User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Conceptual question about AfD NACs

If my only participation in an AfD discussion was a comment about the article being marked for speedy deletion (like this), and the article was then speedy-deleted, would it be appropriate to non-admin-close it? Then again, you or an admin or someone else would probably get to it while I'm still trying to figure out how to do so, so... Ansh666 18:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC) (It's since been NAC'd. Ansh666 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC))

Okay, thanks! We'll see if I ever get a chance to do one... Ansh666 23:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Angelfish (software) AFD

On the Angelfish (software) AfD, Since you are involved with AfDs I felt this was appropriate to bring it to your attention. There are 2 newly registered users on there with "keep" so wondering if it's the same person using multiple accounts or if he just asked his friends to vote? Whatever the reason it is very suspicious and should be looked into as this could be an attack to keep the article. Tyros1972 Talk 20:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

AfD Deleted but open

Hey mate the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urchin Software Corporation is open but was long removed from the page, can you put it back? I don't know how to as I can't track it down. Tyros1972 Talk 11:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

nm someone got it the second after I posted this. Tyros1972 Talk 11:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool, no problem! Stalwart111 12:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

afd

thanks! DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Stalwart111 04:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, thanks—and I do have an ask

Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 06:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks again—and I provided an alternative to the "King James Bible" line based on the source. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Cheng (entrepreneur) AfD

Hello Stalwart111, I've been contributing to an article (Michael Cheng (entrepreneur)) on a subject that I have done much research on. It has received previous AfD status due to poor citations, but I have since done tremendous research to pull together sources from numerous reputable publications to support the article. Recently, a new account was created solely for disputing this article and if you could kindly take some time to look into the matter, I would certainly be in your debt. The user is Magedseven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Magedseven). Vancitystars (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2013 (PST)

Have responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart111 09:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Stalwart111, your insights were much appreciated. I felt that the article was removed because it was poorly written. I had re-created the article with a much more factual and neutral tone, but unfortunately didn't know about the Deletion Review process. I was wondering if you could guide me on how to submit a new article for this subject. I believe a Deletion Review would revisit the deleted article, but what I want to do is to re-write the entire article and use only the most credible sources. Thank you again for your help and support. Vancitystars (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2013 (PST)

Thank you again for your response, just wanted to let you know how much your feedback means to me. If you take a look at the two AfDs on the article in the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Cheng_(entrepreneur) & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Cheng_(entrepreneur)_(2nd_nomination), you'll find that almost every vote was based around "bias", which leads me to believe that it was more of a poor writing issue than a notability issue. Given the significant coverage of the subject from reputable publications, I truly believe that if I could re-write the article in strict neutral tone, the results would be very different. In fact, the entire AfD was started due to the source of the photo, which had nothing to do with notability. I apologize for taking up your time, but please take a moment to look deeper into the case and let me know what you think. As a contributor, all I could possibly wish for is fair judgment. Thanks again. Vancitystars (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2013 (PST)

Responded again on your talk page. Stalwart111 07:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Rollback Rights

Hi Stalwart,

How can I get rollback rights? The reason I am asking is there have been many times where I had to manually "copy and paste" in order to undo vandalism. I assume rollback will just be a 1 click to revert to any past revision? That would be very helpful to me.

A second question would be why is that even a special feature? I think it sounds like something all confirmed users should have. Tyros1972 Talk 11:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

All sorted on your talk page. Stalwart111 09:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

re: This AfD

Hello. You have a response at Czar's talk page. czar · · 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have another response at Czar's talk page. czar · · 18:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You have another response at Czar's talk page. czar · · 00:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas

Hello! Thomas editor here. I believe that I added a "citation needed" tag, and would like to know what was disruptive about it. I'm not going to revert it, because I don't want to cause any harm. I used to have an official account, and have been editing Wikipedia for a while (only minor changes, though mostly). I wouldn't do anything intentionally disruptive. If you could tell me what was wrong with my edit, I would be relieved. Thank you! 71.162.191.208 (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I think Stalwart111‎ did that because a "citation needed" is when there is no reliable source in the article. In this case concerning "St. Thomas was killed in India in 72 AD, attaining martyrdom at St. Thomas Mount near Mylapore (part of Chennai, capital of Tamil Nadu)." if you had checked the list of references you would have found several reliable sources to that, as this is not unique to wiki or that article but from historical records. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Citation needed concerning when to use the citation needed tags. Tyros1972 Talk 02:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bravo! I think Tyros1972 has explained my rationale quite well, but I have added some extra notes to your talk page as well. Stalwart111 02:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, okay..I actually hadn't yet looked at the page's history/talk page yet. My mistake. I just think that it has a certain Catholic bias to it, with the "Traditon based on Sacred Scripture" part, cited by a Bible verse. But since there's "warring" going on, I don't think I want to exacerbate the situation more. I'll just quietly watch. Thank you very much!! 71.162.191.208 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The protestant movement only goes back a short time, thus the records they would use is the Bible it's self. Don't forget the Catholic Church goes back to Jesus' time and we kept records all these years. We also honor the Saints, where the protestants don't. I don't edit the article due to a conflict of interest WP:CONFLICT as I would be bias and get into debates, so I stay away and just monitor vandalism on those pages so it is better sometimes to stay out of it. Tyros1972 Talk 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

