User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Stalwart111. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

"...there is also a kind of notability sometimes created by a lack of publicity..."

That is just totally peachy; thanks for finding that gem. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

yes agreed. Next thing I want to hear is "delete as far too much coverage over a long period". LibStar (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

MPT

Hi it has come to my attention that it is only the english articles that uses "MRT" instead of "MPT" which is used in the rest of other language wiki articles especially the Macedonian one. Debunking the romanized alphabet argument, it could be seen how even the logo has put "MPT" in a romanized alphabet form therefore should be the one to be followed. It is practice here in wikipedia to use the official naming used by the one being described in the article no matter what their translation to english might be such as Volkswagen which in direct romanized translation is "Folkswagen" but the former prevailed due to it being the one used in the official logo of the company albeit being romanized too. I understand your argument on the main article "Macedonian Radio Television" that is why I kept that because its original name would not make sense in an expanded form here in english wiki. But its acronym should not be meddled upon especially it has a logo to prove it and the main article could provide the knowledge why MPT and what is its translation to english.Lastly the MRT 1 and MRT 2 pages should be really up for a disambiguation as the MRT worldwide may refer to Mass Rapid Transit or an equivalent rail term. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

PhilippineRevolution, I really have no idea what should be where or under what name. I have no objection to your edits because I simply don't have any knowledge of the issue at hand. You're better off discussing that with others who have an understanding of the terms in question. I closed two Articles for Deletion discussions you started because they related to redirects. Those should be dealt with at Redirects for Discussion . They were only closed because they were the wrong type of discussion. This does not (at all) prevent you from starting the discussions in the right places. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bob's Watches back

Created by a paid editor according to the creator's edit summary. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Watch-listed and left a comment on the article talk page. Really should have gone through DRV. Thanks for the heads up. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Better Badges

Moved by MarioNovi. See my comment on the Talk page. What do you think? Wwwhatsup (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Teri Takai

I dropped the stick but the argument that you made is the exact one I was protesting. Title does not equate to notability. I can name a dozen CIOs both of federal agencies and major corporations that do not have a Wikipedia page. Articles like this and the what I think are flimsy arguments to keep raise concerns. In the end wikipedia's own guidelines state that title and position does automatically equal notability. In short, So what! She's the former DOD CIO. Many came before and many will come after. VA's CIO doesn't have a wiki, FBI, Walmart, Bank of America,.....title doesn't equal notability. --0pen$0urce (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You've completely missed the point. Again. She's notable not because of her title but because she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That's sufficient for anyone to be considered notable, DOD CIO or Clark County Dog-Catcher. If those other CIOs don't have articles but do pass WP:GNG (like Takai) then the create those articles. But all of that aside, occasionally titles do confer notability - CEO of major corporations, Secretary-General of the UN, President/Congressman/Senator, etc. There are a great many "titles" that confer automatic notability in a range of different special notability guidelines. And all of that aside, Takai held a title we do consider notable in its own right. We don't say the same about the CIOs of the FBI, Walmart or the Bank of America but again, if those people pass WP:GNG then we should have articles about them too. You need to actually read some of those guidelines before trying to claim some sort of expertise and getting it badly wrong. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for the articles and the work on AfD. Always good to see you around. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Very nice of you O.Z. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taken the step to report me at administrators noticeboard/incident. I didint mean to put you through that stress and I think you were right for your action. I will consider civility my first priority. Accept my unreserved apology. However, this tool has stopped working. Any alternative? Thanks Wikicology (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology, your apology is accepted, of course. But as far as I was ever concerned, you broke the rules, you didn't offend me - you just did something silly. You were reverted and that should be the end of that (though I would still advise you don't close any more AFDs until you've had a chance to participate in a few more). Nothing more to apologise for there. You might like to consider apologising to some of those who have raised other concerns at WP:ANI. Your earlier apologies seem to have been happily accepted by others as a sign you are willing to change. I don't know of an alternative to that tool, sorry. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok sir. I hope you will help when next i visit your for an advice or assistance? Wikicology (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Any time, though there are likely others more qualified than me to provide it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wikicology: Have you tried User:Zhaofeng Li/Reflinks? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 09:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Fuelexperts deletion/ doubts about Fuel management systems page

Misunderstanding about username policy and alternative accounts.

Hi,

I understand that the username "Fuelexperts" was not quite compliant with G11, nevertheless I don't see why the haste about the deletion as there is no public or industry group, association or other community calling themselves Fuelexperts nor Fuel Experts. Anyway, it's history now.

VRC Fuelexperts Ltd is involved in throwing a lifeline to thousands of businesses worldwide who are on the brink of bankruptcy because of losses associated with the lack of professional fuel management, who often struggle to understand the reasons behind these losses.

for the sake of fairness and also to avoid me committing any more "faux pas" please review the page "Fuel management systems" as I believe the categorization the author introduces in the section "Hardware" is merely a personal opinion, which would be fine if the author gave his/her name as source; the rest of the article is also more confusing than encyclopedic.

