User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 2

Re:
I'll do! Since these stuffs are definitely not notable my suggestion is to remove both the page and the RfD. The subject says his own trademak MUST be on the freedboard page, IANAL, but I don't see any legal background for the request. I'll forward his requests to the ANI and I'll hopefully step out of this boring case of spam+legal threats. --Vituzzu (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I already considered you though I didn't know so much about the duties of opening an ANI thread over there :D
 * Now I was about to notify SQGibbon but I saw you already has beaten me in time!
 * --Vituzzu (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hopefully all this Gravitis rubbish has been sorted now. Can only hope! Stalwart 111  02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I need your help.
Hi, I have just read your profile. I am impressed. Can you please help me in my article Rebecca Masterton please. Regards, -- Lubna Rizvi  15:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. I'll have a look. Stalwart 111  02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

SPI, ANI, and stuff
Hey there, thanks for dealing with all this Gravitis crap and keeping me up-to-date on it all. I've been super busy IRL and haven't been able to spend any time on WP stuff. Good luck on things and hopefully those people won't get you down. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries! As above, hope this has now been sorted. Stalwart 111  02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for David González (skateboarder)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Stalwart 111  02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
Hi, Stalwart111. You participated at the Articles for deletion/List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill discussion. The result of that discussion was to merge the List of endangered species threatened by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill into Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The list was merged. However, there is a related discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Have commented. Cheers, Stalwart 111  02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortification


Srich32977 has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I hope you don't run out of WikiLove. The doses you are giving seem to be working!

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

--S. Rich (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fortification? Anyway, who doesn't like chocolate? Many thanks! Stalwart 111  02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion notice errors
Hi, thanks for your attention to matters of deletion. It's a lengthy bit of time since I was involved in an AfD, until now. In the case of these recent two, maybe could you take a look at the notices on my talk page. You'll notice that on both the discussion links are wrong, due to extraneous characters. I suspect this is because of some copy and paste stumble by the nominator, but I had thought if an article one had created got an AfD one got a proper notice automatically? Wwwhatsup (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC).


 * No worries, will respond here. Stalwart 111  02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, in an extremely rare occurrence, and particularly as I have not edited much of late, I find myself involved in an edit war over at Richard Manitoba. A coincidence? Wwwhatsup (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that further correction. You will see that on the companion AFD, the result has been no consensus with a strong recommendation to convert to article about MacFie, which I am reluctantly embracing. As to the nominator I am tending more to WP:AGF now as a further look at the contribs does indicate more newbie stumbling, even if it is single-minded. One observes limited comprehension of SPA to the level of using it to leverage another AfD, also possibly driven by the need to avoid that designation personally :) We shall see. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your offer. Much appreciated. As far as MarioNovi goes, single-minded appears an understatement :)


 * Commented further on my talk. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cheers, Stalwart 111  04:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being the first person to send me a welcome on wikipedia. Rebecski (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries. Stalwart 111  04:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk Back
&mdash;  Yash [talk] 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * All sorted. Cheers, Stalwart 111  04:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC).

Gardline Pages
Hello,

Thank you for your messages, I am currently editing both pages to make them much more individual because the Gardline group and Gardline Shipping are very different. For that reason I have taken some of the info I added to the Gardline group page about the shipping side of things and moved it to the gardline shipping page I am creating. I am now adding much more detailed info to the shipping page about the fleets, I have tried to reference as much as I can, how do you think the Gardline Shipping Ltd page is looking now? and how to I change my user name?

Thank you!

TheScillonian (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your quick reply! Okay I have taken your advice and copied what I have created on the Shipping page to the group page under the section that you created, would you be able to take a look and tell me what you think and anything else you think I should do, I hope to add tables for all the other vessels soon.


 * Thanks again!


 * TheScillonian (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * They certainly do have a lot of media covering them regarding windfarms. It looks to be a fairly large part of their business shown here and therefore I agree a section needs to be inserted regarding their offshore renewable energy involvement. Also how easy/hard would it be to make wiki articles for their Offshore vessels like these two that are already made RRS_Charles_Darwin and RMAS_Salmaster_(A186), finally another question, as I am rather new to this. If I cannot find a photo of one of the ships on Wiki commons and I do not have one of my own, is there no other way of putting a photo of the ship on an article even though there are 100s on the internet on various websites??