St. Andrew's Church, Antwerp

Could use your help on this one mate. I want to save this article but there is now a madbot dupe warning, how do we address this? St. Andrew's Church, Antwerp Tyros1972 Talk 19:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Like this - ha ha. It's obviously notable so the only solution is to basically start from scratch, which is what I've done. I'll keep working on it. Fits right into my list of interests, so thanks for drawing my attention to it! Cheers, Stalwart111 09:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks mate :) Tyros1972 Talk 20:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Factory AfD

Hi, Stalwart. I was looking through today's crop of AfDs and I noticed your contribution at the AfD for The Dragon Factory, which is rather confusing. It would probably help if you struck the rationale for your original delete !vote, as well as the delete itself. Dricherby (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, very confusing! Have struck the whole thing. Great advice - thanks! Stalwart111 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

SkateSlate article deletion

Hi Stalwart111, I was pretty frustrated to see your quick deletion on SkateSlate with no effort to recognize the merit of the article. I would appreciate some conversation as to how SkateSlate can have an article on Wikipedia. Regards. Tacutting (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To be clear; I'm not an admin and I didn't delete it - I was just one of a number of people who supported its deletion at AFD. But I have responded on your talk page anyway. Stalwart111 07:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Austrian/Mises walled garden/fringe social science

Hi Stalwart. I noticed your concern about the LvMI scholars and wanted to share more about them with you (will be happy to provide links if you have trouble verifying this stuff with a quick web search).

They reject the scientific method applied to the social sciences; instead, they believe that their economic beliefs can be deduced solely from logical (and thus, value-free) axioms. The role and value of logical, deductive reasoning in economics is a matter of mainstream academic debate. But to embrace only deductive reasoning and reject all empirical attempts to confirm or falsify conclusions drawn from this approach, is a fringe methodology. This methodology, which is what the "economists" of the Mises Institute employ, is rejected by virtually all economists and logicians. (Owing to their rejection of empiricism, "Austrian economists" are really pseudo-logicians, though they almost all lack any formal training in logic.)

Given the fringe nature of their methodology, it is no surprise that (by the Austrians' own admission) mainstream journals do not seriously engage their ideas. Unfortunately, this at the only scholars who address LvMI scholarshp are within the confines of the Institute's walled garden. This means that we have a dearth of mainstream criticism for these scholars, and an overload of fringe praise. This gives the misleading impression that these are scholars whose contributions are well regarded in academia.

My question is: What should we do about this? I am thinking of creating a "fringe social science" sub-page on the fringe science page, with which we could tag LvMI scholars. I ask for your advice because you appear to be a straight-shooter with no dog in this fight. Steeletrap (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would think a category like that would be a bad idea without plenty of reliable sources to back those claims up. It might be possible if we had lots of reliable sources that suggested Mises-related Austrian school economists were pushing a "fringe theory" or "alternate reality" or "non-mainstream view" or some other language synonymous with fringe thinking. It's not our place to make that judgement or categorise them in that way. But walled gardens are unhealthy in any context. The issue here is whether or not we can find independent reliable sources that discuss these subjects. If not, we should be cutting these articles back to stubs, not expanding them exponentially with empty praise from friends and colleagues. Stalwart111 02:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In purely practical terms, Stalwart that sounds difficult to implement. The praise from friends and inside-the-wall colloquy has the appearance of RS material. Some of it is published by houses that also publish mainstream material. Some of it is from what are, at least in form and appearance, refereed journals -- even if the referees are all from within the walls. In operational terms, it's not clear how to resolve disagreements concerning such material. The Soto article is a strange case in which the inside-the-wall material is actually highly critical of the subject. It's clear that you've considered these issues, so any guidance from you is very helpful. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, certainly not easy. I suppose the comment I would make is that a source can be editorially reliable but its lack of independence can make it unreliable in particular contexts. The New York Times might be a reliable source in almost every circumstance but we would probably still insist on independent sources for commentary on the listed company NYT. Likewise, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics might be considered a reliable source for economics-related content and commentary, but I would be wary about using anything in it as an "independent" source for the LvMI itself or any of its fellows. In that regard, it should be considered a primary source. I'd have the same sort of reservations about the ubiquitous Lew Rockwell blog. Stalwart111 03:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The BLP for Joseph Salerno is a good example of what I'm talking about. Stalwart111 03:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI

• Hello Stalwart. I see the following statement from you on the current ANI: "By taking a step back he has acknowledged he has done wrong. Even if he hasn't, we have collectively agreed to interpret his actions that way and he hasn't sought to "correct" that."