Have a great day and thank you for the work you do for all of us.

VRC Fuelexperts Ltd (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC) BBdR

Your original name was blocked because it was a violation of our username policy. This one isn't much better and it obviously belongs to the same person so it has been blocked too. The best thing to do would be to go back to your original account and request a new name - your account will be unblocked and you will be allowed to edit freely. Thereafter, I can move your comments about the article to the talk page for discussion. G11 refers to the reason something is deleted - you can't use a user page (have a look at mine - User:Stalwart111 - as an example) for promotion of a company. If you want to start an article about the company you should do that via WP:AFC. Cheers, St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

history, culture and politics
Thank you for quality articles and contributions where history, culture and politics meet, such as Catacomb saints and Antonio Barberini, for caring for deletions, for working towards "hostility will disappear quietly", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 608th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, Gerda Arendt. Glad to see you're still doing this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in memory of two friends I miss, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I had no idea. That gives it even more meaning! St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 10:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You named me twice in a thread where it was inferred I was one of the individuals who was subject of a threat of violence. You cast WP:ASPERSIONS without any evidence, and in an inappropriate forum. I wish you'd cut it out. Feel free to remove my name. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit Carol, that was never inferred and certainly not by me. Only your bizarre penchant for misreading and misinterpreting things could possibly allow you to draw that conclusion; not one other person came to that conclusion. Only you could view a thread like that, with comments like that and a history like that and conclude that you are the victim. I'll not be removing your name and I will continue to draw attention to your efforts to drive from the project every person with a different viewpoint to yours. Can you not see the irony in demanding that someone comment only on content given how little content (and how much non-content drama) you contribute around here? Get off (and stay off) my talk page. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 10:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

another classic

Weak Keep The article seems to be written with good intentions.. But the references makes it hard to pass notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

They just get better and better! St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Venu Ravichandran

Hi, I see you have made edits on this biography article.

The name of the person at the title of the page and the url is given wrongly as Venu Ravichandran. The correct name is Aascar Ravichandran, which is mentioned in the body of the article. I don't have move access for this page.

Please make the change as soon as possible, as he is well renowed person in the movie industry. Keerthibharath (talk • contribs) 11:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Keerthibharath, you need to explain what you want moved, to where and why. We have an article about V. Ravichandran and so we need to make that distinction (for readers). Please don't remove the disambiguation notice again. If the name is wrong we need a source to establish his commonly used name rather than moving the article between three equally valid titles. At the moment, the article could well be deleted per WP:BLPPROD. I would make that your priority rather than worrying about names. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to change the title of the page from Venu Ravichandran to Aascar Ravichandran. Same modification should be applied to the url. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keerthibharath (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that but you still haven't explained why. Is the current name wrong? If so, how? Why wouldn't we change it to "Viswanathan Ravichandran" (his name) instead of his "AKA"? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please look in to my previous request as soon as possible. Keerthibharath (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please see the discussion above. Without an answer there is not much else I can do. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The current name is given as Venu Ravichandran - which is wrong. There is no person with that name associated with his film production credentials and I know him personally. You can change it to Viswanathan Ravichandran. But please change it, both in the title and the URL asap. Keerthibharath (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that makes more sense. I have moved the article to Viswanathan Ravichandran and have left the "AKA" not in place for clarification. Again, you need to add some references or the article will be deleted anyway. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Gospel of Jesus' Wife

Hi Stallwart,

Many thanks for the feedback on the edit.

Regarding the "Authenticity" passage, I note that the first two paragraph summarize the findings of Craig Evans, Francis Watson, Vatican. The rest of the paragraphs go into detail as to why the experts believe or find the documents to be authentic. However, details on the findings of the Craig Evans, Francis Watson and the Vatican are scarce - specifically the method and reason for their conclusions.

Whereas the following radio carbon analysis of the documents presents a scientific analysis in some detail, the same is not available in the article for those listed above.

How would you suggest then I present scientific data? By amending the initial portion of the first two paragraphs to include more details as to how those experts determined that the manuscripts were not likely authentic?

Please note I've checked the link about Craig Evans, and it appears not to be a direct publication of his work but an article by Huffington Post(Ref. 28).

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

JohnRajendra (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You'll note I've adjusted the article quoting directly from experts not second hand bloggers commenting on another person's conclusions. Can you view and let me know feedback?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRajendra (talk • contribs) 04:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirect was misleading

The decision on what to do (whether to redirect or develop further, or to merge in more information) is an issue for the edit history and the article talk page. The AfD was withdrawn and no consensus on what to do in the AfD was reached. So to say redirect is misleading. -- PBS (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was "withdrawn". No consensus in the AfD was reached because the AfD was not the appropriate platform to discuss the issue of what to do and the AfD was withdrawn. -- PBS (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you seem the film Master and Commander? Given your choice of wording I thought the first was the the lesser of two weevils. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Marc'Antonio Pasqualini

Discussion moved to Talk:Marc'Antonio Pasqualini. Thanks.

