Stalwart111 (talk | contribs) →Richard Stengel: - any time! |
Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) →A kitten for you!: new WikiLove message |
||
Line 179: | Line 179: | ||
::Thanks! Any time! [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 13:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC) |
::Thanks! Any time! [[User: Stalwart111|'''Stalwart''']][[User talk:Stalwart111|'''<font color="green">111</font>''']] 13:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
== A kitten for you! == |
|||
[[File:Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg|left|150px]] |
|||
The heavens opened and dropped a bunch of kittens on me so I am handing them out to those who have remained sensible despite it all... |
|||
'''[[User:Carolmooredc]] ''' 20:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC) |
|||
<br style="clear: both;"/> |
Revision as of 20:09, 30 July 2013
Archives
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
AFC Partial Victory
Hey m8, not sure if you have been following that debate. But basically they are going to add a button at the start to opt. out and one at the end, even if rejected. That satisfies what I was asking for.
I still don't like 1 editor deciding what goes on Wiki but I think to push the issue any further would only hurt the objective. Tyros1972 Talk 02:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- I just ran a test article a few days ago on AFC, sadly nothing has changed. Frankly I am not sure what else I can do? I think this is becoming a waste of my time. I don't mind fighting for something if you can get results but who controls AFC? Who has the power to change it? Tyros1972 Talk 09:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that THAT unpleasantness is behind us forever
Your name, when I read it, always invokes a memory of this Russian fairytale/ poem. You'll know when you get to the part. Thanks again for being stalwart (You should have been Stalwart33 instead of Stalwart111). Now, let us all move on to new things that involve less screaming and less salt! KDS4444Talk 05:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, salt is good in the context of bacon. But yes, less screaming. "Tall of stature, young and fair" - now I like the sound of that, but along with "All alike beyond belief", it gets a bit von Verschuer for me. Ha ha. And all from the "Marxists Internet Archive" - I don't know what to think! And after all that, it seems wrong to now opine that removing people for the good of the wider community is the right thing to do. I might just stop digging and just thank you for the poem. Keep up the good work. Stalwart111 07:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd say stop digging. It was a story that my mother read to me from a book of such fairytales when I was a wee lad, certainly not anything Marxist (all those jewel-encrusted tsars and whatnot) or eugenic (I had never heard of von Verschuer before— how dreadful). Just a compliment! Dig less, enjoy more. KDS4444Talk 08:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, salt is good in the context of bacon. But yes, less screaming. "Tall of stature, young and fair" - now I like the sound of that, but along with "All alike beyond belief", it gets a bit von Verschuer for me. Ha ha. And all from the "Marxists Internet Archive" - I don't know what to think! And after all that, it seems wrong to now opine that removing people for the good of the wider community is the right thing to do. I might just stop digging and just thank you for the poem. Keep up the good work. Stalwart111 07:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! Regarding the AfD and my NAC
Hello there Stalwart, I NAC'd the article for deletion, but so far as I'm concerned a discussion can be NAC'd and a speedy deletion tag can be put into it its article pointing out to the fact about its outcome, and the article may be presumably deleted needing just that admin intervention, the article was also tagged with salt template. However there are other reasons why the discussion must be kept on. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 10:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
The discussion there about the title of that article might interest you somewhat, though I can't be sure it'd interest anyone at all. It's been a while since I visited after leaving the discussion due to a bit of hostility from another editor, but it seems they're still at an impasse. More input is definitely needed there; every single voice helps. Thanks, Ansh666 22:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
- Happy to have a look. I would seem there is still fundamental disagreement about what it is WP should be covering there. Are those signs and the message behind them notable enough as a concept (having been adapted in various contexts) to be considered worthy of coverage in their own right? Or; is the a broader definition we should be covering that could include coverage of those signs? If I have anything useful to contribute, I will. Stalwart111 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably right. The best "alternate title" I could come up with is Warnings not to feed animals. In the same way that No standing (the sign) redirects to Parking violation (the thing). That would seem to explain why the signs exist and some of the concept behind the signs while still being broad enough to include the other stuff but narrow enough so that a redirect from the title Do not feed the animals isn't strained or out of place. But even that is probably far from ideal. I think Artificial feeding of animals has problems - are we talking about feeding them artificial food or about feeding baby animals artificially (like they do at rescue centres where they have been orphaned or abandoned). The latter has been the subject of significant study and research and might be a notable subject, but is obviously not the subject of the article in question. Stalwart111 05:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- The way I take it, the article isn't about signs anymore - that was declared in the AfD as non-notable. It's now about policies and other stuff (pardon the informal) regarding what I believe is the most appropriate title (which is still admittedly far from appropriate), Human feeding of wildlife. But don't let me cloud your judgment at all. Ansh666 05:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC) (On a side note, somebody's trying to get my username changed because it contains 666! Can you believe it?)