This surprised and disappointed me. Is your model guilty unless proven innocent? I have avoided comment in these many noticeboard proceedings where such comment would have been unnecessary and in my judgment would have caused further animosity and contention to no productive end. My model is similar to a US court of law, where the accused may speak if in his judgment it is necessary, but where there is no prejudice attributed to silence.

I understand that in context you intended your statement to allay the concern of editor Abel, but nevertheless I feel that it was undue. Moreover it seems that it may have emboldened her in a way you may not have intended. The consensus to which I presume you refer is primarily among three involved editors, carolmooredc, abel, and srich. Because you seemed to be saying that my silence is an admission of guilt, I am writing here to see whether you wish to soften that comment. Otherwise, I will feel, regretfully, that it's necessary to post further in my "defense" at the ANI -- which I think you agree is basically a pointless exercise. Your thoughts? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you're disappointed but you had chosen not to comment there (despite what must have been many "pings" as people mentioned you and at least one formal ANI notice) and I simply noted as much. The way the community chooses to interpret that is up to the community and I noted how (in my opinion) the community had chosen to interpret it. It's got nothing to do with guilt or innocence - you were offered the opportunity to respond and didn't. Having since become aware of the way your silence was being interpreted, you have now responded. My point there is really a moot point now on that basis. I still don't favour sanctions because the behaviour that was causing problems (whatever that may have been) has clearly stopped.

To be frank, I think the whole thing is a pointless exercise while ever there are many issues with the Mises/Rockwell walled garden. I don't think uninvolved editors will ever be able to wade through those sufficiently to make any actual decisions about involved editors. At the end of the day, all will simply chant "content dispute, content dispute, content dispute" until that content dispute is at least partially resolved. Stalwart111 08:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Since the ANI is now a giant mess, my comment is probably going to be lost in the shuffle and I really did want to thank you so I'm repeating it here:

Stalwart111, well put, thank you. Now I think I see how this is supposed to work. Doing nothing is not condoning. This is meant to be a notice that the behavior is now identified as disruptive. The editor is free to continue the disruptive behavior and face whatever comes with that, or change the behavior and happily ever after.

Abel (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically it. The conversation has now moved on but the other point I would make is that, as one editor pointed out, one-way interaction bans very rarely work and so are rarely implemented. What often ends up happening is that one editor is banned from interacting with another (or multiple others) and so is prevented from collegial participation in various forums and talk pages. Instead, the editor simply edits without discussing those edits, those with whom he is banned from interacting complain/start RFCs/post comments. The editor can either respond and risk being blocked for breaching the IBAN or refuse to respond and instead complain that the ban is preventing collegial interaction. You can guess what would happen then.