Dear Sir, I must admit that I have always been poorly skilled with Wikipedia's citing controls. The email from Doctor Margaret Murata is http://i62.tinypic.com/11lj02d.jpg She has written the most information regarding Marc'Antonio "Malagigi" Pasqualini, so I consider her the foremost authority on his life and musical career. Doctor Roger Freitas's article was what I drew the assumption concerning Pasqualini's sexuality from myself. I have been conducting personal research myself from home due to physical disabilities, so having seen snippets of Freitas's book on the infamous Atto Melani, he has shown poor scholarship.

We know that the three Roman castratos described in the 1712 treatise Eunuchism Displayed are Pasqualini, Paolo "Paoluccio" Cipriani, and Girolamo "Momo" Zampetti. The first singer was a high mezzo-soprano, as his voice extended only to B5. The second could reach G5, placing him as a standard mezzo-soprano. Zampetti is a supposed soprano, but I have never seen extant scores for operas he sang in; he may have been a mezzo-soprano, too. Atto Melani seems to be a soprano whose range lowered to alto over time; however, I do not know what notes were written by composer Luigi Rossi for him in L'Orfeo (1647). I assume the role of Victory in the prologue is a female personification; thus, Melani sang as both a woman en travesti and a man.

Yours faithfully, Jacobkcarpenter (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume that Doctor Murata has. indeed, published documented articles concerning Pasqualini's life. Ones such as Further Remarks on Pasqualini and the Music of MAP (1979) are cited in a 2009 dissertation on the Counter-Reformation melodrammi sacri by Doctor Virginia Lamothe at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, United States. The opposing opinion against Doctor Freitas's here has been included by me in an email I sent earlier tonight. Doctor Murata has been on a straitening sojourn in Rome since the middle of September, so when and if she will respond is open-ended.

Still, I do feel the archived one I presented holds value; the woman was answering many inquiries I had about the Barberini operas, as well as the culture of sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe. There are other operas akin that are fully preserved and could resurrected, Virgilio Mazzocchi's Saint Eustace (1643) among; the University of Turin and the Doria-Pamphili-Landi Archive administrator never returned questions concerning that and Mario Savioni's Saint Agnes (1651). Jacobkcarpenter (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Murata emailed me yesterday morning where I live; she said that she no longer bothers with essaying Pasqualini's Wikipedia page. I do not know why, but I can only inquire so much in regards her business at Rome. She has graciously directed me to texts I can access through interlibrary loaning. My offline circumstances are indefinitely poor, so Father may not be able to procure them for me as soon as I would like.

The bibliography associated with Murata's article on Pasqualini is reliably documented, however; they are oft cited by individuals pursing doctorates in relation to the early Baroque Holy See. Murata's colleague Doctor Frederick Hammond has analyzed the mezzo-soprano castrato, too; Doctor Saverio Franchi regrettably passed away in April this year. I was given several sources by Murata, but I cannot distribute them for clear reasons. Still, Items used to draw up Pasqualini's Grove Music Online article are:

A. Cametti: Musicisti Celebri del Seicento in Roma: M.A. Pasqualini, Musica d’Oggi, III (1921), 69–71, 97–9

H. Prunières: Les Musiciens du Cardinal Antonio Barberini, Mélanges de Msicologie Offerts à M. Lionel de la Laurencie (Paris, 1933), 119–22

G. Rose: Pasqualini as Copyist, AnMc, No.14 (1974), 170–75

M. Murata: Further Remarks on Pasqualini and the Music of MAP, AnMc, No.19 (1979), 125–45

M. Murata: Operas for the Papal Court, 1631–1668 (Ann Arbor, 1981)

T. Ford: ‘Andrea Sacchi’s “Apollo Crowning the Singer M.A. Pasqualini”’, EMc, XII (1984), 79–84

J. Lionnet: La Musique à Saint-Louis des Français de Rome au XVII e Aiècle (Venice, 1985), I, 57–8; II, 53–4, 71–2

M. Murata: Introduction to Cantatas by Marc’Antonio Pasqualini, 1614–1691, ISCS, III (1985)

F.T. Camiz: The Castrato Singer: From Informal to Formal Portraiture’, Artibus et Historie, No.18 (1988), 171–86

F. Hammond: Music & Spectacle in Baroque Rome: Barberini Patronage Under Urban VIII (New Haven, CT, 1994)

One may find the objection to Doctor Freitas's claims about the man's personal life within these sources. I would give virtually everything to view the works, original and contemporary, associated with the sacred operatic genre!

