User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 1

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats
On the promotion.

In other news, I replied to your question on the talk page for Gonfalonier of the Church. It seemed the most appropriate place to reply to good questions. If you have any issues with being quoted there, just remove or edit that bit, but please leave the general tone of my reply in case one of the other four people who ever visit it are interested. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Properties of the Holy See
Hi, concerning your edits in Properties of the Holy See: I changed the intro, since it does not reflect the status of these properties correctly. 1. They are not part of the territory of the Vatican City State, but continue to be part of Italian territory. 2. However, they are treated similar to embassies, thus they are enjoying the privilege of extraterritoriality.

Article 15 of the Lateran Treaty explicitly states: [...] although such edifices form part of the territory belonging to the Italian State, shall enjoy the immunity granted by International Law to the headquarters of the diplomatic agents of foreign States.

I changed the wording of the intro accordingly. Gugganij (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Theodwin
Hi! Thanks very much your message.

Actually, no contemporary catalogs of the participants of the papal elections in 12th century exist. The catalogs presented on Miranda's website are taken from the very old work of Alphonsus Ciacconius Vitae et res gestae Pontificum Romanorum et S. R. E. Cardinalium, first edited in 1601...

CarlosPn (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A full account of this conversation can be found at Talk:Theodwin‎.


 * Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Family tree query
Hi, as you seem to be quite good with the family tree template, and I trying to get a quick reply, do you know what the opposite of the "T" symbol is? Also, I'm not really doing any trees on Wikipedia, but what lines would you use for engagements? &#124; Randomno &#124;  17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * By the engagement, I mean relationship. By the way, are you active? &#124; Randomno &#124;   15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't for a while but am now. Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

R&N Userbox
Hello, Stalwart111! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Go Phightins! (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry the template is broken but I replied to your post at this page. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think there is something funny going on with the link (have changed it above). Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC).

Adding categories regarding the sexual orientation of a living person
This is covered by WP:BLPCAT, which says "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." If you have seen any that violate our BLP policy, please help by removing them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have responded on your talk page. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied there. I see you understand this, it was another editor adding this cat to a BLP which brought me to the user's talk page where I saw you and the other editor discussing the category. But I see that it's mainly non-living people who are the issue. Dougweller (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries mate - have responded at Pgarret's talk page. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC).


 * Please accept my recognition of your patience and soft touch in dealing with this discussion. You have kept your cool long after most would blow a gasket. Thanks for handling this in such a great spirit. Argos '  Dad  15:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in
You may be interested in this discussion. I'm not questioning your call as such, but if there's a blanket ban, then I have some historic edits that may need to be looked at / hidden. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Delta Xi Nu
Very well-reasoned responses here. Good work!--GrapedApe (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Responded here. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Care to comment on draft: WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Notability?--GrapedApe (talk) 03:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

2-4-8 Tax Blend
Might I suggest that it is time to walk away from this debate and let the admins sort it out? Clearly, the author of this article is unwilling to accept the relevant Wikipedia policies. Hopefully, the admin who eventually reviews the AFD will have a better grasp of matters. Any further commentary at the AFD just serves to provoke more blathering from the author. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Spot on - have responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Amy Houck
Hi, forgot to say I've closed these  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw - many thanks. Stalwart 111  (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
And thank you for helping to revert that gosh-darned vandalism and bringing additional attention to it at ANI. All I could was shake my head in confusion as I parsing through that editor's contribution history... I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Lock On (street art)
Actually, sources are not required to be in English whatsoever, per WP:GNG, "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." Topics can have entirely non-English language sources and still pass the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right mate - responded there. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification for October 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lock On (street art), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Urban and Weld (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

