/201109/Outline%20of%20James_Bond

I'd like to find out what happened, in case it reveals helpful link placement tips that can double the traffic to outlines too!

I look forward to your reply on my talk page. The Transhumanist 23:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing rugby club deletions

Hi. I thank you for taking on closing deletion discusions, but I do not understand your reasoning for closing the following three Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Clondalkin RFC Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Balbriggan RFC Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dublin City University RFC as keep. The reason given Nobody apart from the nominator thinks this material should be deleted seems a bit flawed to me as only two other people commented and there keeps were purely procedural (i.e they did not determine themselves whether the articles met WP:GNG. Another editor admin relisted them earlier and it seems a bit strange to close them after only a couple of hours of after this relisting. AIRcorn (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Aircorn. Alpha Quadrant is not an admin, and I do not agree with his decision to relist in this case or others (such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zachary Stone). When a discussion has been listed for the full seven days, has attracted commentary from uninvolved editors, and there's a unanimous keep apart from the nominator, then relisting is not appropriate. The fact that the "keep" !votes were procedural does not mean that they were not grounded in policy! In this case, the keep !voters were correctly pointing out that the nomination failed WP:BEFORE, in that it did not appear possible that Gnevin could have carried out a thorough search for sources for each occasion in his AfD nomination spree. And the basis for the nomination was shaky in any case. I do not regard Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability as having much weight, because recent discussions have established that specific notability guidelines (which are mostly not guidelines, being for the most part correctly described as essays) may be disregarded in favour of the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just assumed Alpha was a admin. He closed some similar discussions earlier as keep so you may want to look check those. I watch rugby related deletions and was working through the recent additions. User:Gnevin added quite a few at once (the reason for the procedurals) and it was taking me a while to check them out. I never got to the ones you closed, so personally I don't know if they were worth keeping or not. I just found it a bit strange that they were closed after being re-listed. I actually wish that so many weren't added at once, but Gnevin did have a point about some. Ah well it saves me a bit of time searching for sources at least. Thank you for explaining your reasoning better. BTW even though I was party to the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability guidelines (which these all met anyway) I agree that they should not overshadow GNG or consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Alpha Quadrant#Early AfD closures

Owing to Alpha Quadrant's belief that I'm out to "harass" him, I can't get through to him that early closures should not be done unless there are good reasons to do so. You have frequently talked about providing a FairProcess at XfDs. Perhaps you'll be able to explain it better. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

And I just found this on User talk:Phoenix B 1of3, with whom he has not interacted. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Cunard. I have done my best! Regards—S Marshall T/C 11:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for kind comment here! I am optimistic that your words will be more effective than mine. Cunard (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, that didn't end well.  :(—S Marshall T/C 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• These were an interesting, yet unsurprising, series of edits. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I was watching. I must say that there no longer appears to be anything productive that I can do in this case. I do think Alpha Quadrant is editing in good faith and, with a little more experience and a few more rough corners worn smooth, may well become a valuable contributor.—S Marshall T/C 23:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your attempt. I agree that Alpha Quadrant has the potential to become a valuable contributor, but only if he engages in discussion and acknowledges his errors. I also believe that he is editing in good faith. However, if he doesn't change his AfD closing behavior after my detailed explanation about the contentious history behind early closures, I can only conclude that he is editing in bad faith. Cunard (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• People learn best from reflection on personal experience. I'm sure Alpha Quadrant will be more careful in how he handles these matters in future, and I'm hopeful that Spartaz will also have the opportunity to engage in some productive reflection.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• While Spartaz could have been less blunt, I think the gist of his advice is valid. Cunard (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree. The right advice, but presented rather too heavy-handedly.—S Marshall T/C 00:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Diff and diff: Now there are accusations of personal attacks and stalking. A marked difference from the discussion I had with King of Hearts (talk · contribs) a week ago regarding his early closure.