Jacobkcarpenter (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Your argument at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard...

.... is based on a complete fallacy as the offending comment was not made on Jimbo's talk page. You may wish to revisit and clarify your thinking. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely right Spartaz - my apologies. But I don't think it changes the situation much - a discussion started there moved to his own talk page. My broader point was that if a similar comment was made at ANI in the context of a request to revisit the IBAN (which was clearly his intention in discussing it with Wales) then it likely would have resulted in a discussion and perhaps a warning that in asking for a discussion, he was technically in breach of his IBAN. But I have seen similar requests at AN/ANI before that have been tolerated. Nonetheless, my suggestion is that he simply be unblocked now for time served. The block wasn't wrong, I just don't feel it serves any ongoing purpose. For the record, I don't understand the "hasty" criticism, personally. Broke ban, got blocked - simple. My interest is in what happens after that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Stalwart111:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Awesome, thanks! St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I see that in the edit summary for this edit you say "Restoring redirect per consensus." I wonder if you can tell me where that consensus was reached: I have searched, but not managed to find where it is. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, James, perhaps should have explained that in more detail. This was the AFD for that article in particular but it was one of a number of concurrent discussions about the same types of articles, all but one of which (from memory) was merged into a x-x relations articles as the prevailing consensus/preference. A consensus was never reached there but the discussions held there led to consensus being reached in a range of others, on the basis of that discussion. I think there was also a subsequent discussion with the closer where he suggested it be boldly redirected. I created the merger/redirect target on that basis. "Outcomes" is probably more accurate than "consensus" but I don't think we retained any of those consulate articles in the end and there were quite a few of those x-x relations articles created instead. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If you could find one or more of those other discussions, and point me to them, it would be helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, most of the discussions were with Doncram who had advocated keeping them; examples here, here and here. I didn't create the redirects in each case but I have since tried to apply the generally agreed principles elsewhere. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Statistics...

As you may guess, I'm no fan of citing stats to paint behavior. But your point is well-taken on that ANI thread. I often find myself as the only one on a side, but sometimes I can convince others and change the course of the debate. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the big problem with AFD stats (and this has been seen even at WP:RFA) is that we're trying to measure qualitative contributions with quantitative data. It's all well and good to say, x has contributed to 100 AFDs but if all of them are "per nom" contributions then they are near valueless, regardless of consistency with community consensus. If someone makes an effort to contribute to discussions, argue their case, convince and be convinced and help to build a worthwhile community consensus then it doesn't really matter what their statistical voting record is. They could be "wrong" 100% of the time and still be a valuable AFD contributor. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't bothered with WP:RFA's for years now - I figure that the cross-examination masters may as well have their way on those. I am reminded of the quote (Mark Twain I think) about "lies, damn lies, and statistics." :-) Any way, keep on keeping on, while I try to resuscitate some articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

A worthwhile endeavour! St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Clarapagetscreenshot.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clarapagetscreenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Stefan2, good call. That image has been made redundant by a newer (better) image from Flickr. I've tagged it for speedy deletion myself - no need to wait 7 days. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at FeydHuxtable's talk page.
Message added 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re your RfA query on my talk page a little while back, check out the last couple of threads at the linked discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Stalwart111: After significant consideration, I have decided to move forward with another request for adminship. Per your previous input regarding this matter, please see the Request for adminship discussion I have started on my user talk page. Thanks for all of your input, and I look forward to hearing from you. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I thought that thread was archived. Thanks!

Jim Carter 16:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Jim Cartar, rather than answer all of this here, I'd prefer that you repost your questions above to the Request for adminship discussion at my talk page, which will keep everything all in one place. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stalwart111. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

RFA?

Now that I nominating Czar at RFA and NorthAmerica1000 is close to RFA as well, lets make this 4 RFAs in one week. You are among the most well-reasoned and respected in AFD and you got a all-around editing ability that makes you well-qualified for the job and I don't mind nominating you. We need as much help with AFDs as we can. Please accept :) Secret ^account 16:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Secret. I certainly appreciate the compliment but my commentary with regard to adminship at my userpage remains unchanged. I enjoy contributing to AFDs as a non-admin, not least of all for "too many cooks" reasons. Many AFD regulars have gone on to become admins (many with my support) but I feel we still need a core group to help build that often elusive consensus that others are then asked to interpret. As you and others have proven, adminship doesn't prevent contributions in that regard but it's more a feeling that I "know my place" (or something more abstract). Again, I appreciate the compliment and will strongly support both Czar and NorthAmerica1000. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Lennox

I added some references to Randy Lennox and removed the excessively promotional text. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Lennox. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eastmain. You did a great job - would happily have changed my declared position had I had a chance to do so. Keep up the great work! St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)