User talk:Stalwart111/Archive 20

Madagascar biodiversity center
Thank you so, so much for your positive contribution to this article, and to the discussion at AfD. Particularly, thank you for saying that "this is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about". Absolutely, it's entirely why I'm here. I see WP as a huge repository of really useful, really important information. If WP mutates into a big repository of film-plots and minor DJs with a lot of meaningless awards, just because DJs and films generate newspaper articles like dogs generate stuff on pavements, I'm off somewhere more interesting instead! And while I understand the need for secondary sources, one has to be a bit flexible in a situation where the article's sources are likely to be in obscure places, written in an obscure language. In the end, the important thing is: is the information likely to be correct, and is it likely to be genuinely interesting to our readers - not exactly WP policy, but unofficially a useful benchmark. If it ticks both boxes, I'd rather keep the article and hope someone finds better sources over time. But don't tell anyone I'm using unofficial benchmarks in my heart... Elemimele (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks . We have seen a lot of bad-faith deletion nominations lately but this one from is most definitely not among them. I totally understand why it was nominated. Hell, I cited WP:IAR in my !vote; there is absolutely a solid case to be made as to why this doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. In this case, though, there are a few of us arguing that there are other reasons for keeping it. Despite how frustrating that might be for a nominator, we're getting good-faith queries instead. It really is, in every regard, exactly what Wikipedia should be about; flexibility, common sense, good-faith debate, and consensus. It really has been very impressive so far.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed, nothing wrong with 's nomination, which was presented completely fairly (and weeding WP's garden is also an important job). I just appreciated your seeing, and expressing, the bigger picture. It's nice when an AfD discussion is carried out in a constructive, collaborative way rather than becoming a big personal point-scoring session. Elemimele (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

On dealing with those perceived to be deletionists...
this is either a really tacky ominous warning (Yeah... no) or an oblique reference to an editor conduct issue in an unrelated venue where no corrective action will be taken. That can be perceived as aggressive, petty, or even WP:ABF, and I don't recommend doing it, and would in fact recommend redacting it as not helpful. Basically, there's only so much complaining about other editors any one editor can do before they are perceived as themselves being contentious, so it's a good idea to curate one's editor-focused snark carefully. Free advice is worth what you paid for it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * it's not about that editor being a deletionist. In fact, if their "deletionism" aligned with the community's view of what should be deleted, it wouldn't just be okay, it would be welcome. It's about the disruption of that editor going unchecked by the admin corps while other editors are blocked for highlighting that editor's disruption. If addressing the totality of that editor's disruption, including at other venues, helps to remind admins that we in the community have noticed their conspicuous silence on the matter, it has some value.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Opinion on these AfD stats
Hi Stalwart111, having looked over your contributions recently, you appear to take part in a lot of "admin"-type work so you might have a better idea than me about whether this is a problem that needs looking at or if its best to simply ignore and carry on. Currently Eastmain's AfD stats (for the max I can see at 500) show that 95.5% are Keep !votes but only 59.3% agree with the result. This is before even trying to factor in the effect that Eastmain's Keep !vote might have had on the outcome in the first place. What dya think?  HighKing++ 13:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey . I think those stats suggest you could certainly call Eastmain an "inclusionist"; my guess is that he would probably agree with that sentiment. An extreme view one way or the other probably isn't super helpful, and you'll find that closing admins (who are familiar with the "regulars" at AFD) might be inclined to give a contribution less weight if it isn't well-thought-through. That said, there are plenty of inclusionists (and deletionists) who support every AFD moving in their preferred direction. Of late, we've been dealing with one particular deletionist whose primary contributions to AFD are in the form of nominations. 99% of their contributions are deletion nominations or delete !votes. But a full 30% of their nominations are closed at keep, many speedy keep or SNOW keep. And most of their nominations are made within minutes (or seconds!) of unrelated edits elsewhere; it's clear no WP:BEFORE checks were even considered. That's certainly disruptive, in my book. I think it's a matter of looking at what the actual effect is - are they follow-the-leader !votes, or trend-setting !votes?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the "Deletionist" in your crosshairs is a mirror of Eastmain. I'm away for a while so I won't be following up immediately but thanks for that.  HighKing++ 13:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody is in my crosshairs, but particular disruptive nominations certainly are. The difference is that contributing to a discussion isn't inherently disruptive and both "keep" and "delete" are viable options in any discussion (even if some people set aside logic and common sense to make their contributions). But nominating something (or multiple somethings) for deletion in a disruptive manner is inherently disruptive. There are arguments to avoid to be aware of before making a contribution to a deletion discussion, there are mandated requirements before making a deletion nomination.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Proxy deletions, another opinion please?
Hi, I saw your Talk comment here. Could you tell me whether you think this similar move was appropriate? As stated in my move summary, this new article compares favorably with other similar articles such as Gajim, Psi_(instant_messaging_client) or Pidgin_(software). It has a golem.de source as well as a detailed academic research paper on specifically this software (and one other software). I would appreciate any suggestions you may have. Thanks! -- Yae4 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * that one is a little different because it hasn't been prod'd for deletion, or submitted to WP:AFD. Where deletion (or not) has already been determined, a move back to draft-space is inappropriate. This move to article-space was the inappropriate move in this instance. As a draft, it can be submitted for Articles for Creation. It has been already and the submission was declined. Do some more work to get it to the point where it is ready and submit it again.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Stalwart, you rock
Thank you so much for the improvements you made to the F.P. Verney article.