- Yeah, I think an article about that would be a good idea and would be interesting, though that's not exactly what we have now. But I think there's more of a chance of that working that anything focused on the signs or abstract concepts in any way. An article at Human feeding of wildlife would obviously need to be far more broad than what we have now. It would need to cover things like bird feeders, wildlife rehabilitation, probably something about the human impact on food sources, domestication of wildlife and a whole bunch of other related concepts. Jeez, I can see how you got frustrated (with that discussion and with the issues more broadly). LOL @ forced name change. There was a guy a week or so ago called GayAirlineEditor or something and someone objected to the "gay" part. He's a gay man who edits airline articles... Um... Stalwart111 06:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
MarioNovi
Still at it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Punkcast_2 - if you think it merits another wrap on the knuckles, go ahead. But I can tolerate it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Wwwhatsup has also been wiki stalking me like at Jeff Berlin. I do not like being talked about in this way, thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- See? In his/her role as my ongoing nemesis I do keep tabs on MarioNovi and I did indeed revert him/her on Jeff Berlin. IMO "dont know relevants" is not a good rationale for deleting ELs, especially when the cause for ignorance is that the same editor has just deleted the relevant information from the article. I would've done it for any editor. This article was a suitable case for a {{refimprove}} tag, rather than wholesale deletion. Hopefully someone will find time to do the research and rebuild. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- MarioNovi, if I know Wikipedia, there's probably a bunch of people watching your edits and tracking what has now been a 6-month campaign of harassment and attempted outing and a complete inability to drop the stick, though you have been told to do so by multiple people in multiple places. Despite your claims in January that you were here to edit productively, much of what you have done here since continues to confirm the single-purpose nature of your editing and continues to suggest you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Despite a handful of edits here and there, most of your activity here has still revolved around Wwwhatsup and your forum-shopping about his alleged conflict of interest.
- I can tell you I am certainly among those watching your edits and have been tossing up whether they have yet risen to the level of disruption that requires immediate administrator intervention. Who do you think requested closures for both your completely inappropriate userspace RFC and your completely unsupported RFC/U? That would be me. Stalwart111 08:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd no idea you'd been so engaged. And I'd missed that SPI query. Wow! Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- I've sort of stepped in with an offer to MarioNovi, having had a quick chat at User talk:Wwwhatsup. I've made a suggestion at User_talk:Sitush#Hello. If MN agrees, would you be prepared to take a step back while we sort out the Jeff Berlin article? Obviously, if you spot MN doing something elsewhere that breaches this agreement then it would likely be voided. - Sitush (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop accusing me of OUTING Stalwart it was decided I did nothing wrong despite what you think. That is why there was no oversight. MarioNovi (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Mario, it would probably be to your advantage not to pursue past problems. That is effectively what I am asking of Stalwart and Wwwhaptsup but it is a two-way street. I realise that accusations, whether justified or not, will have hurt people on all sides of what seems to have gone on but sometimes it is best to start over. Let's look forward, not backwards. Believe me, I've done this sort of stuff and I've seen it and, oddly enough, I do have the t-shirt! - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'd no idea you'd been so engaged. And I'd missed that SPI query. Wow! Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- See? In his/her role as my ongoing nemesis I do keep tabs on MarioNovi and I did indeed revert him/her on Jeff Berlin. IMO "dont know relevants" is not a good rationale for deleting ELs, especially when the cause for ignorance is that the same editor has just deleted the relevant information from the article. I would've done it for any editor. This article was a suitable case for a {{refimprove}} tag, rather than wholesale deletion. Hopefully someone will find time to do the research and rebuild. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- MarioNovi, what absolute, total and utter rubbish. It was never "decided" - one other editor at your ANI thread suggested it might not have technically been outing because of where some of the information you dug up had been posted. Others strongly disagreed and you asked for the thread to be closed and it was. At that stage, you had been to AFD, DRV, COIN,and then you went to ANI. In each instance you tried to post someone else's private information. Outing or not, those are not the actions of someone who is here to improve Wikipedia. You came here with an agenda and a vendetta and you simply haven't been able to drop the stick since. Since then, you have opened a ridiculous RFC on the other editor's talk page, then an RFC/U that got exactly zero support, then EL/N. Twice. At every chance you get, you try to mention the other editor's supposed "COI" on his talk page, other editors' talk pages and on as many noticeboards as you can manage. When a single editor contributed to your inappropriate user-talk RFC, you went first to an admin to suggest he might be a sock-puppet and then to Sitush to ask if he thought the contribution was a strange one. It didn't matter, in the end, that your sock-puppetry accusation was as without merit as your other accusations; your silly RFC was closed. Your RFC/U sat there for well more than the standard 48 hours before being deleted as having zero support, despite your desperate efforts to canvass for a co-nomination. You "bumped" your EL/N thread four times in an effort to keep it at the top of the noticeboard and when someone finally showed up to tell you that posting that many links was silly, you ignored him and started a new thread. Classic WP:IDHT stuff. You just don't get it do you? You have continually ignored what everyone else has been telling you, you consistently ignore even basic instructions about transclusion or notification and you just don't seem to understand that nobody else wants any part of your campaign of harassment. That's not what we're here for. We are here to build an encyclopedia. You are not.
