User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 10

In answer to your question...
...yes, having a colosal raging asshole lying about you in an AfD because you've had the temerity to attempt to salvage an article is really infuriating. I know some of his behaviors is standard for deletionist editors, and there's a bit of a tendency amongst the righteous to adopt any means if it supports the cause (WP:FTN has some imperfect moments, but he goes beyond that into the deeply toxic). Artw (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You compared his analysis (however unfair) of your editing history to the actions of misogynistic rape enthusiasts. There's hyperbole and then there's that. BlueSalix and I have had our run-ins and I know he can be a dick. But countering dickishness with stuff like that is just stupid.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The misogynistic rape enthusiasts, while unpleasant, never slandered me or made up elaborate conspiracy theorys about me. In that they have the edge on him. Artw (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, in general, WP:UNCIVIL would make them back down rather than causing them to double down. Which is probably the ocre of why you defend him: he's an angry bulldog, point him in the direction of an article and he'll be so unpleasant everyone backs off. But long term such behavior is not an asset to Wikipedia. Artw (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting on me is ill-advised; I didn't "defend" him, I don't now and I didn't "point him" at anything. He identified an article about a subject that he thought didn't meet our inclusion criteria. He found another (connected) article that he thought didn't meet our inclusion criteria. Given our history, I would ordinarily give it no thought and simply walk away. I have no desire to antagonise. But I'm a regular and DRV and some of the nonsense there convinced me I should participate. The only "conspiracy theories" in that AFD discussion are from the same person who made the same outlandish claims at WP:DRV - that a perfectly ordinary deletion discussion (of which there are dozens each day) was somehow an attempt to "censor" the "truth". The proponents of both articles responded with three separate pointy and ironically pointless ANI threads, all of which were quickly shut down, including yours (with some rather appropriate advice, I might add). The suggestion that his actions have dissuaded others from contributing is simply false on the face of it - there have been more contributions since.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, Stalwart111. I'm about to be indefinitely blocked for my comments in the AfD to ArtW [guess it proves the adage, "four ANIs are a charm" ;)], so I'm just making the rounds saying thanks for the support in the last few days on the various fringe theories topics that we've been dealing with. I appreciate your work in helping to maintain the line of sanity on WP and hope you keep it up in the future, especially since the number of editors willing to tackle the best "defended/entrenched" of these topics is dwindling. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * @BlueSalix. Well, I don't think you are... not just yet anyway. That sort of thing would take (as you say) another ANI thread and I don't think ArtW is quite willing to brave that gauntlet again, given the reception he got last time. There's plenty he shouldn't be proud of in that discussion too. My advice? Walk away. They're yet to come up with a policy-based argument for keeping that BLP, or for overturning the other BLP deletion at DRV. There's nothing else you need to do at this point and even after all of that... it's just Wikipedia. Go and find something else to work on - if it goes back to ANI, don't respond (at least not immediately). I and others will have plenty to say.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 20:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, actually, I was told on my Talk page an indef will occur momentarily, unless I could "prove why [it] shouldn't." (After the three ANIs failed to get me benched, they started WP:OTHERPARENTing directly to admins outside of ANI.) My execution date is pretty much set and it's fait accompli at this point, so don't worry about it. As you noted, I can take-up stamp collecting or something. :)


 * Thanks again for all your help and best of luck in the future. I'm spending my last few hours unblocked tying up loose ends - could I kindly ask you to monitor the Boyd Bushman namespace as I'm certain the article will be recreated in the next weeks? Many thanks again. Best - BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, he asked the question and you provided an answer. He would need a lot to jump from ultimatums to blocks without much else in between. WTT is a dedicated defender of the project but he's not a dick.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, Worm_That_Turned is not a dick, but it's the UFO editors on one hand and me by myself on the other. The issue is so convoluted that I can appreciate - at a certain point - one would naturally assume that if BlueSalix is being dragged to ANI umpteen times in the space of a few hours something must be up and it's easier to just block him. Plus, even if I'm not blocked, since these editors have carte blanche to OTHERPARENT to infinity without repercussion it's just a matter of days before they'll get one to stick. Anyway, thanks again and farewell, friend. BlueSalix (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nah, eventually their pet articles will be gone and they'll disappear as quickly as they arrived. Just leave the discussions where they are and trust that admins like WTT can see the wood for the trees.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Not always
I understand what you're saying, you're also coming off bitey to a recent new page patroller? I can give you lots of examples of my helping newbies than RSD; Example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheRelapseSymphony - Patrolled, helpful msg sent to user on article talk page, tagged for clean up - even though it may not be enough to be keep. Diagear (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Diagear, I have no idea how long you've been new-page-patrolling for (it didn't seem fair to trawl your editing history for older examples) and I apologise if you've only been doing that for a short while. I'm not taking anything away from your work, nor suggesting you should stop - I didn't template-message you because the issue was more complex than a "don't do that" and you have a mentor so your intentions are obviously good. It was just a few examples in a short space of time. And it's just a matter of being more careful - you'll find your work will produce much better results. More of the good stuff! Cheers,  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Merle Norman
I have some real misgivings about this. The article has one reference, which shows that the company exists, but doesn't verify most of the text. The claim for notability rests on the 2000 stores, but there is no source for this. There are no other facts, such as number of employees or turnover, but a good deal of puffery, ''Over the course of its 80 years in business, the company has maintained a "try before you buy" sales technique... The Company is still family-owned and Chairman Jack Nethercutt II is founder Merle Norman's great-nephew...''