My PayPal account says I need a name, mobile number, or email in order to send your reward. There is also a send cash to a location option that I've never used, but would use, if you indicate. Oh, wait, it looks like you can request money using my email: treehugginpenforhire@yahoo.com Literaturegirl (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * sorry, caught up with real-world stuff. No need to pay for that editing. I did it because it seemed easy enough to do and was an obvious improvement to the article. If you'd like to, feel free to make a donation to a relevant charity or community organisation.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Water cooler talk
I meant to respond to your ping last night, but didn't get around to it. The thread is closed now so I hope you don't mind me posting here. First I just want to make it clear here that I didn't call you a moron. I said your comment was one of the more moronic ones. That is an important distinction. What I said was uncivil though and not necessary for getting my point across, so I apologise for that. I also want to make clear that I don't give a flying fuck about the use of profanities. I am more concerned about the clear personal attack, like calling someone stupid, and more so that kind of behaviour being defended as a valid response to a disagreement here. I don't know about your workplace, but I have worked at multiple diverse places around the world over the years (including Aussie) and colleagues talking to each other that way is not common parlance and it certainly would lead to some disciplinary action if it was reported. That is beside the point anyway as we are not an Australian company, but a volunteer group with clear policies that say repeated personal attacks can lead to blocks (i.e that there are consequences for insulting other editors). Aircorn (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi mate, appreciate the message. I am Australian (in case that wasn't immediately clear) and so I'm perhaps more desensitised to vulgar language than others here. And I have had the benefit of working in industries where colourful language is the norm. My comment wasn't conjecture; I've seen someone dismissed for using profanity, only to be reinstated by Australia's highest workplace arbitrator. It is - quite literally now - enshrined in law.
 * The moron/moronic distinction is academic. I saw it as ironic and didn't give it too much thought. Apology accepted, but not required. No harm done.
 * For me its ultimately about degrees of disruption. I'll happily acknowledge that calling someone "fucking stupid" (in the Australian vernacular) might be offensive to some. But I'd argue that intentional disruption should be offensive to everyone who cares about this project. When someone responds to something that should offend everyone, with something that might offend some (to put it in US legal jargon), one has committed a felony, while the other has committed a misdemeanor.
 * We have a bizarre situation on this project at the moment, where admins seem inherently averse to taking action against those who disrupt the project. I suppose civility policing is easier, but its infinitely less valuable than maintaining the integrity of the project. "Yeah, but we can't build collaboratively if we're uncivil"; sure, that's true. But we can't build anything (with civility or not) if the same editors consistently get away with damaging what is already here. Case in point; am currently at WP:AN and WP:DRV where an admin has admitted to taking instructions (on Reddit) from the subject of a thrice-deleted Wikipedia article and collaborating with other off-wiki editors to have that article restored. Yes, an admin. If that doesn't warrant colourful language, what does?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Not great, not terrible"
It's just feedwater, we've been been around it all night. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , not sure what that means, but nobody takes me too seriously anyway.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was hoping your use of that phrase was a meme on the iconic line in Chernobyl (miniseries), where it was used by plantworker Anatoly Dyatlov to describe an issue that looks okay on the surface but is entirely disastrous underneath. Response here was just to show appreciation for the meme. But alas I may have been reading too much into your comment. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, I know it and I like it, but I wasn't referencing it. I'm Australian; we use "she'll be right, mate" when it most certainly won't be. But no, there was no hidden meaning. The project almost appointed a sock-puppet as an admin last week, and my involvement over at AN in another thread meant I thought we should show support for some healthy admin self-reflection, even if that support was by way of a resounding "meh".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 13:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Football club AfDs
Hello, the consensus was reached here. The editor who nominated all these articles then went (on the same day the previous AfD was closed) and nominated half of them again. I think it's disruptive and should be procedurally closed with the articles dealt with one at a time as per the previous outcome. Deus et lex (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Deus, okay, but they have been nominated one-at-a-time, yes? Just not one-in-the-log-at-any-one-time (which was not specified there). They are still individual AFDs now, right?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 10:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, 4 got nominated at the same time. That's not what the consensus was. Deus et lex (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Deus, I'm not sure. The close wasn't particularly clear. There was certainly consensus that they should be nominated individually, but I don't see specific agreement that they shouldn't be nominated at the same time. I was inclined to close all but one but I'm not seeing a strong enough consensus for closures like that to come from a non-admin like me (per WP:NAC and WP:BADNAC). You may still be able to convince an admin, but I would suggest engaging and making your case in each in the meantime.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 12:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considering anyway. Deus et lex (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)