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.
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)
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 MarshallTalk/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 MarshallTalk/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 MarshallTalk/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 MarshallTalk/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)
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 MarshallTalk/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 MarshallTalk/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)
No, please don't nominate me for adminship! Like you, I'm having too much fun editing at the moment. :)—S MarshallTalk/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 MarshallTalk/Cont 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Haha, so for you adminship is just adding to your workday!
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 MarshallTalk/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 MarshallTalk/Cont 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
BS?
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
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 MarshallTalk/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 MarshallTalk/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)