I'll restore for now, since you have tried to improve it, but I think it needs further work to be credible Jimfbleak - talk to me?  08:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jim. The article is still a mess and needs more work. But I didn't think it was an appropriate candidate for immediate speedy deletion. Appreciate the chance to work on it a bit. Happy for it to go to AfD if it can't be saved.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies
I would like to apologize to you as you are right, I did blow the discussion out of proportion. For that, I'm really sorry. I know I don't have the right to be placing this on your talk page because of my revert from my talk page as you tried to advise me in good faith. I hope in the near future that we as editors will much understanding. Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * JudeccaXIII, I appreciate the apology and I certainly don't mind you leaving a note here. Your capacity to contribute thoughtful opinion to discussions is obviously far greater when you've had a chance to think about things for a few minutes and to craft a meaningful response. Keep calm and keep up the good work.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Note
Hi Stalwart

Compliment of the season to you! I am here to build an encyclopedia and not for a war with any editor. We both participated in this AfD. See this personal attack thereafter. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Wikicology - thanks for letting me know. His comments at AFD were almost enough for me to report him then but his comments since are plainly those of someone WP:NOTHERE to contribute constructively. I've started a thread at ANI where you are mentioned (you probably got a ping) but there is no need for you to comment if you would rather avoid the "war".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 23:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pinging me at the ANI thread. However, I don't plan on becoming involved in that discussion unless my opinion is asked or my G4 deletion becomes an issue (in either case, please ping me again).  Happy editing! – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Philosopher - I pinged you as a courtesy (because one of the comments was on your talk page) but I won't call on you to respond or otherwise participate in that thread. I can't see a need. He has already been blocked for 24 hours and I'll be suggesting that be expanded upon. I doubt it will come up but if it does, my view will remain that your deletion was well within policy and absolutely the right thing to do. No concerns (quite the opposite) about your admin actions in this instance. Keep up the great work!  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A curious Inquiry
Hello Stalwart, hope this note finds you well. From my angle, I do not have any issue with you and I will like to keep it that way throughout my time on Wikipedia. I noticed that you said I personally attacked you on the WP talkpage. I am just curious to know where I made that attack, the only strange word I used in addressing you was the "adjective" "F**k**g", if I am not wrong, "f*****g" is generally not regarded as an insult [when accompanied with words that are not insults] in most western nations and is used before most words, my question is: Do you regard the f word as an insult? or did I make any other personal attack at you? If you will not like to interact with me anymore on Wikipedia, feel free to delete/ignore this comment, and I will respect your decision. PS: Please don't digress into my personal attack on another editor here (I have gotten over that already and accepted the block in good faith) because no one on Wikipedia fully knows all that is involved in that case and are just acting based on information on Wikipedia which is quite understandable, besides it will be even be wrong to talk about that editor on your talk page however there is no legitimate excuse for personal attacks on Wikipedia. Regards. Darreg (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You personally attacked four editors, two on that talk page (myself included), one in the AFD and one on another talk page. None of your editing actions suggest you are here to build an encyclopaedia and I'm sure your attitude will get you blocked indefinitely eventually. As I said at ANI, I couldn't care less about the language - it just suggests someone incapable of making intelligent arguments who has to resort to profanity.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Really??? I did not know you were informed enough to make those deductions on my behalf? If I can travel across Nigeria to take pictures of notable places then donate them exclusively to Wikipedia and also create 200+ articles for a Wikiproject [Africa] that I do not believe in then I must be either incredibly jobless or just ignorantly dramatic to do that. I expected you to concentrate more on the issue at hand (Which you tried doing in your opening sentence) instead of making some broad conclusions. I appreciate the reply though! Regards. #MerryXmas #NewYearNewThings #GoodbyeForever Darreg (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have to defend good work with bad words and unintelligent drivel then you devalue your own good work. You've seen fit to trumpet your ignorance on your own talk page. Your ignorance is your business.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Bulgarian electoral code referendum
