Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mangoe (talk | contribs) at 17:39, 17 December 2012 (→Arbcom case: new section). 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 20 21 22 ∞

Question re: Politics in the British isles

Hi; I don't want to take up more space at the AfD, so I hope you don't mind if we continue a brief discussion here. You noted that you didn't think the content was worth much; I'd be interested in hearing what sort of content you *would* find useful; i.e. do you think there is any content on bilateral/multilateral politics/international relations in the british isles which would not be fully captured (or belong) in Anglo-Irish relations or other bilateral articles, like Ireland-Isle of Man relations and Ireland-Scotland relations (a new proposed article)? --KarlB (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• From my point of view, "The British Isles" is a geographical term. I've probably been clear enough that I have absolutely zero patience with the Irish nationalists who object to that name and want to change it by renaming Misplaced Pages articles. I have considerable contempt for the views that administrator BHG has repeated about a million times in that AfD.

  There are various political entities that occupy the British Isles. All of them have considerable historical justification for either hating the English, or hating the British, and I can fully understand the movements desiring independence in Ireland, Scotland and Wales (and even Cornwall). But the fact is that there are only two sovereign nations in the British Isles, and the relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom is lopsided because the ROI has slightly less than half the population of London, its economy has crashed and burned, and it's presently in hock to the UK by €8 billion (counting only direct, recent bailout loans).

  I accept that there are authors who've written about political relationships between the political entities of the British Isles and political entities outside it, but I do not see that as a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia. WP:N is a guideline that admits of occasional exceptions, and I see this as one of them: the fact that there are sources doesn't automatically mean there should be an article.

  I accept that there are articles about the politics of other geographic groupings, but I see that as carrying zero weight (WP:OCE).

  So the answer to your question is, I do not think there is any content concerning political relationships in the British Isles that could not be covered in other articles.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose we may have to agree to disagree. I think sovereignty is not the sole determinant of politics or international relations. I also agree that the Dublin-London axis is dominant and has been for some time, but with the creation of the British-Irish Council, many people have been writing and talking about multilateralism in the isles and a re-thinking of relationships; and for me one of the interesting things is, this multilateral approach is desired for *different* reasons - certain elements in Northern Ireland pushed for the council for one reason; others have supported the council for different reasons (see some NI rationale here, and description of their reasoning for an all-isles approach: . Anyway, thanks again for your reasoned input to this discussion.--KarlB (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Politics in the British Isles

I'd like you give input to a thread I've opened on "Politics in the British Isles". If the article is to exist then we may as well make a fist of improving it. Unfortunately, I think that means, like you said in the AfD, blowing it up and starting again. I've proposed an outline for re-starting the article on a firmer and more reasonable footing. I'd appreciate it if you could contribute to putting a good shape on it. --RA (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Attack

Rough consensus

I saw your comments on Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2012_June_24 and rather than clutter up that discussion, I thought I'd directly address this with you since it's more about you than the discussion. I'm afraid you either misunderstand or reject Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Specifically, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS.

It explicitly states that "Administrators must use their best judgment" and that administrators should "disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith" and "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted."

If it appears that participants in that discussion don't understand what a WP:RS is, then BWilkins correctly disregarded or discounted their comments about those sources which is 100% in line with the guideline.

That discussion is not the place to disagree with the guideline, which it appears you are doing there. That should either happen on the guideline's talk page or an RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• With respect, Toddst1, I invite you to re-read what I said.—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Tarc and I are saying the same thing. He commented on your statement atMisplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2012_June_24.

Sorry if I came across crappy above. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability RfC - final call for alterations

Hello again S Marshall. This is to let you know that I have made a final call for alterations to the verifiability RfC draft. Unless there is a very good reason for it not to, the RfC will be going live around 10.00 am (UTC) on Thursday June 28. Even if you would not like to see any further changes to the RfC draft, it would be a great help if you could check over the draft page and make sure everything is working properly. Thanks for your continued patience with this. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar from North8000

		The Original Barnstar
		I know we have a long way to go, but with the RFC launched, this can't wait forever. For your immense efforts to improve wp:verifiability. Through your persistence and brilliant and direct writings, you have been one of the primary driving forces for improvement of this policy. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hello, it's been a while. Hope you are well. Could I request your opinion on my post http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:QR_code relating QR Usage and a new patent please? Amicaveritas (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Amicaveritas, welcome back. It's been a while since the Syed Ahmed controversy! Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm afraid I don't know anything about QR codes and I don't feel able to add anything useful to that discussion. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

EB

About this, read this (if you didn't already) (specifically my first comment there, ha). — Jeraphine Gryphon  14:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Hello, I have seen you are involved in RfC in that verifiability talk page. Someone has offered me to open an RfC regarding Is simple logic a SYNTH ? In summary, in my last post there I concluded that:

"expecting that after researchers have determined that 40mL alcohol can cause a hangover, the researchers will continue to publish papers about each drink that include alcohol, and state if it too cause a hangover. That just don't make any sense, and thus that WP:SYNTH interpretation doesn't make sense either."