- Sitush, you want to pick up where so many people have left off? Got for it my man. For the record, he's started 2 AFDs, a DRV, a COIN thread, an ANI thread, an RFC, and RFC/U, a WP:3O thread and 2 EL/N threads. You want your talk page to be the next on his forum-shopping list? Be my guest. I'll assume good faith, but I'm not a moron. To be honest, I couldn't really care less about the Jeff Berlin article. As far as I can tell, it's just a thinly veiled (and badly implemented) attempt to pad out an SPA edit count that is otherwise entirely focused on another editor. Stalwart111 00:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am coming into this mess with pretty much no background info regarding it and I'd rather keep it that way. I'm familiar with policy and I've been on the receiving end of more than my fair share of warring, name-calling, off-wiki harassment and even death threats. I did see one of the AfDs - a quick scan of it, only - and I've seen at least some of the various accusations that have been levelled by both sides.
Yes, I tend very much to heed the policy-based judgements of experienced contributors such as you and Wwwhatsup but, please, I've got a gut feeling that this is not an irretrievable situation. It is prety toxic right now, sure, and I may be wrong. Then again, MarioNovi might prove us wrong. Since I am new to this clearly long-running situation, I'm prepared to give MN a bit of rope provided that they show a willingness to listen, to co-operate etc. I have a fairly short temper and have my own frustrations regarding Wikipedia at present, so the rope is not long. I am not appealing for a last chance for MN but am I hoping that some good may come of this. It is up to them to deliver the goods but it would be less troublesome for all concerned if there is an attempt to manage the situation. I'll have no hesitation in calling in the admins if things begin to go skew-whiff but would appreciate a little breathing-space. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sitush - I, for one, appreciate your sensible approach and I don't begrudge you for trying (again). I haven't gone near this (publicly) since January, to the point where even Wwwhatsup wasn't aware I was still watching from the sidelines. I suggested, then, that MN was not here to build WP and he assured me I was mistaken and that his contributions were legitimate. I gave him the benefit of the doubt for six months, only quietly stepping in to have those silly RFCs closed. I didn't comment on the RFCs themselves (though they had effectively blown his claims of legitimacy out of the water), nor the 3O commentary, nor the EL/N spam, until yesterday. He has had many chances to prove me wrong but has instead only proven me right, again and again and again. After all that, I'll still not stand in your way of giving him yet more rope. But at this stage, I'd be inclined to take him to ANI if he mentions Punkcast or User:Wwwhatsup again, certainly if he goes after them at a 9th noticeboard/forum. Stalwart111 01:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am coming into this mess with pretty much no background info regarding it and I'd rather keep it that way. I'm familiar with policy and I've been on the receiving end of more than my fair share of warring, name-calling, off-wiki harassment and even death threats. I did see one of the AfDs - a quick scan of it, only - and I've seen at least some of the various accusations that have been levelled by both sides.