  You were correct above when you wrote that your involvement would no longer be productive. I should have followed your lead and withdrawn from the discussion. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

About your recent DRV comments

About the DRV you commented on here, that editor is a problem. I think he has something of a problem understanding English, yet he is spending most of his time on "administrative" tasks such as AFDs, prods, tagging images, etc., for which he doesn't understand the policies and procedures and for which he is usually unable to present coherent comments. Which amounts to disruption. Check his talk page for some of my criticism, and to see how widespread the problem areas are. I've asked him repeatedly (both on his talk page and in some e-mails back and forth) to refrain from any of that and stick to normal article editing and participation in discussions others have started until he has some more practice and better comprehension. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at his talk page and contribution history, and see if you have any input as to how this problem can be addressed. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Postdlf. At first glance my reaction is, gosh, that looks like a bit of a knotty one; Dunning–Kruger effect looks relevant. I will read some more, and do some thinking, to see if I can come up with a helpful strategy. All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Okay, what I can see is someone who would like to help contribute to Misplaced Pages. His language skills appear to be an issue which prevents him from doing much with articles, so he's focused on the supporting structure--the machinery of AfD, DRV etc. and particularly maintenance-type tasks which, at face value, don't require much use of language. Unfortunately, a lack of language skills means he's failed to grok the policies and also makes his decisions hard to discuss or understand. Easily stated, but how can it be corrected?

  Ideally this editor would be persuaded to work with images or templates rather than the discussion process, but to divert him into that it will be necessary to open a meaningful channel of communication with him. Can we ascertain what his native language might be, and ask an editor from the appropriate Wikiproject to intervene? I would guess the subject editor is east Asian.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I think he's Chinese American. The language issue is only part of it, because he understands me telling him "you don't understand policy" but he doesn't believe it (take a look at my talk page and one of his DRVs; he seemed almost to be gloating that one of his AFDs was closed as "delete", as if that vindicates him on everything). So I don't know if just having someone tell him in Chinese that "you don't understand policy" is going to be enough.

    Images and templates have also been a problem (tagging with "no permission" image clearly identified as non-free; listing templates used for copyright investigation because he was unable to figure out that they are used and for what; tagging section of article with notability template because he didn't think the section was notable). Across the board, he's jumping to deletion nominations and tagging on matters that he doesn't understand rather than asking questions first; instead it often seems as if he's treating the deletion process as a talk page (particularly with his AFD nominations, often he says "I'll vote later"). You'd think someone would find a talk page easier to deal with than listing something at Templates for discussion. Which in a way makes me wonder whether we have the selective comprehension of a troll, but I'll assume good faith for now. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

    • We might be dealing with someone who understands an East Asian wikipedia and is accustomed to a different wiki culture. Maybe on zh.wiki they nominate things for AfD and then !vote keep; I wouldn't know. I do think we won't be able to make an informed judgment about this editor until we've put him in touch with an editor with whom he shares a language; if he's Chinese, then I would think User:Timotheus Canens is the man to talk to (mature, wise, diplomatic, and native language Chinese).

      Of course, it might go the other way. You'll be aware that it's said that AGF isn't a suicide pact, and the possibility of a WP:COMPETENCE-related sanctions will no doubt have occurred to you.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

      • All true. I think you have the best idea for now about how to deal with this. postdlf (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
        • I've dropped a note on T. Canens' talk page directing his attention to this.—S Marshall T/C 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Oddly enough, he doesn't have many edits on zhwiki, and those edits used an English edit summary. I'll have to think about this. Not quite sure how this one is best handled. T. Canens (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
            • Could it be a dialect or variant such as wuu.wiki? (My ignorance of east asian tongues is shocking.)—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
              • (talk page stalker) His home Misplaced Pages would appear to be English. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello S Marshall! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 7

Thanks!

I was going to post "Bloody hell, not again", but it would come across as if I was mad at you, while I am actually frustrated with my own problems in signing things correctly. I somehow lose a tilde way too often. Thanks for correcting my sig here! Fram (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome, but it was a very small thing.  :) All the best—S Marshall T/C 13:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

SuperKombat

Thanks for your comments on the DRV. I've got nothing but respect for HJ, and I acknowledge the wisdom in yours and Rich's words. Can you explain why these pages weren't G4'd right away? The first three clearly meet the criteria. BusterD (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the talk page note. I always watch deletion reviews, so it's not necessary, but I'm always grateful for the courtesy! All the best—S Marshall T/C 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA thank you

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Your confidence will not be shattered. Best, Schmidt, 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Redrawing the CNGS layout (underground structures: CNGS layout.jpg)