To be frank (for the second time in this thread), you guys are probably all on fairly thin ice as far as the rest of the community is concerned. You each have an obvious POV that you are trying to push, but the value of your editing is that you also understand the subject and so your POV is tolerated for the sake of improved articles. If your collective clashing POVs do more harm than good, topic bans for all would not be out of the question. There are many subject areas where topic bans have been handed out or ARBCOM restrictions are in place because of similar editing/conflict patterns. Trust me when I tell you that you don't want libertarian/Austrian economics to be subject to similar restrictions. Already, Austrian/Mises-related topics are disproportionately represented at the "drama boards" (relative to the small percentage of articles represented). Admins are going to get sick of that very soon, I'd imagine. Stalwart111 09:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with 99% of that statement. The "all on thin ice" part is not warranted. That might be true for CarolMooreDC and SPECIFICO. I have only commented on my first hand interactions with SPECIFICO. I have not delved into the details of their exchanges. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that restoring a good article to good article compliance would get me any kind of ban. You still have me convinced that doing nothing is the correct course, which isn't so much nothing as it is a "wait and see if anything changes" strategy. Abel (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that if nothing changes (longer term), don't expect sanctions to be limited to one editor. I'm not guessing as to who they might be expanded to beyond (potentially) "everyone with a Mises/Austrian POV". If it gets really silly then ARBCOM will step in and the bans won't be individual, they will be topic-wide and everyone will be subject to them. You, me and Jimbo Wales. Stalwart111 13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand. One editor can wage a willful campaign to push one point of view, one far outside consensus, then chase editors who point out a problem with that behavior to other articles to make disruptive edits, and all that disruption gets rewarded with everyone and their brother being banned from any topic that the one disruptive editor touched? That just seems like some of the most perverse incentives (in the economic usage of the phrase) that I have even heard of. I hope my comprehension is blurred because that sounds like a terrible solution. Abel (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but this isn't a matter of one editor, or even two or three. The Mises/Austrian stuff has been going on for years but has been particularly nasty over the last 6 months or so. You are witness to the latest battle in a long-running war (I'm not sure whether you've experienced any of the history). Editors have been topic banned, indef'd, etc. and the POV has proven to go both ways. The benefit of the "walled garden" I've mentioned is that most of the conflict has happened behind those walls. But bringing it to ANI means more attention. Maybe that's a good thing for WP as a whole, but I don't think it would be pleasant for those involved. Stalwart111 14:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Having only made a change or two to Austrian Economics, my experience is pretty much those one or two edits then having SPECIFICO follow me to the Foundation for Economic Education and spend like two minutes making changes that took hours to correct. This whole system seems terribly backwards. Why is it so easy to destroy and so difficult to build? Abel (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, your undo button should allow you to "undo" edits in seconds which suggests it was more than just "two minutes" of changes. Sure enough, from what I can see, his first edit to that page was on 23 June. That "string" of edits continued through that day and well into the following day. After that, S.Rich made 8 edits to the article and your next edits were 2 days after SPECIFICO's. In total, SPECIFICO has made 17 edits to the article, compared to your 388 which is 330 more than the next person (S.Rich). Having spent, literally, years working on the article, surely a couple of hours of discussion to address concerns isn't a huge impost? Some of his complaints were probably over the top but many seem well-founded and there have been discussions on the talk page since to try to resolve some of those issues which suggests some legitimately did need resolution. That's exactly the way it should work. And just because an article has been awarded GA status, does not mean it has finished. Quite the contrary, in fact, if you want to get it to FA. Stalwart111 00:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Have said on more than one occasion that much of what SPECIFICO does is both smart and useful. That is not my point. The three tags took seconds to add, and that was only after he had been admonished by S.Rich for multiple infractions. It took hours to undo those tags so that they wouldn't just get instantly reverted by SPECIFICO. Which is my point. It was many times easier to add nonsense than it was to clean up the nonsense. That is a horrible system. Abel (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What am I missing here? If the article needed some cleaning up (beyond what might have been identified during GA review) and the tags prompted you to clean it up (sufficiently enough to nullify the tags) isn't that kind of the point of the tags? He tagged the article, you and S.Rich identified that some were warranted and acted on them, others not so much. Drive-by tagging is an oft-raised problem and I get that having spent so much time on the article, having a bunch of tags at the top is disheartening. But prompting further clean-up is not "destroying" - quite the opposite. I would be inclined to think drive-by tagging would perhaps be disruptive on an unwatched article, untouched in many years. But the article in question has been edited by you and S.Rich at a rate of approximately 1 edit every 2 days. It was always going to be cleaned up, and quickly. Nice? Maybe not. Annoying? Probably. Pointy? Maybe a little. Destructive? Not really. You need to be able to take a step back from articles where you've contributed extensively and survey the bigger picture. Otherwise you get into WP:OWN territory. Stalwart111 02:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The tags were nonsense. Nothing was improved. SPECIFICO labeled text as unsupported by citation even after I added direct quotes proving beyond all doubt that the tags were nonsense. That is not helping, that is attacking. No one owns any Wikipedia article, which is kinda the point to the whole thing. Abel (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thomas the Apostle

Hey mate. The latest edits remove some images claiming "there's to many" what is the limit? The user also deleted some text as citation needed was 8 months old, again how long do we wait before deleting something like that? Tyros1972 Talk 09:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart111 00:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Pending AFC

hey mate it's been a long time since I created an article. I created one today and it won't publish like it used to, now it's put into a review process? I guess Wiki changed something or did I do something wrong? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pending_AfC_submissions Tyros1972 Talk 11:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess they changed things but that is optional. When you get time you can double check this article? It's basically a stub as I don't have time to expand it, but wanted to create it. New Media Rights Tyros1972 Talk 17:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart111 00:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Thomas the Apostle

Thanks buddy. I have made a few more changes to the article. Please do verify that nothing has gone wrong. PalakkappillyAchayan 03:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries - it's all looking good so far. Stalwart111 04:28, 12 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! KDS4444^Talk 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. KDS4444^Talk 08:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I certainly did enjoy it, it was just a strange confluence of ideas after a strange day. Makes for a hell of a bedtime story - she must have started somewhere around mid-afternoon! Again, thank you. Stalwart111 09:03, 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)

Not really - WP:BADNAC pretty much covers it, but I'll leave you a note. Stalwart111 23:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Do not feed the animals

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)

Considering the content of the article currently has 0 mentions of the title beyond the first sentence, I'd say both of your questions are moot at the moment...but hopefully it gets fixed up! Thanks, Ansh666 05:37, 19 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)

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 have responded on your talk page, but yeah, a good result. Stalwart111 07:25, 17 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)

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)

• 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)

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)