 * TheScillonian (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding the username change, would you be able to draught me a "reason" as I'm not sure what to put and I don't want to cock it up and end up not being able to change my user name.


 * Thanks


 * TheScillonian (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Stalwart, I have finished the tables, added a couple more vessels to the former fleet and corrected a few spelling mistakes throughout the document. It looks much better now you have tidied the top half up a little. What else do you think can be done before adding more information on other areas. Thanks for all the help.


 * TheScillonian (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello, can you please do the ANI thing? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Have responded on your talk page. Cheers, Stalwart 111  09:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tag removal, and, again, for your general, dare I say, stalwart interventions. While the SPA factor was suspicious, as the scenario developed, as I said earlier, I came to believe MarioNova was indeed acting in good faith, if perhaps a little misguided. He/she still doesn't really appear to understand that those suspicions were also in good faith, and not an "attack" as such. However he/she does seem ready to learn from mistakes, so hope is alive. Probably early days of a great wikipedian, just practicing their deletionist skills on what appeared to them to be an open and shut case. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hope so, but I have my doubts. Hopefully everyone can move on soon. Stalwart 111  04:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Outing
If you believe outing is occurring it's counterproductive to have the issue end up at ANI. First please use Requests for oversight to have the content removed, and then consider raising the issue of the posting editor's behavior. While I'm sure you were acting in good faith with MarioNovi, an unnecessarily confrontational tone (e.g. "amoral") is more likely to put an editor and the defensive and cause them to "dig in," and create a bigger issue, than a more educational informative approach. NE Ent 13:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Advice from Ent always welcome. Just a shame everyone has had to spend so much time on this. Stalwart 111  04:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, I would just want to say that even though I did not do everything right, neither did you. If you and others followed Ent's advice and dealt with this in the correct fashion, you would not have attacked and antagonized and provoked me. And it would not have been as painful or drawn out. I hope you learned something too, MarioNovi (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I learned I should send harassment-only SPAs straight to Oversight instead of trying to "educate". Ent was, unfortunately perhaps, very right. Lesson learned. Stalwart 111  09:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

More Ships
Hi Stalwart,

I have added a few more vessels to the former fleet section today and also Triton to the current fleet, take a look, RV Triton is an interesting ship, it has it's own page too.

Will look at that first one you mentioned.

TheScillonian (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added a separate table for the Customs ships, added that other customs vessel and made a table for the former fleet> I contacted a guy who kindly uploaded three pictures of former gardline vessels to the commons which I have added to the table. Looking good!!


 * TheScillonian (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lewis Marnell page
Hey Stalwart, I don't know if it meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia, but I would really like/need to do a page for Marnell. What do you think?--Soulparadox (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more. Let's do it. Responded here. Stalwart 111  04:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|43px|left|WikiThanks]] Thank you for the way you've managed this.--Soulparadox (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotes
Yeah, I'm having difficulties...


 * Consumer sovereignty
 * There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
 * Dollar voting
 * Heterogeneous activity
 * Dispersed knowledge
 * Rational ignorance

The edits decrease the value of the entries. The edits are not a net benefit...they are a net loss. The readers really do not benefit from the edits in question. Right now the entry on dispersed knowledge doesn't even mention the economist who received the Nobel prize for his work on dispersed knowledge.

Can you find any edits that have actually added value to an entry? Consider these entries...


 * actions speak louder than words
 * put your money where your mouth is

Where are the edits that add any value for readers? Where are the edits that help develop any of these entries? Where are the edits that improve these entries?

You took a stub...Platycerium superbum...and developed it. You added value. Your edits clearly benefit the reader. The same can not be said for the edits that I'm having difficulties with. --Xerographica (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I find an occassional edit which added value, and a few dozens which hid any value which might been in the articles by adding quotes which may or may not be talking about the same concept. Perhaps others interpret your edits differently. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
Good morning Stalwart,

Thank you for your welcome. Actually, I contribute a lot on French Wikipedia since 8 december 2012, so I won't contribute a lot on English Wikipedia. My contributions here will probably be minor edits, but to avoid any mystake when I do them, if I've a doubt, I won't hesitate to ask you :).