McNeil
His publishers say he's the same guy. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have responded here. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:COI issues
Hey, it looks like we're pretty close to establishing a consensus on the AfD discussion for tanka prose. I have one concern, though, remaining. The user in question, and the other member of his tag team, also have a history of adding references to the obscure/non-reliable sources to the articles Haibun and Tanka in English (while it was still part of Tanka). I am still a little concerned that even if the "tanka prose" article is deleted, they will continue to post links to (basically advertisements for) those websites. The other user has the same Wikipedia username as the Blogspot and Twitter handles of one of the self-publishers/Woodward-collaborators in question (I found that out while checking the sources for the current AfD discussion). The user involved in the current debate also has cited the same extremely obscure, difficult-to-find source (Miner's 1986 translation of Konishi's 1953 History of Japanese Literature) as Woodward's Anthology. The article when it initially appeared in August 2008 cited the Anthology, despite the latter still being over two weeks from publication. I think this whole thing has been a very elaborate and long-running advertising plan by Woodward or someone very close to him. Do you think it is possible to get some administrators' help in preventing this self-promotion from continuing? My concern is that the Pokémon principle allows unverifiable information that only appears in primary sources to be included within other articles(List of Pokémon), even if they can't have their own articles. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have responded here. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice! Although I may not have been clear: they have already posted spammy lists of links and "references" to those other articles, so action on my part would not be a "first strike" per se. Is it safe to just delete the links, and see what happens? Or do I still have to Assume Good Faith even though it's so obvious what their agenda is? I meant that do you think I have a reasonable case, just in case they complain about me removing their advertisements? Sorry to ask so many obvious questions. I'm not "new" to Wikipedia, technically, but this is the first significant dispute I've had in 7 years, and the first time I've been significantly active on Wikipedia in 4 years, so I'm a little out of practice. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Same place. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC).

The SPA sock-puppetry
this is realy rediculous, I wrote the german entry about the PFS. I´m am not a new member to wikipedia and I always use the same IP and username. Prove this. Prove it even on the German site and remove this from my talk. There are tousands of PFS guys who are realy pissed off and thats why so many people write there. --Brainbug666 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have responded here. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a new member either as you can see I've created Wikipedia artciles before. You an accuse everyone of being a sockpuppet all you want. It only makes you look like a poor Wikipedia editor. Gilmour1201 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Have responded here. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Stalwart111, for doing what you do. I appreciate the effort you put into defending Wikipedia from strange people showing up to deny things for which they have not been accused.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   04:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was a particularly good one. Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Feedback on User:League Octopus/Club Notability Tables (and Test)
I am impressed with your comments on Articles for deletion/De Abasin Sape F.C.. Perhaps you would be good enough to have a look at my User:League Octopus/Club Notability Tables (and Test), in particular the Club Notability Test section, and leave any comments on the User talk:League Octopus/Club Notability Tables (and Test). I am trying to develop the user essay WP:NTEST in the hope that it will become a worthwhile resource for anyone with an interest in club notability. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC))


 * No worries, have responded here and added comments here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC).


 * I have responded to your comments here. League Octopus (League Octopus 12:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC))


 * Yep, there again. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Viorel Chivriga
I'd be inclined to leave it alone, at least in the near term. For all the shenanigans, the author of the article seems to have tried to do it properly - userfying the first version, working on it in userspace, etc. If we get another try at it, without better sourcing or more obvious notability, then I'd protect. Of course, that's just my read - if RFP says differently, I defer to them. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your thoughts. Responded here. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunate but necessary result. Stalwart 111  (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Papyrus
ok c u soon --Ulisse0 (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tanka prose
Hi Stalwart111! Thank you for all your hard work at AfD recently - it has not gone unnoticed. I appreciated your insightful comments at Articles for deletion/Tanka prose, but I have one piece of advice for you. You only really need to make your comments once. I got the sense in that discussion that you, elvenscout742 and Tristan noir were replying to each other through reaction, rather than through a desire to further understand each others' points of view or to find new information about the sources. It's fine to discuss things with other editors, of course, but remember that it's the arguments that matter in the end. You don't need to reply to every single post that you disagree with - the closing admins are usually quite good at separating the strength of arguments from the amount of text used to expound them. I am also tempted to get the last word sometimes in these kinds of situation, but I've found that it's often better to just not reply. Sorry if this sounds preachy, and feel free to take this advice or leave it as you see fit. And if you have any questions about my close, please do feel free to ask. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Always happy to get constructive advice. Have responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Even trade
Courtesy non-admin close for a block of the creator. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops. Got the talk page too; didn't notice it since he didn't create it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Brilliant, thanks! Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Poor Man's Talkback
I replied on the Master and Victim AFD. Go  Phightins  !  01:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem - responded there. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC).