In relation to verifiability, I think that simple logic is verifiable, and claiming otherwise is nonsense.

Do you think that I should open an RfC? --Nenpog (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Nenpog

  No, I don't think it's necessary to open a RFC. Policy is that trivial calculations do not constitute a synthesis (see WP:CALC). So for example, if I have a source that says UK wheat yields are about 3 tons per acre, and I want to say in my article that wheat yields are 7 tons per hectare, then I can do that.

  If editors are challenging whether your calculations are accurate or appropriate, then I think that editors active in WikiProject Mathematics would have the best understanding of how far WP:CALC may be stretched in practice. I would suggest seeking third party advice on their talk page (which is here).

  Hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is simple logic like

source-A:X->Y and

source-B:Y->Z, and the simple logic

conclusion-C:X->Y->Z or in short

conclusion-C:X->Z.

In the example:

source-A:XDrink->'40% alcohol by volume', and

source-B:'Ingestion Of 40mL alcohol'->hangover,

conclusion-C:'Ingestion of 100mL XDrink'->hangover.

and I said that not accepting that conclusion-C, is like expecting researchers to produce new paper about every drink that include alcohol, which is not how researchers work. --Nenpog (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This is now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nenpog. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sure it was unintentional...

but I found your "oppose" listed in the "support" section of this RFA. With respects, I have moved it to the "oppose" section. Schmidt, 01:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just went back to pick up the diff and saw you did it intentionaly. Okay... but I thought it might mess up the counting tool if in the wrong section. Schmidt, 01:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Secretly, I'm not really opposing... ;-)—S Marshall T/C 01:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ha, and I am not really trying to insult you! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Badgers? Fascinating. I'd love to see one. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd love to see more badgers that aren't dead.  :-(—S Marshall T/C 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  I hear you, S Marshall. Of course, we're not in the business of social activism (ahem) but publishing that article might educate some people into better behavior. That makes me an old-fashioned leftie, I suppose. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not really a leftie, I just disapprove of killing wildlife when there's an alternative...—S Marshall T/C 18:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

hi S Marshall

That is one absolutely outstanding userpage, fabulously observant. Penyulap ☏ 09:15, 21 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• Why, thank you!—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DRV bot proposal

Can you take a look at WT:DRV#DRV bot request? Thanks a lot. T. Canens (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Badger culling in the United Kingdom

On 25 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Badger culling in the United Kingdom, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that bovine tuberculosis costing £100 million per annum is leading to badger culling in the United Kingdom? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Badger culling in the United Kingdom. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Randomness

Hello!
Just a fork-topic from the AfD of List of Dhoom Machaao Dhoom episodes. What should we call as "uncontroversial"? For example, suppose a film's story matches with another of the film or play or book, is it uncontroversial to state this in the article even if the actual film doesn't acknowledge it? This is a factual material verifiable through primary sources. Would we require a reference for verifying it? (And lets keep this discussion out of BLP's scope. We will get in it if needed. No rush! Reply at your convenience. I might also not reply instantly to you.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Animeshkulkarni, and thanks for your enquiry. Since you're posting to my talk page what you'll get is my personal opinion and not an official answer in any way. I'm interested in verifiability and I was heavily-involved in drafting the current version of WP:V, but I'm not an authority figure of any kind.

  What's uncontroversial? I made an edit that I regard as clearly uncontroversial yesterday, here. The lifespan of a European badger is about 15 years in the wild. I didn't need to add a source for that statement, because it is not (in the words of WP:V) "challenged or likely to be challenged". It's verifiable, but unverified. An editor could remove the statement on the grounds that there's no source for it, but to do so would show poor editorial judgment. A lazy editor might tag it with {{fact}} instead, but in fact any reasonably good editor who had some reason to be concerned about that sentence would google it, find the evidence, and add the source.