Cordially,

Reychstan (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Jennifer Capriati career statistics
You're welcome, may it be easy. --Alptns90 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Electric Drift Trikes
Hi First you have to excuse my inexperience with Wikipedia.

I must prove notability through sources preferably 3rd party in nature and well written by popular bloggers or site?

All articles bare the D3 Logo which in turns make the Wikipedia article look even more like a business. TrikeDrifters (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Resolved. Stalwart 111  07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Catt Gravitt
Hi, thanks for your comment. I think you could be right, and I may have been a bit over-generous with that one. I'm quite new to reviewing and still trying to get the balance right. If you want to take it to AfD I'm not going to object. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 09:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All good - sorted. Stalwart 111  07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Catt Gravitt "nominated for deletion" ????
Hi....forgive me as I am new to the wikipedia community and learning as I go so I am trying to learn proper communication protocol etc.

I was HIRED by Catt Gravitt to make a personal wikipedia page for her to aid her in her career.

I was advised to take out phrases that sounded too personal or persuasive and have done this to the best of my ability. ALL of my information has been APPROVED by Mrs. Gravitt as correct, and the sources and references to legitimate companies and websites are cited as I believe they should be. I will review the page again, but every detail of her career, recognitions and awards, and songwriting information is factual and listing all of her credentials is important and necessary in developing new working relationships in the business as you can imagine.

If this page is deleted, my payment is in jeopardy because I was hired to do a job, and whoever nominated my page is causing my payment to be pending. Please help me understand why you think my article doesn't meet wikipedia standards because it has ALREADY been approved. It looks very unprofessional for Mrs. Gravitt to have a songwriter page with a note saying the information may not be valid or legitimate, and I need to get this fixed asap.

Thanks for your help, and for understanding my frustrations with the deletion nomination. Catt Gravitt (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That was a mess, but we got it sorted out. Cheers, Stalwart 111  07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper (2nd nomination)
You may want to see Deletion review/Log/2013 January 1 and Talk:IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper regarding a CSD#G4. Mkdw talk 03:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * All good - responded here. Stalwart 111  07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support
RfA, thank your support during my RfA and your kind words in its aftermath. I shall work to be worthy of both during my future editing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Any time. Stalwart 111  07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

re:Antonio Barberini
Hey. Generally, I also prefer to paraphrase than direct quoting. However, in this case I've changed "scandalous" into "alleged" because the former phrase made an impresion of certainity about the character of Barberini's relationships, which actually does not appear from the source. CarlosPn (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Being sorted out with a good discussion at Talk:Antonio Barberini. Stalwart 111  07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Brakeboard skateboard brake.
Hi, thanks for your welcome and comments. I am happy to update Brakeboard on Wikipedia and references on the Longboard site without promotion. But it's a little difficult to cut all the promotion when it's the only device like it out there. Happy to abide by the guidelines. Hillcraft (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries - responded here. Stalwart 111  07:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD comments
I certainly appreciate your efforts in researching the various AfDs. Commendable and worthwhile. – S. Rich (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries - always happy to participate in an interesting AFD. Stalwart 111  03:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Neil Oram
Hi. I have just posted a new BLP - Neil Oram. Perhaps you'd like to look it over. It was developed by another user, who asked me to bring it up to speed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy to look - responded here. Stalwart 111  03:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Chach Nama
I noticed you've been somewhat active lately on articles regarding the Chach Nama. I'm trying to set up some sort of improvement project on this subject, and I have started something User:DCI2026/Chach Nama table here. If you're unavailable, that's perfectly fine, as well. dci &#124;  TALK   17:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thanks for your response! You really need no experience to contribute effectively; many of the issues are policy violations, etc. that can be cleaned up through a copyedit.  I've started a task force on the subject here, if you're interested.  Thanks much!   dci  &#124;  TALK   03:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