Hi,

Thanks for the offer. This is used mainly in the article OPERA neutrino anomaly, and to a lesser extent in CNGS (Cern Neutrinos to Gran Sasso). I redrew two pictures in that article (Figs 3 and 5), and probably will redo Fig 4 as well. I think, from the article-point-of-view, Fig 1. is meant to capture the structures producing the proton beam at CERN (which, in turn, produces neutrinos), and their connection to other CERN experiments/equipment such as the Large Hadron Collider (also in the news quite a bit). The dimensions of the tunnel help one visualize the space where the neutrinos are born.Ajoykt (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, Ajoykt. I'll do Fig 1, then. All the best—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• You can now see my first attempt on the right. What revisions does it need?—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks great - captures the essence of the diagram without the copyrighted effects. You can add the heights marked in the figure - 55m and 140m - to give a sense of the tunnel space. Other than that, it looks good to go. In theory, Fig 1 is still on WikiCommons, but is delete-tagged and I don't think it will survive. Thanks again. Ajoykt (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've put an approximate scale on the bottom right. Will you add it to the relevant articles, if you think it's ready, please? All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Linked it. Ajoykt (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Note

it might interest you that before you aadopt Radvo he seems to have a stalker as evident by this message. Its the same troll thats been stalking me for a week. Pass a Method talk 23:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

sV

On further reflection, I must apologize for my "death's door" comment, I didn't mean it the way it came out, so I've redacted it. Dreadstar ☥ 06:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• That was a graceful apology and spoken like a gentleman!—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agriculture in the United Kingdom

The article Agriculture in the United Kingdom you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some changes or clarifications which need to be addressed. If these are fixed within fifteen days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Agriculture in the United Kingdom for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jezhotwells: I think that's by the fastest, most thorough, best thought out and most helpful review I've ever received. It's amazing how you don't see things til someone else points them out... I'll take a close look at what I can do within the 15 days although it may not be fixable in that timescale.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Freemasons and bot

Since you asked about this, this may be of use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thumb twiddling‎

Please do not close AfDs with only two participants. The appropriate action would have been to relist for further discussion. Rklawton (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's no minimum number of participants for AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 02:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I know that. I also know standard practice, and I know you didn't follow it. Rklawton (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Can haz link?

Could you give me a link to the main RfC on VnT? I searched for "RfC" in about 10 archives and can't find it. I think it may be on a sub-page? B——C_ritical 18:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hi mate

  It's in archive 53, here:- Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability/Archive 53#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence.

  All the best—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (: B——C_ritical 18:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Alpha Quadrant on ANI

Hi, since you ask at the top of your talk page not to use a template, I'll just write a message instead of {{ANI-notice}}, just letting you know that Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Alpha_Quadrant is open for discussion, since I saw you were involved with the user before, thanks! Taric25 (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

re: requests for "evidence"

This does keep coming up, doesn't it. It's almost as much a "mantra" with the nay-sayers as VNT itself.

One suggestion to make your life less frustrating... create a userpage outlining a whole bunch of examples of situations where people have misinterpreted VNT. Then, every time someone repeats the "show me examples" mantra, you wont have to go through the process of dredging up examples again and again. You can just say "sure, you go" and point them to that page. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of ARS list DRV

No offense, but you completely misjudged the discussion. Seven of the votes endorsing were from people who voted keep in the MfD. Five who hadn't voted in that MfD were members of the Wikiproject whose page was up for deletion. Two others are non-members who have made repeated comments in support of the list before the discussion. Look at Aaron Brenneman's comment on all those endorse votes as well and how nearly all of them did not even address the issue at hand. It should be noted that Aaron actually supported the list in an ANI discussion so his support for re-opening certainly means something. Even one of the people who voted keep stepped in to say it should be re-opened. There were five votes, two of them from admins, clearly in favor of relisting on top of my own. The last time we had a deletion discussion involving a tool used by ARS a few weeks back it got 89 votes, but this got shut down after just 14 votes. WP:SNOW does not mean "flooded by partisan votes" but that there is not any genuine contention. In fact, two separate ANI discussions support that it was very much a genuine contention. One of the people voting for a relist said he did not even see that the discussion was going on and would have voted deleted had he known about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, I'm afraid that I didn't misjudge the discussion at all. I'm well aware of who is and is not in the ARS. I'm afraid you never stood the least chance of success with that nomination. I waited until there were enough !votes to prove that to you before snow closing. That was an appropriate close and I will not be changing my mind. If you wish to appeal against it, the best venue is probably WP:AN/I, although I advise you to consider dropping it and leaving the ARS alone instead.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)