  I'm also responsible for writing Margot Kalinke, a biography of a German politician who was important in women's rights. For the last three years since I wrote it, it's had an "unreferenced" tag sitting on the top of it because I didn't bother to supply any sources. Did I need to? Apparently not; nobody has challenged its content, and I don't think anybody is likely to challenge it. Everything I wrote there is verifiable, but not currently verified.

  What are the characteristics of an "uncontroversial" edit? There are five:

• Accurate
• Non-promotional
• Non-defamational
• Copyright-compliant
• Unchallenged

That last characteristic is very important. The moment someone actually challenges an edit, such as by tagging its contents with {{fact}}, then it needs a source. No ifs, buts, nor maybes.

But it's not good editorial judgment to go around challenging edits at random. It's good practice only to challenge content that you're concerned about for some reason, and when you do do that, to focus on biographies of living people, high-traffic articles, or the contributions of editors who are known or suspected of problematic edits.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh i totally forgot about this. I didn't mean it this long when i said "might also not reply instantly". I went on a short wikibreak and then this dialogue never crossed my mind. Sorry for all this delay.
Good lengthy answer. Thanks for that. So you say that some information on Misplaced Pages can stay unreferenced as long as it is non-defamatory or copyvio or non-promotional or factually wrong. And i agree with this. The first 4 points you mentioned can be followed by the editor who introduces such statement in the article. The last 5th point of "unchallenged" is not dependent on the writer. In case something is challenged by some editor, say for no good reason, what should be done? I ask this because i mostly edit India-related articles and Indians have not been good at documenting information. I am talking of statements that satisfy our first 4 points. Example: I am writing an article on a small village in some rural area with say 80-100 population. (That's a tiny village per Indian standards). In it i write; "There is a temple of PQR goddess and people worship her. She is considered as an incarnation of goddess XYZ." Now this subject being not-so-famous, i have no online as well as offline sources to prove this. And for me its unlikely to be challenged too. But somehow some editor challenges it. What next? We can ofcourse keep it there with a cn/fact tag. But this editor doesn't like that option and wants to simply delete it. His reasoning is that if it is unrecorded for now why should Misplaced Pages write it? We can write it here if someone reliable writes it first somewhere else. But what is happening here is that though it is satisfying our 4 points, the information is being lost because someone challenged it.
You didn't specifically answer for my previous example. Would you challenge that statement and demand it's removal? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Afd

I have replied to your comment. I had already replied to this allegation once here so I am pointing it. Now on the AFD Can we please concentrate on the Subject. regards--DBigXray 19:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the yet another excellent demonstration of WP:AOBF --DBigXray 20:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• And the truth shall make you cross.  :-)

  Seriously: when one editor nominates 30+ articles for deletion in the space of a month, and all of them were created by one other editor, then what we have is a potential conduct dispute. I asked if you were on a crusade. You've denied it; your position appears to be that it's a complete coincidence. Let's leave it there and hope it doesn't finish up on AN/I (which is a place I don't enjoy posting).—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Agriculture in the United Kingdom

Hello S Marshall. Did you know that a red link for Fishing in the United Kingdom already exists in the Agriculture in the United Kingdom#Other livestock section? I'm not one to fixate on rules but I don't think that red links belong in the See also section. Also I believe that too many red links starts being an eyesore to the reader. SlightSmile 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation

Regardless of its outcome, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to participate in the DRV on Margo Rey. I appreciate it. Best regards... Vertium _{and done} 16:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Note

Hi, I think you should check up on both the Huxley Institute and Orthomolecular Medicine which you have mentioned here: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2012_August_25#David_R._Hawkins. This will give you an idea on just how fringe both groups are. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Also in Regard to Hawkins

One editor has taken it upon himself to remove published works from the author based on what appears to be an misinterpretation of policy regarding authors who are both independently published and who also publish works through their own publishing company. Is there someway to get a consensus and clarification on this policy or someone who might have a third-party input on the policy as it is being used to delete the author's works? Discussion is also on the article talk. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Geo Swan, DBigXray, and AFDs

I have created a list of AFDs created by DBigXray for analysis here. I hope it supports your position.--v/r - TP 18:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gay Wikipedians

Hello fellow Wikipedian!

Because you were a participating member of the Deletion review for Category:Gay Wikipedians, I've contacted you to let you (and all others involved) know about and participate in the current category discussion. Thanks for your participation!

Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_5#Category:Gay_Wikipedians

Am I overly wordy? Dlohcierekim 17:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

One question added after your vote

Thanks much for voting. When we put the RfC together, one thing we were all agreed on was that it should run a week, so that it didn't take too much time away from more central questions ... but we decided not to put that in the RfC, I think because we didn't want to force a cutoff in the middle of a good debate. At this point, I've added that question, if you'd like to vote on that one too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. LadyofShalott 16:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination)

Hi S Marshall. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 5#User:Timeshift9, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Grant

An old 2009 unsourced, non-notable bio was redirected to River City. OTRS got an email asking why it redirected there. I don't see the connection.... Is that the proper redirect? You were the one who proposed it at the AFD. Cheers! Ocaasi 17:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Ocaasi, thanks for the message. I don't remember my train of thought in a three-and-a-half-year-old AfD, but I imagine that a Paul Grant was an actor in River City; I would have approached that AfD differently nowadays.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There were only two sources available, but they were from BBC and the Telegraph, so I went ahead and wrote a (stub) article. I think it should stick: Paul Grant (bodybuilder). Cheers, Ocaasi 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Nice start, there. Different Paul Grant, I think. All the best—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

About the deletion of Kumar Parakala page

Hi Marshall, Please excuse my naivety but i am new to wikipedia and had created an article http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kumar_Parakala which has been deleted. I noticed your comment on today's deletion review. I couldn't understand a few parts of it. My request is that the article was speedy deleted because of lack of substantial sources but i assure you that the article was written with a neutral point of view and had no element of promotion what so ever. Please advise me if the article can be retrieved back and then i can add other sources and make it better with the help of wikipedia admins. PriyankaLewis (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Priyanka Lewis

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kumar_Parakala

Do you really think I "invent own speedy deletion criteria, or go outside the speedy deletion criteria the community has set for "? The content was broadly the same as that which had an WP:AFD in mid-2011 so deleting largely the same recreated article seems a perfect match for the speedy deletion criterion of G4 (I'll get it right this time). Note: I make no comment on the quality of the AFD but the material I deleted this time was largely the same as that which had a consensus to delete. I don't think I "invented" anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think the criteria for speedy deletion are very clearly-written. By longstanding convention at DRV, they're interpreted narrowly and strictly, which is as it should be; we have a long history of overturning speedy deletions for reasons like this. G4 applies to material that's "substantially identical". I wouldn't object to an AfD concerning this material, but based on what Hut 8.5 says, it seems very clear to me that no speedy deletion criterion applied.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well a lot of it was word for word. I don't appreciate the assertion that I made up speedy deletion criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I will strike it.—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
      • And note, I didn't delete it per your comment "It doesn't say "delete articles about living people that are poorly-sourced".", I deleted it because it was substantially similar (almost verbatim in some cases) to the article deleted as a result of the AFD. Please strike that false accusation as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Still waiting for you to strike this false accusation, even if the discussion has been closed. Ahem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

G4

No need to clog an AFD discussion with this, but your interpretation of G4 is excessively literal. The purpose of G4 is to prevent the community's time from being wasted on repetitive discussions that will inevitably lead to the same result. It has nothing to do with justice or editor retention. If the new version of the article doesn't address any of the issues that the original AFD was based on, it's substantially identical. That's the difference between between being substantially identical and textually identical.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're wrong, and it's very important to correct you about this, because if you do abuse G4 in this way then you are seriously exceeding the authority the community has granted you as an administrator. This has potentially damaging results for the project and is a significant conduct issue on your part.

  Firstly, the purpose of G4 is to prevent copy/paste re-creations of the same material by the original author or his/her sockpuppets or meatpuppets. It has nothing to do with wasting the community's time. This is why it uses the words "substantially identical".

  Secondly, you are not the judge of whether the issues at the AfD have been addressed. You are a sysop, with jurisdiction over conduct, consensus and copyright violations. You have no jurisdiction over content. Specifically, it is not for you to evaluate whether these sources are better than those sources, or whether this text is better than that text. Only the community is fit to make that decision.