ProQuest
Regarding your comments at Articles for deletion/Mistress Quickly — see the ProQuest article. In this case, ProQuest isn't exactly the publisher in a traditional sense; they're simply reproducing a Florida State University dissertation, and Ph.D. dissertations are definitely reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. I use ProQuest all the time; it's one of the things you encounter frequently in library school, especially when you also have historical research to do.  I've expanded my comment at AFD by discussing what ProQuest is and does.  Nyttend (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26
Hi. I agree with your comments on the ANI re this user. I emphasized not for his benefit - he appears to confuse me and Nick-D. In one way it suits me not to be in the firing line, but I though I'd better take the bullet in this case. CheersNickm57 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Stalwart111. I fixed your Merge proposal close here. Formally closing the merge allows other to rely on the close. It was a good close, so keep up the good work. Also, to see how to formally close a merge, check out step IV at Merge. Take care. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks! I'll follow the steps for any future ones. Stalwart 111  12:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Freeboard
Hey! Nice job handling the Freeboard (skateboard) crap, again. It all went down and was resolved before I was even aware that it was going on. And obviously user Firmone is a sock so I'm glad they were blocked. Also, I removed the external links to the patents. While I don't recall ever seeing them expressly prohibited by any guideline or policy, I also cannot think of a time where I've seen them included as external links and certainly never encouraged. It's always fun-time on Wikipedia! SQGibbon (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on the talk page about the patents. There is WP:PATENTS which basically frowns on their use as self-published and primary sources.  In this case linking to the patent is an obvious tactic by a blocked user to insert spam into Wikipedia.  Also there is WP:EVASION which basically states that if there's any doubt as to the appropriateness of an edit from a blocked user that their edits should be reverted.
 * Now, if someone could find a reliable source that discussed the patent situation in some kind of significant detail then including them might be OK but as it stands it does't serve much purpose. SQGibbon (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For sure, have commented there. Stalwart 111  12:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Damn case sensitivity! Thanks for reporting it to the correct place. Though I guess going to ANI would have been fine as well.  It also might be time to get the page semi-protected again. Sigh. SQGibbon (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Re: the block, hopefully that'll be it for a while. SQGibbon (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Camille Saroyan
Camille Saroyan is a fictional person from a TV show. The deletion of the article on her should not have been put in the biographies category. I moved it to fiction and the arts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All good - responded here. Stalwart 111  08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

 * And a much-deserved barnstar was given out for that very friendly invitation. Many thanks. Stalwart 111  08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I guess its a lot to read?
Could you somehow have my accounted deleted? I needed to know a bit more then comeback and answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukong15 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Was not a problem - look forward to working with you. Stalwart 111  08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User page draft will be deleted
Per the discussion it was determined that the efforts that you participated in at User:TheRedPenOfDoom/sandbox/heterophobia had lead to the conclusion that there was not enough content to overcome WP:DICDEF and so instead of an article, the term will be a redirect to Wiktionary.

I will be requesting a deletion of the sandbox draft that you contributed to. Please feel free to contact an admin to have it restored and moved to your user space if you wish to continue working. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * All sorted, and with thanks (once again) to TRPOD for his work. Stalwart 111  08:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough
I saw your post - I'll back off. But you might want to have a word with the IP in question, too. He also dropped me a line or six. I guess he's not as blameless as he appears. Vilano XIV (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So, what I've posted is wrong - but this is OK?

3 Step program to success.

 * 1. Grow up. Throwing around insults because people don't agree with you just makes you look like a 5 year old. Is that your intellectual level?
 * 2. Get educated. Only close minded fools blindly accept what they're told. Educated people ask questions and go over all aspects before coming to a conclusion.
 * 3. Then come back.


 * Got it? Good. good.

206.45.84.7 (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilano XIV (talk • contribs)


 * Yes because it's advice you could use. 206.45.84.7 (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * So in other words, you're OK with some personal attacks but not others? Good to know. Vilano XIV (talk) 12:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * . Telling someone who's acting like a child to grow up is not a personal attack, or at least not in the same manner. Yours was troll bait, mine had substance based on your attitude. See the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.84.7 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * C'mon guys, you're both clearly smarter than this. I've responded here. Stalwart 111  12:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Help from New User
Hello Stalwart. Thank you for greeting me to Wikipedia (I am the one who nominated the Stephan Kinsella page for deletion). I hope you don't mind this request for help, and hope it doesn't clutter your talk page!