Galileo Edit
Hello Stalwart! You asked me about damage to the Galileo page, but I did not do it, at least not intentionally! There must've been a malfunction. All I did was add a few commas where they were missing. I do recall that once, after I added a comma, the "save" button would not work so I reloaded the edit page and then I was able to save my change, but again, that was only the addition of a comma after an introductory phrase, a date, or perhaps after "I.e." I don't see how that would've deleted material. SHCarter (talk)
 * All good - obviously an accident. Have responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC).

Gregorio Petrocchini
This is just a translation from the French, so I can't take much credit for it. Wish it had more detail and more sources. Adding inbound links is, to me, rather satisfying. Each link ties the article more solidly into the network of articles, like tying a canoe onto the roof of the car so it won't fly away, if that makes any sense. But thanks for the feedback. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A great analogy. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

More spam
Hey, I have a question regarding deletion requests. Since you were so helpful in researching the sources behind "tanka prose" last time I figured it would be faster to ask your advice than to post a comment on a talk page in the Wikipedia namespace and wait for someone to notice it.

I recently noticed another somewhat irrelevant, spammish article at Gogyōshi and posted it for deletion. I tagged it as being "Japan" and "poetry"-related, but in five days no one has posted anything but me. I sent notices to the article's creator/sole significant contributor User:Rappelle-toi and User:Bagworm, who had previously posted it for deletion. That deletion request had ended with "no consensus" because after a week those two users remained the only ones who had commented. Does this often happen? If so, what does one do to remedy it? My concerns about the article will still be valid if the discussion gets closed with no one responding but me, but I don't know how to get any interest in the deletion request.

Also, on a somewhat related note, the WP:SPA who defended the "tanka prose" article has continued posting Woodward links elsewhere on Wikipedia (mainly to haibun, which is an article about an early-modern Japanese genre that now deals almost exclusively with modern American literature). He and one other user have basically refused to defend their position with anything other than "there are two of us and one of you, so we are the CONSENSUS" and "English haibun exists, as these journals are self-evidence; therefore, we must cover it extensively in this article". They have only cited the same obscure sources as before, but since it is a content-dispute rather than a deletion request, and "haibun" as a term at the very least does exist, I am not really sure how to deal with this.

Any advice you could offer on either of these issues would be highly appreciated. :D

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Colombo Racecourse Airstrip
Hello, could you come and let me know what you think we might do regarding this article, at User talk:Obi2canibe? Many thanks, Splash - tk 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, responded there. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

Sockpuppet investigations/Submitmaster
Just FYI, I opened a SPI stemming from the deletion discussion where you pointed out well-grounded suspicions. --Batard0 (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good call, will comment there. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note
You are right... in many things, your note was appreciated (thanks). But, please I’d like to ask you..: Eka-bismuth (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. Not sure what your question is but I have responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  23:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Raimondo Montecuccoli
I checked the two citations that you added to Raimondo Montecuccoli the page you cited in the first one was not accessible to me, but the second one Paoletti,p. 128 does not seem to be about the subject. Please could you check to see if I have made a mistake. -- PBS (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah an easy mistake to make when the page of the first book was in the 100s. Access to certain pages in Google books depends on the country in which one makes the request (a bit like the regional numbers on CD and DVD players). I have removed the verification template as that is no longer correct, and I have fiddled with the link of the other page so that it is visible where I am at the moment, and it should still also work in Australia. -- PBS (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Enredados
How I hate having to look into this sort of thing! Yes I would agree that the edits over the last month or so do look like those of user:LouisPhilippeCharles (LPC). However the article that user:Enredados mentions (Carlo Emanuele Ruspoli) was created by user:G.-M. Cupertino another sockmaster who edits in the same area. As edits to Carlo Emanuele Ruspoli involved user:FactStraight who at the time (May this year) thought that Enredados was a sock of LPC, it might be worth asking FactStraight's opinion as well.