Hi Stalwart111: Per your recent participation at Articles for deletion/Bulgarian electoral code referendum, check out Talk:Elections in Bulgaria. NorthAmerica1000 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that NA1K!  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleted comments
Hi Starlwart111, we have agreed with Mounir to delete our comments as a matter of cordiality, and I think in the best interest of all. Could you please not restaure them ? Best,--Acrithène (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * No, Acrithène, you're refactoring a discussion which includes participation by more people than just you and he. It leaves an incomplete record of the discussion for future reference and leaves comments in place as if they were responding to other comments - effectively changing the meaning of other people's comments. I'm glad you've come to an agreement about things but that doesn't change the record there.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand Starlwart111, but there is only one other comment answering my own comment, and it is yours. I will accept your decision, but would you consider as a favor the withdrawal of all comments (including your one line answer if you'd like). I am pretty sure that there must be some kind of guideline about comment that reveal other user's real life idendity. And I am sure that you understand that suppressing this discussion represents a completely insignificant damage to the Encyclopedia (and will not change the outcome of the decision) while representing significant benefits for people involved. So again, I understand that you are formally right, will accept your decision, but kindly ask for a favor.--Acrithène (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Acrithène, WP:OUTING is an entirely different story. I can't see the "agreement" you have with the other editor (it doesn't appear to be on Wikipedia anywhere unless you each have other accounts) but if they have or have tried to "out" you then their comments should be removed and they should be reported. That's completely unacceptable. But the broken English discussion makes that hard to recognise and deleting comments while leaving others makes even less sense.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So am I untitled to delete his comment and my answer to his comment because he reveals my name ? This would not break any discussion.--Acrithène (talk) 23:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If he has then we'll need to do more than delete those comments. It might still break the discussion but personal privacy is far more important than any technical discussion protocol.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Which wasn't to say you should go ahead and do it, but I'll sort it out with an admin.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks. I am sorry, I used to be a wikipedia contributor on the French version between 2004 and 2007, a time and place where the protocol was more Far West type.--Acrithène (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Civility
I pride myself on being very civil, and I think that I have been with everything I've done here these past 3 1/2 months. But the kind of behaviour I've been subjected to today is beyond a joke, and your behaviour has made it that much worse. If you want to talk civilly, talk on this page. If you write anything like the kind of thing you wrote on my talk page, I am just going to delete it. I am pretty sure that Wikipedia has a policy about that somewhere. I'll talk to people who are polite, like Mashae. If you want to demonstrate that you are polite, then demonstrate it here. If not, then I won't respond to you. Thank you. KrampusC (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I helped you to close a discussion you wanted closed and (kindly) advised you that others had considered what you had written to be a personal attack. You can choose not to see it that way but you are the only one. Nothing about my "behaviour" has done anything but help you. If you're on a self-destructive hate-the-world streak then that's your business but you should re-read some (or all) of what you've written today - you're not helping yourself.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Stalwart111!