For years I have been concerned that the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article was not written from a NPOV. Specifically, it omits statements Hoppe made in Democracy: The God That Failed that have widely been perceived to be anti-gay. I added a section on the Hans-Hermann Hoppe page entitled "Anti-Gay Views and Allegations of Racism." I ask that you read the citations and let me know if you think it's fair/relevant, and (if so) please draw some attention to the page to prevent vandalism which has (in my judgment) happened quite often to the Wikipedia pages of Mises Institute libertarians over the years.

Full disclosure: I am working on a Master's thesis on fringe political movement's in the United States and, in the process, have developed a negative view of Mises Institute libertarians (such as Hoppe and Kinsella). Does that mean I shouldn't be commenting on these articles?

Edit: It just got reverted. I am honestly perplexed as to how that's irrelevant, but will not get into an edit war. But here is a link to the original edits I made. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hans-Hermann_Hoppe&oldid=550859252#Anti-Gay_Views_and_Allegations_of_Racism

Steeletrap (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * All good - responded here. Stalwart 111  12:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Watch out for WP:CHEESY remarks, you might be taken on a trip to the motorbike shed!  – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha ha - well played! Stalwart 111  03:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Stalwart, my independent research on the von Mises Institute (for the Master's degree thesis on American fringe political movements) has led me to be highly concerned with the NPOV and (in some cases) notability of many (probably most) of the Wikipedia articles of Ludwig von Mises Institute scholars. This is a big project -- and given my nature as a noob who is strongly biased against them, I may not be the optimal person to undertake it -- but would you mind suggesting to wiser (and more level-headed) people than I that they look into this? Despite my bias, I believe that on strictly factual grounds that it's pretty clear that the articles depart from NPOV. (For example, the piece on Mises Institute fellow Gary North refers to him as an "economist" despite no formal economic training and makes no mention of the fact that he has -- in numerous credible secondary sources (e.g., http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/public_stoning%3A_not_just_for_the_taliban_anymore and (you need to answer a question to read this page) http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning) -- been widely criticized for advocated that non-violent people (such as homosexuals and blasphemers of the Christian God) be (literally) stoned to death. Other pieces (not all) show virtually no evidence of notability. I have already expressed my view regarding the notability of Stephan Kinsella. But consider in this regard the page Burton Blumert, who lacks any citations other than those from the Mises Institute and an obituary. If you agree with me that this might be a problem, is there any Wikipedia "board" you could refer to to check these articles for NPOV (and when needed, remove them)? Steeletrap (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: On a related note, I edited the Wikipediaentry on Robert Murphy (like Hoppe and Kinsella, he is a Mises Institute Senior Fellow), which was previously virtually entirely neutral or positive, to add some criticism of Murphy from J. Bradford DeLong and Paul Krugman based on Murphy's heterodox methodology and false public predictions. Let me know if you think that section looks good. (Also: There was a sentence saying that Murphy has been "a guest on The Political Cesspool radio show." I added some context indicating that the radio show is (according to its Wiki page and confirmed by a google search) syndicated by the neo-Nazi website Stormfront (I didn't call it neo-nazi, but just said "Stormfront syndicated and linked to the wiki page),  describes itself as "pro-white", and has featured at least four other Mises Institute scholars as guests. Let me know if you think this edit is better! Steeletrap (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Holistic Management International
Hello! The article we were discussing got relisted. I am willing to take a stab at editing it. You want to help? I could use your guidance.Redddbaron (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure! Responded here. Stalwart 111  12:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought we were basically done. and I do appreciate your help. For sure. But remember the source you took off PBS documentary line?? Leaving only a source showing the documentary aired on PBS? Now it is in a fight. LOLZ. Redddbaron (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No problem - have responded to your note here and the one on your talk page on the article talk page. Stalwart 111  23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Help test new SuggestBot design
We have developed an exciting new version of SuggestBot’s interface with some cool features! Volunteer to be one of the first users to try it and help us make it better by answering a short survey! If you’re interested in participating, leave us a message on SuggestBot’s user talk page. Regards from Nettrom, SuggestBot’s caretaker. 18:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA
"ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets" - I would say the addition has enough support and discussion relative to page traffic. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Tend to agree and have responded here. Cheers, Stalwart 111  03:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll see if Johnuniq responds further. The plural "or contributors" I already added as having support. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, saw that - good work. Stalwart 111  04:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Done