Looking at this, it becomes clearer how User:AcorruptionfreeIndia arrived at that RFC, and to specifically address copyright concerns. :) Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looking again. It doesn't. AcfI presumably came in straight on the RFC. But it does explain how MN found Sitush. Perhaps for the good. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I couldn't quite work that out at the time and I'm still not 100% clear. The telling part, I thought, was the response to that contribution. Rather than respond with policy discussion, MN simply ran off to two editors with whom that editor had interacted suggesting, in one case, that it was "strange" and, in another, that he was a sock-puppet (without evidence of course). It was a pretty clear attempt, I thought, to have that dissenting contribution struck from the RFC. As you say, that RFC is clearly how Sitush came to be involved here, which I still think is a good thing. So it seems there was a silver lining to ACFI's contribution! Stalwart111 07:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Poetry
My poem for a horse
|
---|
T'was a young man who first discovered the horse, |
Help with an article?
Hi there, Stalwart. You'd said recently that if I needed help on a topic where I have a COI, you'd be willing to look. Well, I have one where I've had zero luck trying to draw the interest of editors previously involved with the article, or involved with relevant wikiprojects. Perhaps you'd be willing to take a look? The subject is Richard Stengel, the editor of Time magazine. Back in June I posted to Talk a set of suggested changes in order to update the article with new information and improve its accuracy; while the requests are fairly small, unfortunately the message I posted is fairly involved, doing my best to explain clearly. Is this something you'd be able to help with? Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 12:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
My article was deleted
Please let me know what is the reason my article was deleted.
My article is Dealer24x7.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajlcet001singh (talk • contribs) 14:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- (stalking) Just a heads up, Parveen.er.garg (talk · contribs) appears to also be creating the article as well through AfC (declined once, resubmitted with no changed, declined again). Although the specific content is different, there must be some sort of meatpuppetry going on, the odds of two people turning up to write an unreferenced advertisement about a non-notable company are rather slim. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Ritchie333, I got your Talk:AFC ping too. As above, the creation of Dealer24x7.com was listed as a job at the freelancing site Elance. I imagine that when one writer failed to get it up, the job went to another. Either that or the same editor has just decided to start another account thinking nobody will notice. I came across it by coincidence when contributing to the massive Morning277 SPI. There may well be some connection. I have the title watch-listed so will be notified if someone actually tries to create it. Thanks for the heads up mate! Stalwart111 13:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Afd fix
Thanks for fixing that up. There's still a dupe of the Sant Kaur Bajwa nomination though. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- @ User:DerbyCountyinNZ -
Done. Will contribute to the AFD too. There's an SPI I've just started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DogsHeadFalls . Cheers, Stalwart111 06:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers. I see they've been editing from an IP as well. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- @ User:DerbyCountyinNZ -
RfC on Mises fellow
Hello Stalwart. I am contacting you to let you know about an RfC regarding Gary North (economist); he is a scholar associated with the Mises Institute and I know you have some background knowledge of that subject. You can read about the RfC here. Steeletrap (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for you comments on the RfC, Stalwart. They are very helpful indeed. Problems with the North article stem from the fact that he has his finger in so many pies. One story I've found says he was a "computer expert" because he opined on the Y2K issue. He got his degree in history, but he's commented on economic & personal finance subjects so he's listed as an economist. Now he's getting more and more into home schooling, etc. But most of the actual RS on him is related to the Christian Reconstructionist material. If we could get North out of economics and retitle the article with some other descriptor, I'd be delighted. WRT the multiple subsections, I agree. I made a couple of attempts to combine them, but got resistance. (Hence, so many subsections!) So, considering that certain paragraphs re-state his views about different subjects (without corresponding secondary sources) I thought that leaving them as is would be fine for now. I added tags and started a discussion. When the discussion got bogged down into a 2/1 debate, I opened up the RfC. Hopefully the RfC will resolve the issue of using primary source quotes from North/secondary sources -- and then we can move on. In doing a HighBeam Research inquiry on North, I came up with scores of hits. Plus 100 more if Y2K is part of the search. About a dozen of the remaining non-Y2K results have potential for inclusion as secondary RS. Do I want to expand on his article? Hardly. I do not like North in the least. Again, Stalwart, I greatly appreciate your help. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Richard Stengel
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you very much for taking the time to review and implement my suggestions for the Richard Stengel article! Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC) |
A kitten for you!
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Kitten_%2806%29_by_Ron.jpg/150px-Kitten_%2806%29_by_Ron.jpg)
The heavens opened and dropped a bunch of kittens on me so I am handing them out to those who have remained sensible despite it all...
User:Carolmooredc 20:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)