Happy New Year! Stalwart111, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 02:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Backdoor canvas
Please feel free to improve Backdoor canvass as you see fit. NE Ent 17:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'll start by un-hiding my additions. Feel free to remove whatever you don't think is appropriate.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with Accenture
Hi Stalwart, happy New Year! In the past you'd helped my (former) colleague Chris with some updates to the Accenture Wikipedia article and I see that you've kept an eye on the page since. Would you be able to take a look at a request that I have for the article? There are a few small updates I'd like to suggest and for which I've provided sources, and I'm also suggesting that a couple of sections be removed. Do you think you might have a little time to take a look? Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Brujería
What is your problem? Why do you insist on being uncooperative? Evidently, you didn't even read Xenomorph erotica's post! So who exactly are you to decide what edits are going to be approved? Clearly you are showing signs of WP:OWNER. Omo Obatalá (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Omo, you edit-warred to remove maintenance tags from an article based on a talk page thread started by an editor with a handful of edits that received no response, claiming some sort of consensus. Your talk page is a laundry list of warnings for edit-warring, of which mine is simply the latest. Childishly and blindly edit-warring to section-blank because you disagree with a single line is just silly.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My so-called edit-warring consists of one misunderstanding with another user who did not pay attention to what my constructive edits were and another of a general misunderstanding and lack of familiarization of Wikipedia policy with a fellow African-American. You labeling my talk page as a "laundry list of warnings" is highly concerning. You are blatantly reverting my constructive edits; I will not touch the article until an Admin is contacted. You clearly have an agenda and an anti-witchcraft POV (amongst others I'm sure) on the subject which violates WP:NPOV. You also warned me of WP:3RR, however it was you who started the edit-war. I would like to peacefully resolve the issues, but I doubt you are willing to cooperate. Omo Obatalá  (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * LOL, I'm one of the few active members of WikiProject Occult. If anything, I might edit occasionally with a pro-witchcraft bias and I have actively sought to ensure related topic-areas are covered in detail. My only edits to that article have been to add information. Your edits aren't "constructive" at all and your first edits were to remove maintenance tags, remove citation-needed tags and to section-blank without proper edit-summaries. Of course your edits were reverted. I'm surprised I got there first! Please feel free to contact admins (who don't decide article content) and see what they think or your edit-warring to blank sections of articles without consensus.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As to "laundry list", this thread is enlightening. Almost a mirror of the situation here. From a few days ago. And the common denominator? That would be you.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You know what, I'm just going to ignore that article because you are clearly uncooperative. As for the previous thread, of course as usual you didn't even look into the situation, Al Jazeera was being used as a source which violates WP:RS. Omo Obatalá  (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right, I won't cooperate with edit-warring trolls. The "situation" is irrelevant. The "source" is irrelevant. The issue is your attitude and your actions. You did there exactly what you did at Brujería and you were called out for it. Being WP:BOLD is a good thing, but being bold doesn't mean you then get to edit-war when someone objects. Being bold also doesn't mean ignoring policy and guidelines. Maybe you don't understand WP:BRD, maybe you're trolling to get a response out of people, maybe you just don't have the maturity to recognise fault? Who knows? Who cares? Either way, you won't last long around here if you keep doing what you're doing.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 15:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not a "troll". Yes, I'm bold and even arrogant at times, that's just my nature, I can't suppress it. I try not to let it get out, but sometimes it obviously does. I want to apologize for my behavior. I took a breather and cleared my mind. I don't want to you to look at me as a vandal or troll or whatever. I hope you can forgive me and not look at me as part of the unhelpful Wikipedians. I registered so I could contribute to Wikipedia, and aside from these 3 bumps in the road, I've done a good job so far, especially for an editor less than three months. So, with that said, I'll try my hardest from now on to think before doing/editing. Omo Obatalá  (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I can accept that your your actions might not have matched your intent. The "breather" is a welcome one, as is the apology. I'm happy for you to continue editing boldly; its the stuff that comes after that where you need to be careful. And I'm happy to work with you to fix that article and others. I'd strive for better than a major bump or edit-war once a month (new, old, or otherwise) - I'm sure you don't need the drama and each of those could have been avoided. Remember, its just Wikipedia. Look forward to seeing your good work elsewhere.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for accepting my apology and understanding. I will work hard on improving my behavior, and even take a few minutes before confronting another editor if I find myself in a similar situation where I disagree (but starting a discussion on the talk page will be my first option). Thanks again. Omo Obatalá  (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Stalwart, thanks for sticking up for me here, although I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears. I'm almost positive socking is going on, but for now I'm not going to do anything about it. Hopefully, pending changes will be enacted if the article is kept which would solve the problem, apart from massive amounts of drivel being continuously added to the talk page. By the way, despite my masculine-sounding user name, I'm a "she". Best, "The Boos" aka Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies ma'am. There's no chance it will be deleted (methinks) so its just a matter of management beyond that. Keep up the great work!  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Do you have the time to start the investigation procedure? If not, I could, though I've never done it before. Omo Obatalá (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really worth it. He's stopped editing - it's just a passing shot. There's no point unless he starts to do it on pages that actually matter. My talk page doesn't. Thanks for reverting it, though.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, fair enough. No problem. Omo Obatalá  (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana articles