You can now find it at Suzanne M. Olsson. Silver seren C 18:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nicely done! I'll keep working on it when I can. Stalwart 111  23:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Front yard
Thanks for your invitation to comment on the much improved article. I admit that I have been avoiding contributing directly because it seems to me such a large and difficult topic and properly referencing anything I might want to say is in itself going to be a difficult task. Please do not take anything I say as authoritative.
 * 1. I am not sure it would be true to say that front gardens are typically used recreationally in the UK. That may be true in individual cases, especially where the plot layout dictates that there is no alternative, but I would argue that what tends to distinguish the front and rear is that the front is either ornamental or used for vehicles, it is the rear that usually incorporates the mix of recreational and utilitarian.
 * 2. There is always a difficulty in distinguishing the UK from the rest of Europe - there has tended to be more cultural interchange than we often acknowledge, and Europe is a big place. The Dutch quote in relation to privacy is interesting because the reference to high boundaries in the UK would be more true of the back garden than the front. The two pictures used as illustrations, from Bornholm and Norfolk, are interesting for their similarity in concept (the absence of hedges in the Danish example may be mostly to do with climate). Where English people have high boundaries at the front I think that would be mostly to stop passers by from looking directly into the house or (especially today) to reduce traffic noise, rather than to prevent people from looking at the garden.
 * 3. The historical development in Europe including the UK is going to be complex. The medieval archetype in England of a high status house set in its own grounds probably had the house in the centre of a three by three grid. It would I think be true that the main focus to the front was on arrival and access, with utilitarian activities and food growing to the sides and rear. As such, the ornamental impact of the front would dominate thinking, but to be sure I would want to see a mix of evidence on medieval to seventeenth century layouts to be confident about where ornamental gardens tended to be placed where there was choice in relation to the house front. As for lower status properties on smaller plots in rural areas, I am not sure whether it would be more typical for them to be set back from the road or not, and whether any available space was preferred to be at the front or back. What could probably be said with confidence is that by the 18th century in England in high status properties ornamental gardens were predominantly to the rear, to the extent that houses were oriented so that the front where people arrive faced north and was dominated by the carriage approach, whilst it is the opposite, garden, front that had the sun and an outlook over gardens and beyond. In towns only some of the grandest houses made room for even a courtyard on the street front, with others keeping only a narrow space protected by railings though they might have quite an extensive plot to the rear.  By and large, that general idea of giving preference to that garden space at the back and only if space permitted a carriage approach at the front along a usually sweeping drive with a wall or plantings preventing direct view of the house from the street would have represented the ideal. But generalisations are dangerous - for example where I live in a street layout dating from the 1820s, the houses are set back from the street with more space to the front than the rear (none with vehicle access) and only a small yard or earth patch to the rear.
 * 4. The 20th century pattern, the Garden City and other architectural movements notwithstanding, tended to favour retention of the front garden as a protected space. I do not accept, though, that the tendency to pave them over latterly has much to do with a decline in use of professional gardeners. These small domestic gardens were usually never intended to be professionally tended, and the use of them for car parking probably reflects increasing car ownership and the difficulty of street parking. As for the use of front gardens for food growing, I would argue that the encouragement to this had most to do with food shortages in the world wars. The fact that it mostly stopped fairly quickly thereafter is probably significant in itself. The cultural and practical incentives were to grow vegetables and fruit at the back. Most front gardens were not especially suitable, and home owners wanted an ornamental frontage. It is dangerous, by the way, to speak of the Great Depression in this context for complex reasons. It is a US expression and the pattern of the economic cycle in Europe was different, the inter-war years were a period of boom in private home ownership and this was when the ornamental front garden flourished, etc. That is not to deny that there were those encouraging the unemployed to grow vegetables in their gardens where they had them, but that was much less significant than the official wartime Dig for Victory campaigns (that is another article that needs a complete reworking, or split to remove a US bias that is wholly misleading as a redirect from Dig for Victory).

Sorry, I am feling guilty about not contributing directly, but I feel I know too much to decide where to begin and too little to identify the right sources. --AJHingston (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)