  Thirdly, speedy deletion is inherently bite-y and contrary to what you say, it absolutely is an editor retention issue. Possibly the single most important one. Therefore there must be an appeal from any and all speedy deletions that don't exactly fit the criteria, and sysops who do exceed their authority with speedy deletions must be brought to heel. That's DRV's job---to see that the process is strictly and exactly followed.—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Your interpretation of G4 is redundant with G5.—Kww(talk) 19:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) I can see that there is a very narrow application of your interpretation of G4 that is distinct from G5, where the editor has not yet been blocked for the disruptive recreations. You are still excessively narrow in your interpretation of the criteria, though: an article that addresses none of the original reasons for deletion is a candidate for G4.—Kww(talk) 19:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not where there's fresh writing and fresh sources. As I have explained to you, administrators have no jurisdiction over that.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note, in this case, the new version was substantially similar to that which was deleted following the AFD. Therefore the speedy deletion wasn't an "abuse" of G4, it didn't have "damaging results". If you have an issue with G4, take it up centrally. It is designed to save time when people continually recreate articles which have already received a consensus for deletion by the community via WP:AFD. Finally, if you have an issue with "speedy deletion" being "bitey" etc then do something about it centrally (again), don't just whinge about it here because this will _not_ change anything. Interested that you continue to assert that I "exceeded my authority" and that I needed to be "brought to heel" despite the fact the article I deleted was previously deleted with community consensus. You need to start apologising. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• You did exceed your authority and you were rightly overturned, Hobit and JClemens having agreed with me.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Are you kidding me? When I checked the article against the one deleted (and I provided you with at least three examples of verbatim copied phrases), it was clear it hadn't been substantially changed in any way. If you continue to accuse me of going beyond my remit, I demand you initiate a discussion to have my admin rights removed. Either that or you retract your accusation. Get Hobit and Jclemens involved too. And also note, I overturned myself just so we could go through another AFD. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• There's no workable community de-adminship process on Misplaced Pages. When and if we finally get one I'll start working down my list... I've explained very clearly in exactly what sense your authority was exceeded. New writing, new sources, administrators don't have jurisdiction over content, QED. Please actually read and digest this, both of you, thanks.—S Marshall T/C 20:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please note, I read the new version, compared it with the old version, demonstrated to you and the community that it was virtually identical, so the speedy deletion criterion applied. Please now accept you are wrong and apologise. If not, please start an RFC or similar to have me de-sysopped because I will wholeheartedly not accept your baseless accusations of admin abuse. You could use WP:AN/I if you like. If you don't, I want you to retract your accusations of abuse of my position. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've been an active contributor to DRV since 2008; I see administrators exceeding their authority most weeks. If I started a RFC on every administrator I come across who exceeds their authority and needs overturning, I'd never do anything else. But I'm not wrong, I'm not sorry, and my accusations are not baseless. If I see this kind of thing at DRV again, I will use the same kind of language, and based on extensive past experience, I will be confident of an "overturn" outcome.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've been an active contributor to Misplaced Pages since 2005. Whatever, it makes no difference here. You made a mistake. The article I speedily deleted under G4 was substantially similar to the one deleted following an AFD. Hopefully you'll learn by this mistake and not repeat it. Note, once again, I overturned my own deletion, no-one else did. And now go look at the new AFD, good use of the community's time? Once again, I'll ask you to take my "misuse" of admin tools to WP:AN/I or similar because I will not accept that I "exceeded" any authority. I deleted an article which was substantially similar to one which had a community consensus to delete via AFD. Perhaps you don't understand that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The content wasn't substantially similar, comprising as it did a fresh set of sources and new text. The fresh sources are particularly important because administrators are not given jurisdiction over sources. You aren't authorised to make the decision that you made. The community decides about sources and content in a discussion. Administrators do not decide about sources and content.

To your credit you did, wisely, overturn yourself before the community did it for you.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

When I speedily deleted it, yes it was similar. And as you can see from the current AFD, this is probably all academic, since it's going south anyway. I appreciate you giving me "credit", but if you ever accuse me of abusing my position as an admin, you'd better be ready to take it all the way to the bank because I won't tolerate it for a moment. I've spent over seven years trying to make this place good, and your flippant accusations of abuse of position over the past two days are a disgrace. You want to keep people editing here? Well try keeping those of us who edit a few times a day to keep this whole thing working. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'll still be right here telling it exactly as I see it. Have a great day.—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Misplaced Pages has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Incremental?

I realize that your edits at WP:V are small (and mostly uncontroversial) and that you would like to get them done... but slow down a bit, please. There is no need to rush. In a major policy like WP:V, even a small edit can have a big impact on how people interpret what the policy says. Give others a chance to think about (and if necessary comment upon) an edit to one sentence before you move on to editing another sentence. An hour or two (or even one day) between edits will not overly delay the process. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

2017

Re "Incremental simplification; at this rate the policy ought to be somewhat clearer by 2017" — Hmmm......... 2017. Was that year chosen because it fits into your plans for this? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Offensive

Spartaz 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Offensive because false? Or offensive because true?—S Marshall T/C 12:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#SchumiWeb and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, I've named you as a participant because you proposed de-admining him, but if you want to beg off I would not object. Mangoe (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)