Are you aware of stalker/ -- The first number pair tell you how many editor have edited a page then comes the editors who have edited the page. It is a useful tool but be ware of placing to much reliance it for deriving socks as for example we have have both edited 29 pages ranging from the University of Wollongong through to Brigandage.

-- PBS (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Chivalry Now
As much as I hate prodding people who agree with me (joke) - this message seems like it'll sort of raise the temperature rather than lower it. Can I ask you to tone it down a bit? :). Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Welll... maybe. Ha ha. Responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, Stalwart 111 . I still believe that the “Chivalry-Now” movement is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Instead of writing an article about the group that mentions the book, would it be less objectionable to write an article about the book (perhaps mentioning the group)? I had absolutely nothing to do with the book, it being published almost three years before I found it or the group. Thanks for your input, Sg647112c (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Pirouz Davani
I was under the impression press releases weren't RS because they are primary sources. MSJapan (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does, but that was part of the reason I was having trouble establishing notability - there's an awful lot of supposition in some of those pieces, and I also get the sense that Davani himself isn't notable except as an example of a larger problem. MSJapan (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

On Notability
Hi. I enjoyed reading your article on notability especially your example of the little African Village. I realized that if I applied those parameters, indeed, the article New Rural Bank of Binalbagan, Inc. failed miserably to meet the criteria. First of all, there are not enough sources (online) to link and verify the reliability of the information. Second, as you've said, Wikipedia tends to lean towards western culture. References in Ilonggo (local dialect) or Tagalog (national language) are so few and far between and if they do exist, no one outside the country would understand. The only articles available online that I could use are from the Municipality itself (http://www.binalbagan.gov.ph/economy/), Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas page (http://www.bsp.gov.ph/banking/directory.asp?paging=prev&Start=140&Offset=20&BankName=&Address=&InstitutionTypeID=12&submit=Find&ctr=181&i=20) or our organizational page Rural Banker's Association of the Philippines (http://www.rbap.org/members/locate-rural-bank/visayas/region-6/negros-occidental/) The Wiki page was only created as a link to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_the_Philippines#Negros_Occidental. Being a Rural Bank Awardee of the Year for 1979 in the Philippines does not seem to count enough. I do hope I could add more images and articles but only seasoned Wikipedians are allowed to. If new sources do crop up in the future is reopening the page still eligible? Thanks. Nrbbi (talk) 07:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, responded here. Stalwart 111  23:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI for Tristan noir
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. elvenscout742 (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All good, responded there. Cheers, Stalwart 111  22:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC).

RE:ANI

 * No worries! Stalwart 111  22:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

AFD NAC
Ye are all set sir. § FreeRangeFrog 07:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. Stalwart 111  22:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Vacation nine 13:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All good. Stalwart 111  22:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi Stalwart111. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mifter (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.


 * Oh, new tools. Most excellent. That was very quick (only posted yesterday). Many thanks! Stalwart 111  00:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Nicolas Lemmens
Thank you so much for your great help with the above mentioned page ! I very much appreciate it.

Thanks and regards,

Glemmens1940 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries - deserved some attention. Stalwart 111  10:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: TN's behaviour
Hey Stalwart! :D

I'm sorry to contact you over this again, but I am getting increasingly frustrated over this user harassing me over so many articles. It seems like any time I have a minor editing dispute with any editor he will jump in to join that editor against me, but his arguments are always ad hominem, never based on reliable sources. As you saw, I tried taking your advice and posting him on ANI, but after almost a week I have received no response, and was told again that my princess was in another castle. Again.