It's always nice to work with civil and flexible editors. I don't want to come off as a hardcore deletionist, but I also feel strongly about Wikipedia's notability yardstick not going too low. User:Billy Hathorn is a great writer and very competent with referencing and with wiki's manual of style. The problem is, failed political candidates and small/medium town mayors rarely meet Wikipedia's established notability guidelines. I posted a friendly note to Billy's talk page but haven't heard back from him. I can't blame him if he's not a fan of mine. Given your similar interests in LA and politics, you're input in this topic is appreciated. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Jamie, I don't think a few (justified) AFDs will result in people painting you as a deletionist. Agree, they are high-quality articles, but they are high-quality articles about subjects of questionable notability (by Wikipedia standards). Its not so much that I have an interest in Louisianan politics; I spend lots of time at AFD and there are a few of them up there at the moment. The nominations are well-formed and well-explained so contribution to them is more straight-forward. Some I agree with and others I disagree with, but I know I'll get civilised debate from you rather than aggression or bad-faith so I'll continue to throw my hat in the ring. Your approach to Billy was the right way to go, I think. I, too, am disheartened to see someone waste their time working so hard on articles about non-notable or marginally notable people.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * asked me to comment on this thread, so: I agree that many of Billy's articles are on subjects of highly local significance, and I also agree that current consensus at Wikipedia finds many subjects like those to be undeserving of articles. But these two articles on GOP gubernatorial candidates stood out to me as potential exceptions, worth the effort to preserve: they strike me as being reasonably well sourced pieces that provide information about individuals who are relevant to the development of the two party system in Louisiana--a topic that's of continuing importance in understanding Louisiana and Southern political history.  During the decades of Democratic hegemony (and especially under the Longs) one could reasonably ask why anyone would bother running for office as a Republican, especially if you weren't one of those "post office Republicans" who were just in it for patronage from the national party.  I thought these were worth trying to salvage, because of their potential value to anyone else interested in the same subject matter. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. There are probably some in that category and a couple that aren't and that particular one is obviously slightly different. Either way, AFD means they all get proper consideration and discussion (as opposed to a PROD or something) so I'm glad they're there.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate both of your input and insights on the significance of a few of these candidates. After all, Wikipedia doesn't kill trees. Cheers, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 01:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Ted Longshaw
Hi, the maximum allowed length of a DYK hook is 200 characters, but the one you supplied is 442. It will have to be edited or replaced with a shorter hook. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  02:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Mandarax, that's not my DYK - I just added a comment. That's Donnie Park's DYK. You might want to leave him a note. Cheers,  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yeah, I had just noticed and was coming here to revert myself. Sorry to have bothered you.... M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  02:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem mate!  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the AfD which you linked to in the nomination, and I wanted to commend you for being so friendly, comforting, and helpful. Also, I was recently in a discussion with someone about attempted pings that didn't work; since I didn't receive notification that you had mentioned me here, I'm going to give him a link to your edit. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah, the ping thing can be unreliable at times. I'm hoping a history merge can resolve the "credit" issue and that DYK regulars will be willing to overlook it so that it can appear on the front page for him.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)
You may be interested in this discussion. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

TfD for Template:Infobox academic division
Stalwart, I have responded to your comments and questions in the above-related: here. While I appreciate your concern for the impact (or non-impact) on Cornell Tech, the greater issue in this TfD is whether law schools, medical schools, business schools, etc., would be better served by having a separate template that is tailored to constituent colleges and schools. A horizontal merge of templates for all professional schools with approximately 30 parameters makes more sense than a vertical merge with the infobox for universities which will require 60 or 70 parameters to accomplish the same thing, and which will include 35+ parameters that the constituent colleges and schools will never use. Thank you for your consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, Stalwart. I responded to your latest round of questions here: .  Thanks for taking the time to delve into this and ask good questions.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Mauritius relations
The article only has 4 sources even after attempts at improvement. Still survived the AfD. LibStar (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really an appropriate non-admin closure but the Bangladeshi nationalists were out in force in that one. Who cares? If the higher-ups want to allow propaganda-spewing nationalists to have free run, let them. There's plenty of other diplomati-spam to take care of. Come back and try again when Bangladesh's national ISP has an off day. The "multiple nominations" nonsense doesn't actually hold sway with anyone sensible.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the best one still is the recycling of "Bangladesh is one of the most populous nations on earth, so anything bangladesh-X must be notable". LibStar (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pure gold!  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 14:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)