It was suggested that I take it to WP:RFC/U. I have previously been put off by their insistence on two or more users having attempted to address the problem, and since it is mostly a problem of him harassing me that was difficult. But I think your pointing out (no pun) his WP:POINTY issues here may qualify. Any chance you would be willing to help me put together an RFC on this?

elvenscout742 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Have responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart 111  00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
My first barnstar! Thank you very much :) - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well-deserved for some excellent work! Stalwart 111  00:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Afd
Hi Stalwart, I saw this comment, but I didn't feel that these three had been sufficiently examined in the FeatureCAM Afd, so I opened a new discussion for them: Articles for deletion/PowerMILL. Feel free to replace my comment there with your rationale. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfectly fine - thank you. Responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC).

Skateboard project
I have replied on my Talk page, and yes, I am definitely interested! Thanks for the contact.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome! I've responded there. Stalwart 111  03:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Shopping centre Afd's
This is not personal at all. You've managed to turn a deletion discussion into a controversial topic about an area. I suggest you remove your comments from the Afd and place them on a talk page or somewhere else. Here is another one for proof. Till 05:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page also. Not the first time my jokes haven't been well-received at AFD. Ha ha. Struck . Cheers mate, Stalwart 111  05:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of DVS edit on Berrics page
Hey Stalwart111, just check the Talk page on the Berrics article for why I reverted the recent edit you made regarding the title of the DVS brand. Cheers.--Soulparadox (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, as I have just realized that the name has indeed been shortened with the relaunch of the brand. Ignore the above and whoever got the DVS page up—great work—that was a long time coming!--Soulparadox (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All good mate - responded here. Cheers! Stalwart 111  08:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tas Pappas
Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as it was previously proposed for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard 21:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually ended up re-writing it. Glad you removed my prod ! Cheers, Stalwart 111  00:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nortel
Just to remind you that I am still waiting. Would you please restore the contents and remove them from my own page, until such time that we all can agree on an acceptable target for this discussion. Also please de-archive and de-collapse this talk page to allow proper linking to it from other wiki-pages. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are waiting, then a good place to start would be to respond to any of the three messages I left on your talk page. Stalwart 111  04:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Twibanire esterification
Hello Stelwart111, I have been trying to see if I could get more references for the above article that you userfied. However, I have not been successful, I was unable to find any other references for this esterification method. It does not appear notable at this point and you can actually help removing it from being userfied. Please share this with smokefoot. He was right; I can't find other reliable sources for this. Mgyannick (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC))
 * Understand - have asked that the page be deleted. Stalwart 111  01:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Freeboard (skateboard)
Hello. The Gravitis company out of Italy has long been spamming the freeboard and skateboard articles. The main representative (president? founder?) was blocked indefinitely for legal threats and other disruptive editing. I subscribe to the RSS feed so I can follow any changes to the article (my watchlist is way too big to be useful like that). Basically whenever anyone adds "Gravitis" to one of these articles it's most likely spam, quite probably from the same blocked editor (who very recently emailed me yet again threatening to sue me, again), and can thus be reverted on sight. Getting the article semi-protected will help short-term but the problem has been going on for years and will continue once the semi-protection wears off. So I guess eternal vigilance and all that. Anyway, good luck and nice job on the merge and article improvement. SQGibbon (talk) 22:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info - is now at ANI and I responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  00:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has been semi-protected for three months so hopefully things will be calm for a while. Shortly after that happened I received another email from the editor trying to get me to add information about Gravitis back into the article. Sigh. SQGibbon (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion and external hosting.
Rather than continuing to hi-jack the AfD, I'll come here. In the AN discussion, Coren finished by saying this. I'll wait until the end of the month and ask him if I don't see anything happening. Happy New Year! Thincat (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha! I posted my response there before the notice of your note popped up. All good! I find myself in furious agreement with you - on deletion (mostly), on Coren's suggestion and on leaving that AFD to do its thing. As I said there - let me know if the suggestion is progressed. We will soon have our test cases! Stalwart 111  14:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

2013

 * Thanks! Stalwart 111  02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)